Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[Aric2000]

You were warned not to start a quote battle there fester.

Now they are going to come out of the woodwork, these kind of pissing matches never get us anywhere.

We do NOT teach religion in public schools, that is the families job. Facts and science and knowledge have a place in public school.

We have what are called the separation of church and state, if you wish your child to learn creationism in school, then send them to a private religious school.

Otherwise make sure that you teach it at home, it is NOT the schools job.

[longshadow]

Gentlemen (and ladies), a moment of silence, please.

"medved" - banned

"sallymag" - banned

"titanmike" - banned

"nanrod" - banned

"tallyho1946" - banned after 1 day on FreeRepublic; all traces obliterated.

It appears that Ted Holden, the "eschoir" of CREVO threads, has left the building.

P.S. This new software is REALLY the balls....

[Aric2000]

Do you believe the attributes of these atomic particles to be coincidental even though this is the only known configuration by which life as we know it can be sustained?

or how about that life evolved to fit in with the laws of the universe? no other life could have, so therefore it is the only life that survived.

Why is it always the universe is too complex? The universe was designed for us to survive? Why isn't it, how did we evolve as we did to fit into the physical laws of this universe?

You are going at it from a creationist viewpoint, humans are the center of the universe, maybe it is the universe that is the center of everything and we just got REAL, REAL, lucky that evolution worked and we did evolve the way we did. We are but atoms within the sand on a very large beach?

Science and religion do not mix, when you can prove that there is a creator, then we will discuss it being part of science.

The whole idea that the universe is designed CANNOT be proven, why? because you cannot prove that there is a designer. When you can look at DNA and give me a manufacturer and serial number, or maybe find god in person and have him say, "yep, I created this..." then we can talk about it being fact. In the meantime, it is religion, not science and has NO place in our public schools.

You want to teach your children creationism/ID then go ahead, but don't expect our public schools to teach religious dogma for you, that is YOUR job, not thiers.

[Aric2000]

I'm so sad!! NOT!!!! LOL

[Doctor Stochastic]

That's what "scientists" were claiming.

Which scientists? Confederate scientists?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your reply and for your interest in this line of inquiry!!!

I do think it is an important aspect of current research and would greatly appreciate your giving me a heads up or Freep mail whenever you run across something on the subject that interests you.

As far as algorithms from the inception of the universe, I suspect we may see pioneering research from either Wolfram's corner or Tegmark's (in which case perhaps Physicist will help us to understand it more thoroughly.)

[Doctor Stochastic]

From Hitler's writings, it would seem that he was a monotheist with a rather warped interpretation of Christianity. Hitler no more represents (modern) Lutherianism than Torquemada represents (modern) Catholicism. No creed is immune from being misused.

[Tribune7]

Which scientists? Confederate scientists?

The science establishment. I'm I being overly cruel if I cite Stephen Jay Gould as a source?

The rationalizations for slavery were remarkable. A set of intellectuals arose in the South before 1860 that not only defended slavery, but argued its moral superiority on the grounds of its service to the slaves, to the disadvantage of the enslaving Whites! Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, ... is a superb account of how U.S. science at the highest levels constructed and maintained a "scientific" case for racism over many decades by mainly innocent and not consciously contrived scientific charlataury. The ability to put aside cultural blinders is rare. And it appears that what money and power demand, science and technology will provide, however outrageous the end.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post 2664!

Indeed, I would expect the official reaction to be bucketing the observation into the Anthropic Principle rather than attempting to personify the origin.

But with regard to the meaning, the MAXIMA, BOOMERANG, and DASI collaborations made it clear that the structure of the universe is due to inflation, not to topological defects. Cosmological Patterns and Galaxy Biasing (pdf)

And from Berkeley Lab:

The width and position of the first peak indicate that fluctuations on all scales were already in place at the earliest moments of the universe. A period of rapid expansion in the early moments of the universe could have set these perturbations in place by blowing up microscopic quantum fluctuations to astronomical scales -- seeding the galaxies and nets of galaxies we see today...

Had the structure of the universe been seeded not by inflation but by topological defects, that is by phase changes in the extreme energies of the early universe, the first peak in the CMB power spectrum would have been broader and lacking harmonics.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Seems I was right about the Confederates.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your replies at 2674 and 2677!

I fail to see why the existence of "algorithm from inception" makes a compelling case for ID, should we turn one up.

In my view, this test for intelligent design would apply to any first cause – abiogenesis, big bang, etc. If we discover algorithm from inception, it would mean that we have discovered initial information content: symbolization, conditionals, recursives and processes in a step-by-step instruction. That is intelligent design per se.

There are two methods of Popperian falsification: by showing that there are no such algorithms or information content or that such algorithms and information content can arise from null.

To get a better idea of the significance of this to biology, I would suggest looking at the work of Yockey who authored “Information Theory and Molecular Biology” and Pattee – The Physics of Symbols and especially Rocha – Syntactic Autonomy.

Wolfram’s approach is to look at the forest, but these scientists are working among the trees.

Indeed, Wolfram has observed what patterns may arise from simple rules. Looking only at definitive areas, the import of his observation to intelligent design is not readily apparent.

Even so, Wolfram has mentioned that his observations are not supportive of natural selection. He said In the end, therefore, what I conclude is that many of the most obvious features of complexity in biological organisms arise in a sense not because of natural selection, but rather in spite of it.

Based on his work but much more so on the ones named above – I assert that, because of the Kolmogorov and Chaitin definitive work, the randomness pillar of evolution is about to be debunked. IMHO, evolutionists ought to be malleable on this point and move away from random mutation as the seed for natural selection – and toward opportunistic self mutation as a more likely seed.

The opportunistic mechanisms being researched are not limited to junk DNA. And for discovering information content, I suggest that Rocha’s work will be the most important to watch.

[Tribune7]

Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, ... is a superb account of how U.S. science at the highest levels constructed and maintained a "scientific" case for racism over many decades . . .

[general_re]

What is the mathemetical probability of so much substance arising with this kind of consistency?

A posteriori attempts to assign odds to events do not produce meaningful results, although I can say that if the universe were not consistent in this manner, you wouldn't be around to remark at its consistency.

[f.Christian]

FC...

a recurring theme around here.


2589 posted on 01/03/2003 2:19 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew

fC...

power/lies abhor a vacuum---

overflowing around here!

[Aracelis]

"tallyho1946" - banned after 1 day on FreeRepublic; all traces obliterated.

Sheesh! He's started his very own "Who's Who". lol

[Aracelis]

• You're an evo materialist atheist and who cares what you think?
• Three plus five is nine for very large values of three, five, or both.
• The real point is that I've already refuted everyhthing you've ever said or thought in your life and you're just making a distraction.

Classics!! Now you've gotten me all nostalgic...

[Aracelis]

From FC: "Please prove to me that creationism must absolutely entail religion."

From tpaine: "Not possible to 'prove' , as you well know.

Well actually, fellas...we can turn to the good old dictionary for some illumination:

religion - 1. the belief in and worship of God or gods. 2. a specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics. (Webster's New World Dictionary, 1995)

Acknowledging that a Creator is responsible for the existence of everything entails belief...because no one has "proof" that such a being exists. Unless of course someone can produce fingernail clippings or somesuch bit of physical evidence.

[Boiler Plate]

Amino acids are still inert and are far cry from life. Many efforts to animate inert matter have been attempted and yet all have failed even with guiding hands. The hope of evolution is that life will always rachet itself up through selection. However the truth is evrything decays down to simpler lower energy forms. Amino acids while they can be synthesized, will break down long before the next quantum leap occurs, that being creating DNA. The concentrations of Amino acids in an open environment, necessary to even begin to combine to form the next step are simply not possible. A lab setup doesn't mean it could happen in the real world, it just means you can do it in a lab. As I stated before Amino Acids are simply the raw materials, it takes specific instructions and energy to form them into anything else. No one has yet figured out how to do that. Creating artificial life is right up there with being able to travel back and forth through time, no number of trite sayings is going to make that possible either. However it always makes for great conversations and I am sure that the Miami Hurricanes wish they could.

[Boiler Plate]

Can all men reason? Can all men reason the same? As we found with the Clintons we do not all reason the same or as I would say with Rev Al Sharpton I don't think he has any reason in him at all.

The truth is that the Founding Fathers were calling upon a higher authority, than themselves and mankind in total, to justify their actions. As made obvious by their declaration King George reasoned as did many of his countrymen both in Britain and the colonies that we did not posses those rights. The British Monarchy has run contrary to what other men have thought what were and were not God given rights more than once, as evidenced by the Magna Carta and Cromwell's running down of King Charles.

It is the recognition of a higher authority that is the basis of all our law system also know as natural law. Without it then justice is simply a matter of force and not reason at all.

[PatrickHenry]

You missed one:

"annflounder" -- banned.