Creationism...again (was Christianity Thread)

KCF

Turley wrote:

Excuse me. I did not say if something happens on some occassion the same thing will always happen. I am saying, if abiogenesis is NEVER observed, it is unlikely.

So, based on the few decades of research since the discovery of DNA and with a search area that is confined to a vanishingly tiny percentage of the universe, you are confident in saying that it is unlikely in the entire scope of the universe? A bit like declaring that rain is unlikely if a droplet hasn't hit your nose in the last nano-second.

Turley wrote:

An abiogenist is defined as a person who believes in abiogenesis.

An abiogenist is defined as a made up word. A rational thinker is somebody who accepts that, based on the current evidence, abiogenesis is by far the best theory for the inital emergence of replicating molecules in this universe that we have. In fact it is the only explanatory theory that I am aware of.

Turley

KCF wrote:

A bit like declaring that rain is unlikely if a droplet hasn't hit your nose in the last nano-second.

It is sunny now. I don't think it will rain today. It may rain later in the week but I do not foresee any abiogenesis.

KCF wrote:

An abiogenist is defined as a made up word.

Not true. The dictionary defines "abiogenist" as "n. a person who believes in abiogenesis."

"Double talk" and "gibberish" are terms defined as a made up words. Pink goats, the crocodile god, and people throwing coins into outer space are made up. Some news stories by H.L. Mencken were made up. Some official history is made up.

robindch

Hi Turley -

> I did not say if something happens on some occassion the
> same thing will always happen.

I would gracefully beg to differ. Your original text was:

> If a coin is tossed into the air it ALWAYS comes back
> down. It NEVER stays up in the air.

Anyhow, this is beside the point -- the actual point I was trying to make is that although an event might always have happened in the past, this is no indication that it's *always* going to happen in the future. In addition to suggestions I gave, there might be some as-yet-unnoticed physical law which will come into play at some stage in the future and cause the coin to remain suspended, mid-air.

At the risk of wandering completely off-topic, a story that Richard Feynman once told, might be appropriate here, in which he likened the scientist to a man who knows nothing about chess, but is allowed once every day to observe for one minute a small part of a chessboard while a game is in progress. It may take him many weeks to realize that bishops move only along diagonals and rooks move only along orthorgonals. Months later he may think he knows how all the pieces move and capture, but then come surprises. He sees a pawn captured en passant, or a king and rook castle. Then he sees that a player has two queens on the board, and it could take the scientist years to see that a pawn on the eighth row can become a queen, rook, bishop, or knight, or to determine the exact nature of checkmates and stalemates.

> I am saying, if abiogenesis is NEVER observed, it is unlikely.

I would amend this to read, "if abiogenesis is not observed under certain conditions, then it is unlikely to be observed in the future under the same conditions." We could, after all, be simply looking for it in the wrong place, or in the wrong way, or with the wrong tools, or simply for too short a time to observe all the applicable rules, which is the ultimate point of the Feynman story.

> An abiogenist is defined as a person who believes in abiogenesis.

My issue, as I said, is not with abiogenesis or any of its related definitions, but with the word 'believe', which I don't think has any place when discussing scientific matters. One might "believe" that a theory is an accurate description of some physical process, but one doesn't "believe" in the mechanism itself -- the concept has no meaning. I'm sorry to be pedantic about this point, but it is crucial to a correct and useful understanding of science and the scientific method.

JC -

> I don’t think it is either helpful [...] to stereotype the other
> side as less intelligent or less scientifically qualified than the other

I am not stereotyping, I am describing the facts of the matter, derived from two observations which I, and various biologist aquaintances of mine, have made -- firstly, we have yet to meet any trained biologist who subscribes to creationism; and secondly, all of the creationists we know (and we do know some), are scientifically and technically illiterate, usually hilariously so. This mirrors the statistic which I mentioned yesterday, in which, within the USA, there are estimated to be about 700 out of 480,000 'life science' professionals subscribing to creationism, with a much smaller percentage again outside of the USA. The notion that there is some equality between the two viewpoints, amongst trained professionals, is simply untrue.

> Sir Fred Hoyle’s 10 to the power of 40,000

As with your calculation, Hoyle's infamous one is based upon fallacious assumptions, rendering the 40,000, and consequently, your comments upon it, meaningless.

> Robin validly points out that the calculations are
> correct for “complex life now” [...]

I did no such thing and I would like you to retract this complete misrepresentation of my views.

> [...] but also points out that life may originally have
> been much simpler.

Neither did I say this, although, if you check, you'll find that KCF said something similar at the end his posting of 2005-04-21 00:06.

- robin.

KCF

Turley wrote:

It is sunny now. I don't think it will rain today. It may rain later in the week but I do not foresee any abiogenesis.

You're not very good with the abstract thought thing I see. I'll try to avoid it so. What percentage of the space-time of this universe have you checked for abiogenesis? What percentage of space-time would you say has been checked by anybody? Do you think that this is what statisticians would consider a significant sample size for declaring that something can definitely never happen.

Turley wrote:

Not true. The dictionary defines "abiogenist" as "n. a person who believes in abiogenesis." ... people throwing coins into outer space are made up. Some news stories by H.L. Mencken were made up. Some official history is made up.

As Robin points out, nobody 'believes' in abiogenesis. Also, when we are dealing with cosmological time scales, the probability of the coin not returning to your hand at some stage is 1.0.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

I am saying, if abiogenesis is NEVER observed, it is unlikely.

This is the great leap of faith that creationist take that is actually totally against any scientific reasoning or logic. And I have no problem with that, religion is totally faith based, but to attack evolution with it is rather silly imho.

There is no evidence for intelligent design. People who believe in ID are coming from a religious starting point anyway. God created life, so the idea of ID is not that foreign an idea. Then when presented with a very complex system that we don't fully understand, to a creationist the obvious answer is that God, or some inteligence did it. But that is a fundamental assumption, that actually has no basis other than religion, which is not science. It is evidence through pre-concieved assumption. Even if the odds of life happening are so huge as to be nearly impossible (which they aren't) that is still not "evidence" for intelligent design. Intelligent Design is an assumption we make to explain things we don't understand, which is something we have been doing for thousands of years, and is the basis for most religions. But there is still no evidence for ID at all.

If you ignore the idea of intelligent design, because there is not scientific reason to believe in ID, then you come to the logical conclusion that abiogenesis must have happened some how because we are here aren't we. And it must have happened due to a natural process, because there is not other logical explaination.

It is only at this point that one can then start to explore the possibilities of how that might have happened.

To answer the idea that a self-replicating molecule is impossible, or never has be observed, a quick search in Google shows this isn't true. Research into this has been going on since the late 80s.

http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html

Led by Professor Julius Rebek, Jr. of the Department of Chemistry, they have created an extraordinary self- replicating molecular system that they say might be regarded as a "primitive sign of life."
...
Amazingly, the laboratory-made molecule that Professor Rebek and his colleagues have created can reproduce itself without the "outside" assistance of enzymes.

Now, yes I am aware that humans created this, it was not discovered growing naturally. But as far as I know it wasn't created in anyway that couldn't be replicated naturally. It very least shows that the "chicken and the egg" response to creationists no longer holds. It is possible for self-replicating molecules to exisit independently of support systems. It is not a great jump to say they could have occurred naturally.

Turley

Science has shown that a monkey can push a key on a typewriter. Therefore, if we put enough monkeys in a room, with enough typewriters, and give them enough time they will type all of the classics.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Science has shown that a monkey can push a key on a typewriter. Therefore, if we put enough monkeys in a room, with enough typewriters, and give them enough time they will type all of the classics.

And .... ?

Are you deliberatly trying to miss the point or do you just not understand what people are talking about?

The way molecules form is not random. Getting the exact conditions on Earth so that life can begin is random (not totally random, more like chaos theory random), but once you have the conditions molecules will behave in predictable fashion, following a set of basis chemical rules.

It would be like teaching the monkeys English before you give them a type writer. The odds of them creating Shakespear are still very high, but a lot less than if they were just randomly pressing buttons.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Science has shown that a monkey can push a key on a typewriter. Therefore, if we put enough monkeys in a room, with enough typewriters, and give them enough time they will type all of the classics.

BTW religion (the bible) teaches that the number Pi is exactly 3, which it isn't, the Sun goes round the Earth, which it doesn't, and that if a man rapes a woman he should pay the womans father a compensation and then marry her, which I think we all agree isn't a good idea

Ridiculing science while coming from a religious stand point is rather silly. If we wanted to we could have a field day ridiculing the mistakes, contradictions and outright obsurdeties in the Bible

:rolleyes:

robindch

> Science has shown that a monkey can
> push a key on a typewriter.

I'm not aware of anybody who's carried out research in this area, though I've little doubt that a trained monkey could conceivably learn to press keys, rather than, for exampe, chuck the typewriter at his neighbour, or leave it and wander off in search of a banana, or a tea cup.

> Therefore, if we put enough monkeys in a room, with
> enough typewriters, and give them enough time they
> will type all of the classics.

Looking at this in two ways -- firstly, and faintly dully, according to the Law of Large Numbers, you're quite correct in stating this.

Secondly, and perhaps more interestingly, if we accept the following three reasonable assumptions:

1. That humans are highly evolved monkeys (as almost all biologists do)
2. That the notion of a 'room' can be extended to the world,
3. That the 'typewriter' can be extended to include a computer keyboard

...then we could propose the existence of a collection of all the classics -- and thanks to the excellent Project Gutenberg, we find that such a resource does indeed exist.

QED

- robin.

KCF

robindch wrote:

1. That humans are highly evolved monkeys (as almost all biologists do)
2. That the notion of a 'room' can be extended to the world,
3. That the 'typewriter' can be extended to include a computer keyboard

...then we could propose the existence of a collection of all the classics -- and thanks to the excellent Project Gutenberg, we find that such a resource does indeed exist.

QED

- robin.

And the experiment didn't even need that much time to succeed. Depending on what type of monkey we want to start with, we observed this phenomenon in only 6-40 million years. In your face, law of large numbers!

KCF

Wicknight wrote:

Now, yes I am aware that humans created this, it was not discovered growing naturally. But as far as I know it wasn't created in anyway that couldn't be replicated naturally. It very least shows that the "chicken and the egg" response to creationists no longer holds. It is possible for self-replicating molecules to exisit independently of support systems. It is not a great jump to say they could have occurred naturally.

I think that the distinction between 'self-replicators' and one's that do it with the assistance of other chemicals (like DNA and Virii) is not very significant. I argue this point thusly:

Replication, by it's nature, depends upon the presence of other chemicals in the environment. The 'copy' of the replicating molecule consists of matter that can not be created out of nothing and must be assembled from raw materials which exist in the molecule's environment.

At the very simplest level, we could imagine a primitive 'self-replicating' molecule which 'attracts' chunks of simpler molecules to itself and eventually builds up a copy of itself before splitting in two (sort of like a single strand of DNA's double helix which accumulates a copy of itself as a second strand and divides when it is complete).

However, we have no evidence that this simple 'self-replication' was what actually happened. It could well have been that the first replicators depended on the proximity of other chemicals to catalyse the process and that this type of pure 'self-replicator' never existed. In any case, I don't think it is an important distinction. If the molecule depended on its environment purely for raw materials or if it also depended on it for other indirect chemical 'helpers' in the process, then it is still a self-replicator in my eyes and it is still dependant on other chemicals in its environment. I also think that the distinction between molecules that replicate within an engineered environment and the hypothetical ones that did so in the chaotic environment of a primordial soup is not particularly significant. We can be pretty confident that the emergence and survival of replicating molecules in a chaotic enviroment requires some fairly unusual environmental conditions and thus we should be able to conclude that there would be an extremely strong selection pressure towards those molecules that were able to effectively engineer their environment to provide conditions where reproduction was less dependant on chaos.

I think a more important distinction than the self/assisted replication one, especially for the purpose of discussions with the followers of the palestinian man-god is between replicators which are just the playing out of the fundamental laws of the universe and those that require 'intelligent' intervention.

Turley

robindch wrote:

Secondly, and perhaps more interestingly, if we accept the following three reasonable assumptions:

1. That humans are highly evolved monkeys (as almost all biologists do)

"It is even harder for the average ape
to believe that he has decended from man." -- HL Mencken

KCF

Turley wrote:

"It is even harder for the average ape
to believe that he has decended from man." -- HL Mencken

And I suspect that it's harder again for you.

J C

Quote
Do you really expect people to keep on responding to you when you utterly ignore their informative and well-informed responses and merely repeat your incorrect assertions repeatedly. Have you ever considered that dialogue should be a two way process and that prosletysing on the internet in such a manner is rude and destructive?

All I will say to that is -

Touché.


Quote
There are mountains of peer reviewed scientific articles on one side, there is a single, pilloried article on the other. You are dishonestly misrepresenting the facts.

The FACTS are that there are thousands of well qualified creation scientists, many with multiple doctorates from mainstream universities. There are also many other good scientists out there who are afraid to reveal that they no longer believe in Evolution because of the “pilloring” (to use your own words) that they could be subjected to for doing so.

The FACTS are that there IS very high quality scientific research being carried out into creation on “shoe string” budgets and there are hundreds of PEER REVIEWED scientific PAPERS reporting on the OBSERVED findings every year.

The FACTS are that most evolutionary scientists refuse to review creation science literature – but any appropriately qualified scientist in good standing is as good as the next, when it comes to peer reviewing reports of REPEATABLE OBSERVATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS. So creation science papers are in as good a scientific standing as their evolutionary equivalents – only there are more of them and I have observed that they are in general of a higher quality.

I haven’t seen “mountains” of evolutionary literature. In FACT, I haven’t seen ANY scientific literature on OBSERVATIONS in relation to “self-replicators”, proto-cells, DNA pre-cursors, mechanisms that increase genetic information over time or any of the other basic phenomena that should be out there and OBSERVABLE if evolution is true. I have seen plenty of “old guff” and SPECULATIONS but NO repeatable OBSERVATIONS that support the critical claims of evolution.
As my previous post has shown, Evolution is a fairly “OBSERVATIONALLY CHALLENGED” and highly SPECULATIVE “beast” actually teetering on the verge of scientific extinction – but being kept alive by isolating it from critical questioning and ‘fobbing off’ anyone who enquires into it with pseudo-scientific arguments that simply don’t “stand-up” to rational objective examination.

Bye the way “pilloring” is hardly an appropriate activity for 21st century science to be engaging in. By all means, point out factual or logical errors – but the a priori rejection of Creation Scientists and their work is an unnecessary and inappropriate restriction on academic freedom to pursue knowledge wherever that knowledge may be found.

Quote
We have natural selection, chaos and time. That's all we need. Nothing about this explanation expects people to 'believe' anything that is not commonly accepted and well-observed.

EVERYTHING about this statement REQUIRES people to BELIEVE in it – as there has NEVER been a chaotic system OBSERVED that wasn’t either useless or downright dangerous and destructive. If somebody admitted that all of the systems and machinery in their factory were chaotic – they could forget about selling any more products to their customers and I think that “Health and Safety“ might also take an active interest in the premises and the danger to “life and limb” that it would represent.

Chaos is actually only a blind force of nature – all “raw energy” is chaotic and therefore either useless or randomly destructive – until order is imposed on it through the application of intelligence. For example, the chaotic flow of water in a river is either completely useless or downright dangerous, if you get in it’s way. However if order is IMPOSED on the river flow through the application of intelligent design and engineering, the chaotic raw energy can be safely harnessed to do useful work. Similarly living organisms use very complex systems that impose order on otherwise chaotic processes – such as chlorophyll capturing the chaotic energy of the Sun and converting it into sugars.

I too have seen the computer programmes that purported to “prove” that chaos produces design and I have observed the amazing multicoloured random designs they produced. I have a ‘machine’ that can do the same “trick” and it cost me only one Euro – it is called a Kaleidoscope. All Kaleidoscopes, whether virtual or real, are examples of intelligently designed ‘machines’ imposing order on chaotically behaving crystals / microchips by using deliberately engineered systems of prisms / computer programs.
The oft quoted example from Chaos Theory of a butterfly triggering a chaotic chain of events that could ultimately lead to a hurricane on the far side of the world is highly speculative - but even if it sometimes occurs, a hurricane is at best totally useless or at worst a dangerous and destructive "raw energy" force of nature. This type of mechanism shows NO POTENTIAL to construct the sophisticated purposeful integrated complex systems observed in living organisms. Then again the concept of the limits of POTENTIAL for any observed system may be difficult for somebody who believes that a monkey could ultimately produce the works of William Shakespeare. It is a similar fallacy to a theory that sticking a feather in the ground could grow a Hen - it just doesn't have the POTENTIAL to do so - even in a quadrillion years, all it CAN do is "return to the Earth from which it was made".
Unfortunately, you need much more than “the three blind mice” of natural selection, chaos and time to produce anything approaching the complexity of life.
Chaos Theory has actually become the “thinking Evolutionist’s” substitute for mutation – it sounds more sophisticated – but it is basically the same thing – a blind random force that is either useless or damaging unless CONTROLLED by a deliberately engineered system.


And now I wish to issue a challenge to the great FAITH of Evolutionists in CHAOS and MUTATION as the MEANS of evolving improved life forms:–

1. Stand in front of a CHAOTIC raging bull and see how he “improves” your phenotype.
2. Take a tan under an X-Ray machine for a week – and see how it’s MUTAGENIC effects “improves” your genome.

Any takers?

I have the bull and the X-Ray machine standing by – and I can arrange plenty of exposure time for you!!!!

KCF

J C wrote:

1. Stand in front of a CHAOTIC raging bull and see how he “improves” your phenotype.
2. Take a tan under an X-Ray machine for a week – and see how it’s MUTAGENIC effects “improves” your genome.

Any takers?

I have the bull and the X-Ray machine standing by – and I can arrange plenty of exposure time for you!!!!

End of the conversation for me. I have no problem with you believing ridiculous things, but there are no excuses for being deliberately and persistantly dishonest. You know perfectly well that these two claims are particularly flimsy and dishonest strawmen charicatures of evolutionary theory. It almost amazes me how the members of the cult of this tri-partite palestinian phantom man-god can reconcile such poor ethics with their avowed intent to follow the example of jesus. However, then I remember Philip Pullman's observation that "good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but it takes religion to make a good person do bad things" and it all makes sense again.

I'll tell you what, if you get onto the big man upstairs and have him create me an xray machine and a bull right here in my house, I'll get back to you. In the meantime, please go away.

Danno

Wicknight wrote:

BTW religion (the bible) teaches that the number Pi is exactly 3,

Ahem, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/pi.asp

Zombrex

J C wrote:

And now I wish to issue a challenge to the great FAITH of Evolutionists in CHAOS and MUTATION as the MEANS of evolving improved life forms:–

1. Stand in front of a CHAOTIC raging bull and see how he “improves” your phenotype.
2. Take a tan under an X-Ray machine for a week – and see how it’s MUTAGENIC effects “improves” your genome.

Any takers?

I have the bull and the X-Ray machine standing by – and I can arrange plenty of exposure time for you!!!!

How can you claim to be a "professional scientist" when you make such idiotic claims like this.

Read this please, before you come out with even more non-scientific rubbish.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

Danno

Wicknight wrote:

How can you claim to be a "professional scientist" when you make such idiotic claims like this.

Read this please, before you come out with even more non-scientific rubbish.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

QUOTED FROM THE ABOVE LINK: Q: Doesn't evolution depend on mutations and aren't most mutations harmful?
A: No. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.

That's the short answer. The long answer is that mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation which may be harmful or helpful, depending upon circumstances.
English peppered moths come in two varieties, light and dark. Before the industrial revolution dark moths were very rare. During the worst years of the industrial revolution when the air was very sooty dark moths became quite common. In recent years, since the major efforts to improve air quality, the light moths are replacing the dark moths. A famous paper by H.B.D. Kettlewell proposed the following explanation for this phenomenon:

Birds eat the kind of moth they can see the best.

In England before the Industrial Revolution trees are often covered with light colored lichens. As a result light moths were favored because they were hard to see on the bark of trees whereas the dark moths were easy to see; birds ate the dark moths. During the worst years of the Industrial Revolution the air was very sooty so tree bark was dark because of soot. Dark moths were hard to see whereas the light moths were easy to see; birds ate the light moths. As a result the dark moths became common and the light moths became rare.

Despite creationist criticisms, this explanation has stood the test of time. Before the Industrial Revolution, a mutation which changed light moths into dark moths was an unfavorable (harmful) mutation, whereas during the dark years it was a favorable (helpful) mutation.

HA! HA! HA!

WOW! Mutations - imagine! Birds eat more white moths causing more black moths to survive - PRIME example of mutation...

But then again - human INTELLIGENCE of the industrial revolution was an active input into the poor moth's fate.

WRONG AGAIN EVOLUTIONISTS...

KCF

Scientist wrote:

That's the short answer. The long answer is that mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation SNIP....

Danno wrote:

HA! HA! HA!

WOW! Mutations - imagine! Birds eat more white moths causing more black moths to survive - PRIME example of mutation...

But then again - human INTELLIGENCE of the industrial revolution was an active input into the poor moth's fate.

WRONG AGAIN EVOLUTIONISTS...

Some questions:

What part of air pollution is not "the environment"?

Is Danno really claiming that the industrialists of the 19th century were intelligently engineering moth genes and their stated intent to amass capital was merely a smokescreen for the operation?

Why does ARBITRARY capitalisation seem to substitute itself for evidence in the WORLD of creationists?

What is it about Danno that allows him to circumvent the normal human antipathy towards being humiliated?*

*(Danno, anybody reading this contribution who understands anything about science at all will instantly interpret it as "Ha, Ha, I'm a moron and I'm actually proud of it)

robindch

> there are thousands of well qualified creation scientists,
> many with multiple doctorates from mainstream universities.

While there are millions of creationists in the USA, there are almost no "well qualified creation scientists", which phrase I assume you mean "creationists with relevant qualificiations". I've already quoted a Gallup report, twice, which shows that around 700, or 0.15%, of US 'life scientists' are creationists, with around 99.85% who are not. Your assertion that there are "thousands" is entirely false, based upon available evidence.

I would also point out that the vast majority of the 'scientists' you claim, have no qualifications in relevant fields -- see, for example, the team assembled by our old friend, Ken Ham, he of an honorary doctorate from a religiously-fundamentalist, and largely unaccredited, university. Ham lists three biologists qualified to doctorate level, with thirty-seven further teachers unqualified to this level, with quite a few of these from yet more unaccredited institutions (read: 'diploma mills'), including a guy from my own personal favourite fundie-forge, the wonderfully named Bob Jones University, the pleasantly-inappropriate "BJ-U" to its critics (of which there are many) and which has honored our very own fundie-fruitcake, Ian Paisley with a doctorate.

> I haven’t seen “mountains” of evolutionary literature.

As I said before, you don't appear to have looked for any -- you've been given with many references, and I assume, at this stage, that you're simply not interested in looking for any evidence which doesn't support your own notions.

> most evolutionary scientists refuse to review creation
> science literature

Yes, for two simple reasons: firstly, it's not scientific (see almost any of my previous messages); secondly, every bit that I've ever seen of it is thinly-disguised religious fundamentalism of a distinctly unpleasant kind. If creationists wish to be taken seriously as scientists, then, as I said before, they should start talking like them, and not like two-bit, tin-shed tub-thumpers.

> there has NEVER been a chaotic system OBSERVED that
> wasn’t either useless or downright dangerous and destructive.

<sigh> -- more nonsense. I really wish that you would check *something* before you post it.

There are plenty of benign, continuous chaotic systems -- at the molecular level, do a google search for Schrodinger's aperiodic crystals (a well-known lecture series upon these was delivered in Trinity College, Dublin, during his time in Dublin during WWII, and which topic exactly presaged the discovery of DNA by Franklin, Crick and Watson). More chaos can be observed, at the societal level, in the simple example of the dynamics of predator/prey interaction, where chaotic (fractal) behaviour is demonstrated remarkably simply -- see this page for some easy examples.

> Chaos [...is...] a blind random force that is either useless
> or damaging unless CONTROLLED by a deliberately engineered
> system.

As above, if you are ignorant in the matter of dynamic systems, emergent phenomena, chaos, limited change-over-time systems such as evolution (etc, etc), then I've little doubt that it appears that way to you.

Finally, two brief things you've not yet addressed:

1. In his message of 21-03-2005, 00:06, KCF asked you to explain your scientific credentials and you've not yet done so. Given that you have consistently demonstrated a *total* ignorance of science and the scientific method, and not much more than contempt for the findings of both, it seems reasonable to conclude that you have either forgotten what you learned during your education, or that you have been less than honest in claiming such a qualification. Which is it?

2. In my message, of 22-03-2005 00:56, I asked you to retract your misrepresentation of my view and you've not done so. Why not?

- robin.

PS - Oh, yes. The word "pilloried", which KCF used, is the passive past participle of the verb 'to pillory'. There is no such word as “pilloring” (to use your own words).

robindch

Danno -

As you don't appear to have anything useful to contribute here, will you please quit posting to this forum?

thanks,

- robin.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

BTW religion (the bible) teaches that the number Pi is exactly 3,

I am not a biblical scholar but only a fool or an atheist would argue that the Bible is literally true and 100% historically accurate. The Bible includes parables and symbolism. I am surprised you did not know this and you thought it was intended to teach mathematics. The Genesis account of creation is not part of the Catholic Creed so you would also be incorrect to think all Catholics believe the world was created in six days.

Speaking of pi, in calculating a numerical ratio between circumference and diameter to give the constant pi, from the beginning, with Archimedes, no attempt is made to measure the circumference. One measures instead a substitute inscribed or circumscribed polygon of an arbitrary number of sides. All curves must be reduced to the rectilinear.

Science teaches the use of straight lines to measure curves while our universe is not square.

robindch

> I am not a biblical scholar but only a fool or an atheist would
> argue that the Bible is literally true and 100% historically
> accurate.

Wrong. Plenty of people who call themselves 'christian' maintain that the bible is 100% true in all aspects. Ken Ham is a bit more vocal about it than most, but it's a very commonly held view indeed.

Come on -- I've never met an athiest, nor even heard of one, who's said that the bible is true! Instead, you will normally find themselves, and the agnostics, arguing that there are *other* people maintain that it is true, and then go on to point out the logical idiocy of doing this. Sadly, even when very charitably presented, such notifications are usually unwelcome, and almost always ignored.

> Science teaches the use of straight lines to measure
> curves while our universe is not square.

It's not 'science', but mathematics, which *proves* that this can be done. In any case, you do not seem to understand limits, infinitesimals, the calculus (etc, etc), upon which all of this is based, and all of which is off topic and easily referenced elsewhere on the internet.

- robin.

J C

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
And now I wish to issue a challenge to the great FAITH of Evolutionists in CHAOS and MUTATION as the MEANS of evolving improved life forms:–

1. Stand in front of a CHAOTIC raging bull and see how he “improves” your phenotype.
2. Take a tan under an X-Ray machine for a week – and see how it’s MUTAGENIC effects “improves” your genome.

Any takers?

I have the bull and the X-Ray machine standing by – and I can arrange plenty of exposure time for you!!!!



How can you claim to be a "professional scientist" when you make such idiotic claims like this.


I agree they are quite "idiotic" - but I'm not the guy claiming that CHAOS and MUTATION are the mechanisms that caused the evolution of Man from water based chemicals AKA "Muck"!!! These blind forces of nature simply don't have the potential to produce life irrespective of the scale of resolution that they operate at.

J C

Quote

1. In his message of 21-03-2005, 00:06, KCF asked you to explain your scientific credentials and you've not yet done so. Given that you have consistently demonstrated a *total* ignorance of science and the scientific method, and not much more than contempt for the findings of both, it seems reasonable to conclude that you have either forgotten what you learned during your education, or that you have been less than honest in claiming such a qualification. Which is it?

2. In my message, of 22-03-2005 00:56, I asked you to retract your misrepresentation of my view and you've not done so. Why not?

My answers are:
1. YES I do have the qualifications claimed - I think that quality of my postings should have given you a "hint" that I do. As for forgetting what I LEARNED - I don't think so!!!
YOU are the guys continually SPECULATING and making faith-based statements (i.e. statements not supported by repeatable observations) and claiming that they are somehow scientific.
I have spent the past 3 weeks trying to achieve acceptance of the most basic requirement of The Scientific Method for repeatable observations - and I have yet to see any REPEATABLE OBSERVATIONS on this thread that support Evolution

2. If I didn't accurately reflect your "view" it was entirely unintentional and I apologise.

Quote
The word "pilloried", which KCF used, is the passive past participle of the verb 'to pillory'. There is no such word as “pilloring” (to use your own words).

Whatever about the grammatical details - "to pillory" is a nasty and completely unacceptable form of behaviour - which is neither progressive nor objectively tolerant of different points of view!!!! I presume that everybody on this thread shares my views on this basic point. Wow, this means that there IS something at last that we all can agree on!!!

Zombrex

Danno wrote:

Ahem, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/pi.asp

That is one of the most ridiculous "proofs" I have ever read. It start off with the assumption that they (who ever wrote the bilble) actually did know pi was 3.14 but they rounded everything up or down. And they it works from that ... completely illogical, and still doesn't change the fact that the bible says pi is 3 :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Danno wrote:

HA! HA! HA!

WOW! Mutations - imagine! Birds eat more white moths causing more black moths to survive - PRIME example of mutation...

But then again - human INTELLIGENCE of the industrial revolution was an active input into the poor moth's fate.

WRONG AGAIN EVOLUTIONISTS...

Maybe you should look up what "mutation" means in a science book before you comment again :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Science teaches the use of straight lines to measure curves while our universe is not square.

Mathematics shows (proves) that an infinate number of straight lines can be used to work out curves. That is why Pi is an infinate number, it increases as the resolution you use to measure a curve increases.

Our universe is not square or circular. A square or a circle are mathematical ideas. It is impossible to represent a true circle in the real world

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I agree they are quite "idiotic" - but I'm not the guy claiming that CHAOS and MUTATION are the mechanisms that caused the evolution of Man from water based chemicals AKA "Muck"!!!

No, you are just demonstrating you know nothing about Chaos theory or Biological mutations :rolleyes:

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I have yet to see any REPEATABLE OBSERVATIONS on this thread that support Evolution

Do you have problems reading? Or perhaps working a web browser?

Because you have been shown observations that support evolution time and time again. You have yet to see any because you ignore them when they come along.