Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8144 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-24-2014 5:19 PM
80 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: cheryllocascio
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Happy Birthday: purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,535 Year: 24,376/28,606 Month: 1,677/1,786 Week: 539/423 Day: 79/101 Hour: 2/4

Announcements: Emails Restored


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   If complexity requires design, where did the Deity come from?
JonF
Member
Posts: 2830
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 91 of 111 (579451)
09-04-2010 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by dennis780
06-22-2010 7:48 AM


Re: Here goes nothing...
response to Nylonese first.

"1.There are five transposable elements…

It's nice that you provided quote marks indicating you were quoting, but you should provide the source. It's The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste by Don Batten at Creaion Ministries International. We're well acquainted with Mr. Batten and CMI, and with Ian Musgrave's excellent Nylonase Enzymes demolishing Mr. battens "arguemnts" such as they are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by dennis780, posted 06-22-2010 7:48 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 92 of 111 (579455)
09-04-2010 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by dennis780
09-01-2010 2:42 AM


Re: "Thermo" means heat
Since the sun introduces ultraviolet rays, that are harmful (minus plants and other organisms that can harness the energy), entropy should increase over time.

that's a great mix of bullshit. The Sun produces the vast majority of its output in the visible range - that's why it's visible! Much of the UV is filtered out as we well know.

The important point is that the Sun's energy arrives in the visible and is re-radiated in the infrared. That means there's a hell of a lot more photons radiated by the Earth than arrive on the Earth from the Sun. The emitted photons carry away many more degrees of freedom than arrive and so the local entropy decrease apparent in Evolution is miniscule compared to overall entropy increase.

The "low entropy" photons enter the life-cycle through photosynthesis, and thus help drive the whole process of evolution. Simple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 2:42 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4568
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 93 of 111 (579495)
09-04-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Theodoric
09-01-2010 10:26 AM


Bump for Dennis
Since you didn't respond, do I have your agreement that you are wrong about entropy? Can we start a conversation with the correct idea of what scientists mean by entropy? Because if you are still unwilling to accept the scientific meaning of entropy then it seems there is no need for a conversation at all.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 09-01-2010 10:26 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
dennis780
Member (Idle past 1243 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 94 of 111 (587861)
10-21-2010 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Adequate
09-01-2010 4:22 AM


quote:
And if Borel had written that, which he didn't 'cos he isn't Dembski, it still wouldn't be "Borel's Law", because "Borel's Law" refers to something else.

Borel's Law tells us that anything with a probability less than 1 in 10^50 is "mathematically impossible." There are 10^80 particles (electrons and protons) in the universe (best number I could find online) estimated. Even if each particle in the universe performed (10^20) events per second, and the universe was 15 billion years old (10^18 seconds), then 10^80 x 10^20 x 10^18 = 10^118. Even in the most generous situation, the number far exceeds Borels Law. You have better odds of winning the lottery (1:13,983,816, 6/49), than convincing me that Borels Law does not apply to chemical evolution.

quote:
I am not inclined to take his word about what anyone else means by anything.

So you are not inclined to accept what I wrote, you would rather attack his character, than answer intelligently. DING! Next.

quote:
Got any quotes

Yes. I do.

quote:
“Nobody has actually seen evolution take place over a long period but they have seen the after effects, and the after effects are massively supported. It is like a case in a court of law where nobody can actually stand up and say I saw the murder happen..."
Charles Dawkins

quote:
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology

Sure. Thats not where I got it, but it's probably there too. All the more reason to respond?

quote:
Really, if everyone is on your side you'd think you could quote some of them saying so.

I already got one, but I'll go get more:

quote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission)

quote:
"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, 1979)

quote:
"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, New Scientist, April 28, 1983)

quote:
"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ëclock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987)

quote:
"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971)

quote:
"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

We both have faith Doc. Yours faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen.

Dennis

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2010 4:22 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 4:23 AM dennis780 has responded
 Message 99 by Nuggin, posted 10-22-2010 5:58 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 105 by Taq, posted 10-22-2010 5:30 PM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 109 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-24-2010 2:59 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12841
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 95 of 111 (587862)
10-21-2010 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by dennis780
10-21-2010 4:10 AM


Borel's Law tells us that anything with a probability less than 1 in 10^50 is "mathematically impossible."

But it doesn't. It just doesn't. Borel's Law is just the Law Of Large Numbers as it applies to the statistics of experiments.

And I believe that I have already explained why things at long odds are not actually "mathematically impossible".

You see that "Dr" thing in my name, just before it says "Adequate"?

Well, the subject in which I have a PhD is in fact mathematics. Do not misuse the phrase "mathematically impossible" in my presence unless you want me to hunt you down and slap you about the face with a wet fish.

---

Your irrelevant quotations which are not relevant to this question are in fact irrelevant because of them not being relevant to this question. When I asked: "Got any quotes?" I didn't mean any quotes relating to anything you might want to get off your chest, I meant any relevant quotes.

Indeed, looking at my post, I find that what I actually wrote was: "Got any quotes from Borel?". (Emphasis added.)

If you wish to be shamefully and ludicrously wrong about something that is not on topic in this thread, then start another thread.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 4:10 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 4:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 1243 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 96 of 111 (588044)
10-22-2010 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
10-21-2010 4:23 AM


quote:
But it doesn't. It just doesn't. Borel's Law is just the Law Of Large Numbers as it applies to the statistics of experiments.

Fair. So then would you perform an experiment 10^118 chances of getting the desired outcome? You are a math whiz. Do the math.

quote:
And I believe that I have already explained why things at long odds are not actually "mathematically impossible".

So you are saying that the lottery is the best bet for retirement savings...I got it.

quote:
Well, the subject in which I have a PhD is in fact mathematics.

Yet somehow you still expect me to play the lottery.

quote:
"Got any quotes?"

You asked me for quotes twice. Read your message.

quote:
If you wish to be shamefully and ludicrously wrong about something that is not on topic in this thread, then start another thread.

1. I don't know how.

2. I don't want the responsibility of running a thread. I have enough problems posting in the ones there are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 4:23 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2010 4:59 AM dennis780 has responded
 Message 98 by Nuggin, posted 10-22-2010 5:52 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 100 by zombie ringo, posted 10-22-2010 10:56 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 102 by Theodoric, posted 10-22-2010 4:59 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12841
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 97 of 111 (588050)
10-22-2010 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by dennis780
10-22-2010 4:35 AM


Fair. So then would you perform an experiment 10^118 chances of getting the desired outcome? You are a math whiz. Do the math.

Pointing out that Borel's Law does not say what creationist liars say it says does not require me to do any math so much as have a passing familiarity with it.

So you are saying that the lottery is the best bet for retirement savings...

No, I am not.

You can tell that I'm not saying it by the way that I'm not saying it.

What I am saying is that stupid creationist liars tell stupid creationist lies.

You should not interpret this as advice on your retirement fund.

You asked me for quotes twice. Read your message.

I have in fact read my post #87, the one to which you were replying. Indeed, by a freakish coincidence, I wrote it. And it contains the words: "Got any quotes from Borel?" And it does not contain the words "Has anyone ever said anything stupid about anything?"

Again, I would urge you that if you want to be wrong about something else entirely you should start a new thread. If you don't, that's good too. I am not urging you to be wrong about something else, I am merely pointing out that if that is what you wish to do, there is an established mechanism for doing it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 4:35 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 9:19 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 98 of 111 (588067)
10-22-2010 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by dennis780
10-22-2010 4:35 AM


So you are saying that the lottery is the best bet for retirement savings...I got it.

I suspect you are pretending to be just slightly dumber than you may actually be.

However, I will take your idiocy at face value and explain his statement and its meaning for you.

You are claiming that extremely unlikely events are essentially impossible.
Winning the lottery is an extremely unlikely event.
But that's only true if you look at the lottery as a single trial against a single event at very long odds.
If you look at the lottery as it ACTUALLY IS, which is multiple trials by multiple individuals against a single event of long odds, you discover what happens in reality.

In REALITY the lottery is won quite often.

The math you presented earlier fails for the exact same reasons.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 4:35 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 10-22-2010 4:52 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 99 of 111 (588073)
10-22-2010 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by dennis780
10-21-2010 4:10 AM


More idiocy
Borel's Law tells us that anything with a probability less than 1 in 10^50 is "mathematically impossible." There are 10^80 particles (electrons and protons) in the universe (best number I could find online) estimated. Even if each particle in the universe performed (10^20) events per second, and the universe was 15 billion years old (10^18 seconds), then 10^80 x 10^20 x 10^18 = 10^118. Even in the most generous situation, the number far exceeds Borels Law. You have better odds of winning the lottery (1:13,983,816, 6/49), than convincing me that Borels Law does not apply to chemical evolution.

Are you even paying attention to what you are writing?

I'm going to break it down for you:

Borels Law - 1:10^50 - is a description of long odds for a hypothetical event.

Your other number: 10^118 - is a description of (apparently) all the possible things which could happen to all the possible particles since the Universe began.

The fact that 10^118 is LARGER than 10^50 means that there are MORE possible outcomes than are required for your "Borel's Law" event.

In fact, there are SIGNIFICANTLY more.

In other words (pretending for a second that your numbers are correct and that they are in any way relevant to the discussion at hand) you just soundly disproved your own point with your own data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 4:10 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 10-22-2010 5:20 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
zombie ringo
Member
Posts: 9707
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 100 of 111 (588122)
10-22-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by dennis780
10-22-2010 4:35 AM


dennis780 writes:

So then would you perform an experiment 10^118 chances of getting the desired outcome?


Do you have any idea how many possible outcomes there are when you add a drop of molecules to a beaker full of molecules? Every experiment has long odds against one possible outcome but the dice are rolled so many times that that outcome will eventually happen.

dennis780 writes:

Yet somehow you still expect me to play the lottery.


Remember that somebody always wins.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 4:35 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member
Posts: 4853
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 101 of 111 (588171)
10-22-2010 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Nuggin
10-22-2010 5:52 AM


The odds of this happening is 1 in 2.7 billion
You are claiming that extremely unlikely events are essentially impossible.

This is my favorite example of a statistical improbability happening.

Much more unlikely than the lottery, and yet it happens, as Ray Romano watches.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Nuggin, posted 10-22-2010 5:52 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4568
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 102 of 111 (588172)
10-22-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by dennis780
10-22-2010 4:35 AM


Earth to Dennis
Yet somehow you still expect me to play the lottery.

Ever notice how lottery's are won all the time?

Oh yeah BTW maybe you might answer post Bump for Dennis (Message 93) or are you just going to gish gallop over the things you were wrong about?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 4:35 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5485
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 103 of 111 (588176)
10-22-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Nuggin
10-22-2010 5:58 AM


Re: More idiocy
As a bit of help to dennis780, the way this bit of pseudo science is normally done is to assess the probability at something like one in 10150 and to compare that with the number of events available, i.e. 10118.

Of course even when this PRATT is done right, it is still pointless. The reason the calculation is meaningless is because the underlying assumption in calculating the tiny probability is that nature is trying to reach a single predetermined state in a single step from absolute chaos using random chance. That's not a proper model for either abiogenesis or evolution.

With regard to the entropy argument. I can understand 780's confusion about entropy meaning disorder. Nearly every article/book written for lay persons and dealing with the concept of entropy links increasing entropy with increasing disorder, and gives the bastardized statement of the 2nd law that disorder must always increase.

What is peculiar is a lay person's refusal to give up on this misconception even when confronted with real science. Counter examples of this goofy restatement of entropy are staring you right in the face. The freezer in your refrigerator will reduces the entropy of its interior as long as you put in warm stuff, close the door and supply electricity.

I blame this refusal to accept science on organizations like ICR who make it appear that accepting pseudo scientific defenses of Genesis is an essential part of being a real Christian.

That said, 780's attempts to teach math to Dr. A are pretty entertaining. Hopefully that will continue...

Edited by NoNukes, : forgot to spell check.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Nuggin, posted 10-22-2010 5:58 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 10-22-2010 5:24 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 5269
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 104 of 111 (588177)
10-22-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by NoNukes
10-22-2010 5:20 PM


Re: More idiocy
What is peculiar is a lay person's refusal to give up on this misconception even when confronted with real science. Counter examples of this goofy restatement of entropy are staring you right in the face. The freezer in your refrigerator will reduces the entropy of its interior as long as you put in warm stuff, close the door and supply electricity.

There is an even simpler example. All of us on these forums started life as a single cell and over a 9 month period we developed into a multicellular, well organized human. If the same thing can not occur over millions of years, then how can it occur in 9 months? Embryonic development appears to be a much more serious violation of the creationist 2nd Law of Thermodynamics than evolution is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 10-22-2010 5:20 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5269
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 105 of 111 (588179)
10-22-2010 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by dennis780
10-21-2010 4:10 AM


Borel's Law tells us that anything with a probability less than 1 in 10^50 is "mathematically impossible."

Let's see if that is true.

If you shuffle a deck of cards and then lay them out one by one the order of those cards is 1 in 52! or 1 in 8x10^67. According to you, each and every time we do this little experiment we end up looking at a mathematical impossibility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 4:10 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014