Article <86frww8flc.fsf@example.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<86frww8flc.fsf@example.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!paganini.bofh.team!news.killfile.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Belief - I'd like to share this item with you.
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:21:35 +0000
Organization: Frantic
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <86frww8flc.fsf@example.com>
References: <l40megFm6p4U1@mid.individual.net>
	<a0af9cb8-49a0-4913-af82-c9514e93e9b9@gmail.com>
	<l41uf1Fs53cU1@mid.individual.net>
	<5f09ba95-910f-4814-8c90-85af86ac1a53@gmail.com>
	<l420huFsg44U1@mid.individual.net>
	<b0b68ab0-f5f6-4202-a2bb-8d68d50488ee@gmail.com>
	<86bk83zbvj.fsf@example.com>
	<b28uti5ccragqn5j3les10435bsvggsqa7@4ax.com>
	<86o7c0fcjk.fsf@example.com> <urph9u$ehr8$1@dont-email.me>
	<86frxb8e1h.fsf@example.com>
	<44ycnd-RzOg5sXz4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
	<86h6hqt028.fsf@example.com> <868r2oamsy.fsf@example.com>
	<usn8ar$3mfeu$1@dont-email.me> <864jdcahor.fsf@example.com>
	<usncjv$3nehe$1@dont-email.me> <86zfv48zcl.fsf@example.com>
	<B72dnY8vgqBwwHL4nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
	<86r0gg8n9e.fsf@example.com>
	<fKKdnY_x3vX7CnL4nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="18581"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dpZRAoH3zi1+3GZ3v30ubnYD1ns= sha1:xopolJhra3HA+ThbnHr19UGqgRs=
Bytes: 13617
Lines: 213

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:

> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/03/2024 15:53, Richmond wrote:
>>>>>> Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 11/03/2024 14:02, Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 22:29, Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:46:40 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/24 3:24 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 23:04:07 GMT, "erik simpson"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/24 2:49 PM, David B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Feb 2024 at 18:52:30 GMT, "erik simpson"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the record, I think Behe is pretty close to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a crank.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What evidence do you have for reaching such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, Erik?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute says all you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to know.  I've not heard of the organisation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before. I've read here:-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.discovery.org/about/ What do you feel is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contentious?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The focus on Intellligent Design (ID).  This has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked around on this group for many years, and has its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proponents.  Obviously, I'm not one of them.  I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propose to re-argue this subject.  Check through prior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions here if you want to get the flavor of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not interested in getting involved in such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a group whose description is "Evolution versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism (sometimes hot!)." I would have thought the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject will come up over and over.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has.  My impression is that's one reason so many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't interested.  in it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are the other kinds of creationism apart from I.D.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> One could argue that ID is all kinds of creationism. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguishing points of ID are
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) a professed agnosticism about the identity of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> creator ("designer"), at least when wearing one's ID hat.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) a claim, shared with scientific creationism, that there
>>>>>>>>>>>> is evidence that life was created rather than evolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Members of the ID movement can hold to just about any
>>>>>>>>>>>> version of creationism (include geocentrism and
>>>>>>>>>>>> platygaianism). ID is a political movement, and theistic
>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionists tend not to share the movement's goals, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> they are rare among ID advocates.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> * abiotic creationists (God created the universe) * single
>>>>>>>>>>>> creation creationists (God created the urorganism) *
>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple-creation creationists (God created multiple kinds
>>>>>>>>>>>> of life) ** young earth creationists *** young earth
>>>>>>>>>>>> anevolutionists *** young earth hyperevolutionists ** young
>>>>>>>>>>>> life creationists ** old earth creationists * progressive
>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists ** episodic progressive creationists (God
>>>>>>>>>>>> creates successive biotas) ** discontinuous progressive
>>>>>>>>>>>> creationists (God creates species) ** continuous
>>>>>>>>>>>> progressive creationism (God creates mutations/selection)
>>>>>>>>>>>> ** occasionalist creationism (Islamo-Calvinist determinism)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are non-Abrahamic forms of creationism. One might
>>>>>>>>>>>> also consider Raelianism as a non-religious form of
>>>>>>>>>>>> creationism.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's most useful to define creationism so it lines up with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the fault lines in society, rather than focussing on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> particularities of belief (defining creationism as
>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent to theism isn't helpful.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hence, my preferred definition of creationism is
>>>>>>>>>>>> "religiously motivated rejection of substantial proportions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the scientific consensus, especially as relating to
>>>>>>>>>>>> biology, geology and cosmology, or the promotion
>>>>>>>>>>>> thereof". The line I'd draw between theistic evolutionism
>>>>>>>>>>>> and progressive creationism is that the former has God
>>>>>>>>>>>> guiding the course of evolution but accepts that natural
>>>>>>>>>>>> processes can produce the same or equivalent result, while
>>>>>>>>>>>> the latter asserts that natural processes cannot produce
>>>>>>>>>>>> the modern day biota.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> In another context creationism is the position that human
>>>>>>>>>>>> souls are created de novo, as opposed to traducianism and
>>>>>>>>>>>> other positions.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, that is fascinating, I had to look up a few words.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> What interests me is: what is it in the human psyche which
>>>>>>>>>>> made people come up with these theories, and gives them the
>>>>>>>>>>> energy to keep persuing them even in the face of
>>>>>>>>>>> adversity. Also the idea of another world, which is more
>>>>>>>>>>> real than this one, which crops up still in popular culture,
>>>>>>>>>>> like "The Matrix", a Gnostic idea that the world is created
>>>>>>>>>>> by something evil, and our purpose is to break free of the
>>>>>>>>>>> illusion and take our rightful place. I think Jung would say
>>>>>>>>>>> that other place is the unconscious, and that it created
>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness in its own image.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Jung was quite open about being influenced by
>>>>>>>>>> Schopenhauer. The whole Matrix concept was a bit of Plato’s
>>>>>>>>>> cave mixed with Bishop Berkeley. The filmmakers tried to
>>>>>>>>>> shoehorn a deliberate reference to Jean Baudrillard’s
>>>>>>>>>> Simulacra and Simulation but he thought the movie was
>>>>>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't alter the fact that the idea is gnostic. And The
>>>>>>>>> Matrix is science fiction, so what does 'bullshit' mean in
>>>>>>>>> that context?  >> "Matrix Mechanics: Developed in 1925 by
>>>>>>>>> Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, >> and >> Pascual Jordan, it was
>>>>>>>>> the first successful theory for quantum >> mechanics. It
>>>>>>>>> described the properties of atomic and subatomic particles >>
>>>>>>>>> not as precise values, but as probabilities represented by
>>>>>>>>> matrices.  >> The Math Behind It: These matrices are
>>>>>>>>> essentially grids of >> numbers. Each element represents the
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========