RE: [escepticos] Fin del Diccionario Esc?ptico

["Lobo Carton, Carlos" <carlos.lobo@...>]

Es que con esto de la globalización, internet y demás gaitas, va a haber que aprenderse las fiestas de todo el mundo (principalmente, de los EEUU, que son los que más mandan...huevos)
 
Nada, nada, el 28 de diciembre nos vengamos jejeje
 
Saludos

	-----Mensaje original----- 
	De: LAGAMEZ [mailto:LAGAMEZ en terra.es] 
	Enviado el: Vie 02/04/2004 13:42 
	Para: escepticos en dis.ulpgc.es 
	CC: 
	Asunto: Re: [escepticos] Fin del Diccionario Esc?ptico 
	
	

	Qué estragos hace entre los escépticos el 1 de abril, día
	anglosajón de los inocentes. Señores, que hay que fijarse un
	poco más :-)))). Parecen  periodistas.
	
	Saludetes,
	
	Luis alfonso Gámez
	
	----- Mensaje Original -----
	De: Maria Coria <maria_clara_coria24 en yahoo.com.ar>
	Fecha: Viernes, Abril 2, 2004 6:23 am
	Asunto: [escepticos] Fin del Diccionario Esc?ptico
	
	>
	> R.T Carroll (http://skepdic.com/) dio por concluido el Diccionario
	> Escéptico y posteó un mensaje sorprendente. ¡¡¡Sería
	interesante
	> que alguien lo tradujera al español!!!
	>
	>
	>
	> Today I announce the end of The Skeptic's Dictionary.
	>
	> I did not think I could ever give up my skepticism but I have
	> recently
	> had an experience that has changed my mind about everything I
	have
	> come
	> to disbelieve.
	>
	> My transformation started out innocently enough. I was reading
	an
	> interview with William Dembski in Christianity Today. Yes, I have
	> been a
	> covert reader for some time now. Anyway, something Dembski
	said
	> resonated with me like nothing has resonated with me for a long
	> time. He
	> said "We don't know what randomness is, or the way we get at
	> randomness
	> is by knowing what randomness is not. What would happen
	repeatedly
	> was
	> you'd find something with a pure random but then you'd find the
	> pattern
	> in it. Randomness was always a provisional designation until
	we
	> found
	> the pattern or design in it. " Eureka!
	>
	> That was the beginning. The kicker was when I was doing some
	yard
	> work.
	> I came in afterward and noticed th at there were several weeds
	> stuck to
	> my socks and shoes. It was like a hammer to the head. I started
	to
	> see
	> the patterns. There was clearly a design here. The weeds
	excreted a
	> sticky substance that allowed them to cling to my clothes. When I
	> moved
	> around I carried their seeds with me and had unwittingly
	deposited
	> them
	> throughout my yard. Soon, my yard would be crawling with
	weeds and
	> I
	> would have been partially to blame. But I wasn't concerned about
	> the
	> yard. I had a bigger problem. I had seen that randomness could
	not
	> account for the weeds' behavior. Yes, behavior. What else could
	it
	> be?
	> The weeds clearly know what they are doing. They didn't just
	> accidentally cling to me. There is no way this was just matter
	> randomly
	> and meaninglessly behaving in a way that looked like design.
	This
	> was
	> truly design at work.
	>
	> I was forced to rethink everything I disbelieve in. If weeds can
	> act
	> with intentions, then how could I deny that the fluctuations in
	> random
	> event generators (REGs) could be random? I couldn't. I had to
	admit
	> that
	> perhaps there is something to those experiments that show that 
	> REGs
	> went orderly during Princess Diana's funeral but not during
	Mother
	> Teresa's. The temporary lack of randomness might well indicate
	a
	> global
	> consciousness and a preference for certain kinds of women.
	>
	> Other patterns started to emerge from the randomness.
	Wherever
	> there is
	> order there is design. Dembski is right. I don't know why he took
	> so
	> many books and pages to say such a simple truth. But I am glad
	he did.
	>
	> Farewell skeptics. I'll see you in Hell.
	>
	> R. T. Carroll
	> April 1, 2004
	>
	>
	>
	>
	> ---------------------------------
	> ¿Buscás un auto?
	> Encontralo en Yahoo! Autos
	> ¡Más de 4000 clasificados todos los días!
	> Usados - 0 km - Vendé el tuyo

<<winmail.dat>>