Invisible wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box
> 
> I wasted about a week reading this book. If any of you have the change 
> to read it... don't bother. Seriously.
> 
> While reading this book, I was actually astonished that somebody could 
> seriously present such obvious nonesense as "fact". I was simply amazed 
> that anybody would agree to print such lies. Furthermore, the author is 
> apparently paid to work as a "scientist", yet he seems to not comprehend 
> the simple definition of what "science" actually is.
> 
> Seriously... I wasted a week of my life! >_<
> 
> (Although some of the stuff was interesting... Inbetween the 
> thinly-disguised religious rantings, there was some interesting science. 
> Like the cascade of chemical reactions that turn a photon impact into an 
> electric potential.)

Actually, what is worse is that he is a math expert, but.. As near as 
"anyone" that knows math can figure, the guy can't even manage to get 
that right in his book.

There is another example of this from the same bunch recently. A Cdesign 
Proponentcists got hold of an neat equation and wibbled a load of 
fertilizer over it. His "first" magic trick was take what meant "total 
number of possible combinations", and convert that too, "How many 
attempts are made.", since he has no way to even "get" that number, he 
imagines the number of "animals" that could have existing in 6,000 
years, and uses "that".. Huh?? Not even close to the original.

Second trick was to take the part that is defined as "The total number 
of possible combinations that 'can' produce the protein you want.", ( 
this is rather large really, there are multiple ways to "code for" 
nearly every protein imaginable, like hundreds, if not thousands), and 
says, "Well, there is only 'one' solution".  WTF?

Then, the third slight of hand is to "declare" than any "winning" result 
has to have an arbitrary limit in size. Same argument made with the 
whole "macro/micro" BS, that there is some imaginary "limit" on how many 
things you can change via random effects, before you magically stop 
getting any sort of changes/information from it... So, he simply pulls 
something out of his backside, and declares "that" as the limit.

So.. You have "Life has to have resulting in X attempts, with only one 
possible correct result, and using only the 'allowed' amount of 
information to get there.", which basically takes the original equation, 
and doesn't just make shit up to lie, but puts the whole thing in a 
blender, and hits "puree". Dumb people, i.e., those without someone to 
explain the deceit, stair at the resulting blob of muck and go, "Ah, 
right, what ever you say it is. I'll... take you at your word on this 
one.", or so they "hope".

Basically, its Beheistic math. Use an equation in a way that makes "no" 
sense, with just plain made up numbers in some places, and implausible 
ones in others, then hope, knowing you will probably be right, that most 
people won't have the slightest damn idea how incorrectly you "used" the 
math, or how big a lie you just told, thus convincing them its a rabbit 
your pulling out of the hat, not what's left of their brains:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/durstons_devious_distortions.php



-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message