|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
If PI is infinite and non repeating does that mean is HAS to have all possible strings of numbers in it? Certainly it contains all finite strings of numbers. I'm not sure about infinite strings ... does it contain itself? Oy!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
There seems to be an assertian on this thread that any finite sequence of numbers must appear in the decimal representation of pi. I asserted that, and I sure think I saw a proof somewhere, but I'm having a bit of trouble digging it up. In the meantime, Search the first 400 million digits of pi.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Joe's given a good reply, but a few things to add:
You are being lied to by your supposed friends. You know almost nothing about geology and biology, and what you do know has come from unreliable (to say the least!) sources.
For instance lava flows at Mt. St. Helens that occurred in 1980 have tested at 300k years old. 1986. Can't you even get the simplest of facts right? The samples were specifically and dishonestly selected to fool the method. No real scientist would have gotten that result. See CD013_1 and Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals.
If any testing disagrees w/ accepted dating, which is the vast majority of them, they a must be contaminated. That's a serious accusation. Let's see your evidence for it.
This has happened with lava flows all over the world. It has happened a very few times, a very small percentage of the time. Dalrymple found that 3 out of 21 historic lava flows exhibited slight problems. (Note carefully: real scientists don't characterize a method by only a few examples chosen specifically to fit with their preconceptions, they take statistically significant and fully representative samples). See Radiometric Dating, near the end (although reading all of it and understanding how it blows your "argument" out of the water would be worthwhile). As Joe has pointed out but bears repeating, the vast majority of dating studies use methods such as isochrons and concordia-discordia which give both an age and an indication of the reliability of that age, and are not susceptible to the possibility of excess initial daughter product. Your pals discuss only K-Ar dating (avoiding discussion of the methods that are widely used) because that's the only method which has any possibility of being invalid, and even that cannot be invalid often enough to fit your peculiar chronology of the age of the Earth.
It is circular reasoning-the fossils date the rocks -the rocks date the fossils. An ancient canard, long debunked. Raising such "arguments" illustrates only your ignorance (not intended as an insult, just an observation). See Claim CC310 and Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?, but read the Weins paper, to which Joe pointed you, first, or you won't know enough to understand it).
Pasteur, the Wright Brothers, Von Braun, Teller, Newton-I could fill the page -were all Creationist. Most of them were Christians (Teller was jewish), but none of them were young-earth creationists. And they used only naturalistic explanations in their scientific work.
There are thousands of Creationist in science and medicine today but you rarely hear of them , they are systematically ignored. Let's see your evidence for that "thousands" (and don't forget that you also have to establish that they are YECs and not merley progfessing Christians) and your evidence for them being "systematically ignored". Dn't forget that people who don't submit papers can't be ignored.
Why don't you know the story of the M.R.I. ? We do know the story of the MRI.
Is it not news worthy? Not particularly. If you read a selection of reports rather than trusting overly biased sources like AIG, you'll find that there's good reason to beleive that Damadian did not deserve a share of the prize. Hoever, even if he did deserve it, that has nothing to do with the validity of mainstream geology and biology.
Haeckel’s History of Creation. Check out this site http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckel_illustrations.html It's in French but the illustration captions are in English. This will tell you the basis for your theory-it really hasn’t changed that much. Geez, you couldn't even be bothered to look up a decent page on Haeckel? Nonetheless, his work is only peripheral to evolutionary theory (it's certainly not a basis for such) and his errors have been corrected, long ago. See Claim CB701 and Haeckel's embryos. There have indeed been a few errors and even frauds in the history of evolutionary biology, all corrected by scientists. But you don't want to go there because AIG and the ICR and the like have a long history of fraud, orders of magnitude (in number and severity) greater than the few that you can come up with in evolutionary bioogy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Note that drawings and photographs that are similar to Haeckel's appear in most biology textbooks, and are accurate representations of embryonic development. Haeckel's drawings weren't far wrong, they were simplified more than appropriate to emphasize certain features.
Since Haeckel has been debunked why are his fraudulent drawings in textbooks printed as recently as 2000? Please list the textbooks in which Haeckel's drawings appear and are not noted as being erroneous. Not drawings similar to Haeckel's but accurate; Haeckel's drawings.
Most of the evolutionist I talk to defend them being there. Please provide evidence of "evolutionists" who defend Haeckel's drawings being on modern textbooks without a notation that they are erroneous. For example, see Wells and Haeckel's Embryos:A Review of Chapter 5 of Icons of Evolution, which soundly condemns using Hackle's drawins without noting their erors. To this day evolutionists create and suppress data to support the hypothesis. Please provide evidence of suppressed data. That is a serious accusation.
As far as your comment on ICR and AIG I do want to go there. We can talk about Pigmies in cages and Aborigines behind murdered and skinned and all kinds of fun stuff. Sigh. Yet another gulible creationist ... beleive anything that you like and disbelieve everything that makes you uncomfortable. No reference to evidence or reality. OK, start a thread on Ota Benga and/or the massacres of aborigines. Make sure to include your evidence that the massacres actually occured for the reasons claimed by Answers in Genesis and your evidence that the deplorable treatment of Ota Benga and the Australian aborigines has some relationship to the validity of evolutionary theory. People have done horrible things in the name of Evolution, in the name of Islam, in the name of Christianity,and in the name of many other ideas. That's not reason to conclude whether or not the ideas are invalid. Does the Children's Crusade render Christianity invalid? Not in my opinion, but it's a logical extension of AIG's claims about Ota Benga and aborigines. In the case of evolution and science, it's the evidence that matters, not what misguided people may have done.
Darwin knew that Haeckel and others were fabricating data and he supported them. That makes him complicit. Please provide evidence of this accusation.
Talk/origins is certainly political. They lie with authority -one example their page on flat earthers. To which page do you refer, and where is the lie?
Maybe I am ignorant as you and Dawkins say: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." On the subjects of the age of the Earth and Haeckel's drawings yes, you are ignorant. That's the only possible conclusion from the evidence of your writings. But ignorance is curable, if you do not wish to remain so.
You follow them like a sheep Unjustified assumption. Your posts have already clearly indicated your level and sources of knowledge; mine have only scratched the surface. I have read and studied much of the material produced by both sides of the "controversy" and have formed my opinions and conclusions based on the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/001160.html If you have decided I am a wacko it is of no use to argue. It's dangerous to get your science from the popular press. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. Professor Protsch does appear to have comitted fraud. Far from being hidden by "evolutionists", his fraud was revealed and spread by "evolutionists". The fossil in question was never thought to be a "missing link' between modern humans and neandertals; it was and is an anatomically modern human. Protsch's results were always suspect and not widely accepted; many people couldn't see how anatomically modern humans and neandertals could have coexisted in the same ecological niche for so long without one or the other dying out or moving away because of the competition for the same resources. The new dating of the fossil makes the issue much less severe by reducing the overlap of neandertals and moderen humans in the area. So, one misguided person appears to have commited a fraud. His results were never widely accepted. The fraud was exposed and publicized by "evolutionists". Doesn't support your claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Using abuses by other religions as an analogy to defend evolution proves my point that it is one. Not at all. Your conclusion is fallacious. Analogies are just that; analogies, and no more. An analogy is "similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). Sharing some features in a valid analogy does not necessarily mean that the theory of evolution and religions share any other features. If you want to argue that the ToE is a religion, go into one of the many topics on that already such as A puzzling thing about traditional religion or Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion. and discuss it there. BTW, this is your first mention of the tired ol' "evolution is a religion" lie in this thread. Are you trying to set some sort of record for number of blindly parroted and unsupported assertions? If that's your aim, you're going to have to try much harder; I've seen much better parrots than you. I notice you have not addressed any substantive issues that various people have brought up. More evidence about your knowledge and abilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Very little crap the Creationist put out sees the light of day. The recent problems with the Smithsonian show that clearly. "Very little crap the Creationist put out...", hum? Is that intentional or a Freudian slip? The crap the creationists put out doesn't see the light of day because it's crap. The Smithsonian story isn't all known yet, but there's little if any evidence for suppression; the allegations by Klinghoffer were (like all of yours) offered without evidence. The evidence gathered thus far indicates that Klinghoffer was wrong, and Sternberg has not been punished or inconvenienced in any way for his views. From A Second Dimension to "Sternberg vs. Smithsonian":
quote:(which as been verified to have actually been written by Dr. Coddington). The Smithsonian Office of Public Affairs wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal: quote: If you are right everything the Creationist know -about origins not science in general - is wrong. If they are right the same applies to you. Yup. The evidence clearly indicates which side is correct; I notice you still haven't posted any evidence. Note that I am not saying that Christianity or the Bible is wrong; just your peculiar interpretation of the Bible is obviously, ludicrously, horrendously wrong. As I like to say, God wrote the rocks; Man wrote the Bible. I believe what God wrote.
If as I am told ad nauseaum that science cannot prove the existence of God it must also be true it can't prove the non-existence of Him either. Absolutely. So what?
It would seem foolish not to encourage both sides and hope one of them is right. Otherwise all your eggs are in one basket. That's Pascal's wager, and is wrong on its face. It would seem foolish to practice only one religion, and not even the largest religion. Otherwise all your eggs are in one basket. Better start worshipping Baal and Thor and Mithras and Krishna and Zeus and ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html The International Flat Earth Society is a joke. Evolution failed to bestow a sense of humor on it's followers-my observation. The late Mr. Johnson said it wasn't. Let's see your evidence that it's a joke.
I have more on them but that is enough. No, it really isn't. If you want to establish that talkorigins.org is not a reliable source, you're going to have to come up with much more than that. Take a look back at the number of links that I've posted and the amount of discussion that I've written on the inaccuracy of your sources, and that's just off the top of my head without really trying. You're making a claim about talkorigins.org, it's up to you to provide sufficient evidence for that claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
No, it's a real society whose founder really believes in a flat Earth. Believed. He died in 2001. Obituary: Flat Earth Society head, Charles K. Johnson, bites the dust (mine).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I don't get my science from the popular press. ... National Geographic ... Time magazine ROTFL!
Why do the textbook to this day deceive children with Haeckel's embryo drawings that were denounced as fakes over 100 years ago? Still waiting for evidence of this assertion.
No self-respecting biologist approves of this-evolutionist or no-but there they sit. I have often seen this claim, in many forums, and I have often seen offers from textbook authors and publishers to fix the error if only the poster will identify where to look for the error. Like you, no poster ever comes up with a modern textbook in which Haeckel's drawings are used without identifying their errors. List the textbooks that do this and I will personally make sure the problem is fixed. I already posted a link to PZ Myer's critique. He didn't sit, nor did Gould. Wells and Haeckel's Embryos:
quote: They call themselves Nat. Center for Scientific Ed. but promote only evolution. RIght. They promote science. Creationism and ID are not science.
On one hand they promote ideas no self-respecting scientist would endorse ... Such as?
... and on the other ridicule creationist as insane people? Where does the NCSE ridicule creationists as insane people? The only occurrence of the string "insane" on the NCSE website is in a quote from a flat-earther at Morality, Religious Symbolism, and the Creationist Movement. You'r a liar ...
Why did Time magazine promote Haeckel's ideas in a fairly recent article? The most recent mention of Haeckel in Time magazine was in 1925, in a book review. Search Result. To what article do you refer?
Why do some evolutionist defend this? Still waiting for evidence that there are evolutionists who defend the use of Haeckel's drawings.
Over and over I see these childish tactics like saying people of faith are stupid because they believe the earth is flat etc. Where? Certainly not at the talkorigins.org page to which you linked.
Louis Pasteur proved life only springs from life more than 100 years ago yet many evolutionists still believe we descended from a rock Sigh. Pasteur proved that modern organisms do not arise spontaneously from formerly living matter, which is true but has nothing to do with scietific theories of how life originally arose.
When these tactics are necessary to prove your point you need to look at yourself instead of attacking others. You are, of course, referring to yourself. We have presented evidence, discussion, and references to more information, as is typicalof "evolutionists". You have ranted and raved and produced nothing but unsupported assertions.
Fraud in evolution is not a rare occurrence. It is only rare that is gets any press. What are the statistics of the incidence of fraud in evolutionary biology?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024