Archived - A thread about nothing....

[Jwilker]

As you can see research is indeed easy.

However, structures and processes that are claimed to be "irreducibly" complex typically are not on closer inspection

Science and Creationism - A view from the national academy of sciences. (link below) (see how hard is that)

Scient and creationism

http://www.geosociety.org/criticalissues/ev_1.htm

Look in the lower right corner

Must be where Hoyle is

Teaching evolution

Has links to both sides of the discussion

we could throw these around all night.

[Jwilker]

Now I think that "40 percent of American physicists" is not exactly a invalid sample. And here is the site:

Not at all. All I have to do is find 10 scientists. not too tough. Statistics can lie just as well as a person. Perhaps better because they are usually believed without doubt

[Wayfinder]

Uh, having stated categorically that I'm not going to present any more website quotations (sigh, never state an absolute) I find myself wishing to submit the following which I stumbled across and found very interesting. The site from which this is taken is:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/hoyle.asp

This information is in regard to Fred Hoyle. The article notes that Hoyle did not believe in Christianity, but was definitely opposed to evolutionary theory as being unfounded by scientific evidence and indeed, contradicted by basic realities. Look at the information regarding enzymes (which again, ties in with my article at Truesite.org). If anyone is unaware of the fact (as I was), Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang"... which which concept he disagreed as being theoretical and totally without scientific evidence.

"In his 1981 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), he calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10^40,000 (one followed by 40,000 zeroes). Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10^80), even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance.

Hoyle explained this in his typically lucid manner, and as with the ‘big bang,’ his turns of phrase have found their way into popular culture. For instance, he wrote, ‘The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.’5 Hoyle originated the famous illustration comparing the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.’6 Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving the Rubik’s Cube simultaneously—see Rubik’s Cube and Blind Men. Some more problems with evolutionary ‘origin-of-life’ scenarios can be found in our Q&A pages under Origin of Life and Probability.

Hoyle eventually came to believe that the fine-tuning of the universe as a whole was further evidence for a designer:

‘A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics … The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.’7


I included this here for those who were interested in learning more about Hoyle and where he stood on such things. I found the article to be fascinating.

As a side note... considering Sir Hoyle's examples above (and Hoyle was not uneducated in the field), I think my illustration of aligning 200 20-sided dice during an earthquake might even be considered conservative, wouldn't you agree?


:jd:

[Jwilker]

Is the hoyle horse dead yet?

Got anyone else? you need at least three more to get to 40%

[Wayfinder]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I think that "40 percent of American physicists" is not exactly a invalid sample. And here is the site:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Jwilker
Not at all. All I have to do is find 10 scientists. not too tough. Statistics can lie just as well as a person. Perhaps better because they are usually believed without doubt

And J... this is why I don't go to the trouble of presenting such data to you. I am convinced that no matter what I present, you'll find a way around it, to rationalize it, to ignore it and to scoff it. So why bother?

You're going to believe what you decide to believe. The problem is that within a relatively short period of time, all questions in the matter will be firmly answered.

Everyone here has had that explained. Everyone here will make his or her decision. Who is right... evolutionists, or God? It'll be interesting to see, won't it?

But what is that ancient Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times". It's very sad to have to learn a lesson the hard way. I know this means nothing to you now, but it will. My only hope is that sometime before then, you wake up, smack your head and say, "NOW I UNDERSTAND!"

I'm not gonna hold my breath, but I can hope.

[Jwilker]

Sorry can't help it. Present something with teeth. Something that can stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Something other than (seemingly) one scientist.

This is the kind of stuff that helps us learn and grow. Throwing things out there willy nilly helps no one.

You're right though. We'll not know the answer tonight. Of course since i don't think there is a question, I don't think there is an answer ;)

[Jwilker]

Almost 800!! Oh wait! 800!!!!

I'd like to thank the academy. Star50, wayfinder and hnelson, my mom and dad. Oh my 3rd grade teacher ms. Horejse and my two dogs.

This has actually been an exhilerating discussion. I want to thank everyone who participated. And hope those that we scared away won't hold it against us :)

[Wayfinder]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jwilker
Sorry can't help it. Present something with teeth. Something that can stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Something other than (seemingly) one scientist.

And J... this is exactly what I'm talking about... your absolute refusal to consider presented data, your intentional ignoring of information.


We haven't presented you with "one scientist". I presented you with a whole page of quotes from scientists (including full bibliographical reference, upon which you are so insistant). One page presented a study which found 40 PERCENT of scientists to believe in a God (which I might even myself question... but that's what the article claimed).

Do you think there aren't thousands more pages on the internet which present detailed scientific evidence against evolution?

I present just a tiny, tiny percentage of these on the net, containing valid scientific data, and you still have the gall to challenge me to "present something with teeth".

Why in the world would I want to waste my time any more trying to prove anything to you? No sir, I will not.

[Jwilker]

But what is that ancient Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times". It's very sad to have to learn a lesson the hard way. I know this means nothing to you now, but it will. My only hope is that sometime before then, you wake up, smack your head and say, "NOW I UNDERSTAND!"

And I you. Waking up and realizing you've been laboring under a false pretense sometimes hurts.

The condescension masked with love is one of my favorite tactics too ;)

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Jwilker
The condescension masked with love is one of my favorite tactics too ;)

The only difference J, is that in my case, it's not condescension, and the love is real... as real as the frustration.

[Jwilker]

Originally posted by Wayfinder
[B]And J... this is exactly what I'm talking about... your absolute refusal to consider presented data, your intentional ignoring of information.

I really am not refusing to accept it. In fact I plan to read up tonight or tomorrow on the links you've presented

We haven't presented you with "one scientist". I presented you with a whole page of quotes from scientists (including full bibliographical reference, upon which you are so insistant). One page presented a study which found 40 PERCENT of scientists to believe in a God (which I might even myself question... but that's what the article claimed).

Which I appreciate and again, will look into.

Do you think there aren't thousands more pages on the internet which present detailed scientific evidence against evolution?

Do you think there aren't thousands that disagree with your position?

I'll have you know there is a website which clearly shows hamsters, hundreds of them. Dancing, dancing masterfully even. However I am reasonably sure that in real life and Hamster cannot dance

I present just a tiny, tiny percentage of these on the net, containing valid scientific data, and you still have the gall to challenge me to "present something with teeth".

well you presented other people's teeth, your website is still gumming it's food

Why in the world would I want to waste my time any more trying to prove anything to you? No sir, I will not.

I dunno same reason I keep arguing with. Excersize the brain. Prove your case. Sadism?

[Jwilker]

Originally posted by Wayfinder
The only difference J, is that in my case, it's not condescension, and the love is real... as real as the frustration.

oh yeah I can feel it.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Jwilker

I dunno same reason I keep arguing with. Excersize the brain. Prove your case. Sadism?

OK, I admit. That's funny. Worthy of a chuckle.

Doesn't change things, but humor you've got.

[Jwilker]

Recently, creationists have taken up a new tactic, referred to as the "Intelligent Designer" or "Sudden Appearence" argument. The complex molecules of life, including DNA, are, they say, "too complicated" and "too improbable" to have arisen on their own through random chance, and therefore they must have been deliberately strung together by an "intelligent designer" with supernatural powers. Some creationists illustrate their claim by pointing out that the odds of an intact strand of DNA forming all at once from chance are the same as the odds of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a functional Boeing 747.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...437/design.htm

I like this one. You should use it.

[Jwilker]

Originally posted by Wayfinder
OK, I admit. That's funny. Worthy of a chuckle.

Doesn't change things, but humor you've got.

I do what I can.

Wokka Wokka Wokka