A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Solar
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Proof Of Evolution.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 20th 07, 05:00 PM posted to sci.skeptic,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.astronomy.solar,uk.philosophy.atheism,uk.sci.misc
Quantum Singularity
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Proof Of Evolution.

On Jul 20, 9:37 am, Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:29:10 GMT, Frederick Williams "Frederick

wrote:

hand.



Please answer me this question...where did the 'rules' and or 'laws of
nature' come from?


Did they come from anywhere? If they did, I don't know.


They are descriptive, not proscriptive.

Why do these idiots imagine they had to come from anywhere?


How can you imagine they didn't? Without these laws, life could not
exist as we know it? We could presume they existed before the 'big
bang' but even then, with the universe compressed to an infinitely
small, dense particle...it does not add up!

  #12  
Old July 20th 07, 05:33 PM posted to sci.skeptic,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.astronomy.solar,uk.philosophy.atheism,uk.sci.misc
Rudolf Drabek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Proof Of Evolution.

On 19 Jul., 14:01, Frederick Williams "Frederick
wrote:
Rudolf Drabek wrote:


who has made the rules?


Your question indicates, perhaps, a confusion: the kind of rules which
are laws of nature are not at all related to the kind that are laws of
man.



Are you convinced that laws of nature are coming from nothing or at
random?

  #13  
Old July 20th 07, 10:25 PM posted to sci.skeptic,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.astronomy.solar,uk.philosophy.atheism,uk.sci.misc
Rudolf Drabek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Proof Of Evolution.

On 20 Jul., 14:15, "Mark N." wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:36 am, Rudolf Drabek wrote:

who has made the rules?


To understand the answer to this question, you should phrase it as
"What caused the law of cause and effect?"

In order to be a genuine cause, the cause must precede the effect. For
the law of cause and effect to have a cause, that cause must have
existed before there was a law of cause and effect. But if there is no
law of cause and effect, then the "cause" is not really related to the
"effect" in any causal sense. Which means that the "cause" of the law
of cause and effect didn't really cause it. So what caused the law of
cause and effect?

m


I don't agree. I was an el. design engineer, now retired. I f we
started a new project, we analyzed what to do without a cause. Despite
the cause, that the Comm. dept. asked for a new product.
But sometimes we offered the Comm.Dept. a new product also, without a
request from them.
So in such cases the cause is something that has nothing to do with
the laws of nature/effect.
In that environment I worked, cause and effect e.g. is not necessary
or applicable.
And I only want to generalize this. But you are free not to accept
this argumentation.

  #14  
Old July 21st 07, 03:35 AM posted to sci.skeptic,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.astronomy.solar,uk.philosophy.atheism,uk.sci.misc
Mark N.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Proof Of Evolution.

On Jul 20, 5:25 pm, Rudolf Drabek wrote:
On 20 Jul., 14:15, "Mark N." wrote:



On Jul 19, 4:36 am, Rudolf Drabek wrote:


who has made the rules?


To understand the answer to this question, you should phrase it as
"What caused the law of cause and effect?"


In order to be a genuine cause, the cause must precede the effect. For
the law of cause and effect to have a cause, that cause must have
existed before there was a law of cause and effect. But if there is no
law of cause and effect, then the "cause" is not really related to the
"effect" in any causal sense. Which means that the "cause" of the law
of cause and effect didn't really cause it. So what caused the law of
cause and effect?


m


I don't agree.


You don't agree with what?

I was an el. design engineer, now retired. I f we
started a new project, we analyzed what to do without a cause.


Why did you start a new project, then?

m

  #15  
Old July 21st 07, 10:50 AM posted to sci.skeptic,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.astronomy.solar,uk.philosophy.atheism,uk.sci.misc
Rudolf Drabek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Proof Of Evolution.

On 21 Jul., 04:35, "Mark N." wrote:
On Jul 20, 5:25 pm, Rudolf Drabek wrote:



On 20 Jul., 14:15, "Mark N." wrote:


On Jul 19, 4:36 am, Rudolf Drabek wrote:


who has made the rules?


To understand the answer to this question, you should phrase it as
"What caused the law of cause and effect?"


In order to be a genuine cause, the cause must precede the effect. For
the law of cause and effect to have a cause, that cause must have
existed before there was a law of cause and effect. But if there is no
law of cause and effect, then the "cause" is not really related to the
"effect" in any causal sense. Which means that the "cause" of the law
of cause and effect didn't really cause it. So what caused the law of
cause and effect?


m


I don't agree.


You don't agree with what?


cause and effect holds good only for macroscopic matters. in my view.

Other things like " I will " have their cause may be in quantum
effects.
See also double gap experiment with single particles.
But I see: here the probability plays an important role, leading you
to your
opinion. Also Einstein said: God does not dice. But he has changed his
mind.
I think he dices for a very good reason -for me alone, may be-.

I was an el. design engineer, now retired. I f we
started a new project, we analyzed what to do without a cause.


Why did you start a new project, then?

May be Curiosity? But see above

m



  #16  
Old July 21st 07, 01:35 PM posted to sci.skeptic,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.astronomy.solar,uk.philosophy.atheism,uk.sci.misc
Mark N.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Proof Of Evolution.

On Jul 21, 5:50 am, Rudolf Drabek wrote:
On 21 Jul., 04:35, "Mark N." wrote:



On Jul 20, 5:25 pm, Rudolf Drabek wrote:


On 20 Jul., 14:15, "Mark N." wrote:


On Jul 19, 4:36 am, Rudolf Drabek wrote:


who has made the rules?


To understand the answer to this question, you should phrase it as
"What caused the law of cause and effect?"


In order to be a genuine cause, the cause must precede the effect. For
the law of cause and effect to have a cause, that cause must have
existed before there was a law of cause and effect. But if there is no
law of cause and effect, then the "cause" is not really related to the
"effect" in any causal sense. Which means that the "cause" of the law
of cause and effect didn't really cause it. So what caused the law of
cause and effect?


m


I don't agree.


You don't agree with what?


cause and effect holds good only for macroscopic matters. in my view.


Is the law of cause and effect macroscopic or microscopic, then? If
it's macroscopic, then what caused it? If it's microscopic, then how
can you say it only holds for macroscopic matters?

Other things like " I will " have their cause may be in quantum
effects.


That's an interesting view, but it has a couple of implications:

1) that "will" exists only on the subatomic scale, and
2) that "will" is random and irrational.

See also double gap experiment with single particles.


Yeah, that's some pretty cool stuff.

But I see: here the probability plays an important role, leading you
to your
opinion. Also Einstein said: God does not dice. But he has changed his
mind.
I think he dices for a very good reason -for me alone, may be-.


Sorry, I'm not following what you're saying.

I was an el. design engineer, now retired. I f we
started a new project, we analyzed what to do without a cause.


Why did you start a new project, then?


May be Curiosity? But see above


Then curiosity caused you to start the project. Perhaps you are not
aware of the factors that caused you to start a new project, but that
does not mean that causes do not exist. The only way cause does not
exist is if your behavior is completely random, meaningless, and
irrational.

m

  #17  
Old July 21st 07, 03:43 PM posted to sci.skeptic,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.astronomy.solar,uk.philosophy.atheism,uk.sci.misc
Frederick Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Proof Of Evolution.

Rudolf Drabek wrote:

On 19 Jul., 14:01, Frederick Williams "Frederick
wrote:
Rudolf Drabek wrote:


who has made the rules?


Your question indicates, perhaps, a confusion: the kind of rules which
are laws of nature are not at all related to the kind that are laws of
man.


Are you convinced that laws of nature are coming from nothing or at
random?


No. I am not qualified to say where they came from. Indeed, I don't
even understand the question "Where did the laws of nature come from?"

--
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid,"
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proof Of Evolution. sdr Astronomy Misc 8 July 19th 07 10:44 AM
Proof of Astrology William Blake Jr. Astronomy Misc 14 December 27th 06 10:16 PM
EVOLUTION BOOK BURNING EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS -- Unmitigated Crap Turns to Ashes -- Evolution Goes Belly Up Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 6 May 13th 06 02:26 AM
EXKLUSIV IN BERLIN -- Little Woman (14 cm or 5.5 in.) - Petrified Human Remains - Evolution vs. Intelligent Design - Evolution Nonsense Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 June 8th 05 11:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.