Commentary: Stick to science in classrooms
Jason Spaceman
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Nunn
September 29, 2008 12:00am
SOME academics (Paul Williams, View Point, September 23) don't give
the whole story when they insist only one view of science/origins
should be taught in the classroom.
In his objection to creationism or intelligent design being taught
alongside Darwinian evolutionism, Williams is saying that the
scientific data must be explained to young minds in only one way.
Most scientists and academics believe Darwinian evolutionism is
scientific fact. In this view, scientific concepts and data have to be
expressed within the framework of millions of years and evolution.
So those, like me and countless others in the present and down the
ages, who do not come to the same conclusion from the evidence are, at
the least, viewed suspiciously.
Yes, I am a creationist. I am just as convinced as Sir Isaac Newton
was that God created the world in six days about 6000 years ago.
And I've come to that conclusion from the same evidence that convinces
most scientists of the very opposite. Am I biased? Yes. As are those
who start with the presumption that no Creator was involved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24414492-27197,00.html
J. Spaceman
geo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Jesus Christ! How are people STILL this moronic? Read the article in
full and feel your intelligence tick away.
For God's sake, creationists, please learn the following.
JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN NO ONE ELSE
DOES, OR THAT IT IS WRONG.
This chap's pretty special. In one paragraph, he begins by mentioning
the evidence for evolution, and then claims it's all a matter of faith
a sentence later! He then manages to equate evolution with the big
bang, then for some reason mentions that many early scientists were
creationists, despite that having no bearing on their science.
And then, the crowning stupidity, he claims that because the mind
evolved by mutations, it must be incapable of logic, therefore
anything said by an evolution supporter is false.
I mean... I can write better than this. This man is some kind of
editor, and he can barely keep his logic straight within one
paragraph. At the end, he even admits he's not a scientist, but feels
his opinion on scientific matters is just as valid as someone who
works in science!
Hey, Warren, how about the next time you see your doctor, you let me
give my opinion as well? I don't know jack about medicine, but I'm
sure not gonna let you censor me!
Venus
Jenny6833A
> I mean... I can write better than this.
You can write far more honestly, but it is a very clever article. The
guy is an expert word mechanic, and uses his skills to appeal to Mom,
apple pie, and the American way without obviously making a fool of
himself. He'll convince at least 80% of those who read it, because no
rebuttal is immediately available.
:-)
Jenny
David Hare-Scott
"Jason Spaceman" <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:4s40e41bekeq0f99c...@4ax.com...
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Warren Nunn
>
I love this bit:
<quote>
Williams writes that "creationism has been countered with a commensurate
tide of rationalism" and seems to imply that one can only be rational by
being pro-evolution. But if evolution is true, then Williams' brain is just
an accumulation of millions of mutations, and he has no basis for assuming
that his thoughts are meaningful, or that such a thing as logic exists.
This, in itself, is irrational.
<unquote>
He certainly makes a good case for the absence of logic but not quite how he
intended.
David
The Enigmatic One
<c37338b6-d6d2-472c...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Jenny...@aol.com says...
>
>
>On Sep 28, 6:18�pm, geop...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> I mean... I can write better than this.
>
>You can write far more honestly, but it is a very clever article. The
>guy is an expert word mechanic, and uses his skills to appeal to Mom,
>apple pie, and the American way
Australian way, actually.
-Tim
DougC
> Yes, I am a creationist. I am just as convinced as Sir Isaac Newton
> was that God created the world in six days about 6000 years ago.
Which God would that be? From Thor and Zeus to the Great Thunderbird,
there have been many gods in the mind of humans over thousands of
years. If science in the form of evolution is to be balanced against
religion, how can one be so self-centered as to select only your
version? The Dalai Lama might take offense.
Doug Chandler
Tiny Bulcher
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Warren Nunn
>
> September 29, 2008 12:00am
>
> SOME academics (Paul Williams, View Point, September 23) don't give
> the whole story when they insist only one view of science/origins
> should be taught in the classroom.
>
> In his objection to creationism or intelligent design being taught
> alongside Darwinian evolutionism, Williams is saying that the
> scientific data must be explained to young minds in only one way.
>
> Most scientists and academics believe Darwinian evolutionism is
> scientific fact. In this view, scientific concepts and data have to be
> expressed within the framework of millions of years and evolution.
>
> So those, like me and countless others in the present and down the
> ages, who do not come to the same conclusion from the evidence
Bzzzt! Stop right there, at your first lie. You did not come to your
conclusion 'from the evidence'. You came to it via religion. Case
dismissed.
adman
If everything we are, and everything we see were a result of such randomness
as described by evolution, then the world would be in utter chaos as Darwin
himself said. Yet we see patterns, and laws in place. We see order and
things repeating such as the cycle of life. Randomness does not repeat.
Chaos often destroys.
--
A morning cup of coffee and truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
r norman
There is this tiny wee little thing called "the laws of physics" that
imposes order and regularity and imposes patterns. If you want to
state that "God created the laws of physics" then you are free to do
so, so long as you say that He stopped meddling once those laws were
in place and the big bang happened.
There was also a token prize awarded by some Swedish committee to
some guy named Prigogine for showing how order can arise from disorder
according to the second law of thermodynamics.
A.Carlson
>David Hare-Scott wrote:
>> "Jason Spaceman" <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
>> news:4s40e41bekeq0f99c...@4ax.com...
>>> From the article:
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Warren Nunn
>>>
>>
>>
>> I love this bit:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Williams writes that "creationism has been countered with a
>> commensurate tide of rationalism" and seems to imply that one can
>> only be rational by being pro-evolution. But if evolution is true,
>> then Williams' brain is just an accumulation of millions of
>> mutations, and he has no basis for assuming that his thoughts are
>> meaningful, or that such a thing as logic exists. This, in itself, is
>> irrational. <unquote>
>>
>> He certainly makes a good case for the absence of logic but not quite
>> how he intended.
>>
>> David
>
>If everything we are, and everything we see were a result of such randomness
>as described by evolution, then the world would be in utter chaos as Darwin
>himself said.
Really? Darwin actually said that? Would it be too much to ask for a
cite or is this just another mischaracterization of what Darwin said
put out by your holocaust denying guru Adnan Oktar (AKA Harun Yahya)?
>Yet we see patterns, and laws in place.
Yes, there are indeed natural laws that we have been able to discern
through the application of science, physical laws that describe the
limits of nature and that also just happen to prevent many of the
alleged miracles in that book of fairytales of yours that you call the
Bible.
>We see order and things repeating such as the cycle of life.
Don't forget also evidence of evolution and survival of the fittest.
This is seen throughout nature as well.
>Randomness does not repeat.
Really? Flip a coin and see if you can get any more than two
different outcomes. Draw one card from a deck of cards, put it back
and shuffle and then see if you can draw that one again within 26
tries (you have a 50/50 chance). BTW, in nature randomness is only
one of many factors at work.
>Chaos often destroys.
Who says it doesn't?
Desertphile
1) There is no such thing as "Darwinian evolutionism."
2) There is only one correct "view" regarding the diversity of
life on Earth, and that is called "evolutionary theory." It
explains how evolution works and worked. There is no other correct
"view."
3) There is no such thing as a "Molecules-to-man evolutionary
theory."
4) "creationism or intelligent design" is redundant.
5) If Isaac Newton were alive today he would accept the fact that
evolution happens and happened.
6) No scientists "start with the presumption that no gods were
involved." The fact that evolution is an observed natural
phenomena, and that evolutionary theory correctly explains,
describes, and makes predictions regarding that natural phenomena,
has nothing at all to say about the gods, pro-existence or
con-existence.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
adman
Of course i am saying God put the laws into motion. But the big bang is not
proven, the singularity defies known laws of physics
>
> There was also a token prize awarded by some Swedish committee to
> some guy named Prigogine for showing how order can arise from disorder
> according to the second law of thermodynamics.
Ah yes. I have this filed under: c:/trash/ Prigogine/Chaos/Science Fiction
Prigogine described and gave an mathmatical model of his idea of how order
emerged chaos. One problem:
If evolution is random, and still occurs, then we should still have chaos.
Instead we have order.
hth.
--
Resistance is futile, truth will prevail with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
The Enigmatic One
says...
s.
>
>Ah yes. I have this filed under: c:/trash/ Prigogine/Chaos/Science Fiction
>
>Prigogine described and gave an mathmatical model of his idea of how order
>emerged chaos. One problem:
>If evolution is random, and still occurs, then we should still have chaos.
No, it shouldn't. Nothing suggests such. But of course you'd say that as
you are, of course, a lying fucktard.
-Tim
Stuart
> r norman wrote:
>
> >> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> >>> messagenews:4s40e41bekeq0f99c...@4ax.com...
If you understood Prigogine, you'd understand how order can arise from
chaos.
Clearly, you're still confused.
Read him again. With comprehension this time.
Stuart
adman
Read the origin of species. He also said:
"It is impossible to concieve of this immense and wonderful universe as the
result of blind chance or necessity."
(Charles Darwin / 1809-1882 / The Origin of Species / 1859)
>> Yet we see patterns, and laws in place.
>
> Yes, there are indeed natural laws that we have been able to discern
> through the application of science, physical laws that describe the
> limits of nature and that also just happen to prevent many of the
> alleged miracles in that book of fairytales of yours that you call the
> Bible.
Science still has much to learn. But, for taking baby steps, it does ok. It
just might catch up to God's level one day
>
>> We see order and things repeating such as the cycle of life.
>
> Don't forget also evidence of evolution and survival of the fittest.
> This is seen throughout nature as well.
Sorry. Thats a wrong answer. Robert Malthus was the first with survival of
the fittest thingy. Darwin stole it. Sometimes the fittest die too or even
first. Evolution is a lie under survival of the fittest defination. Really.
69 yo woman with lung cancer, 35 year old male, same lung cancer. Stage 3
into the chest wall.
The more fittest (35 year old male)dies, the less fit survived under the
same treatment protcol.
>
>> Randomness does not repeat.
>
> Really? Flip a coin and see if you can get any more than two
> different outcomes. Draw one card from a deck of cards, put it back
> and shuffle and then see if you can draw that one again within 26
> tries (you have a 50/50 chance). BTW, in nature randomness is only
> one of many factors at work.
Funny you. Now add a 50^1000 quarters all fliping at the same time. See the
outcome.
>
>> Chaos often destroys.
>
> Who says it doesn't?
Thats right, it doesn't.
So Lets review.
evolution = random mutations
random = chaos.
chaos = often destroys
add them up. Test tommorow.
--
Resistance is futile, truth will prevail with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
You can't reason people out of an incorrect position they reached with
stupidity
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Resistance is futile, truth will prevail with:
>
>·.¸Adman¸.·
I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least you like to run
away and try to forget things. However, on the 29th September 2008 you
failed to deal with a number of items that were first listed by
Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now myself)
think you need to address:-
Claiming Paul Neuman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this news
group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any given
sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
Bob.
r norman
Order as in the distribution of galaxies in the universe, the
distribution of stars in a galaxy, the distribution of atomic
particles within a star, .......
Cj
Retest:
evolution = undirected (not random) mutations
not random = channeled
rationality = evolution
Cj
David Hare-Scott
"adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote in message
news:8G7Ek.39941$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
I don't know of any reference or evolutionary biologist who thinks that
because some elements of the system of evolution have random factors means
the whole world would be utter chaos.
Unless you can cite evidence for this hypothesis and for the assertion that
Darwin said as much I take it to be yet another straw man - or perhpas in
this case a straw giant.
And along the way, please explain why specifically would a brain being a
result of millions of mutations (assumed for the point of discussion) mean
that the thoughts of that brain cannot be logical or that this would
extinguish all logic.
David
adman
Lets talk logic for a moment.
Do you actually believe that the complexity of the millions if not billions
of life forms on this planet came about by random chances?
--
Resistance is futile, truth will prevail with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
You can't reason people out of an incorrect position they reached with
stupidity
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No, it came about by natural selection.
Mike Dworetsky
Another quote mine, I assume.
I had some trouble finding this as a direct quote, but I did find the
following on Wikipedia in the article on Charles Darwin's views on religion,
and it puts such remarks in perspective. Darwin did not think it was
impossible to imagine, just very difficult given the knowledge of his day,
and he didn't think much of the argument you just tried to make:
In a letter to a correspondent at the University of Utrecht in 1873, Darwin
expressed agnosticism:
"I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and
wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to
me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an
argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if
we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came from
and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount
of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain
extent to the judgment of many able men who have fully believed in God; but
here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems
to me to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect;
but man can do his duty."
Notice the "Who created God?" question in the middle.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Wombat
wrote:
> "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote in message
>
> news:4WcEk.42196$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> > A.Carlson wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:53:29 -0500, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
> >>> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> >>>> messagenews:4s40e41bekeq0f99c...@4ax.com...
Has anyone tried this quote on Ray-Ray to show his assertion that
Darwin was an atheist is moonshine?
Wombat
David Hare-Scott
"adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote in message
>>>
>>> If everything we are, and everything we see were a result of such
>>> randomness as described by evolution, then the world would be in
>>> utter chaos as Darwin himself said. Yet we see patterns, and laws in
>>> place. We see order and things repeating such as the cycle of life.
>>> Randomness does not repeat. Chaos often destroys.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know of any reference or evolutionary biologist who thinks
>> that because some elements of the system of evolution have random
>> factors means the whole world would be utter chaos.
>>
>> Unless you can cite evidence for this hypothesis and for the
>> assertion that Darwin said as much I take it to be yet another straw
>> man - or perhpas in this case a straw giant.
>>
>> And along the way, please explain why specifically would a brain
>> being a result of millions of mutations (assumed for the point of
>> discussion) mean that the thoughts of that brain cannot be logical or
>> that this would extinguish all logic.
>>
>> David
>
> Lets talk logic for a moment.
>
> Do you actually believe that the complexity of the millions if not
> billions of life forms on this planet came about by random chances?
>
Before we go any further where is the evidence for:
" If everything we are, and everything we see were a result of such
randomness as described by evolution, then the world would be in
utter chaos as Darwin himself said."
1) Why does some element of randomness in evolution mean utter chaos?
2) Where exactly did Darwin say this? Don't tell me 'somewhere in his
megabytes of published works'. You claimed it so you quote it.
David
A.Carlson
I have. Have you? I get the impression that you are merely repeating
quote mines from Creationist websites as you did with Adnan Oktar's
site. You even managed to be more dishonest than he was as well by
eliminating the ellipses that were at least still present on the site
you got another Darwin misquote from.
BTW, you completely avoided answering the question. What's the quote?
>He also said:
Also?!?! You haven't yet provided a decent cite for the quote in
question.
>"It is impossible to concieve of this immense and wonderful universe as the
>result of blind chance or necessity."
>(Charles Darwin / 1809-1882 / The Origin of Species / 1859)
To show you how open to interpretation that particular quote" is (to
begin with, you have the spelling wrong) there are Atheist websites
which sell T-shirts with that quote on it:
http://www.cafepress.com/nostupid.67639412
I also cannot find any evidence that this is an actual quote from
Darwin's Origin of Species. The only mention that Darwin appeared to
have made concerning something being "impossible to conceive" had more
to do with our ability to ascertain by what steps certain things came
about but this is due to our own limited knowledge on the subject and
not the likelihood of it happening.
"we must own that we are far too ignorant to argue that no
transition of any kind is possible"
>>> Yet we see patterns, and laws in place.
>>
>> Yes, there are indeed natural laws that we have been able to discern
>> through the application of science, physical laws that describe the
>> limits of nature and that also just happen to prevent many of the
>> alleged miracles in that book of fairytales of yours that you call the
>> Bible.
>
>Science still has much to learn. But, for taking baby steps, it does ok.
More like giant strides, especially when compared to the ignorance
supported by Creationism.
>It just might catch up to God's level one day
Science has long since surpassed your collection of religious
fairytales.
>>> We see order and things repeating such as the cycle of life.
>>
>> Don't forget also evidence of evolution and survival of the fittest.
>> This is seen throughout nature as well.
>
>Sorry. Thats a wrong answer.
A correction from you? How quaint!
>Robert Malthus was the first with survival of
>the fittest thingy.
No he wasn't. Herbert Spencer is the one who coined the phrase (prior
to Darwin's use of it) but the concept of natural selection was far
better fleshed out and explained by Darwin. Malthus was more about
the potential for population explosions, just one contributing aspect
to natural selection.
>Darwin stole it.
More like he greatly expounded upon it while giving Malthus his due in
the process, so that would hardly be considered stealing.
>Sometimes the fittest die too or even first.
And sometimes you can be dealt four aces to a royal flush but that
isn't what normally happens. Natural selection is all about overall
tendencies with exceptions such as the fittest dying being fully
expected.
>Evolution is a lie under survival of the fittest defination. Really.
You apparently have no idea about what you are criticizing. Really.
>69 yo woman with lung cancer, 35 year old male, same lung cancer. Stage 3
>into the chest wall.
>The more fittest (35 year old male)dies, the less fit survived under the
>same treatment protcol.
God, you're ignorant! First, the "69 yo woman" became "less fit" long
after losing the ability to pass on genes. Second, if it were her
genes that were responsible for her not getting lung cancer until such
a late age then with respect to said cancer then she would be much
fitter overall and also with respect to the ability to reproduce.
Third, both people in your scenario lived well past the beginning of
their reproductive ages and the woman in this case may very well have
been naturally fitter than the male with respect to any number of
additional aspects such as intelligence or ability to reason,
fertility, absence of potentially debilitating recessive genes, etc.
>>> Randomness does not repeat.
>>
>> Really? Flip a coin and see if you can get any more than two
>> different outcomes. Draw one card from a deck of cards, put it back
>> and shuffle and then see if you can draw that one again within 26
>> tries (you have a 50/50 chance). BTW, in nature randomness is only
>> one of many factors at work.
>
>Funny you. Now add a 50^1000 quarters all fliping at the same time. See the
>outcome.
Yes, a really big number that you would still have to prove is
analogous to the ToE in some way. Regardless, what happens still
happens!
If you were to lay out a shuffled deck of cards the order would be so
unique (!52 = 8.07^67) that billions of monkeys on each of a billion
planets in each of a billion universes constantly shuffling and laying
out cards over billions of years would still be highly unlikely to
produce the same results.
This doesn't prove in any way that the original order of the cards
laid out didn't happen, only that it was unique and any time you lay
out cards the order is equally unique. The simple fact is that no one
(other than Creationist pseudo-mathematicians) claims that this is in
any way analogous to the ToE.
>>> Chaos often destroys.
>>
>> Who says it doesn't?
>
>Thats right, it doesn't.
Que?
>So Lets review.
>
>evolution = random mutations
Actually random mutations is only one of a number of contributing
factors.
>random = chaos.
Not when natural selection is in progress.
>chaos = often destroys
Didn't you yourself just state "That's right, it doesn't [often
destroy]"? Make up your mind.
>add them up. Test tommorow.
Sorry, you've already failed the preliminaries. You don't get to
advance to the next level.
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> Read the origin of species. He also said:
>
> "It is impossible to concieve of this immense and wonderful universe as the
> result of blind chance or necessity."
> (Charles Darwin / 1809-1882 / The Origin of Species / 1859)
[...]
Like Mike Dworetsky, I'm curious to see the context. I don't see that
in
the first or sixth editions that I could find online. Do you have a
more
specific reference?
Have *you* actually read The Origin of Species, or is this
from a list of quotes?
John Wilkins
Not the Origin, the Autobiography, p92f:
"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with
the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more
weight. *This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather
impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe,
including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into
futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity.* When thus
reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an
intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve
to be called a Theist.
This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can
remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time
that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But
then arises the doubt---can the mind of man, which has, as I fully
believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the
lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not
these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which
strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited
experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant
inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so
strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully
developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their
belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and
hatred of a snake."
As always with Darwin, it pays to read on. In other words, while it is
impossible to conceive of the world that way, that impossibility is the
result of inherited experience, not logic.
...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Robert Carnegie
<notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Warren Nunn
>
>
> SOME academics (Paul Williams, View Point, September 23) don't give
> the whole story when they insist only one view of science/origins
> should be taught in the classroom.
>
> In his objection to creationism or intelligent design being taught
> alongside Darwinian evolutionism, Williams is saying that the
> scientific data must be explained to young minds in only one way.
>
> Most scientists and academics believe Darwinian evolutionism is
> scientific fact. In this view, scientific concepts and data have to be
> expressed within the framework of millions of years and evolution.
>
> So those, like me and countless others in the present and down the
> ages, who do not come to the same conclusion from the evidence are, at
> the least, viewed suspiciously.
>
> Yes, I am a creationist. I am just as convinced as Sir Isaac Newton
> was that God created the world in six days about 6000 years ago.
>
> And I've come to that conclusion from the same evidence that convinces
> most scientists of the very opposite. Am I biased? Yes. As are those
> who start with the presumption that no Creator was involved.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24414492-27197,00.html
Is anyone aware of Newton's opinion of the age of "the world", the
earth as it may be? Ussher was before his time but I don't know when
Ussher's calendar became conventional, printed in bibles, etc. And
Newton's own opinion in religion seems to have been not conventional,
but he kept a lot of that mostly to himself during his life.
It probably is excessively picky to say that an Ussherist in Newton's
day supposed the earth to be 5,700 years old, and currently 6,010
years... I'm not sure when that ticks over to 6,011. There's probably
a web page.
r norman
It would indeed be excessively picky to mention that it is October 23
and even pickier to point out that it is a Julian calendar date. How
picky is it to further mention that, technically, it is a proleptic
Julian date?
hersheyh
[snip]
> But the big bang is not
> proven, the singularity defies known laws of physics
Are you saying that the big bang did not happen *because* the
"singularity defies known laws of physics" or that the singularity
does not exist because it "defies known laws of physics"? Exactly
what do you think the *empirical evidence* says about the origin (if
any) of the universe? BTW, no religious book can be considered
*empirical evidence* for anything but some insight into the religious
beliefs of the writers.
hersheyh
> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> >news:8G7Ek.39941$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> >>> messagenews:4s40e41bekeq0f99c...@4ax.com...
No. Random events coupled with selective pressures for function and
speciation is not randomness alone. Moreover, you seem not to
understand what even completely random processes (within a selective
framework) would look like when it comes to mutation. Explore the
consequences of a "drunkard's walk" and you will see that, at normal
mutation rates, given selection for whatever a gene does, most genes
will have only one to a few major selectively neutral alleles
(variants) of that gene. By completely random processes.
>
> You can't reason people out of an incorrect position they reached with
> stupidity
Yes. Like thinking that "selection" somehow is defined as "chaotic
randomness". Did it ever occur to you that the choice of the word
"selection" was not meant as an ironic mocking of its apparent
creationist definition of "random chaos", but really, truly meant that
"selection" (a non-random process, in this case caused by naturally-
occurring factors) was somehow involved? What level of stupidity can
cause someone to think that "selection" means "pure chaotic
randomness"? Is there some dictionary somewhere (that I have not see)
that defines "selection" as "randomness"?
Boikat
> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> >news:8G7Ek.39941$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> >>> messagenews:4s40e41bekeq0f99c...@4ax.com...
Then it would be a one sided conversation, leaving you out.
>
> Do you actually believe that the complexity of the millions if not billions
> of life forms on this planet came about by random chances?
Here's where "logic" comes into play. You are areguing from a
possition of "argument from incredulity". That is a logical fallacy.
Just because *you* find the concept incredible, *you* think it's
impossible.
>
> --
> Resistance is futile, truth will prevail with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Truth? You can't handle the truth.
>
> You can't reason people out of an incorrect position they reached with
> stupidity-
Which is why your are anti science.
Boikat
Robert Carnegie
Well, we do know that all those coins with "B.C." dates found in
dinosaur footprints are fakes. :-)
When did we /stop/ having proleptic Julian dates? So to speak.
("When her husband found out.")
TomS
<e64fde00-82f6-4ee2...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Robert
Carnegie stated..."
[...snip...]
>Well, we do know that all those coins with "B.C." dates found in
>dinosaur footprints are fakes. :-)
How do you know? Were you there? :-)
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
A.Carlson
Interesting. I thought that maybe it came from a revision or
something in a preface of a later edition of Origin of Species. Now
it turns out not only to come from another book altogether but also is
paraphrased and, more to the point, comes from writings that lends
itself to a more philosophical approach than a scientific treatise
like Origin of Species would. Context is everything.
Of course this leaves a few pro-evolution Atheist websites with the
quote attributed to the right person but not quite the exact source. I
suppose one could still say the quote was *on* The Origin of Species
;)
heekster
Assman hasn't read it. The quote is from Darwin's autobiography, not
Origin of Species.
John Wilkins caught it.
Anything posted by adman or Ray Martinez can be presumed to be a lie
or imbecility, until it has been vetted. Like a stopped analog clock,
which is right twice a day, these ignoramuses occasionally stumble
inadvertently over a kernel of truth, once in a great while.
In the nonorthogonal assman's case, that is "thrth"
The fool, Assman, quotemines, and most of the time he is insensate of
the meaning of that which he cuts and pastes. Also, since the
cretinist websites that he gleans his imbecilities from are already
out of context, he can produce some real knee-slappers.
Paul Newman was a creationist, for example.
If he were any more stupid, they'd have to open a new classification
of stupidity, just for him.
Frank J
wrote:
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Warren Nunn
>
>
> SOME academics (Paul Williams, View Point, September 23) don't give
> the whole story when they insist only one view of science/origins
> should be taught in the classroom.
>
> In his objection to creationism or intelligent design being taught
> alongside Darwinian evolutionism,
"Darwinian evolutionism" - that's a novel twist on the tired old
strawman.
> Williams is saying that the
> scientific data must be explained to young minds in only one way.
Specifically the way that *works*.
]
>
> Most scientists and academics believe Darwinian evolutionism is
> scientific fact.
Quite odd since they never use that phrase.
> In this view, scientific concepts and data have to be
> expressed within the framework of millions of years and evolution.
>
> So those, like me and countless others in the present and down the
> ages, who do not come to the same conclusion from the evidence are, at
> the least, viewed suspiciously.
>
> Yes, I am a creationist. I am just as convinced as Sir Isaac Newton
> was that God created the world in six days about 6000 years ago.
I'm not sure what Newton believed. That conclusion, whether or not it
was his, was probably a reasonable one based on evidence available at
the time. But I'm beginning to suspect that Nunn's hyperactive
imagination is making him believe whateve feels good, the facts be
damned.
>
> And I've come to that conclusion from the same evidence that convinces
> most scientists of the very opposite. Am I biased? Yes. As are those
> who start with the presumption that no Creator was involved.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24414492-27197,00.html
>
> J. Spaceman
Mike Dworetsky
news:r7b4e45sh15h6bi44...@4ax.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaguely recalled from somewhere--wasn't it supposed to be Rosh Hashana
(though the Jewish calculation of creation differs from Ussher by about 230
years or so).
Ussher eventually gave up on the fine details of the calculations and set
the creation year at 4,000 years before the Birth of Christ (4 BC) to follow
a long tradition, with the Flood at 2,004 BC, and the second coming in
1996-ish.
r norman
That is being rather picky!
Robert Carnegie
wrote:
Second Coming, I take it. End of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology explains the Jewish
calendar connection, kind'a - does the calendar depend on the
equinox? I somehow got the idea that the equinox was involved for
Ussher because it would make a neatly arranged universe at the moment
of creation.
It also has "Citation needed" for the statement "This view had been
almost completely abandoned by 1997" - the view in question being that
the world would end in that year, 6000 years after creation. But as
far as I recall from then, it was Y2K we were all worried about - all
the computers not working any more.
Wikipedia also explains (now) that the particular date is in the
"proleptic Julian calendar", so the word for that is no longer
"pedantic" or "picky". But what /do/ you call something that you
"know" only because Wikipedia says so? Factitious? That's probably
taken... yes, it is. Factoid, then. Factishual.
Frank J
wrote:
Just one of many strange coincidences, but George Burns, who played
God in the movies, left the building in 1996, after sticking around
just a bit more than 1/10 of a millennium.
>
> --
> Mike Dworetsky
>
> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
wf3h
> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> >news:4s40e41bekeq0f99c...@4ax.com...
> >> From the article:
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Warren Nunn
>
>
> > <quote>
> > Williams writes that "creationism has been countered with a
> > commensurate tide of rationalism" and seems to imply that one can
> > only be rational by being pro-evolution. But if evolution is true,
> > then Williams' brain is just an accumulation of millions of
> > mutations, and he has no basis for assuming that his thoughts are
> > meaningful, or that such a thing as logic exists. This, in itself, is
> > irrational. <unquote>
>
> > He certainly makes a good case for the absence of logic but not quite
> > how he intended.
>
> > David
>
> If everything we are, and everything we see were a result of such randomness
> as described by evolution, then the world would be in utter chaos as Darwin
> things repeating such as the cycle of life. Randomness does not repeat.
> Chaos often destroys.
>
the reason we see patterns is because there are laws in nature
creationism specifically says there are NO laws of nature since
everything's created by divine fiat. thus creationism leads to
randomness.
it's a contradiction in creationism that proof of the existence of a
lawgiving god is that there are no natural laws.
r norman
wrote:
I don't understand your logic. It has long been the argument of
creationists that the laws of nature are God's laws. That does not
mean there are no laws, only that the word "natural" is
inappropriate in describing them unless you accept that God is
responsible for nature.
wf3h
>>
> Of course i am saying God put the laws into motion. But the big bang is not
> proven, the singularity defies known laws of physics
kinda makes you wonder which laws of nature creationists accept
big bang? nope
evolution? nope
golly. seems they think god made no laws at all. and that proves he
made all the laws of nature.
> >
> Prigogine described and gave an mathmatical model of his idea of how order
> emerged chaos. One problem:
> If evolution is random, and still occurs, then we should still have chaos.
well....no. because there is a filter. it's called 'natural
selection'.
you know...the idea that darwin came up with...
>
wf3h
> A.Carlson wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, there are indeed natural laws that we have been able to discern
> > through the application of science, physical laws that describe the
> > limits of nature and that also just happen to prevent many of the
> > alleged miracles in that book of fairytales of yours that you call the
> > Bible.
>
> just might catch up to God's level one day
gee. for 2000 years creationists said 'god did it'.
and that led nowhere. but they're CONVINCED that, this time, that idea
will work.
>
>
>
> >> We see order and things repeating such as the cycle of life.
>
> > Don't forget also evidence of evolution and survival of the fittest.
> > This is seen throughout nature as well.
>
> Sorry. Thats a wrong answer. Robert Malthus was the first with survival of
> the fittest thingy. Darwin stole it. Sometimes the fittest die too or even
> first. Evolution is a lie under survival of the fittest defination. Really.
which is nonsense. how do the 'fittest' die? what measures 'fittest'
if they all die?
adman
That is a rather smart filter since it uses mutations
God musta thought it up
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
adman
easily.
> what measures 'fittest' if they all die?
not you
wf3h
the perfect response from a creationist: no response at all
wf3h
of course darwin discovered it. it's a natural law...you know...the
things you don't believe in?
Stuart
Either way, thats the way it works and Darwin
figured out how so the rest of us could benefit
from that knowledge.
See how easy that was?
No need for a holy war.
Stuart
wf3h
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 05:31:50 -0700 (PDT), wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >creationism specifically says there are NO laws of nature since
> >everything's created by divine fiat. thus creationism leads to
> >randomness.
>
> >it's a contradiction in creationism that proof of the existence of a
> >lawgiving god is that there are no natural laws.
>
> I don't understand your logic. It has long been the argument of
> creationists that the laws of nature are God's laws. That does not
> mean there are no laws, only that the word "natural" is
> inappropriate in describing them unless you accept that God is
>
evolution is a natural law...just like other natural laws
creationists say evolution doesn't exist...that is, there are no
natural laws (since magic was used to create species).
r norman
wrote:
>On Oct 4, 7:38 am, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
Which creationists claim that there are no natural laws? The 'since'
in your statement is what I question. That they claim special
creation of the universe does not mean that there are no natural laws.
wf3h
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:24:13 -0700 (PDT), wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
>
if evolution doesn't exist and species were created (as ray martinez
and other creationists like phillip johnson say) by supernatural
special creation, then natural laws don't apply to the formation of
species. supernaturalism is not, by definition, natural. so their
position is that natural law can not be used to describe our universe.
r norman
wrote:
>On Oct 6, 5:20 am, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
Once again your logic escapes me. You switched to the word "so" this
time. Yes, creationists say that natural laws don't apply to the
formation of species. But that does not mean that natural laws do not
apply to the entire remaining portion of the universe, especially
since what you call "natural" laws they consider laws produced by God.
The language you use seems to say that creationists deny Newton's laws
of motion or of gravity or Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism,
something that is clearly false.
I have no problem with you arguing that creationism is false and
wrong-headed and illogical. It is just that I would like to see you
use good logical arguments in doing so.
wf3h
>
> >if evolution doesn't exist and species were created (as ray martinez
> >and other creationists like phillip johnson say) by supernatural
> >special creation, then natural laws don't apply to the formation of
> >species. supernaturalism is not, by definition, natural. so their
> >position is that natural law can not be used to describe our universe.
>
> Once again your logic escapes me. You switched to the word "so" this
> time. Yes, creationists say that natural laws don't apply to the
> formation of species. But that does not mean that natural laws do not
> apply to the entire remaining portion of the universe,
well, that depends. many of them don't accept the big bang. and the
concepts associated with evolution...like isotope dating, etc., are
also called into question.
but, leaving that aside, if there is a hole in the universe regarding
natural law, then we can't say there is order in the universe since
there plainly isn't. what else is out there that doesn't obey laws?
since we're wrong, according to creationists, in this area, then the
idea of universal nature laws is also wrong.
if we're wrong in THAT area, why not in others? the whole edifice of
science collapses if creationism is allowed to drive the truck bomb of
supernaturalism into the building.
especially
> since what you call "natural" laws they consider laws produced by God.
that's EXACTLY my point; they say god created natural laws. the right
hand giveth, the left taketh way, for in the very next breath they say
god did NOT create any laws dealing with speciation. that's a
contradiction which calls into question the very foundation of natural
laws at all.
> The language you use seems to say that creationists deny Newton's laws
> of motion or of gravity or Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism,
> something that is clearly false.
and why would we accept the existence of newton's laws if god rules by
fiat? if he intrudes into the universe to exclude whole areas from
natural law, then what we call 'laws' are merely today's observations
since tomorrow he could repeal or change those 'laws'.
and, again, they only accept other laws where they fit into their
'theories'
>
> I have no problem with you arguing that creationism is false and
> wrong-headed and illogical. It is just that I would like to see you
> use good logical arguments in doing so.- =
i agree with your point, but either the universe is based on natural
law or it's not. it's like being slightly pregnant. you either are
pregnant or you're not. if the universe is based partly on magic and
partly on some laws then it's not true to say natural laws exist. what
exists is the whim of a cavalier god who rules on a random basis,
seemingly governed by chance. who knows what tomorrow's laws will be?
Robert Carnegie
Well, it seems to me that we /could/ say that natural law applies
except where a supernatural influence is added. However, this may be
quite wide. The human soul, as usually described in religion, clearly
is supernatural, and we are each walking around with one of those
inside us - or so we are told.
I think the "soul" theory really exists (1) as part of a theory where
"spirit" is what causes the wind, an animal or human body, or common
household objects to move by themselves, and (2) - in no particular
order - to provide a postulated vehicle for the survival of personal
identity after dissolution of the body. I mean, if you physically die
and that is all that you are, then there's no resurrection. Even if
God creates a new living you identical to the old you, it isn't the
old you, because the old you /died/. Of course I am being
Aristotelian about this, perhaps excessively so. And conversely I am
not as worried as might be appropriate about the fact that I lose
consciousness for a while every twenty-four hours or so, so does the
conscious me cease to exist? And how can I justify identifying myself
wvith "me tomorrow" if there is a break in consciousness? Of course I
can't do anything about it anyway and I /could/ remain conscious for
longer if I chose to do so - although you get mo!icrosleeps so there
are breaks anyway - and I take on trust that I exist /physically/ when
I'm asleep, and I believe that my physical being is the real me, but
in an obvious sense it's only "me" until I die, and only while I'm
conscious.
Robert Carnegie
That's an interesting response. Evolution by mutation and natural
selection works, whether God specifically thought it through in
advance or not. Perhaps God created the first bacterium and did not
know what would happen, and he was surprised and delighted when it
started to evolve. Perhaps.
Besides natural selection as simply understood, there also is sexual
selection, and genetic drift, too. Sexual selection can be understood
in terms of propaganda; individuals who choose a naturally fit mate
have their genes favoured by natural selection, which creates an
marketplace of sexual choice; then evolution is liable to generate
extravagant forms of advertisement of natural fitness. So in that
sense sexual selection and sexual display (bower bird, peacock tail)
can be seen as an elaboration of natural selection, although I think
there's more to it than that.
In many species, an individual male in its lifetime can mate with many
females, more than the other way around. In some, one male controls a
harem of females exclusively. In some, the female is liable to eat
the male during mating, which changes the market economics... in some
the male has a sporting chance to escape, in some his lower parts
continue copulating after his head is bitten off and digested...
(M)-adman
> the male has a sporting chance to escape, in some his lower parts
> continue copulating after his head is bitten off and digested...
Gee. I guess he came and went at the same time [shudder]
Robert Carnegie
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > the male has a sporting chance to escape, in some his lower parts
> > continue copulating after his head is bitten off and digested...
>
> Gee. I guess he came and went at the same time [shudder]
Yeah, that's really giving head... although according to Wikipedia
this striking fact is controversial
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Praying_mantis#Reproduction_and_life_history>
In the wild and well fed, apparently the female only eats the male
alive /sometimes/.
(This is also true of the subset of spider species in which the fa!
emale /may/ eat her mate.)
But even so - jeez.
Did I mention species where the mother is eaten by the offspring...
(Apparently the "offspring" is the most dangerous moment in the
exercise if you're a male praying mantis...)
Kermit
> A.Carlson wrote:
>
> >> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> >>> "Jason Spaceman" <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
> >>>> From the article:
> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> Warren Nunn
> >>> I love this bit:
> >>> <quote>
> >>> Williams writes that "creationism has been countered with a
> >>> commensurate tide of rationalism" and seems to imply that one can
> >>> only be rational by being pro-evolution. But if evolution is true,
> >>> then Williams' brain is just an accumulation of millions of
> >>> mutations, and he has no basis for assuming that his thoughts are
> >>> meaningful, or that such a thing as logic exists. This, in itself,
> >>> is irrational. <unquote>
> >>> He certainly makes a good case for the absence of logic but not
> >>> quite how he intended.
> >>> David
> >> If everything we are, and everything we see were a result of such
> >> randomness as described by evolution, then the world would be in
> >> utter chaos as Darwin himself said.
>
> > cite or is this just another mischaracterization of what Darwin said
> > put out by your holocaust denying guru Adnan Oktar (AKA Harun Yahya)?
>
>
> "It is impossible to concieve of this immense and wonderful universe as the
> result of blind chance or necessity."
> (Charles Darwin / 1809-1882 / The Origin of Species / 1859)
>
>
> > through the application of science, physical laws that describe the
> > limits of nature and that also just happen to prevent many of the
> > alleged miracles in that book of fairytales of yours that you call the
> > Bible.
>
> Science still has much to learn. But, for taking baby steps, it does ok. It
> just might catch up to God's level one day
>
>
>
>
> > Don't forget also evidence of evolution and survival of the fittest.
> > This is seen throughout nature as well.
>
> Sorry. Thats a wrong answer. Robert Malthus was the first with survival of
> the fittest thingy. Darwin stole it. Sometimes the fittest die too or even
> first. Evolution is a lie under survival of the fittest defination. Really.
>
> into the chest wall.
> The more fittest (35 year old male)dies, the less fit survived under the
> same treatment protcol.
>
>
>
> >> Randomness does not repeat.
>
> > Really? Flip a coin and see if you can get any more than two
> > different outcomes. Draw one card from a deck of cards, put it back
> > and shuffle and then see if you can draw that one again within 26
> > tries (you have a 50/50 chance). BTW, in nature randomness is only
> > one of many factors at work.
>
> Funny you. Now add a 50^1000 quarters all fliping at the same time. See the
> outcome.
So about how many heads would you get? How many tails?
If this is not what you meant by "repeating", give an example of what
you had in mind.
>
>
>
> >> Chaos often destroys.
>
> > Who says it doesn't?
>
> Thats right, it doesn't.
>
> So Lets review.
>
> evolution = random mutations
Wrong. see, this is why you are so confused. You've been arguing
against somebody's strange misunderstanding of the evolutionary
process. Now don't you feel silly?
Evolution is:
a pool of random inheritable variation,
acted upon by natural selection,
because of Malthusian limits (not all offspring can be supported by
the environment).
The inheritable traits in a genepool are filtered by the nature of the
environment - those who reproduce most successfully have the most
offspring who carry those traits. Evolution is *inevitable, given
those three conditions above.
> random = chaos.
Like flipping a coin over and over is chaos?
> chaos = often destroys
Yes.
>
> add them up. Test tommorow.
>
> --
> Resistance is futile, truth will prevail with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You can't reason people out of an incorrect position they reached with
> stupidity
How true. See your own misunderstandings of evolution for an excellent
example. It *could be mere ignorance for most folks, but you have had
many corrections by now, I'm sure. So rather than accuse you of
dishonesty, I'll just mark it down to ..well, simple-mindedness. It's
OK. Hard work can overcome considerable handicap in that regard.
Kermit
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> >news:8G7Ek.39941$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> >>> "Jason Spaceman" <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
> >>> messagenews:4s40e41bekeq0f99c...@4ax.com...
> >>>> From the article:
> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> Warren Nunn
>
> >>> I love this bit:
>
> >>> <quote>
> >>> Williams writes that "creationism has been countered with a
> >>> commensurate tide of rationalism" and seems to imply that one can
> >>> only be rational by being pro-evolution. But if evolution is true,
> >>> then Williams' brain is just an accumulation of millions of
> >>> mutations, and he has no basis for assuming that his thoughts are
> >>> meaningful, or that such a thing as logic exists. This, in itself,
> >>> is irrational. <unquote>
>
> >>> He certainly makes a good case for the absence of logic but not
> >>> quite how he intended.
>
> >>> David
>
> >> If everything we are, and everything we see were a result of such
> >> randomness as described by evolution, then the world would be in
> >> place. We see order and things repeating such as the cycle of life.
> >> Randomness does not repeat. Chaos often destroys.
>
> > that because some elements of the system of evolution have random
> > factors means the whole world would be utter chaos.
>
> > Unless you can cite evidence for this hypothesis and for the
> > assertion that Darwin said as much I take it to be yet another straw
> > man - or perhpas in this case a straw giant.
>
> > And along the way, please explain why specifically would a brain
> > being a result of millions of mutations (assumed for the point of
> > discussion) mean that the thoughts of that brain cannot be logical or
> > that this would extinguish all logic.
>
> > David
>
> Lets talk logic for a moment.
>
> Do you actually believe that the complexity of the millions if not billions
> of life forms on this planet came about by random chances?
Translation: I can't answer the question so I'll just rephrase the
same lie (that evolution is a random process).
>
> --
> Resistance is futile, truth will prevail with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You can't reason people out of an incorrect position they reached with
> stupidity
That's why we don't expect you to ever get a clue. However it's useful
to give real information to the lurkers.
Lee Jay
wrote:
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Warren Nunn
>
>
> SOME academics (Paul Williams, View Point, September 23) don't give
> the whole story when they insist only one view of science/origins
> should be taught in the classroom.
>
> In his objection to creationism or intelligent design being taught
> alongside Darwinian evolutionism, Williams is saying that the
> scientific data must be explained to young minds in only one way.
>
> Most scientists and academics believe Darwinian evolutionism is
> scientific fact. In this view, scientific concepts and data have to be
> expressed within the framework of millions of years and evolution.
>
> So those, like me and countless others in the present and down the
> ages, who do not come to the same conclusion from the evidence are, at
> the least, viewed suspiciously.
>
> Yes, I am a creationist. I am just as convinced as Sir Isaac Newton
> was that God created the world in six days about 6000 years ago.
>
> And I've come to that conclusion from the same evidence that convinces
> most scientists of the very opposite. Am I biased? Yes. As are those
> who start with the presumption that no Creator was involved.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24414492-27197,00.html
>
Classic creationist arrogance:
"But I'm not an academic, nor a scientist and my opinion is just that;
opinion based on what the evidence says to me."
So, he's not educated in the science he is discussing, but has no
problem with the fact that his "conclusion" from examining the
evidence (since he's not a scientist, it's likely he actually hasn't
examined the evidence) is different from the conclusions of those that
actually *are* trained in the science, and who *have* examined the
evidence.
Creationists are the most arrogant bunch I know of.
Lee Jay
Mike Painter
> On Sep 29, 3:52 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> A.Carlson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:53:29 -0500, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett>
>>> wrote:
>>> Really? Flip a coin and see if you can get any more than two
>>> different outcomes. Draw one card from a deck of cards, put it back
>>> and shuffle and then see if you can draw that one again within 26
>>> tries (you have a 50/50 chance). BTW, in nature randomness is only
>>> one of many factors at work.
>>
>> Funny you. Now add a 50^1000 quarters all fliping at the same time.
>> See the outcome.
>
> So about how many heads would you get? How many tails?
>
> If this is not what you meant by "repeating", give an example of what
> you had in mind.
Dice are a far better example.
You take a few billion of them and toss them.
Some of them "win", some of them don't.
You keep the ones that win and toss the dice again.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Chaos often destroys.
>>
>>> Who says it doesn't?
>>
>> Thats right, it doesn't.
>>
>> So Lets review.
>>
>> evolution = random mutations
>
> Wrong. see, this is why you are so confused. You've been arguing
> against somebody's strange misunderstanding of the evolutionary
> process. Now don't you feel silly?
>
> Evolution is:
> a pool of random inheritable variation,
> acted upon by natural selection,
> because of Malthusian limits (not all offspring can be supported by
> the environment).
>
> The inheritable traits in a genepool are filtered by the nature of the
> environment - those who reproduce most successfully have the most
> offspring who carry those traits. Evolution is *inevitable, given
> those three conditions above.
>
>> random = chaos.
Depends on what is meant by chaos. Evolution is chaotic, as are
fingerprints, tree leaves, heart beats, and a billion other things.
Their "randoness" is carefullt bounded.