Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
“Instead, crickets.” [excerpt]Uh, yeah...
Science proceeds faster in the absence of top-down control.
The Russians learned this (way too late) with Lysenko.
Creationists have yet to learn this. As recently as last week efforts were being made in Mississippi to dictate what could, and what could not, be taught as science.
You'd think the lesson of Dover would still be fresh in their minds, eh?
Reasonable men can disagree on what analogies and doubts are "reasonable."
the species did have metainfo already established that was able to make sense of language and to understand how to use it....You and polanyi are assuming that the grammar and language are the metainfo, when in reality, the metainfo is what allows us to utilize those three steps
On what basis do you assert that humans already had the metainfo necessary to understand language before there was any such thing as language? What evidence could you possibly have for that?
If science could define God, it wouldn’t be God.
Well, that's how I read it too, CottShop!
” But it is not enough even to have an elegant ‘just right’ information storage system—it must also contain information. And not just biologically relevant information, but brilliantly inventive strategies and tactics to guide living things through the extraordinary challenges they face in their seemingly miraculous achievements of metabolism and reproduction. Yet even ingenious strategies and tactics are not enough. Choreography requires an intricate and harmonious regulation of every aspect of life to make sure that the right things happen at the right time, and in the right sequence, otherwise chaos and death soon follow.”
Darwin himself set the standard that all this had to be achieved in small increments of improvement and that if not his theory would fail. What would he have thought if he had even known of Gregor Mendel let alone the above.
How can you say that? I've criticized Williams' reasoning on several counts, as have others. Other people have criticized his grasp of science and even shown where a couple of his assertions were wrong. I thought we were here to debate his paper, not the whole evolution ball of wax. Even if you don't think any of the criticisms are significant, if all you hear is crickets you must be as deaf as that previous poster said.
[[Actually, the crappy vacuum cleaner analogy refutes that...self-reproducing machines have been conceived of for decades in SF and in science speculation, Arthur C. Clark as I recall suggested such machines to explore the galaxy. Self-reproducing computer simulations, including those with “decent with modifications” also exist.]]
Speculation about htings not created yeet, and intelligently designed examples of computer programs refute it how again?
[[To properly comment on this piece a poster would need to review the citations, so often in Creation “Science” we find “quote-mining” and misrepresentations.]]
you haven’t got a clue do you? The quesitons were simple enough.
[[The Williams piece also repeats the standard-issue Creationist statistical fallacy, refuted over and over and over, that useful molecules are too “improbable” to evolve “by chance.”]]
Refuted? Where? All I see are ‘refutaitons’ that are essentially “It ‘could have’ happened” over and over and over again.
[[Polany’s Science article is a classic; Williams’s essay is classic Creationist quote-mining with classic Creationist thoroughly-refuted crap arguments.]]
you call that an argument? Lol- Here- let me ‘refute’ polanyi “Polanyi is wrong because I say so and that is that” - There! I’ve just given just as powerful a ‘refutaiton and argument’ as you provuided us ll here- Thanks for dropping by- it was enlightening to see how hte other side works!
There is no such thing as ‘mass at rest’ everything is in continuous orbital motion from the electron to the the galaxy
DC? This thread has only been up for a day. Some of us have lives, even though it may not be apparent : )
I spent the day working on a journal article. Some of us actually do science.
As for this thread? If this thread represents the quality of science acceptable to the Republican party or to conservatives, prepare for 40 years in the political wilderness. There is so much anti-science nonsense spread about here its not worth even reading it.
Oh, and to Cottshop particularly. I notice on the ping list that you are constantly pinging me. Don't bother--I am no longer even reading your posts. You have shown over an extended period that you have nothing to say worth the effort of reading.
Congratulations: you and a couple of others have made yourselves the new faces of science on this website. Use that position wisely.
Seems to me you're really on to something there, CottShop.
So far you’ve been wrong in all the replies you’ve sent me,
LOL, From your quote "We would have found the same relation between mass and energy even if we had considered energy emitted in a form other than light, although it might have made the math more difficult." That is in complete agreement : )
And again, "the mass of an object is a measure of how much energy it contains." Again E=M, elegant really : )
Did you even bother reading your two quotes : )
Except that the self-replicating machine arose not out of mere chance, but from the application of intelligence.
I believe we had that pretty well established that's what he's saying several hours ago. Has the thread disintegrated into mutual congratulations on our reading comprehension?
Thank you.
If there is no acceleration, F=0, duh...
M=F/A So you are saying that if something is at rest it has zero mass too?
[[Reasonable men can disagree on what analogies and doubts are “reasonable.”]]
to an extent, but when the dissagrements start involving unreasonable claims that simply violate nature, biology and mathematical statistics, and hte evidences are numerous and beyond reasonalbe doubt, then it not logner becomes reasonable to claim something.
[[On what basis do you assert that humans already had the metainfo necessary to understand language before there was any such thing as language?]]
Reasonability- the brain receives the impulses fro mthe ear, the brain then begins to sort and file, and immediately use certain sounds and vibrations, and processes this into useful info which it then uses it’s already established ability to put to use to figuring out a system that would be advantageous- If we’re to asume language arose after a long drawn out macroevolutionary process, it’s hten clear that we already had the metainfo established to deal with htis new foreign concept.
Help me out here. Am I supposed to be one of "the Evos", or not?
Mass at rest is equal to mass.
Anything divided by zero is undefined.
So force divided by zero does not equal mass, nor does it equal nothing, it is undefined.
No wonder you were surprised by your conclusion. I’d be surprised if I came to a conclusion that stupid as well.
Fortunately the materialists are wrong, God created us, not the opposite.
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.