Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate

More accurately, the origin of the first replicators which eventually gave rise to modern life is outside of the theory of evolution.The reasons why this is a better description are firstly that life is not clearly defined, so that it could be argued that those replicators did not quite qualify as living, and the development from the replicators to life would then be included in the theory. Secondly the origin is of interest, because it may shed light on other matters, even though it itself is outside of the theory.

Certified Java Programmer here, with NetBeans installed and a few demo programs lying around (even if my text is at work).One thing, I can think of is that the CLASSPATH variable has to include the jar file (not just the directory to work).However, the description of the problem is unclear. How are you trying to run the program elsewhere, and which Class definition is missing ?

I can get it to start up and show the Help screen, even without downloading the test files. No sign of any trouble. I don't think that I can help more without more information.

My Java work - and it is work, not personal development - isn't really for the desktop, and gzipped tar files is the usual distribution method (or zipped for Windows).

As a biochemist Behe might be marginal. Sternberg (taxonomist ?) and Gauger (zoologist) seem to be the main ones with a claim to be biological scientists. Wells doesn't seem to have done any post-doctoral work. so I wouldn't count him.

In that case I don't think you'll see anything more than the claim that there are lots of them but that they are keeping quite for fear of reprisals (although any such fear would have more to do with ID scaremongering than reality).

I question whether anyone who hasn't done post doctoral work should be counted as a scientist, no matter what they believe.Matt Ridley, writer of a number of pro-evolution books isn't usually counted as a scientist despite having a doctorate in Zoology.The suggestion that I am only counting those in the biological sciences ignore the context of the question. Certainly those with other qualifications can be counted as scientists - but equally their qualifications don't automatically give us any reason to believe that they have any real understanding of biology or evolution. Their opinions on those matters cannot automatically be given any more credence than those of the man in the street (perhaps less, if their opinion is clearly based on prejudice). This is why Trixie wanted to know about the number of biologists in the ID movement.And might I suggest that if you find this site a hostile environment you should turn down your own hostility. If you act like this you have to expect replies in kind, and complaining would be hypocrisy.

What do you mean, "what hostility" ? Your post was aggressive and confrontational, falsely attributing a quite unreasonable view to me - as well as ignoring the context.

quote:

---

Although a PhD in a specific field should know more about his field than scientists from other fields, most competent scientists from a wide range of fields, can offer very valid objections if they have done sufficient research on the subject.

---

Well that's the issue isn't it. We can''t assume that they HAVE done sufficient research. And just listing people won't tell you whether their opinion is based on anything more than prejudice.Really, just giving a list of scientists (often padded with people who aren't even scientists) is more often a propaganda tool designed to cover up a lack of valid scientific support.

quote:

---

Now, if you get a large number of competent scientists from a variety of fields outside of the subject in question that object to the conclusions of the expert in the subject, I feel their objections have considerable merit. The subject of global warming comes to mind.

---

Except that it turns out that the objections didn't have much merit...

quote:

---

From what I have seen, the anthropogenic global warming theory is full of holes. I have seen objection after objection go unanswered.

---

Really? I see it as undeniable that atmospheric CO2 is increasing as a result of human activity, that global warming is occurring and that the there are excellent reasons to exoect the first to contribute to the second.I also suspect that you mean that you have not seen the answers to the objections - which does not mean that they do not exist, only that your favoured sources do not report them.

If you mean a really literal reading of Genesis 1 then you can forget it. Even the YECs don't try that. You might be better off asking for ideas on how to interpret Genesis 1 so that it is in at least rough agreement with science. Although I suspect that you will run into problems even there.