The Truth About Evolution and Religion

So, you feel it is ok to review publications about a subject on which you only have a layman's understanding.Sweet, I should go get a new job as and editor for the Wall Street Journal because I have a layman's understanding of business principles. Or better yet, I should go work for Foreign Affairs. I've been out of the country, that gives me a layman's understanding of foreign policy.And you also feel it is ok to tell professionals they are wrong concerning subjects on which you have only a layman's understanding.EX: NO, YOU'RE WRONG.Second law of thermodynamics states that heat does not flow from a cold object to a warmer object.It states that when two systems are in equilibrium and the barrier between those two systems removed that they will move towards higher entropy. And even this is only in a closed system which Earth is not.

While this is true, it is also completely useless as a definition, since a man who knew only that about evolution would have no idea what it was. No. Though it would be true to say that common descent would be an example of macroevolution. "Ancient observation"? Since nearly everything else that you write is complete rubbish, I should like to see you back this up. Thanks. No. No. No. I'll give you half a mark for trying. Gibberish.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Of course, I "admit" no such thing, which is why I said no such thing.If you are genuinely incapable of understanding the few and simple sentences in my post, no wonder you can't understand scientific concepts such as thermodynamics or evolution.Indeed, I am at a loss to think what subject would be so simple that you could understand it. Perhaps you could take up basket-weaving: I understand that this is a popular pastime for those of limited capacities.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you were paid for these reviews, then restitution of the money would seem to be the moral course; if you supplied them gratis, then a published apology would suffice.

Will you please stay away from thermodynamics? Your 125 posts in this thread have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you have no business there. Also, it would have been a good idea if from the beginning you had used words in their generally accepted meaning, instead of making up meanings as you go.I must say though that I've genuinely learned something from your posts. You used the verb "tergiversated" somewhere. At first I thought this was the result of a horrible sneezing accident, but I looked it up and it turned out to be a real word, the meaning of which you had, on a whim, left untouched.Still, 125 posts of nonsense is a bit of a roundabout way of adding something useful to these fora. Perhaps next time you could just use some exotic word right at the beginning of your post and be done with it. It would really be appreciated.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Dkroemer is prone to inaniloquency on the subject of thermodynamics and this results in much cachinnation and exsibilation aimed in his direction. But as a fellow aeolist I have some sympathy with his predicament and I think he has a future as a competent adoxographer.This whole post has been a bit of a witzelsucht.All genuine words.....

In one word: Fantabulous!Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

Doesn't his logolepsy aggravate your parasomnia?

Notwithstanding the magniloquence of your peroration, only the most indefatigable of contrarians would disdain to acknowledge that the production of vacuous pseudologies in pursuit of a quixotic aspiration to validate the existence of hypothetical nebulous metaphysical entities is manifestly the psychological equivalent of gratifying one's own concupiscent inclinations by means of manual stimulation, and as such is irrefrangibly deserving of derisive floccinaucinihilipilification.

OK you win the smartass of the thread award. I tried - and failed.

Meaning you think that our acosmic friend is an acataleptic onanist.

Tactimatically speaking....... Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

You did well. This thread just started to make sense from your post onwards.

Got it, finally."Facilitated Variation" is the new black. It recognizes the crippling methodology faults in "Intelligent Design", which was itself an attempt to correct merely the terminology faults in "Creation Science." Unlike these. it wishes to do actual science, piggy-backing off the work of Kirschner & Gerhart, and yet can be seen as giving some credence to the idea of a transcendent Facilitator or somesuch. As such, it ought to be a prime candidate to get out in front of the money being thrown around by abominations like the ICR.Unfortunately, the potential paradigm it represents isn't actually a tool in the hands of real biologists just yet, in this form or in this forum at least, so you are stuck fronting for it and with your physics background it somehow seems like a good idea to use 2LOT as an analogy for stacked improbabilities inherent in emergent processes in biochemistry.But, DANGER WILL ROBINSON, it isn't. The ID people have already totally spoiled that approach for you, even if you did have the depth background in genetics that would be absolutely necessary to keep your heels off your dong. You are going to need a different approachStart by thoroughly smiting Intelligent Design as pseudo-science. Just a paragraph or so to show that irreducible complexity fails, overall philosophy produces no experiments, already lost in court, like that. Then immediately another paragraph or two showing how it fails as theology as well. God of the gaps, insulting and dangerous, compare it to other forms of idolatry.This is the point where your Bible and Koran group hug will fit, a couple verses and a sura showing God working through natural forces but adding something unquantifiable to them, like the Exodus or a soft view of the Flood ought to be perfect. This will set you up with analogies suitable to begin discussing emergent properties as, the sort of thing one might expect to find from the uh, Facilitator.Now your bridge hand is ready. Not as, some impossible thing that makes me want to play draw poker with you, but rather as, the sort of thing that gives you clues that someone is cheating or interfering with normal probability. Follow these lines and you may be able to put together a very nice marketing post. Somewhere else of course, not here. You are done here

Yes, I think you've probably read well between the lines. That's why I've been throwing cold water on the gist of things by pointing out that the original Great Facilitator of "facilitated variation" itself is actually our old friend natural selection, something that the authors of the phrase would agree with.