Posted on 05/31/2005 12:03:06 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Scientists are so arrogant! The only reason they dismiss Velikovsky is because they worship the dogma of naturalism. Has anyone actually observed the formation of Venus?
So not only are the creationists soulmates with the postmoderndeconstructions and harun yahya; they are the Molly Ivins of the conservative movement. Needless to say, the Moderate Creationists never criticize anyone for plagiarism.
Good move. As I'm sure you noticed, the market for folksy pseudo-ingenues is kinda slack here at the moment. Better luck on your next gig.
Bougereau left this eyewitness painting.
Note: The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years. This photograph of the work is also in the public domain in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.).
I don't think it is necessarily true that there is "information" in the genome. For example this fractal image was created with nothing but the formula:
Z' = Z^2 + C
There was really no other information. No artist drew it and it wasn't a product of evolution. Yet it appears to have patterns and appears to be a product of intelligent design. <<
It is a design made up from HUMAN mathematical constructs. It appears to be the product of intelligent design...because it is.
Analogies are not proof. Data from "stuff" is. Make a measurement, a reading, or whatever. After you have your data, make a hypothesis. Then find a way to test your hypothesis with new information. Form a theory. Let others refute it. If it is useful, others will use it. If not, everyone sends it to the scrap heap.
That is not what NS is doing now.
DK
OK, boys and girls, another in the popular Creation Science/Intelligent Design series that they didn't want you to see--because there's just as much evidence for this as for their version.
At the beginning of the world it was covered in darkness. A chief, a chieftianess and son lived at Kungalas. Although the child was greatly loved, he died without cause. The whole tribe mourned each day beside the boy's lifeless body. One morning instead of her dead son the chieftainess witnessed the rising of a boy out of her son's body which burned brightly. She was overjoyed to see her son come back to life. This glowing boy grew large until his father began to call him a giant. Giant boy ate most of the tribe's food, so his father sent him over the sea to find more to eat. Giant boy flew inland and took with him a stone, a raven blanket and a dried bladder full of berries. He dropped the stone in the ocean and rested upon it. Each time he dropped a stone and rested he created a new rocky island. Giant Boy scattered the berries across the land and created a forest filled with fruit. He scattered the salmon roe and trout roe into the rivers to create an abundance of fish. From this day Giant Boy never lacked food in the new world.
I will dissolve back into my lurker mode<
Good move. As I'm sure you noticed, the market for folksy pseudo-ingenues is kinda slack here at the moment. Better luck on your next gig.<<
Ahh the good Professor expresses happiness on shutting down debate, and discourse from someone seeking knowledge.
That fits in with education...how?
Scientific model and testing beliefs...how?
Or are you just one of those educational dinosaurs everyone is waiting to die, so science can advance?
How many times has that idea been expressed in science?
DK
Professor, you really need to work at those social skills, doncha think?
Mathematicians don't design things they discover things just as a physicist discovered the formula
F = G m1 m2 / r^2
for the force of gravity. He didn't construct it. He discovered that nature obeys that law. Likewise with other pure mathematical concepts. No mathematician invented pi or e. They were always there and they will always be there.
What that fractal image proves is that very complex patterns can be created from very simple rules that have no information input. Likewise, physicists have discovered that the universe obeys some very simple rules, perhaps only one rule.
Everything has a direct ancestor. You almost certainly do, for instance.
Analogies are used all the time in science to build conceptual models that help us understand phenomenon. This is nothing new. It is one of the the ways scientists have worked for centuries.
According to Occam's Razor, the simplest model that best explains the phenomenon is the closest to the truth.
Cue violins.
Professor, you really need to work at those social skills, doncha think?
Spotting sanctimonious phonies is a social skill.
Humans make the model. It is descriptive of the phenomena hopefully, but a model is not the phenomena.
Did nature invent E or pi, or are they constructions of humans trying to understand E or pi?
Your understanding of these "rules" are bass ackwards. The rules we use are adequate until a better more descriptive rule comes into use. Occams razor comes into play here.
Our mathematics and reasoning are only descriptive of the phenomena we observe. E and pi are our ways of understanding what natural phenomena are. Not the other way around.
Nature does not bend to our boundries.
In your examples, do they hold true in all examples...near light speed, near a great gravitational forces, or at extremely small distances? No? Does it make a difference if it is a point source or a plane?
You pose that the universe may obey only one rule.
Say it outloud, and you will get the Nobel Prize and the accolades of so many countries your life will be lauded.
But I won't hold my breath.
Fractals are a human construct. One made to mimic nature.
Your proof by analogy is silly.
Your knowledge about physicists is just as silly.
Have fun in this silly thread.
DK
Spotting sanctimonious phonies is a social skill.<<
Gee professor, shutting down discourse is a really important skill:
If you have tenure.
If you lack facts.
If you depend on authority (as a logical fallicy)?
If you depend on Ad Hominem attacks to defend your position?
Have fun RWP!
I find you amusing. Unlike that poor soul that actually wanted to learn something from this thread, I take you for your face value. On a forum, you are worth nothing. Your additions to this forums have been:
Nothing.
Learn some social skills RWP, you may find that you will not have to depend on your position to actually convince people.
Ohh, the violins are playing, at the funeral of RWP's arguments. How sad?
DK
Actually, I do believe I've posted a substantial body of substantive material. See post 398, or 329, or 310, or 273; I fully appreciate that because you were either unwilling or unable to understand any of it you're inclined to deny it exists, but that's par for the course for a creationist. On the other hand all I've seen from you are sanctimonious platitudes. Do you have anything else to offer, or should I put you on permanent ignore?
Only my belief that you surely enjoy shutting down belief before convincing anyone.
To: Right Wing Professor
>>well now that you know what I was trying to say, will you reply with full context answer? or will you belittle my grammatical skills for lack of an scientific example?
329 posted on 06/01/2005 11:17:26 AM PDT by flevit >>
When you produce a sticklefish that develops legs and walks on land, or starts breathing air, let me know
Here's a fish that walks on land and breathes air.
I take it that since your challenge has been met, you will concede you lost the argument.
That was a Sticklefish?<<
310 posted on 06/01/2005 10:05:32 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
Crap logic prof, did you get your stuff off a box of corn flakes?
To: blueblazes
I am referring to the process by which primeval ooze produced amoebas that somehow became shrimp that somehow became fish, that somehow became frogs, that somehow became reptiles that somehow became mammals, that somehow became primates, that somehow became man.
First of all, you should get your basic facts straight. Evolution does not put shrimp on the human ancestral line
More importantly, though, science does not deal in proof, it deals in evidence.
The molecular phylogeny of living things is strong evidence of common ancestry and of evolution by mutation and natural selection. It allows us to construct evolutionary trees for all of life that agree with the fossil evidence, have the mathematical structure predicted by evolutionary theory, and cannot plausibly be explained by alternative theories.
273 posted on 06/01/2005 7:50:33 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
Again crap logic. You too make many assumptions. Prove them or let your theory die an untimely death.
No one is asking you to prove them but that is your burden.
You're not a scientist in this case.
Oh, sorry, you have CREDENTIALS.
You're silly! You're a hoot.
DK
This is your idea of debate?
Bye.
No, it is your kind of debate.
Science and you lost kin a long time ago.
You cited a bunch of crappy logic to prove your case.
How unimpressive.
Are you impressed Darby McGill?
What a voice of reason! RWR.
I'm sure 18 year olds (under your authority) are really eager to cite your elegance. Your have to do better and smarter on FR.
DK
What was your first clue? :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.