Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007
|
| Quote | rudy lyle said...
Joe
I am a research scientist and grad student at a fairly respectable engineering school. I have been led to investigate the mathematical reasons for why evolution is not true.
One of my research projects involves the calculation of CSI from various natural features in order to show that nature is designed. I have been forced to undertake this research on my own initiative and time and money as questioning darwinism is not popular, even in my field of science.
I have been surveying what other prominent ID thinkers have to say about my project. In short, my latest ideas have been measuring the number of bits of information along transects through a predetermined volume of soil space. Since the darwinian ecologists have invented explanations for the arrangement of soil micro-organisms along particular resource gradients that they just imagine to be responsible for all sorts of things like population size or reproduction or mutation or take your pick of whatever you can imagine to be stupid. they do it.
anyway, if one were to take a particular volume of soil, say, a big volume 50 centimeters by 50 centimeters by 50 centimeters. Run say 100 random skewers through that soil and draw 50 random locations on each skewer to measure the size and volume of the particle at each location.
You would very quickly surpass the UPB. These measurements would be strongly correlated with certain parameters of the microbial community. I have yet to show this but I think I can make it happen in the lab and verify my hypothesis.
What is important here is that we have shown that whole soil microbial communities are a function of intelligent design. Take away the complexity inserted by intelligence, then you lose your soil microbial community. Since this is the darwinian source of explanation for why species are different or in one place or the other (like productivity or other things that the evolutionists have stolen from engineers). then establishing it to be of intelligent design would be a strong thrust in favor of ID.
I am tired of them getting owned in the blogosphere yet you never hear of this in the scientific literature. My results are publishable in some of the top journal in my field, but of course I have to bow down and kiss the ring of the establishment, or else make it on my own. This is why I am interested in your feedback: if the top ID thinkers and yes even critics are behind me, or at least respecting me, then it is that much stronger a case for the special status of each and every human life we can make.
11:47 PM |
Joe's Response is a disappointment
| Quote |
joe g said...
Rudy,
Thank you for posting on Intelligent Reasoning.
You work is very interesting and adds a different twist to the debate.
I have frequently been asked why, for example, microbes are found in the lowest strata. My thoughts have always been that they were a necessary ingredient for fertile soil and plant growth.
8:33 AM |
In the same way that seeing Evel Kneivel eat 100 yards of pavement is a disappointment.
--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|
I don't expect my comment to make it past moderation though.
