RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Intellectual Honesty, Robert Shapiro "Origins"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2005,16:32   

The subject of my first post is to simply inquire what is lost or worse feared by admitting as Dr. Shapiro does that the origin of life underpinning of evolutionary theory is virtually no-existant, that none of the current approaches have any real scientific, experimentally demonstrated credibility, that this is a known major failing of the theory and that the discovery of yet unknown physical laws or properties of matter or an alternative explanation is necessary to set evolutionary theory on a firm foundation regarding origins.

I see nothing weak or defeatest in his argumentation, research, methods or conclusions and he is a world reknown scientist in the field.

Puzzled,

Evopeach

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2005,13:01   

I would guess responding to my own first post is against the rules, but I did not really expect any replies..... my point is thus made.

Being 61 and a retired person who worked in several technical and business positions I observed a lot about human behavior, debate and discussion techniques, human personality and how one's training and experiences impact the techniques employed in such daily activities.

I can assure the mainstream posters here that you side is losing the public policy debate, will start to lose the legal battle quickly and as a result public funding priorities for research will be redirected.

One has only to examine the current polls, articles, media interest and several legal challenges to understand that such is the state of affairs. It is empirically true.

1) The average well educated Joe or Jill over a large age range has an instant dislike for peole who display the arrogance, elitism and self congratulatory attitudes and behaviors exhibited daily here and throughtout the evolutionist community. It hurts the cause of your team when people demean, attack and belittle people who they disagree with and discredit their credentials,abilities and accomplishments in outrageous and demonstrably inaccurate polemics. No one of even slightly above average intelligence will agree with or appreciate such utter nonsensical methods directed at Dembski and other D.I. types or their gifted supporters who have identified themselves openly with their ideas.

Your open, unreasoned, vitriolic hostility toward anyone, no matter how credible their credentials, work and experience who disagrees the slightest bit with the standard evolutionary dogma is, I asure you,  anathema to the great majority of fair minded, well reasoned Americans.

Your refusal to publically acknowledge the wide ranging debate about many aspects of darwinian theory within your community, often outright rejection of basic tenets by various schools of thought and the seeming inability to publicallly jettison concepts and ideas long ago discredited by your own community is cause for peole to have grave reservations about your intellectual and personal, not just credibility but basic honesty.

Robert Shapiro's book on Origins is a delightfully candid and refreshing exception to the rule and is enlightening to many and is presented in an engaging and scientifically sound prose.

The term reasonable compromise coupled with honest admission of the current troubled state of the theory of evolution would go a long way toward establishing some credibility with the public.

Yet the ongoing persecution of honest, upstanding and well educated scientists and others who dare to disagree on even the most minor points in a systematic and  vicious assult contunues.

No one who has lived into adulthood and has significant life experience believes or tolerates people who have all the right answers, permits no dissent and uses deplorable tactics against decent established opponents. Americans have never supported for long such attitudes and behaviors.

Such positions as "every living thing is a transitional form and thus we have no real need for or concern about the fossil record" or "abiogenesis is removed from evolutionary theory and has no identifiable impact on evolutionary concepts, thinking or theory" are just such rediculous behaviors as to cause intelligent people in large, large numbers to simply shake their heads in disbelief, bordering on derision. These are the same people who have been bombarded with these exact tenets all their adult lives in school, in college, in the media and print as being facts of evolution and parts of an all encompassing explanation for all we are and observe in an unbroken chain of rigerous scientific reasoning and experimentation.

If your team is to maintain the support through their tax dollars for your vital and important work then you'd best take a close look at your approach and behavior and perhaps decide that after all, honesty, respect, self discipline and a little humility are vital to any rational debater.

Evopeach

  
Henry J



Posts: 4060
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2005,13:50   

A list of unanswered questions will not by itself discredit a theory. ;)

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,10:36   

It depends on what is met by the terms. In this case the questions that remain unanswered are those asked and unanswered for a hundred years...some of which were Darwin's own questions.

If questions at the most basic, fundamental, cogent and sound level are dismissed, defined away, ignored, trivialized and other common practices by the evolutionary community then the theory is suspected of being intellectually fragile, untrue, unfalsifiable and likely erroneous in one or more of its major corresponding tenets.

Perhaps the evolutionary proponents should just publish an appropriate version of the 5th amendment and then see how the jury reacts.

In time the only version of this theory will be one which limits itself to change within kinds or types strictly bounded by the quite wide spectrum adaptability of the DNA itself and the evident reproductive facilites and methods. It will be a limited explanation of observed biological change and diversity concerned only at the margins with mutational aspects likewise the selection circular reasoning will be scarcely mentioned as explanatory.

The quagmire of unexplained and dramatically unexplainable subject of origins and abiogenesis will remain a major failing of all naturalistic explanations of life and all we observe.

The ID movement and allied communities will display for the citizenry the voo doo, imaginary, unsubstantiated and purposefully fraudently science force fed young people for 75 years and display alternative approaches to all things scientific that are efficient, robust , wide-spectrum and respectful of decent that deserves respect.

This weekend in my states letters to the editor five very credible scientific persons wrote letters in support of the equal consideration of ID in public education and their utter distain for the hight-hat egocenterd rudeness and implausiblity of the current stand taken by the evolutionisty community.

Very predictable as I have suggested,

Evopeach

  
Henry J



Posts: 4060
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,10:52   

Did any of those letters answer Lenny's questions?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,16:11   

It may come as big shock but I suspect people would be about as impressed with Lennys questions as with Lenny himself. As in not at all. I mean this person Lenny is an unknown,in every respect, a sort of little tin god who has gathered a cult of followers who hang on his every words.. as insipid as they may be.

Goodness, the intellectuals of the ID and IC movement simply consider him a wantabe "back-bencher". A small pain perhaps, but nothing more. I mean whoever heard of the guy outside this warm fuzzy nest he opines in.

I would be a little more worried about the 400 Phds at the D.I., Denton, Behe and the historical disputations of Morrison, Whittington,Barnes,Axelrod,Simpson,Grasse, Agaziz and a few hundred others than people answering Lenny.. goodness.

For years professionals have labored with real work in science ... just letting the hysterical true believers of Darwinian thought (could be an oxymoron) race around with thumbs in the dike postering and threatening in real ways anyone stepping outside the cult publically. Yeah Yeah I swear allegiance to the cult ... now can I get back to work on some real science.

Now at last the crystalized faults in the steel of this ripe Titanic are failing, the rivets are popping quite loudly and the waters are rushing past even the most powerful waterproof doors.

Actually I would prefer the Lenny(s) would have a visible voice ... it would hasten the day when we will emerge from the dark ages of darwinism and see a renewed committment to real science freed of the dogmatic burden of proving the Invicta of darwinism. "I AM THE MASTER OF MY FATE, I AM THE CAPTAIN OF MY SOUL"

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,16:46   

Who is Dr Shapiro and where can whatever it is that he says, be found?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,16:50   

Googling gets me:
Howard M
MarkH
Ron
Ehud
Michael
Jonathan
on first 10 searches.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,16:55   

Sorry

I left out Francine

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,17:31   

"The average well educated Joe or Jill over a large age range has an instant dislike for peole who display the arrogance, elitism and self congratulatory attitudes and behaviors exhibited daily here and throughtout the evolutionist community. It hurts the cause of your team when people demean, attack and belittle people who they disagree with and discredit their credentials,abilities and accomplishments in outrageous and demonstrably inaccurate polemics..."

hmm.  does it hurt your "team" when you are shown to be liars (Dembski), use spin instead of science to further your position and hire PR folks instead of scientists (Discovery Institute), engage in spurious lawsuits in order to paint yourselves as victims (lawsuit against Eugenie Clark), etc., etc.,???

as to whether your "team" is winning or not, what did Bush's science adviser say after Bush's innane comments about supporting ID the other day?  can you tell me?

hey, i'll take vitriol over pure deceit any day of the week.

you can delude yourself all you wish, however don't expect the rest of us to encourage or address your delusions specifically.

do enjoy the world you seem to be painting for yourself.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,06:07   

Henry J:  "Did any of those letters answer Lenny's questions?"

evopeach:  "It may come as big shock...."

So, can we assume that none of those letters answer Lenny's questions?

Considering the fact that Lenny's most famous question is "What is the theory of ID," I do think that whatever you think of Lenny, the question certainly has merit.  Can you answer that simple question?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,09:32   

Henry J,

Frankly I have yet to see a lucid definition of evolution which is rational, non-tautalogical and mathmatically credible. Is it slow and gradual, is it punctuated, it is by saltation..... does it account for origins .... is it complete or just hang on skyhooks and a strange sort of pseudo-religious faith.

I believe the major proponents of ID and IC are well known and the "theory" has been well stated by them.

I think beginning in 1973 and continuing to the present my fairly extensive reading on both sides of the issue persuaded me that:

1) Anyone who hangs their hat on an undefined singularity, cosmic egg, etc. and believes that the universe and all that we observe is the result of hydrogen gas chaotically swirling around, combining with minor constituents under the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them results in the human brain is so far removed from rational thinking, critical thinking, sound analytics and such that it engenders incredulity in the trained and reasoning mind.

2) The text books on biology and other evolutionary biased sciences have contained so many totally discredited ideas, experiments, hypotheses and never corrected that it becomes crystal clear that the evolutionary community is untruthful, incapable of self disclipline, engaged in purposeful fraud for financial and power gain and is deeply flawed in principle as the evidence has shown.

3) The hostility toward all things metaphysical and of faith is so rabid and ill founded that it renders any attempt at mutual respect and transparency in the debate essentially impossible. The adherents are so dedicated to the agnostic, atheistic and egocentric philosophies of humanism and such that every thought and action are saddled indeed burdened by the baggage and continues the  hinderance of  effective, efficient,open and expansive approaches to true science.

For me ID and IC are rather straight straight forward scientific propositions, hypotheses and theories that offer an alternative approach to the investigation of life and the observable universe. It is one which focuses on the logos, informational and systematic functionality of such. It encourages an entirely different emphasis in tools, techniques and thought regarding observation, investigation and inquiry and objects of persuit.

Illustration:

Pure chemistry and the evolutionary paradigm lead to radiation, chemotherapy and readical surgery for treatment of cancer.

Radical information and systematics lead to Herceptin a non-poisonous smart information based treatment.

Further the entire genomic science is entirely concerned with information systems , codes, systematics and the application of information systems techniques with evolutionary biological thought of minor, minor importance.

So long as disproving the existance of God and the elevation of humanistic self elevation are at the heart of a theory, its proponents and its methods there will be failure, inefficiencies, frauds and misdirected resources.

I suggest we can no longer afford the origin of life and ETSI sort of wastral diversions... lets do some real science.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,09:37   

Alan Fox,

See, http://www.nyu.edu/pages/chemistry/faculty/shapiro.html

Also the book Origins by the author.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,09:53   

Toe Jam assertions without evidence, references, supporting documentation and specifics are called sophistry ... not rhetoric.

I don't have to paint a contrived world as the pseudo-scientific members of the evo community have for 100 years.. I have the advantage of seeking truth in observation of  the universe and without self elevation and egocentricity explore the universe for the purpose of understanding, enlightenment and betterment of the human experience.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,10:29   

Evopeach,

Here is a definition of evolution:

What is Evolution?

That will get you started.

As for the definition of ID, there is none.  But, you seem to think there is.  Can you point us to one?  A link will suffice.

"1) Anyone who hangs their hat on an undefined singularity, cosmic egg, etc. and believes that the universe and all that we observe is the result of hydrogen gas chaotically swirling around, combining with minor constituents under the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them results in the human brain is so far removed from rational thinking, critical thinking, sound analytics and such that it engenders incredulity in the trained and reasoning mind."

Gee, it's so easy to state something in an absurd way and then argue about how absurd it is, isn't it?

"2) The text books on biology and other evolutionary biased sciences have contained so many totally discredited ideas, experiments, hypotheses and never corrected that it becomes crystal clear that the evolutionary community is untruthful, incapable of self disclipline, engaged in purposeful fraud for financial and power gain and is deeply flawed in principle as the evidence has shown."

Examples please, or is it OK for you to chide STJ for making assertions then turn around and do it yourself?

"3) The hostility toward all things metaphysical and of faith is so rabid and ill founded that it renders any attempt at mutual respect and transparency in the debate essentially impossible. The adherents are so dedicated to the agnostic, atheistic and egocentric philosophies of humanism and such that every thought and action are saddled indeed burdened by the baggage and continues the  hinderance of  effective, efficient,open and expansive approaches to true science."

This is outright refuted by the posters on PT (like PVM, Nick Matzke, Wesley Elsberry, etc. who are not atheists), scientists like Ken Miller, and many other theists who also ascribe to evolution.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,12:19   

GCT:

I know.. I know.. all these people are not real scientists, uninformed buffoons because they didn't run it by Lenny I suppose. Guffaw!

1) The Penguin Dictionary of Biology. The authors: "M.
Abercrombie...was Professor of Embryology and then Professor of
Zoology at University College London..."; "C.J. Hickman was Professor of
Plant Sciences at the University of Western Ontario"; "M.L.
Johnson..taught zoology at Birmingham University." (Abercrombie M.,
Hickman C.J., & Johnson M.L., "The Penguin Dictionary of Biology,"
1985, reprint, p1)


2) The Oxford Concise Science Dictionary: does not have biographical
details about the authors but lists them as "Alan Isaacs BSc, PhD, DIC",
"John Daintith BSc, PhD" and "Elizabeth Martin MA." (Isaacs A., Daintith
J. & Martin E., eds., "Concise Science Dictionary," 1991, pvi)


3) The Collins Reference Dictionary of Biology: authors are Professor
W.G. Hale, B.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc., F.I.Biol., is Dean of the Faculty of Science
and Head of the Department of Biology at Liverpool Polytechnic;" and "Dr
J.P. Margham, B.Sc., Ph.D., Dip.Gen., M.I. Biol., is Principal Lecturer and
Course Leader for the B.Sc. Honours Applied Biology Degree at Liverpool
Polytechnic." (Hale W.G., & Margham J.P., "Collins Reference Dictionary
of Biology," Collins: London, 1988 reprint, p.i)


I was present at a debate between Duane Gish and Doug a number of years ago and watched Gish systematically destroy Doug to the point that I was concerned for Doug's mental well being... it was indeed pitiful to behold. I think one can even buy a video or transcript of the debate (evolution butt whipping)

This is the same old argument from superior intellect and hubris people can't tolerate: " People simply don't understand evolution because it is so comlex and esoteric and complicated that the american citizenry simply cannot grasp it in full ... the're too dumb. Then our attempts to explain evolution to the ignorant masses and intellectual buffons require we superior high IQ evolutionist types to put it into easy to understand terminology .. that the backward, fundamentalist, religious, unscientific, unsophisticated American populace could comprehend while still accurately portraying the essence of the theory, have been inadequate." (the morons who don't accept what we feed them at face value as fact may have to simply be ignored and eliminated by any means necessary from public discourse)

Not if, but when the bright light of ID and IC analysis is focused on the details of evolution and the real historical evidence of same is made clear we believe that same population will readily understand and comprehend the greatest hoax, fraud and conspiracy in scientific circles in modern history. We have great faith in the intelligence and common sense reasoning power of the American people.

When they understand the mindset of people wo can look at a old world wolf skeleton and see it is really a whale ancestor ...... and hundreds more examples, they might ask if there is anything more to this complex subject than diagrams filled with dashed lines (no evidence extant) and figurines made from 5% bone and 95% plaster of paris.

As for me such an intellect will have no trouble discerning transitional forms in the leaves of of an empty te cup.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,12:47   

First of all, what are you trying to point out with those dictionary citations?  Are those supposed to be where your scientific definition of ID can be found?  Let me guess, they all say something like, "ID posits that certain forms of life are better explained by an intelligent designer than by a purposeless process."  Unfortunately the question was sort of a trick question, because ID has no scientific definition, nor can it.  ID is predicated on the supernatural, which lies outside of the scope of science.  But, hey, if you want to provide a link (which I did ask for so that I don't have to run all over the place looking for some book) to a good definition, or copy and paste it on here, go ahead.

I'll also note that you could not back up your assertions and you had nothing to say about the fact that many theists accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.  Your silence has been noted.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,14:41   

GCT

I reply to cover several coments on the thread not just one individual ... see one of me ... lots of you. Its called efficiency of purpose.

Yes there are theistic evolutionists about 1-2% and they are mostly silent as to their reasoning for such.

1) They have faith in scripture, revelation, purpose.
That puts them in the camp of the psychologically disturbed according to the Lennyites.

2) Their God is powerless, harmless, inept, removed and a sort of pacifer. (not the God of the bible)

But hey for most people of faith this subject is less than an essential to a common understanding.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,15:34   

Quote (evopeach @ Aug. 23 2005,14:41)
GCT

I reply to cover several coments on the thread not just one individual ... see one of me ... lots of you. Its called efficiency of purpose.

Yes there are theistic evolutionists about 1-2% and they are mostly silent as to their reasoning for such.

1) They have faith in scripture, revelation, purpose.
That puts them in the camp of the psychologically disturbed according to the Lennyites.

2) Their God is powerless, harmless, inept, removed and a sort of pacifer. (not the God of the bible)

But hey for most people of faith this subject is less than an essential to a common understanding.

1-2%, that's it?  Wow.  And you paint them with such a broad brush as well.  That's quite impressive how dismissive you are of them.

I do have a problem believing that you can read Lenny's mind on this matter, however.

Also, your numbers are flat wrong.

Evolution Poll

Now, would you care to recant your 1-2%?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,16:16   

I looked really hard at your FIVE YR OLD poll and never did see the term "theistic evolution" appear let alone be defined.

Try Harder .. you're not gettin any traction

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,16:50   

51% of people who identify themselves as adherents of evolutionary theory agreed with the following statement:

"Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"

That is theistic evolution.

51%, not 1-2%.

Not only have you made assertions that you can't back up, but you've been shown to be incorrect in your assertions.

You also still haven't backed up the assertions of purposeful fraud, etc.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2005,10:09   

Baloney,

That is your assertion from a survey that doesn't even mention the term.

Try any one of 100 H.S. Biology texts or even 1st yr College texts from 1940 through today.

1) Embronic recapitualtion ( totally a lie and misrepresentation for two decades after being shown false)

2) Miller Fox demonstrating the efficacy of chemical predestination and abiogenesis in pre-biotic conditions. ( a total fabrication failing to mention lack of optical purity, racemate results always, zero separation of L&D forms of amino acids critical to molecules of life or that even if such were the result its a dead end for several reasons not the least of which is the next step chemically has the rather unfortunate problem of directionally impossible free energy comsiderations. These are never, never mentioned though known absolutely by every organic chemist in the world.

3) Total misrepresentation of the fossil record results which is totally unsupportive of the theory .... a scam made possible by plaster of paris and dashed lines on charts , nothing more. Consider the several major fossil frauds in the last century.. undeniable dishonesty.

4) Purposefully blurring the differences between a priori and as posteriori probability arguments time and again with the stiupid and irrelevant (perfect bridge/poker hand demonstration of unlikely events and other such baloney)

5) Misstating the definitions of open, closed, isolated and constrained systems in thermodynamic discussions... trotting out the old snowflake, salt crystal and other rediculous and irrelevent processes to illustrate local violations of SLOT... knowing better all the while.

6) Denying in the face of crystal clear evidence real codes and  systematics in the genome of living organisms as in the genetic code and the operations of the cell. Utter fraud and misrepresentation.

7) Dismissing abiogenesis and the fossil record as irrelevent and unimportant to the evolutionary paradigm.


8) All origin of proposals and experiments have ended in utter failure for 100 years  but are presented in texts, documentaries and all public forums as success is just around the corner.

The public record is clear and unambiguous and undeniable by an honest observer

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2005,13:15   

First of all, the fact that you can still argue that your 1-2% figure is correct is beyond the pale.  Where did you get that figure, out of your backside?  But, when an actual poll is shown to you, you still reject it.  Perhaps you should read the PT thread that recently went up on what is science?  The inability to correct errors after facts present themselves is a good indicator.

1. Answer to embryonic recapitulation

2. and 7.  Abiogenesis is (once again) a separate theory.  God could have zapped the first single-celled reproducing organisms onto the planet and evolution could have taken over from there.  It's really not that difficult to understand and honestly I don't know why you have such a problem comprehending that.  But, even so, if you are referring to the Urey-Miller abiogenesis experiments (I'm not sure of any Miller Fox experiments) the NCSE says this:

Quote
A: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.


3.  Perhaps it would help if you specified how the fossil record is misrepresented?  This resource also might help you out.
Fossil Record resource
As for fossil frauds, I suppose you are talking about Kennewick man and Piltdown Man?  Perhaps you should peruse PT for those, considering the stories are not as bad as you seem to think.  For instance, Kennewick Man was never reported by the finders as being definitely a hominid, but that claim was made by news organizations.  Also, in all cases, it is scientists double checking other people's work that finds errors, not creationists.

4.  You will have to be more specific here, although I suspect you mean that science excludes god in an a priori fashion?  Nothing is further from the truth.  One is free to make hypotheses based on god, and if one can successfully navigate the scientific method, then it's all good.  If god is assumed to not be a part of the equation, that is an a posteriori assumption.

5.  SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.  If you think it does, then state your case.

6.  Simply because Dembski says there are codes in genomes does not make it so.  It is neither fraud nor misrepresentation to make an unwarranted jump to conclusions based on no evidence.

7.  Why would one dismiss the fossil record when we have found a lot of "missing links" over the years.  IIRC we have over a hundred different hominids from the fossil record.  That's quite a good deal.

8.  All proposals and experiments have ended in failure over the last 100 years?  That's news to everyone.  Even hard-core creationists like yourself grant that microevolution happens.  That doesn't sound like failure to me.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2005,17:05   

Here is an article about a real, live theistic evolutionist for you Evopeach, plus a good dig at the DI.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html....24.html

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim of 1-2%.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2005,17:12   

The answers to poll questions often reflect the way the question is asked and certainly on the definition of terms. Since your term theistic-evolution does not appear in the poll the logical option is th e 1-2 % other.

But I do understand why you can't follow the reasoning,, oops mymom always told me to be kind.

You restated the history of recapitulation.. is that supposed to be an answer as to why it was included as evidence of evolution (macro-evolution) through the 90's. It was fraudulent, purposefully misleading to young impressionable minds all to support an erroneous world view.

There are no uncontested transitional fossils yet even Dawin predicted there would be myriads of such yet worm tracks in mud and holes in he ground connect an unknown unimaginable first life forms to the complex invertebrates nothiong over a billion year span, then from invertibrates to vertebrates without a single transitional fossil... should be millions upon millions.

The angiosperms appear de novo without a single predecessor.

Where are the precursors and transitional forms for the fishes... na da.

Yet pretty little pictures with 90% dashed lines connecting major phylum blah blah blah... every new major species ends up being placed in a completely separate widely branched twig of the supposed tree of life.. without exception.

Any one can read these facts if they will studey the words of the most prominent scientists since 1890.. you have to read the dissenters .. not the sychophantic true believers.

Miller to Fox to Urey all were 100 % failures in the origin of life experiments.

Get real.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2005,05:11   

I wrote:

Quote
As for fossil frauds, I suppose you are talking about Kennewick man and Piltdown Man?


I should not have included Kennewick Man, however, but instead should have said "Nebraska Man."  So, Nebraska Man is the one I was talking about in the rest of the paragraph.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2005,05:28   

Quote
The answers to poll questions often reflect the way the question is asked and certainly on the definition of terms. Since your term theistic-evolution does not appear in the poll the logical option is th e 1-2 % other.


No, it is NOT logically an option to use the figure that you pulled out of your gluteous.  You have yet to back that up, which is something you called "sophistry" and chided STJ for, but are using now.  That is called hypocrisy.

Besides, what is a theistic evolutionist?  I would say it is one who believes in god and also accepts evolutionary theory.  The 51% of people that accept evolutionary theory and say that god guided evolution would fit that definition.  This thread is titled, "Intellectual Honesty," which is YOUR title by the way, so perhaps you could show some and admit that your argument is flawed?

Quote
You restated the history of recapitulation.. is that supposed to be an answer as to why it was included as evidence of evolution (macro-evolution) through the 90's. It was fraudulent, purposefully misleading to young impressionable minds all to support an erroneous world view.


Um, perhaps you missed this section?

Quote
What textbooks say
For any textbook to show Haeckel's drawings themselves as unqualified statements of developmental anatomy or to advocate "recapitulation" in a Haeckelian sense would be inexcusable, but none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells appear to do so. Wells gleefully excoriates Futuyma for using Haeckel's drawings, but apparently in his fit of righteous indignation, he forgot to read the text, in which the drawings are discussed in a historical context -- stating why Haeckel is wrong -- and Futuyma has an entire chapter devoted to development and evolution. Guttman uses them in an explicitly historical context as well. Wells states that books use "Haeckel's drawings, or redrawn versions of them" (Wells 2000:255), but this is not true. Figure 10 shows Haeckel's drawings compared to the drawings in the textbooks reviewed by Wells. It can be clearly seen that a majority of the drawings are not "redrawn." Some textbooks show more accurate drawings; some use photos; only Starr and Taggart (and Raven and Johnson in their development chapter along with accurate drawings and photos) use what could be considered embryos "redrawn" from Haeckel. No textbook discusses embryology in any way that could be considered strongly "recapitulationist." In most textbooks, embryology is presented in just one or two paragraphs, making it hard to discuss all the complexities of development. At a high school level, the aim of the book is to convey some basic concepts of biology, not to confuse students with the complexity of a subject.


Really.  It wasn't that hard to find.  Admit it, you scanned the first couple sentences then stopped and decided there was nothing there, didn't you?

Quote
There are no uncontested transitional fossils yet even Dawin predicted there would be myriads of such yet worm tracks in mud and holes in he ground connect an unknown unimaginable first life forms to the complex invertebrates nothiong over a billion year span, then from invertibrates to vertebrates without a single transitional fossil... should be millions upon millions.


First of all, that's not what Darwin predicted.  He predicted that fossils would be hard to find and rare.  Also, there are transitional fossils before, during, and after the Cambrian period.  Perhaps you overlooked the Ediacaran fossils for instance?  I'm not going to do your homework for you, especially since I have already pointed you to a source for fossil record information at the NCSE.  Check out their other pages on the subject and check the talk.origins pages.  Just because you don't read it, however, does not mean that they don't exist.

Quote
Any one can read these facts if they will studey the words of the most prominent scientists since 1890.. you have to read the dissenters .. not the sychophantic true believers.


And those people are?

Quote
Miller to Fox to Urey all were 100 % failures in the origin of life experiments.


No, actually they weren't.  Urey-Miller was erroneous, but mostly because they didn't realize that the evironmental conditions that they set up were actually less conducive to life than what we now know.  So, if they could get life to form in conditions that were actually harsher than reality, then what do you think are the chances that life could form through abiogenesis?

Quote
Get real.


And your suggestion for doing that would be to read the Bible?  Do you have an alternative for evolution?  Do you have any evidence in favor of your alternative?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2005,11:23   

Since you place so much faith in polls and the assuredness of peoples devining your definition of theistic evolution then I am sure you will support the same populations view that evolution should not be taught as a fact and alternative views of origins and biological life should also be taught. Or is that where the population becomes stupid, uniformed, bigoted, flat earthers, clueless as to science and needful of guidence from the superior evolutionisy community.

VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM

God created humans in present form
All Americans
55%
Kerry voters
47%
Bush voters
67%

Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans
27%
Kerry voters
28%
Bush voters
22%

Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans
13%
Kerry voters
21%
Bush voters
6%

Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.

More than half of Kerry voters want creationism taught alongside evolution. Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included.

FAVOR SCHOOLS TEACHING…

Creationism and evolution
All Americans
65%
Kerry voters
56%
Bush voters
71%

Creationism instead of evolution
All Americans
37%
Kerry voters
24%
Bush voters
45%

60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 885 adults interviewed by telephone November 18-21, 2004. There were 795 registered voters. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus three percentage points for results based on all adults and all registered voters.

Your assertion is preposterous on its face... anyone can walk through a library of text books and see ER persented as anargument for evolution. Your statements carefully prepared and edited after the fact by EVOLUTIONISTA doing their CYA act is laughable.

Darwin did predict transitional fossils and stated that early on his excuse for not seeing them was the lack of exploration and such would be cured by time and thatif such did not emerge that would be a great difficulty to his theory. I have read the materials  and commentaries on all those finds and my statement stands uncontradicted..... Try Gould, Roemer, Grassee, Goldsmidt, Morowitz, despite being evolutionists they at least admit the utter lack of anything being an undisputed transitional form in the record.

Don't point me to purely evolutionist propaganda sources... I have read the origin.talk crap and it is written as though I was Kate in Taming of the Shrew.. see that bright orb up there that is actually the moon no matter how it actually appears..

No not the bible just detailed and honest reading of your own camps materials will do nicely.

Boy its great to have 3-4 of those Microsoft actives and retirees on the board at D.I. along with we lesser folks.. no money problems there. Of course they are only bright in segregated areas .. in science all of us are stupid.

Anyone who can see or imagine any origin experiments that give a scintilla of demonstrable support for abiogenesis step forward and claim the Nobel prize. This is after 100 years of evolutionist activity now stated to be totally unrelated to evolution and unimportant to the debate by your team.... which is it dude?

Your ship is sinking fast .... Charles Titanic Darwin.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2005,12:56   

The question is whether these people exist, not policy decisions.  Science is NOT decided by popular vote.  And, the poll that you brought with you only undercuts your assertions.

Quote
Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans
27%

27% of Americans are theistic evolutionists according to this poll.  I would say that if 27% of all Americans are theistic evolutionists, then that means that your 1-2% figure is off.
Quote
Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans
13%

If we take this 13% to represent non-theistic evolutionists, then now the percentage of people who accept evolution that are theistic evolutionists is 67.5%, not 1-2%.  By trying to be clever, you have shot your own argument in the foot.

A main thrust of your arguments against evolution is that it is atheistic.  If over 50% of people who accept evolutionary theory also believe in god, then it cripples your argument.
Quote
Darwin did predict transitional fossils and stated that early on his excuse for not seeing them was the lack of exploration and such would be cured by time and thatif such did not emerge that would be a great difficulty to his theory.

Darwin did predict that some fossils would be found and that it would be a difficulty if no fossils were found, but he also said that he doubted we would find detailed transitional pathways.  We somewhere between 100-200 distinct hominid fossils, however, how many more do you need.
Quote
Don't point me to purely evolutionist propaganda sources

Those sources are starting points.  You can also do literature searches.  Of course, at least I bring sources with me, whereas you bring......nothing.  I believe you called that "sophistry."
Quote
Boy its great to have 3-4 of those Microsoft actives and retirees on the board at D.I. along with we lesser folks..

Are you saying that you are on the board of the DI?
Quote
No not the bible just detailed and honest reading of your own camps materials will do nicely.

So, your alternative to evolution can be found by studying more evolution?  Um, please clarify.  Also, in the past you have characterized the Bible as being accurate in the area of the origins of life, do you take that back now?
Quote
Anyone who can see or imagine any origin experiments that give a scintilla of demonstrable support for abiogenesis step forward and claim the Nobel prize. This is after 100 years of evolutionist activity now stated to be totally unrelated to evolution and unimportant to the debate by your team.... which is it dude?

Once again (and I have not equivocated on this topic at all, so don't act like I have) abiogenesis is separate from evolution!
Quote
Your ship is sinking fast .... Charles Titanic Darwin.

Is that like Dembski talking about our "Waterloo?"

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2005,15:54   

Guess you missed those 55% who believe God created man in his present form and the 65% who think both views should be taughtin public schools.

Evolutionist filtering and claimed superiority and selective reading as usual...why am Inot surprised by your hubris and intellectual dihonesty... because I've seen it in action for 30 years.

The Bible has not entered into this discussion ... are you wishing to go down that road.. its not pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Abiogenesis is part and parcel of the spectrum of all life existing or you are guilty of placing your FAITH in nothing explanatory even in theory.

This is the same recent ploy put forth that says since everything living is a transitional form we don't need any fossil record of transitional forms.

Are you familiar with the term RETREAT!!

I always wondered how you could tell when Darwin's writings were done when he was in one of his extended manic depressive periods or when he was somewhat lucid and communicative.

I guess you weren't familiar with that short list of luminaries who are on record concerning the non-existance of any robust transitional forms. Shall I list a few more for you?

Oh and those are all extinct apes, tree climbers, knuckle walkers .... again you need to read more widely.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2005,10:22   

Quote
Guess you missed those 55% who believe God created man in his present form and the 65% who think both views should be taughtin public schools.

Evolutionist filtering and claimed superiority and selective reading as usual...why am Inot surprised by your hubris and intellectual dihonesty... because I've seen it in action for 30 years.


My intellectual dishonest?  You've just got done moving the goal posts out of the stadium and I'm the one who is intellectually dishonest?  You made a claim that 1-2% of people who accept evolution are also theists.  I presented you with a poll that shows that your claim is wrong.  You came back with another poll that strengthened my position on the matter at hand.  So, the ball is still in your court.  Will you retract your erroneous statements or won't you?  You have been shown to be wrong and your refusal to accept that and your refusal to retract your statement shows intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree.  Until you can admit your error, how can we have an honest discussion?  Admit your error and we can deal with the other issues.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2005,03:10   

Quote
figurines made from 5% bone and 95% plaster of paris.


Oh, and here I point out another example of either your ignorance or dishonesty.

Plasters

Quote
Oh and those are all extinct apes, tree climbers, knuckle walkers


And yet another example...

Not all knuckle draggers or full humans

Ready to retract your statements yet?  Intellectual honesty requires it.  I've already retracted an error I made, do you have the intestinal fortitude to suck it up and retract your errors?

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2005,05:21   

My big question in all this is why it is only evolution and anything assiated with it that is a scientific fraud?  Why do all other fields get a free pass?  If that is not a true indication of a religous rather than a scientific agends, I don't know what is.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2005,06:16   

Once again,

The issue actually is resolved without even delving into the fossil record, genetic code, irreducible complexity, intelligent design all of which has enormous intellectual appeal if you do not come from a naturalist, humanist, God is a psychological distortion of the human brain perspective.

Once the American people focus on the undeniable fact that there are two choices only: either God created the universe and all that is extant de novo or the universe arose from a quantum mechanical quiff popping of an all encompassing wave function (See Fred Wolff) and from there came the big bang and a universe of hydrogen gas which over billions of years by unknowable evolutionary chaotic processes resulted in the first living replicator of some undefined sort which then evolved over additional billions of years into the HUMAN BRAIN the most complex and orderly six pounds of matter in the universe.

See almost all of us had that little experiment where you have little bottles of that colorless, orderless flamible gas and they can focus right in on the highly scientific evolutionary theory of how that simplest of all atoms and the laws of nature conjured up those 6 trillion neurons. What with allowance for the unknown process, laws, demonstrable resultants or anything other than mathmatical formulas and imaginings ... maybe they'll conclude that it's somewhat unusual to start from such a preposterious set of premises, absent of any connective or demonstratively supportive evidence and by the Eureka method declare it a proven fact beyond disputation.

So I intend to support all efforts to bring this highly simplified , tightly focused analysis or examination of claims right to the front door of the American people of all walks. How will the newspeak of biology, palentology, geology and string theory play in that approach... when you can't resort to big words, authoritive assertions and strained rhetoric .... its going to be very interesting.

Even Harvardites can't bail this boat out.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2005,06:33   

Interesting that you mention only the American people.  Doesn't the rest of the world count?

And I find it fascinating that the only real anti-evolutionists are a minor Christian cult in the United States - the rest of the world by and large ignores such inscientific ideas.  

Something to do with American education, or lack of it, maybe?  CP Snow would be having a field day were he still alive!

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2005,11:44   

Evopeach,

Forgotten about your claims that I've shown to be false?  Thought you could get by by just ignoring them?  Thought I wouldn't notice?  Where is your intellectual integrity?  When will you retract your erroneous statements?  Don't have the intestinal fortitude to admit your mistakes?  It's usually a sign of religious attitude when one can not admit mistakes.  When the data goes against science, science adjusts to fit the data.  When it goes against you, you act like nothing has happened, like a typical fundie.  Buck the trend.  Show us that fundies can admit mistakes.  C'mon, what are you waiting for?  Do you think that if you don't admit it that no one will see how you made up your figures?  How I've been bringing data to back up what I say, while your assertions have gone unsupported by anything, except your word (and the one time when you did bring data which only supported my position)?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,04:34   

If it impedes your ability to continue rational thought then I agree that on a national poll my 2% under the general definition of "Theistic Evolution" they hold the number is larger.

But I stick to the numbers if you are talking about the so called evolutionary scientists, posters on such as this forum, writers in the field, debaters, office holders, etc. that is what has driven the education and public funding effort for 50 years or more and that I stick to 2%.

You have a terrible blind spot when its comes to reviewing material submitted. The poll showed the overwhelming sentiment by people that the ID and IC etc. should be taught , that its good to have some debate and open controvesy, that  kids and adults do have brains and can sort it out and that ther is merit in the ID and IC schema. My quotes about open dissenters from mutationa nd natural selection were a small sample of some very respected people (Grassee was French I believe)..... more upon demand once you grasp the names given.

Oh no not for you... science is not run by polls... you can't have it both ways and remain honest.

As for my approach that one need only consider the logical premises of evolution in toto ... dead silence or another denial I suppose.

Simplicity at the detail level will prove rather effective I think.

Example: Behe was quite effective with the mousetrap thing... your origin people moronically missed the point in their rebuttal that reuse and portability are vital assets of the trap and if you remove the base and glue it or nail it to the floor that minor feature is lost. Laughable!!

Or take the 100 yr old standard flyswatter; a length of wire twisted into a 30 inch handle with a 4x5 wire or plastic mesh stuck on the end. Now lets see how one could kill flys without the handle and only the mat... pretty tricky. Or maybe try to spear them with the wire absent the mesh.

Could one start with a one inch handle and gradually grow it to 30 inches... oh yeah super smart.

Maybe you start with a 1 sq in mesh and grow it to 4x5... flys are very safe I'd say.

Is a back scratcher an intermediate form?

Now about that hydrogen to brain trick???

  
MDPotter



Posts: 12
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,05:08   

Hydrogen to human brain: approximately 13.5 billion years.
Same brain relegated to mindlessly repeating demonstrably fallacious dogma due to superstition, incredulity and an overwhelming psychological need for the universe to be built 'just for me': only a few years, it appears.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4060
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,05:49   

How come the "mark forum as read" and "mark board as read" buttons aren't working for me anymore? The "unread" indicators are getting left on.

Henry

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,08:06   

Quote
If it impedes your ability to continue rational thought then I agree that on a national poll my 2% under the general definition of "Theistic Evolution" they hold the number is larger.

But I stick to the numbers if you are talking about the so called evolutionary scientists, posters on such as this forum, writers in the field, debaters, office holders, etc. that is what has driven the education and public funding effort for 50 years or more and that I stick to 2%.


And you still have not submitted ANY justification for that 2% figure.  Once again, it seems that I have to do YOUR homework for you.

Theistic evolution poll

Now, before you get bent out of shape by the fact that I got it off of the NCSE site, this article came from the Washington Times.  Yep, the Times, which happens to be a very conservative paper.  In this conservative paper, we find 40% as the number.  You still haven't gotten your 2% figure.

Why do you stick to that figure so tenaciously?  Oh yeah, it's because your argument about why evolution is wrong is based on you being able to dismiss it as atheistic, and you can't do that if 40% of biologists believe in god.  Right?

Quote
You have a terrible blind spot when its comes to reviewing material submitted. The poll showed the overwhelming sentiment by people that the ID and IC etc. should be taught , that its good to have some debate and open controvesy, that  kids and adults do have brains and can sort it out and that ther is merit in the ID and IC schema.


Not at all.  It's not a blind spot, it's called sticking to the topic at hand.  You attempted to move the goal posts, I didn't let you.  If you are separately trying to argue that ID should be taught in schools because of a public opinion poll, then you've got problems.  Science is not decided by majority vote, it's decided by evidence and fact.  Evolution has it, ID does not.

Quote
Oh no not for you... science is not run by polls... you can't have it both ways and remain honest.


To try to equivocate the two notions of whether theistic evolutionists exist and whether ID should be taught in schools to what polls say, as you have done, is inane.  Plus, since you can't even admit that you are wrong about all the things that I've shown you to be wrong about, I think you have little room to impugn my honesty.

Quote
As for my approach that one need only consider the logical premises of evolution in toto ... dead silence or another denial I suppose.


No, it's called I have trouble holding a conversation with someone who can't admit to basic facts.  There is nothing wrong the premises of evolution.  There may be problems with your straw man characterizations, but that's why you have made your straw men to begin with.  It's much easier to knock down fallacious arguments than actually deal with the facts.  So, perhaps you can provide some evidence for ID?  Perhaps you can give us a scientific theory of ID?  We all know there isn't one, and even Paul Nelson admits as much.  Do you have enough intellectual honesty to also admit it?

Quote
Example: Behe was quite effective with the mousetrap thing... your origin people moronically missed the point in their rebuttal that reuse and portability are vital assets of the trap and if you remove the base and glue it or nail it to the floor that minor feature is lost. Laughable!!


What's laughable is your insistence that the intermediate forms of a evolving object have the exact same characteristics and features of the final product.  None of Behe's examples hold any water.  I point you to blood clots as one example.

Quote
Once the American people focus on the undeniable fact that there are two choices only: either God created the universe and all that is extant de novo or the universe arose from a quantum mechanical


You still have yet to prove that A) there are only 2 choices (being God or evolution) and B) that evolution and god are inherently at odds.

You also have yet to show any support for your assertion of 2%.  Your sophistry should be embarrassing to you.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,10:00   

First you don't stop me from anything, you are a nobody back bencher in this debate and your assersions of winning this or that are laughable.... of course anything to save face with the hoard you would punish you severly if you demonstrated an ounce of intellectual integrity.. same old party line (infinitely flexible).

The 2% I speak of is the percentage of those who ascribe to the Biblical God of Abraham Issac and Jacob, the creation account therein though not literally in every case, those evolutionary scientists who hold to the God not some god. That is why anyone with a brain larger than a turnip would understand why I insist on definition of terms. See theistic implies a foundational acceptance of a diety , but what diety with what authority, power, interest, ability. These people you quote are talking about any one of 100 imaginary self made gods whose attributes just happen to fit their evolutionary beliefs...a compartmentalized sort of semi-god not the God of the Bible, one who doesn't interfere with anything or anyone.. just a nice warm fuzzy feeling sort of diety.

I don't give a darn whether you understand the merits of the Bible as history, poetry, philosophy, reality or even scientific matters in laymans terms because your groups opinion is based on non-examination, self will, ignorance and eogoism. Mine is based on twenty-five years of scholarship, knowing a few Harvard Phds in linquistics, semitics, hebrew, latin, old testament archeology reading the papers & books, listening to their lectures (yes sermons), actually having several of them into my home. Would you care to match intellectual credentials with some of them in their academic pursuits.. ha!!

Your hatred of such people does not impact the reality of say several million hours of scholarship regarding the truths of the scriptures and these people and their fellow believers are not mentally ill or ignorant thay are the equal of anyone in this forum intellectually and a heck of a lot broader in their reading and studies.

And yes your fossils are knuckle walkers.... see I understand that if you are to survive as a bone polisher and get published, get grants write books give lectures and make money you have to FIND SOMETHING BIG.

Eckhardt: Amid the bewildering array of humanioid fossils, is there one whose morphology marks it as man's humanoid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered, the answer appears to be no." Scientific American 226 (1):94

Further ibid Neither is there any compeling evidence for any humanoid species in the interval unless such is defined by any ape having small teeth and a small face."

Gould:Nat. Hist. 85:30 "What has become of our ladder if we have three coexisting lineages of huminoid  A. africanis, robust australopithecines, and H. Habilis none of which are derived from theother. None show any evolutionary change during their tenure , none brainer nor more erect as they approach the present day".

I really don't have time to correct the thousands of misconceptions, disagreements, fabrications and illusions of your team... just know this.. your own experts are constantly in such disarray , betraying each others conclusions, having disparate views etc. that it requires little to conclude that the entire scene is a hypothetical self biased delusional science at best.

So keep pounding your chest to impress your silly cohorts.. but don't even intertain the thought that you have somehow shown somthing other than the typical hypnotic trance talk of the true believers.. you haven't dared an original thought in this century and I hold you in derision.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,10:54   

Quote (evopeach @ Aug. 30 2005,09:34)
The poll showed the overwhelming sentiment by people that the ID and IC etc. should be taught , that its good to have some debate and open controvesy, that  kids and adults do have brains and can sort it out and that ther is merit in the ID and IC schema.

I agree absolutely that ID and Creatioism should be taught, but in their proper place - Religous education classes.  They do NOT belong in science classes because they are not scientific disciplines.  They are as scientific as numerology, alchemy, astrology etc.

This has nothing to do with the Bible, or God, it is merely that science is science and they are not.  And scientifically, there is no dispute about evolution, merely about its mechanism.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,14:51   

Quote
The 2% I speak of is the percentage of those who ascribe to the Biblical God of Abraham Issac and Jacob, the creation account therein though not literally in every case, those evolutionary scientists who hold to the God not some god.

Attempting to move the goal posts again?  It doesn't matter. the 2% you speak of is MADE UP.  You never quoted any kind of source for your number, so it is unsupported assertion and nothing more.  You are begging the question (logical fallacy in case you didn't know.)

Besides, what does it matter if theistic evolutionists are Christians or not?  Evolution does not necessitate atheism.  One is perfectly capable of believing that God, unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or anything else guides evolution, because science does not pronounce on questions religious.  Science does say "random" mutations because that's the best that science can say, without moving into the religious realm.  You seem to think "random" equals atheism, when what that term really does is allow anyone who accepts evolution to hold whatever beliefs they see fit.

Now, do some beliefs run counter to evolution (and science in general?)  Yes, you bet they do.  But, in every case, it is because those beliefs make empirical claims about the real world.  When those claims are found to be false (like a universe that is 10,000 yrs. old or younger) is it science's fault?  No, of course not.  Science deals with fact and data, and the real world does not change according to a religion's dictum.

Quote
Your hatred of such people....

I hate these people?  Wow, that's news to me.  I'm glad you filled me in on that one.  (In case you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm.)

Quote
...your own experts are constantly in such disarray , betraying each others conclusions, having disparate views etc....

I am shocked, SHOCKED to find out that scientists disagree with each other.  Wow, I thought all scientists agreed with every other scientist on all things at all times.  The reality of the situation is that there are tons of disagreements in science, including in evolution.  That's how science works.  People come up with hypotheses, others argue, experiments are performed, eventually people come to a concensus based on data and evidence.  The method of doing this is called the Scientific Method, perhaps you've heard of it.  Nothing in the scientific method rules out God.  If you can come up with an experiment to test for God's existence, then feel free to do it.  In fact, people have tried similar things with prayer studies.  You are clearly barking up the wrong tree here.

Quote
of course anything to save face with the hoard you would punish you severly if you demonstrated an ounce of intellectual integrity

Yeah, you know we have weekly meetings to punish all those who don't toe the line or don't "beat their chests" hard enough.  I bet you would be good at doling out the punishment, you should attend sometime.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,00:11   

Quote
Gould:Nat. Hist. 85:30 "What has become of our ladder if we have three coexisting lineages of huminoid  A. africanis, robust australopithecines, and H. Habilis none of which are derived from theother. None show any evolutionary change during their tenure , none brainer nor more erect as they approach the present day".


So, now you are quote mining?  I'm really feeling the intellectual honesty now.

Gould quote explained and in context

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,05:15   

Hello Mr Know it all ... you are the intellectual joke of the last decade ..I have seen much better than you in these climes.

As to quote mining.. if you can prove the statements and quotes are incorrectly attributed, false, not to the point or otherwise go for it. Unfortunately for you I have read most of these articles either before or after the fact and they are 100% legitimate and supposedly authoritive.. peer reviewed and all that .. you know.

If you wish to discredit these pillars of evolutionary thought please do so .. I always welcome additional cannibal activity among the hordes.. its so commonplace you know.

But the old switch aroo tactic is one that I attribute to 1st graders trying to use logic.


Take a look at New Orleans and environs if you don't think water can change a landscape ... that was as in one day... and yes I think a global flood is well evidenced in history, tradition, geology and quite explanatory.

By the way I can give you chapter and verse of a well documented case of a black ape who learned to walk biped extraordinarily well.. much better than the supposed hominoids and ape-like so called human ancestors ever are credited with. Many apes are biped in some degree.. just not very good at it.

By the way what's the latest opinion.. are we closer to chimps or orangs... pretty important thing to decide.. isn't it a shame that depending on the analysis used you get equal support for either, clearly impossible.

Now about that hydrogen gas to human brain.. oh yeah we don't want to talk about that.. right?

See hydrogen gas ... black magic... wand waving... chaos,,, then poof the human brain... and then the fairy god mother said what wish do you evos want today.

You really have to be mentally incapacitated to swallow this evo stuff.

If this is science lets include voo doo in your mix.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,05:46   

I just focused on your atatement that evolution had nothing to do with SLOT.

I guess that qualifies as the most scientifically illerate statement I have read in about fifty years.

Truly, I don't think it is possible to converse with a person who doesn't recognize the universal role of slot in every process yet observed in the universe., let alone biology, chemistry, physics all of which are foundational to any theory of so called evolution.

It is just sad to think anyone that scientifically illiterate could actually be posting in a public forum. How embarrassing!!

And you want me to establish the facts of thermodynamics for you so you can decide if the're real and applicable to such things as chemical reactions.. which seem in most peoples minds to have something to do with evolutionary biology.

I guffaw at the pitiful understanding of SLOT evidenced by evos... can't even define systems properly, snowflakes and salt crystals and ram pumps... yessiree real experts.

Come back when you have even a scintilla of scientific credibility... now run along junior and wash some bones.

Is there anyone up to a sensible literate discussion in the evo camp.. please no more sophmoric wantabees!

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,05:57   

Quote
As to quote mining.. if you can prove the statements and quotes are incorrectly attributed, false, not to the point or otherwise go for it.

Already done.  You obviously didn't read it.

Quote
But the old switch aroo tactic is one that I attribute to 1st graders trying to use logic.

You are the one moving goal posts, not me.  Or, did you forget about your unsupported assertions?

Quote
See hydrogen gas ... black magic... wand waving... chaos,,, then poof the human brain... and then the fairy god mother said what wish do you evos want today.

Coming from the person whose idea is that "goddidit" is a perfectly reasonable explanation?

You'll notice that I asked you to explain why you think SLOT has to do with evolution.  Simply because you respond with dirision does not mean that you have met your burden of proof.  Will this be another set of assertions that go completely unsupported?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,08:52   

Actually I don't think God did it by some billions of years process; he created it period. Thats what we mean by a God ... capable of effectng results we can't, using capabilites we do not have and are not currently in operation.

To say that acts of intellectually based conceptual thought hybridized onto matter to make it behave in ways it would never do on its own is a not a form of  creation is to deny the precise activities of science. Of course every scientific act by scientists does precisely that, it takes the intellectually based plans,schema, flowsheets, equations, expereiences and knowhow and from outside the matter itself hybridizes all of the above onto the matter to achieve the results.

So when you deny the possibility that such can be done in an original act by God you deny your very own abilities and planned actions to create.

Not a very logical position to hold is it?

Again if you are so illiterate as to dismiss SLOT from biology or any area of science as the controlling law over all processes chemical or physical then I have no interest in discussing things technical with you.

The mere fact that all life eventually becomes lifeless, completely disordered, completely at equilibrium is the precise prediction and result of the operation of  SLOT. The inefficiency of every process, the waste heat and material produced by every reaction, the less than perfect replication of the cell, the shrinking of the telemere, the weakening of the heart and other organs are all the result of the goverance of the second law which insists on slightly less or much less order in the entirety of any system or process including the effects on the surroundings as time progresses.

Thus we have life sustained by directed and transduced energy flows from the sun, biomass,etc. maintaining life in a constrained open system state far from equilibrium internally and yet inextricably drifting along the arrow of time toward equilibrium, disorder and death with all the universe always forever.

Every reaction in life support and activity is constrained in direction, rate, result and such by SLOT or equivalently the free energy consideration.

Evolution is in principle only possible by these chemical  reactions and their so called modifications over time coupled with the physical processes and reactions also controlled by SLOT.

Please tell me there is someone in this forum with the intellect to get past agruing the reality of one of the most fundamental and well proven laws of nature.

Please don't tell me this illteracy is representative of your communites understanding of all things scientific and the governing laws.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,10:48   

Quote
So when you deny the possibility that such can be done in an original act by God you deny your very own abilities and planned actions to create.

Who is denying it?  I explicitly said that it was a possibility that God created all.  What part of that did you not understand?  The only problem with that statement is that it just isn't scientific because you can neither prove nor disprove it, thus rendering it useless to us in a scientific sense.

Quote
Not a very logical position to hold is it?

It is not illogical to look at the data and figure out how the natural world works, regardless of the presence or absence of the supernatural.  What's illogical is for you to deny the very mechanisms of science, considering you use them every single day.  Do you eat cardboard for lunch every day?  Why not?

Quote
...the operation of  SLOT.

SLOT does not "operate" on anything.

Evolutionary mechanisms can't violate F=ma either, would you say that, "Evolution is in principle only possible by these chemical  reactions and their so called modifications over time coupled with the physical processes and reactions also controlled by F=ma?"

Finally, have you found a source for your 2% figure yet?  No?  Of course not.  When are you going to admit that YOU MADE IT UP?  You lost intellectual honest points by making it up in the first place, but you are only making it worse by refusing to fess up, and EVERYONE can see it.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,21:13   

Quote (evopeach @ Aug. 24 2005,15:09)
Baloney,

That is your assertion from a survey that doesn't even mention the term.

Try any one of 100 H.S. Biology texts or even 1st yr College texts from 1940 through today.

1) Embronic recapitualtion ( totally a lie and misrepresentation for two decades after being shown false)

2) Miller Fox demonstrating the efficacy of chemical predestination and abiogenesis in pre-biotic conditions. ( a total fabrication failing to mention lack of optical purity, racemate results always, zero separation of L&D forms of amino acids critical to molecules of life or that even if such were the result its a dead end for several reasons not the least of which is the next step chemically has the rather unfortunate problem of directionally impossible free energy comsiderations. These are never, never mentioned though known absolutely by every organic chemist in the world.

3) Total misrepresentation of the fossil record results which is totally unsupportive of the theory .... a scam made possible by plaster of paris and dashed lines on charts , nothing more. Consider the several major fossil frauds in the last century.. undeniable dishonesty.

4) Purposefully blurring the differences between a priori and as posteriori probability arguments time and again with the stiupid and irrelevant (perfect bridge/poker hand demonstration of unlikely events and other such baloney)

5) Misstating the definitions of open, closed, isolated and constrained systems in thermodynamic discussions... trotting out the old snowflake, salt crystal and other rediculous and irrelevent processes to illustrate local violations of SLOT... knowing better all the while.

6) Denying in the face of crystal clear evidence real codes and  systematics in the genome of living organisms as in the genetic code and the operations of the cell. Utter fraud and misrepresentation.

7) Dismissing abiogenesis and the fossil record as irrelevent and unimportant to the evolutionary paradigm.


8) All origin of proposals and experiments have ended in utter failure for 100 years  but are presented in texts, documentaries and all public forums as success is just around the corner.

The public record is clear and unambiguous and undeniable by an honest observer

Quote
Try any one of 100 H.S. Biology texts or even 1st yr College texts from 1940 through today.


I'm bored, so I feel like taking you up on this.  I have here in my lap a copy of Biology 5th Edition by Campbell, Reece, Mitchell, et al.  It is generally considered to be a major scientific textbook for basic undergraduate courses, right in line with your suggestion of checking 1st year science texts.

Quote
1) Embronic recapitualtion ( totally a lie and misrepresentation for two decades after being shown false)


Well, for starters, I cannot find "embryonic recapitulation," which is what I presume you meant to write, in the index.  However, I assume that you are referring to Haekel and the now discredited idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.  Well, in this text, we do find:  "Inspired by the Darwinian principle of descent with modification, many embryologists in the late nineteenth century proposed the extreme view that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."  .... "The theory of recapitulation is an overstatement.  Although vertebrates share many features of embryonic development, it is not as though a mammal first goes through a fish stage, then an amphibian stage, and so on.  Ontogeny can provide clues to phylogeny, but it is important to remember that all stages of development may become modified over the course of evolution."

I think that this should clearly show that one undergrad biology textbook, one which is generally widely known and respected, does not misrepresent Haekel's ideas on ontogeny.  And, by the way, the don't have his drawings, they have a pictures of a chick embryo and a human embryo.

Quote
2) Miller Fox demonstrating the efficacy of chemical predestination and abiogenesis in pre-biotic conditions. ( a total fabrication failing to mention lack of optical purity, racemate results always, zero separation of L&D forms of amino acids critical to molecules of life or that even if such were the result its a dead end for several reasons not the least of which is the next step chemically has the rather unfortunate problem of directionally impossible free energy comsiderations. These are never, never mentioned though known absolutely by every organic chemist in the world.


Perhaps you are reffering to the Millery Urey experiments?  Usually the limits of the Miller experiments are mentioned right in the text.  I mean, ####, they want their readers to be knowledgeable. Referring to Dr. Miller's choice of atmosphere, Biology says: "This atmosphere was probably more strongly reducing than the actual atmosphere of Earth."  So they are making clear the limits of the experiment.  Furthermore, the book goes on to discuss protenoids and protobionts, including microspheres, which are abiotically produced, but not quite alive.  Sort of like empty cells.  It then goes on further to describe RNA synthesis, replication, and ribozymes, RNA chains that can act as enzymes.

Quote
3) Total misrepresentation of the fossil record results which is totally unsupportive of the theory .... a scam made possible by plaster of paris and dashed lines on charts , nothing more. Consider the several major fossil frauds in the last century.. undeniable dishonesty.


The Smithsonian Institute has a Natural History Museum on the Mall in Washington, DC.  It is a beautifl museum, home to one of the largest collection of Dinosaur fossils in the world.  They also have research facilities in the back, outside the public view.  Now, if this is a part of some giant conspiracy to misrepresent the fossil record, then I really have to meet their head of operations so I can take notes for any future coups or conspiracies that I, a just graduated Poli Sci major, may become involved in.  Somehow, though, I don't think that the SI is going to be very useful for that sort of thing.

Quote

5) Misstating the definitions of open, closed, isolated and constrained systems in thermodynamic discussions... trotting out the old snowflake, salt crystal and other rediculous and irrelevent processes to illustrate local violations of SLOT... knowing better all the while.


Are you sure that you understand the second law of thermodynamics?  By the way, I remember my chem teacher back in high school going over the laws of thermodynamics and explaining how entropy explains aging quite well,and also how it explained why we need to eat.  He started out by telling us that life, being ordered, would be destroyed by entropy, unless it had an outside source of energy.  When we asked what he meant, he pointed to a student's lunch box and asked if the student was planning to eat lunch later that day.  The student responded that he most certainly did.  The teacher then asked what would happen if he did not.  This, the teacher was saying, is what entropy, which was the original lesson point,  was about.  Ordered, non-random systems such as ours require energy to be expended to maintain order.  Even gaining outside energy, by eating, cannot stave off entropy forever, and eventually various body systems will break down, and people die.  The laws of thermodynamics are not in contradiction of evolution or vice versa.  In fact, the need for food or other forms of energy as required under the second law of thermodynamics is a major driving force in evolution.

Quote
6) Denying in the face of crystal clear evidence real codes and  systematics in the genome of living organisms as in the genetic code and the operations of the cell. Utter fraud and misrepresentation.


Well, my book shows several charts and diagrams of the real codes used in the cells.  There's a complete list of all possible permutations of codons, and their corresponding amino acid.  What is being denied?  There are codes and systematics in the genetic code of an organism.  This is very basic.

Quote
7) Dismissing abiogenesis and the fossil record as irrelevent and unimportant to the evolutionary paradigm.


Didn't you, sir, just dismiss the Miller experiments regarding abiogenesis as irrelevent, and the fossil record as being full of frauds?

Quote
8) All origin of proposals and experiments have ended in utter failure for 100 years  but are presented in texts, documentaries and all public forums as success is just around the corner.


You know, believe it or not, biologists perform experiments to actually gather information to further our understanding of the world, not to get involved in metaphysical questions on the nature of man.

I'm really not sure what your complaints are.  A better method might be to simply state a hypothesis.  State how you might go about testing this hypothesis, and what results would confirm this hypothesis.  Just complaining about how science is being taught and putting up straw men about objectionable content in books which I've just shown is not there doesn't really accomplish anything.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,05:32   

Your response is precisely the intellectual dishonesty I am speaking to. Do you really think that you can persuasively deny the teaching and promotion of ER for several decades to our student population and the public at large by referencing a 2000 vintage book? Typical, when shown to be totally dishonest and fraudulent in your work you retreat and rewrite history as though it never happened; whether fossil fraud or any subject.

I thought you people had quit trying to promote those Fox soap bubbles as precursors.. totally dismissed by serious people. There is not one viable characteristic of precursor cell structure or activity in any of those pipe dreams. My grandson has a soap bubble pipe that generates the same degree of characteristic including , "budding" but I have not considered him for a Nobel prize.

Yes, we have some grasp of thermo with real credit hours from the engineering perspective and the physics/stat mech formulation and some process engineering experience.

Funny you should mention your school expereince.. it is of interest to note that man is th eonly creature that eats carrots and fish et al and converts those calories into conceptual thought and consciousness through a series of quite intricate processes. Yes somewhere there is the addition of logos, codes, storage and retrieval of information and the inexplicable concept of consciousness and conceptual thought... oh yeah it all came about simply by chance rearrangement of carbon, hydrogen,phosphorus, etc. Purely chemistry... inorganics differ from organics and life simply by arangement.

How any sane person can hold such opinions is beyond me.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,05:40   

Evopeach, I see you forgot, once again, to back up your claim of 2%.  Please get around to that  promptly.  I'd hate for people to think that you have no credibility or honesty simply because you make up stats and then can't back them up.

Quote
Your response is precisely the intellectual dishonesty I am speaking to. Do you really think that you can persuasively deny the teaching and promotion of ER for several decades to our student population and the public at large by referencing a 2000 vintage book?

Um, Hyperion used your suggestion of looking in a textbook.  You can't complain when someone takes you at your word and then shows you to be wrong.

Quote
...it is of interest to note that man is th eonly creature that eats carrots and fish et al and converts those calories into conceptual thought and consciousness through a series of quite intricate processes.

Incorrect.  Animals are also capable of this.  Apes hold wakes for dead members of their families.  Monkeys conform to group dynamics.  Other animals show emotions.  If you are going to make this statement, you will have to back it up, because most people can look at their dog and see consciousness.  Of course, you won't back it up because you have yet to back anything up.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,05:41   

By the way by reading this thread and those on other forums I can direct you to you would discover your camp distinctly saying the genetic code is not a code, there is no informational aspect to the cells replicative operations in DNA or otherwise its just chemistry. But such is typical ..four evolutionists and five opinions none of which is internally consistant or sensible.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,06:49   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 01 2005,10:32)
Your response is precisely the intellectual dishonesty I am speaking to. Do you really think that you can persuasively deny the teaching and promotion of ER for several decades to our student population and the public at large by referencing a 2000 vintage book? Typical, when shown to be totally dishonest and fraudulent in your work you retreat and rewrite history as though it never happened; whether fossil fraud or any subject.

I thought you people had quit trying to promote those Fox soap bubbles as precursors.. totally dismissed by serious people. There is not one viable characteristic of precursor cell structure or activity in any of those pipe dreams. My grandson has a soap bubble pipe that generates the same degree of characteristic including , "budding" but I have not considered him for a Nobel prize.

Yes, we have some grasp of thermo with real credit hours from the engineering perspective and the physics/stat mech formulation and some process engineering experience.

Funny you should mention your school expereince.. it is of interest to note that man is th eonly creature that eats carrots and fish et al and converts those calories into conceptual thought and consciousness through a series of quite intricate processes. Yes somewhere there is the addition of logos, codes, storage and retrieval of information and the inexplicable concept of consciousness and conceptual thought... oh yeah it all came about simply by chance rearrangement of carbon, hydrogen,phosphorus, etc. Purely chemistry... inorganics differ from organics and life simply by arangement.

How any sane person can hold such opinions is beyond me.

Quote
Your response is precisely the intellectual dishonesty I am speaking to. Do you really think that you can persuasively deny the teaching and promotion of ER for several decades to our student population and the public at large by referencing a 2000 vintage book?


Well, you said in your previous post to which I was responding:

Quote
Try any one of 100 H.S. Biology texts or even 1st yr College texts from 1940 through today.


Since "today" is 2005, I presumed that a 2000 textbook would be acceptable.  I apologize for adhering to your request.  Please do not accuse me of dishonesty, the only reason why I replied to you was specifically because I happened to have such a book next to me, and I figured that I'd look up your assertions about textbooks.

Quote
I thought you people had quit trying to promote those Fox soap bubbles as precursors.. totally dismissed by serious people. There is not one viable characteristic of precursor cell structure or activity in any of those pipe dreams. My grandson has a soap bubble pipe that generates the same degree of characteristic including , "budding" but I have not considered him for a Nobel prize.


Oh, see, there are precursor structures in these "bubbles."  Liposomes have a lipid bilayer similar to modern cells, and several other "bubbles," as you put them, can store energy crudely as a voltage potential and then discharge it...incidentally, your neurons are doing the same thing right now.  Regardless, this is not evolution.  This is not presented as incontrovertible fact, but it would be silly of a biology textbook not to mention that some scientists have created abiotic forms which have some, but not all, of the characteristics of cells.

Quote

Yes, we have some grasp of thermo with real credit hours from the engineering perspective and the physics/stat mech formulation and some process engineering experience.


Cool, then you should understand the second law of thermodynamics, and you should understand that it is not violated by life.

Quote
Funny you should mention your school expereince.. it is of interest to note that man is th eonly creature that eats carrots and fish et al and converts those calories into conceptual thought and consciousness through a series of quite intricate processes.


Not that interesting, and we're not alone.  Oh, we may be more intelligent than some other animals, but many others convert calories into some level of thought.  Ever watch a pack of wolves hunt?  There's a level of communication, thought, and teamwork there that makes a McNabb to T.O. pass look like nothing.

Quote
Yes somewhere there is the addition of logos, codes, storage and retrieval of information and the inexplicable concept of consciousness and conceptual thought


Not inexplicable.  You just lack the basic neurological education to comprehend it.

Quote
oh yeah it all came about simply by chance rearrangement of carbon, hydrogen,phosphorus, etc. Purely chemistry... inorganics differ from organics and life simply by arangement.


Well, not really by chance or by design, more like a very likely outcome given the nature of carbon's covalent bonding.

Quote
How any sane person can hold such opinions is beyond me.


Then what is your "opinion?"

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,08:13   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 01 2005,10:41)
By the way by reading this thread and those on other forums I can direct you to you would discover your camp distinctly saying the genetic code is not a code, there is no informational aspect to the cells replicative operations in DNA or otherwise its just chemistry. But such is typical ..four evolutionists and five opinions none of which is internally consistant or sensible.

Um, then bring it.  I've been asking you to back things up since the beginning.  Now, you are threatening to back up your claims?  Ooooo, I'm shaking.  You should have been backing your stuff up from the beginning.  So, let's see what you've got.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,09:35   

GCT,

Ok now that you have hung yourself out to dry with your cynical stupidity here's a result from your peer reviewed Nature of their survey among 500+ scientists.

The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5% (the moron crowd)

Surely whether 5 or 7% among scientists and life scientists even believe in God as a metaphysical being,....not even the Judeo Christian God of the bible one could reason that no more than a fraction of that percentage would associate God's creative and guiding activity with their evolutionary views thus 2% is more than generous.

I wonder if you can tell which is closer to this  poll result my 2% or your 37%. Hint: subtraction is involved.

Your sincere apology is accepted.


Example of the reason anyone with a brain holds your theory in contempt:  http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-10.html

No matter how contradictory the evidence is to tightly grasped theories, no matter how destructive to pryor claims there is no finding that cannot be accomodated by the plasticity of this so called theory. Just another demonstration of the impossibility of falsifying evolution.


By the way you have amplified the crystal clear picture of your complete scientific illiteracy ( by the way "not illogical" is a third grade grammatical error, so you might watch that sort of display) as in SLOT not being connected to evolution and then admitting your error in the next post.

See F does not equal MA as in your stupid remarks. F is proportional to MA and the formula requires the addition of a constant which varies with the system of units, usually written F=ma/gsubc  and in the engineering system the constant of proportionality is 32.2 lb mass ft/lb force sec**2

You should really ask someone to check your posts for scientific literacy before hitting the submit button... it might let you continue to pretend to be knowledgeable.

Now once again is there someone a little more challenging to joist with.. don't tell me these luddites are your first team.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,12:20   

I haven't been following this discussion, mainly because I see no danger that EvoPooch is going to convince anyone of anything, but browsing through - against my better judgment - I ran across this
Quote
By the way what's the latest opinion.. are we closer to chimps or orangs... pretty important thing to decide.. isn't it a shame that depending on the analysis used you get equal support for either, clearly impossible.

Please supply one reference to any  scientist who claims -or any analysis that indicates- that we are closer  (I assume you mean more closely related) to orangs than to chimps. Failure to do so will be interpreted as a tacit admission that you know you're pulling this stuff from your ass and inserting it, ironically, into a thread you started on "intellectual honesty".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,12:28   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 01 2005,14:35)
GCT,

Ok now that you have hung yourself out to dry with your cynical stupidity here's a result from your peer reviewed Nature of their survey among 500+ scientists.

The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5% (the moron crowd)

Surely whether 5 or 7% among scientists and life scientists even believe in God as a metaphysical being,....not even the Judeo Christian God of the bible one could reason that no more than a fraction of that percentage would associate God's creative and guiding activity with their evolutionary views thus 2% is more than generous.

I wonder if you can tell which is closer to this  poll result my 2% or your 37%. Hint: subtraction is involved.

Your sincere apology is accepted.


Example of the reason anyone with a brain holds your theory in contempt:  http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-10.html

No matter how contradictory the evidence is to tightly grasped theories, no matter how destructive to pryor claims there is no finding that cannot be accomodated by the plasticity of this so called theory. Just another demonstration of the impossibility of falsifying evolution.


By the way you have amplified the crystal clear picture of your complete scientific illiteracy ( by the way "not illogical" is a third grade grammatical error, so you might watch that sort of display) as in SLOT not being connected to evolution and then admitting your error in the next post.

See F does not equal MA as in your stupid remarks. F is proportional to MA and the formula requires the addition of a constant which varies with the system of units, usually written F=ma/gsubc  and in the engineering system the constant of proportionality is 32.2 lb mass ft/lb force sec**2

You should really ask someone to check your posts for scientific literacy before hitting the submit button... it might let you continue to pretend to be knowledgeable.

Now once again is there someone a little more challenging to joist with.. don't tell me these luddites are your first team.

Quote
No matter how contradictory the evidence is to tightly grasped theories, no matter how destructive to pryor claims there is no finding that cannot be accomodated by the plasticity of this so called theory. Just another demonstration of the impossibility of falsifying evolution.


What evidence?  You make a claim regarding textbooks, and I go looking through my textbook and cannot find it.  Then you make a claim regarding the religious beliefs of scientists, and claim that this is somehow evidence against evolution?  I bet that the percentage who believe in Vishnu, or Ahura Mazda, or follow the sayings of Lao Tzu, Confucius, or Buddha, is also incredibly small.  Is the fact that only a small percentage of scientists accept that the world is caught in a struggle between the forces of Ahura Mazda and Ahriman evidence against evolution?  No, all it proves is that there aren't too many Zoroastrian scientists.  The religious beliefs of scientists are irrelevent to the validity of scientific theories.

Furthermore, such an overgeneralized ad hominem attack is really pointless anyways, since I happen to be a fairly religious person who does believe in G_d, and yet I really don't have a problem with evolution.  Oh, and PLEASE do not refer to a "Judeo-Christian" religion.  If you have not figured out by now that there are serious differences between Judaism and Christianity, then you may wish to study theology more carefully as well.

Quote
See F does not equal MA as in your stupid remarks. F is proportional to MA and the formula requires the addition of a constant which varies with the system of units, usually written F=ma/gsubc  and in the engineering system the constant of proportionality is 32.2 lb mass ft/lb force sec**2


The constant is only necessary when using units other than Newtons for F, Kilograms for M, and Meters/Second^2 for A.  When using metric units, no conversion constant is necessary.  Oh, but you are mildly correct on one point:  It's not F=MA, it's &#8721;F=MA.  The &#8721; sign, or sigma, indicates that the equation applies to the summation of all forces acting on a system.

Incidentally, I'm surprised to see you using Newton's Laws.  Didn't you know that Newtonism is a theory in crisis?  I mean, if we buy your argument that a few criticisms of a theory renders it inoperable, then what about Newtonism?  Didn't Einstein show it to be faulty?  Shouldn't you be arguing against using Newton's theories?  After all, if scientists are still using Newton's theories after they have been proven wrong again and again, doesn't that make Newtonism "just scientific dogma?"

Quote
You should really ask someone to check your posts for scientific literacy before hitting the submit button


Irony is the greatest of all comedy

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,12:42   

Evopeach,

Number one, why did it take you so long to post your poll?  Were you sitting on it the whole time?  Is that intellectually honest?  Also, you are still making up numbers, but you finally found a poll that sort of backs up your claim.  Of course, this was a targeted poll on a specific group, not all scientists (yes, I'm questioning the methodology.)  Try this poll on for size, with it's larger sampling group, larger pool with which to pull from, and more recent date...

Contrary Poll

I've got three or four polls now with more widespread methodologies and you are still going to stick to your 2% figure (which you should admit you made up) aren't you?  In short, my poll is better than your poll, but that's not even the point.  Even if your 2% is closer to the actual number, at least I went off of actual evidence, which you did not do.  This thread was supposed to be about intellectual honesty, and whether your number is closer or not, the fact that you made it up and held to it with no justification shows you lack intellectual integrity.

Second, I looked at your nature article.  So what?  Perhaps you should explain what you find so scandalous in it?

Grammar lesson:  If you say, "A is illogical" and I say, "No, A is not illogical" I have not violated any grammar rules.  Do I make spelling and grammar mistakes?  Yes, I do.  Of course, with your sentence structure and spelling, I don't think you have room to criticize my mistakes.  Again, another example of your lack of integrity.

I never said SLOT was connected to evolution, in fact I still challenge that.  Evolution can not violate SLOT, nor can anything else.  Evolution also can not violate F=ma, which BTW happens to be the generic form of the equation and whether it is right or not, it demonstrates my point.  The fact that you have avoided the argument in favor of attacking my intelligence (ad hominem) shows, once again, your lack of integrity.

You do have one thing right.  I'm not the A team here, as I'm not even an evolutionary biologist.  You shouldn't really be asking for them though, because you can't handle me.  The thread has been about intellectual integrity and you have shown time and again that you lack it.  The funny part is that you think you've been clever in nit picking on this and that when all you've really been doing is showing your own lack of integrity.  In short, you couldn't handle the A team since you can't get past me with anything coherent.

Oh, and one last thing.  I thought you were going to direct me to somewhere that proves "my team" doesn't know anything about genetic codes, etc.  Was that more bloviation or can you actually back something up for once?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,05:10   

I don't expect you to really appreciate suffering complete humiliation in public but it really was enjoyable letting you bloviate about polls and your superiority  for a while just so I could ram the Nature poll of some 650 evolutionary scientists up your b--- and watch you wallow in pain.

F=MA is not the generic form itd F=ma/gsubc to make sure the difference between equality and proportionality are properly understood. Did that concept not come across in third grade for you?

And you're right you surely could not be the A.B.C.D  ad finitum team because none of them are so iliterate as to suspend SLOT as the controlling mechanism in chemical and physical processes in evolutionary theory.

SLOT does apply to evolution as to every process in the universe so far as has ever been theorized or observed.

See these two examples of your complete incompetence in these matters render it meaningless to joist with you further.

You can easily enough check the posts at evcforum.net or this thread to see the position that the genetic code is not really a code , there is no real information content in the human cell and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I haven't the time to do your homework for you.

I have no doubt you think SLOT is inoperative reguarding the physical mechanisms of Evolution.... you probably think gravity is a temporary law, FLOT is ripe for violation and the third law is superfluous because no one lives in a place where the temperature aproaches absolute zero.

The only closed system I see is the mindset of the evo community railing at people for daring to challenge their hynotically induced thought processes.

I'm sure you will anyday now be sending me peer reviewed papers showing naturally separated levo form optically pure amino acids spontaneoulsly forming polypeptides and proteins from simple diamers powered by sunlight on the side of a volcano or maybe R. Dawkins hot tub. Whats a little thermodynamic barrier like free energy  (alternately entropy) when you have raw sunlight in prebiotic conditions (no photosynthesis or any imaginable rectification /conversion mechanism).

Oops forgot we don't consider SLOT in evolution.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,05:44   

Quote
The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences;


Quote
the Nature poll of some 650 evolutionary scientists


Do I need to point out your outright falsehood in your two statements?  I probably do.  First, it was 517 members, as posted by you, not 650.  Second, it was members of the National Academy of Sciences, not solely evolutionary biologists.

You still have not admitted that you made up the 2% figure.  You are a liar.

I don't give a flying fig about what the "correct" form of F=ma is, because it is irrelevant to the topic.  You made the comment that SLOT "operates" on evolution.  I said SLOT is not relevant except in the same way that F=ma is relevant and invited you to explain how it is relevant.  You have yet to do that.  NOTHING (including evolution) violates SLOT, just as NOTHING violates F=ma, but neither law OPERATES on evolution and both are irrelevant to the topic.

Quote
You can easily enough check the posts at evcforum.net or this thread to see the position that the genetic code is not really a code , there is no real information content in the human cell and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I haven't the time to do your homework for you.


You made the assertion that leading evolutionary scientists think the genetic code is not really a code.  I don't even know what you are getting at there, so I asked you to back it up.  I asked what leading scientists.  When you make an assertion and are asked to back it up, it is YOUR responsibility (your homework) to bring the relevant information into the discussion.  It is not my responsibility to go digging for some nebulous information that may or may not be what your nebulous claim is about.  If you want to convince me of anything, the onus is on YOU to present your arguments, not on me to dig around trying to figure out what your arguments are.

Your conduct has shown nothing but contempt and dishonesty.  If you think that dishonesty is the way to win a debate or score points in a discussion then you are meeting the criteria of a Creationist to a T.  That does not work here, however, since I actually value truth.  You will have to bring some truth with you and not a bunch of lies if you want to score any points with me.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,06:02   

Just to name one who wrote extensively as to SLOT being the controlling physical law in operation over all time and in throughout the universe you might make your brain acquainted with the writings of Azimov on the subject but really if you're that ignorant of physics and chemistry et al I consider it demeaning to even be in contact with you.

And while your sticking my trojan horse survey  (which you lapped up like a little tired puppy) up you b---- you might also pick somewhere else to post or at least another thread... I am tired of trying to teach you 5th grade chemistry and physics..  go get your whippings else where.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,06:07   

Dear Russy,

Schwartz, J.H. (1984) The evolutionary relationships of man and orang-utans.
Nature 308, 501-505.

Schwartz, J.H. (1984) Hominioid evolution: a review and a reassessment. Current
Anthropology 25, 655-672.

Schwartz, J.H. (1988). The Red Ape: Orang-utans and Human Origins. Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston.


After you stick this up your butt you fart brained moron you might consider an aopolgy

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,07:56   

Quote
And while your sticking my trojan horse survey  (which you lapped up like a little tired puppy) up you b---- you might also pick somewhere else to post or at least another thread... I am tired of trying to teach you 5th grade chemistry and physics..  go get your whippings else where.


Ha ha, so I've already gone from third to fifth grade?  The funny part is that your poll is not a very good representative sample.  I also don't believe you were using it as a Trojan Horse, but you stumbled upon it after the fact and are now lying about having it all along.  Plus, you are still making up the 2% figure, whether we go by your poll or not!  That makes you a liar.

I challenge you on your characteristic of Azimov.  Show me where that is.

If you think it is demeaning to be in contact with me, then too bad.  You opened up this discussion and I joined.  You've shown nothing but dishonesty.  Instead of trying to lord over me, you might want to address that issue, especially since IT'S THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD!

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,09:07   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 02 2005,10:10)
I don't expect you to really appreciate suffering complete humiliation in public but it really was enjoyable letting you bloviate about polls and your superiority  for a while just so I could ram the Nature poll of some 650 evolutionary scientists up your b--- and watch you wallow in pain.

F=MA is not the generic form itd F=ma/gsubc to make sure the difference between equality and proportionality are properly understood. Did that concept not come across in third grade for you?

And you're right you surely could not be the A.B.C.D  ad finitum team because none of them are so iliterate as to suspend SLOT as the controlling mechanism in chemical and physical processes in evolutionary theory.

SLOT does apply to evolution as to every process in the universe so far as has ever been theorized or observed.

See these two examples of your complete incompetence in these matters render it meaningless to joist with you further.

You can easily enough check the posts at evcforum.net or this thread to see the position that the genetic code is not really a code , there is no real information content in the human cell and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I haven't the time to do your homework for you.

I have no doubt you think SLOT is inoperative reguarding the physical mechanisms of Evolution.... you probably think gravity is a temporary law, FLOT is ripe for violation and the third law is superfluous because no one lives in a place where the temperature aproaches absolute zero.

The only closed system I see is the mindset of the evo community railing at people for daring to challenge their hynotically induced thought processes.

I'm sure you will anyday now be sending me peer reviewed papers showing naturally separated levo form optically pure amino acids spontaneoulsly forming polypeptides and proteins from simple diamers powered by sunlight on the side of a volcano or maybe R. Dawkins hot tub. Whats a little thermodynamic barrier like free energy  (alternately entropy) when you have raw sunlight in prebiotic conditions (no photosynthesis or any imaginable rectification /conversion mechanism).

Oops forgot we don't consider SLOT in evolution.

Oy.

Quote
F=MA is not the generic form itd F=ma/gsubc to make sure the difference between equality and proportionality are properly understood. Did that concept not come across in third grade for you?


Ummm, SigmaF=MA is Newton's actual law.  F=ma/gsubc may be a modified equation used for certain situations, but the GENERIC FORM is SigmaF=MA.  That is the definition of the word [/i]generic.

Quote
SLOT does apply to evolution as to every process in the universe so far as has ever been theorized or observed.


Of course the Second Law of Thermodynamics applied to evolution.  What several people have tried to make clear to you is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent evolution.  Completely different issues.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to every aspect of the universe, and evolution follows it precisely.  Why do you think we have a food chain?

Quote
You can easily enough check the posts at evcforum.net or this thread to see the position that the genetic code is not really a code , there is no real information content in the human cell and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I haven't the time to do your homework for you.


See, the reason people are getting frustrated with you is that you fail to grasp the actual point of what people are saying.  Yes, the genetic code is a code in the sense that it is a set of information which can be interpreted.  No, it is not a code in the sense that it was purposefully written out.

Quote

I have no doubt you think SLOT is inoperative reguarding the physical mechanisms of Evolution


No doubt you need to reread my posts.

Quote
you probably think gravity is a temporary law


Nah, not unless you subscribe to the "Intelligent Falling" theory.

Quote
The only closed system I see is the mindset of the evo community railing at people for daring to challenge their hynotically induced thought processes.


You do irony very well.  "Hypnotically induced thought processes?"  Sounds like religious catechisms.

Quote
I'm sure you will anyday now be sending me peer reviewed papers showing naturally separated levo form optically pure amino acids spontaneoulsly forming polypeptides and proteins from simple diamers powered by sunlight on the side of a volcano or maybe R. Dawkins hot tub. Whats a little thermodynamic barrier like free energy  (alternately entropy) when you have raw sunlight in prebiotic conditions (no photosynthesis or any imaginable rectification /conversion mechanism).

Oops forgot we don't consider SLOT in evolution.


hahaha.  I'm willing to bet good money that you don't even understand half of that, you just copied it from some ID website.  I especially like how you called entropy "free energy."  Hilarious.  And when you said raw sunlight wasn't energy.  I mean, ####, it's not like EM radiation is energy or anything.

By the way, had you actually read any scientific literature, you'd understand that metabolism and excretory systems are how organisms deal with the Second Law.  I probably shouldn't even have written this, because you'll completely misapply it to something else, or otherwise misunderstand it.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,11:27   

Quote
Please supply one reference to any  scientist who claims -or any analysis that indicates- that we are closer  (I assume you mean more closely related) to orangs than to chimps.  

Dear Peachy: please note the tense in the above quote. I'm not asking you for historical, provocative, hypotheses that didn't pan out. You see, Peachy, that's the thing about science. It sort of converges on answers. Sixty or seventy years ago, there was some non-ridiculous difference of opinion over what the genetic material was. But if I were to ask for a "reference to any scientist who claims - or analysis that indicates - that protein is the genetic material"... I don't know, maybe in your weird universe you think they still exist. They don't in mine.
Quote
After you stick this up your butt you fart brained moron you might consider an aopolgy  

Looks like someone flunked charm school. But, no, I don't think any "aopolgy" is due. Not to you, anyway.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,11:39   

Hyper, Now is this supposed to be the a team coming to the fore?? Yuk!

Wiipedia or any of 100 sites

Newton's Second Law: Fundamental law of dynamics

Alternative formulations:

   * The rate of change in momentum is proportional to the net force acting on the object and takes place in the direction of the force.
   * The acceleration of an object of constant mass is proportional to the resultant force acting upon it.

See the word proporational its part of our common language. It means that in order to actually say predict a bodies acceleration given a known force applied one must have a system of units otherwise the numbers are meaningless. In this case the constant of proportionality is referred to as gsubc always and everywhere across all systems of units.

In the engineering system this is 32.2 lbm ft /lbf sec** 2 and in the metric its 9.8 kilogm meter/newton sec**2

You are correct that m and a are vectors.


Idiot just read this thread and you will see the precise statement by tour team that SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.

I never equated free energy and entropy you liar. I stated what antone with a brain knonws and that is that the reactions I referenced will not spontaneously occur because the products are in a lower entropy state than the reactants  and one may also say they will not occur because the products are in a higher free energy state. Thus they require a usuable form of energy.. not just energy from the sun in a raw form but energy transduced and made usable by a coupled mechanism.. say for example photosynthesis (which unfortunately for your team did not exist in the prebiotic world) in the plant kingdom.

If you want to argue that one cannot predict whether a reaction will occur spontaneously and what direction it will go if at all using either entropy considerations or alternately free energy considerations.. go ahead .. it crystalizes your ignorance.

Entropy clearly does not prevent the  processes of lifew occuring now because the entire system of proceeses and reactions are in place simultaneously and systemactically. It is a constrained, open , flow-through system with a series of mechanisms for (in our case) transducing biomass energy into atp via metabolism and from there electrical voltage potentials for the CNS.

The problem is how did such a system arise incrementally, from non-life to life and so up the entropy latter or down the free energy latter prior to any transducing mechanisms in place neither photosynthesis or metabolism nor any imaginable rational mechanism to harness the raw energy available. An orchid plucked from the ground an laid in the sunlight gets hot ,,, it willl never bloom.


Again the arrangement of the GC letters into sequences of very substantial length in the case of a protein has been claculated many, many times by good scientists, Shapiro in the subject book works out the best possible case of a simple replicator sequence of twenty code letters at 1/10**20 and that is one such entity in a hostile prebiotic sea  with no chance to survive reproduce be selected  etc.

As to the source it comes from reading Shapiro, various texts, Denton et al everyone knowns the problem of  diamers to amino acids of the correct form for proteins, in optically pure concentrations never occurring naturally in any experiment with prebiotic conditions. You always get 50/50 L&D forms .... racemic mixtures. Are you denying that??

It wouldn't be wise to attempt some money-whipping exercise with me ... I'd say don't go there.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,15:44   

Evopeach,
F=ma

You liar.

There's no gsubc anywhere on that page.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,19:28   

Quote
Idiot just read this thread and you will see the precise statement by tour team that SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.


This is the last post I'm making on this topic.  You clearly misread other people's posts.  What they were saying was that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevent as a criticism of evolution.  Evolution obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  All your handwaiving has really done nothing to show otherwise.

After all, creating a star, a unit which not only emits large amounts of energy but also creates "order" in the sense that it fuses smaller atoms together into larger, more complex ones, requires only large amounts of hydrogen and gravity.  The force of gravity provides the energy necessary to begin hydrogen fusion.  And incidentally, before you post something ignorant on this subject, hydrogen fusion does not violate the Second Law because the release of energy that results adds to the entropy of the universe as a system.

And the sun was not the only possible energy source, geothermal heat from deep sea vents is another possibility.  In addition, there are many methods of processing energy from inorganic substances, called chemoautotrophic processes.  For instance, organisms can metabolize CO2 and Hydrogen into organic molecules, methane, and energy.  You may be correct that the metabolic processes followed by plants and animals may not have been possible in the early Earth, but plants and animals are fairly recent groups, occuring only in the past 600 million years.  Do some research on anaerobic metabolism if you're really interested.

Truth be told, though, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  Scientists have shown how organic molecules, amino acids, and nucleotides can be formed from inorganic molecules present in the early Earth in Miller's experiments.  They've shown how organic molecules can spontaneously form simply spheres with lipid bilayers similar to cells.  They've shown how short RNA polymers can act as enzymes and also how short RNA polymers can self-replicate.

Now, what alternative hypotheses are there that still explain observed evidence?  If the dominant scientific hypothesis can show step by step with one small gap, and the alternative hypothesis shows no evidence and says that none can be found, then it's not difficult to figure out which to accept.  Furthermore, this is still all irrelevent, because the origin of life is not a part of the theory of evolution any more than Big Bang Cosmology is a part of Geology.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,05:26   

Well congratulations you are the oly known person who still clings to the totally discarded theories of Urey Miller Fox and such regarding origin of life experiental results.

No one sees any ... repeat any correlation between racemic mixtures of amino acids in a "tar" mixture created by contrived conditions (little things like cold traps) or coacervates or protenoids as even remotely demonstrative of abiogenesis. Soap bubbles and shaving creme has many of the same characteristics.

This is to say nothing of the free energy considerations which for amino acids to more complex life required molecules is directionally prohibited. See that is a thermodynamic problem at the time of origin.

Not one of the mechanisms you mentioned have a shred of experimental evidence in pre-biotic science to confirm them as remotely likely.

The author of the subject book Dr. Shapiro at least had the honesty to confess all of the above and oh that little gap you mention ... he calculates the simplest replicator as being possible in the pre-biotic conditions as at best 10**-20 to 10** -10000 depending on the assumed replicator. He is only one of several "evolutionists" not IDers or creationists who conclude the same numbers.

RNA first being very nearly the most unlikely / impossible proposal.

But laughably as usual your team of dishonest demigogs have conveniently established the position that whatever is impossible, non-demonstrable, mutually exclusive from rationality, observation or experimental result is declared unimportant, disconnected or on the verge of being resolved.

What a shame that your darling Carl Sagan, primo cult evolutionist for 30 years, lived a fruitless, non-contributing life since his entire work was just a waste of time in the new evolution team's view.

One problem..  hundreds of biology and life science textbooks, articles, tax payer sponsored projects, tv documentaries,, etc. all concentrating on the continuous process necessity and certainty of big bang to abiogenesis to humanity and all we see.

No little sweety pies we won't let that idiocy go unnoticed by the American populace so don't even dream of putting that intellectual scam over on anyone.

Now about that hydrogen gas to the human brain problem.

See.. if my friend tellme one morning he got to work by jumping from a hot air baloon into the parking lot wearing a parachute.. I would question that, even though possible, knowing there were an infinite number of ways or paths available to him or her.

But if the next day they tell me they jumped from the top of a neighboring mountain with a Superman suit on and glided to the office.... well I would likely get them some medical attention.

Moral:  Just because your team can imagine possible just so stories without a scintilla of evidence to back them up ...  many patently rediculous on their face... does not mean rational people have to accept any of them.

We are just warming to the task so buckle on your helmet kids its going to be a bumpy ride.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,08:49   

GCT,

Now that you have firmly established yourself as the resident moron herein, you might note that the M is a constant involving the mass adjusted by the porportionality constant gsubc but since anything beyond long divisiom is over your dense head .. well lets just say you're a mental clown.

Oh and if you're not familiar with units try plugging in say: For a exercise remember the acceleration of gravity is 32.2 ft/sec/sec (3rd grade science) defines what a 1 bl force is.

1 lb force =1 lb mass * 32.2 ft /sec/sec

What goodness Mr Moron poster thinks 1 = 32.2 ?? What a pitiful level of understanding.

Now lets go back to me alias  Mr. Genius and plug in 1/gsubc = 32.2 lbm ft/lb ft sec**2 and what do you know the fundamental equation actually works and gives the correct answer.

Hint: It works the same way in other unit systems.

Please tell me you have some educational credential beyond Jr. Hi.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,09:23   

1 lb mass?  Mass is not weight.

The funny part is that I don't even care who is right (as I've already stated).  This is all sidestepping on your part because you've been completely unable to back up your arguments.  So, you resort to arguing about side issues and hurling insults in order to keep from having to back anything up.  That to me screams that you have nothing substantial at all to say, and to accuse others of deceit when you have shown nothing but deceit is the height of hypocrisy.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,10:56   

Of course you care as your continuing line of BS about F=MA continues, blah blah blah. What you can't abide is my ability to expose your total incompetence and ignorance of the most basic scientific facts.

Weight is the element of force dummy as in lb force and mass is lb mass as I have elucidated in kids language just for you.

Newton is force, Kilogram is mass, acceleration is 9.8 m/sec/sec and our old friend gsubc is ... you guessed it 9.8 kg m/newton sec**2

See then the gravitational force equation works in that system as well.

You might try reading Origin's by Dr. Shapiro before commenting further as that was the subject reference material.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,10:56   

As Wikipedia notes:

Quote
In physics, the newton (symbol: N) is the SI unit of force, named after Sir Isaac Newton in recognition of his work on classical mechanics. It was first used around 1904, but not until 1948 was it officially adopted by the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) as the name for the mks unit of force.

A newton is defined as the amount of force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one metre per second squared.


You can find it here.

Thus, showing that the units do work without your gsubc.  1N=1kg * 1 m/sec/sec.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,11:15   

Hyperion,

I rather understand the direct and uncontestable stupidity of your team once you leave the bone cleaning theatre or perhaps move up from dissecting a frog.

Here is an exact quote from GCT in the thread:

5.  SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.  If you think it does, then state your case.

Now is that one of those statements so nuanced and esoteric we can't understand it.

Your distortions, half-truths, Alice In Wonderland just so stories and outright misrepresentations are typical and ample evidence of why the DI and its supporters will indeed get the facts on the table concerning this pseudo science of macroevolution, natural origins in front of the American people.

NOTHING  TO DO WITH ... get it goober brain.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,12:10   

I stand by what I said.  Beyond the statement that evolution does not violate SLOT (as it doesn't violate F=ma which got us on that whole side topic) the two having nothing to do with each other.

Your gsubc is dimensionless, since N=kg*m/sec^2.

Before you go off on my understanding of science, make sure your own house is in order.

That said, it still does not matter to me.  All of this is side issue.  You have not brought one intelligent argument into this discussion which you started.  You have utterly failed to show intellectual dishonesty amongst evolution supporters while capably showing your own.  Doubtless, you will answer this with more evasion and more attacks on my intelligence, which will only demonstrate my point all the more.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,19:04   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 06 2005,16:15)
Hyperion,

I rather understand the direct and uncontestable stupidity of your team once you leave the bone cleaning theatre or perhaps move up from dissecting a frog.

Here is an exact quote from GCT in the thread:

5.  SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.  If you think it does, then state your case.

Now is that one of those statements so nuanced and esoteric we can't understand it.

Your distortions, half-truths, Alice In Wonderland just so stories and outright misrepresentations are typical and ample evidence of why the DI and its supporters will indeed get the facts on the table concerning this pseudo science of macroevolution, natural origins in front of the American people.

NOTHING  TO DO WITH ... get it goober brain.

Oh holy shit, that totally disproves all of evolutionary theory, because some guy on a website wrote something that was not completely precise.  Holy fucking shit

Look, I don't know what he meant, and I don't know why you seem to think that quoting a guy on a web board is somehow going to disprove evolution, but THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS DOES NOT DISPROVE EVOLUTION.  If it did, it would also disprove the ability of your body to develope from a single zygote.  So congratulations, you have officially proven that you do not exist.

This is the last thing I'm going to post.  Your arguments show a lack of maturity or logic, you dredge up straw men and make tangential arguments.  Furthermore, you accuse people of failing to provide evidence, or assert that evidence does not exist, but so far you have not actually shown any evidence yourself.  You either have some serious misunderstandings of several scientific principles, or you are willfully ignorant.  Some of us come to conclusions based on available evidence, you choose to pick your evidence to fit a preconceived idea.  Actually, I'm not sure what preconceived idea you seem to have, because so far you have not posted a theory to explain existing evidence.  If current evolutionary thought is incorrect, then what do you posit occurred?

Whatever, this is pointless.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,05:23   

Yes, I suspect it will be as I demonstrated clearly that your team precisely stated what stated I said they did ... and left with no way out you chose the typical canibalism of that person and assertive dismissal.

I have not stated that SLOT makes the current life processes impossible.. show me where I have.

What is apparent is that the underpinnings of evolution are at odds with SLOT in the origins of life and that all attempts to bridge the enormous chasm between non-life and life, first replicator, step by step development of the cell and on up to the human brain including self awareness of mortality and congnitive thought remain totally unsupported by any proposed evolutionary explanation to date.

There were no energy conversion mechanisms performing metabolism or photosynthesis to permit the energy flow through open constrained far from equlibrium systems that characterize life as we know it to be and to have been.

There is no explanation for self organization and separation of L&D forms of life molecules never not ever in pre-biotic conditions.

The free energy  or alternately entropy directional constraints on just the chemistry is well known to be opposed to self organization once we leave the monomer to biomer activity. This is not even debatable.. its "black letter law".

So is SLOT making life impossible today .. of course not just inexorably moving it all toward death and equilibrium at a pace very much slowed by the complex processes we observe.

My argument from day one is that your own experts say all of the above in their singular moments of honesty.. I give you Dr. Shapiro whose thrust is after exploring all the alternatives ...Although none of the proposals have any remotely convincing evidence or argument, as a scientist I cannot embrace a metaphysical explanation (of origins) but rather await some as yet unknown laws which support a natural explanation.

Yet here I see post after post rehearsing discarded proposals, experiments, hypotheses and such that its as though people have attempted to stop the clock, rewrite history, assert reality of their choosing rather than what is observed.

As I started unless there are more Robert Shapiros and far fewer Dawkins and his ilk herein you will be just another crowd of Phlogistonites grasping to the mast and yelling at people as your ship sinks.

But that may be not all bad.... so stay the course "true believers".

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,06:16   

SLOT discussion

Funny, I don't feel cannibalized.  I also back up what I said.  You have not met your burden of proof.  I can also count your lies for you if you like, I'm already up to 4 or 5.  And, you continue to engage in ad hominem attacks.  Additionally, I see no mention of your gaffe over gsubc.  How is it that the units don't line up again, when your definition of gsubc is unitless?  The problem is that you are confusing weight and mass.  They are two separate things.  If someone gives you a weight, you have to convert it to mass.  If that weight is in lbs, then you must divide by 32.2 ft/sec^2 to convert to mass.  Perhaps that is where you got your notion of using gsubc?

I still maintain, that it's all irrelevant.  You haven't explained why SLOT is any more relevant to evolution than F=ma.  Plus, even if there is a free energy problem during abiogenesis, it does nothing to rule against evolution, since the two are completely separate issues.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,06:27   

Evopeach

Professor Shapiro has just confirmed to me that he is not a supporter of ID nor any form of creationism. He finds current theories of the origins of life unsatisfactory (please note this is abiogenesis, not evolution, which many others have pointed out to you, are not the same) and argues that the way forward is better science.

He also recommends his later book "Planetary Dreams" (Wiley 1999). Thank you for directing me to this source.

GCT

I'm wondering why you are arguing about Newton's second law of motion (summed up as F=ma) when SLOT refers to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Excuse me if I misunderstood something here.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,06:57   

GCT wrote
Quote
NOTHING (including evolution) violates SLOT, just as NOTHING violates F=ma, but neither law OPERATES on evolution and both are irrelevant to the topic.


Sorry, GCT, missed this earlier.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,07:55   

GCT

You're coming late to the game and having 12 hours of  "A" in classical mechanics, statics, dynamics and such I throughly understand Newton's Laws.

The constant of proportionality which in my textbooks and engineering work is always called gsubd can indeed be  one in some systems, though as illustrated previously not in the engineering system.

Of course as I previously stated weight is a force and mass is a derived quantity and a constant classically. In the case of gravity the weight varies with position relative to the dominant body and its mass..


As to SLOT you're position remains untenable as every chemical reaction and physical process which enable your evolution is constrained by SLOT directionally, energetically and in relation to the surroundings.

If slot were not acting living things would essentially operate at near 100% efficiency, not deteriorate and live forever begging accidents and  physical attack..... never be driven inexorably to disorganization, maximum entropy, equilibrium and death.

If you can demonstrate that one chemical or physical reaction in life processes and thus evolution is exempt from SLOT please do so.

The world awaits your solution to the perpetual motion machine or the fountain of youth.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,08:06   

Quote
If you can demonstrate that one chemical or physical reaction in life processes and thus evolution is exempt from SLOT please do so.


Do you read others' posts? Nobody has claimed that anything is exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Quite the opposite.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,08:15   

Evopeach

Professor Shapiro is not your friend.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,08:26   

Alan,

Please that propaganda is rewriting history and attempting a big CYA because of the enormous flaw in the evolutionary paradigm.

Standard biology books and other natural science texts always have extensive chapters and references to origin of life theories and they are directly linked in one continuous presentation to the way life emerged and evolved.

If the two are divorced why are they so presented and linked .... one might as well have a presentation of basketball rules or any other truly unrelated matter but such is not the case .. always origins, abiogenesis, Urey Miller, Fox, Oparin, et al Prigorine, all devoted to showing that evolution is absolute and predestined etc.

I never said Shapiro was anything other than an evolutionist but an honest one in his total disregard for all theories of life origins to date. Not just inadequate  but rather so impossible as to elicit intellectual distain.

But he has at least admitted to the true state of affairs.. he just expresses his "religious faith" as believing that one day the new laws of nature will be revealed and be explanatory.

See if you can't get life naturally then evolution never existed because it has to have life to operate.

"Elementary my dear Watson... first one eliminates all the impossible explanations and whatever is left must be the truth"

Evolution as currently presented is impossible because it cannot explain its beginnnings nor demonstrate its operation from life to the world we see by its stated but inadequate operative.

When one encounters a prediction with a likelihood on the order of 1/ 10** 1000 or such as Shapiro and other evos have themselves pointed out in every endeavor known to man we should attribute those events happening even once as a suspension of natural law.. a miracle.

This applies not just to the first replicator but to the supposed millions of steps up to the first complex invertebrate of which we have not a whit of explanation, other than worm holes and fairy tales.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,08:45   

Debunking of incredible odds

Evolution separate from abiogenesis

So, which is it with F=ma?  Do the units work with gsubc or don't they?  If they don't, then how do they work when you add in a unitless entity?  Also, how does your example of:

1 lb = 1 lb * 32.2 ft/sec/sec work, considering you have a force on both sides, thus you aren't following the correct equation?

Quote
"Elementary my dear Watson... first one eliminates all the impossible explanations and whatever is left must be the truth"


Do you really want to go down that road?  Do you really think you can eliminate all possible explanations, leaving only god as the final solution?  That's an impossible task, since we can't know what all the possible solutions are.


Alan,
No worries on missing my argument, it's cool.  In fact, it's better than cool, because in that post you've done something that Evopeach would never do, and that is admit that you missed something.  That's a good example of intellectual honesty IMO, and something that Evopeach has been utterly unable to show us.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,09:42   

You mischacteized my statement... typical intellectual dishonesty.

1 lb force = 1 lb mass * 32.2 ft/sec/sec was my showing that one must use a constant of proportionality to get equality and correct answers.

That was your incorrect result in engr units.

So we need a gsubc term in the denominator to get correct units and numbers, its that simple.. why does it evade you?  

1 lb f = 1 lbm * 32.2 ft/sec*2/32.2 lbm ft/lbf sec*2

1 lbf = 1 lbf looking good

now in other sytems one can define the force unit such that gsubc becomes unity and dimensionless as with the newton.


Newton's quoted definition in Sears and Zemansky pg 75 clearly says F is proportional to a ...., the equality can only be inserted when the units are defined and included, period.



1 newton= 1 kg* 1 m/sec*2

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,09:56   

Fox

I never said I knew Shapiro or claimed he was even an acquaintance... what are you talking about.

If He in his utter discouragement with evolutionary theories or explanations for life wants to appeal to Theosophy and the Occult so called Life Force so be it.

It has no basis in fact, no data, no evidence and is just a man-made mystical philosophy.

I has equal creibility with the entirity of evolution... from hydrogen gas to synapse remember?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,11:31   

Quote
I never said I knew Shapiro or claimed he was even an acquaintance... what are you talking about.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,11:37   

Evopeach

Professor Shapiro is not your friend in that he does not support your "arguments". I would stay and engage you in a battle of wits but you appear to be unarmed.

Best wishes
Alan Fox

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,00:58   

Quote
You mischacteized my statement... typical intellectual dishonesty.


You lying sack...

Quote
1 lb force = 1 lb mass * 32.2 ft/sec/sec was my showing that one must use a constant of proportionality to get equality and correct answers.


Just for lying, I will show you how you are wrong.

lb force = lb mass * ft / sec^2

That's how the units are defined.  In standard or metric, your gsubc is unitless as you have defined it, so it is unnecessary in order to make the units match up.

Further,
1 lb mass actually weighs 32.2 lbs force.  You set up an incorrect equation from the start.

So, have I mischaracterized you?  No, I have not.  I pointed out your errors and corrected.  For you to accuse me of being dishonest is beyond the pale, especially since this is all a sidebar way for you to escape the argument that I made in the first place, which you can not answer and you have made that all too clear.  You have NOTHING substantive to offer.  YOU are the liar here, and it is disgusting when you accuse others of it, when I have shown you to be lying multiple times in the course of this one thread.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,04:53   

I have tried to protect your waning intellectual credibility by gently nudging you toward a basic understanding of certain elementary scientific laws. But in your evolutionary hypnotic state, self centered egomania and pitiful ignorance it is sigh perhaps impossible. So in the interest of your colleagues and your community  I must expose your stupidity and apparent dishonesty by posting from one of many possible authoritative sources, in this case Michigan State University and their very fine chemical engineering engineering school.


===============================

http://www.vu.msu.edu/preview/che201/lesson02/glossary.htm

Weight - Weight is the force exerted on an object by gravitational attraction.  The weight of an object can be determined using Newton's second law, as shown below:

W = m . g/gc
Here W represents the weight of the object of mass m, and g represents the acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2 or 32.174 ft/s2).  Based upon this equation, it is easy to see that the weight of a 1 kg mass is 9.81 N, and the weight of 1 lbm is 1 lbf.

Thus the Phd types at MSU confirm absolutely my position and destroy your position in two ways:

gsubc is indeed the term used for porportionality and the units normalization in the equation.


your statement:  "one lb mass  actually weighs 32.2 lbs force" is shown to be utter stupidity and summarily dismissed by the URL material.


Force - Newton's second law of motion states that the force exerted on an object is proportional to the mass of the object times the acceleration produced by the force.  In the SI system of units, the proportionality constant is unity if the applied force is expressed in Newtons, the mass is expressed in kilograms, and the acceleration is expressed in meters per second per second.  In the American Engineering System of units, this proportionality constant is 1/gc.

100% confirmatory of my position and diametrically opposed to yours.... get it moron.

g - The quantity g is the acceleration of gravity.  It has a value of 9.81 m/s2 (32.174 ft/s2) at sea level on Earth.  Its value changes slightly as you change elevation on Earth, and would change dramatically if you were to travel to the moon or to a different planet (for example, g has a value of 5.36 ft/s2 on the moon, and 38.6 ft/s2 on Saturn).

gc - The quantity gc is a constant conversion factor.  Its value does not change as you change locations, it has the same value on the moon as it does on Earth (however 1 lbm will not weigh 1 lbf on the moon).  The quantity gc is best viewed as a conversion factor between two different units for force.

Thats a dagger in you guts you're feeling just now... idiot

Mass - Mass is a simple dimension that describes the quanity of matter in a substance or object.  The units for mass are pound-mass, gram, and kilogram in the American Engineering, CGS, and SI systems of units, respectively

Since this idiot will not apologize, admit his ignorance and persists in calling me a liar while demonstating his incredible stupidity and hubris I urge other hopefully more competent posters to get him off the forum as he is a total embarrassment to the already intellectually vacuous arguments advanced in behalf of evolution.

And you wonder why Phillip Johnson, Behe, Myers, and 400 others publically doubt your theory when its backed up by a team who simply has no grasp of basic scientific laws such as Newton's Laws and SLOT.

A formal apology and a lot of groveling would be in order  for this clown

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,05:10   

To Whom It May Concern:

If you don't like MSU try this from the Univeristy of Texas Petroleum Engineering school.

Although different people look on the force units conversion problem differently, it is perhaps easiest and simplest to consider that we should always write Newton’s Second Law should be written as

F=M*A/gsubc  get it always
(2)
where   is a units conversion factor to convert units of mL/t2 to the desired force unit. (i.e.,   it effectively has units of mL/t2F, even though force is not a fundamental unit.)
In English units, there are two units of mass: the slug and the pound-mass (lbm). There are also two units of force: the pound-force (lbf) and the poundal (pdl). If one pound-mass is accelerated in a standard gravity (a=g=32.1740 ft/s2), the resulting force is one pound-force (lbf). This, in fact, is the definition of the pound-mass.
Therefore, for this case, gc=32.1740 lbm•ft/s2•lbf. If mass is in slugs, then gc=1 slug•ft/s2•lbf. If force is in poundals, gc=1 lbm•ft/s2•pdl or 0.0310810 slug•ft/s2•pdl (0.0310810=1/32.1740). Pounds-mass and poundals are sometimes referred to as a fundamental set of units since gc has a numerical value of one. Slugs and pounds-force are also a fundamental set of units.  


Want more its available

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,07:10   

To everyone except Evopeach:

I think you should leave the poor guy alone to his irrelevant ramblings.  They are hardly a threat to the Law of Evolution.  Everything will become clear to his descendents in time.   :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,07:27   

Captain Midnight,

Nice dodge... but no content just vacuous jargon.

I wouldn't come out in the daylight either if I were you.. just keep whistleing past the GRAVEYARD with your phlogistonite brethren.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,08:00   

Interesting,
So, gc is 1, unless you change the units (not the actual system) and then it becomes some other value, even though the system didn't change, but the result somehow did.  Got it.  Moron.

Lie number 1 from you:
The 2% figure.

Lie number 2 from you:
Quote mine that I pointed out.

Lie number 3 from you:
Misrepresenting my position (multiple times, but I'll give you just one lie for it.)

Lie number 4 from you:
Asserting already debunked Creationist claims.

Lie number 5 from you:
Saying that you did not challenge anyone to look at any text book on modern biology and answer your questions.

Lie number 6 from you:
Saying that Wikipedia backs up your claim when it clearly did not.

Lie number 7 from you:
Falsely claiming scientists are frauds and liars without any evidence.

Also, evasions:
1.  Side bar on F=ma and totally ignoring the reason it was brought up.
2.  Threatening to bring mounds of quotes that were never produced.
3.  Talking nebulously about SLOT, but never backing up why it is a supposed problem for evolution.

I'm sure I could find more, but I'm just going off of memory.

Midnight Voice, I agree with you whole-heartedly.  The only reason I engaged this yahoo was to show that creationists can't make arguments without resorting to distortions, evasions, and outright lies.  I just thought it would be funny, especially with the ironic title of this post.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,08:59   

Poor baby is your little ego so diminished that you can't rationally defend your stupidity any more in the face of the entire US University level of engineering instruction disagreeing 100% with your diatribes?

I mean when 100 percent of my presentation is true and your's is so uncommonly ignorant it must hurt a lot.. though by now I'll bet you're used to losing in any intellectual discussion.

Did it hurt getting it crammed so unequivacably from recognizably irrefutable sources?

Poll from your big time Nature peer reviewed magazine survey to your population as I had suggested was perfectly in line with 2% in context and about 500% different from your estimates.

Nothing vague about SLOT except you haven't the vaguest understanding of the concepts of thermodynamics , physics, math or... come to think of it is there an area of science you understand?

I know how about we play tic tac toe and see if you can manage a tie.

Oh yeah! I teach introduction to logic online at my colllege and I could get you in free as an act of charity.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,11:32   

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 08 2005,13:00)
Interesting,
So, gc is 1, unless you change the units (not the actual system) and then it becomes some other value, even though the system didn't change, but the result somehow did.  Got it.  Moron.

Lie number 1 from you:
The 2% figure.

Lie number 2 from you:
Quote mine that I pointed out.

Lie number 3 from you:
Misrepresenting my position (multiple times, but I'll give you just one lie for it.)

Lie number 4 from you:
Asserting already debunked Creationist claims.

Lie number 5 from you:
Saying that you did not challenge anyone to look at any text book on modern biology and answer your questions.

Lie number 6 from you:
Saying that Wikipedia backs up your claim when it clearly did not.

Lie number 7 from you:
Falsely claiming scientists are frauds and liars without any evidence.

Also, evasions:
1.  Side bar on F=ma and totally ignoring the reason it was brought up.
2.  Threatening to bring mounds of quotes that were never produced.
3.  Talking nebulously about SLOT, but never backing up why it is a supposed problem for evolution.

I'm sure I could find more, but I'm just going off of memory.

Midnight Voice, I agree with you whole-heartedly.  The only reason I engaged this yahoo was to show that creationists can't make arguments without resorting to distortions, evasions, and outright lies.  I just thought it would be funny, especially with the ironic title of this post.

No sweat.  You see I have a secret - I know the truth because I talked to God - and Boy!! is she pissed at you lot!!  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,12:34   

MidnightVoice said:

Quote
You see I have a secret - I know the truth because I talked to God


Did you talk over the phone?  What's the number?  I want to call her up and see if she's free tomorrow night. :)

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,15:44   

GCT and Midnight

I wondered how long it wold take you two, having lost every debate point to date, to resort to blasphemy; as though I would be surprised.

The ignorant, usually resort to the lowest common denominator in even less time.

Fun after 25 years in this debate I just expect the heathen of your movement to behave just that way .. as ignorant heathen.

Looks like you and the other piglets need some time to lick your wounds and regroup af such a through butt kicking as I have delivered.

As for Shapiro, my supposed enemy, his appeal "The Life Force" just puts in good company with Crick, Hoyle and others who having run the numbers (order 10**-40000) on evolutionary hypotheses turn to the occult, science fiction, cultic religious beliefs and such.

I'm with Patterson and Grasse you know... " tell me just one thing that evolution has claimed that has been  demonstrated to be true... just one"

Imagine spending your entire life on a fruitless quest to prove God doesn't exist... what a laughable waste.

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,23:56   

Quote (evopeach @ Aug. 31 2005,10:15)
... and yes I think a global flood is well evidenced in history, tradition, geology and quite explanatory.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

eeeeeh stop it stop it. My stomach hurts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Someone actually believes this? I mean seriously?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Next they'll be telling us the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

aaaah ... this is too much.

Sorry. Don't mean to be rude.

But ... global flood?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,04:32   

Tim,

Thanks for the enlightened, stimulative, mature and clearly well reasoned post.

I always wondered what happened to those kids you grew up breathing the fumes from yellow spray paint.

Now I know.

Of course if you had read The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris ( a Phd who also wrote a few text books used at places like Rice where he also taught, etc.) then we could give you opinion more credibility than the message in a Chinese fortune cookie.

Go home little boy!!!!!!!!!

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,05:16   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 09 2005,09:32)
Of course if you had read The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris ( a Phd who also wrote a few text books used at places like Rice where he also taught, etc.) then we could give you opinion more credibility than the message in a Chinese fortune cookie.

I'm sorry, who?

Henry Morris, Phd?

Tell me, is this the same Henry Morris who said in his farcical book The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, ; "As far as distant stars and galaxies are concerned, there is no evidence either in science or Scripture, that any of them have planets."

As early as 1984, astronomers discovered that dark clouds of matter which obscured distant stars were indeed planets. Since that date 20 years ago, the Hubble telescope, through direct observation, has identified that around half of the one hundred or so stars observed so far in the Orion nebula alone have planets orbiting them. Source

Direct confirmation of a planet in another system has been made by independent astronomers in 1999, orbiting the star Pegasus 51. NASA and Berkeley

Is this also the same Henry Morris, Phd, who has failed time and again to deny the Bible's geocentrism. The Bible refers to the earth as the centre of the universe, which goes to show how poor a basis for scientific fact it actually is. Henry Morris, Phd, has tried and failed to deny this fact. Source

If you believe Henry Morris' gibberings which have been proven false, it's no wonder you believe there was a flood.

A big, Global flood.

Hmph. Ahahahaha.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"Move along folks, nothing to see"

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,05:56   

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 08 2005,17:34)
MidnightVoice said:

Quote
You see I have a secret - I know the truth because I talked to God


Did you talk over the phone?  What's the number?  I want to call her up and see if she's free tomorrow night. :)

I am keeping that to myself.  She is hot  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,06:37   

Quote (MidnightVoice @ Sep. 09 2005,10:56)

I am keeping that to myself.  She is hot  :D

Hey MV, I hear she's got enough "love" for all of us. :p

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,06:52   

Tiny Tim,

In what forum would like me to arrange a debate ay my 100% expense between Dr. Morris and you on geology, hydrology or the correct interpretation of scriptural comment?

Yes turd head I'll pay for it gladly.

Give me the exact textual references to your assertions or stick them up your b___and please stick to the subject which was evidence for a global flood.. red herrings  are logical fallicies.. oops that's you sewer peoples stock in trade.. fallacies and personal attacks.

Go home before you get thumped little boy

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,07:44   

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 09 2005,11:37)
Quote (MidnightVoice @ Sep. 09 2005,10:56)

I am keeping that to myself.  She is hot  :D

Hey MV, I hear she's got enough "love" for all of us. :p

I'm greedy.  And I was naturally selected for a conversation.  It might evolve into something more serious.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2005,08:12   

Quote
I'm greedy.  And I was naturally selected for a conversation.  It might evolve into something more serious.  

Hmmm, I can't beat that.  You win.  I'm gonna be ready to swoop in if it doesn't work out though.  I can handle being a rebound. :)

  
MDPotter



Posts: 12
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2005,08:15   

Evo you present a reason your posts should be ignored right from the get-go:

1) The average well educated Joe or Jill over a large age range has an instant dislike for peole who display the arrogance, elitism and self congratulatory attitudes and behaviors exhibited daily here and throughtout the evolutionist community. It hurts the cause of your team when people demean, attack and belittle people who they disagree with and discredit their credentials,abilities and accomplishments in outrageous and demonstrably inaccurate polemics....Your open, unreasoned, vitriolic hostility toward anyone, no matter how credible their credentials, work and experience who disagrees the slightest bit with the standard evolutionary dogma is, I asure you,  anathema to the great majority of fair minded, well reasoned Americans.

Your own vitriol, hostility and arrogance, self-congratulatory attitude, elitism, etc are obvious and apparent throughout this thread. You are the prime exemplar of that which you protest and you have been hoisted by your own petard.
By your own definition you are not worthy of consideration.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2005,11:48   

How revealing,

The egomaniacs who make up the evolutionary community are of course primarily interested in demonstrating the superiority of their intellect by whatever means whether friend or foe the name of the game is

I am the master of my fate... blah blah blah

God is a figment of your imagination

Look at me ... I am so smart

I assure you my interest is about the issue at hand and I don't care about having gained anyones approval.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2005,08:19   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 14 2005,16:48)
The egomaniacs who make up the evolutionary community are of course primarily interested in demonstrating the superiority of their intellect by whatever means

Sorry old bean, but you are a tad in error here.  The majority of those supporting evolutionary theory are primarily interested in keeping religion out of science classes and keeping it in religous education classes; and in demonstrating the validity of the Law of Evolution.  Most of them have read their history books, and know that the earth is not flat, the sun does go around the earth, the solar system is not at the center of the universe and the earth was not created in 6 days.

And furthermore, many of them believe in a God of some description, and are members of one of the mainstream religous groups.  It is mainly in America that a minority cult of Christians has a problem with science, and I partly blame the lack of a good educational system for that.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2005,11:10   

PLease enlighten me as to a few people in the ID or IC movement who hold that the earth is flat, etc.

Otherwise I might conclude you are just another clown throwing up meaingless red herrings.

Just waht is the LAW of evolution since its never been described as a such before.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4060
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2005,19:03   

The closest thing to a "law of evolution" that I can think of offhand is simply that a complex organism is descended from previous nearby organisms functionally very similar to itself.

There's also the principle that extensive similarity in nonadaptive features (such as DNA sequences) implies copying from a common source, which would be presumed to be an earlier organism (i.e., an ancestor).

That's my 2 cents on the question; but of course a trained biologist might have other ideas.

Henry

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2005,04:40   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 16 2005,16:10)
PLease enlighten me as to a few people in the ID or IC movement who hold that the earth is flat, etc.

Otherwise I might conclude you are just another clown throwing up meaingless red herrings.

Just waht is the LAW of evolution since its never been described as a such before.

I was merely putting creationism in a historical context - religion usuaally fights science in certain areas, and eventually accepts reality.

Evolution is as close to a Biological Law as gravity is a physical.  It is a Law in the sense that it is accepted as accurate, and no one with valid scientific credentials suggests otherwise.  It is merely that some of the mechanisms are theories.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2005,07:52   

Actually you were shouting nonsense. If you think every one in the ID and IC movement are without scientific credentials then you are totally ignorant and apparently can't even read your own literature.

I suggest a good read of Doubting Darwin might enlighten you to the calliber of people who have grave problems with evolution and particularly mutation and natural selection.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2005,13:13   

Evopeach wrote:
Quote
I suggest a good read of Doubting Darwin might enlighten you to the calliber of people who have grave problems with evolution and particularly mutation and natural selection.


It isn't about the "calliber" of people, it is about the substance of their claims.  For example, you can have the best sports team on paper, but if they don't win any games, they're obviously not the best team.  Since these people are of such a high "calliber," Where is the research in the scientific journals?  Where is the Theory of Intelligent Design?  How does the non-cultic, intellectual and rational side you're on explain where the "broken" vitamin-C gene in humans and chimpanzees originated?  Coffee on the blueprints?

You're in here demanding to know how helium turned into a human brain.  While someone could sit you down and explain this to you, Richard Dawkins' "Cosmos" series is a start.  I want to know HOW a lump of clay, rib, magic reed, or the urine and excrement of the gods turned into a human brain, you know, like what processes were involved and how the 2nd law of thermodynamics applied.

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,04:12   

Saddlehorn,

First I think you meant Carl Sagan not Dawkins but ignorance of your own position is commonplace with your crowd.

What you mean is that someone could spin a just so story totallt fictional without a scintilla of observed or experimentally demonstrated evidence that chemical predestination or some variant is the way it happened.

Of course when one of your team tells us we can't understand the processes at the time of the big bang because all the known laws of math and physics break down at a singularity point.. that's just hunky dory... yet you insist on a detailed explanation of the Creative Processes of God at the beginning of time, space and matter.

Your psychobabble is rather boring.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,05:53   

Yes, I meant Carl Sagan billion.  Thank you for the response, although none of them were answers to any questions.  I answered your question, I'd appreciate it if you'd have answered mine.  Once again you've failed to provide anything that even resembles a response.  Considering that you are undoubtedly using English as a second language, your responses are still incoherent garbage.  

You said you have two engineering degrees, but you don't have a phD in metallurgy do you?  Coming here and making baseless challenges with your level of education would be like me taking an arc welding course at a local community college and proclaiming to know as much as you about engineering.  Are you aware of how stupid you look when you issue "challenges" to evolution an area in which you have ZERO expertise?

I guarantee that you know things I don't know.  I guarantee  that you are knowledgeable about things on which many of the brilliant posters on Panda's Thumb know next to nothing.  But they have the same edge on you, this IS their area of expertise, they aren't some troll schlepp with a Master's degree in engineering, they are scientists.

For an idea as to how bad your English is, this guys writing sounds ALOT like yours are you the same person?

James Randi Challenge Applications

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,09:11   

Once again your posts are just spittle and dribble from an illogical mind.

First the overlap between most so called science degrees and engineering degrees is about 90% in any college catalog you care to examine. For my part I have more math and physics than 95% of the Biology Phd's in the universe.

You might try examining the credentials of Phillip Johnson  ( a lawyer) which according to  Monod and other honest evolutionists has prepared himself to the 99%th percentile in evolutionary principals.

Of course the idea that only specialists in a narrow field can be knowledgeable and have the right to debate comes from the far left union mentality... I'll bet you're a Gore Man... the most counter-productive mentality in the history of the country.

I suppose that guy Da Vinci should have stuck to one area like painting or architecture and not ventured off into those other fields of science .... what a moron.

Now before you grade my paper .. try thinking of a logical statement instead of form over substance and pure newspeak.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,09:34   

Ok I am making a logical statement from a Biblical literalists perspective.  I am making a prediction wearing my "Bible glasses" as Ken Ham told me to do.  In the Bible story of the Tower of Babel, people were able to climb up the tower and esentially watch what God was doing several thousand years ago.  If you could do it then, you could do it now.  I predict that we will be able to build a tower into heaven and see what God is doing.

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,10:29   

Unfortunately, I have to correct your erroneous impression of Genesis because there is no statement concerning the actual possibility that the tower would have given the Sinarians an ability to discover God's thoughts or actions... though they might have had such vain imaginings.

If you were to spend say fifteen minutes at the following website you would discover two perspectives on the passage in context:

http://www.ldolphin.org/babel.html


One by Lambert Dolphin a retired physicist and senior scientist at SRI in Menlo Park and another by a respected theologian and teacher Ray Stedman.

Of course despite their academic credentials in science and the bible you will judge them idiots and morons... but maybe just maybe for once your camp would at least have a modicum of understandng that there is considerable scholarship behind certain positions taken by such and once the cartoon vision of such people is dispensed with one can see a logical point of view.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,10:55   

God, this is a sad little blogsite. What purpose is served by responding to the drivel served up by Evopeach?

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2005,12:56   

One of the guy writes Balel is a related word in Hebrew meaning "confusion."  This sounds like those Nostradamus interpreters talking about Mabus being George W Bush, see if you flip the M and make this letter silent, yadda yadda yadda.  Any site that speaks of, "this happened so many years after the Flood" probably isn't reliable when it comes to the tower of Babel either.  Seeing as there is ZERO evidence for a global flood.

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2005,03:59   

Alan and Saddle,

AS I said when you or Sagan or Chaisson can elucidate anything less than a thinly veiled form of mysticism without even a shread of evidence of any kind explaining how helium became the human brain by chance and/or chemical predestination then we have a basis for a rational discussion.

Your ignorance concerning evidence for a global flood is appalling but then I forgot you wouldn't read broadly of other peoples academically based views .. it might prove unsettling to learn you don't have all the answers.

Try "The Genesis Flood" by Dr. Henry Morris for one source. Of course he only has a Phd in Civil Engineering and Geology/Hydrology, wrote the textbook on same for Virginia Poly and taught at Rice Univ for many years etc. But then what would he know compared to two banana heads like you.

As for people who think the bible is a fairy tale it actually helps to have scholars who master the original language to elucidate the most factual understanding.

Again anyone who believes helium is tranformed to the human brain by some form of magic has gall to attack alternate explanations.

Remember your entire theory rests on the efficacy of just that proposition.

Evopeach

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2005,06:27   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 22 2005,15:55)
What purpose is served by responding to the drivel served up by Evopeach?

I had come to a similar conclusion  :)

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2005,08:54   

roflmao...."The Genesis Flood"......sighs....

   
Weevil



Posts: 6
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2005,23:40   

>>Again anyone who believes helium is tranformed to the human brain by some form of magic has gall to attack alternate explanations.

That's funny, I thought that was YOUR claim - God went *poof* and made the human brain all at once - sounds a LOT more like magic to me than the simple rules of evolution. Once again you're guilty of putting up a straw man - The Theory of Evolution deals with living things ONLY, not the creation of life or certainly not the creation of the universe.  You've been told that often enough, you are deliberately continuing to try and confuse the issue.

>>Remember your entire theory rests on the efficacy of just that proposition.

Funny again, I thought the theory rested on literally millions of bits of data, gleaned from many different sources and disciplines, from the fossil record to studies and experiments in astronomy, physics, geology, chemistry, gene sequencing, taxonomy.. I could go on all night!  I defy you to post a link by any current evolutionist that claims that 'magically transforming helium into the human brain' is a part of Evolutionary Theory.

I've always considered myself pretty open-minded. A strong christian, I've even spent a couple of years as a minister. I've been spending the past couple of weeks reading hundreds of pages on both sides of the debate, perfectly willing to read the evidence that each side presents, and more importantly, to follow up the references and quotes cited.

Having read articles by Behe, Dembski, yours, and several of the other pro-creation or ID pages, then compared them to what the pro-evolutionists say about your 'arguments', I can only assume that pro-ID  'Christians' are ALL liars and charlatans.

YOU have continually misrepresented the amazingly patient posters.  YOU have been caught in outright lies and admitted fabrications of data (like that 2% figure earlier), YOU have refused to supply any of the evidence asked of you at any time, while the evolution proponents have provided just about anything you asked for - if you were able to ask for it coherently, which hasn't happened often. YOU have refused to answer simple questions when you were repeatedly pressed for a straight answer.

Are you an example of a 'Christian' who believes that the bible is correct in all things?  You've brought up straw men, moved the goalposts, taken quotes out of context, called the other posters some amazingly rude and uncalled-for names, refused to answer simple and direct questions, refused to provide sources that you said you had, changed the subject, confused the issue, and been caught flat out -lying- and -making up- statistics!

Not once have you presented any sort of competing theory that explains even 1% of what so many peer-reviewed studies from many disciplines have synthesized together into 'The Theory of Evolution'.  Not once have you presented anything that actually throws even a shadow of a doubt over evolution as a well-researched and 'proven' theory.

With you as an example of a christian and a creationist, I can certainly see why no one wants you teaching your 'theory' to any children they have any say over!  

After your sterling example on this thread, I wouldn't trust you with my money, my children, my wife, or certainly my immortal soul.  You're not just a liar, you're an OBVIOUS liar, a bad one, and apparently a pathological one.

The only thing you've 'proven' that I can see in this thread is that you're guilty of every single fault you accuse the pro-evolution folks of - and more!

I'd be ashamed to be called a Christian, with you as an example of the values they actually *live*, as opposed to just claiming.  For shame!  Such hypocrisy!  I'd almost assume that you were an athiest working on the side of satan, you give such a bad example of true christian values.  I want to go wash my hands after just posting on the same bulletin board, much less actually *touching* you.

That's all I have to say - Feel free to go back to your unsubstantiated ranting and transference of your own faults onto others.

It's patently obvious just which side has successfully defended itself and shown Intellectual Honesty in this thread.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2005,06:07   

Weevil,

Which Church of Satanic Worship did you pastor?

As for your obvious multiple psychoses I can only recommend years of intense therapy as you obviously don't have any mental stability jumping from some form of ministry into atheism.

The world of evolution when confronted with abysimal failure in explaining anything experimentally or by evidence has retreated from origins, abiogenesis and pre-biotic evolution for survival.

The most prominent scientist I am aware of is Chaisson at Tufts, an unquestioned scientific giant in the field with a library of publications and books on the subject.
If you think he fails to believes that a cogent and uncompromised holding to big bang to right now as the specturm of evolution then you sir are a moron.

If you can't follow the logic from the big bang to the human brain by reading just that source among hundreds then you are too mentally deficient to be permitted out in public.

You sir are a whore and a shill for the evolutionist sewer people  so I leave it to God to judge between those who hate the Scripture, His revelation and pervert the truth to fit their humanistic self centered egocentrism and people who defend it.

In fact it would be interesting to know who wrote your anathema to truth as what bothers this tribe the most is that they can't logically and persuasively counter my arguments .. so they just attack me and my belief system while committing every logical fallacy known to man.

You need not be ashamed of my faith et al just go back to Pastor Anton and kill a few goats and drink their blood, have sex with some dogs and you'll feel you usual fine self.

  
MDPotter



Posts: 12
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2005,06:56   

Wow!
Evo you are the king of hateful rhetoric, truly stunning.
God must be so proud of that which he has wrought in creating you, eh?
You didn't insult his mother yet, maybe in a future post?
Whore and a shill though, good ones!
Sex with dogs! Awesome!

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2005,07:44   

Do not cast pearls before swine lest they turn and rend your flesh.

After 25 years of insults from the evolutionary community against me and anyone else who dares to disagree with sacred evolutionry theory I simply expect pagqans to act like pagans and I have no respect of any kind for them. They have spent their lives attempting to destroy peoples faith in everything religious and Christian by undermining the efficacy of the Scriptures.

Their position is so ludicrous and without foundation that it takes 10,000 people a day monitoring their apostates and redefining terms and reinterptreting the record and monitoring the opposition  just to keep this tub afloat.

See: http://www.discovery.org/scripts....%20News

  
Weevil



Posts: 6
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2005,15:58   

[Warning, this one's a bit long!]

My my Evopeach, such vituperation!  Whatever happened to 'Turn the other cheek' and 'Blessed are the peacemakers'?  Or does all that go by the wayside if you aren't getting what you want? 'Thou shalt not bear false witness' seems to have been dropped long, long ago.

Multiple psychoses - any actual evidence to back that up besides 'he called me out on my lies'?  Nah, why should you start now?

The world of evolution when confronted with abysimal failure in explaining anything experimentally or by evidence has retreated from origins, abiogenesis and pre-biotic  evolution.

One more time - Abiogenesis or anything that happened before life began is NOT a part of the Theory of Evolution.  it was never a part of the theory. Evolution deals with life and how populations and species change over time.  If you can find statements to show otherwise, PLEASE post links to them.  Natural Selection is part of the Theory of Evolution.  Common Descent is part of the Theory of Evolution.  Mendaelian genetics is part of the Theory of Evolution.  Abiogenesis and the Big Bang aren't!  If you can show evidence to the contrary, please do so.  If you think just saying it over and over again is going to make it true, you're only showing your own ignorance.  To continue to make incorrect claims about what the theory is is what is known as a Straw Man Argument.


If you think he (Chaisson at Tufts) fails to believes that a cogent and uncompromised holding to big bang to right now as the specturm of evolution then you sir are a moron

If you're trying to say that one man's beliefs set the standard for the ToE, you show that once again you don't understand what a scientific theory is.  Might I suggest that you slow down and recheck your work, to be sure that your sentances at least make some sort of grammatical sense?  That last sentance was full of enough errors as to make it very difficult to read by anyone who doesn't read fluent gibberish.  (Go ahead, attack me for correcting your grammar - right after you clearly explain why that sentance ISN'T a grammatical nightmare.)

Also, Eric Chaisson is an astrophysicist, NOT a biologist.  It's no wonder his work deals with speculation about the beginnings of the universe!  After looking at a list of all of his published papers, it becomes obvious that his work has almost nothing to do with biological evolution, and everything to do with the beginnings and growth of the universe.  You are being entirely disingenious to try and say his work has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution.  Once again you are being dishonest in your arguments.  Should I be suprised?  'The most prominent scientist you know' doesn't appear to be a biologist, nor does he appear to work in the field of evolution. 'An unquestioned giant in the field', forsooth!  In the field of astrophysics!  Did you not think I'd catch that?

By the way, here's a quote from him on the first page of his 'Cosmic Evolution' page: Biologists no longer have any reasonable doubt that biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.  What exactly are you trying to show me here?  Apparently, he agrees with the pro-evolution side of the argument.

Here are some links to the real definition of 'evolution' as it related to life and biology - do please show me where it includes the Big Bang and Abiogenesis.

>>Dictionary.com: n : (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals.

>>Mirriam-Webster Online: n a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

>>Britannica Online: theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.

>>Cambridge Online: evolution : noun :
the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years, or a gradual process of change and development:


>>American Heritage Dictionary: NOUN: 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development. 2a. The process of developing. b. Gradual development. 3. Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

Do I need to offer more?  Notice that all of these definitions from the major dictionaries are about change in populations of living organisms.  None of them deal with how life began, nor do any of them deal with the beginnings of the universe.  Those topics aren't part of the theory any more than electrical current or the behavior of sound in water is part of Gravitational Theory.

The only thing the Theory of Evolution has to say about the beginning of life is that all creatures on earth today and in the fossil record appear to be descended from a common ancestor, far enough back in history that we have no concrete evidence of the lifeform itself, and must make our extrapolations from the genetic and fossil records.

Certainly science speculates about the origin of life and the universe, but (especially in the case of abiogenesis) those are hypotheses at best, and seperate from the established ToE.  'Cosmic Evolution' is NOT the Theory of Evolution.  DO try to keep up, won't you?  The Theory of Evolution is a very specific theory here, constantly claiming that it involves things that it doesn't makes you look ... Uninformed at best.

You sir are a whore and a shill for the evolutionist sewer people  so I leave it to God to judge between those who hate the Scripture, His revelation and pervert the truth to fit their humanistic self centered egocentrism and people who defend it.

And your evidence that I'm a whore or a shill?  Let me guess, you made it up AGAIN?  My evidence that you lie is obvious, you were caught making up statistics in this very thread, and here you are again making accusations that you cannot know the truth of or provide any real evidence for.

You have an astonishing (and astonishingly crude) amount to say for someone who's leaving it up to God to do the judging.  It looks very much to me like you've done a good deal of judging on your own - but your dearth of honesty has already been well-demonstrated.  

As seems always to be the case in this argument, one side is willing to explain exactly where and how they got their information, and how it relates to the subject at hand.  The other side is much too busy making up accusations out of whole cloth, making claims without evidence, and trying to change the subject.   I note you are doing your best to attack me rather than my argument - that your own actions have shown you to be dishonest.  So many of your accusations in your last post are so obviously unsubstantiated, I don't have to present any more arguments. Your own words speak quite plainly for themselves.

I have 'logically and persuasively' shown that you are a liar, that many of your arguments about evolution aren't even a part of evolutionary theory, and that your most recent source (once again) is neither what you claim he is, nor is he in agreement with you.  And I did it without calling you any names or accusing you of any activities that you haven't clearly displayed right here first.  But you're the 'true christian', right?  riiiight.

Can you deal with the subject of the thread, or will you once again attack me over things you know nothing about instead?  I know where I'd put MY money, if I were a gambling man.

Weevil
-The lesser of TWO weevils!

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2005,04:13   

You accuse me of lying without a scintilla of factual presentation just assertions.. laughable.

Your ignornace of Chaisson and Sagan and even Darwin ( remember the warm little pond was his statement on abiogenesis in his book) is pathetic. See to dismiss that makes you a big,big liar and your heros words are undeniable, period.

Chaisson is Director of the Wright Institute a scientific consortium with international reach involving colleagues in every scientific disclipline imaginable and perhaps the foremost guiding agency directing public science education in the country.

Chaissons encyclopedic grasp of the life sciences,physics, math, biology in addition to astophysics is well known and his many national and international awards are testamony to that.

You're just the typical cannibal eating your own when they fail to tow the mark of revisionism.. typical.

Of course your claim of one man's views are laughable since Crick, Grassee, Shapiro, Hubble and many others have spent years trying to make a continuous spectrum of logic from origin of life to right now.. all without success.

Thank God there are people in varied fields of science which have wide ranging knowlwdge and intellects capable of making significant contributions to same rather than the myopic biologists who bluster without foundation.

Biology is one of the narrowest of all fields of study except for the psuedo science of paleontology which of course is so important to the evolution myths.

Shame on you for being such an inverterate liar.. probably congenially.

Heluim to Cerebral Cortex by a random walk ... I'd hate to have that intellectual disconnect as the basis of my world view... pitiful.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2005,08:06   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 28 2005,09:13)
Biology is one of the narrowest of all fields of study

Now that is an interesting concept!!

And one that displays a truly staggering lack of understanding of understanding of education, the world, and the English language.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Henry J



Posts: 4060
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2005,08:42   

Biology narrow? Let's see, biologists have millions of species to deal with. Chemists have 116 elements (last I heard) and their compounds. Particle physicists have quarks and leptons and their combinations. Which one is "narrow"? :)

Henry

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2005,11:55   

Please, I just reviewed the standard curriculum at a major 4-yr university in Micro Biology:

Highest Math required  Calulus I for Business and Social Humanities

Physics 4 hours of Intro to physics

Chemistry General and Organic  7 hrs

Micro biology and BbIology and Zoology  35 hrs

History Poly Science, English History of Science etc 60 hrs


Arts and Science and Engineering Degrees require in my case math past Diff Eq through Complex Var and Vector Analysis, 30 hrs of physics, Gen Chem and PhyChem, Thermo, Heat Trfr, Fluid Mech, Electrical Science, Electronics, Material Science on and on in additio to the soft stuff.

85 percent of Biology is one narrow focus on plants and animals from a hueristic non mathmatical view.

For a group who have egos that fill the solar system their technical training outside of dissecting frogs is quite elementary.

  
Weevil



Posts: 6
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2005,13:59   

You accuse me of lying without a scintilla of factual presentation just assertions.. laughable.

No, I accuse you for several reasons, easily documented from this very thread.

1>  your '2%' argument, of which the best evidence for that number was this reply:

Surely whether 5 or 7% among scientists and life scientists even believe in God as a metaphysical being,....not even the Judeo Christian God of the bible one could reason that no more than a fraction of that percentage would associate God's creative and guiding activity with their evolutionary views thus 2% is more than generous.

You MADE UP that 2% number. 'Surely 2% is more than generous' is your opinion, *NOT* supported by any evidence you've ever been able to produce.  Your response as quoted is clear admittance that you made up the number yourself!

2> You called me a whore, a shill, and asserted that I had multiple psychoses, all without any evidence whatsoever.  Unless you can present any real evidence, you are revealed as a liar, sir.  Just as with the last reply, I have presented clear evidence that you are lying.  Do you even understand the difference between truth and a lie?  Do you realise that 'Intellectual Honesty' includes not making up statistics on the fly?

Your ignornace of Chaisson and Sagan and even Darwin ( remember the warm little pond was his statement on abiogenesis in his book) is pathetic.

Darwin's musings are NOT part of the scientific Theory of Evolution.  Continually attempting to conflate anything the man ever said with a specific published and documented theory is dishonest.  How many times have I reminded you that I am discussing specifically the Theory of Evolution itself?  Trying to say that Darwin's musing are part of the specific Theory is a lie.  

You go on to say lots of things about Chaisson - NONE of which have anything to do with biologic evolution. - Where he does mention it, he appears to feel that it is an unarguable, well-researched fact.  I see you've ignored that once again.  You can blow hot air all you like, but every time you're asked to respond to a specific statement, you fail.  When you're told that your quote isn't part of the theory you're trying to denigrate, you change the subject to Chaisson.  

When I show that, not only does Chaisson agree with the evolutionists and not you, but he's an astrophysicist and not a biologist, and that his 'cosmic evolution' doesn't have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution, you just repeat yourself and gab on about how wonderful he is - without answering the specific points I raised in contention.

85 percent of Biology is one narrow focus on plants and animals from a hueristic non mathmatical view.
Well DUH! My god!  You're kidding?!  Biology is focused on plants and animals?!  Here I thought all along that the main focus of biology was Penne, Spaghetti, and Linguini.  My mistake.  You've positively skewered me with your brilliant logic, sir!

As I guessed, you have failed to respond to any of the specifics of my last post. 'I'm rubber, you're glue!' is about as childish as it gets, but I see you're not afraid to go there.

Once again, I've presented very specific evidence of your dishonesty, and you have failed to address any of it.  Until you can manage that, I see no need to waste my time any further.  Your words stand as a testament to your dishonesty for all to see.  Thank you for a lovely discussion, and for being true to the standard of 'christian' creationists everywhere.

Weevil
-The lesser of TWO weevils

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,04:39   

Actually the 2% is quite a good figure since it was about 500% closer as shown by the survey I presented from Science magazine than the some 37% your team presented. And if you had any mathmatical training beyond grammer school you would know that the survey had a statistical uncertainty of +- 3% which coincidentally includes my number and theirs.

Your stupidity is illustrative of biologists who think they know it all when they are neophytes outside their limited area of expertise.

If Darwins own words are not part of his theory, written as an absolute precursor to his theory, then why have billions been spend in the last 100 years on the agiogenesis/origin of life investigation by some of the most prominent biologists, all of whom were/are evolutionists.

AS for Chaisson your denigration of his work and saying he is a dedicated evolutionist but not a real one because he is not a biologist is laughable... you are a clown you know. Of course he is an evolutionist from A to Z and thats the point moron. He knows it is a logical disconnect and an intellectually untenable position to attempt to disassociate the origin of life from non-life from the argument.

You people are temporarily trying to revise history until you think you have resolved the origin of life problem and then you will jump in with both feet yelling the final problem has been solved.. God is Dead.

If evolution works only on life then why was Kenyon's book on Chemical Predestination the classic text used in Biology curriculum for a decade? Of course Kenyon himself has long given up on the posssibiity of abiogenesis as a possibility.

Your position:

I have no idea how life was started and it doesn't matter because it had to be naturalistic ... I just assume it happened without a scintilla of evidence to support it and a great deal against it. (And you call that science)

I have no basis for my theory of evolution as to the enabling mechanism of replication, the genetic code, the complex molecules necessary for the simplest imaginable life form on which my theory and its mechanism of random mutation and natural selection could act. I just don't think about that .. I just assume somehow it happened.

My kind of science mostly rests on unproved assumptions without experiemental evidence, in the face of phantasmagorically negative mathmatical probability because once that is assumed I can then extrapolate the assumption to explain the entire natual world and its operations.

I have no problem with a scientific world view whose entire foundation is unproved, undemonstrated, mathmatically impossible and rails against established scientific laws. In fact I embrace it against all odds and vehemently oppose any explanation other than mine which is no explanation at all but just an assumption.

I would rather have any answer than one which was not completely naturalistic.

Now go away wirehead and get at least an elementary understanding of math, science and logic  before you come back for another round of me kicking your butt and publically exposing you as an incompetent moron.

I feel badly at times that I have had to shove your arguments up your nose and so totally disgrace you that you have to whimper and sob and beg for support from your backbenchers.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,05:42   

Hmmmm

Annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion. Repeatedly being annoying will be considered excessively annoying.
:Excessively annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion to such a degree that immediate termination of access is warranted or demanded.

:D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,06:04   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,09:39)
Your position:

I have no idea how life was started and it doesn't matter because it had to be naturalistic ... I just assume it happened without a scintilla of evidence to support it and a great deal against it. (And you call that science)

I have no basis for my theory of evolution as to the enabling mechanism of replication, the genetic code, the complex molecules necessary for the simplest imaginable life form on which my theory and its mechanism of random mutation and natural selection could act. I just don't think about that .. I just assume somehow it happened.

My kind of science mostly rests on unproved assumptions without experiemental evidence, in the face of phantasmagorically negative mathmatical probability because once that is assumed I can then extrapolate the assumption to explain the entire natual world and its operations.

I have no problem with a scientific world view whose entire foundation is unproved, undemonstrated, mathmatically impossible and rails against established scientific laws. In fact I embrace it against all odds and vehemently oppose any explanation other than mine which is no explanation at all but just an assumption.

I would rather have any answer than one which was not completely naturalistic.

I've been reading this thread for a few days, and just had a couple of points to make to evopeach.

1. You seem to have described ID rather than biological evolution, in being an unproven assumption with no evidence to support it.

2. If you are in fact describing biological evolution, and in light of your previous comments, then I can only assume that you are a shamefully ignorant lying fool of the first degree.

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,06:14   

I too am bored but only because it is boring to present a silver bullet agrument that is countered by:

We don't have to deal with that. We just DEFINE it as unimportant and unnecessary and not pertinent.

We don't have to have a sound logical basis for our bedrock assumptions, demonstrate efficacy, scientifi experimental results that support our assumptions or question the compatibility of our assumtions with mathmatical reality and known physical laws.

When an entire body of true believers is in a state of dysfunction and denial its simply impossible to carry on an intellectual discussion.

In your case there must be a lot helium in your head than grey matter... is that what you mean by differential rates of evolution.

Time to move on and continue my search for someone in some evo forum who's up to the task of a challenge ... because they're sure not in this preschool forum.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,08:20   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,11:14)
When an entire body of true believers is in a state of dysfunction and denial its simply impossible to carry on an intellectual discussion.

Perfect description of the proponents of ID and creationism!

But eventually they will be cured, as America slowly matures and joins the rest of the world.  This particular minor cult will then go the way of the flat earthers.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,09:51   

I suggest history records that spontaneous generation, phlogiston and other theories equally as absurd as evolution have come and gone, not without their Priestleys, but gone just the same, while biblical faith has been sustained and covered the globe for 2,000 years without the slightest sign of being diminished.

In due course the the American people will insist on a broader view of the possible explanations of life and the approach to development of new scientific advances that is most efficient and is forward looking rather than one which expends half its effort examing the past and attemping to destroy the "cult" of Christianity and religious faith in general.

I know the evolutionary tribe of wireheads and squirrels think they have a handle on all knowledge, being so superior to everyone else but history records a noted lack of success from such .. a little while and they are silenced.

You keep right on believing that helium gas became a human brain by "a random walk through animal space" - R. Dawkins............very sound thinking.

As for teh rest of the world if you read widely you would know that Darwinian evolution is even less believed by scientists outside the USA than inside... but that would be over your head.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,10:39   

Evopeach:  I really don't see how anything you do/say is in any way inspired by the teachings of Jesus.  I am a lifelong Evangelical Lutheran, and you sir give rational Christians a bad name.  I don't see what your incoherent parroting of various IDC arguments against YOUR OWN IMAGINARY strawman of the ToE does to further anyones cause.  Many more Christians have no problem with evolution than those that do.  The only person I know of that went to he ll (vulgarity filters), was Jesus.  Who else went to he ll that you know of?

   
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2005,11:34   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,14:51)
As for teh rest of the world if you read widely you would know that Darwinian evolution is even less believed by scientists outside the USA than inside... but that would be over your head.

You really have no clue at all, do you?

I live in the UK, and I can categorically assure you that just about every last person in the country has a good long laugh at your fundies when we hear about them trying to push America back to the 5th century AD.

Now, would you like me to pass you another straw to cling on to?

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,05:17   

Saddle let me help you. its true I lose my temper with posters who are committed to evolution and not to the faith.

Until age 25 I was just complacent and ignorant of the depth, scholarship, untimate truths and absolute importance of the scriptures for revelation, guidance and practical living in addition to the salvation and evangelical aspects.

Then I began attending a series of studies on Proverbs by Dr. Bruce Waltke Phd in Hebrew and Senitic Studies Harvard Divinity School. After that I spend many hours under similar distinguished teachers and a lot of my personal time.

I made a conscious informed choice to take scripture literally except of course where it clearly and explicitly allegorical, metaphorical etc. and it is my expereince that this is made clear by the scripture itself.

I do not know except the "rich man" anyone who is in #### for sure thats not my decision or I don't have a need to know.

I am curious how one deals with the words of Jesus and continues to be able to have faith and confidence  in His proclamations and His message of atonement and salvation or why one would be an evangelical if He was sometimes truthful and sometimes not.

"As is was in the days of Noah they were marrying and giving in marriage and the flood came and took them all away".

"So as sin entered into the world by one man and by death by sin...."

He talks in many passeages about the reality of eternal punishment as the penalty for rejection of Him and Hiis salvation.

If I had a friend who sometimes told the truth , sometimes lied and misrepresented, was often untruthful I would consider it an irrational position for me to try to guess what to believe and what not to believe and still put my full confidence on matters of life and death in their pronouncements.

I believe against the words of men who are almost always changing, wavering, unsubstantial and motivted by various human fraility and failure no matter how so called smart they are that unless they are consistent with the scriptural revealed truth they will be proven incorrect.

Now will come the spewing of invective but I expect it; its alway from people who have never made a serious and scholarly examination with the input from qualified teachers of the scriptures.

I would appreciate knowing how you reconcile clear and unambiguous teaching with your committment to evolution which is always in opposition to the Word and among its majority true believers belittles and held in derision.

What persentage of the evolutionary community believes in the God of the Bible, the Apostle's Creed, the essential tenets of Biblical faith?

I know why I believe as I do and its not some leap of irrational faith.. its the result of 25 years of scholarly study and instruction by Phd level teachers from prominent universities and my own reading. In the context of these posts I will put my academic training in the broad spectrum of things scientific, mathmatical and technical up against any of these know it all biologists, zoololgists and paleontologists ... I've examined their curricula and its both narrow and lacking in many many of the core classes I have taken.

"The survival of the fittest" isn't exactly a precise mathmatical, quantitative, measurable theoretical statement in the category of E=MC**2 now is it.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,05:54   

Evopeach,
Is the 6 day creation story literal or allegorical?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,07:40   

First the post was dierected to Saddle and I await her answer.

There is of course some internal debate as to the six day creation and its a friendly one without rancor and its sometime considered a non-essential among the faithful.

For me to be consistant I except it as literal within my understanding of the meaning of the original language definitions as best understood by respected scholars.

I have no problem with a God who has the capibility to perform such creative acts through processes which have no counterpart in our experience or understanding.. that's one characteristic of God which He actually claims for Himself as part of His character. He has no obligation to share the how or why ... it may well be beyond our ability to even comprehend such abilities with our present limitations.

The issue is that since no one was around to observe His work of creation we are left with His words of description
so you either believe Him or not... that's freedom of choice.

All the evidences against my position assumes a uniformitarian approach to every law of nature and a certain knowledge of initial conditions and/or boundary values mathmatically speaking and we know such is not the case.

People look at the same data and get entirely different views and interpretations because they come to them with a established world view and bias... scientists are not exempt. Thats why there are perfectly respectable scientific types on both sides of the debate whether you people admit it or not.

In fact the real indicator of your weakness is the dogmatic, unrelenting, egocentric, uncompromising attachment to your theory in the face of the most incredulous inconsistencies and conflicting evidences.

Couple that with your vicious personal attacks not just on you opponents but on your own camp members who fail in the slightest to toe the mark; the documented lies and misrepresentations of findings and experimental results, the secretetive and selective presentations of known severe inconsistencies and conflictive findings and the blatant hostility to all things religious, especially Christianity by your primary writers and spokes people and you have all the evidences of "A Theory in Crises".


A little faith is necessary in all world views and that is very much the case with evolution. That is why abiogenesis is not a problem because you trust it will be shown and demonstrated true, resolved, in the future and all the other myriad problems in the theory will as well. That I suggest is a form of religious faith in a naturalistic process that cannot even be adequately illustrated or defined ... essentially unknown.

You may laugh about the helium to human brain argument but it is a logical imperative of your belief system there is no other path of reasoning available to you in the natural view and you are completely aware of that. It is the view of the majority of evolutionists and they choose to hide it because it exposes the tenuousn nature of their position. That alone should make the rationally thinking person question the entireity of the theory, it has no logical underpinnings, it rests on nothing but "thin air".

The very organism you depend on as the first life form had to come from non-life no other choices are acceptable to you... and its chemical precursors were formed from yet simpler arrangements and so back to the majority element after the particle epoch and that was altogether helium gas. So whether you admit it with a degree of "Intellectual Honesty" or stay in denial, that's your inherent position.

What a basis for a belief system... pitiful.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,08:22   

I ask a simple question and I get a rant.  Oh well.

So, if the universe was created in 6 literal days (24 hour periods) then you would say that the Earth is how old?  Astronomy, cosmology, physics, and other sciences say that the Earth is 4.8 billion years old or so.  Do you reject those sciences?  If not, why only evolution?  It is logically inconsistent to reject evolution based on its conflict with scripture (as perceived by you) but to not reject those other sciences for the same offense.  So, which is it?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,09:10   

You ask the question and I don't do simplistic soundbites like evos do. I understand logic, critical thinking and rhetoric... you deal with sophistry.

I don't know how old the earth is because as far as I can tell the scriptures are silent on that.. there are several equally efficacious views.

But I would have no problem with the less than 100,000 years argument because the creation was clearly performed so as to be fully functional in an operating state that permitted a high degree of stability, maturity  and thus would easily have been diagnosed as having age consistent with the normal growth to maturity. Adam and Eve weren't babies but rather young adults.

The sun would have the characteristics of temperature, size, field strengths etc. which just balance the needs of the creation on earth. Thus our methods of uniformitarian calculations would estimate greatly exaggerated ages for all sorts of processes.

This has always made perfect sense to me as I understand how sensitive such math is to uniformity and initial conditions as  to answers resulting from their solution.

Do know I'm right? Nope! But I do know the logic is consistent with the Biblical presentation as some interpret it and it is consistent with mathmatics depending on the assumptions.

I choose to take this approach because I choose to agree with the biblical presentation as a matter of faith... not blind faith... reasoned faith.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,09:22   

peach:  Of your many verbose responses it is nice to see one that is in any way civil.

When the bible says, "do not eat the sacred raisin cookies"  what am I to do?

When the bible gives me two different orders in which God created life, which am I to believe?

When Jesus said, "If you pray with a love of God in your heart, you can make mountains leap into the sea" does that make him a liar?  Or just make everyone one of the unfaithful?

When Genesis 6 says "there were giants in the earth those days"  are they dinosaurs or are they Nephilum like Og?  If they were like Og, where are their bones?

When I am told, "do not say to your neighbor let me help you with the speck in your eye when you have a plank in your own" what if I see that plank and speck as sin, does that mean we aren't meant to evangelize?

When I pray, I pray to the Christian God, I was raised Christian.  I can only percieve the nature of God as being that which I had learned in the scriptures.  But when I look at the glaring errors and contradictions in the Bible, I ask myself, does God write books?

There is a growing amount of agreement among Biblical scholars that Genesis and Job are the two oldest books in the Bible, yet nobody would percieve that from its organization.

EL or Elohim, means "gods" in Hebrew.  WTF?

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,10:59   

When the bible says, "do not eat the sacred raisin cookies"  what am I to do?

I am unaware of that statement but the cardinal rule of interpretation is to do it within the context and by comparison with other passages which relate to the same or similar teachings. There is a historical context and a chronology to scripture in which God declares that He deals with people differently in the old and new testament..,. law vs grace for instance. An entire host of health, diet and behavioral issues were in play in the OT that are disposed with under grace. Some so called commands were declared bythe Jewish leaders apart from revelation and God permitted them to err  "rules of divorcement which Jesus declared God hates but permits only for reason of unfaithfulness".

The bible is unique in the sense that it reports both the greatness and the foolishness of humanity... not all is degreed or ordered.. just permitted.

When the bible gives me two different orders in which God created life, which am I to believe?

It does not but only different views from different perspectives... I do not have my library at work but that argument has been disposed of many times over. Besides do you really think that people and God were so stupid as to make an egregious error in logic within the same small section? Really!

When Jesus said, "If you pray with a love of God in your heart, you can make mountains leap into the sea" does that make him a liar?  Or just make everyone one of the unfaithful?

Neither it makes you a game player. I suggest that is obviously metaphorical for two reasons. No miracle ever recorded in Jesus works was superficial or without purpose and certainly not destructive or for entertainment.


When Genesis 6 says "there were giants in the earth those days"  are they dinosaurs or are they Nephilum like Og?  If they were like Og, where are their bones?

Real giants like Goliath I suggest or like the Watusi whose average height averages almost 7 feet. If we start looking for bones in one local that were limited in number and remembering that they were driven out of the land to an unspecified location and that we have no record of their burial habits etc. that a pretty tall order.

Unlike the fossil record where there should be billions of transitional forms across the millions of extinct and extant species throughout the globe and where there might be 100 highly speculative such fossils available in toto.

When I am told, "do not say to your neighbor let me help you with the speck in your eye when you have a plank in your own" what if I see that plank and speck as sin, does that mean we aren't meant to evangelize?

Evangelize is to tell the Good News of Gods saving grace through Christs life, death, burial and resurrection and NOT to point out peoples faults because we all have them and we all sin. It actually relates to fellow believers and not to an unbeliever. Believers are not to be primarily critics and judges of each others behavior except in extreme and clearly harmful practices.

When I pray, I pray to the Christian God, I was raised Christian.  I can only percieve the nature of God as being that which I had learned in the scriptures.  But when I look at the glaring errors and contradictions in the Bible, I ask myself, does God write books?

I commend you to any number of authors who clearly expose the faulty reasoning of those who find glaring errors Henry Morris, Bruce Waltke and many other scholars. Equip.org probably has books that answer your concerns. I have seen most of these so called glaring errors and the answer is...... NOT!


There is a growing amount of agreement among Biblical scholars that Genesis and Job are the two oldest books in the Bible, yet nobody would percieve that from its organization.

So what? The four Gospels are not in any particular chronological order, encyclopedias are ordered alphabetically and collectons of poems and short stories by subject matter. In my Bible Genesis is the first book actualyy; however, Job is the oldest book I believe. It is part of the knowlwdge books I suggest Psalms, Proverbs, Eclesiastes and Job perhaps.

EL or Elohim, means "gods" in Hebrew.  WTF?

Yes there is a triune God who is one ... a mystery but stated as such many times in scripture. I fail to see why that bothers anyone.. its actually a comfort.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,11:40   

To those so inclined the attached is a rather completew treatment of the so called two Genesis creation accounts.

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2005,19:43   

Pharyngula: Tales of the X-mice

I bet the Discovery Institute was just weeks away from this discovery.

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2005,03:27   

Saddle,

Is there a point?  Other than it seems to confirm my view that we understand very little about the inferent designed in capabilities of the genome for adaptation based on sensory information. Mutations play an insignificant and mostly harmful role when closely examined.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,01:55   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 03 2005,08:27)
Saddle,

Is there a point?  Other than it seems to confirm my view that we understand very little about the inferent designed in capabilities of the genome for adaptation based on sensory information. Mutations play an insignificant and mostly harmful role when closely examined.

What about mutations in bacteria that allow them to become resistant to chemicals/drugs that we produce?  Are those mostly harmful?

Anyway, Evopeach, why do you not reject physics, geology, cosmology, etc.?  Those sciences MUST be wrong if the Earth is about 10,000 years old, so you should also be on websites dealing with those subjects and talking about how stupid they are.  Do you do that?  I'm assuming you don't from some of the things you've posted, and now I'm wondering why not?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,03:11   

Easy GCT,

Bacteria and virus micro-evolution is a fact everyone excepts... period. That is light years away from macromutation, common decent, abiogenesis and such.. not even mathmatically comparable.

I do criticize so called stellar evolution, cosmology, etc. to teh degree it proclaims evolution.

The life sciences and biology in particular are the most agressive, insulting, insistent and have commandered the education system in every niche possible to proclaim evolution and resist any alternate ideas no matter.

Take Hawkings, certainly an evolutionist but rarely does he go out of his way to insult, belittle and proclaim absolute certainty about his arguments. He was quite curteous when he vivited the Pope for instance.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4060
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,05:55   

Re "What about mutations in bacteria that allow them to become resistant to chemicals/drugs that we produce?  Are those mostly harmful?"

Well, the result is harmful to us - does that count?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,06:19   

Most textbooks I have read estimate bacterial mutation rates as about 1 in every 1000 replications and of those 99% are either neutran or harmful and only 1 in 10,000 is beneficial to the survival of the population. Who knows for sure how many mutations are required to achieve some added invulnerablity to a med.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,08:02   

So, evopeach
Quote
I do criticize so called stellar evolution, cosmology, etc. to teh degree it proclaims evolution.

So, you only criticize that which deals with evolution?  Again, not logically consistent.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,04:43   

GCT,

This is a forum for debate about evolution and alternative theories of life etc.

Did you want to go to a forum on optics, relativity theory, materials science, music or what is it your ignorant gibberish is attempting to communicate.?

Please tell me you're not a member of the "A" team.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,05:12   

Evopeach,
You've just admitted that you only have a bug up your backside when it comes to evolution.  So, why not those other sciences?  It's completely illogical to proclaim that the universe was formed in 6 literal days, but not protest the science that flatly contradicts that account.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4060
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,06:26   

Re "This is a forum for debate about evolution and alternative theories of life etc."

Then why are you the one dragging astrophysics into it?

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,06:47   

Quote (GCT @ Oct. 07 2005,10:12)
Evopeach,
You've just admitted that you only have a bug up your backside when it comes to evolution.  So, why not those other sciences?  

Because he's only been told to go after those wicked atheist evilutionists, and not the scientists in other fields who support evolution.

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,07:23   

GCT,

Because I have a highly intelligent mind that is schooled in logical, rational and supurb critical thinking skills. Thus I would never make the schoolboyish fallacious error of attacking an entire science branch just because I disagreed on the interpretation of results and opinions in one narrow field. (Illicit major , minor and categorization fallacies).

You see I might say that the poisson distribution is quite good as a fundamental predictor of radio-active decay rates in general; but disagree with the premise that the decay "constant" lambda has remained the same for a billion years, as that is unprovable and there is some bonifide evidence to the contrary.

I might agree with the form and general solution to the differential equations for some phenomenon but not the assumptions on initial conditions or boundary values that determine the final answer in large part.

Finally, I would be amazed if  you conclude that God is bound to creating a universe that had to actually go through a billion year transformation in order to function. Why? Just because the design and operation from creation forward is time bound, uniform,such is no issue at all. It is declared and is common sense that all of creation was working and operational. Based on analysis from a continium perspective everything would appear older than it was. How could it be any other way?

Questions like "Since God is limited to the same physical laws, methods etc. as we are I want to know exactly how He did what He claims to have done in terms that fit the current state of mans knowledge and can be replicated by me in my lab tomorrow morning" are evos stock and trade but are merely examples of their egomaniacal thinking, "If I can't do it God can't either".

God is the ultimate scientist, designer and as such He used precesses and abilities we can neither perform,understand, duplicate or comprehend presently. That's why He's God and you're not.

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,08:36   

Quote
poisson distribution


Not sure what fish distribution has to do with radioactive decay.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,09:15   

The Poisson distribution is a decent predictor of radio active decay activity as in geiger counter clicks etc. for a given lamda or prob per sec of a decay occuring.

N=Nsub0 e**-lamda t/Tsub1/2life  lambe is assumed to be 0.693 over the entire decay period, not necessarily true.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,09:28   

Evopeach,
Quote
Because I have a highly intelligent mind that is schooled in logical, rational and supurb critical thinking skills.

So, you find it completely logical to throw out evolution and biology because it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible, but not physics, cosmology, etc. that also conflict with your interpretations of the Bible.  Got it.

Quote
Finally, I would be amazed if  you conclude that God is bound to creating a universe that had to actually go through a billion year transformation in order to function.

This is jibberish.  The universe was functioning from its beginning, regardless of whether it was god who started it or not.  You are making the very unscientific assumption that humans were inevitable products of this universe and a goal, and thus you think it would be ridiculous to have the universe exist for billions of years before the goal of the arrival of humans.  Then, you have the gall to turn around and accuse us of not being scientific.

Quote
Questions like "Since God is limited to the same physical laws...


Didn't you not too long ago make the argument that god was constrained into making a common design?  I submit that it is YOU who puts limits on god, not I.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,09:56   

Quote  
Because I have a highly intelligent mind that is schooled in logical, rational and supurb critical thinking skills.

So, you find it completely logical to throw out evolution and biology because it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible, but not physics, cosmology, etc. that also conflict with your interpretations of the Bible.  Got it.

Never through out biology because 99% of biology has to do with understanding how things work today and how to make use of that knowledge to better life for humanity and for the biological kingdom. It has almost nothing to do with evolution other than the small modest contribution from micro-evolution. Every day more builtin adaptive capacity is being discovered which has nothing to do with evolution but rather original design. Only people whose mission is to deny God, destroy religion, particularly Christianity and the Bible spend their time in macro-evolutionary activites and origin of life activities.

Quote  
Finally, I would be amazed if  you conclude that God is bound to creating a universe that had to actually go through a billion year transformation in order to function.

This is jibberish.  The universe was functioning from its beginning, regardless of whether it was god who started it or not.  You are making the very unscientific assumption that humans were inevitable products of this universe and a goal, and thus you think it would be ridiculous to have the universe exist for billions of years before the goal of the arrival of humans.  Then, you have the gall to turn around and accuse us of not being scientific.

God created the universe and everything in it and did not declare it finished and good until he created "man".

What fool other than an evolutionist would suppose God would use the least efficient physical method imaginable namely random processes to accomplish anything since there would be no purpose, no meaning and no accomplishment. No scientist or engineer ot thinking person would attempt to accomplish a project by random processes but rather and always by design and planning and direction.

Quote  
Questions like "Since God is limited to the same physical laws...


Didn't you not too long ago make the argument that god was constrained into making a common design?  I submit that it is YOU who puts limits on god, not I.

Gods character is such that  he cannot disagree with His own attributes so once he made a common design decision He carried it out to remain consistent and true to Himself. He further would not plan to have a billion years of blood and guts , death and destruction just to realize the capstone of His creation .. Man. That is not in any regard the character of the Biblical God. After the fall man has acted in that manner in free will to the horror of all.

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,11:15   

Quote
as that is unprovable and there is some bonifide evidence to the contrary

Seems like something that is not provable could not have
evidence that disproves it either...am I wrong?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4060
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,14:10   

Re "Seems like something that is not provable could not have evidence that disproves it either...am I wrong?"

A generalization that talks about the whole universe can't be totally proven for all time. But I'd think that any such generalization could be proven wrong by a verified counterexample.

Henry

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,15:29   

Just so I'm clear...

Using c14 dating....

It's assumed that the halflife is a constant decay rate. If
it could be proved that the rate varies, it would disprove the
assumption and thus the whole ball of wax regarding radioactive
decay. Is this more or less what you're saying?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4060
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,17:07   

Re "If it could be proved that the rate varies, it would disprove the assumption [...]"

I suppose if somebody actually proved that the rate varies by a significant amount in the environment present on or near Earth's surface, perhaps. But of course, if the rate went way up, Earth's core would put out more heat than it does now, and if it went down the core would put out less heat. I'd think that would affect environment if the change was enough to matter. Also, being unsure what exactly would have to change to vary decay rates, I don't know if something could affect that without also varying chemical reactions.

Side note- astronomers have spectra from stars from a few light years away to billions of light years away. If nuclear reactions varied with time, one would think some effects of it would have shown up in those spectra.

Henry

  
MDPotter



Posts: 12
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,03:37   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 07 2005,12:23)
Because I have a highly intelligent mind that is schooled in logical, rational and supurb critical thinking skills.

Yes, agreed, that's what I thought as soon as I read this.
Supurb. A jeenius even. While we're throughing words around.
And moddest too. Modast?
Humbel?  
Obviously the prime creation of a Supreme Being.
How proughd he must be.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,04:47   

The RATE project including the work on poloium halos is a four year academic and field project performed by quite qualified Phd Scientists who yes happen to be YECs.

I have not read the technical book or papers in great detail but I understand it to indicate that many of the aging techniques are found wanting.

I believe they have presented the work results to accepted journals and to professional societies.

I suspect they will be belittled, never published, attacked,laughed at and the work will receive zero actual reading and study by evos.

Changes in neutrino flux could affect decay constants and improper assumptions about leaching or a host of other reasons could affect aging results.

This was a four year project with qualified people involved and paid for by private funds not the taxpayers like all evos federal grants.

I am not a genius as my IQ is only 144 and genius I believe is about 160. I am smart enough to know a "Theory in Crisis" for all the right reasons.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,08:52   

Quote
I am not a genius as my IQ is only 144 and genius I believe is about 160.
I've never heard an intelligent person mention their own IQ before.  I still haven't.

I'd love to hear the evidence that shows that any decay rates have changed in the universe's history.  For this would require that the fundamental constants are shifting around.  And THAT would be exciting.

-Dan

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,09:32   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 08 2005,09:47)
I am not a genius as my IQ is only 144 and genius I believe is about 160. I am smart enough to know a "Theory in Crisis" for all the right reasons.

"I'm so smart! S-M-R-T!"

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,05:10   

For the record I sort of deal with straightforward honesty rather than the satanically inspired evo approach.

A lot is made of my typing skills and such but that's just a form of circumlocution logically speaking. The fallacy of "Form over Substance" argumentation has been recognized and ridiculed for about 2ooo years .

I know the wirehead mentality demands that form is more important than truth, logic, rationality and critical thinking, but I don't think I'll play that game.



Pitiful!!

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,07:54   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 10 2005,10:10)
A lot is made of my typing skills and such but that's just a form of circumlocution logically speaking. The fallacy of "Form over Substance" argumentation has been recognized and ridiculed for about 2ooo years .

I know the wirehead mentality demands that form is more important than truth, logic, rationality and critical thinking, but I don't think I'll play that game.

Oh, the irony! The irony!

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,13:13   

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

Evopeach,

I have a question for you...

Why are you so mean-spirited towards seemingly everyone?
I don't get it, you could have a more meaningful exchange
of ideas/views if you didn't lash out at everyone. I understand
in the cyber-world there will be the inevitable disagreable sort,
but on the whole I've been surprised at how receptive people
can be to genuine curiosity/interest.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,02:26   

Chimp

I wish you luck with that approach. :)

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,10:38   

Chimp,

If you had certain conclusions, a world view and a life time of study in each of two areas science, technology, engineering (in an integrated sense) and in the Christian faith with rigerous examination of the Bible via the very best scholarship you could gain access to and then for twenty-five years you and your friends and teachers were subjected to constant unending ridicule for your views by people who certainly are smart and talented in their fields but no smarter than the people they ridicule, admitted to no error in their thinking, insisted on their intellectually supremecy always and called you a redneck, snake holder, bible thumper, dolt, etc would that engender sound public debate?

Let's try this for an example since I did not propose it.

"Thing just aren't adding up for feathered dinosaurs," said lead researcher, avian evolutionist and paleobiologist Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He described the prevailing theory that birds descended from theropods as paleontological "wish-fulfillment" based on "sloppy science."

It seems to me that this article and the research behind it is ever so typical of the entireity of evolutionary dogma except that to his credit the contributor is being intellectually honest... that I can admire as with Robert Shapiro. But it is a dramatic reversal of decades of nonsensical teaching which to name one, the ever hated by evos Duane Gish, has analyzed and logically destroyed twenty years ago in two books he wrote on the fossil record. Now it is clear he was absolutely correct ... dinos never had featheres and are not the ancestors of birds.

How can that be trivial... because nothing can dislodge the theory... absolutely nothing.. its as plastic as can be imagined.

I am open to your civility.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,10:45   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 11 2005,15:38)
I am open to your civility.

And we are waiting for yours.  Although I admit in your case it seems a commodity in remarkably short supply. :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,11:14   

Evopeach,

Thanks for the obviously heartfelt reply.

I am obviously new to these forums, but from what I've
read it seems like there's a escalation of sorts that has
lowered the bar of civility. It in some ways mirrors what
is happening with political discourse in the US, IMO.

I singled you out because you are one person I could adress,
rather than the multitude of your detractors. It does seem
like everyone could take it down a notch and maybe have a
productive dialogue.

You have taken a minority dissenting opinion, which, I'm
sorry to say will expose you to criticism from the majority,
regardless of the content of your opinion. That's the nature
of group dynamics, however, if your opinion has merit it will
ultimately prevail. If it does not then you may be religated
to a Lamarckian fate.

Not being an expert in any science related field, I am content
to sit on the fence and observe.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,11:17   

Evopreach:

Quote
Feduccia has broken more new ground with his "big-bang" theory. He thinks that the ancestors of all today's birds evolved explosively in only about 5 to 10 million years. In traditional theory, all modern bird orders appeared by 80 to 90 million years ago and "oozed" into the present. That makes no sense, Feduccia says, because the cataclysmic event that killed the dinosaurs would have extinguished most birds too.

Feduccia contends that about 65 million years ago, most birds died with the dinosaurs, except for a group of shorebirds and possibly a few others. Fossils from just before that time show lots of primitive birds, with the shorebirds the only kind of modern birds present. "But shortly after 65 million years ago, all the primitive birds are gone. All you're finding are these shorebirds. And then by about 53 million years ago, all the modern groups are present," he says. "So somewhere between 65 and 53 million years ago, all these modern types of birds evolved."

A Big-Bang view of Birds

Also from the same article:
Quote
He agrees with the theory that the common ancestor of both ancient and modern bird orders was a small, ground-dwelling reptile that took to the trees for hiding, sleeping, or nesting. After this "protoavis" started climbing, it began leaping from tree to tree.


Funny how  AiG  says the evolutionists "got to" Feduccia.  Got to him before whom?  The IDC movement and their bags and bags of money?

A quote from the AiG article about what Feduccia thinks of creationists:
Quote
Feduccia: Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, …

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,11:27   

Saddle I read the entire article and if you can point out any comfort to the dino to bird people in there you are a magician.

Again a careful analysis as Gish did years ago renders this scale to feather theory and proavis and such as laughable.. I mean I can't keep a straight face when reading this crap. And its all hypothetical .. there is no fossil evidence of the little critter or any transitional forms to support one line of it.. all a fairy tale.

It could be true but there is no evidence to support it not one iota its just a story that fits preconceived opinion... even Darwin admitted that.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,11:38   

If I say, "there have been no Cadillacs made in the last 20 years" and proceed show you a blue book from 1983, I am right.  So in one sense you are right in saying "there are no transitional fossils" so long as you plug your ears and jump up and down saying "thats laughable no transitional fossils."

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,13:34   

Memo to EvoPeach:

Science does not work by finding one "iconoclast" from several years in the past and deciding that, because said iconoclast in some tortured way supports your own preconceptions, that must be the final word.

Why don't you try checking out what's become of Feduccia's hypotheses since they were proposed? You might start here:

RICHARD O. PRUM
The Auk 120(2):550–561, 2003
Quote
Feduccia can no longer deny the conclusive evidence that basal dromaeosaurs had feathers (Xu et al. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003; Czerkas et al. 2002; Norell et al. 2002). In the end, he concedes that dromaeosaurs had feathers. In a rhetorical tour de force that conflicts with decades of his own work and most of his commentary, Feduccia (2002) then hypothesizes that dromaeosaurs are birds, but that the birds, now including the dromaeosaurs, still originated from some unknown early archosaurian ancestor and are unrelated to theropod dinosaurs.


--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,20:33   

Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 11 2005,16:38)
If I say, "there have been no Cadillacs made in the last 20 years" and proceed show you a blue book from 1983, I am right.  So in one sense you are right in saying "there are no transitional fossils" so long as you plug your ears and jump up and down saying "thats laughable no transitional fossils."

I just went through this with this guy on Telic Thoughts who insisted that there is absolutely no evidence whatsover to support the notion that whales could have evolved from land mammals. I sent him this link, which you would have thought would have shut him up, but no. He never even acknowledged that he'd read it. He continued to insist there was "no evidence."

The same thing went on and on over half a dozen topics. He'd claim there was "no evidence" that random mutation and natural selection could have driven evolution, that there was "no evidence" that life could have arisen from pre-biotic precursors, etc. etc. etc. For every claim he made, I provided a link demonstrating in detail how his claim was mistaken. Did it make any difference?

Of course not.

After a while, it stopped being fun.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,05:00   

Four hundred scientists and a whole lot more that are intimidated by the hords herein and their memtors agree with me that mutations and natural selection are inadequate to explain the life we observe.. period.

As to transitional fossils whether dinos to birds or land mammals to whales are never ilustrated in the fossil record by a series of clear unmistakable fossils showing the incredible multiple changes required.

The dino to bird theory is as dead as is possible to imagine and thats just a fact.

When you morons refer to papers writtne by other brainwashed evos without one whit of math, fossil evidence, chemical evidence, experimentally varifiable date etc. that doesn't prove one darn thing just more malarkey and BS without a scintilla of factual evidence.

Give me a hundred just so stories.. they are not science.. just fairy tales.

You will never get it... macroevolution, common descent and abiogenesis will never be science because it cannot be demonstrated, repeated in the laboratory, is mathmatically inconsistent with statistical possibilities and all of the fossil evidence is mounted against it.. period.

You cannot show me any undisputed evidence that any of the above is wrong which is is other than a fairy tale.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,11:23   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 12 2005,10<!--emo&:0)
Four hundred scientists and a whole lot more that are intimidated by the hords herein and their memtors agree with me that mutations and natural selection are inadequate to explain the life we observe.. period.

As to transitional fossils whether dinos to birds or land mammals to whales are never ilustrated in the fossil record by a series of clear unmistakable fossils showing the incredible multiple changes required.

The dino to bird theory is as dead as is possible to imagine and thats just a fact.

When you morons refer to papers writtne by other brainwashed evos without one whit of math, fossil evidence, chemical evidence, experimentally varifiable date etc. that doesn't prove one darn thing just more malarkey and BS without a scintilla of factual evidence.

Give me a hundred just so stories.. they are not science.. just fairy tales.

You will never get it... macroevolution, common descent and abiogenesis will never be science because it cannot be demonstrated, repeated in the laboratory, is mathmatically inconsistent with statistical possibilities and all of the fossil evidence is mounted against it.. period.

You cannot show me any undisputed evidence that any of the above is wrong which is is other than a fairy tale.

Okay, who are you really? That entire post is a stream of ridiculousness that even DI fellows would be hardpressed to top. Who could have written that? I'm often curious about the people behind the screennames that I see on forums, but you take the cake. You have captured my curiosity. I want to know who you are.

Four hundred scientists are anti-evolution? I'll be liberal and say that 2000 biologists are out there that do not support evolution. There are millions upon millions on the other side. And don't tell me that the scientific consensus is wrong because YOU brought it up.

Evolution doesn't expect us to find every possible transitional fossil. They are too rare and too easily destroyed. But you'll act like I never said that.

So you're discounting all scientific papers just because they were written by scientists in a language that you can't understand? Then you have admitted that you cannot be swayed. Your mind is closed.

"You cannot show me any undisputed evidence that any of the above is wrong..."

Who the heck do you think you are anyway?

    
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,18:55   

A troll. I´ve heard there be trolls here on the Internets.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,04:05   

Fishy Fred,

I never said 400 scientists don't believe in evolution. Rather there are 400 who publically state they do not accept neo-Darwinian theory of muation and selection as an acceptable explanation of the life we observe. And that does not include any members of the American Scientific Affiliation or the very large body of Creationists. Anyway any person skilled in critical thinking knows that Conclusions from Popularity is a severe logical fallacy. (I can give you references if you like)

As to language there are a number of good books written by people with credentials comparable to anyone on this forum who make very convincing arguments based on the very same data and findings that are readily understandable by college degreed people. They just reply on hard nosed facts instead of dashed lines, plaster of paris and pseudo science approaches to math, statistics, thermo, pchem and such hard sciences.

Denton, Meyers, Yockey,Gish, Wilder-Smith and many others write rather clearly and accurately and are well documented.

I even recall one of my mentors Dr. Harry Lass was able to make a rather unique contribution to GR with an article on the Twin Paradox using math no more complicated than Calculus.

You see some sciences do not need linguistic obfuscation to hide the weaknesses of their theory.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,04:12   

Quote
They just reply on hard nosed facts instead of dashed lines, plaster of paris and pseudo science approaches to math, statistics, thermo, pchem and such hard sciences.

More intellectual dishonesty Evopeach?  It's already been pointed out to you that fossils are not reconstructed from plaster of paris, unless there is already a complete fossil to model the incomplete one off of.  I know, because I'm the one that dug up the reference.

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,04:42   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 13 2005,09)
I never said 400 scientists don't believe in evolution. Rather there are 400 who publically state they do not accept neo-Darwinian theory of muation and selection as an acceptable explanation of the life we observe.


How many of those scientists are biologists, and what do they believe to be an acceptable explanation?


Quote
Anyway any person skilled in critical thinking knows that Conclusions from Popularity is a severe logical fallacy. (I can give you references if you like)


But the Conclusion from Popularity is one that ID supporters like to use, given the 50%-66% support that ID gets in polls.

All while dismissing the near universal consensus on evolution by scientists, incidentally....

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,09:04   

As to the list of neo-darwinian rejectionists its posted so I'll let you practice counting yourself. And I suggest you stop parading around the idea that only biologists are real scientists. You may alienate the paleo bone polishers, zoologists, physicists, astronomers... etc.

Unlike evos, IDers and IC people never say we know we're 100% right and everone else is a redneck, uneducated, bible thumping, illterate cult group.

Neither do they insist on suppression of alternate explanations or paradigms in science, the persecution of people who disagree with them, the denial of work tenure etc. for opposing or even questioning the evo principles.

Its really quite obvious that the suppression of new ideas that might call into question the theory of evolution and the censorship of associated textbooks  is a very common practice in the evo camp and that open debate in the marketplace of ideas, schools in particular, is very much feared indeed. I wonder why?

  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,09:11   

:04-->
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 13 2005,14:04)
As to the list of neo-darwinian rejectionists its posted so I'll let you practice counting yourself. And I suggest you stop parading around the idea that only biologists are real scientists. You may alienate the paleo bone polishers, zoologists, physicists, astronomers... etc.

Unlike evos, IDers and IC people never say we know we're 100% right and everone else is a redneck, uneducated, bible thumping, illterate cult group.

Neither do they insist on suppression of alternate explanations or paradigms in science, the persecution of people who disagree with them, the denial of work tenure etc. for opposing or even questioning the evo principles.

Its really quite obvious that the suppression of new ideas that might call into question the theory of evolution and the censorship of associated textbooks  is a very common practice in the evo camp and that open debate in the marketplace of ideas, schools in particular, is very much feared indeed. I wonder why?

"...censorship of associated textbooks  is a very common practice in the evo camp..."

I love that one.  Please learn what the Establishment Clause means and you might understand why such comic books are not allowed in our public schools.[B]

Arguing that this is not a effort gain religion a foot hold in our public schools is disengenious.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,09:29   

You mean  "an effort to gain". See I understood you exactly but I wanted to mimic the evo form over substance trivia for you.

I would be very satisfied with one six week session where the Michael Denton book "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" was objectively presented without a wisper of religion brought into the discussion. It after all was the watershed event that brought the ID vd ND evolution to the forefront originally. He is an evo, not an IDer or a YEC so that can't be the problem.

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,12:03   

:04-->
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 13 2005,14:04)
As to the list of neo-darwinian rejectionists its posted so I'll let you practice counting yourself.

Where? Show me a link or back your claim up in some way, please.


Quote
And I suggest you stop parading around the idea that only biologists are real scientists. You may alienate the paleo bone polishers, zoologists, physicists, astronomers... etc.


I never said they were. The point is, why ask astronomers, physicists, etc, about something that isn't their field of expertise? You wouldn't go to a heart surgeon and ask him to do eye surgery, would you?

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,05:07   

Wonderpants,

Jerry Coyne isn't he one of those brothers that makes independent movies?  His article in New Republic must be really embarrassing to your clan.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts....%20News

Are Doctors men of scientific training?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts....id=2611

Oh and here's the link to the 400 people.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts....ainPage

Evolution is a multidisciplinary field and all of those you mentioned are integral to its promulgation. If all science were left up to biologists nothing would happen in science that required math beyond long division, physics beyond f=ma/gsubc, chemistry beyond h20 etc., e=ir should I continue.

If I should ever have trouble telling an oak tree from a cactus, I'll call you right away, however.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,05:36   

You mean F=ma.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,10:22   

GCT,

Do you really want your butt kicked over that again. I can easily resurrect the sources that drove your head into the ground last time.

Are you an intellectual masochist?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,13:41   

You mean the part about the sources that didn't agree with you, or the part about how you wanted to introduce a unitless component in order to make the units in the equation line up?  How about the part where it was all evasion on your part from the beginning in order to avoid showing your inconsistencies?

We don't need to go down that road again, anyone can scroll back and see that my butt was not whipped on it, just like anyone can see that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Helium either.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,03:44   

GCT,

You mean the direct quotes from the mechanical engineering texts and instructor notes from two rather prestigious universities using my precise nomenclature and  showing that gsubc is implicit or explicit in every system of units in the world depending on the systems.

Oh and the direct quote from Newton's work using the term proportional which for non-math people like you insists on a constant of porportionality is I suppose to be ignored.

I know, Einstein really meant E=m.

Against that is the assertion of you, a moron,an egomaniac and an academic hack outside whatever discipline you have dabbled in ... to date undefined.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,03:55   

Um, try 1 link, not 2 (another lie I see.)  Also, it did not back up your position, as it used a completely different equation.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,04:54   

GCT

If Michigan State Engineering School is deemed non-authoratative by you regarding the F=MA/gsubc precise and general form of Newton's law try this nail in your coffin goober head.

WIKOPEDIA is the Source for the following:

The F=m·a relationship can be used with any consistent units (SI or CGS). If these units are not consistent, a more general form, F=k·m·a, can be used, where the constant k is a conversion factor dependent upon the units being used.

For example, in imperial engineering units, F is measured in "pounds force" or "lbf", m in "pounds mass" or "lb", and a in feet per second squared. In this particular system, one needs to use the more general form above, usually written F=m·a/gc with the constant normally used for this purpose gc = 32.174 lb·ft/(lbf·s2) equal to the reciprocal of the k above.

You are the most intellectually dishonest person I have encountered in all my years of debating on the net or elsewhere. There is simply something psychologically wrong with a person who in the face of absolutely black and white, substantiated, expert provided, sourced, universally accepted evidence that is 100 percent against their position continues to rant and rave about their correctness.

I truly think it would be best if you just stopped posting or responding to my strings because I have no further interest in listening to such a dishonest and uninformed person.

You are now on logical ignore.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,05:09   

I don't see that anywhere on wikipedia.

Even if I am being intellectually dishonest, let's consider a few things.  You never addressed the fact that this was all a side discussion from the beginning.  Also, the question was whether it was the general form or not.  Considering that text books use F=ma and that's the original form from Newton, not to mention that your form is only to make units agree, which is superfluous since you can also just change the units of the m and a variables, I would have to say that you are still wrong.  But, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you are right and I am just being stupid, stubborn, or whatever.  Then, you would have a single instance of intellectual dishonesty from me, vs. the numerous ones that you have displayed that have been expressly written out for all to see.  Yeah, I'm the intellectually dishonest one here......right.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:37   

GCT,

If you can't read this get Dan to help you ... or maybe .. or maybe ... or maybe... darn just take my word for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force


Butthead and Bevas had nothing on you two clowns.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:48   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 17 2005,09:54)
GCT

You are the most intellectually dishonest person I have encountered in all my years of debating on the net or elsewhere. There is simply something psychologically wrong with a person who in the face of absolutely black and white, substantiated, expert provided, sourced, universally accepted evidence that is 100 percent against their position continues to rant and rave about their correctness.



Evo,

I'm not going to wade through the kinematics part of the discussion because it's irrelevant to what I'm about to say. Do you realize how little credibility you have here when you rant about intellectual honesty? You demand an answer to how the human brain could have evolved from helium, and then you deny you ever made any such demand when it's pointed out to you that helium has nothing to do with the human brain. When we quote you making just such a demand, you still deny saying it.

The spectacle of you accusing someone else of intellectual dishonesty is one of the mildly funnier things I've heard today.

Also, if you want some more laughs, here's an article on your source for the F=m*a relationship.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Henry J



Posts: 4060
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,17:15   

At the risk of asking a silly question, what is the distinction between intellectual honesty and nonintellectual honesty?

Henry

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,18:52   

GTC,

The formalism Newton used to describe force was the one regarding the change in momentum:  F=dp/dt.  F=ma is of course equivalent, and easier to understand by pre-calculus students.

Evo is hung up on the units.  For some reason he thinks the gsubc coefficient is important at all.  In reality it is just a kludge to get different units to work in the equation.  As long as one is consistent it is irrelevant what units one uses.  Physicists rarely plug any real numbers into their equations until they've solved for what they want completely.  It's common to set persistant constants to 1 to get them out of the way:  h = 1, and c =1 are typical.  As a result it's common to see things like "the mass of that particle is 32 MeV."  MeV is a unit of energy, but since it's easy to convert to mass (by dividing the energy by c^2) physicists leave it like it is.  At the end of the day though, when it comes time to check theory with experiment, they have to go back and re-insert all of those c's and h's.  It's actually not so hard to do.  All one has to do is make sure the units match up.

One has to take into account that Evo claims to be an engineer.  He probably has to work with SI and Imperial units all the time.  As a result, it's best that he remembers the gsubc, so he can keep things straight.  Even though it's just a unit kludge.  I'm betting it's what he learned in school, and it's not wrong.  It's just not what physicists use.

-Dan