Hi Alberto and group,
At this point of the discussion we need a theologian to put us on the
right tracks....
Sorry, the theologian was enjoying his breakfast in a remoter part of the
Netherlands and missed this part of the discussion ...
He was however rather dismayed by the suggestion that the chicken is first
mentioned in story of Noah's, - well I can't see it there - not specifically
anyway. The creation of "flying fowl of various types" are mentioned early
on in Genesis, day 5, Gen 1:20 (but no eggs) - and whether you regard
chicken as capable of flight is a debatable matter. The actual age and
authership of the various parts of the Old Testement is rather uncertain,
and it certainly isn't in chronological order.
I always amazes me that in a world left to it's own devices, where all
elements seem to turn to lead, and all forms of energy decays to low grade
heat, that such a wonderful diversity of life should have evolved - surely
there must be a benevolant hand at work ... and aren't radio waves a
wonderful creation ! (But then surely entropy must be a created thing too ?)
I was amused by Alberto's earlier reference to eggs and beacon(!) - and
suspect this is a subtle attempt to bring the thread back on topic. I have
greatly enjoyed this discussion on the reflector, but it's not really the
right place for it.
73
Hugh M0WYE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alberto di Bene" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: LF: QRSS origin
[email protected] wrote:
[...] then I will name that egg "Paradise"!
Ah Pat, but the Paradise is something that cannot be enclosed nor
descripted by a phase space,
nor ordinary "probability density" functions can be applied to it... you
are putting the egg outside
the boundaries of the realm of today's physics. At this point of the
discussion we need a theologian
to put us on the right tracks....
Uwe, you say :
> you all discuss in a manner not allowed according to Aristoteles logic.
> please make a step further. blow up the circulus vitiosus, forget the
> collapses and be Faustical
Well, I reread my message, but I have found nothing that violates either
the "modus ponens" or
the "modus tollens" of the Sillogismus Aristotelicus....
And then you introduce the cock as an additional actor on the scene... you
seem to be a philosopher,
so may I kindly remind you that "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter
necessitatem" ? :-)
73 Alberto I2PHD
| 