Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion,net.origins Subject: The Suspicious Omitted `Seed' interaction Message-ID: <460@spar.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-Aug-85 02:11:30 EDT Article-I.D.: spar.460 Posted: Sat Aug 10 02:11:30 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 22:25:52 EDT References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <368@spar.UUCP> <1148@pyuxd.UUCP> <405@spar.UUCP> <1248@pyuxd.UUCP> <436@spar.UUCP> Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 57 Keywords: seed, bang, universe Xref: linus net.philosophy:1980 net.religion:6951 net.origins:2087 Since Rich Rosen has requested clarifaction concerning specific lines which I removed from an earlier article, I humbly resubmit the passage in question with the omitted lines reinserted. The lines under suspicion were INTENTIONALLY deleted because they seemed to be unnecessary to the flow of the ongoing interaction. Flame as appropriate. This all began, appropriately enough, in the fertile terrain of net.origins, as my response to Mr. Dan Boskovich's intelligent though quixotic inquiry: Why should a person believe in {Evolution = [that the universe might evolve from essentially nothing]} ? ******[START]****** >Watch this, this is interesting. [Rich] > >|>>>> [Rich Rosen] >> >>>> [me] ******[START OF SUSPICIOUS INTERACTION] >| >|>>>> Please note that, if evolution is true [I believe it has much essential >|>>>> truth], then the present complexity was there from the beginning, only >|>>>> it was dormant -- exactly like a seed.... ******[START OF LINES WHICH I REMOVED]****** RLR>That's not strictly true either, unless you once again define some RLR>"planning force" that designed the complexity. [ROSEN] ME> I refer you to the much debated `Design Implies Designer' argument. Both ME> sides have been adequately presented, and I have nothing new to add on ME> this point. ME> Incidentally, it is peculiar to hear the watchmaker argument coming from ME> you, Rich. ******[END OF LINES WHICH I REMOVED]****** >| >|>You miss the point. I was saying that the position above only has meaning >|>if you assume a creator who "designed" the complexity. >| >| Then you are saying that the existence of a seed-like proto-universe >| would imply a Creator? ******[END OF SUSPICIOUS INTERACTION]> >Wait a minute. Take a '>>>>' quote from you, then take a '>' quote from me >that wasn't in response to the '>>>>' quote, and then twist again, like we >did last summer? What the hell is going on? ******[END] ******[ME (Not Rich Rosen) AGAIN] This was an intended AND innocent omission whose purpose was to refresh the reader's memory with regard my earlier remark in question, while cutting down on what I perceived to be unnecessary. It is my usual practice to substantially remove cruft, leaving with some visible sign of an omission. Please notice that I did not fiddle with the number of `>'s so that the omission was plainly evident to the reader. I am sorry if I aroused suspicion. Forgive me. SMASH INTOLERANCE!!!!!!! -michael