- Original Message -
From: graywolf
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
Should not comment, but while some things in nature seem to be
cleverly
designed, others are so silly they defy the concept of intelligent
design. Of course somehow those get overlooked by those who want their
faith
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/10/26 Thu PM 10:51:43 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
Well said. Absolutes are always ill-conceived.
Paul
Thank you. I needed that smile this morning.
On Oct 26, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Gonz wrote
On 27/10/06, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
The only time I ever saw God was during the '60's if you get my drift.
LOL
Mark!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML
Scott Loveless wrote:
Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
-Mark Twain, Following the Equator
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
-- Philip K. Dick (science fiction author)
I think we should wait til all the facts are in
Major Buck
On 26/10/06, John Celio, discombobulated, unleashed:
Oh god (or lack thereof), what have I done?
John Celio
...wishes snowflakes wouldn't make people start talking about creationism...
Sorry, that was my fault.
But I'm still an atheist, so the snowflake didn't quite convert me ;-)
--
On Oct 27, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Tom C wrote:
At best you are saying that even though something looks like it may
have designed, it's rational to conclude that it was not, until
evidence proves it was.
Bob only said that it's a logical fallacy to conclude that it is.
That doesn't imply
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
Well said. Absolutes are always ill-conceived.
Paul
Thank you. I needed that smile this morning.
On Oct 26, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Gonz wrote:
Faith and knowledge are not orthogonal to each other, which is what
the
original statement implied.
I may know how
On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:24 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
And there are those who say they've seen God. I have no reason to
believe that the aperture simulator exists. I think it's an invention
of sick minds that compensates for their inability to accept the
guilt of original sin.
Well, as we all
Of course, that's why I'm an agnostic, not an atheist or believer in any God.
I can't know, so I just consider the possibilities, and being outside the
system the design theory seems to have much less success in predicting results
of natural processes than the scientific theory. So, if you are
On 10/27/06, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:24 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
And there are those who say they've seen God. I have no reason to
believe that the aperture simulator exists. I think it's an invention
of sick minds that compensates for their inability to
Bob Shell wrote:
Well, as we all should know, improper exposure is a cardinal
sin. If you believe, I mean if you really BELIEVE, in the
Aperture Simulator, it will save your soul from this sin.
You could always do a mock up in cardboard and stick it on the back of your
camera. Then you
On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:31 AM, DagT wrote:
Of course, that's why I'm an agnostic, not an atheist or believer
in any God. I can't know, so I just consider the possibilities,
and being outside the system the design theory seems to have much
less success in predicting results of natural
On Oct 27, 2006, at 9:00 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
Bob Shell wrote:
Well, as we all should know, improper exposure is a cardinal
sin. If you believe, I mean if you really BELIEVE, in the
Aperture Simulator, it will save your soul from this sin.
You could always do a mock up in cardboard
On Oct 27, 2006, at 1:49 AM, David Mann wrote:
To conclude without experiment would require rigorous mathematical
proof. Mathematics scares me, so I'll happily settle for ignorance.
Mark!
It's the rigor which scares me, not the Mathematics.
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:35 AM, Cotty wrote:
Oh god (or lack thereof), what have I done?
...wishes snowflakes wouldn't make people start talking about
creationism...
Sorry, that was my fault.
But I'm still an atheist, so the snowflake didn't quite convert me ;-)
Remember God's Final
Of course one should never be too impressed by the sciences ability to explain
natural phenomena. Because science is by definition after the fact. The rules
of science and math are based on observation of the very things they attempt to
describe. It follows that the pieces would fit together
Whoa laddie! Mathematics is not a code, and it is not based on
observation. Observations of the world might inspire a Mathematical
concept which wonts for proof, but do not factor into the proof itself.
Mathematics is the study of provable truth using logic, which
provides a structure for
On Oct 27, 2006, at 6:15 AM, Bob Shell wrote:
I'm quite convinced that we have got most of the history/evolution of
humans wrong. We've made great, sweeping statements based on a
ridiculously small amount of evidence. And we've ignored evidence
when it doesn't fit our preconceptions.
So, as a contrast: What does religion say before the fact? Any
predictions that we can check?
DagT
Den 27. okt. 2006 kl. 16.09 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Of course one should never be too impressed by the sciences ability
to explain natural phenomena. Because science is by definition
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/10/27 Fri PM 02:12:17 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
Whoa laddie! Mathematics is not a code, and it is not based on
observation. Observations of the world might inspire a Mathematical
Just a small additional note to get this a little bit less OT:
Remember that Einsteins work on the photoelectric effect (which got
him the Nobel Prize in physics a hundred years ago) gave a sound
enough prediction of what was possible to make that we are able to
make pictures using matrixes
This might help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
On 10/27/06, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prof. Behe's claims have been conclusively disproved many times. Here
is a summary of just some of the disproofs:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html
which
when I see a snowflake, I don't think of a divine creator OR math and
physics. I just think goddam I hate this fucking cold weather!
--
Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Christian wrote:
when I see a snowflake, I don't think of a divine creator OR math and
physics. I just think goddam I hate this fucking cold weather!
Heh.
I think 'Thank god, now we get some real weather'. But then again, I'm
half Finn, and grew up in the BC Interior and Northern
On Oct 27, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I'm quite convinced that we have got most of the history/evolution of
humans wrong. We've made great, sweeping statements based on a
ridiculously small amount of evidence. And we've ignored evidence
when it doesn't fit our
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whoa laddie! Mathematics is not a code, and it is not based on
observation. Observations of the world might inspire a Mathematical
concept which wonts for proof, but do not factor into the proof itself.
Mathematics is the study of provable truth using logic,
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT: Snowflake
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:34:02 +0100
Prof. Behe's claims have been conclusively disproved many times. Here
is a summary of just some of the disproofs
If I were ever to see a snowflake here I'd think, Sweet, hell's freezing over
Dave
On 10/27/06, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when I see a snowflake, I don't think of a divine creator OR math and
physics. I just think goddam I hate this fucking cold weather!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
: OT: Snowflake
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:15:20 -0400
On Oct 27, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I'm quite convinced that we have got most of the history/evolution of
humans wrong. We've made great, sweeping statements based on a
ridiculously small amount of evidence. And we've
On 27/10/06, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed:
when I see a snowflake, I don't think of a divine creator OR math and
physics. I just think goddam I hate this fucking cold weather!
Now it's my turn to snort tea.
Thanks.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places,
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:00:35PM -0600, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
The only time I ever saw God was during the '60's if you get my drift.
How about Goddesses?
I've seen a few of those.
I've seen a green one
Of course. On the last day the dead will rise again.
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of DagT
Sent: 27 October 2006 15:29
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
So, as a contrast: What does religion
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cotty
Sent: 27 October 2006 17:35
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
On 27/10/06, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed:
when I see a snowflake, I don't think of a divine creator OR
math and
physics. I just
On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Bob Shell wrote:
I'm quite convinced that we have got most of the history/
evolution of
humans wrong. We've made great, sweeping statements based on a
ridiculously small amount of evidence. And we've ignored evidence
when it doesn't fit our preconceptions.
Of course mathematics is based on observation. It's a method of assigning
values to our environment that we perceive as logical. The truth of mathematics
is only provable, because the logic is itself based on observation. When the
first cavement decided to count the trees in his yard, he was
On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Gonz wrote:
Whoa laddie! Mathematics is not a code, and it is not based on
observation. Observations of the world might inspire a Mathematical
concept which wonts for proof, but do not factor into the proof
itself.
Mathematics is the study of provable truth
Again? Has this happened before (the dead rising)?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Bob W
Of course. On the last day the dead will rise again.
So, as a contrast: What does religion say before the
fact? Any predictions that we can check?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On Oct 27, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Bob W wrote:
when I see a snowflake, I don't think of a divine creator OR math
and
physics. I just think goddam I hate this fucking cold weather!
Now it's my turn to snort tea.
Try coke some time. It's the real thing.
These are cola nuts ...
G
--
PDML
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Bob W wrote:
Try coke some time. It's the real thing.
Nah, too many bubbles...
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
You may be old enough to be my father (my mother is in her
80s ... ;-) but what you are saying here is simply incorrect.
Assigning symbolic values to things is not mathematics. It is a basic
capability of the human brain also expressed in language and does not
depend upon logic. Mathematics
Try coke some time. It's the real thing.
Nah, too many bubbles...
Kostas
-
All the world's a tiny bubble floating inside the truth - Paul McCartney.
Something to think about...
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Well, I'm relieved to learn that i'm not old enough to be your father. But my
sceptical brain doesn't accept absolutes. I consider logic a human invention.
We'll just have to disagree.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You may
On Oct 27, 2006, at 3:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I'm relieved to learn that i'm not old enough to be your
father. But my sceptical brain doesn't accept absolutes. I consider
logic a human invention. We'll just have to disagree.
Of course logic is a human invention. How could
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Gonz wrote:
Whoa laddie! Mathematics is not a code, and it is not based on
observation. Observations of the world might inspire a Mathematical
concept which wonts for proof, but do not factor into the proof
itself.
Mathematics is the
I'm quite convinced that we have got most of the history/evolution of
humans wrong. We've made great, sweeping statements based on a
ridiculously small amount of evidence. And we've ignored evidence
when it doesn't fit our preconceptions.
Yeah. Douglas Adams got it right. We are the
All this from a snowflake. Miracles exist.
As to God, well, whatever suits. ...
G
On Oct 27, 2006, at 1:03 PM, Gonz wrote:
... Of course, its still useful (logic). But it (science/math) can
never be
complete, and the incompleteness theorem never defines the limits, it
just says for any
So how about absolute zero?
G
On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I'm relieved to learn that i'm not old enough to be your
father. But my sceptical brain doesn't accept absolutes. I consider
logic a human invention. We'll just have to disagree.
Paul
Should not comment, but while some things in nature seem to be cleverly
designed, others are so silly they defy the concept of intelligent
design. Of course somehow those get overlooked by those who want their
faith to be correct.
However, I have no doubt that there is a god because the
John Celio wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Snowflake_300um_LTSEM,_13368.jpg
Now, when do you think Pentax will come out with a macro lens that can do
that?
[...]
Hi John,
This is on the order of Hey! You brought it up! ;-)
Starting with the site above, which really whetted my
On 25/10/06, John Celio, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Snowflake_300um_LTSEM,_13368.jpg
Now, when do you think Pentax will come out with a macro lens that can do
that?
That is astonishing. I'm an atheist but it's difficult to look at that
photo and not perceive
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:42:35 +0100, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25/10/06, John Celio, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Snowflake_300um_LTSEM,_13368.jpg
Now, when do you think Pentax will come out with a macro lens that can
do
that?
That is
I can't even put that photo into perspective. To me it looks like a piece
of machinery. I can't reconcile that with a snowflake
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
On 25
Op Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:27:08 +0200 schreef J and K Messervy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
On 25/10/06, John Celio, discombobulated, unleashed
keith_w wrote:
Information gained from studying the structure of snow is vital to
several areas of science as well as to activities that affect our daily
lives...
To me, most curious!
WHY is it so vital we study the structure of snow?
Does anyone know of a 'primer' that I can read, to
So difficult that I tend to disbelieve the caption.
Cotty wrote:
On 25/10/06, John Celio, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Snowflake_300um_LTSEM,_13368.jpg
Now, when do you think Pentax will come out with a macro lens that can do
that?
That is astonishing.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cotty
Sent: 26 October 2006 09:43
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
On 25/10/06, John Celio, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Snowflake_300um_LTSEM,_13368
On 26/10/06, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
Ah, the Argument from Personal Ignorance - I don't know how that came
to be, therefore God made it.
Oh I admit it - I'm an ingorant. ;-)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
No - I see it has attributes that indicate it has a maker or designer. A
roughly symmetrical chipped piece of flint lying on the ground is believed
to be an arrowhead. We don't see the aboriginal that crafted the arrowhead
yet we believe the event occurred. We don't see the designer of our
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/10/06, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
Ah, the Argument from Personal Ignorance - I don't know how that came
to be, therefore God made it.
Oh I admit it - I'm an ingorant. ;-)
Me two.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom C
Sent: 26 October 2006 20:41
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT: Snowflake
No - I see it has attributes that indicate it has a maker or
designer. A
roughly symmetrical chipped piece of flint lying on the
ground
20:41
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT: Snowflake
No - I see it has attributes that indicate it has a maker or
designer. A
roughly symmetrical chipped piece of flint lying on the
ground is believed
to be an arrowhead. We don't see the aboriginal that crafted
the arrowhead
yet we believe
The arrowhead is attributed to a human creator precisely because
we *do* understand how that creation process took place - an argument
based on knowledge, not on ignorance. It's nothing to do with
perceived attributes, and everything to do with understanding.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at
The only reason why some think things like this has to have a
designer is because they cant believe that such structures can have
natural causes, which in my view just tells me that they don´t know
much about nature.
DagT
Den 26. okt. 2006 kl. 21.41 skrev Tom C:
No - I see it has
] On
Behalf Of Tom C
Sent: 26 October 2006 20:41
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT: Snowflake
No - I see it has attributes that indicate it has a maker or
designer. A
roughly symmetrical chipped piece of flint lying on the
ground is believed
to be an arrowhead. We don't see
...
POML == Pentax Ontology Mailing List
PEML == Pentax Epistemology Mailing List
PMML == Pentax Metaphysics Mailing List
...
Godfrey
On Oct 26, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Gonz wrote:
Faith and knowledge are not orthogonal to each other, which is what
the
original statement implied.
I may know
On Oct 26, 2006, at 5:27 PM, DagT wrote:
On the other hand, this is religion, and even if it is a break in the
Aperture Simulator stuff I´ll stop here
I thought belief in the Aperture Simulator *was* a religion.
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
By ignorance I mean absence of knowledge, not stupidity.
We know (rather than simply believe) that a human created the arrow
head not only because it looks man-made, but because it looks man-made
_and_ we have multiple compelling lines of independently verifiable
and mutually verifying
-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:27:56 +0200
If you study entropy you may find that the most efficient way to
globally increased entropy is through formation of order locally.
This can allow lots of things
On the other hand, this is religion, and even if it is a break in the
Aperture Simulator stuff I´ll stop here
I thought belief in the Aperture Simulator *was* a religion.
Oh god (or lack thereof), what have I done?
John Celio
...wishes snowflakes wouldn't make people start talking about
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom C
Sent: 26 October 2006 20:41
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT: Snowflake
No - I see it has attributes that indicate it has a maker or
designer. A
roughly symmetrical chipped piece of flint lying
There is a wide gulf between the assumption that something MUST have
had a designer and the much more plausible assumption that something
MIGHT have had a designer. Those who believe our knowledge of nature
and the universe is complete are themselves lacking in real knowledge
and
Yet it still requires an act of faith to attribute any given stone
that appears to be an arrowhead to a human creator. Nature can
achieve the same result in many different ways.
Paul
On Oct 26, 2006, at 4:54 PM, John Francis wrote:
The arrowhead is attributed to a human creator precisely
: OT: Snowflake
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:53:56 -0400
Yet it still requires an act of faith to attribute any given stone
that appears to be an arrowhead to a human creator. Nature can
achieve the same result in many different ways.
Paul
On Oct 26, 2006, at 4:54 PM, John Francis wrote
On 27/10/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet it still requires an act of faith to attribute any given stone
that appears to be an arrowhead to a human creator. Nature can
achieve the same result in many different ways.
You'd love the UK produced Time Team program :-)
--
Rob
On 10/26/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's interesting that many people, in general, confuse faith with credulity.
The biblical definition of faith is anything but that.
Hebrews 11:1 - Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the
evident demonstration of realities though
Scott Loveless wrote:
Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
-Mark Twain, Following the Equator
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
-- Philip K. Dick (science fiction author)
--
Thanks
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
The aperture simulator exists I've seen it.
Bob Shell wrote:
On Oct 26, 2006, at 5:27 PM, DagT wrote:
On the other hand, this is religion, and even if it is a break in the
Aperture Simulator stuff I´ll stop here
I thought belief in the Aperture Simulator *was* a religion.
Bob
And there are those who say they've seen God. I have no reason to
believe that the aperture simulator exists. I think it's an invention
of sick minds that compensates for their inability to accept the
guilt of original sin.
Paul
On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:20 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
The
The only time I ever saw God was during the '60's if you get my drift.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
And there are those who say they've seen God. I have no reason to
believe that the aperture simulator exists. I think it's an invention
of sick minds that compensates for their inability to accept
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
The only time I ever saw God was during the '60's if you get my drift.
How about Goddesses?
I've seen a few of those.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
They never seemed to be Goddesses in the morning...
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
The only time I ever saw God was during the '60's if you get my drift.
How about Goddesses?
I've seen a few of those.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: OT: Snowflake
They never seemed to be Goddesses in the morning...
The trick is to sleep late..
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Prof. Behe's claims have been conclusively disproved many times. Here
is a summary of just some of the disproofs:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html
which concludes as follows:
Paley's 21st century followers claim that the intelligent design
movement is based upon new
That is pretty neat. Snow is a fascinating subject.
Tom C.
Original Message Follows
From: John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: OT: Snowflake
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:40:27 -0700
84 matches
Mail list logo