|
|
 Up |
  |
Author: Richard TobinRichard Tobin
Date: Jan 19, 2007 07:36
In article bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Whose sin? What is the mechanism by which a sin causes a gene mutation?
>
>As I have explained upthread, I am no microbiologist, and the above is my
>belief, not my contention. In other words, I can't defend it
>microbiologically and I don't intend to try.
Fair enough. But as far as I am aware, there aren't *any*
microbiologists who even have an idea of how such a thing might
happen. It just isn't plausible.
>Similarly, I cannot explain to you why any even number greater than two can
>be expressed as the sum of two primes. Nor do I even know it to be true. It
>is my belief that it is true, and I consider the belief a reasonable one;
>but it is not one I would care to defend in an adversarial environment.
I'm surprised you believe it. I would be surprised if it were not
true - see http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/goldbach.png which
shows how many ways each even number up to a million can be expressed
as a sum of two primes - but I would not go so far as to say I believe it.
|
| Show full article (1.23Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Amethyst DeceiverAmethyst Deceiver
Date: Jan 19, 2007 07:30
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Amethyst Deceiver said:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Amethyst Deceiver said:
>>>
>>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> The Massive Continuity of Ducks said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
>>>>>> writes:>>>>>>> Um, what? Isn't "unmarried" pretty much the definition of
>>>>>>> "single"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. It means "unmarried".
>>>>>
>>>>> All right, I'll bite: what does "single" mean in this bizarre
>>>>> newspeak?
>>>>
>>>> "Single" for me is without a partner. "Unmarried", however, does ...
|
| Show full article (1.35Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Richard TobinRichard Tobin
Date: Jan 19, 2007 07:02
In article bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> I think it's obvious that Sam was asking whether you think they need
>> healing of homosexuality.
>I think it's obvious that I was answering that I think that everyone needs
>healing of whatever ills befall them
I think eveyone agrees that people need healing of their ills. Sam
was trying to get you to say explicitly that you consider
homosexuality to be in that class. I assume that Sam, like me, doesn't
consider homosexuality to be anything of the sort.
Considering homosexuality to be an "ill" seems to fall squarely within
the definition of homophobia, though there are of course much worse
manifestations of it.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
|
| |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author:
Date: Jan 19, 2007 07:01
"Richard Heathfield" wrote in message
news:i9KdnQRZAanEXy3YRVnygQA@bt.com...> Uno-Hoo! said:
>
>>
>> "Richard Heathfield" wrote in message
>> news:ls-dnQwQc8M0IjLYnZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com...>>> C S Lewis has dealt adequately
>>> with this subject. If you need a reference, I can probably find one.
>>
>> Has he answered the conundrum of who created god?
>
> I expect so, but it is in any case trivial to answer. Cause and effect are
> characteristics of time, and time is finite. I think of time as a subset
> of
> eternity. God exists in eternity. No cause required.
Yet another religious cop-out Richard. Until you can demonstrate to me that
something can have lasted for ever, without any beginning, I will treat that
as nonsense.
|
| Show full article (0.80Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Red FogRed Fog
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:48
"Sam Nelson" ssrl.org.uk> wrote
>> What am I mising here, Obi-Wan?
>
> `Think all the evil you like, but don't do any of it or tell anyone'.
Can I post it when I'm pissed?
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Red FogRed Fog
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:46
"Richard Heathfield" wrote
>>> No experiment is exactly repeatable, and any experiment that got
>>> *exactly* the same results should be viewed with the deepest suspicion.
>>
>> Please explain?
>
> Any experiment takes place at a given point or set of points in the
> space-time continuum. If a repeat of that experiment takes place at the
> same time, it cannot be in precisely the same space. If it takes place in
> precisely the same space, it cannot be at precisely the same time.
> Therefore, the initial conditions for any two runs of the experiment
> inevitably differ. Therefore, no experiment is exactly repeatable.
Can God change this situation?
Can He rewrite your(sic) laws of Physics?
> As for a repeat getting exactly the same results, that has "data fraud"
> written all over it.
And now, with all these questions that you haven't time to answer, you want
to tackle Statistics?
Good Man!
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Red FogRed Fog
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:42
"Richard Heathfield" wrote in message
>
Are you suggesting that God only has an influence on the Universe rather
than defining it?
(we can start a new thread if you prefer?)
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Red FogRed Fog
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:39
"Richard Heathfield" wrote
>>> No experiment is exactly repeatable, and any experiment that got
>>> *exactly* the same results should be viewed with the deepest suspicion.
>>
>> Please explain?
> Any experiment takes place at a given point or set of points in the
> space-time continuum.
So now you also believe in a Space-Time Continuum?
How many 'points' are there, out of interest?
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Red FogRed Fog
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:36
"Richard Heathfield" wrote
> JAF said:
>> Bollocks.
>
> Thank you for that sparkling commentary. What do you do for an encore -
> spit
> in your customers' styrofoam cups?
Your humanity is starting to show over your divinity.
JAF is a fucking great bloke. I can think of at least 100 people reading
this thread that have met JAF and I would put money on three quarters of
that number quite liking the bloke or above.
If you are going to complain about invective comment then for God's sake
please don't contribute to it.
> Please, if you must post, post something intelligent that is actually
> worth
> reading. Thanks.
For the first time in ten years, I presumed that somebody on usenet had
something new to say. What a shame.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Sam NelsonSam Nelson
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:31
In article bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield writes:> Inevitably, at the point where I do
> draw the line, *someone* is going to say "nah nah, got you there" just
> because I don't answer them. I suspect, however, that people like Sam
> Nelson won't do this, and I know people like Badger Shame won't - because
> they are able to be more objective.
Oh, and I did my time on the Radio 4 group.
--
SAm.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
