Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
wj
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 367 (31469)
02-05-2003 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by DanskerMan
02-05-2003 9:59 AM


Perhaps the quote by Macreadie which appears to be at variance with the views of the vast majority of the scientific community can be explained when one considers the descriptor which aig usually uses when referring to him: "creationist molecular biologist and microbiologist" Dr Ian Macreadie. Nice to have an unbiased view from an independent source! And I just know that the quote isn't from a peer reviewed scientific journal, so it appears to be a view which he is not prepared to have subjected to the scrutiny of his peers.
But, more importantly, are you going to retract the Dawkins "quote" or do you intend to perpetuate that fraud? And answer the specific questions asked of you by SLPx in message #69?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by DanskerMan, posted 02-05-2003 9:59 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by John, posted 02-05-2003 6:55 PM wj has not replied
 Message 94 by blanko, posted 02-06-2003 3:45 AM wj has not replied
 Message 100 by DanskerMan, posted 02-06-2003 10:13 AM wj has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 367 (31471)
02-05-2003 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by wj
02-05-2003 6:12 PM


quote:
"creationist molecular biologist and microbiologist" Dr Ian Macreadie.
Why does he look like John Cleese?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by wj, posted 02-05-2003 6:12 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by David unfamous, posted 02-06-2003 12:03 PM John has replied

blanko
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 367 (31494)
02-06-2003 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by wj
02-05-2003 6:12 PM


hey guys,
i’m new here, but so far i’ve enjoyed the debate, up until schrafinator and john began questioning scientist credibility based on whether or not that scientist came from a creationist web sitethe truth is, evolution is backwards science based on scientist taking a theory (they were taught in their biased schools) and attempting to get notoriety by manipulating the evidence to support their theory.
schrafinator
You talk about bias as if it is always a bad thing. Isn't being biased in favor of the evidence a good thing?
couldn’t be further from the truththe only science that has been consistent throughout time is the science of mathematics and any scientist that should be taken serious are the scientist that take the probabilities of their theories being true into consideration before attempting to publish thembefore evolutionist can discuss any species evolving, they first have to consider the probability of a single functional ‘simple’ cell forming by natural causesaccording to sir fred hoyle (british mathematician and astronomer) the probabilities of a single functional ‘simple’ cell forming by natural cause is ‘less than’ 10 to the 57800 powergiven an eternity, every credible mathematician will tell you that is impossible.
since you guys are so into credintials:
"Sir Fred Hoyle, a world-renowned astronomer, is acknowledged to be one of the most creative scientists of the 20th century. He has held the position of Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, and was also the founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge. He is currently an Honorary Fellow of both Emmanuel College and St.John's College Cambridge and an Honorary Professor at Cardiff University of Wales. He is best known for his seminal contributions to the theory of the structure of stars and on the origin of the chemical elements in stars. He is a joint proponent of the Steady-State model of the Universe, and in collaboration with Chandra Wickramasinghe he has pioneered the modern theory of panspermia. Amongst the numerous awards and distinctions bestowed on him are the UN Kalinga Prize, 1968, the Royal Medal of the Royal Society and the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. In 1997 he was awarded the highly prestigious Crafoord Prize by the the Swedish Academy in recognition of outstanding basic research in fields not covered by the Nobel prize. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Foriegn Associate of the US National Academy of Sciences. He has published over 40 books, including technical science, popular science and science fiction" (evolution).
this is what else fred had to say on the subject...
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences even to the limit of God. such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by wj, posted 02-05-2003 6:12 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by compmage, posted 02-06-2003 5:43 AM blanko has replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 95 of 367 (31496)
02-06-2003 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by blanko
02-06-2003 3:45 AM


blanko writes:
quote:

hey guys,
i’m new here, but so far i’ve enjoyed the debate, up until schrafinator and john began questioning scientist credibility based on whether or not that scientist came from a creationist web sitethe truth is, evolution is backwards science based on scientist taking a theory (they were taught in their biased schools) and attempting to get notoriety by manipulating the evidence to support their theory.

Care to back up that assertion? I'm not going to accept your say-so that there is a global conspiracy to promote evolution and that nobody has been able to uncover it before now.
quote:

couldn’t be further from the truththe only science that has been consistent throughout time is the science of mathematics

Mathematics isn't a science.
quote:

and any scientist that should be taken serious are the scientist that take the probabilities of their theories being true into consideration before attempting to publish thembefore evolutionist can discuss any species evolving, they first have to consider the probability of a single functional ‘simple’ cell forming by natural causesaccording to sir fred hoyle (british mathematician and astronomer) the probabilities of a single functional ‘simple’ cell forming by natural cause is ‘less than’ 10 to the 57800 powergiven an eternity, every credible mathematician will tell you that is impossible.

Firstly, live most probably DID NOT start with a cell.
Secondly, abiogenisis has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution. Live could have been zapped into existence, arrived through a dimentional rift, or came about via abiogenisis. Evolution doesn't care, as long as that life doesn't replicate perfectly evolution proceeds naturally.
Thirdly, scientific theories are based on 'probabilities', though not the way you think. The more evidence supports a theory, the more probable it is that said theory is correct. No theory ever reaches 100% probability, however it can go from highly likely to to falsified very quickly. All you need is evidence that the theory cannot explain. Have any?
quote:

since you guys are so into credintials:
"Sir Fred Hoyle, a world-renowned astronomer, is acknowledged to be one of the most creative scientists of the 20th century. He has held the position of Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, and was also the founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge. He is currently an Honorary Fellow of both Emmanuel College and St.John's College Cambridge and an Honorary Professor at Cardiff University of Wales. He is best known for his seminal contributions to the theory of the structure of stars and on the origin of the chemical elements in stars. He is a joint proponent of the Steady-State model of the Universe, and in collaboration with Chandra Wickramasinghe he has pioneered the modern theory of panspermia. Amongst the numerous awards and distinctions bestowed on him are the UN Kalinga Prize, 1968, the Royal Medal of the Royal Society and the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. In 1997 he was awarded the highly prestigious Crafoord Prize by the the Swedish Academy in recognition of outstanding basic research in fields not covered by the Nobel prize. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Foriegn Associate of the US National Academy of Sciences. He has published over 40 books, including technical science, popular science and science fiction" (evolution).
this is what else fred had to say on the subject...
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences even to the limit of God. such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."

You do know what panspermia means don't you?
Where did you get this quote anyway?
It matters little. Fred Hoyle is wrong. Nobody I know says that life originated randomly. It most likely started chemically, following the rules of chemistry. You do know that chemicals don't react together randomly don't you?
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by blanko, posted 02-06-2003 3:45 AM blanko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by DanskerMan, posted 02-06-2003 9:47 AM compmage has replied
 Message 104 by blanko, posted 02-06-2003 5:58 PM compmage has replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 367 (31497)
02-06-2003 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Adminnemooseus
02-05-2003 1:36 PM


quote:
My guess is that PE was looking at the message in the preview window, and not as the posted form, and that the message never got posted.
You're probably right, although I do seem to distinctly remember seeing the post alongside other posts, which you wouldn't be able to do in preview. I wasn't suggesting there was any nefarious deletions going on - more that the post I thought I had seen posted was no longer there.
I'll let you know if it happens again (and stay off the crack ).
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-05-2003 1:36 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 367 (31525)
02-06-2003 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by compmage
02-06-2003 5:43 AM


quote:
Mathematics isn't a science.
ROFLMAO....tell that to Albert Einstein.
quote:
Firstly, live most probably DID NOT start with a cell.
Secondly, abiogenisis has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution. Live could have been zapped into existence, arrived through a dimentional rift, or came about via abiogenisis. Evolution doesn't care, as long as that life doesn't replicate perfectly evolution proceeds naturally.
That is the biggest COPOUT in evolutionism....your whole ToE idea is based on life being in existence, one would think HOW life got there in the first place should also be explained by ToE. Why has the Miller-Urey (failed) experiment been propagated for so many years in biology textbooks under evolution, if it has NOTHING to do with it.
Is it perhaps because it is too embarassing for you guys to talk about?
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by compmage, posted 02-06-2003 5:43 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-06-2003 9:57 AM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 99 by compmage, posted 02-06-2003 10:10 AM DanskerMan has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 367 (31528)
02-06-2003 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by DanskerMan
02-06-2003 9:47 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics isn't a science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROFLMAO....tell that to Albert Einstein.
Sonnike, Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Mathematics is not a science, it is a tool used by scientists. Maths is no more science than English, or German.
Do you think it might benefit you to try and learn more about the subjects you attack? At least that way you would have informed criticisms to make - most of your quibbles come from a poor understanding of the subject matter.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by DanskerMan, posted 02-06-2003 9:47 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 3:34 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 99 of 367 (31531)
02-06-2003 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by DanskerMan
02-06-2003 9:47 AM


sonnikke writes:
quote:

ROFLMAO....tell that to Albert Einstein.

Why would I want to do that?
Just because scientists make use of Math in their theories and law use equations to express certain relationships does not make mathematics science.
Math has proofs.
Science has evidence.
Math is exact.
Science is tentative.
quote:

That is the biggest COPOUT in evolutionism....your whole ToE idea is based on life being in existence,

Do you doubt that life exists?
quote:

one would think HOW life got there in the first place should also be explained by ToE.

Why? If life exists and doesn't reproduct perfectly then evolution happens. How it got here doesn't matter.
quote:

Why has the Miller-Urey (failed) experiment been propagated for so many years in biology textbooks under evolution, if it has NOTHING to do with it.

Since when did their experiment fail?
quote:

Is it perhaps because it is too embarassing for you guys to talk about?

No. It is because they are different theories. Period.
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by DanskerMan, posted 02-06-2003 9:47 AM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 367 (31532)
02-06-2003 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by wj
02-05-2003 6:12 PM


quote:
But, more importantly, are you going to retract the Dawkins "quote" or do you intend to perpetuate that fraud? And answer the specific questions asked of you by SLPx in message #69?
I think you should re-think accusatory remarks. Following is a response to "The Skeptic":
Gillian Brown’s letter to The Skeptic
You have written an article in The Skeptic, which claims to ‘demonstrate the depths to which the creationist movement will stoop in order to try to discredit its critics’, in which you denigrate my character and work, and that without having spoken to me at all.
Your article recounts Prof. Dawkins’ recollection of an interview, which is included in the video From a Frog to a Prince, which I produced, in which Dawkins is seen to pause for 11 seconds, and evade a simple question. As you yourself say: ‘It beggars belief that someone of Richard Dawkins’ stature in the field would have been stumped by such a simple question or would have evaded it.’ So, you conclude that Dawkins was ‘set up’, with ‘malicious intent’, in ‘a piece of crude propaganda’, ‘deliberately manipulated’ with ‘deceitful intent’.
First, if you are going to publish a libellous attack against someone, it is responsible journalism to inquire into both sides of the story. And in this case, before making accusations about the circumstances of an interview, it would have also been wise to have viewed the unedited tape. That way you could have presented a serious investigation of the matter, and avoided making ill-informed and false assertions.
You state: ‘perhaps it could be argued that Prof. Dawkins’ memories of the events might have deteriorated with the passage of time since the interview ’ In fact, whether from memory lapse or for other reasons, the recollection of Dr Dawkins is riddled with inaccuracies and some downright untruths. Following is an accurate account of the interview, which may be confirmed by viewing the unedited video tapes.
Dr Dawkins makes a number of incorrect statements [marked with RD Editor] as cited by Mr Williams to which my replies are interspersed and marked with GB.
RD: ‘On September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house ’
GB: I was accompanied by a former geologist, Philip Hohnen, not Geoffrey Smith.
RD: ‘ I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask ’
GB: That question actually came at the end of the interview. At the beginning, Philip Hohnen asked several general questions on the origin of new information. These questions are recorded on tape and may be viewed, either on tape or transcripted, by anyone interested in the exact nature of the questions. Dawkins objected to the questions and stopped the recording. He claimed that questions on the origin of new information were invalid, and that nobody ever asked him such questions. I responded that the question of information was perfectly valid, and very important to the evolution-creation debate.
RD: ‘The tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions, and asked them to leave my house.’
GB: At no time did Dr Dawkins ask us to leave his house. A second camera (newly purchased, which we were testing) was inadvertently not switched off until later, so it recorded most of the ensuing conversation. This remains on record to clarify supposed ‘lapses of memory’.
RD: ‘As it happens, my forthcoming book, Unweaving the Rainbow, has an entire chapter (The Genetic Book of the Dead) devoted to a much more interesting version of the idea that natural selection gathers up information from the environment, and builds it into the genome. At the time of the interview, the book was almost finished (it is to be published in November, 1998). That chapter would have been in the forefront of my mind, and it is therefore especially ludicrous to suggest that I would have evaded the question by talking about fish and amphibians.’
GB: After he asked for the camera to be switched off, Dawkins asked that his answers to the first few questions would not be used (and they have not been used). He then agreed to make a statement, but refused to take more questions from Philip.
We resumed recording, then after he finished his statement I asked for a concrete example in which an evolutionary process can be seen to have increased information on the genome. The long pause seen on the video immediately followed my question, he then asked me to switch off the camera so he could think, which I did.
After some thought he permitted the camera to be switched on again and his final answer was recorded, the answer which appears in the video, which, as can be seen, does not answer the question. Because my question was off-camera and off-mike (though clearly audible on the tape), it could not be used in the finished production. That is why the presenter was recorded later, repeating my question as I had asked it.
Your concern is that the pause was fabricated. No, the pause followed by an irrelevant answer was in response to that exact question, a question which Dr Dawkins could not answer and would have preferred not to even discuss. ‘Ludicrous’ perhaps, but the question was indeed evaded. If you would care to view the unedited tape you will be able to confirm my account.
RD: ‘If I’d wanted to turn the question into more congenial channels, all I had to do was talk about ‘The Genetic Book of the Dead’. It is a chapter I am particularly pleased with. I’d have welcomed the opportunity to expound it. Why on earth, when faced with such an opportunity, would I have kept totally silent? Unless, once again, I was actually thinking about something quite different while struggling to keep my temper?’
GB: Whatever he may have been thinking about I don’t know, but it is clear that he did not answer the question.
[From here, Gillian responds to Barry Williams’ article in The Skeptic<3907.asp> (his comments are marked by BW) Ed.]
BW: ‘If it had been left at that, it might merely have been evidence of professional incompetence on the part of the producer and editor of the tape ’
GB: Before making charges of ‘incompetence’, the original tape should be viewed The question, asked by myself (not Geoffrey Smith) was off camera, and that’s why the question was re-recorded by the narrator, the pause and the answer which follows is exactly the response from Prof. Dawkins.
The actual pause was in fact shortened from 19 seconds to 11 seconds, and Dawkins’ request to switch off the camera so that he could think was also cut out. So, there was no malicious intent whatsoever, what is seen is Dawkins’ exact response, with a shortened pause, and the (merciful not malicious) removal of his request for time to think.
BW: ‘Certainly this is by no means the first occasion on which the creation ‘science’ movement has sought to misrepresent the words of eminent scientists to bolster their own inept grasp of scientific matters, and to mislead their own unfortunate followers.’
GB: This accusation is beneath contempt now that your willingness to make accusations without doing your homework has surfaced. Another skeptic of creation, Glenn Morton, made similar charges on the Internet. He asked Richard Dawkins about it and Dawkins denied recollection of the interview. Finally, after listening to an audio tape of the interview, Dr Morton posted the following apology:
‘ I had originally questioned whether there was some doctoring going on in the tape because of certain technical details that were amiss. The shadows on the narrator were not the shadows from the room in which Dawkins sat. And the room appeared to be different. I wrote Dawkins and asked him about this. He denied having any recollection of this event. I suspected a video hatchet job. After Gillian established contact with me in June, I found that my suspicions were correct that the narrator was not in the same room as Dawkins. Gillian admitted that she had the narrator re-dub the question but contended that she had asked exactly that question and that Dawkins was shown exactly as he performed at the filming [a practice that Williams stated was acceptable Ed.]. Gillian sent a copy of the original audio tape of the interview with Dawkins to a friend of mine. He sent the tape to me.
I will state categorically that the audio tape of the interview 100% supports Gillian Brown’s contention that Dawkins couldn’t answer the question.’
References
For scientific refutations of Dawkins’ works, see:
G.H. Duggan, ‘Review of The Blind Watchmaker’, Apologia, 6(1):121—122, 1997.
R.G. Bohlin , ‘Up the River Without a Paddle Review of River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life’, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(3):322—327, 1996. See online review .
J.D. Sarfati , ‘Review of Climbing Mt Improbable’, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 12(1):29—34, 1998. See Online review .
W. Gitt , Weasel Words, Creation Ex Nihilo 20(4):20—21, September—November 1998 refutes Dawkins’ computer ‘proof’ of information arising by mutation and selection. Dr Gitt shows that the information was pre-programmed, something Dawkins admitted but glossed over. See online version .
Royal Truman , The problem of information for the theory of evolution: Has Dawkins really solved it? ((Technical) refutes Dawkins’ belated subsequent attempt to answer the question he couldn’t in the interview).
Return to text <3907.asp>
B. Williams, ‘Creationist Deception Exposed’, The Skeptic 18(3):7—10. This article has also been widely circulated on the Internet. Return to Text. <3907.asp>
Skeptics Choke on Frog | Answers in Genesis
Let truth reign.
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by wj, posted 02-05-2003 6:12 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by wj, posted 02-06-2003 11:38 PM DanskerMan has not replied

David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 367 (31540)
02-06-2003 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by John
02-05-2003 6:55 PM


Why does he look like John Cleese?
That's not John Cleese. Note the Flux Capacitor in the background?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by John, posted 02-05-2003 6:55 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by John, posted 02-06-2003 12:09 PM David unfamous has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 367 (31541)
02-06-2003 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by David unfamous
02-06-2003 12:03 PM


quote:
That's not John Cleese. Note the Flux Capacitor in the background?
I'm sure Mr. Cleese has fluxed many capacitors.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by David unfamous, posted 02-06-2003 12:03 PM David unfamous has not replied

Zephan
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 367 (31546)
02-06-2003 1:21 PM


Compmage said:
"abiogenisis has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution"
Wrong.
Er, peer reviewed reference please or shut your illogical piehole.
However, I did enjoy your fairy tale on the origin of life. Care to back up (another ) unfounded assertion with legitimate peer reviewed literature or are we to assume you are citing yourself on this one?

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by compmage, posted 02-07-2003 12:43 AM Zephan has not replied

blanko
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 367 (31563)
02-06-2003 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by compmage
02-06-2003 5:43 AM


compmage:
Care to back up that assertion? I'm not going to accept your say-so that there is a global conspiracy to promote evolution and that nobody has been able to uncover it before now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said there was a global conspiracy and I wouldn’t respect you if you did accept my say-so. I was simply trying to point out that evolution scientist are so biased and closed minded to the idea of intelligent design, that evolution should now be considered more of a treasure hunt than a search for truth. Evolutionists hold dear to any evidence they might be able to somehow fit into their bias and discard any alternative evidence as a failure.
Consider these quotes from respected evolutionist:
The Origin of Species, Darwin avowed, To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.
Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. Dr. Austin Clark, curator of paleontology at the Smithsonian Institution
Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance.
Professor Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular Biology & Research
Virologist to the Virus Laboratory, University of California Berkeley
Evolution will be a lost cause as soon as people hear all the evidence and not just the noise made by its proponents. Evan Shute, M.D., Canadian medical specialist
the fall of Darwinism will be the big story of the early 21st century Phillip E. Johnson, law professor, University of California at Berkeley
the record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists. William Dawson, famous Canadian geologist
Today everyone of these respected evolutionists (that is still living) continues to cling to what they admit is a battle against the evidence. I can only suspect they’re gambling on the evidence changing in the future, but that’s not how intelligent decisions are made. Intelligent decisions are made on the information we have available and the probability the alleged occurance actually happening. At this time, based on the evidence, the probabilities of a majority of evolution theories being fact are (as Darwin put it) absurd. I apologize for all the assertions, but I can't think of a better explanation for these scientist remaining evolutionist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
compmage
Mathematics isn't a science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrelevant, as long as you agree Math is exact
---------------------------------------------------------------------
compmage
Secondly, abiogenisis has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s debatable, but I’m no apologist for abiogenisis and I can understand why you’d want to distance yourself from that theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
compmage
Life could have been zapped into existence, arrived through a dimentional rift, or came about via abiogenisis. Science doesn't care, as long as that life doesn't replicate perfectly evolution proceeds naturally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Science or science fiction? and you object to mathematics as being called science?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
compmage
Thirdly, scientific theories are based on 'probabilities', though not the way you think. The more evidence supports a theory, the more probable it is that said theory is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence only supports the theories, if no alternative theory is considered. After all, Math is exact, shouldn’t mathematical probabilities be the standard all theories are based on?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
compmage
No theory ever reaches 100% probability, however it can go from highly likely to falsified very quickly. All you need is evidence that the theory cannot explain. Have any?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not saying evolution can’t explain all of the evidence, I’m just saying it can’t give an explanation that is not mathematically impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
compmage
You do know what panspermia means don't you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m a creationist, far from a believer in panspermia. I was only trying to find a scientist that wouldn’t instantly be discredited, because he was a creationist (I’m lying, my badbut that doesn’t mean his math is not credible).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
compmage
Nobody I know says that life originated randomly. It most likely started chemically, following the rules of chemistry. You do know that chemicals don't react together randomly don't you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll admit I love math, but have never been a big fan of chemistry. However, here’s what math has to say about the probability hurdles Chemical Evolutionist have to face (maybe you can explain it to me):
Scientific American published an article which claimed that any chemical event having a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the 67th power will never happen, and has never happened--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 20 billion years!
Chemical Absurdities and the Jethro Factor
by Charles E. Brewster, Ph.D.
The odds against forming a fairly small protein chain of about 250 amino acids by chance. (Protein chains of up to 50,000 amino acids are found in nature.) The odds against assembling any protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the n th power where n is the number of consecutive amino acids in the protein. This means that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power. (The odds against assembling a useable protein molecule of 50,000 amino acids would be less than one chance in 10 to the 15,000th power!) So could this small 250 amino acid protein ever form by chance in our hypothetical ocean? Never! It could never happen by chance!
So if it is mathematically and physically impossible to for even a single protein chain of 250 amino acids to form by chance, what would it take for a fully functioning cell consisting of at least 100 useable proteins to assemble themselves at the same point in the universe at the same time? (This is even given that we had all the other cell mechanisms existing at that point in the universe, at that point in time, encircling them!) The answer is one chance in 10 to the 74 multiplied by itself 100 times! (10 to the 7400). And this only gets us 100 very small proteins!
This is why scientists now believe that the odds against a fully functioning cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power! (1 followed by one hundred billion zeroes--think of it as a 100 gigabyte harddrive full of nothing but zeroes. Big number!)
Chemical evolutionist are not being honest. For if they were, they would acknowledge that any chemical event that has a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the 67th power will never happen--and has never happened--anytime, anywhere in the universe, ever! This is science! Hard, mathematical science! And how much more impossible, an event with a probability of one chance in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by compmage, posted 02-06-2003 5:43 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coragyps, posted 02-06-2003 7:55 PM blanko has not replied
 Message 109 by compmage, posted 02-07-2003 1:32 AM blanko has replied
 Message 110 by Quetzal, posted 02-07-2003 6:16 AM blanko has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 105 of 367 (31578)
02-06-2003 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by blanko
02-06-2003 5:58 PM


quote:
The Origin of Species, Darwin avowed, To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.
OH, NOOOOOOO! The dreaded Darwin "eye" quote! Run for your lives!!!
Seriously, blanko: have you ever heard of the term "rhetorical question?" You are dealing with one here. You need to find the rest of the paragraph that this resided in originally, and read it. For comprehension. And don't try to argue by out-of-context quotes like that: you'll get shot down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by blanko, posted 02-06-2003 5:58 PM blanko has not replied

lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 367 (31601)
02-06-2003 11:01 PM


As to whether or not mathematics is a science, that is a matter of definition. Mathematics is, however, not an empirical science, which is what many of you people seem to mean by "science".
sonnikke:
....your whole ToE idea is based on life being in existence, one would think HOW life got there in the first place should also be explained by ToE. Why has the Miller-Urey (failed) experiment been propagated for so many years in biology textbooks under evolution, if it has NOTHING to do with it.
The famous Urey-Miller experiments were the first of many prebiotic-chemistry experiments; a search with PubMed reveals a big literature on such experiments. Organic compounds are easy to produce from simple starting materials, like water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, etc., provided that the starting materials are sufficiently reducing (tending to donate rather than accept electrons; opposed to oxidizing).
In fact, I have personally known someone who had done simulations of the atmosphere of Saturn's satellite Titan -- the experiments would produce a reddish-brown goo. And Titan has reddish-brown clouds!
Although no new organisms have emerged from such experiments, I don't consider that a big disaster. The experiments have gone part of the way.
blanko:
... I was simply trying to point out that evolution scientist are so biased and closed minded to the idea of intelligent design, that evolution should now be considered more of a treasure hunt than a search for truth. Evolutionists hold dear to any evidence they might be able to somehow fit into their bias and discard any alternative evidence as a failure.
"Let whoever has committed no sin throw the first stone." Guess who said that.
(blanko's quotebook selections snipped)
compmage:
Life could have been zapped into existence, arrived through a dimentional rift, or came about via abiogenisis. Science doesn't care, as long as that life doesn't replicate perfectly evolution proceeds naturally.
blanko:
Science or science fiction? and you object to mathematics as being called science?
Blanko, how are such "science-fictional" notions any more absurd than your personal beliefs?
(a lot of stuff on the improbability of a protein forming with only one handedness from a racemic (both-handedness) mixture...)
How molecular-level handedness got started is, I will concede, a mystery. My pet theory is that different handednesses tend to interfere with each other, causing a selection for being only one handedness -- something like a coin balanced on its side that tips over in either its heads or its tails direction.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024