On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:24:27 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Bill Slomansaid:
On Aug 20, 6:03 am, JeffM <jef... at (no spam) email.com> wrote:
RichD wrote:
What happened to cybernetics?

Things have taken a turn toward "squishy" rather than "mech".
"Gene Therapy Causes Blind Woman To Grow New

Fovea"http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?lowbandwidth=1&mode=nocomment&...

There is an increasing appreciation that cell machinery is self-
programmed, and creationists will have to come to terms with the
proposition that their hypothetical creator-designer came up with
some remarkably crude and inelegant hacks.

Let's see *you* do better, starting from scratch and with a six-day
deadline.

Sloman, putting down "creationists"????

Evidently he, like DfBC, believe that they created themselves and the
whole rest of the Universe.

But, hell, what can you expect from a warmingist? The evidence for
that is non-existent as well.

How do you describe, mathematically or otherwise, what exists before
existence?

The fact is though, physics will likely never answer that question.
How do you describe, mathematically or otherwise, what exists before
existence?

On Aug 21, 3:59 am, Rich Grise <richgr... at (no spam) example.net> wrote:

But, hell, what can you expect from a warmingist? The evidence for
that is non-existent as well. ;-)

Non-existent for Rich, who doesn't understand very much at all, and
is too ignorant to have any chance of working precisely how
remarkably ignorant he is.

Most scientificly educated people can do much better.

On Aug 20, 7:29 am, Richard Heathfield <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> wrote:
Bill Sloman said:
On Aug 20, 3:24 pm, Richard Heathfield <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomansaid:
snip
There is an increasing appreciation that cell machinery is self-
programmed, and creationists will have to come to terms with the
proposition that their hypothetical creator-designer came up with
some remarkably crude and inelegant hacks.

Let's see *you* do better, starting from scratch and with a six-day
deadline.

I don't fancy my chances,but then I'm neither omniscient nor
omnipotent - which are other implausible components of the the
creationist hypothesis.

I agree that the creationist hypothesis contains several implausible
components. Unfortunately, so do all the various "scientific"
hypotheses.

An enquirer-after-truth asked a scientist friend how the universe was
created, and was told that it all stemmed from vacuum fluctuations.
So he thought about that for a bit, and then replied: "well, okay,
but there are millions of Thermos flasks all round the world, very
useful for keeping your coffee hot - and every one of them has a
vacuum inside it. So how come we don't get loads of universes
springing up all over the place?" The scientist friend replied "well,
that's because there isn't enough vacuum". So you can get a universe
from nothing, provided you've got *enough* nothing! And they say an
omnipotent god is implausible...

I see it more as the statistical spread of the fluctuations. A big
bang that creates a universe is a large statistical outlier.

The fact is though, physics will likely never answer that question.
How do you describe, mathematically or otherwise, what exists before
existence?

Don Stockbauer said:

snip

Joe: Well, [a Thermos] keeps hot things hot and cold things cold.

Mo: What's so great about that?????

Joe: How does it know?

Vacuums are computron sinks, and thus highly intelligen

What happened to cybernetics?

Don Stockbauer said:

snip

Joe: Well, [a Thermos] keeps hot things hot and cold things cold.

Mo: What's so great about that?????

Joe: How does it know?

Vacuums are computron sinks, and thus highly intelligent.

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Don Stockbauer said:

snip

Joe: Well, [a Thermos] keeps hot things hot and cold things cold.

Mo: What's so great about that?????

Joe: How does it know?

Vacuums are computron sinks, and thus highly intelligent.


Most government employees operate in a hard vacuum, as well.

Michael A. Terrell said:





Richard Heathfield wrote:

Don Stockbauer said:

snip

Joe: Well, [a Thermos] keeps hot things hot and cold things cold.

Mo: What's so great about that?????

Joe: How does it know?

Vacuums are computron sinks, and thus highly intelligent.

   Most government employees operate in a hard vacuum, as well.

This may explain why so many government decisions (any party, any
country - no partisanship here) are so appalling - all their
computrons are being sucked into the surrounding vacuum.

Michael A. Terrell said:


Richard Heathfield wrote:

Don Stockbauer said:

snip

Joe: Well, [a Thermos] keeps hot things hot and cold things cold.

Mo: What's so great about that?????

Joe: How does it know?

Vacuums are computron sinks, and thus highly intelligent.


Most government employees operate in a hard vacuum, as well.

This may explain why so many government decisions (any party, any
country - no partisanship here) are so appalling - all their
computrons are being sucked into the surrounding vacuum.

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Michael A. Terrell said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Don Stockbauer said:

snip

Joe: Well, [a Thermos] keeps hot things hot and cold things cold.

Mo: What's so great about that?????

Joe: How does it know?

Vacuums are computron sinks, and thus highly intelligent.

   Most government employees operate in a hard vacuum, as well.

This may explain why so many government decisions (any party, any
country - no partisanship here) are so appalling - all their
computrons are being sucked into the surrounding vacuum.

  Neurons need oxygen to function.

I believe that we haven't got a clue about what created the
universe, and I doubt that it is a question worth asking.

Don Stockbauer wrote:

Perhaps the statement "Vacuums are computron sinks, and thus highly
intelligent"  is suspect?

   Really?  What do you suspect?