Darwin's theory

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It is not bait but an accurate (if overly mild and generous) description of the stuff you dribble out your mouth. You constantly lie (like claiming to be a scientist when you wouldn't even pass a test set a primary school level, or talking about your "wife" who is "so hot" {though that is probably more Walter Mitty than deliberate}), cheat, obfuscate, quote mine, and steal in order to try and make your ridiculous nonsense seem legitmate. You are the intellectual and moral equivalent of David Irvine, the holocaust denier.

... have you anything else nasty you can think up to lie about me?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Just one more lie to add to the catalogue, eh, JC? Not like you're going to stop now after ten years of constantly lying on here.

one man's meat is indeed another man's poison ... and you have proven the rule by claiming that Creation Science evidence is 'poisonous' for Evolution.

J C wrote: »

one man's meat is indeed another man's poison ... and you have proven the rule by claiming that Creation Science evidence is 'poisonous' for Evolution.

would you like to present your evidence for creationism?

ScumLord wrote: »

There's some argument for saying an intelligent being started off the universe in the knowledge that it would eventually lead to a self aware and sentient being emerging.

I don't accept that there's a god administrator making fine adjustments along the way though, because the universe doesn't need that kind of administration, it's so massive and varied that just about anything is inevitably going to happen inside it.

This a variety of Theism known as Deism.

ScumLord wrote: »

Life is just a natural process that can pop up under the right conditions and the universe is so big that it probably happens quite a bit.

That's where we differ ... life has such a high level of CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information), even at its least irreducibly complex configuration, that it is estimated to have a Combinatorial Space of 10^40,000 ... while the Universal Probability Bound is only a relatively puny 10^150

ScumLord wrote: »

Even though humans were an accident, similar accidents could happen on other planets with life because planets are in constant turmoil wiping out life on a massive scale and starting again quite frequently giving optimal conditions for an intelligent species to eventually emerge.

No, the CFSI required for life is on such a scale that the Universal Probability Bound rules out such 'accidents' ... even with all the matter in the Universe and all the supposed time since the supposed Big Bang.

ScumLord wrote: »

So if a being was smart enough he could create a universe safe in the knowledge that it will spit out maybe a handful of intelligent creatures (or maybe machines) after dozen or so billion years.

But micro managing that universe kind of defeats the purpose of building it so well in the first place. Things are going to happen anyway it doesn't need to be managed.

It is possible that a 'very smart being' could create a Universe where CFSI is spontaneously generated ... but our Universe shows no such abilities ... in all cases CFSI is observed to be degraded/destroyed by non-intelligently directed changes to it ... and where the author is identified, it is, without exception, intelligent.

hi JC,I love the universal probability bound:p maybe you should google "a horse race to beat dembski"s universal probability bound"./ I do not know how to attach the link but it seems it is very easy to beat dumbski" very dodgy maths:D:D:D

kingchess wrote: »

hi JC,I love the universal probability bound:p maybe you should google "a horse race to beat dembski"s universal probability bound"./ I do not know how to attach the link but it seems it is very easy to beat dumbski" very dodgy maths:D:D:D

http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/paper/ev/horserace.html <- that the link?

im actually offended he didn't respond to my post. damn

kingchess wrote: »

hi JC,I love the universal probability bound:p maybe you should google "a horse race to beat dembski"s universal probability bound"./ I do not know how to attach the link but it seems it is very easy to beat dumbski" very dodgy maths:D:D:D

There is nothing 'dodgy' about the maths.:D:D:D
Quote:-
(Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.

I think logic and JC do not go together,

SW wrote: »

http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/paper/ev/horserace.html <- that the link?

yes thats the link.take a good read of it J C.tell us what you think:D

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Sorry, but that is complete and utter nonsense.

Why?

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I wouldn't, that probably means it makes sense and he has no answer for it :pac:

That seems to be the case. I have to conclude that I've won the thread.

because jc I value your opinion,a person with such a-how shall I put it- Bibical knowledge of the world???

kingchess wrote: »

yes thats the link.take a good read of it J C.tell us what you think:D

My answers in blue below.
Quote:-
The multiplication rule does not apply to biological evolution. A common error in the non-scientific literature and poorly written papers is to assume that probabilities multiply for computing components of living things such as proteins. Not an error - and the multiplication rule applies to sequential phenomena in Biology, just like all other sequential phenomena.
A typical argument notes that proteins are about 300 amino acids long and that there are 20 different kinds of amino acids. If such a string were to be generated using independent selection of the amino acids, then the probability of generating any particular string is 20-300, a very small number indeed.
Correct.

While this may be true for random strings, it does not directly apply to proteins found in living organisms. It does, unless there is intelligent intervention.
Why? Because individual mutations accumulate one-at-a-time and there is amplification (replication) between steps. That is, if one starts with a given amino acid string, the mutations in the genome (from which the string is derived) are sequential. A mutation occurs, perhaps changing the amino acid string. If the change is bad, which is true for the majority of changes, the organism dies and its genes are gone. Most cases result in debility rather than death ... thus resulting in a build-up of deleterious mutations within the population.

(In diploids, recessive defects will be removed more slowly since they are only exposed when an organism becomes homozygous for the mutation.) This causes further build-up of deleterious and lethal mutations within the genome, 'hiding' in a hetrozygous state.

If a rare lucky change occurs that has some advantage (or at best is neutral or only slightly deleterious) then the organism may survive to produce offspring. head of Tyrannosaurus Rex The possibility of appearance and acceptance (by natural selection processes) of mutations in the offspring therefore depends strongly on whether the previous generation survived and on the number of progeny. The organism may or may not survive (due to other items in it's 'mutation load') ... but, in any event, while a single change to a critical functional sequence can result in a lethal or semi-lethal condition ... a single change in the direction of an advantageous trait will have no phenotype effect until all of the sequence is present and integrated with all other systems required to generate the effect.
... so while NS can 'weed-out' deleterious traits ... it is powerless to generate useful traits de novo, because it cannot identify intermediate sequences 'moving towards' a useful functional sequence ... because this isn't expressed (and therefore selectable) until the entire functional sequence is present.

Genetic algorithm experiments, such as the Ev evolution program demonstrate clearly that the probability of generating what would be an extremely rare genetic string if the steps were independent, can be high. So the evolution of a 300 amino acid protein is reasonably easy to attain.They demonstrate no such thing.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

... have you anything else nasty you can think up to lie about me?

one man's meat is indeed another man's poison ... and you have proven the rule by claiming that Creation Science evidence is 'poisonous' for Evolution.

No, you misunderstand. Creation science, and I use that term most reservedly, is poisonous for humanity.

MrP

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

1) Can you find a source other than Dembski verifying that number of elementary particles?
2) Even you state this is only the observable universe
3) It seems like a gross oversimplification to me - maybe someone with more knowledge of physics can correct me on that one though.

The number of elementary particles in the Universe are accepted across science ... at somewhere between 10^80 and 10^90 ... see the second last number in the table in the following link.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html

Planks time is also confirmed (at c. 10^-45) in the first section of the table

MrPudding wrote: »

No, you misunderstand. Creation science, and I use that term most reservedly, is poisonous for humanity.

MrP

... I could equally say that something like M2M Evolution, which is untrue, is 'poisonous for humanity' ... but it would be just as big a fallacy as your assertion about Creation Science ... both are objectively verifiable / falsifiable and thus neither are 'poisonous' just deserving of careful evaluation.

J C wrote: »

The number of elementary particles in the Universe are accepted across science ... at somewhere around 10^80 ... see the second last number in the table in the following link.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html

and some reading for you from the same site since you seem to approve of the information it provides; http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_life.html

If everyone else just adopts my position on the thread he'll have nothing to talk about

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

The number of elementary particles in the Universe are accepted across science ... at somewhere between 10^80 and 10^90 ... see the second last number in the table in the following link.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html

Seeing as you believe that that site is so wrong about the age of the universe, surely they must be wrong about the number of particles too? Like wildly wrong.

I wouldn't trust those sciency websites. Full of facts.

SW wrote: »

and some reading for you from the same site since you seem to approve of the information it provides; http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_life.html

I chose this site to answer Dr Jimbob asking for 'a source other than Dembski verifying (the) number of elementary particles'.
It is a conventional science i.e. Evolutionist, site.
There would be no point in citing a Creation Science site as Dr Jimbob would reject that as an answer to his question, because he clearly wanted a conventional science estimate for the number of elementary particles.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Seeing as you believe that that site is so wrong about the age of the universe, surely they must be wrong about the number of particles too? Like wildly wrong.

I wouldn't trust those sciency websites. Full of facts.

They are indeed full of useful facts ... many denying their most treasured theory that they are Pondkind with selected mistakes and added time.:)

Overheal wrote: »

If everyone else just adopts my position on the thread he'll have nothing to talk about

When your worldview has been proven to be invalid in one short post ... I guess that is one possible reaction.:)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Well, credit for at least backing up your claims from a conventional source. I'm still not convinced that it actually means anything in terms of damaging evolutionary theory though.

You're right to be skeptical ... that was my initial reaction also.

... but try as I might, I couldn't find any mathematical, factual or logical flaw in it.

J C wrote: »

I chose this site to answer Dr Jimbobs asking for 'a source other than Dembski verifying that number of elementary particles'.
It is a conventional science i.e. Evolutionist, site.
There would be no point in citing a Creation Science site as Dr Jimbob would reject that as an answer to his question, because he clearly wanted a conventional science estimate for the number of elementary particles.

So you're citing a number that you believe is wrong?

J C wrote: »

When your worldview has been proven to be invalid in one short post ... I guess that is one possible reaction.:)

I proved your worldview invalid! In one post. You heard it here folks.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Poisonous for humanity is probably a bit far all right. Poisonous to scientific advancement on the other hand would be a reasonable claim. Any time spent refuting erroneous claims is wasted when it could be spent on increasing our knowledge.

When the claims are 'stacking up' with the observable evidence ... they should be evaluated.
That is often how new insights in science are found ... by examining 'inconvenient truths'.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm not saying creation should be outlawed or anything of the sort though, it should be simply kept to where it belongs - a church, or a religion classroom. Trying to force it into science curricula is objectionably for exactly the same reasons as a scientist butting into a church sermon and saying 'well actually it didn't happen this way' are. It's not the right place.

Apologies for typos or inane rambling - alcohol has been consumed.

No need for apologies ... you're not rambling ... you're quite insightful, in fact.

I have no wish to 'force' anything anywhere ... ironically, I find that because most young people have never heard of Creation Science (and they have only ever heard of the unquestioned story of Evolution) they react with 'gob-smacked' amazement when the serious logical and evidential deficiencies of M2M Evolution are first pointed out to them.:)

You'd never get this reaction, if Creation Science was badly taught in school by teachers who largely don't understand it and have no commitment to it (quite the reverse in fact).:)

For this and other reasons, Creation Scientists generally don't want Creation Science taught in schools.

ID proponents want ID taught in school ... but I think they are a bit 'premature' on this.

SW wrote: »

So you're citing a number that you believe is wrong?

I believe the estimate of elementary particles to be correct and Planks Time, as the shortest meaningful interval of time, is also correct.

Overheal wrote: »

I proved your worldview invalid! In one post. You heard it here folks.

It can happen ... and it's just happened.