Subject: Re: good engineering
From: mwfisher@cts.com (Michael W. Fisher)
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 18:26:04 -0700
In article <50vga2$ck5@niflheim.rutgers.edu>, Michael Huemer says...
->mwfisher@cts.com (Michael W. Fisher) writes:
->
->> And nature doesn't give one tiny shit about the phenotypes opinion
->>in the matter, even if the phenotype has achieved the self-consciousness
->>necessary to have an opinion.
->
->Well, since nature isn't conscious, nature doesn't really give a shit
->about anything. But I take it the metaphor is that the organism's
->opinions don't affect the likelihood of its reproducing. Actually,
->this doesn't seem to be true. If the organism, if it's
->self-conscious, *wants* to reproduce copies of itself, then it is much
->more likely to do so than if it doesn't want to.
->
The organism may want to make copies of itself (or at least go
throght the motions!) but its *wants* will not affect its "programmed" life
span. I.e., even though humans can contemplate the end of their own lives,
and most particularly the effects of advancing age, there really isn't
anything they can do to stop it. (admittadly lifstyle choices can affect
how it all plays out, and for exactly how long--but we can't make ourselves
immortal through a simple act of will just because we take exception to the
"program".)
->> Women achieve full physical maturity alightly earlier than men, but
->>even for men, final physical maturity is achieved at about 25.
Measurable
->>physical deterioration sets in after 30--which if you recall is the mean
->>age of adult death in pre-technological societies.
->
->I suspect the first figure is high, and the second one low (not that
->it really makes much difference). It seems to me that men are
->physiologically mature at the age of about 16 (we're not talking about
->emotionally). Also, isn't 30 a little young for deterioration? I
->would think it would be more like 30. And remember that the life
->expectancy was low mostly because of infant mortality, not because
->people had heart attacks at 30. (Remember that if half the people
->died at 1 year old, then the true life expectancy, if you removed all
->of those babies, would have to be around 60. I do not know what the
->infant mortality statistics actually are, though.)
Phsioogically mature with respect to sexuality, but some growth
still continues, yours truly gained about 2 inches in heigth AFTER 16.
Males as a group continue to gain muscle mass until about 25. I don't have
the statistics handy, but I believe that a whole lot of areas of athetics
show a peak for male performance around that time.
And in those days of yore wen men were men and women were busy
making babies, heart attacks were not a leading cause of death. Disease and
accident, and for women, childbirth (and all freqently complicated due to
poor nutrition)itself were the leading factors in adult mortality.
We're just so safe, most of us, from accident and disease, that it
is hard t realize just how *dangerous* it used to be to be alive.
A woman would have 12 pregnancies, (possibly by two different
husbands) of which 6 babies would live to adulthood, and of those at least
2 would die of accident before marrying and one of the females would die in
childbirth. The other three might live to a ripe old age, if war or famine
or an epidemic didn't get them.
Life used to be a lot different shall we say.
Ciao.
--
Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., lawstudent
http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/Library/intraits.html
* * *
He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty,
he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: "Cajun"
Date: 9 Sep 1996 01:03:38 GMT
Aaron I couldn't agree with you more!!!
Very well said and freethought....everything is between both
of our ears. See you!
Aaron Boyden <6500adb@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> wrote in article
...
> On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> > > > There is a third [assumption underlying science]:
> > > >
> > > > 3. The universe is explainable by naturalistic processes.
> > > >
> > Rule 3 means that we have to explain everything, including the origin
of
> > the universe and man without God. Isaac Newton would have agreed with
> > assumptions 1 and 2, but not 3, for he believed that the world was
> > created by God in a special creation, and that the earth was destroyed
> > by the Genesis flood.
>
> This doesn't clarify things very much, as of course "God" is at least as
> vague as "naturalistic." Still, I think I can safely say that 3 has
> nothing to do with science. If the simplest theory which explains the
> data involves God, it'll be accepted by science. At present, no theistic
> theories are superior to or even competitive with their non-theistic
> rivals, but that's merely because God is a worthless hypothesis, not
> because it's been ruled out in advance by science.
>
> Of course, this may not apply if your version of God is inherently
> unknowable or some such nonsense. Anything inherently unknowable is
> pretty obviously outside the realm of science. It's also outside the
> realm of worthwhile discourse, so if that is your position, I'm sure
> everyone would appreciate your not bringing up God again.
>
> ---
> Aaron Boyden
>
> "Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take
care
> not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained." -David
Lewis
>
>
Subject: Arguments for Worldwide Flood
From: soliver@capecod.net (Suzane Oliver)
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 04:25:17 GMT
Follow ups cross posted to sci.sckeptic, talk origins and sci.geo.geology. If
this is off topic for you please accept my apologies, and email your FAQ files
to me, I am looking for knowledgable assistance with this idiot. As
alt.atheism is for atheists to help each other deal with problems with
non-atheists, I am removing it form the follow -up line
Please also CC me all replies via Email as I am on a server that only gets one
message in four lately and it is making me crazy.
John: May I suggest that you go to http://pricecostco.com/stroud/cwsa.html and
get Agent 99 and register it. It is an excellent news reader with a built in
spell check. I have take the liberty of cleaning up your spelling where I
could figure out what you were talking about.
John, I started out in geology, specializing in geomorphology, and went almost
to a degree in it before changing majors, I shall tell you what I remember,
but my texts were lost in a house fire a few years back ... with luck others
will come in with the exact references where necessary.
On Sept 8, 1996, mccoy@sierra.net (John McCoy) opined:
> Message-Id: <50tk3f$spq@nntp.sierra.net>
> 1.Worldwide distribution of flood traditions
Since most early settlements were near a source of water, this is not
surprising. You will note, however, that there is a very great disparity in
the legends as to who or what cause the flood, who survived the flood and how
it was survived.
Mark Isaak has put together an interesting web page with synopses of many of
the legends, you can find it at http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~pib/flood.htm
> 2.Origin of civilization near Ararat-Babylon region in post flood time
What exactly is your date for the flood. What exactly is your evidence of
this? What is your point? Civilization started in a particular place at a
particular time, so therefore there was a flood before it?
> 3.Convergence of population growth statistics on date of flood
What does this mean? What is the point of this statement?
> 4. Dating of Oldest libing things at post flood time.
What does this mean?
> 5.Worldwide occurrence of water laid sediments and sedimentary rocks
Where there was water, there were water laid settlements. One can tell what
was laid down in streams, lakes or seas; or shallow or deep. What is the point
of this statement?
> 6.Recent uplift of major mountain ranges
Are you saying that the Himalayas are now uplifted because of pressure from a
great flood? What is your evidence of this? What are the forces necessary to
move the Indian Plate into China? How much water would it have taken?
This is totally ridiculous you know!
> 7.Marine fossils on crests of mountains
So? Do you have an idea as to how long the fossilization process takes? Are
we finding fossils where recent floods have been?
Of course, John, we do not, and depending on the circumstances it takes a
great many years to turn a shell into a fossil.
> 8.Evidence of former worldwide warm climate
When former, how warm? Are you suggesting the entire earth was tropical all at
once? What is the evidence for this? What are your refrences?
> 9. Necessity of catastrophic burial and rapid lithification of fossil
> deposits
You are saying that, since the fossils are there, and the flood occurred, that
fossilization must have been rapid. This assumes the conclusion and is not
good science at all! Have you perhaps any evidence of this? Are there any
experiments performed that test how fast a fossil can be formed?
> 10.Recent origin of many datable geological processes
For instance? Yes Mt. St Helen has recent, datable geological changes. So does
Karakatoa, and Vesuvius, depending on what you qualify as recent. There are,
this year, changes in the Mississippi delta and in the easternmost reaches of
Cape Cod. So, what's your point?
> 11. Worldwide distribution of all types of fossils
If you are saying that all fossils are found evenly spread all over the world,
you are incorrect. What do you mean here??
> 12. Uniform physical appearance of rocks from different ages
Yes, John, Granite looks like granite, shale like shale and basalt like
basalt, what would you expect?
> 13. Frequent mixing of fossils from different "ages"
Give references and examples here, please.
> 14.Near random deposition of formational sequences
Give references and examples here, please. What is the point of this
statement?
> 15. Equivalence of total organic material in present world and fossil world
Give references and examples here, please. What is the point of this
statement?
> 16. Wide distribution of volcanic rocks
Are you saying that vulcanism is caused by flooding? What are the reasons for
this outlandish statement???
> 17. Evidence of recent water bodies in present desert areas
Give references and examples here, please. Include details as to whether this
evidence is that of dried lake beds, fall or rise in sea level, change in
river-bed or flooding, and if so, what is the percentage of salt in the
desert sands.
> 18. Worldwide occurrence of rivers in valleys too large for the present
> stream.
Give references and examples here, please. Please include evidence that this
is not due to glaciation expanding the river valley, change in river direction
upstream, a rise in sea or lake level or silting in of the river mouth.
> 21. Sudden extinction of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals
Give references and examples here, please. Are you speaking of the Irish Elk
and the Great Sloth too? Or just the demise of the dinosaurs, which appears to
have suddenly happened over several million years?
> 22. Rapid onset of glacial period
Which glacial period are you referring to and how is this related to the
flood? Do you believe that it is a cause of the flood or a result? What is
the point of this statement?
> 23. Existence of polystrate fossils
Give references and examples here, please. What is the point of this
statement?
> 24. Preservation of tracks and other ephemeral markings throughout
> geologic column.
You have it right here, it is a geological column. many layers, laid down over
millions of years. This is evidence of the age of the earth, and evidence
which disproves your thesis.
> 25. Worldwide occurrence of sedimentary fossil graveyards in rocks of all
> "ages"
Give references and examples here, please. What is the point of this
statement?
> 26. Absence of any physical evidence of chronological boundary between
> rocks of successive "ages"
I don't understand what you mean here. Were you expecting an easily
identifiable demarcation between ages? Why???
> 27. Occurrence of all rock types (shale, limestone, granite, etc.) in all
> "ages"
The processes that formed these rocks occurred in all ages.
> 28 Parallel of supposed evolutionary sequence through different "ages"
Give references and examples here, please. What is the point of this
statement?
> 29. Lack of correlation of most radiometric "ages" with assumed
> paleontological "ages"
Give references and examples here, please. What is the point of this
statement?
> 30. Absence of meteorites in geologic column
Meteorites are a very rare occupance and hard to spot in any case. I am not
sure if this is even a true statement, does anyone have any refrences to the
contrary?
> 31. Absence of hail imprints in geologic column, despite abundance of
> fossil ripple marks and raindrop imprints
How does one tell a hail imprint from a raindrop? And what does this prove?
Give references and examples here, please.
> 32. Evidence of man's existence during earliest of geologic "ages"
> (ie.e., human footprints in Cambrian, Carboniferous and Cretaceous
> formations)
I know of only one incidence of a foot print ant that was an admitted hoax.
Are you aware of more than one? Give references and examples here, please.
Once again, John a post devoid of factual content.
(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)
If no thought your mind does visit
make your speech not too explicit.
Piet Hein, 1966
(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)
Subject: Stephen Hawking; one professor's evaluation
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 9 Sep 1996 01:07:30 GMT
In article <50qk1s$11n@news.cis.okstate.edu>
jpc@a.cs.okstate.edu (John Chandler) writes:
> Come on, guys. Let's be accurate.
> Come on, guys. Let's be accurate.
> APH is _not_ a dishwasher at the Cambridge Inn,
> he's a POT smoker (really!) at the Cambridge Inn.
> (The Cambridge Inn is owned by Oklahoma State Univ, it's true.)
>
> APH has, he says, made a fortune in the book market,
> but now smokes pot for a living.
> That may speak to his general veracity.
>
> Stephen Hawking
>
> Country: Britain, Cambridge Univ
> Science views known for: Black Holes, Worm Holes,
> Baby universes, and other exotica
> NOBEL PRIZE: Not in 40 years, and Stephen knows he will never get it so
> he has opted for the warm limelight of pop and glitter TV and movie
> Hollywood style. Besides, more money in that than a Nobel. The Nobel
> Committee knows that they can not give Stephen a prize for it would
> make the Nobel physics prize a joke and many other jokesters will
> demand the prize for themselves.
>
> PHYSICS LAWS OR PRINCIPLES VIOLATED: Quantum Mechanics Violations:
> Pauli Exclusion principle (PEP)
> that you cannot squeeze protons into other protons, neutrons into other
> neutrons, and electrons into other electrons. Simply put, PEP disallows
> the making of a black hole and Hawking exotica.
>
> Amount of money in Fleecing the General Public:
> How much has Hawking chicanery fleeced the general publics money? Want to
> look for exact sales figures and net profit to Mr. Hawking.
>
> 1 book -- Hawking, S. W. (StepheÉ A brief history of time :
> from the big bang to blackÉ 1988
>
> 2 book -- Hawking, S. W. (Stephen W.)
> Title: Black holes and baby universes and other
> essays / Stephen Hawking.
>
> Why not loosen up your style Mr. Hawking in the naming of his titles.
> It is not that much more pretentious from "baby universe" to that of say
> "teenager universe" or will that be a Hawking sequel?
>
> Future science historians wanting to get details of those persons
> who had led in the worst way the world physics community down a
> dead-end path will probably refer to the fact that Mr. Hawking was
> crippled by a disease.
> And most people with commonsense and decency realize that when
> incapacitated from duties of leadership usually for the good of the
> "larger mass of people" pass on the baton to someone more abler and
> fitter. Not Mr. Hawking.
>
> Apparently he feels that popularity is far more important in physics
> than new and creative science. Passing the baton seems like not an
> option for Mr. Hawking and continues to so to speak pull in the reins
> of the physics
> community, falling deeper and further into an abyss of physics
> chicanery of black holes and worm holes and other assorted exotica.
> Perhaps someone in the future will write a book on the black-hole-con
> -artistry trick that held back the physics community for much of this
> century with Mr. Hawking as the major con-artist in residence.
> Covering decades of black and sordid mismanagement of physics.
> One question many of us are curious as to why P.A.M. Dirac,
> one of the titans of physics departed England? The stated reasons are
> a warmer climate and having to do with money matters of Cambridge that
> the titan Dirac packed his bags and departed for friendlier and warmer
> climate.
> And it is only a hunch that he could see that his successor in Mr. Hawking
> was a turning back of the physics clock for decades to come.
>
> Recently in the news is Mr. Hawking scared of losing his science work due > to the Higgs. The Higgs does not exist has been generally known for 30
> years but the physics community is nowhere
> onto how to sweep this huge embarrassement under the rugs or carpets.
> Physicists are appalled by their huge blunders and so they want to hide
> them the best way they can without disrupting cash flow from government
> financing or charlatan books sold on particle physics. So, with the backing > of Mr. Hawking who is now proclaiming that the Higgs is lost down a black
> hole or some other exotica. Physics con-artists are hoping that the weight > of Stephen's notoriety will not make the embarrassement turn into a rout.
>
> Mr. Hawking's religious views are quoted from Scientific American
> :
> :Stephen W. Hawking declared God unnecessary. Hawking proposes
> :that the universe has no boundary in space or time, rendering a
> :divine Creator superfluous.
> :
> :
>
>
>
>
> APH = Antisemitic Potsmoker Hawking
>
>
> --
> John Chandler
> jpc@a.cs.okstate.edu
Gee, such rudeness on the Net would have been unheard of 5 years ago.
Sounds like you really have your heart in your above there. Why
Chandler, looks like you are going for the professor-record in using
the word "antisemitic" on the Net, ol' chap.
Subject: Re: good engineering
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Date: 9 Sep 1996 03:08:35 GMT
In article <50vga2$ck5@niflheim.rutgers.edu> owl@niflheim.rutgers.edu (Michael Huemer) writes:
>mwfisher@cts.com (Michael W. Fisher) writes:
>> And nature doesn't give one tiny shit about the phenotypes opinion
>>in the matter, even if the phenotype has achieved the self-consciousness
>>necessary to have an opinion.
>.... But I take it the metaphor is that the organism's
>opinions don't affect the likelihood of its reproducing. Actually,
>this doesn't seem to be true. If the organism, if it's
>self-conscious, *wants* to reproduce copies of itself, then it is much
>more likely to do so than if it doesn't want to.
No, not exactly. Dawkins is the prime exponent of the "selfish gene"
theory of course, but many things that are hard to explain in evolutionary
terms when you are thinking of the phenotype, make sense in terms of genes.
Altruism is one. If an animal in sacrificing itself, saves more than
one copy of its genes, its genes have benefited. The altruistic genes
will increase in frequency and the mother bird will pretend it has
a broken wing in front of the fox. Maybe if birds are conscious, she
even enjoys giving the performance.
People of course, like sex. Any genes that produce individuals that
don't like sex rapidly decrease in number, even in a self-conscious
organism.
Tom Clarke