 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:07:50 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom>
did spake thusly:
> Only to clueless people. It seems to me that the evidence is
> sufficiently overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe that
> evolution occurs.
Ah but they don't deny evolution, they deny unplanned evolution. Let's say
that we evolved near a shoreline and that as a species we lost the
majority of our body hair because those without did better in water than
those with and that those without didn't have any problems with protecting
their skin as they were in water. However it is also possible to suggest
that a group suddenly lost their body hair and thus moved to the shore
because those that didn't suffered skin cancers (having lost their
protection) and that this was 'meant' to happen as the water allowed us to
attain our full upright posture which allowed us to utilise our hands more
etc. etc. The outcome's the same, but different cause.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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
OK, that's pretty impressive.
How is it possible to stand up in public and emit outright provable
*lies* like this? Seriously... is there actually no law against
deliberately trying to mislead people?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Before arguing that "macro-evolution", a term
> "entirely" invented by creationists, is invalid,
What's even worse are those that say "evolution *within* a 'kind' is OK".
And then you ask them the difference between "kind" and "species" and they
handwave. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:07:50 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> did spake thusly:
>
>> Only to clueless people. It seems to me that the evidence is
>> sufficiently overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe that
>> evolution occurs.
>
> Ah but they don't deny evolution, they deny unplanned evolution.
I think you'll find a whole bunch of the faithful who don't believe "we
descended from monkeys."
> However it is also possible
> to suggest that a group suddenly lost their body hair and thus moved to
> the shore because those that didn't suffered skin cancers (having lost
> their protection) and that this was 'meant' to happen as the water
> allowed us to attain our full upright posture which allowed us to
> utilise our hands more etc. etc.
So God miraculously caused skin cancers in order to get what he wanted?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
> OK, that's pretty impressive.
>
> How is it possible to stand up in public and emit outright provable
> *lies* like this? Seriously... is there actually no law against
> deliberately trying to mislead people?
If there was, they would have to close like.. 90% of the churches in the
country. lol But, seriously, its the whole "freedom of speech" thing,
combined with the *entirely* unequal protection that religion gets when
its adherents "claim" to be talking about "Truth". DI people function in
a state of flux. If the attack on them is about "factual" information,
they claim its "religious", therefor exempt from attack, if its the
validity of a religious assertion, they claim that their view is
actually "scientific", and therefor cannot be challenged theologically,
and since the vast majority of people either don't care, or have grown
up with a failed science education, which leaves them unable to address
the flaws in "either" perspective, they can do this with impunity, with
almost no chance of being challenged.
The problem for them is, of course, the moment they take "opinion", and
try to present it as "policy", people that do know the difference show
up, like at the Dover trial, and rip "both" sides of their argument to
shreds, exposing in the process, their real intentions. Same has been
happening in some school boards, thankfully, where saner minds have
fired, elected replacements for, or simply backed down, due to possible
lawsuits, from promoting this BS. Then again, you also have cases like
one woman in the Texas state board who "admits" that she thinks that
public schools, which must follow "standards" in their education are
"unconstitutional", and has actually stated that she thinks its her holy
duty, or some BS, to do everything in her power to intentionally
undermine them. Pretty sure she isn't the only one, and that the only
thing making it even stupider is that some of them, like her, mean
"destroy", while others mean, "corrupt with creationist and extremist
religious views", which are two mutually exclusive goals. You can't,
"make schools more religious", and, "completely destroy and replace them
with home schooling and private schools", at the same time. Not without
shooting your own movement in the foot in the process.
Unfortunately, both groups are shooting the next generation in the head,
as a means to their general ends. :(
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-2-2009 16:33, Darren New wrote:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> And lo On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:07:50 -0000, Darren New
>> <dne### [at] sanrrcom> did spake thusly:
>>
>>> Only to clueless people. It seems to me that the evidence is
>>> sufficiently overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe
>>> that evolution occurs.
>>
>> Ah but they don't deny evolution, they deny unplanned evolution.
>
> I think you'll find a whole bunch of the faithful who don't believe "we
> descended from monkeys."
Apes! Beware of the librarian.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-2-2009 6:45, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 3-2-2009 23:07, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> We know that God did survive,
>>>
>>> Do we?
>> well 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' implies
>> that He was there before the big bang. He is still here, so He
>> survived. (All from the perspective of someone that believes God
>> exists of course).
> Interestingly, as someone pointed out, there is never any mention of God
> "making" the sea, just breathing on one that was already there, as a
> means of "starting" the whole mess... So, not much of a "all powerful"
> god, if he had to start with something that was already there...
>
>>>
>>>> so why not another form of life?
>>>
>>> Because God isn't a form of life?
>>
>> That is an interesting position.
>>
> Technically true though. Life implies certain properties. With the
> possible exception of "reproduction", which even crystals can manage..,
> its a bit unclear what "life processes" he has, which qualifies him as a
> "life form". But, maybe that is being a bit too nit picky. We are
> talking about something you can't provide non-self referencing evidence
> for "reproducing" either.
I think that according to the bible he made adam and eve in his own
image (from which we can e.g. infer that God has nipples). You can
easily argue that that is 'reproduction'. Genesis 6 starts with: "1 When
men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to
them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful,
and they married any of them they chose." I don't know what the
canonical interpretation is but it seems that either he had actual
children or he considers men close enough to count as his sons.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I think that according to the bible he made adam and eve in his own image
> (from which we can e.g. infer that God has nipples). You can easily argue
> that that is 'reproduction'. Genesis 6 starts with: "1 When men began to
> increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the
> sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married
> any of them they chose." I don't know what the canonical interpretation is
> but it seems that either he had actual children or he considers men close
> enough to count as his sons.
Makes me wonder about vestigial organs. Does God have a tail? A third
eyelid? If we go by what we know of the earliest humans, God could very well
be Neanerthal.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> How is it possible to stand up in public and emit outright provable
>> *lies* like this? Seriously... is there actually no law against
>> deliberately trying to mislead people?
>
> If there was, they would have to close like.. 90% of the churches in the
> country. lol
Well, not really.
"I believe that God created the world." That's factual. There's
(presumably) no lie in that.
"God did create the world." This may or may not be true, so you can't
really prohibit somebody saying it.
"This equation from this paper *proves* that God created the world."
This is immediately and trivially falsifiable. This is a lie - an
untruth created for the expressed purpose of misleading people.
> But, seriously, its the whole "freedom of speech" thing,
> combined with the *entirely* unequal protection that religion gets when
> its adherents "claim" to be talking about "Truth". DI people function in
> a state of flux. If the attack on them is about "factual" information,
> they claim its "religious", therefor exempt from attack, if its the
> validity of a religious assertion, they claim that their view is
> actually "scientific", and therefor cannot be challenged theologically,
> and since the vast majority of people either don't care, or have grown
> up with a failed science education, which leaves them unable to address
> the flaws in "either" perspective, they can do this with impunity, with
> almost no chance of being challenged.
Pretty crazy stuff.
OTOH... for what a man would wish to be true, that he more readily
believes. I guess that explains why anybody would fall for this nonesense.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
