bushchoked at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 24 21:34:07 CDT 2004
> ethics by airing this on-list
I said LEAVE ME ALONE, and you're now harrassing me
privately. Suffer the consequences.
> Well, let's tell the truth, shall we?
I always do.
> You were the one who made the bitterly
sarcastic and condescending response to Jo's Reagan
Actually, I was sadly reflecting on what the legacy of
his actions. You don't get to define what I say or
mean to suit you. I've found that 90% you don't get
what I'm talking about anyway. So piss off, you
> maybe I should air what you wrote
about a certain lister?
Now you're just lying. And that's sad.
> Your original statement was, "some scientist
calculated the odds of
amino acids forming randomly and they were something
like a one
followed by a hundred thousand zeroes", and yes, I
took that to mean
the calculations only concerned the amino acid
I think if you did, you were nitpicking. I never
intended to present a disertation, just mention an
interesting fact I'd run across.
> Maybe I'm the dumbest reader on the list but it's
not obvious to me
that 1 followed by 100,000 zeros couldn't possibly
refer to the chances
of amino acids forming randomly
See, the difference here is the word "randomly." If
conditions exist, then that would NOT be "randomly."
And yes, I think that's quite obvious.
> you and your scientist friend are
Really, you're going WAY overboard here. It was an
article I read in Omni in the 80's. I merely passed
that informantion on to the list when we were talking
about spirituality. I'm not a guy with "The Church Of
The Sacred Googleplex" or something.
> you don't insist on
using that term, then better would be "conditions for
appearance" of the amino acids...the conditions under
which they could be come to
I don't insist on anything.
> The problem there is that it's so all-encompassing
as to be meaningless
In your opinion. I was talking about a mathematician
who calculated the odds of amino acids coming together
by themselves. It's only as all-encompassing as it
needs to be for amino acids to come together.
> I'm not yet convinced that your "science" or
"scientist" deserve the name.
I leave that for you to work out. I don't really have
time to research it for you. And in the end, as I
said, you're free to believe whatever you like. I'm
completely comfortable with what I believe.
> Proper science is based on rationality, and I think
some irrational assumptions in what you've presented.
No, not really...it's just mathematics, which is
without assumptions. Besides, *I* didn't present them,
just passed along information..but whatever gets you
through the night.
> On the other
hand, I do think that spirituality can exist alongside
a completely rational science.
I guess that means there's hope for you yet.
"You fucking son of a bitch. I saw what you wrote.
We're not going to forget this."
George "reading the Who list?" Bush
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
More information about the TheWho