A poll: Creationist arguments.
smil...@my-deja.com
creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are
bad, feel free to vote.
My nominees:
1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The claim is made that this law
really says that everything descends from "order" to "disorder," and
thus, life cannot spontaneously arise. If you know anything about the
laws of thermodynamics, you already know how absurd this argument is,
so I won't go into detail.
2. God is "testing our faith" by making all the evidence for
evolution/old universe that we see all around us. He made great big
light waves from all the far away stars (that show events that happened
long before 4004 B.C.) and created rocks with the perfect compositions
to seem old by radioactive dating. After all, even if this is true,
who can blame us for falling for a trick played by God Himself?
3. The Great Flood. Need I say more?
4. The speed of light used to be faster. A LOT faster. It was slowing
down, but umm, it leveled off sometime before we learned how to measure
it.
5. Nature is pretty (magnificent/amazing/grandiose), so God must have
made it, because God likes pretty things.
6. Evolution destroys morality.
7. Write in candidate! Insert your nominee here.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Boikat
Most inane cretionist argument? Hovind.
Boikat
Gyudon Z
years.
Kari Tikkanen
: This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
: creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
: generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
: to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are
: bad, feel free to vote.
Those claims where they doubt heliocentrism. Some even claim that
earth stands still and sun revolves earth. They get support from
public gallups. 55-57% of US citizen "don't know" that earth orbits
sun once in a year.
Now I've found some geocentric creationists in Finland, too...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Tikkanen ! . . -#- ! b ! begin
FIN-90550 OULU ! ! ! I = / f(x)dx ! s:=s+Eq(i);
FINLAND ! . . Vega ! a ! end
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane
LGFR
> This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
> creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
> generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
> to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are
> bad, feel free to vote.
>
[...Smilers nominees snipped...]
#. The way creationists like to use CAPITAL LETTERS to SHOUT
ABOUT GRUD thereby losing ALL EMPHASIS in the white NOIIIIISE.
LGFR
Thomas Scharle
: My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in four thousand
: years.
:
Remember the "population" argument of the "creationists"?
"If humans were around for more than 6000 years, there would
be a gazillion of us today."
(Of course, as usual, they don't really do the calculation.
That would make the silliness obvious, even to the believers.)
But my all-time candidate for the worst argument ever brought
up is the Argument From Design. The AFD, if it shows anything at
all, shows that the world is made by a Pantheon of conflicting
designers, a sort of dysfunctional family of Valhalla.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Aleister Crowley's Cat
wrote:
>This is going to be a poll to decide the most
annoying/worst/most inane
>creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents
will
>generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely
welcome
>to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments
are
>bad, feel free to vote.
>
>My nominees:
>
8. There are not enough supernova remnants in the universe for it
to be the edge that it is.
(somehow, the fact that supernova remnants don't actually last
for umpteen billion years seems to escape the creationists.)
9. The bible is right, thus any facts which contradict it are
obviously wrong. Also known as the "heliocentralism sucks"
theory.
10. Macro-evolution has never taken place.
11. There are no transitional fossils.
12. Moon dust, accumulation thereof.
13. The Earth's Magnetic Field.
14. Anything with "Mt St Helens" in it.
15. The amazing vegetarian carnivores (related to point 3)
16. Ken Ham is never wrong. No sireee. Has never altered
transcripts of BBC Newsnight interviews to make it seem like he
came out on top when the complete opposite was the case. Nope.
Wasn't him. Nothing to do with him.
(Ken Ham ancedote - a few years back, Channel 4 here in the UK
had a documentary about SETI and the possibility of
extra-terrestial life (this was before the Mars Meteorite). Just
about everyone interviewed (Scientists, Astronomers etc) were
upbeat and fairly positive about the chances of extraterrestial
life, and then they interviewed Ken Ham, who was *definite* that
there was *no* extraterrestial life (and never had been, and
never will be) because he worked out from the Bible that God gave
infinite love to humanity, and thus there would be no room left
for any love to be given to any other species...)
17. The sun is shrinking rapidly.
(Guess those solar eclipses observed by the ancient Chinese and
Mayans weren't actually eclipses after all then, but
Satanically-inspired hallucinations)
18. The moon is receding from the earth at 1.5 inches per year,
which somehow means that it crashed into the earth a billion
years ago (one for the mathematical geniuses amongst us there)
This is rapidly turning into the, err, "Greatest" Hits of
Creationism. My personal favourite is no 9. (The Bible is "never"
wrong")
Regards,
Dave
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Justin Cobb
Justin Cobb
<smil...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8f5rt8$eqg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Larry Handlin
>This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
>creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
>generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
>to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are
>bad, feel free to vote.
>
Hydroplate, definitely hydroplate. Of course, I find it less annoying
and more hysterical
>My nominees:
>
>1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The claim is made that this law
>really says that everything descends from "order" to "disorder," and
>thus, life cannot spontaneously arise. If you know anything about the
>laws of thermodynamics, you already know how absurd this argument is,
>so I won't go into detail.
>
>2. God is "testing our faith" by making all the evidence for
>evolution/old universe that we see all around us. He made great big
>light waves from all the far away stars (that show events that happened
>long before 4004 B.C.) and created rocks with the perfect compositions
>to seem old by radioactive dating. After all, even if this is true,
>who can blame us for falling for a trick played by God Himself?
>
>3. The Great Flood. Need I say more?
>
>4. The speed of light used to be faster. A LOT faster. It was slowing
>down, but umm, it leveled off sometime before we learned how to measure
>it.
>
>5. Nature is pretty (magnificent/amazing/grandiose), so God must have
>made it, because God likes pretty things.
>
>6. Evolution destroys morality.
>
>7. Write in candidate! Insert your nominee here.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
reply to:lbha...@my-not.com
not-deja--spam protection--figure it out
"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
-- Carl Sagan
sc...@home.com
>My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in four thousand
>years.
>
Scott
hiero5ant
>
>7. Write in candidate! Insert your nominee here.
it's so hard!
let's see...i was particularly fond of the list Dan Smith gave us a few
weeks ago that insisted that the continents were both building up too fast
*and* being eroded too fast (haha); the "residency times" in the ocean
argument -- according to creationists, aluminum levels prove that the oceans
are only 100 years old (hahaHA). of course, there's always the old favorites
ad hominem ("darwin was a racist") and Burn In Hell ("if you believe in
evolution then the all-loving god will send you to a lake of fire").
my vote for favorite (as in most irritating) has got to be design. i have
here in my hand a pamphlet adapted from Ray Comfort's "God Doesn't Believe
In Atheists" open to the section entitled "The Banana - The Atheist's
Nightmare" which notes that the banana "is shaped for the human hand, has a
point at top for ease of entry, is pleasing to the taste buds, and is curved
towards the face to make the eating process easy".
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Mark VandeWettering
>
> This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
> creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
> generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
> to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are
> bad, feel free to vote.
The only truly annoying bit of creationism is the argument that says:
Creationism is worthy of study in a science classroom.
People are entitled to believe whatever absurd things they want (and
you provided a pretty good list of some of them), but I draw the line
when their religious dogma demands equal treatment in a science classroom.
Mark
--
Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
Email: <ma...@pixar.com> http://raytracer.org
Bill Shatzer
gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
> My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in four
thousand
> years.
Not difficult. Assuming each breeding couple can produce four
surviving offspring which live to reproduce themselves, my back of the
envelope calculations say that less than 32 generations would be
required to reach a population of six billion. Assuming an average of
25 years per generation, 800 years ought to be sufficient to reach a
population of six billion. Even if you wish to postulate a lesser
birth/survival rate, there is still plenty of time to reach a
population of six billion assuming only four original breeding pairs.
Remember the old puzzle about the barley grains and the chessboard?
You put one grain on the first square, two on the second, four on the
third and so on? You'll have exceeded the entire world's supply of
grain shortly after passing the half-way point.
There's lots of silly creationist arguments this isn't one.
Cheers and all,
--
- Bill Shatzer - bsha...@orednet.org-
"Being weak minded is not necessarily a detriment"
-Jesse Ventura
Mitchell Coffey
sch...@maimonides.helios.nd.edu (Thomas Scharle) wrote:
> Gyudon Z (gyu...@aol.com) wrote:
[snip]
> But my all-time candidate for the worst argument ever brought
> up is the Argument From Design. The AFD, if it shows anything at
> all, shows that the world is made by a Pantheon of conflicting
> designers, a sort of dysfunctional family of Valhalla.
>
> --
> Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Hey, I've long considered the gods of Homer far more probable than that
of the Testaments.
Mitchell Coffey
_____________________________________________________
"Nostalgia is the handmaiden of fascism"
- Mary Gordon
Mitchell Coffey
sc...@home.com wrote:
> In <20000508040727...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, gyu...@aol.com
(Gyudon Z) writes:
> >My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in
four thousand
> >years.
> >
>
> Scott
Sure, for a start, but try the math.
Ferrous Patella
>
>This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
>creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
>generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
>to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are
>bad, feel free to vote.
>
>
>1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The claim is made that this law
>really says that everything descends from "order" to "disorder," and
>thus, life cannot spontaneously arise. If you know anything about the
>laws of thermodynamics, you already know how absurd this argument is,
>so I won't go into detail.
>
No. 1 gets my vote since anyone who knows enough about 2LoT to put the argument
together knows enough to see where it is wrong. Whoever concocted it, did so to
intentionally decive the (scientifically) ignorant masses.
Terry Rigby
Bill Shatzer <bsha...@oregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:8f6qtl$gno$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20000508040727...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
> > My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in four
> thousand
> > years.
>
> surviving offspring which live to reproduce themselves, my back of the
> envelope calculations say that less than 32 generations would be
> required to reach a population of six billion. Assuming an average of
> 25 years per generation, 800 years ought to be sufficient to reach a
> population of six billion. Even if you wish to postulate a lesser
> birth/survival rate, there is still plenty of time to reach a
> population of six billion assuming only four original breeding pairs.
Ever heard of the four horsemen of the apocalyse. In the 14th century 1/4
of the population of Europe died of the Black Death. Wars have decimated
populations for millenia. Famines have killed millions as have earthquakes
and volcanos etc.
Factor those in and your maths starts to look less certain.
Terry Rigby
>
> Remember the old puzzle about the barley grains and the chessboard?
> You put one grain on the first square, two on the second, four on the
> third and so on? You'll have exceeded the entire world's supply of
> grain shortly after passing the half-way point.
>
> There's lots of silly creationist arguments this isn't one.
> Cheers and all,
> --
> - Bill Shatzer - bsha...@orednet.org-
> "Being weak minded is not necessarily a detriment"
> -Jesse Ventura
>
>
Geoff Sheffield
Bill Shatzer <bsha...@oregonVOS.net> wrote:
> In article <20000508040727...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
> > My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in
four
> thousand
> > years.
>
> Not difficult. Assuming each breeding couple can produce four
> surviving offspring which live to reproduce themselves, my back of the
> envelope calculations say that less than 32 generations would be
> required to reach a population of six billion. Assuming an average of
> 25 years per generation, 800 years ought to be sufficient to reach a
> population of six billion. Even if you wish to postulate a lesser
> birth/survival rate, there is still plenty of time to reach a
> population of six billion assuming only four original breeding pairs.
OK, now use your results to calculate how many people were alive
when the pyramids were built, when Aristotle lived, etc. The
numbers don't work, even given a constant population growth rate.
>
> Remember the old puzzle about the barley grains and the chessboard?
> You put one grain on the first square, two on the second, four on the
> third and so on? You'll have exceeded the entire world's supply of
> grain shortly after passing the half-way point.
>
> There's lots of silly creationist arguments this isn't one.
Yes, it's pretty silly. The population growth rate at various
times in the Middle Ages is known to have been negative,
because of the bubonic plague for one thing. Did you factor
that into your arithmetic? A constant population growth
rate is not a good assumption. There are more than two
data points that need to be explained.
> Cheers and all,
> --
> - Bill Shatzer - bsha...@orednet.org-
> "Being weak minded is not necessarily a detriment"
> -Jesse Ventura
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
>
--
Geoff Sheffield
Gyudon Z
>surviving offspring which live to reproduce themselves,
A ridiculously optimistic assumption. Remember that if you kill someone, you
kill all of his or her descendants as well.
Gyudon Z
>Nightmare" which notes that the banana "is shaped for the human hand, has a
>point at top for ease of entry, is pleasing to the taste buds, and is curved
>towards the face to make the eating process easy".
Apart from the taste, the same argument could be made for an erect penis. Just
a thought...
Maarten D. de Jong
: my vote for favorite (as in most irritating) has got to be design. i have
: here in my hand a pamphlet adapted from Ray Comfort's "God Doesn't Believe
: Nightmare" which notes that the banana "is shaped for the human hand, has a
: point at top for ease of entry, is pleasing to the taste buds, and is curved
: towards the face to make the eating process easy".
It says a lot more about the people actually believing this. You should
read Pratchett's Discworld novel 'Feet of Clay'---near the end you get
a situation like this.
Anyway, the arguments listed in this thread are all very good. One of my
favourites is the computation of plate tectonics to account for the
breakup of Pangea to the current plate distribution---in just under
6000 years! Lava has to behave like water for this to happen, and if
didn't, the release of friction heat would fry the Earth to a cinder.
I particularly enjoy this example because the equations used to do these
calculations are 'honest': real geophysicists use them as well. It's just
that since the *parameters* are so twisted that the outcome is ridiculous.
Garbage in, garbage out :-).
Maarten
Steven Carr
wrote:
>In article <8f5rt8$eqg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, smil...@my-deja.com says...
>>My nominees:
>>1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The claim is made that this law
>>really says that everything descends from "order" to "disorder," and
>>thus, life cannot spontaneously arise. If you know anything about the
>>laws of thermodynamics, you already know how absurd this argument is,
>>so I won't go into detail.
>No. 1 gets my vote since anyone who knows enough about 2LoT to put the argument
>together knows enough to see where it is wrong. Whoever concocted it, did so to
>intentionally decive the (scientifically) ignorant masses.
Number 1 gets even more votes when it is expressed as the Second Law
of Thermal Dynamics.
Steven Carr
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
Floyd
hiero5ant wrote:
> >
> >7. Write in candidate! Insert your nominee here.
>
[snip]
>
> my vote for favorite (as in most irritating) has got to be design. i have
> here in my hand a pamphlet adapted from Ray Comfort's "God Doesn't Believe
> In Atheists" open to the section entitled "The Banana - The Atheist's
> Nightmare" which notes that the banana "is shaped for the human hand, has a
> point at top for ease of entry, is pleasing to the taste buds, and is curved
> towards the face to make the eating process easy".
> hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Ah, yes, good old Dr. Pangloss; and we have noses so that we have a place to
put our spectacles, and we have legs because there would otherwise be nothing
useful to do with all those pairs of trousers! The creationists' heads have
points at the top for ease of entry, IMHO! :-D
-Floyd
wf...@ptd.net
>In <20000508040727...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) writes:
>>My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in four thousand
>>years.
>>
>Lots of sex?
>
>
>Scott
>
im willing to do the lab work...
wf...@ptd.net
>This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
>creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
>generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
>to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are
>bad, feel free to vote.
>
>My nominees:
>
>1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The claim is made that this law
>really says that everything descends from "order" to "disorder," and
>thus, life cannot spontaneously arise. If you know anything about the
>laws of thermodynamics, you already know how absurd this argument is,
>so I won't go into detail.
>
>2. God is "testing our faith" by making all the evidence for
>evolution/old universe that we see all around us. He made great big
>light waves from all the far away stars (that show events that happened
>long before 4004 B.C.) and created rocks with the perfect compositions
>to seem old by radioactive dating. After all, even if this is true,
>who can blame us for falling for a trick played by God Himself?
>
>3. The Great Flood. Need I say more?
>
>4. The speed of light used to be faster. A LOT faster. It was slowing
>down, but umm, it leveled off sometime before we learned how to measure
>it.
>
>5. Nature is pretty (magnificent/amazing/grandiose), so God must have
>made it, because God likes pretty things.
>
>6. Evolution destroys morality.
>
>7. Write in candidate! Insert your nominee here.
>
>
it might be a redundancy of 5, but the 'fine tuning' argument always
seems to strike a chord with the creationist set...
rokimo...@my-deja.com
Mark VandeWettering <ma...@pixar.com> wrote:
> smil...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
> > creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
> > generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
> > to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are
> > bad, feel free to vote.
>
>
> Creationism is worthy of study in a science classroom.
>
> People are entitled to believe whatever absurd things they want (and
> you provided a pretty good list of some of them), but I draw the line
> when their religious dogma demands equal treatment in a science classroom.
>
> Mark
>
This gets my vote. I can't think of any other creationist argument or
statement that can compare with this one.
Ron Okimoto
A Pagano
This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are bad,
feel free to vote.
Pagano replies:
For each creationist that smiler nominates as annoying/worst/inane I
will be able to nominate a similar secularist who demonstrates similar
traits.
***********************************
Smiler continues:
My nominees:
1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The claim is made that this law
really says that everything descends from "order" to "disorder," and
thus, life cannot spontaneously arise. If you know anything about the
laws of thermodynamics, you already know how absurd this argument is, so
I won't go into detail.
Pagano replies:
If smiler can produce a single scientific study where complexity can
arise in an irreversible process in the absence of an energy conversion
system to convert raw energy into a form usable by the system undergoing
change and in the absence of a control system such that the changes in
the system are on average progressive and integrative rather than
destructive let him produce them. Origin of life workers have failed at
virtually every turn. I should point out to smiler that "complexity"
and "order" are not synonyms. There are many ordered systems within
nature which are completely inadequate to store the quatities of
information necessary to account for the creation of life.
My nominees for secular misunderstandings:
1. The second law of thermodynamics-- The secularist claim is made that
the combination of matter, material necessity, chance, and raw energy
are sufficient to explain an increase in complexity in the absence of
energy conversion systems and control systems and that such an increase
does not violate the second law. Ad absurdum, this (sometimes made
secularist claim) is akin to suggesting that pouring gasoline over a
pile of lumber and nails could, given enough time, result in a complex
house.
***********************************
smiler continues:
2. God is "testing our faith" by making all the evidence for
evolution/old universe that we see all around us. He made great big
light waves from all the far away stars (that show events that happened
long before 4004 B.C.) and created rocks with the perfect compositions
to seem old by radioactive dating. After all, even if this is true, who
can blame us for falling for a trick played by God Himself?
Pagano replies:
Smiler fails to realize that these are conjectural interpretations of
the evidence not the evidence crying out the truth about past reality.
Anyone who reads the journals "Science" or "Nature" understands that man
knows almost nothing about the origin of the cosmos and even less about
the actual history between then and when humans began recording
history. There is very little unanimous secular scientific agreement
about anything concerning cosmology. What this means is that smiler is
far too confident about a period in history where there were no
observers, where such events were unique and non recurring, where such
events are not experimentally reproducible and therefore his precious
science is not privileged.
The oft made claim that some finite collection of observations (like the
red shift, the distance to various stars, and the background microwave
radiation) fits into some conjectural framework and therefore justifies
the assertion that we "know" how our universe originated and "know" what
happened during the intervening 15 billion years of unobserved history
is itself religion masquerading as science. The history of science
chronicles theories which were far better corroborated than Big Bang and
which subsequently turned out to be false.
There is no such thing as an absolute measure of time. Radiometric
dating methods are not absolute in any sense of that word. Radiometric
dating suffers from at least two difficulties which it has not solved
and as a result radiometric dating is rarely used as a primary and
independent method of dating. The distance to the stars has no bearing
on the age of the earth. And the Genesis author wrote with Earth as his
frame of reference. Einstein figured out that the "movement of time" is
relative to your frame of reference. What this means is that a young
earth and distant stars are only incompatible if the highly speculative
assumptions of the Copernican principle, the anthropic principle, and
the highly speculative theory of Big Bang are true. But no one is
anywhere close to making such a claim.
***************************************************
Smiler continues:
3. The Great Flood. Need I say more?
Pagano replies:
I would say yes. One wonders how smiler knows what occurred 6000-10,000
years ago. The scientific method is only privileged to investigate
recurring, observable, and experimentally reproducible events. But the
"origins" events under investigation are not recurring, observable or
experimentally reproducible. Smiler should remember that the difference
between the Noahic Flood and modern secular speculations is one of
degree not kind. Modern secular geologists, in part, theorize that
stratigraphic layers were the result of calm, global-like flooding over
eons while the creationist presupposes a short term, catastrophic,
global flood.
*********************************************
smiler continues:
4. The speed of light used to be faster. A LOT faster. It was slowing
down, but umm, it leveled off sometime before we learned how to measure
it.
Pagano replies:
This was given some serious consideration after Setterfield discovered
that measurements of the speed of light recorded by various scientists
over time appeared to decrease. However, after analysis and
experimentation most creationists believe that the data Setterfield
analyzed did not represent a genuine decrease in the speed of light over
time. There are some creationist holdouts but they are in the
minority. The creationists most likely to see this as a reasonable
possibility are those who assume that the secular assumptions of the
Copernican principle, the anthropic principle, and the conjectural Big
Bang are truthlike and see c-decay as a way to harmonize that framework
with creationism.
************************************************
Smiler continues:
5. Nature is pretty (magnificent/amazing/grandiose), so God must have
made it, because God likes pretty things.
Pagano replies:
I should point out to Smiler that the modern secular claim that "Nature
did everything" is no less metaphysical than the christian assertion
that "God created everything."
Neither Christians nor creationists make the argument that nature is
magnificent therefore God must have made it because He likes pretty
things. It would be doubtful if Smiler could produce a single
creationist who ever made such an assertion.
Christians assert dogmatically that God is the Creator of everything.
The Chrisitian teaching that we can see God in His magnificent Creation
already presupposes that He created everything. Our observations of a
magnificent and beautiful world are not used to justify or prove the
dogmatic claim.
*********************************************
Smiler continues:
6. Evolution destroys morality.
Pagano replies:
Smiler apparently is making the weak claim that scientific theories
about reality have no implications whatsoever upon culture, society, and
the behavior of its members.
*********************************************
Smiler wrote:
7. Write in candidate! Insert your nominee here.
Pagano replies:
Smiler might be my nominee for the secularist who thinks he knows more
than he actually does.
Regards,
T Pagano
Sykodude
> On 8 May 2000 03:55:31 -0400, smil...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
> >creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
> >generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
> >to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are
> >bad, feel free to vote.
> >
> >
> >1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The claim is made that this law
> >really says that everything descends from "order" to "disorder," and
> >thus, life cannot spontaneously arise. If you know anything about the
> >laws of thermodynamics, you already know how absurd this argument is,
> >so I won't go into detail.
> >
> >evolution/old universe that we see all around us. He made great big
> >light waves from all the far away stars (that show events that happened
> >long before 4004 B.C.) and created rocks with the perfect compositions
> >to seem old by radioactive dating. After all, even if this is true,
> >who can blame us for falling for a trick played by God Himself?
> >
> >
> >down, but umm, it leveled off sometime before we learned how to measure
> >it.
> >
> >made it, because God likes pretty things.
> >
> >
> >7. Write in candidate! Insert your nominee here.
> >
> >
>
> seems to strike a chord with the creationist set...
>
>
hello, to you all.
I hate this one. The creationist think that the universe is "fine tuned"
for life to exist, but I my mind, the universe was around earlier and life
arose under those "initial" conditions to the best it could, not that they
were set for life to arise. And, if any of 40-50, can't remember, constants
changes then life couldn't exist. All I got to say to that is "Life as we
know it". If something was different, maybe no life would accure or maybe
silcon based life instead of carbon based would would accurw. In short, ID
(the part about the fine tuning, then the rest of it) is the most annoying
to me. followed by 6 then 1.
--
Syko
------------------------------
When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.
~ Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)
------------------------------
George Acton
like a religion. My choice may be a belief too, but it deserves
at least equal time. When you try to censor my choice, it's like
you're tryng to interfere with my freedom to worship.
--George Acton
Justin Cobb
thousand
> >>years.
> >>
> >Lots of sex?
> >
> >
> >Scott
> >
> im willing to do the lab work...
Hell yeah, count me in, too!
Justin Cobb
sc...@home.com
>In article <3916e...@news1.prserv.net>,
>four thousand
>> >years.
>> >
>> Lots of sex?
>>
>> Scott
>
>
lot to do with it.
Scott
wf...@ptd.net
>> >>My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in four
>thousand
>> >>years.
>> >>
>> >Lots of sex?
>> >
>> >
>> >Scott
>> >
>> im willing to do the lab work...
>
>Hell yeah, count me in, too!
>
>Justin Cobb
>
grants!! we need LOTSA grant money!!
someone's gotta buy the beer...
sc...@home.com
>
>Bill Shatzer <bsha...@oregonVOS.net> wrote in message
>news:8f6qtl$gno$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>> > My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in four
>> thousand
>> > years.
>>
>> surviving offspring which live to reproduce themselves, my back of the
>> envelope calculations say that less than 32 generations would be
>> required to reach a population of six billion. Assuming an average of
>> 25 years per generation, 800 years ought to be sufficient to reach a
>> population of six billion. Even if you wish to postulate a lesser
>> birth/survival rate, there is still plenty of time to reach a
>> population of six billion assuming only four original breeding pairs.
>
>of the population of Europe died of the Black Death. Wars have decimated
>populations for millenia. Famines have killed millions as have earthquakes
>and volcanos etc.
>Factor those in and your maths starts to look less certain.
>
It's things like wars, famines, plagues, etc.
Scott
sc...@home.com
>>Assuming each breeding couple can produce four
>>surviving offspring which live to reproduce themselves,
>
>kill all of his or her descendants as well.
>
You could kill both my parent right now and
they would still leave more descendants than
the four in his assumption.
Trying to trump one assumption with another
assumption isn't too good a tactic.
Scott
sc...@home.com
I've seen.
The universe MUST be the way it is or we would
not be here. Just what is it that *requires* the
universe to be as it is?
Would it be that way even if we weren't here to
observe it?
Scott
sc...@home.com
>> >>My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in four
>thousand
>> >>years.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Scott
>> >
>> im willing to do the lab work...
>
>Hell yeah, count me in, too!
>
>Justin Cobb
>
Scott
John Wilkins
7. Evolution is a tautology (it isn't,or if it is, then so is any science
that uses mathematics)
8. Evolution is unfalsifiable/not science (it is, or if it isn't, neither
is any scientific theory)
9. Evolution is just chance - var. of 1.
10. Information is never created (there's a law of conservation of
information I haven't heard about?) - var of 1...
11. ...except by design (designers avoid the 2LoT?)
--
John Wilkins
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
Herb Huston
7. "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@radix.net
-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
wf...@ptd.net
>smil...@my-deja.com wrote:
>This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
>creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
>generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
>to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are bad,
>feel free to vote.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>For each creationist that smiler nominates as annoying/worst/inane I
>will be able to nominate a similar secularist who demonstrates similar
>traits.
except the creationists are wrong.
>***********************************
>
>
>Smiler continues:
>My nominees:
>1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The claim is made that this law
>really says that everything descends from "order" to "disorder," and
>thus, life cannot spontaneously arise. If you know anything about the
>laws of thermodynamics, you already know how absurd this argument is, so
>I won't go into detail.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>If smiler can produce a single scientific study where complexity can
>arise in an irreversible process in the absence of an energy conversion
>system to convert raw energy
there is no energy conversion system needed. creationists manufacture
non existent laws of nature. nature seeks the lowest energy states.
thats why things roll down hill. the same principle occurs in chemical
reaction, the operative value in this case being the attempt to
extract the largest gibbs free energy from a system
pagano doesnt know this so he makes something up. he is, after all, a
creationist.
>
>My nominees for secular misunderstandings:
>1. The second law of thermodynamics-- The secularist claim is made that
>the combination of matter, material necessity, chance, and raw energy
>are sufficient to explain an increase in complexity in the absence of
>energy conversion systems and control systems and that such an increase
>does not violate the second law. Ad absurdum, this (sometimes made
>secularist claim) is akin to suggesting that pouring gasoline over a
>pile of lumber and nails could, given enough time, result in a complex
>house.
pagano here misunderstands thermo. no surprise, given his bizarre
statement above about 'energy conversion mechanisms'...
pagano forgets that the energy driving evolution is
solar...photosynthetic reactions, operating under the laws of
thermo...(see the 'gibbs free energy' above) convert solar energy to
structural elements (like cellulose). pagano ignores this. he's a
creationist: he's required to ignore science.
>***********************************
>
>
>
>smiler continues:
>2. God is "testing our faith" by making all the evidence for
>evolution/old universe that we see all around us. He made great big
>light waves from all the far away stars (that show events that happened
>long before 4004 B.C.) and created rocks with the perfect compositions
>to seem old by radioactive dating. After all, even if this is true, who
>can blame us for falling for a trick played by God Himself?
>
> Pagano replies:
>Smiler fails to realize that these are conjectural interpretations of
>the evidence not the evidence crying out the truth about past reality.
whatever this means.
>Anyone who reads the journals "Science" or "Nature" understands that man
>knows almost nothing about the origin of the cosmos and even less about
>the actual history between then and when humans began recording
>history.
humans know very little about anything. if this is an argument against
evolution, pagano once again proves he's antiscience since the same
statement can be made about all science.
There is very little unanimous secular scientific agreement
>about anything concerning cosmology.
really? alan guth, professor of physics at MIT wrote in his 1997 book
'the inflationary universe' that cosmologists consider the big bang
'almost fact'. sounds like alot of scientific agreement there. 10 yrs
ago the difference in the age of the universe ranged from about 20
billion yrs to 8 billion yrs. today the range is about 12-14 billion
yrs.
again, pagano is making stuff up.
he's a creationist buffoon.
What this means is that smiler is
>far too confident about a period in history where there were no
>observers, where such events were unique and non recurring, where such
>events are not experimentally reproducible and therefore his precious
>science is not privileged.
observers dont have to be present for us to know how something
happens. the laws of physics were present. we can use those laws to
figure out what did happen. pagano thinks the laws of physics depend
on the day of the week...he believes in a universe based on random
chance...this is a conclusion of creationism.
>
>The oft made claim that some finite collection of observations (like the
>red shift, the distance to various stars, and the background microwave
>radiation) fits into some conjectural framework and therefore justifies
>the assertion that we "know" how our universe originated and "know" what
>happened during the intervening 15 billion years of unobserved history
>is itself religion masquerading as science. The history of science
>chronicles theories which were far better corroborated than Big Bang and
>which subsequently turned out to be false.
pagano's welcome to prove that statement. pagano's welcome to tell us
how creationism says the universe began. he cant. and he wont. he
never has.
>
>There is no such thing as an absolute measure of time. Radiometric
>dating methods are not absolute in any sense of that word.
unfortunately pagano forgets this statement is relative. we on earth
are in our own 'inertial reference frame'. we're all moving together
on earth. under these conditions, radiometric measurements are
accurate indeed. we know that because one use is to date events in the
bible. and often these prove accurate to what is recorded in the
bible.
perhaps pagano is saying the bible is full of manure??
Radiometric
>dating suffers from at least two difficulties which it has not solved
>and as a result radiometric dating is rarely used as a primary and
>independent method of dating. The distance to the stars has no bearing
>on the age of the earth
really? is pagano saying the earth isnt in the universe? the distance
to the stars is important because it sets a lower limit on the age of
the earth...
this claim is truly remarkable and shows how desperate creationists
are...'the distance to the stars has no bearing'?? only if pagano
thinks the earth and stars dont inhabit the same universe
i'd like to see a creationist prove THAT.
.. And the Genesis author wrote with Earth as his
>frame of reference. Einstein figured out that the "movement of time" is
>relative to your frame of reference. What this means is that a young
>earth and distant stars are only incompatible if the highly speculative
>assumptions of the Copernican principle,
copernicus is highly speculative??? pagano is now saying the solar
system orbits the earth and not the sun???
whats next? flat earth? pagano is wrecking all of science in order to
prove creationism is science...but his statement is true only if the
sun orbits the earth...an idea disgarded 300 yrs ago.
>
>Smiler continues:
>3. The Great Flood. Need I say more?
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>I would say yes. One wonders how smiler knows what occurred 6000-10,000
>years ago. The scientific method is only privileged to investigate
>recurring, observable, and experimentally reproducible events.
again, pagano makes up his view of science. he's welcome to show us
when the laws of science DONT hold. but since he's a creationist, he
believes in a random chance based universe. so his statement makes
sense...to him
But the
>"origins" events under investigation are not recurring, observable or
>experimentally reproducible. Smiler should remember that the difference
>between the Noahic Flood and modern secular speculations is one of
>degree not kind. Modern secular geologists, in part, theorize that
>stratigraphic layers were the result of calm, global-like flooding over
>eons while the creationist presupposes a short term, catastrophic,
>global flood.
pagano forgets the laws of thermodynamics...ironic given his self
aggrandizing statements above.
has pagano ever calculated what would happen to the earth if, in 40
days and nights, enough water fell on the earth to cover it?? has he
ever calculated the kinetic energy released? has he ever calculated
the rise in temperature that would accompany such an event?
no...of course not...he's a creationist...
>
>Smiler continues:
>5. Nature is pretty (magnificent/amazing/grandiose), so God must have
>made it, because God likes pretty things.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>I should point out to Smiler that the modern secular claim that "Nature
>did everything" is no less metaphysical than the christian assertion
>that "God created everything."
and since this is not part of science, pagano's comment is irrelevant.
>Christians assert dogmatically that God is the Creator of everything.
>The Chrisitian teaching that we can see God in His magnificent Creation
>already presupposes that He created everything. Our observations of a
>magnificent and beautiful world are not used to justify or prove the
>dogmatic claim.
which neither justifies biblical literalism, nor creationism as pagano
uses the term.
>
>Smiler continues:
>6. Evolution destroys morality.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Smiler apparently is making the weak claim that scientific theories
>about reality have no implications whatsoever upon culture, society, and
>the behavior of its members.
pagano here assumes that what is true about the physical universe
depends on whether we want it to be true. he's welcome to step out any
high rise, telling himself he will not suffer the consequences because
they would be unpleasant. see if nature listens.
Martin Crisp
A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:39174ACD...@fast.net...
> smil...@my-deja.com wrote:
> This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
> creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
> generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
> to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are bad,
> feel free to vote.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> For each creationist that smiler nominates as annoying/worst/inane I
> will be able to nominate a similar secularist who demonstrates similar
> traits.
> ***********************************
Note that Smiler343 says creationist _argument/rationalisation_. (S)he was
attacking the argument, not the person.
[rest flushed. "More later if time permits"]
Have Fun
Martin
Stew Dean
sc...@home.com wrote:
> In <8f6rh5$heg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Mitchell Coffey <coffeym@my-> >> In <20000508040727...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, gyu...@aol.com
> >(Gyudon Z) writes:
> >> >My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in
> >four thousand
> >> >years.
> >> >
> >> Lots of sex?
> >>
> >> Scott
> >
> >
> I don't see where math has a whole
> lot to do with it.
>
six. Say two becomes four. So the populatoin doubles every 25 years
(not counting for deaths etc etc). So 25 into four thousand. 160.
Cool - lots of people. Now that's fogetting about plauge, wars, infant
death etc etc..
All only 160 generations away from the original six which must have
contained every single variation we see today. Urm - no. It'd take more
than six for that.
--
Stewart Dean
http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z):
>My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in four thousand
>years.
Well, at an increase of 50% per 20-year generation (not
unreasonable under the stated conditions - no competition
and an entire ecosystem to fill), this works out to
approximately 1.32e36 at the end of 4000 years. Quite a few
more than 6 billion...
Of course, since the scenario never took place, all such
calculations are moot...
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Elmer Bataitis
> What this means is that smiler is
> far too confident about a period in history where there were no
> observers, where such events were unique and non recurring,....
Tony, I've asked this of you for almost two years now. Can you name any
event that is *not* unique and which *recurs*??
> There is no such thing as an absolute measure of time. Radiometric
> dating methods are not absolute in any sense of that word.
They are absolute in that when you solve equations they yield a unique
solution. There may be error bars associated with them but the bars
ain't so large as to include the possibility that the solutions are off
by enough to yield a 6,000 year old earth.
> Radiometric
> dating suffers from at least two difficulties which it has not solved
> and as a result radiometric dating is rarely used as a primary and
> independent method of dating.
Say what?
And, BTW, Tony. You've claimed that the secular assumptions of
naturalism are false, yet you always post using these self same
assumptions. Why is that? Inquiring minds want to know ;-)
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis โHot dog! Smooch city here I come!โ
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by sch...@maimonides.helios.nd.edu
(Thomas Scharle):
<snip>
> a sort of dysfunctional family of Valhalla.
A propos of nothing, if you want to read a *really* good
account of the "dysfunctional family of Valhalla", get a
copy of _Expecting Someone Taller_ by Tom Holt. *Definitely*
worth your time (IMHO).
Ada
smil...@my-deja.com wrote:
>4. The speed of light used to be faster. A LOT faster.
"A time varying speed of light
as a solution to cosmological puzzles"
Andreas Albrecht
Joao Magueijo
astr0-ph/9811018 2 Nov 1998
"Solving the Flatness
and Quasi-flatness Problems
in Brans-Dicke Cosmologies
with a Varying Light Speed"
John D. Barrow
Joao Magueijo
astro-ph/9901049 5 January 1999
This stuff is WAY over your head, puppy.
Matt Silberstein
sc...@home.com:
|In <8f6rh5$heg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Mitchell Coffey <cof...@my-deja.com> writes:
|>In article <3916e...@news1.prserv.net>,
|> sc...@home.com wrote:
|>> In <20000508040727...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, gyu...@aol.com
|>(Gyudon Z) writes:
|>> >My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in
|>four thousand
|>> >years.
|>> >
|>> Lots of sex?
|>>
|>> Scott
|>
|>Sure, for a start, but try the math.
|>
|I don't see where math has a whole
|lot to do with it.
Why not do the math and see. How many people would have been alive
2000 years ago?
--
Matt Silberstein (Honorary Radical Lesbian)
The beast in me
is caged by frail and fragile bars
Restless by day
and by night rants and rages at the stars
God help the beast in me
N Lowe, but listen to the J. Cash version (American Recordings)
M4RV1N
writes:
>This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
>creationist argument/rationalization.
The worst argument is the very foundation of the whole preposterous mess.
Namely that a religious text (one which is essentially a tribal scrapbook
covering several hundred years and a multitude of conflicting ideas and values)
is to be regarded as a completely infallible reference book on every subject,
over and above any other source of knowledge or insight.
That argument, and its offshoots, are responsible for a great many of the
problems of Western Civilization over the last couple thousand years. I
suppose one can be optimistic and say we're fortunate that they can no longer
burn people alive and are now reduced to the attempt to sabotage science
education.
>2. God is "testing our faith" by making all the evidence for
>evolution/old universe that we see all around us.
Another version is that Satan is tricking us or the scientists. Creationists
who can finally be made to understand the arguments against them (and can't
allow their mind to part with Biblical literalism) will absoulutely invariably
back themselves into this corner (meaning one of versions above). It
essentially posits that the world around us is utter madness and there is no
point to trying to understand anything whatsoever.
>3. The Great Flood. Need I say more?
Just the part about "sorting" that accounts for trilobites being hundreds of
layers below elephants. Creationism is a kind of distilled madness unlike
anything else humanity has come up with, as the rationalizations of quote,
"flood geology," unquote, demonstrate so astoundingly.
>5. Nature is pretty (magnificent/amazing/grandiose), so God must have
>made it, because God likes pretty things.
C.S. Lewis used to try this one. The problem is subjectivity. Is a leech
beautiful? Is a virus? Why even make a virus? I digress...
>6. Evolution destroys morality.
What did the Crusades do to morality? Would we like to compare the damage done
to humanity betwixt Christianity and the findings of evolutionary biology? I
don't think a literate Creationist wants to go there.
>7. Write in candidate! Insert your nominee here.
My second choice is the larger notion of centrism that has been pushed back
throughout the history of science. The creationist notion that the entire
universe is for the purpose of some silly little game of heaven and hell
sorting of a few billion "souls" based on whether they blindly believe a set of
goofy doctrines. That everything we know of is just a stage set for this
childish marrionette show put on by Jehovah.
Sorry, if that's a bit wordy, but that's the idea that bugs me the most.
Mark Ervin
hrgr...@my-deja.com
That's more or less what Prigogine has been doing, just to give one
example.
Is this going to be another one of Pagano's claims like "abiogenesis
has been refuted" or "there is no way how stars could have formed from
hydrogen gas by dilute scattering" ? Repeated again and again, despite
compelling rebuttals, and then quietly dropped ?
HRG.
<snip the rest. It is morning and I don't want to spoil my whole day>
Justin Cobb
<smil...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8f5rt8$eqg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
> creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
> generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
> to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are
> bad, feel free to vote.
>
> 7. Write in candidate! Insert your nominee here.
How about this one:
7. If it quacks like a duck...blah, blah, blah. I don't even know what the
hell that is supposed to mean.
Justin Cobb
hrgr...@my-deja.com
m4r...@aol.com (M4RV1N) wrote:
> >smiler343
> writes:
>
> >This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most
inane
> >creationist argument/rationalization.
>
>
pushed back
> throughout the history of science. The creationist notion that the
entire
> universe is for the purpose of some silly little game of heaven and
hell
> sorting of a few billion "souls" based on whether they blindly
believe a set of
> goofy doctrines. That everything we know of is just a stage set for
this
> childish marrionette show put on by Jehovah.
For a nice science-fiction treatment of this idea, I recommend
Heinlein's "Job: A Comedy of Errors", despite the fact that the first
part is rather long-winded.
HRG.
> Sorry, if that's a bit wordy, but that's the idea that bugs me the
most.
>
> Mark Ervin
>
>
smil...@my-deja.com
> >7. Write in candidate! Insert your nominee here.
>
> My second choice is the larger notion of centrism that has been
pushed back
> throughout the history of science. The creationist notion that the
entire
> universe is for the purpose of some silly little game of heaven and
hell
> sorting of a few billion "souls" based on whether they blindly
believe a set of
> goofy doctrines. That everything we know of is just a stage set for
this
> childish marrionette show put on by Jehovah.
>
> Sorry, if that's a bit wordy, but that's the idea that bugs me the
most.
>
> Mark Ervin
I agree completely. This is what irks me about Christianity more than
anything else, and I'd been trying to find a good way to express it,
and you did it perfectly.
Janitor_of_Lunacy
Elmer Bataitis <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:391777...@frontiernet.net...
> A Pagano wrote:
>
> > What this means is that smiler is
> > far too confident about a period in history where there were no
>
> Tony, I've asked this of you for almost two years now. Can you name any
> event that is *not* unique and which *recurs*??
>
Sykodude
George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com> wrote in message
news:391752...@softdisk.com...
[ This is the spot unto which a snip happened ]
| > hello, to you all.
| >
| > I hate this one. The creationist think that the universe is "fine
tuned"
| > for life to exist, but I my mind, the universe was around earlier
and life
| > arose under those "initial" conditions to the best it could, not
that they
| > were set for life to arise. And, if any of 40-50, can't remember,
constants
| > changes then life couldn't exist. All I got to say to that is
"Life as we
| > know it". If something was different, maybe no life would accure
or maybe
| > silcon based life instead of carbon based would would accurw. In
short, ID
| > (the part about the fine tuning, then the rest of it) is the most
annoying
| > to me. followed by 6 then 1.
| >
| But your choice of annoying arguments is only your personal belief,
| like a religion. My choice may be a belief too, but it deserves
| at least equal time. When you try to censor my choice, it's like
| you're tryng to interfere with my freedom to worship.
| --George Acton
|
|
Ok, George, how exactly am I censoring your choices or interfering
with you freedom of worship?
Your choice deserves "at least" equal time? sounds like you expecting
more, but will settle, how nice of you. where did you want your
beliefs to be at when givin this equal time anyway? also,
unimportantly, why did you jump my case? It was my first post on this
NG, and I was just making a simple comment where it was asked for. I
didn't see a rebuttal to my comment anywhere.....
Gyudon Z
>
>You could kill both my parent right now and
>they would still leave more descendants than
>the four in his assumption.
It's true if you kill them before they reproduce. In fact, using population
growth rates, which were, until recently, less than 1% per year, one finds that
Noah's descendants number about three thousand or so.
chav...@my-deja.com
Hmmm...
Maybe there IS a God.
Then again, one of each is MORE than enough...
George Acton
I was just doing a parody of one of the Creationist arguments --
the one that says evolution and Creationism are both a subjective
personal matter, so let's teach them both.
--George Acton
Boikat
And apparently over yours too. A lot farther.
When did the authors say this occurred, and for
what length of time, and in context of what
theory? If you can cite the article and authors,
you must have read the article, and should have no
problems answering. Or are you attempting to
mislead someone?
Boikat
Boikat
Sykodude
oh well, I feel slightly stupid, but it was convincing creationist,
you know, giving no information as to what they mean, giving no back
up to there case other than "I'm deserve......." or "I'm right, the
end" stuff like that. very good, it was a nice start to my postings
here, I think.
Gyudon Z
>For each creationist that smiler nominates as annoying/worst/inane I
>will be able to nominate a similar secularist who demonstrates similar
>traits.
Gyudon Z points out:
He called for arguments, not people.
Pagano exhaled:
>If smiler can produce a single scientific study where complexity can
>arise in an irreversible process in the absence of an energy conversion
>system to convert raw energy into a form usable by the system undergoing
>change and in the absence of a control system such that the changes in
>the system are on average progressive and integrative rather than
>destructive let him produce them. Origin of life workers have failed at
>virtually every turn. I should point out to smiler that "complexity"
>and "order" are not synonyms. There are many ordered systems within
>nature which are completely inadequate to store the quatities of
>information necessary to account for the creation of life.
Gyudon Z asks:
What does this have to do with Smiler's original question.
Pagano adds:
>My nominees for secular misunderstandings:
>1. The second law of thermodynamics-- The secularist claim is made that
>the combination of matter, material necessity, chance, and raw energy
>are sufficient to explain an increase in complexity in the absence of
>energy conversion systems and control systems and that such an increase
>does not violate the second law. Ad absurdum, this (sometimes made
>secularist claim) is akin to suggesting that pouring gasoline over a
>pile of lumber and nails could, given enough time, result in a complex
>house.
Gyudon Z types:
Order can spring from chaos if there is free energy released into the universe
as a whole. It's how crystals form from an evaporation solution; the ordered
crystals are 'paid for' by the entropy of the water turning into vapor.
Pagano rambles on:
>Smiler fails to realize that these are conjectural interpretations of
>the evidence not the evidence crying out the truth about past reality.
>Anyone who reads the journals "Science" or "Nature" understands that man
>knows almost nothing about the origin of the cosmos and even less about
>the actual history between then and when humans began recording
>history. There is very little unanimous secular scientific agreement
>about anything concerning cosmology. What this means is that smiler is
>far too confident about a period in history where there were no
>observers, where such events were unique and non recurring, where such
>events are not experimentally reproducible and therefore his precious
>science is not privileged.
Gyudon Z ripostes:
Despite whatever mainstream scientists think about the origin of the universe,
they agree pretty much on the order of magnitude. And it's 10^10, not 10^3.
Pagano valiantly continues with:
>The oft made claim that some finite collection of observations (like the
>red shift, the distance to various stars, and the background microwave
>radiation) fits into some conjectural framework and therefore justifies
>the assertion that we "know" how our universe originated and "know" what
>happened during the intervening 15 billion years of unobserved history
>is itself religion masquerading as science. The history of science
>chronicles theories which were far better corroborated than Big Bang and
>which subsequently turned out to be false.
That doesn't mean that this theory is wrong as well; this is the fallacy of
accident. And if it is religion, it is a religion which has a better track
record. Moreover, the more experimental information, however 'finite' they may
be, point towards a theory, the theory gains more support.
Pagano goes on:
>There is no such thing as an absolute measure of time. Radiometric
>dating methods are not absolute in any sense of that word. Radiometric
>dating suffers from at least two difficulties which it has not solved
>and as a result radiometric dating is rarely used as a primary and
>independent method of dating.
Gyudon Z counters:
Radiometric decay rates have been shown to be constant under any conditions,
and I can't think of any other cre(a)ti(o)nist objection.
Yet, Pagano persists in:
>The distance to the stars has no bearing
>on the age of the earth. And the Genesis author wrote with Earth as his
>frame of reference. Einstein figured out that the "movement of time" is
>relative to your frame of reference. What this means is that a young
>earth and distant stars are only incompatible if the highly speculative
>assumptions of the Copernican principle, the anthropic principle, and
>the highly speculative theory of Big Bang are true. But no one is
>anywhere close to making such a claim.
Gyudon Z adds:
The age of a system like the universe can be no lower than the age of its
oldest component.
Yet, Pagano is not silenced:
>I would say yes. One wonders how smiler knows what occurred 6000-10,000
>years ago. The scientific method is only privileged to investigate
>recurring, observable, and experimentally reproducible events.
Observation of a natural phenomenon, or either the aftereffects or
non-aftereffects of a phenomenon are almost as useful as experimental data.
Anyway, from Pagano:
>But the
>"origins" events under investigation are not recurring, observable or
>experimentally reproducible. Smiler should remember that the difference
>between the Noahic Flood and modern secular speculations is one of
>degree not kind. Modern secular geologists, in part, theorize that
>stratigraphic layers were the result of calm, global-like flooding over
>eons while the creationist presupposes a short term, catastrophic,
>global flood.
Gyudon Z shoots back:
But modern secular geologists, in another, larger part, hold true that
stratigraphic layers were the result of no flooding at all. Pagano would do
well that juries arrive at a conclusion "beyond a reasonable doubt" without
reproducing the crime in a laboratory. Pagano could also stand to remember that
word 'reasonable.'
From Pagano, yet another:
>This was given some serious consideration after Setterfield discovered
>that measurements of the speed of light recorded by various scientists
>over time appeared to decrease. However, after analysis and
>experimentation most creationists believe that the data Setterfield
>analyzed did not represent a genuine decrease in the speed of light over
>time. There are some creationist holdouts but they are in the
>minority. The creationists most likely to see this as a reasonable
>possibility are those who assume that the secular assumptions of the
>Copernican principle, the anthropic principle, and the conjectural Big
>Bang are truthlike and see c-decay as a way to harmonize that framework
>with creationism.
Gyudon Z notes:
In other words, you agree that c-decay doesn't happen. So you're not entirely
unreasonable.
Pagano further rambles:
>I should point out to Smiler that the modern secular claim that "Nature
>did everything" is no less metaphysical than the christian assertion
>that "God created everything."
Gyudon Z point out:
Nature is something that exists; the jury is still out on God. One can deny the
existence of God, but to deny the existence of the universe is ridiculous.
Be that as it may, Pagano spews:
>Neither Christians nor creationists make the argument that nature is
>magnificent therefore God must have made it because He likes pretty
>things. It would be doubtful if Smiler could produce a single
>creationist who ever made such an assertion.
>
>Christians assert dogmatically that God is the Creator of everything.
>The Chrisitian teaching that we can see God in His magnificent Creation
>already presupposes that He created everything. Our observations of a
>magnificent and beautiful world are not used to justify or prove the
>dogmatic claim.
Gyudon Z speaks:
Smiler simply refers to the fact that the universe seem so well-constructed
that only an intelligent designer could have created it. The appropriate
counter to this is that life is not so ideally set up after all.
Pagano penultimately adds:
>Smiler apparently is making the weak claim that scientific theories
>about reality have no implications whatsoever upon culture, society, and
>the behavior of its members.
Gyudon Z answers:
Science is not subject to opinion; fact is fact. Any argument ad consequentiam
is logically inconsistent. To say 'Evolution cannot happen because it takes
away people being answerable to the Celestial Judge,' is logically ridiculous.
This is why we all find Jabriol so amusing.
Pagano finally concludes:
>Smiler might be my nominee for the secularist who thinks he knows more
>than he actually does.
Gyudon Z closes with:
A black pot like Pagano should not be talking about people knowing less than
they think they do.
Gyudon Z
>hell that is supposed to mean.
Never heard that one...
zaph...@my-deja.com
[snip]
> >5. Nature is pretty (magnificent/amazing/grandiose), so God must have
> >made it, because God likes pretty things.
>
> C.S. Lewis used to try this one. The problem is subjectivity. Is a
leech
> beautiful? Is a virus? Why even make a virus? I digress...
Having read (and loved greatly) the majority of his works, I would have
to challenge that notion. Lewis mentions frequently the deep spiritual
moments that one can experience while pondering/admiring nature ("dark
gods in the blood"), but he never used that aesthetic to prove the
existence of God. Another point of his is that, *once knowing God*, the
beauty of nature is therefore all the greater and perhaps more
personalized.
But, very emphatically, he cautions against using nature to prove God,
and also against over-spiritualising Nature, as humans are prone to do.
If you want a real perspective on his view of God and Nature, read
"Miracles." In it, you'll find references to his acceptance of (or
acknowledgement of the possibility of) evolution, recapitulation, and
Genesis as "chosen mythology" -not exactly what you are saying.
>
> >6. Evolution destroys morality.
Oh, I love that one. The Inquisition was obviously a plot of Darwin's,
winged back hundreds of years by Satan himself. Couldn't have happened
any other way, since everything was so peachy before Evilution...
>
> What did the Crusades do to morality? Would we like to compare the
damage done
> to humanity betwixt Christianity and the findings of evolutionary
biology? I
> don't think a literate Creationist wants to go there.
>
> >7. Write in candidate! Insert your nominee here.
>
> My second choice is the larger notion of centrism that has been pushed
back
> throughout the history of science. The creationist notion that the
entire
> universe is for the purpose of some silly little game of heaven and
hell
> sorting of a few billion "souls" based on whether they blindly believe
a set of
> goofy doctrines. That everything we know of is just a stage set for
this
> childish marrionette show put on by Jehovah.
Hmmm, that's hardly a scientific objection, but you've every right to
have it. Though, that caricature of Christianity is a little overdone,
not to mention ridiculously one-dimensional and simplistic. "Childish
marrionette show" ...really. Even a deeply convicted athiest would have
to acknowledge a bit more depth, complexity and value than that in it.
Religion aside, your points are valid, though. As regards the insistence
that (even if) God's focus is on humanity, the real material universe,
therefore, actually revolves around it: I disagree with it myself.
>
> Sorry, if that's a bit wordy, but that's the idea that bugs me the
most.
>
> Mark Ervin
>
>
Might as well put in one of my all-time favourites: "God took a rib out
of Adam to make Eve, and now Men have one less rib than women. ..ummm,
they don't? Yes they do... don't they? Oh, well, still... how come
there's still monkeys?"
I know it's not really in favour any more, but I remember it from
childhood. Ahh, the good ol' days.
sc...@home.com
> |
<snip>
>7. Evolution is a tautology (it isn't,or if it is, then so is any science
>that uses mathematics)
>
I think this one is supposed to be natural selection
is a tautology. Admitted by numerous evolutionists
as to some of its formulations.
>8. Evolution is unfalsifiable/not science (it is, or if it isn't, neither
>is any scientific theory)
>
>9. Evolution is just chance - var. of 1.
>
According to Monod, yes.
I'm still looking for the part of evolution that
isn't chance. The mutations are by chance,
the selection of the mutation certainly isn't
deterministic, so what is it? Random?
>10. Information is never created (there's a law of conservation of
>information I haven't heard about?) - var of 1...
>
>11. ...except by design (designers avoid the 2LoT?)
>
Designers create the 2LoT <g>.
Scott
Boikat
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck,
quacks like a duck, it must be a duck".
Around here it is usually applied to creationists
who initially post something like, "I'm not a
creationist, but I don't believe in evolution
because the accumulation of moon dust proves the
Earth is only a few thousand years old."
Boikat
John Wilkins
|In <wilkins-8346C5...@news.unimelb.edu.au>, John Wilkins
|<wil...@wehi.edu.au> writes:
|> |
|<snip>
|
|>7. Evolution is a tautology (it isn't,or if it is, then so is any science
|>that uses mathematics)
|>
|I think this one is supposed to be natural selection
|is a tautology. Admitted by numerous evolutionists
|as to some of its formulations.
Yes, I was giving the "standard" popular misrepresentation of that
argument. In fact, it is not a tautology - you might like to read Elliot
Sober on the subject - he has this nice discussion in his _Philosophy of
Biology_ :-) (also in The Nature of Selection_). However, some
formulations of fitness are tautological. Just not the ones that get used
by evolutionary biologists. Anthony Flew dealt with this in 1959 IANM, in
"The Structure of Darwinism", _New Biology_ Vol 23, London: Penguin Books,
25-44. Reprinted in Ruse's anthology _The Philosophy of Biology_, 1989.
|
|
|
|>8. Evolution is unfalsifiable/not science (it is, or if it isn't, neither
|>is any scientific theory)
|>
|>9. Evolution is just chance - var. of 1.
|>
|According to Monod, yes.
No. Not *just* chance. Even Monod allowed that chance was only part of the
process - see my Evolution and Chance FAQ at the Talk.Origins Archive.
|
|I'm still looking for the part of evolution that
|isn't chance. The mutations are by chance,
|the selection of the mutation certainly isn't
|deterministic, so what is it? Random?
Stochastic but biased. Not all that is not rigidly deterministic (what
actually is, BTW, in the physical world? Care to name a physical property
of process that is not distributed on a curve?) need be the result of
chance.
|
|
|
|>10. Information is never created (there's a law of conservation of
|>information I haven't heard about?) - var of 1...
|>
|>11. ...except by design (designers avoid the 2LoT?)
|>
|Designers create the 2LoT <g>.
|
No, they discovered it.
--
John Wilkins
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
sc...@home.com
>>they would still leave more descendants than
>>the four in his assumption.
>
>It's true if you kill them before they reproduce. In fact, using population
>growth rates, which were, until recently, less than 1% per year, one finds that
>Noah's descendants number about three thousand or so.
>
Start with 8.
Growth rate of 1% per year
First year.
8.08 people.
Second year.
8.1608 persons
Third year
8.242408 persons
Well, I hope you get the idea.
Regards,
Scott
sc...@home.com
>In talk.origins I read <39175...@news1.prserv.net> from
>sc...@home.com:
>
>|In <8f6rh5$heg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Mitchell Coffey <cof...@my-deja.com> writes:
>|>In article <3916e...@news1.prserv.net>,
>|> sc...@home.com wrote:
>|>(Gyudon Z) writes:
>|>> >My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in
>|>four thousand
>|>> >years.
>|>> >
>|>> Lots of sex?
>|>>
>|>> Scott
>|>
>|>Sure, for a start, but try the math.
>|>
>|I don't see where math has a whole
>|lot to do with it.
>
>Why not do the math and see. How many people would have been alive
>2000 years ago?
>
The question is, could 6 billion be alive today,
given eight people 4000 years ago?
How long did it take world population to go
from 3 billion to 6 billion?
Less than 100 years?
Scott
Sverker Johansson
> it might be a redundancy of 5, but the 'fine tuning' argument always
> seems to strike a chord with the creationist set...
Even more fun is when the same creationist argues _both_ that:
- the universe is perfectly fine-tuned for life, and
- the probability of life appearing in this universe
is so small that life must've been separately created.
A universe _really_ a well-tuned for life would've been
crawling with life, forming all over the place, with no need
for special intervention beyond the tuning.
--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Thomas Scharle
[...snip...]
: Number 1 gets even more votes when it is expressed as the Second Law
: of Thermal Dynamics.
Newton's Second Law of Thermal Dynamics.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Landis D. Ragon
>In talk.origins I read <39175...@news1.prserv.net> from
>sc...@home.com:
>
>|In <8f6rh5$heg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Mitchell Coffey <cof...@my-deja.com> writes:
>|>In article <3916e...@news1.prserv.net>,
>|> sc...@home.com wrote:
>|>> In <20000508040727...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, gyu...@aol.com
>|>(Gyudon Z) writes:
>|>> >My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in
>|>four thousand
>|>> >years.
>|>> >
>|>> Lots of sex?
>|>>
>|>> Scott
>|>
>|>Sure, for a start, but try the math.
>|>
>|I don't see where math has a whole
>|lot to do with it.
>
>Why not do the math and see. How many people would have been alive
>2000 years ago?
Or better yet, do the math to see how many people worked on the Tower
of Babel, which was supposedly about 150 years after the flood.
--
Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
Chief Elf in the Toy Factory.
"I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!"
-- Gilbert and Sullivan : "The Mikado"
Matt Silberstein
sc...@home.com:
|In <n1uehsc0tl1nocilh...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
|>In talk.origins I read <39175...@news1.prserv.net> from
|>sc...@home.com:
|>
|>|In <8f6rh5$heg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Mitchell Coffey <cof...@my-deja.com> writes:
|>|>In article <3916e...@news1.prserv.net>,
|>|> sc...@home.com wrote:
|>|>> In <20000508040727...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, gyu...@aol.com
|>|>(Gyudon Z) writes:
|>|>> >My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in
|>|>four thousand
|>|>> >years.
|>|>> >
|>|>> Lots of sex?
|>|>>
|>|>> Scott
|>|>
|>|>Sure, for a start, but try the math.
|>|>
|>|I don't see where math has a whole
|>|lot to do with it.
|>
|>Why not do the math and see. How many people would have been alive
|>2000 years ago?
|>
|It's irrelevant.
|
|The question is, could 6 billion be alive today,
|given eight people 4000 years ago?
No, that is not the question. The question is *how* that could happen,
not could it happen. Yes, if you make assumptions that do not fit the
evidence you can make that work. But if you use realistic assumptions
that fit what we actually see, then the creationist claim falls apart.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
hrgr...@my-deja.com:
[snip]
|For a nice science-fiction treatment of this idea, I recommend
|Heinlein's "Job: A Comedy of Errors", despite the fact that the first
|part is rather long-winded.
For a sufficiently broad definition of "first part", and of "nice" I
suppose, I agree.
Mitchell Coffey
<mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >In talk.origins I read <39175...@news1.prserv.net> from
> >sc...@home.com:
> >
deja.com> writes:
> >|>In article <3916e...@news1.prserv.net>,
> >|> sc...@home.com wrote:
> >|>> In <20000508040727...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
gyu...@aol.com
> >|>(Gyudon Z) writes:
> >|>> >My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in
> >|>four thousand
> >|>> >years.
> >|>> >
> >|>> Lots of sex?
> >|>>
> >|>> Scott
> >|>
> >|>Sure, for a start, but try the math.
> >|>
> >|I don't see where math has a whole
> >|lot to do with it.
> >
> >Why not do the math and see. How many people would have been alive
> >2000 years ago?
> >
> It's irrelevant.
>
> The question is, could 6 billion be alive today,
> given eight people 4000 years ago?
>
> from 3 billion to 6 billion?
>
> Less than 100 years?
>
> Scott
Um, you just admitted it was a mathematical question. Mathematically,
going from 3 billion to 6 billion would take much less time than from 4
couples to 6 billion.
When you try your calculation, remember to take into consideration (1)
that people die, (2) that some people die childless, (3) that some
children do not survive to produce other children, (4) that death rates
are not constant, (5) that birth rates are not constant, (6) the Black
Death, (7) etc.
Also note other tricky issues. For instance, while the putative ark
would have been built, say, 4000 years ago, how many people would have
been alive a thousand or years later when the Egyptian pyramids were
built? Were there enough to do the job? Now, what about two thousand
years ago, like Matt asked? Do the math and you'll understand his
question.
(Note also that we are ignoring such other tricky bits like how those
putative 8 ark survivors could have possessed the genetic variation we
see among humans today. This would include the genetic diseases we see
today, also.)
Mitchell Coffey
_____________________________________________________
"Nostalgia is the handmaiden of fascism"
- Mary Gordon
Mitchell Coffey
"Landis D. Ragon" <Landis...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >In talk.origins I read <39175...@news1.prserv.net> from
> >sc...@home.com:
> >
> >|In <8f6rh5$heg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Mitchell Coffey <coffeym@my-
deja.com> writes:
> >|>In article <3916e...@news1.prserv.net>,
> >|> sc...@home.com wrote:
> >|>> In <20000508040727...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
gyu...@aol.com
> >|>(Gyudon Z) writes:
> >|>> >My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in
> >|>four thousand
> >|>> >years.
> >|>> >
> >|>> Lots of sex?
> >|>>
> >|>> Scott
> >|>
> >|>Sure, for a start, but try the math.
> >|>
> >|I don't see where math has a whole
> >|lot to do with it.
> >
> >Why not do the math and see. How many people would have been alive
> >2000 years ago?
>
> of Babel, which was supposedly about 150 years after the flood.
>
> --
> Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
As I understand it, they just contracted out to aliens.
Or was that the Egyptians?
Mitchell Coffey
___________________________________________________________________
Glendower: "At my nativity
The font of heaven was full of fiery shapes,
Of burning cressents, and at my birth
The frame and huge foundation of the earth
Shaked like a coward!"
Hotspur: "Why, so it would have done at the same season
If your mother's cat had but kittened, though yourself
Had never been born."
...
Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep!"
Hotspur: "Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?"
- Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part One, III, i
David Iain Greig
>Steven Carr (ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>[...snip...]
>: Number 1 gets even more votes when it is expressed as the Second Law
>: of Thermal Dynamics.
>
> Newton's Second Law of Thermal Dynamics.
>
Boltzman recanted on his deathbed.
--D.
twe...@my-deja.com
annoying/worst/most inane
> creationist argument/rationalization.
> generally be non-creationists, but creationists
are definitely welcome
> to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of
these arguments are
> bad, feel free to vote.
>
> My nominees:
>
> 1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The claim
is made that this law
> really says that everything descends
from "order" to "disorder," and
> thus, life cannot spontaneously arise. If you
know anything about the
> laws of thermodynamics, you already know how
absurd this argument is,
> so I won't go into detail.
>
> 2. God is "testing our faith" by making all the
evidence for
> evolution/old universe that we see all around
> light waves from all the far away stars (that
show events that happened
> long before 4004 B.C.) and created rocks with
the perfect compositions
> to seem old by radioactive dating. After all,
even if this is true,
> who can blame us for falling for a trick played
by God Himself?
>
> 3. The Great Flood. Need I say more?
>
> down, but umm, it leveled off sometime before
we learned how to measure
> it.
>
> 5. Nature is pretty
(magnificent/amazing/grandiose), so God must have
> made it, because God likes pretty things.
>
>
> 7. Write in candidate! Insert your nominee
here.
My personal favorite for bad argument
is "Everybody uses a seven day week, and the only
place a seven day week appears is in the bible,
so the bible must be true."
The other one I really like is the "Topsoil"
argument, where they claim that the current level
of topsoil reflects a 6000 year erosion history.
This ignores sedimentary rock, and how anything
could have grown in the supposedly preeroded
earth.
Dana J. Tweedy
Thomas Scharle
[...snip...]
: Um, you just admitted it was a mathematical question. Mathematically,
: going from 3 billion to 6 billion would take much less time than from 4
: couples to 6 billion.
One problem here is that this sort of thing is famously
difficult for intuitive reasoning. There are "brain-teasers"
built on just how puzzling this is. Here's one that occurred
on the "Car Talk" show a while ago ... see the Puzzler for 5/1
at
<http://cartalk.cars.com/Radio/Puzzler/1999.html>
My assumption is that the vast majority of YECs who use
this argument are out of their depth in the mathematics, and
are *unaware* that they are out of their depth. That is a
shame.
Let's just put it this way: If the population of the earth
grows forever at a steady rate, so that it increases X percent
each year (or, equivalently, that it doubles every N years)...
If the population of the earth at the time of the Flood, about
2400 BCE, was 8... And if the population of the earth now, in the
year 2000, is 6 billion ... Then what was the population of the
earth half-way between, in the year 200 BCE? Somewhere around 3
billion? A lot of people might guess that, but the real answer
is a surprising number. (My only problem is a nice way of
giving that answer without doing too much boring mathematics.)
Ferrous Patella
>>|>In article <3916e...@news1.prserv.net>,
>>|> sc...@home.com wrote:
>>|>> In <20000508040727...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, gyu...@aol.com
>>|>(Gyudon Z) writes:
>>|>> >My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in
>>|>four thousand
>>|>> >years.
>>|>> >
>>|>> Lots of sex?
>>|>>
>>|>> Scott
>>|>
>>|>Sure, for a start, but try the math.
>>|>
>>|I don't see where math has a whole
>>|lot to do with it.
>>
>>Why not do the math and see. How many people would have been alive
>>2000 years ago?
>>
>
>The question is, could 6 billion be alive today,
>given eight people 4000 years ago?
>
>How long did it take world population to go
>from 3 billion to 6 billion?
>
>Less than 100 years?
>
>
>Scott
>
1. <sigh> Please look into the concept of "geometric growth". The first 3
billion takes quite a bit longer to accumulate then the second # billion! If
you start with 1 cent and double it every day, at the end of day four, you will
have 16 cents. Day five, 32 cents. That does not mean that it took two days at
16 cents per day to reach 32.
2. <ARRRUG!!!*> Stop weaseling your arguments with question marks! Take 5
minutes to find a simple datum like what the world population was 100 years
ago. I have seen you, too many times, use a rhetorical question then complain
that it was just a question when challenged. Nobody is fooled.
FP
*No T Prachett quotes, please.
rokimo...@my-deja.com
First year two new babies, but both die
Second year 3 new babies, 2 survive
Third year one adult female dies in childbirth, no new babies.
Forth year one two year old dies, one new baby it might live
etc. get the idea, try and count the fractions.
Check out any old cemetary and the markers before the turn of the
century. How many of the gravestones are for children under the age of
puberty? Until recently this was a fact of life. Remember that Noah and
his family had to carry all of those human diseases with them.
Ron Okimoto
wf...@ptd.net
>In <wilkins-8346C5...@news.unimelb.edu.au>, John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> writes:
>> |
><snip>
>
>>7. Evolution is a tautology (it isn't,or if it is, then so is any science
>>that uses mathematics)
>>
>I think this one is supposed to be natural selection
>is a tautology. Admitted by numerous evolutionists
>as to some of its formulations.
>
>
>
>>8. Evolution is unfalsifiable/not science (it is, or if it isn't, neither
>>is any scientific theory)
>>
>>9. Evolution is just chance - var. of 1.
>>
>According to Monod, yes.
>
>I'm still looking for the part of evolution that
>isn't chance. The mutations are by chance,
>the selection of the mutation certainly isn't
>deterministic, so what is it? Random?
>
it depends on the ecological niche occupied by the organism...can you
prove niches are deterministic?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z):
>>7. If it quacks like a duck...blah, blah, blah. I don't even know what the
>>hell that is supposed to mean.
>
>Never heard that one...
It *sounds* like a Crawfordism, except that you'd have to
change "duck" to "woodpecker". Or possibly to "Woodmorope".
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Matt Silberstein
<mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>In talk.origins I read <8f84g4$bm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> from
>hrgr...@my-deja.com:
>
>[snip]
>
>|For a nice science-fiction treatment of this idea, I recommend
>|Heinlein's "Job: A Comedy of Errors", despite the fact that the first
>|part is rather long-winded.
>
>For a sufficiently broad definition of "first part", and of "nice" I
>suppose, I agree.
The title is actually _Job: A Comedy of Justice_.
sc...@home.com
in an annual population growth rate of
one percent.
"using population growth rates, which were,
until recently, less than 1% per year, one
finds that Noah's descendants number about
three thousand or so."
Scott
John Wilkins
sc...@home.com
>In article <3917b...@news1.prserv.net>,
> sc...@home.com wrote:
>> In <n1uehsc0tl1nocilh...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
><mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> >In talk.origins I read <39175...@news1.prserv.net> from
>> >sc...@home.com:
>> >
>gyu...@aol.com
>> >|>(Gyudon Z) writes:
>> >|>> >My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in
>> >|>four thousand
>> >|>> >years.
>> >|>> >
>> >|>> Lots of sex?
>> >|>>
>> >|>> Scott
>> >|>
>> >|>Sure, for a start, but try the math.
>> >|>
>> >|I don't see where math has a whole
>> >|lot to do with it.
>> >
>> >Why not do the math and see. How many people would have been alive
>> >2000 years ago?
>> >
>> It's irrelevant.
>>
>> The question is, could 6 billion be alive today,
>> given eight people 4000 years ago?
>>
>> How long did it take world population to go
>> from 3 billion to 6 billion?
>>
>> Less than 100 years?
>>
>> Scott
>
>
middle of a thread that has had context removed
from it.
My statement was a specific response to a specific
line of argument.
> Mathematically,
>going from 3 billion to 6 billion would take much less time than from 4
>couples to 6 billion.
>
>When you try your calculation,
>
What calculation are you under the impression
I am trying to do?
> remember to take into consideration (1)
>that people die, (2) that some people die childless, (3) that some
>children do not survive to produce other children, (4) that death rates
>are not constant, (5) that birth rates are not constant, (6) the Black
>Death, (7) etc.
>
>Also note other tricky issues. For instance, while the putative ark
>would have been built, say, 4000 years ago, how many people would have
>been alive a thousand or years later when the Egyptian pyramids were
>built? Were there enough to do the job? Now, what about two thousand
>years ago, like Matt asked? Do the math and you'll understand his
>question.
>
>(Note also that we are ignoring such other tricky bits like how those
>putative 8 ark survivors could have possessed the genetic variation we
>see among humans today. This would include the genetic diseases we see
>today, also.)
>
Regards,
Scott
sc...@home.com
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> it might be a redundancy of 5, but the 'fine tuning' argument always
>> seems to strike a chord with the creationist set...
>
>Even more fun is when the same creationist argues _both_ that:
>
>- the universe is perfectly fine-tuned for life, and
>- the probability of life appearing in this universe
> is so small that life must've been separately created.
>
>A universe _really_ a well-tuned for life would've been
>crawling with life, forming all over the place, with no need
>for special intervention beyond the tuning.
>
do much on it's own.
It's tuned for a purpose, of course.
Scott
Landis D. Ragon
>In article <vr2fhsoiu0l54316c...@4ax.com>,
> "Landis D. Ragon" <Landis...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In talk.origins I read <39175...@news1.prserv.net> from
>> >sc...@home.com:
>> >
>> >|In <8f6rh5$heg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Mitchell Coffey <coffeym@my-
>deja.com> writes:
>> >|>In article <3916e...@news1.prserv.net>,
>> >|> sc...@home.com wrote:
>> >|>> In <20000508040727...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
>gyu...@aol.com
>> >|>(Gyudon Z) writes:
>> >|>> >My favorite has to be how eight people can become six billion in
>> >|>four thousand
>> >|>> >years.
>> >|>> >
>> >|>> Lots of sex?
>> >|>>
>> >|>> Scott
>> >|>
>> >|>Sure, for a start, but try the math.
>> >|>
>> >|I don't see where math has a whole
>> >|lot to do with it.
>> >
>> >Why not do the math and see. How many people would have been alive
>> >2000 years ago?
>>
>> Or better yet, do the math to see how many people worked on the Tower
>> of Babel, which was supposedly about 150 years after the flood.
>>
>> --
>> Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
>[snip]
>
>As I understand it, they just contracted out to aliens.
Grays or Evil Reptoids?
>
>Or was that the Egyptians?
>
The inhabitants of Babel contracted out the construction of their
Tower to the Egyptians?
--
Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
Stephen R Gould
"Thomas Scharle" <sch...@hegel.helios.nd.edu> wrote in message
news:8f9ild$s...@news.nd.edu...
> Let's just put it this way: If the population of the earth
> grows forever at a steady rate, so that it increases X percent
> each year (or, equivalently, that it doubles every N years)...
> If the population of the earth at the time of the Flood, about
> 2400 BCE, was 8... And if the population of the earth now, in the
> year 2000, is 6 billion ... Then what was the population of the
> earth half-way between, in the year 200 BCE? Somewhere around 3
> billion? A lot of people might guess that, but the real answer
> is a surprising number. (My only problem is a nice way of
> giving that answer without doing too much boring mathematics.)
>
Way one: half way through a geometric process is provably the square root
of the ratio between the start and end point:
(6,000,000,000 รท 8)^0.5 = approx 27,000
Way two: faster, less accurate using approximate logs.
l8 is approx 10^1
6bn is approx 10^9.7 NAD
half way through = 10^((9.7 + 0.1)/2) = 10^5.4 = 25,000 approx
SRG
sc...@home.com
>In article <3917b...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com wrote:
>
> |>information I haven't heard about?) - var of 1...
> |>
> |>11. ...except by design (designers avoid the 2LoT?)
> |>
> |Designers create the 2LoT <g>.
> |
>No, they discovered it.
>
rather than designers <g>?
Scott
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On 9 May 2000 10:07:21 -0400, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Matt Silberstein
> <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>
> >In talk.origins I read <8f84g4$bm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> from
> >hrgr...@my-deja.com:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >|For a nice science-fiction treatment of this idea, I recommend
> >|Heinlein's "Job: A Comedy of Errors", despite the fact that the
first
> >|part is rather long-winded.
> >
> >For a sufficiently broad definition of "first part", and of "nice" I
> >suppose, I agree.
>
> The title is actually _Job: A Comedy of Justice_.
Thanks for tzhe correction. I'm showing signs of age, memory-wise ...
HRG.
> (Note followups, if any)
>
> Bob C.
>
> Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
> (without the spaces, of course)
>
> "Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
> to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
> --H. L. Mencken
>
>
John Wilkins
Yes, but that's not what I meant. When a design "creates information" in a
design, they are still subject to the 2LoT. Nothing any designer does
avoids the energy budget needed to first develop the design and then to
implement it.
rokimo...@my-deja.com
sc...@home.com wrote:
> In <8f9m7m$ncl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, rokimo...@my-deja.com writes:
> >In article <3917c...@news1.prserv.net>,
> > sc...@home.com wrote:
I know that you are not this dense. Do you know what an average is? I
don't really care if the 1% figure is valid, but it was probably around
that number. Just think about when the population of humans was around
2 million. There was no agriculture. About as many people died as
were born, on average. Over a period of several thousand years the
average population gain was around 1% or so per year (I don't know
where the 1% number came from I would expect it to be less than 1%).
If it was less than the replacement level we would be extinct like the
neaderthals. Recently the human population has exploded because we can
feed more people and we have better medical technology.
Within the last 50 years or so the human population has about doubled.
What was the average percent population gain per year? Within recorded
history there were times that the population decreased. I don't doubt
that this also occured in prehistoric times. How does that affect the
average?
If you are talking about the 3000 decendent number that wasn't my
estimate it was the previous poster's. I don't know when the flood was
and neither do the creationists. A thousand years or so can make a big
difference when you figure in the compound interest, but not as big of
a difference as the creationist require.
Ron Okimoto
Carla & Steen
that chickens fly while hens don't and that this somehow proves
Haeckel right (The guy with the progression of the fetus through
various animal stages). Of course, zhwang has never had to catch a
chicken in a tree. That is what happens when you live in a world of
theory on the web instead of in the real world. Maybe zhwang has
never seen a hen with the feathers on, eh?
Steen Goddik
Sverker Johansson
That's because it's not tuned for doing much
on its own - it's not tuned for driving, it's
tuned for being driven.
> It's tuned for a purpose, of course.
And the universe is supposed to be tuned for what purpose?
For being 99.9999... % totally inhospitable empty space
and 99.9..% of the remaining fraction being even more inhospitable
stellar interiors and other nasty places.
A very odd tuning for life.
--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Carla & Steen
"Since nobody were around to witness evolution, we can't know that it
happened."
Steen
sc...@home.com
>In article <3918e...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com wrote:
>
> |In <wilkins-C3A2F4...@news.unimelb.edu.au>, John Wilkins
> |<wil...@wehi.edu.au> writes:
> |>In article <3917b...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com wrote:
> |>
> |> |>10. Information is never created (there's a law of conservation of
> |> |>information I haven't heard about?) - var of 1...
> |> |>
> |> |>11. ...except by design (designers avoid the 2LoT?)
> |> |>
> |> |Designers create the 2LoT <g>.
> |> |
> |>No, they discovered it.
> |>
> |Woudn't that make them discoverers
> |rather than designers <g>?
> |
>Yes, but that's not what I meant. When a design "creates information" in a
>design, they are still subject to the 2LoT. Nothing any designer does
>avoids the energy budget needed to first develop the design and then to
>implement it.
>
Most people argue that God could create any
sort of design he liked without constraint.
I tend to agree with you, there are constraints
on design. This helps us to ascertain that the
designs are not "supernatural."
Scott
sc...@home.com
>sc...@home.com wrote:
>> In <3917EB03...@hlk.no.hj.spam.se>, Sverker Johansson <l...@hlk.no.hj.spam.se> writes:
>> >wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> >> it might be a redundancy of 5, but the 'fine tuning' argument always
>> >> seems to strike a chord with the creationist set...
>> >
>> >Even more fun is when the same creationist argues _both_ that:
>> >
>> >- the universe is perfectly fine-tuned for life, and
>> >- the probability of life appearing in this universe
>> > is so small that life must've been separately created.
>> >
>> >A universe _really_ a well-tuned for life would've been
>> >crawling with life, forming all over the place, with no need
>> >for special intervention beyond the tuning.
>> >
>> My sports car is finely tuned, but it doesn't
>> do much on it's own.
>
>That's because it's not tuned for doing much
>on its own - it's not tuned for driving, it's
>tuned for being driven.
>
>> It's tuned for a purpose, of course.
>
>And the universe is supposed to be tuned for what purpose?
>For being 99.9999... % totally inhospitable empty space
>and 99.9..% of the remaining fraction being even more inhospitable
>stellar interiors and other nasty places.
>
>A very odd tuning for life.
>
to allow only one number to open it.
Think of all those useless combinations.
How inhospitable that lock is!
But it serves it's purpose.
Scott
sc...@home.com
And I am simply demonstrating that the "average"
as applied in his argument is meaningless.
> I
>don't really care if the 1% figure is valid,
>
Then why did you jump in and try to defend
his argument?
He seemed to think it was valid.
> but it was probably around
> that number.
>
Make up your mind.
> Just think about when the population of humans was around
>2 million. There was no agriculture. About as many people died as
>were born, on average.
>
You found some ancient writings where
this was all laid out?
> Over a period of several thousand years the
>average population gain was around 1% or so per year (I don't know
>where the 1% number came from I would expect it to be less than 1%).
>If it was less than the replacement level we would be extinct like the
>neaderthals. Recently the human population has exploded because we can
>feed more people and we have better medical technology.
>
>Within the last 50 years or so the human population has about doubled.
>What was the average percent population gain per year? Within recorded
>history there were times that the population decreased. I don't doubt
>that this also occured in prehistoric times. How does that affect the
>average?
>
>If you are talking about the 3000 decendent number that wasn't my
>estimate it was the previous poster's. I don't know when the flood was
>and neither do the creationists. A thousand years or so can make a big
>difference when you figure in the compound interest, but not as big of
>a difference as the creationist require.
>
So do you argue that the 1% [or about that] figure
was constant up until recently?
Could it have fluctuated?
[Oh, that's right, it's an *average*,
but for how many years, and which?]
Do you suppose that the rate might have
been higher way back when, maybe due
to less deleterious mutations?
etc. etc.
Scott
ZenIsWhen
>smil...@my-deja.com wrote:
>This is going to be a poll to decide the most annoying/worst/most inane
>creationist argument/rationalization. Obviously, respondents will
>generally be non-creationists, but creationists are definitely welcome
>to post rebuttals, or if you agree that some of these arguments are bad,
>feel free to vote.
>
>
>For each creationist that smiler nominates as annoying/worst/inane I
>will be able to nominate a similar secularist who demonstrates similar
>traits.
Spoken like a true fraud.
>***********************************
>
>
>Smiler continues:
>My nominees:
>1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The claim is made that this law
>really says that everything descends from "order" to "disorder," and
>thus, life cannot spontaneously arise. If you know anything about the
>laws of thermodynamics, you already know how absurd this argument is, so
>I won't go into detail.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>If smiler can produce a single scientific study where complexity can
>arise in an irreversible process in the absence of an energy conversion
>system to convert raw energy into a form usable by the system undergoing
>change and in the absence of a control system such that the changes in
>the system are on average progressive and integrative rather than
>destructive let him produce them. Origin of life workers have failed at
>virtually every turn. I should point out to smiler that "complexity"
>and "order" are not synonyms. There are many ordered systems within
>nature which are completely inadequate to store the quatities of
>information necessary to account for the creation of life.
>
>My nominees for secular misunderstandings:
>1. The second law of thermodynamics-- The secularist claim is made that
>the combination of matter, material necessity, chance, and raw energy
>are sufficient to explain an increase in complexity in the absence of
>energy conversion systems and control systems and that such an increase
>does not violate the second law. Ad absurdum, this (sometimes made
>secularist claim) is akin to suggesting that pouring gasoline over a
>pile of lumber and nails could, given enough time, result in a complex
>house.
>***********************************
>
>
>
>smiler continues:
>2. God is "testing our faith" by making all the evidence for
>evolution/old universe that we see all around us. He made great big
>light waves from all the far away stars (that show events that happened
>long before 4004 B.C.) and created rocks with the perfect compositions
>to seem old by radioactive dating. After all, even if this is true, who
>can blame us for falling for a trick played by God Himself?
>
> Pagano replies:
>Smiler fails to realize that these are conjectural interpretations of
>the evidence not the evidence crying out the truth about past reality.
>Anyone who reads the journals "Science" or "Nature" understands that man
>knows almost nothing about the origin of the cosmos and even less about
>the actual history between then and when humans began recording
>history. There is very little unanimous secular scientific agreement
>about anything concerning cosmology. What this means is that smiler is
>far too confident about a period in history where there were no
>observers, where such events were unique and non recurring, where such
>events are not experimentally reproducible and therefore his precious
>science is not privileged.
>
>The oft made claim that some finite collection of observations (like the
>red shift, the distance to various stars, and the background microwave
>radiation) fits into some conjectural framework and therefore justifies
>the assertion that we "know" how our universe originated and "know" what
>happened during the intervening 15 billion years of unobserved history
>is itself religion masquerading as science. The history of science
>chronicles theories which were far better corroborated than Big Bang and
>which subsequently turned out to be false.
>
>There is no such thing as an absolute measure of time. Radiometric
>dating methods are not absolute in any sense of that word. Radiometric
>dating suffers from at least two difficulties which it has not solved
>and as a result radiometric dating is rarely used as a primary and
>independent method of dating. The distance to the stars has no bearing
>on the age of the earth. And the Genesis author wrote with Earth as his
>frame of reference. Einstein figured out that the "movement of time" is
>relative to your frame of reference. What this means is that a young
>earth and distant stars are only incompatible if the highly speculative
>assumptions of the Copernican principle, the anthropic principle, and
>the highly speculative theory of Big Bang are true. But no one is
>anywhere close to making such a claim.
>***************************************************
>
>
>
>Smiler continues:
>3. The Great Flood. Need I say more?
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>I would say yes. One wonders how smiler knows what occurred 6000-10,000
>years ago. The scientific method is only privileged to investigate
>recurring, observable, and experimentally reproducible events. But the
>"origins" events under investigation are not recurring, observable or
>experimentally reproducible. Smiler should remember that the difference
>between the Noahic Flood and modern secular speculations is one of
>degree not kind. Modern secular geologists, in part, theorize that
>stratigraphic layers were the result of calm, global-like flooding over
>eons while the creationist presupposes a short term, catastrophic,
>global flood.
>*********************************************
>
>
>
>smiler continues:
>4. The speed of light used to be faster. A LOT faster. It was slowing
>down, but umm, it leveled off sometime before we learned how to measure
>it.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>This was given some serious consideration after Setterfield discovered
>that measurements of the speed of light recorded by various scientists
>over time appeared to decrease. However, after analysis and
>experimentation most creationists believe that the data Setterfield
>analyzed did not represent a genuine decrease in the speed of light over
>time. There are some creationist holdouts but they are in the
>minority. The creationists most likely to see this as a reasonable
>possibility are those who assume that the secular assumptions of the
>Copernican principle, the anthropic principle, and the conjectural Big
>Bang are truthlike and see c-decay as a way to harmonize that framework
>with creationism.
>************************************************
>
>
>
>Smiler continues:
>5. Nature is pretty (magnificent/amazing/grandiose), so God must have
>made it, because God likes pretty things.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>I should point out to Smiler that the modern secular claim that "Nature
>did everything" is no less metaphysical than the christian assertion
>that "God created everything."
>
>Neither Christians nor creationists make the argument that nature is
>magnificent therefore God must have made it because He likes pretty
>things. It would be doubtful if Smiler could produce a single
>creationist who ever made such an assertion.
>
>Christians assert dogmatically that God is the Creator of everything.
>The Chrisitian teaching that we can see God in His magnificent Creation
>already presupposes that He created everything. Our observations of a
>magnificent and beautiful world are not used to justify or prove the
>dogmatic claim.
>*********************************************
>
>
>Smiler continues:
>6. Evolution destroys morality.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Smiler apparently is making the weak claim that scientific theories
>about reality have no implications whatsoever upon culture, society, and
>the behavior of its members.
>*********************************************
>
>
>
>
>Smiler wrote:
>7. Write in candidate! Insert your nominee here.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Smiler might be my nominee for the secularist who thinks he knows more
>than he actually does.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
sarah clark
ZenIsWhen wrote:
> In article <39174ACD...@fast.net>, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >Neither Christians nor creationists make the argument that nature is
> >magnificent therefore God must have made it because He likes pretty
> >things. It would be doubtful if Smiler could produce a single
> >creationist who ever made such an assertion.
hank hanegraff
> >Christians assert dogmatically that God is the Creator of everything.
> >The Chrisitian teaching that we can see God in His magnificent Creation
> >already presupposes that He created everything. Our observations of a
> >magnificent and beautiful world are not used to justify or prove the
> >dogmatic claim.
> >*********************************************
> >
> >
> >Smiler continues:
> >6. Evolution destroys morality.
> >
> >
> > Pagano replies:
> >Smiler apparently is making the weak claim that scientific theories
> >about reality have no implications whatsoever upon culture, society, and
> >the behavior of its members.
no one says that, pagano. there are ethicists whose
research and their jobs are to study the impact of science
on society. the ethical implications of a scientific
theory don't make the theory any less true.
<snip>
Sverker Johansson
I repeat:
And the universe is supposed to be tuned for what purpose?
Without a stated purpose, the tuning argument is
totally impotent. The stated purpose of the universe
when creationists argue tuning, is often to be
life-friendly. But it's not, for the most part,
so the purpose must be something else.
But it is also useless as an argument for design to
first look at the universe, and then claim that it
was designed to be exactly the way it is.
So, what purpose is the universe supposed to be tuned for?
And how do we test this?