Date sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:53 -0700 (PDT)

The parts Roger has written are in italics. The parts Toby has written are in normal text.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Roger: >> What is important to me (and should be to you if you are trying to understand a belief system that is not part of your stereotype) is that they are what I live by.

Toby: > well, you live by what you want to do without considering why? You live totally by whim and self gratification (perhaps enlightened) the rest falls to morality (whether it is dilitant or depraved or responsible, or virutous, altruistic, etc.)

I gave my purpose in life careful consideration. When I was first deciding, I was old enough to have read about "godless atheists falling into the deep well of Nilhism" and hedonists. I realized that both choices were available to me, as well as others -- one of those others was becoming religious.

I rejected all of the above, and rather arbitrarily in fact, decided on the course and justifications I have chosen.

I've been very happy with the results.

> Don't my answers correspond to the orthodox, conservative history and christianity you studied in high school and college?

They are your personal interpretations of them. You give them a personal flavor.

thank you but i try to be disciplined and not personalpeole

Speaking of personal flavor. One article I just read on Gibson's Passion said the movie was mostly inspired by an nineteenth century nun's view of The Passion. I apologize, I lost track of the article and who the nun was. If you're familiar with what this writer was saying, who is the nun, and what did she say that was different than scripture? (I spotted the article on Google news.)

this a new view to me. sounds like BS to me. People have said all kinds of things about this film hebe-hater, commercial exploitation yada yada

the film follows the scriptures pretty close, the artistic stuff includes stuff as recent as the actress who played mary (a jew) told Gibson that at the sader dinner, the youngest child asks the father "why is this night different from any other/" the father answers that it is the night of the passover, in the movie Mary asks "why is this night different from any other." because Christ completes his task (same as sadre)


Date sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:53:29 -0700 (PDT)

Roger: >> I don't ask evolution to be efficient, I ask an Intelligent Designer to be efficient. Inefficiency is a fingerprint of evolution, while efficiency is the fingerprint of an Intelligent Designer.

Toby: > who says efficiency is the fingerprint of design? why is that the highest value?

Efficiency is not the highest value, but it is on the value chart somewhere.

where, says who?

>> Here's another way to think of this: Life on Earth is a librarian. Evolution is constantly proposing designs for organisms. The librarian (Life on Earth) stores those designs that work well. Those that don't work are tossed into oblivion.

> no, many failed species are in the fossil records. many bad idea are still in libraries

When using this analogy, the fossil record is not the library, existing life is. The fossil record is a library of the library.

puh-lease what is the library of the library and who is the librarian and the bibliographer of the librarian's mother? Lets leave this alone it is truly nonsensical, bad anology. Fact : many species fail, the records are not cast aside.


Date sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:56:03 -0700 (PDT)

Toby: > (Note: time dumped fossils in 1995 in the cover story.)

> try macroiological reviews 51 (1987), Science 283 pp 2207, Journal of Molecular evolution, 49 (1999) -- let me know if you need more.

I put this citation into Google, and got sent to The Scientist web site, were it's listed as one of the hot articles of 1987. But I can't get the article itself. You don't happen to have access to the article in some form? Also, I'm intrigued with your reference to Time. You don't happen to have that available?

The The Scientist web site said this about the articles on the hot article page, "The articles listed below — all less than a year old — have received a substantially greater number of citations than those in the same subject area and of the same vintage. A citation-tracking algorithm of the Institute for Scientific Information has identified these articles." I worry that you're picking a couple exceptions out of a sea of stuff that doesn't support your belief. This is a common pseudoscience tactic.

the psudo science is that sciencific truth is based upon votes not science most number of hits = better science?

Have you had a chance to look at the Science News?


The parts Roger has written are in italics. The parts Toby has written are in normal text.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36