Just a small additional note to get this a little bit less OT: Remember that Einsteins work on the photoelectric effect (which got him the Nobel Prize in physics a hundred years ago) gave a sound enough prediction of what was possible to make that we are able to make pictures using matrixes of photo sensors today .-)
DagT Den 27. okt. 2006 kl. 16.28 skrev DagT: > So, as a contrast: What does religion say before the fact? Any > predictions that we can check? > > DagT > > > Den 27. okt. 2006 kl. 16.09 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >> Of course one should never be too impressed by the sciences ability >> to explain natural phenomena. Because science is by definition >> "after the fact." The rules of science and math are based on >> observation of the very things they attempt to describe. It follows >> that the pieces would fit together very nicely. >> Paul >> -------------- Original message ---------------------- >> From: DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Of course, that's why I'm an agnostic, not an atheist or believer >>> in any God. I >>> can't know, so I just consider the possibilities, and being >>> outside the system >>> the design theory seems to have much less success in predicting >>> results of >>> natural processes than the scientific theory. So, if you are >>> talking about >>> nature I simply use the most sucessful model. That does not mean >>> that the model >>> is perfect, it just gives the best results. >>> >>> By the way I didn't say anything about the existance of a designer >>> in the post >>> below, I just said that the argument is wrong because from my >>> point of view >>> natures ability to make these thing is no surprise. >>> >>> DagT >>> >>>> Fra: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> >>>> There is a wide gulf between the assumption that something MUST >>>> have >>>> had a designer and the much more plausible assumption that >>>> something >>>> MIGHT have had a designer. Those who believe our knowledge of >>>> nature >>>> and the universe is complete are themselves lacking in real >>>> knowledge >>>> and understanding. >>>> On Oct 26, 2006, at 5:20 PM, DagT wrote: >>>> >>>>> The only reason why some think things like this has to have a >>>>> designer is because they cant believe that such structures can >>>>> have >>>>> natural causes, which in my view just tells me that they don�t >>>>> know >>>>> much about nature. >>>>> >>>>> DagT >>>>> >>>>> Den 26. okt. 2006 kl. 21.41 skrev Tom C: >>>>> >>>>>> No - I see it has attributes that indicate it has a maker or >>>>>> designer. A >>>>>> roughly symmetrical chipped piece of flint lying on the ground is >>>>>> believed >>>>>> to be an arrowhead. We don't see the aboriginal that crafted the >>>>>> arrowhead >>>>>> yet we believe the event occurred. We don't see the designer >>>>>> of our >>>>>> physical universe, far more complex, and since we can't see >>>>>> one, we >>>>>> believe >>>>>> one does not exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> That doesn't manifest ignorance? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tom C. >>>>>> >>>>>>> That is astonishing. I'm an atheist but it's difficult to >>>>>>> look at >>>>>> that >>>>>>> photo and not perceive a creator. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, the Argument from Personal Ignorance - "I don't know how that >>>>>> came >>>>>> to be, therefore God made it". >>>>>> >>>>>> Bob >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>> >>>>> DagT >>>>> http://dag.foto.no >>>>> >>>>> Beware of internet links. You never know what is on the other >>>>> side. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > DagT > http://dag.foto.no > > Beware of internet links. You never know what is on the other side. > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net DagT http://dag.foto.no Beware of internet links. You never know what is on the other side. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
