two important questions for Servant

Clark's third law:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.Nosy's corrollory:One who posseses that technology would be indistinguishable from God.

Yes and one interpretation (widely accepted) is the big bang. With that the whole controversy evaporates.

Mike T Wiz, If you like Mckay's stuff could I suggest you propose a topic on it?You just know how much we would love to discuss it.You might notice a difference between the "science" camp and the literalist camp. Notice how we will gladly jump into pretty well any topic with anyone. Notice how you are one of very very few of the 'other' side who will do that?Why is that? Does it have anything to do with open and closed minds? Which ones are which?

I guess the quesion is, Mike, how do we know anything (for "sure" or not)? We all have to spend some time to decide on what we think might be true and not. If a topic isn't important we don't spend much time and might take an "authority" that we have some reason to trust.If the topic is important then we owe it to ourselves to invest a bit more effort.First you've got to try to sort out what "facts" you are given might be true. A lot of these will have to involve some trust in some source or another, unfortunately.Then you have to apply your own ability to reason based on those facts. You can follow what logic other people are using and see if you think it is, in fact, "logical".This is all built up brick by brick. It is a large task in a complicated world. Each of us, once s/he has a "brick", tends to take that as being solid and use it as a stepping stone to some new conclusion.I guess, Mike, that is why I've suggested that you be careful of your sources. If you catch any of us seeming to lie or deliberately mislead you then you should, in future, disregard much of what that person says. I think that needs to be done with sources like Wyatt or McKay.When the volume of "facts" and follow-on logic becomes too great I suggest that you pick out some smaller parts to see if you can deal with those. If that sample hints at a problem with the source you may have to throw out everything from that source. It's a shame but none of us has time to dig out the diamonds of truth if it is embedded in a matric of lies.Why don't we see if we can help with picking "test" topics to help you figure out what sources to trust?In the wide world you should not simply trust anyone without your own thinking on the issues at hand. It seems you understand that and are getting pretty good at applying your own analysis to the issues.

One or the other? Why? One can conjecture any number of different ideas to replace both.There are a whole bunch of different Gods suggested over history. Any one might do.Alien intelligences could be the source of any "design" that is thought to be there. They could either be the source of the universe itself, life or actually be dropping by to tweak things now and then.If fact, we could be that intelligence, if we develop time travel in the far future.It maybe that there is a gestalt intelligence in viri or bacteria that tinker with the genes of all so-called "higer" life forms to provide interesting homes for them.There are possbilities of modest (or more) modifications to the current ToE. At some point it might diverge enough from what we know now to be a "different" theory. E.g., perhaps the junk DNA isn't junk. Perhaps it "controls" in some unknown way the occurances of mutations makeing them not random.Of course all of the above are evidenceless speculations that are better in science fiction than elsewhere. But if any evidence arose to suggest problems with our current understanding then who knows where it might lead.What is clear is that there are a lot more than 2 choices.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-24-2004]

This suggests that there was dishonesty involved. If that is your only explanation for the corrolation you haven't a leg to stand on. Where is the analysis of the published data by your creation so-called scientists that demonstrates the problem? I'll tell you there isn't one.The facts are that the two line up very well (not perfectly as I understand it be very, very well indeed). You have no explanation for this. Just one of the reasons why creationism is dead in the water.

As I understand it, but I'm not in the field, the matching is done by computer algorithms. If there is anything warping the results there you now telling me that the ICR folks aren't all over it? You do understand that these things are published with considerable detail.Care to show where the genetic sequences have been analyzed incorrectly?And I am also saying the if you make such accusations you do have to have proof. If you published such things you are subject to the libel laws and need to back up what you are saying.It comes back down to you only being able to say that the results are NOT as published. You have no reason, you have no evidence. You have no other way of explaining the results. This is why creationism deserves it's treatment in the science classroom and the courts.Your first "choice" is worded incorrectly. It isn't good luck it is because the evolutionary process did unfold as had been predicted decades before all the data was in. There isn't any luck involved in that.

Sorry about this Crash, but you're going on a bit like you know a lot about cosmology and general relativity. My impression from the past is that you are a very knowledgable amateur. If this is true then be careful when you step out into the more complex topics.I think, with my limited knowledge, that you are right enough for this level of discussion but don't allow someone to think you know more about it than you actually do. We might need to leave some of that to Eta.I hope you take this in the way it is intended. Thanks.

It's just dangerous in front of some audiences to leave any room for misunderstandings.Some of these guys are used to people deliberately pretending to know what they are talking about. I'd prefer to understate what I know rather than risk overstating it.And what you say about gravity is, I think, true but we have to remember that without the detailed math we are going to make oversimplifications and can get in trouble at some point.