[MD] Intellectual and Social

[X Acto]

what makes something worthy of belief?



----- Original Message ----
From: "plattholden at gmail.com" <plattholden at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 4:28:53 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Intellectual and Social

On 11 Jan 2010 at 8:11, X Acto wrote:

> credibility is for academics Platt..
> are you an academic since you demand some sort of
> "credibility"?


Me? An academic? No. I'm a conservative. People of my persuasion are 
not allowed within the hallowed halls of academia.

"Credibility" is a value meaning worthy of belief. It can apply to any 
statement, like "Credibility is for academics." 

Platt  



> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "plattholden at gmail.com" <plattholden at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 10:52:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Intellectual and Social
> 
> Pirsig responds to Krimel's "Sunlight Creation" thesis:"
> 
> "If we leave a chemistry professor out on a rock in the sun long enough 
> the forces of nature will convert him into simple compounds of carbon, 
> oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, and small 
> amounts of other minerals. It's a one-way reaction. No matter what kind 
> of chemistry professor we use and no matter what process we use we 
> can't turn these compounds back into a chemistry professor. Chemistry 
> professors are unstable mixtures of predominantly unstable compounds 
> which, in the exclusive presence of the sun's heat, decay irreversibly 
> into simpler organic and inorganic compounds. That's a scientific fact.
> The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on 
> earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't the 
> sun's energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be 
> something else. What is it?" (Lila, 11)
> 
> Science's best answer: "It's emergence." In other words, "Oops." 
> 
> Hardly an answer that inspires credibility.
> 
> Platt
> 
> 
> On 11 Jan 2010 at 8:36, Krimel wrote:
> 
> > [Ham]
> > Since you raise the credibility issue, I did a Google search on Duane Gish. 
> > Turns out he held key positions at Berkeley, Cornell University Medical 
> > College, and The Upjohn Company before joining the Institute for Creation 
> > Research in 1971 where he currently serves as Associate Director and Vice 
> > President.  Your personal bias against "Creationism" in no way impugns the 
> > scientific credibility of a Ph.D. biochemist with a distinguished working 
> > career.  Moreover, inasmuch as genetic mutation is mostly spontaneous, no 
> > scientifically informed person would call the propensity for creating an 
> > ordered. intelligently designed universe a "stupid" or "ridiculous idea."
> > 
> > [Krimel]
> > I can read wiki too and only wishful thinking produces a distinguished
> > scientific career for this guy. He has distinguished himself chiefly by
> > making a fool of himself in creationism debates. 
> > 
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers.html
> > 
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html 
> > 
> > [Ham]
> > Bill patiently explained to this lowly biology undergraduate that, left to 
> > themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials
> > 
> > rather than becoming more complex.  Apparently "work" (a function of energy)
> > 
> > is required to move a random or chaotic system toward an ordered design. 
> > While this can increase order for a time, such reversal cannot last forever.
> > 
> > Processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder, their energy
> > 
> > transformed into lower levels of availability for further work.  Thus, the 
> > natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become 
> > simpler and more disorderly.
> > 
> > [Krimel]
> > If only you could understand what is actually being said to you. Bill told
> > you, "Apparently "work" (a function of energy) is required to move a random
> > or chaotic system toward an ordered design." 
> > 
> > Ham, what the fuck do you think sunlight is? 
> > 
> > Then he told you, "While this can increase order for a time, such reversal
> > cannot last forever." "For a time" in this instance has been about 4 billion
> > years. It is expected to stay this way for about another 4 billion years. A
> > lot happened in the first 4 billion years. It was enough time for chemicals
> > to become chemistry professors. I suppose it is possible for a lot to happen
> > in the next 4 billion years, for example you might have time to get a clue.
> > 
> > [Ham]
> > Yet billions of things are assumed to have developed "upward", becoming more
> > 
> > orderly and complex over eons of time.  Until scientists discover the source
> > 
> > of this "working force" underlying natural evolution, it remains 
> > inexplicable by this basic law of science. 
> > 
> > [Krimel]
> > News flash, Ham, scientists had discovered sunlight by the late Pleistocene
> > era. As I said previously this "working force" only remains inexplicable to
> > the ignorant and the stupid.
> >  

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/