RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   
  Topic: Thread for Keith Robinson, Author of "Logic's End"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2007,11:49   

Keith Robinson is a local public school music teacher and creationist. He's written a novel called Logic's End which is described thusly at Amazon:
 
Quote
In the near future, when planetary space travel has become possible, a NASA planetfinder telescope discovers a planet that has the necessary requirements to produce life. Rebecca Evans, a staunch evolutionary scientist, is one of the people chosen to visit the planet. After arriving on the surface, she is kidnapped and finds herself caught in the middle of an ongoing planetary war between alien clans. In an effort to escape, she makes a deal with one of the clans to exchange precious technology for her freedom. She soon finds out that on Kaesh, you cannot trust anyone. For on this planet, survival of the fittest is played out to its logical end. Her journey of discovery turns into a search for truth as she begins to question the very foundations of all that she believes about the origin of life.

In other words, the novel is apparently about a godless planet where the inhabitants are inherently untrustworthy because of evilution.  

If you like you can go here  (scroll down) and listen to a podcast interview of Robinson.

Robinson's publisher is Anomalos, apparently a vanity publishing outlet that claims to not be a vanity publishing oulet.  Robinson's "short bio" there reads as follows:
Quote

Keith Robinson has dedicated his life to teaching others about the evidence for creation and against evolution. He has presented his research findings to school district administrators, fellow teachers, students and church members. His interest in the topic of Creation and Evolution has led him to write both a full-length dramatic play, and the science fiction novel dealing with the issue, Logic’s End: A Novel about the Origin of Life.

An invitation has been extended to Mr. Robinson to join us here and discuss.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2007,12:00   

Oh this should be fun.

He actually has evidence? Bring it on.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2007,12:06   

Of course he has evidence. Evolution makes people on far away planets act all mean and stuff.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2007,12:15   

This synopsis seems to leave out inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism. Genes are selfish, people aren't necessarily so.

That said, welcome, Keith Robinson, when and if you should show up.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2007,12:17   

If he shows up here, we're probably going to see a fair amount of these:

Quote
CA000: Ethics

   * CA001. Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.
   * CA002. Survival of the fittest implies might makes right.
         o CA002.1. Evolution leads to social Darwinism.

and probably some of this
Quote

# CA008. Evolution encourages promiscuity and lust.
# CA009. Evolution teaches that we are animals and to behave as such.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2007,12:20   

I'm interested to hear about his "research findings," and how he's presented them to his fellow teachers and students, being that he's employed in a public school.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2007,12:57   

Quote
Evolution makes people on far away planets act all mean and stuff.

And not just on faraway planets.  Arsemuppet.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2007,09:44   

I'm still trying to get Robinson to respond to e-mail messages. I don't know if he's hasn't read them or is ignoring them. In the meantime, there's a story in the local paper about him and his book today. You can see it here. I don't know how long that link will stay alive, so here's the story:
Quote
For a guy who does research for classes he teaches at his church on a computer decorated with pictures of "Star Wars" characters, maybe Keith Robinson's book, "Logic's End," was indeed a logical end.

About eight years ago Robinson was teaching a class on apologetics, the defense or proving of Christian doctrines, at Prayerhouse Assembly of God church when he struck on an idea for a way to lay out his critique of evolution.

"I had all this information, but I realized that this is the kind of information that many people never even hear," Robinson said. "In our day and age, one of the best ways to get information out to people is through stories, and I thought it would be really interesting if someone took this information and put it into an entertaining story."

The result is "Logic's End," the story - which Robinson calls "apologetics fiction," and probably owes a lot to his days playing Dungeons and Dragons and reading "The Chronicles of Narnia" books - of a manned space mission to a fictional planet in the not-so-distant future. The planet's large, dangerous and dragon-like inhabitants kidnap a human scientist and walk her through a world ruled only by the notion of survival of the fittest.

"I also liked the idea of doing a what-if, and this book really does that," said Robinson, the band and orchestra director at Indian Trail Academy. "What if evolution was taken out to its logical conclusion?"

The conclusion Robinson came to does not square with life as we know it on our planet. In "Logic's End," the mutations that drive evolution leave creatures asymmetrical. There is little or no consideration for the well-being of future generations. There is no art, and nothing is made or done with any aesthetic considerations.

These are problems that evolutionists cannot explain, Robinson said.

"Evolution can explain the negatives around us like slavery and abortion, but how do you explain beauty or love?" he said. "Why would someone take the time to make anything beautiful?"

The idea that living things evolve through mutation is shot through with holes, Robinson said.

"Why don't we have more mutations?" he asked. "There are a miniscule amount that are helpful, and then still disappear. Why is that? We don't see mutations helping animals and people. We don't see mutations adding to anything. They're just taking away."

Robinson - who was born in Kenosha, but lived most of his life in and around Chicago and graduated from Northern Illinois University - was not always a believer in creationism.

"I believed a lot of the alternative theories. I believed the secular scientists saying the Earth is millions of years old," he said. "There wasn't really a time where I believed in evolution, but there was a time where I believed in part."

But he couldn't square his religious faith with the science he had learned.

"There are parts of each that contradict the very basic points of the other," Robinson said. "Who were Adam and Eve if we evolved? Monkeys?"

The literalist Christian perspective won out, but the book is no rote recitation of any particular church's version of events.

"The book is called 'Logic's End.' I'm basing it on logic and science, not any specific, literal creation story," Robinson said.

Over the course of two years, Robinson (who had never attempted a book before) wrote and edited "Logic's End." It was another year before it was accepted by Anamolos Publishing of Crane, Mo., and then nine more months before there was a book the author could hold in his hand. Now Robinson can find his books for sale on store shelves and at amazon.com.

Robinson peppered the book with personal references, using connections to his day job to come up with all the alien terms he needed. The book's "Bratsche Gorge" comes from the German word for viola, Robinson's primary instrument. "Ionian Laser Technologies" comes from a kind of musical scale.

As descriptive as his writing may have been, Robinson responded to suggestions from early readers by adding, with the help of artist and recent Tremper High School graduate Samuel Schlenker, vivid drawings of the alien creatures - as well as a pair of maps and a pronunciation guide. Anything it takes to get people engrossed in the lively story, Robinson said, and get them to reconsider their preconceptions.

"One of my biggest frustrations is when I ask people why they believe what they believe and they say, 'Because that's what I was taught,' or 'That's what my parents told me,'" he said. "I want them to think, to ask questions. And they can have some fun while they do that."


--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2007,10:33   

Quote
The conclusion Robinson came to does not square with life as we know it on our planet. In "Logic's End," the mutations that drive evolution leave creatures asymmetrical. There is little or no consideration for the well-being of future generations. There is no art, and nothing is made or done with any aesthetic considerations.


Oh my god.

I don't even know where to start.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2007,10:38   

I don't either. Robinson doesn't seem to have any idea what he's talking about, either with the biology, or the related philosophical topics.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2007,11:13   

Quote
These are problems that evolutionists cannot explain, Robinson said.

"Evolution can explain the negatives around us like slavery and abortion, but how do you explain beauty or love?" he said. "Why would someone take the time to make anything beautiful?"

The idea that living things evolve through mutation is shot through with holes, Robinson said.

"Why don't we have more mutations?" he asked. "There are a miniscule amount that are helpful, and then still disappear. Why is that? We don't see mutations helping animals and people. We don't see mutations adding to anything. They're just taking away."

Hell's teeth.  This is middle-school stuff.  Twenty minutes at the library would answer these questions.  This guy is how old?

Quote
The result is "Logic's End," the story - which Robinson calls "apologetics fiction," and probably owes a lot to his days playing Dungeons and Dragons and reading "The Chronicles of Narnia" books...

Oh.  Fifteen.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2007,11:15   

# CA008. Evolution encourages promiscuity and lust.


Where was I!....I miss all the fun things!

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2007,11:18   

Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 19 2007,11:15)
# CA008. Evolution encourages promiscuity and lust.


Where was I!....I miss all the fun things!

I know exactly what you mean. Every time lust & promiscuity come up in the Darwinist sweepstakes, I'm busy spreading Ebola and burning churches.

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2007,11:20   

While I was reading the article, Keith Robinson's comments automatically were in the voice of Derek Zoolander in my head. Some autonomic program in my brain must be able to predict tard.

I tried to force the voice of the comics guy from The Simpsons, just to see what would happen, but my brain rejected the switch.

  
wonkuoynahtevoleromdeeni



Posts: 1
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2007,17:17   

I'm kinda just here to say how I feel. Ok, I'm a student of his and I have been for about 3 years now. Mr. Robinson has never tried to force his views on us. All we knew was he was writing a book. Of course, we knew what it was about cause we asked. But nothing else. Being a biotechnology student, I have to sit in whole class periods about evolution and other things I don't believe in. I mean, I have to sit through that crap for an hour and a half. However, I don't go around  bashing my teachers or Darwin for  wrting what they say.  I don't make a big fuss cause everyone believes what they wanna believe and I certainly don't want to try to stop that so I take it and move on. It doesn't phase me cause I know what I believe in. And what's more, I sure as hell do not go around talking about people when I know nothing about them. He's a great guy and a wicked awesome teacher. I can say that cause I know him. Now I know I'm only 16 and I'm probably way younger than anyone else but I have good perception and I'm intelligent. But what I can't see is why this has to be such a big deal. It's just a 276 page book. Get over it. Talk about something interesting like Iraq or the things we teach our children in schools.

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2007,17:28   

This forum is kind of about evolution, and anti-evolution. It'd be rather silly to not discuss a novel asserting an anti-evolution viewpoint, even in passing.

We could be nicer about it, but that's mostly an issue of style, honestly, not malice. We've probably said more vicious things about each other than anyone else in the time I've been here. It's largely not a very serious place.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2007,17:45   

Quote (wonkuoynahtevoleromdeeni @ Dec. 21 2007,18:17)
I'm kinda just here to say how I feel. Ok, I'm a student of his and I have been for about 3 years now. Mr. Robinson has never tried to force his views on us. All we knew was he was writing a book. Of course, we knew what it was about cause we asked. But nothing else. Being a biotechnology student, I have to sit in whole class periods about evolution and other things I don't believe in. I mean, I have to sit through that crap for an hour and a half. However, I don't go around  bashing my teachers or Darwin for  wrting what they say.  I don't make a big fuss cause everyone believes what they wanna believe and I certainly don't want to try to stop that so I take it and move on. It doesn't phase me cause I know what I believe in. And what's more, I sure as hell do not go around talking about people when I know nothing about them. He's a great guy and a wicked awesome teacher. I can say that cause I know him. Now I know I'm only 16 and I'm probably way younger than anyone else but I have good perception and I'm intelligent. But what I can't see is why this has to be such a big deal. It's just a 276 page book. Get over it. Talk about something interesting like Iraq or the things we teach our children in schools.

how'd you find out about this discussion, Wonk?

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2007,17:50   

Quote
But what I can't see is why this has to be such a big deal. It's just a 276 page book. Get over it.


276 pages, huh? Anyone else suspicious that Wonk might not be exactly who he says he is?

Quote
the things we teach our children in schools.


...

   
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2007,17:54   

Damnit, Steve, we'll never convince him to stay if we make our utter incredulity evident!

... more evident than it already is!

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2007,17:55   

Meh, sounds like a highschooler to me. One that apparently doesn't believe in all sorts of things (s)he learns in his/her biotechnology class. Aside from evolution, I wonder what those things could be. Independent assortment? RFLP? Inquiring minds want to know. Unfortunately, this one smells like a drive-by.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2007,18:00   

Quote (wonkuoynahtevoleromdeeni @ Dec. 21 2007,15:17)
I'm kinda just here to say how I feel. Ok, I'm a student of his and I have been for about 3 years now. Mr. Robinson has never tried to force his views on us. All we knew was he was writing a book. Of course, we knew what it was about cause we asked. But nothing else. Being a biotechnology student, I have to sit in whole class periods about evolution and other things I don't believe in. I mean, I have to sit through that crap for an hour and a half. However, I don't go around  bashing my teachers or Darwin for  wrting what they say.  I don't make a big fuss cause everyone believes what they wanna believe and I certainly don't want to try to stop that so I take it and move on. It doesn't phase me cause I know what I believe in. And what's more, I sure as hell do not go around talking about people when I know nothing about them. He's a great guy and a wicked awesome teacher. I can say that cause I know him. Now I know I'm only 16 and I'm probably way younger than anyone else but I have good perception and I'm intelligent. But what I can't see is why this has to be such a big deal. It's just a 276 page book. Get over it. Talk about something interesting like Iraq or the things we teach our children in schools.

Welcome to ATBC, Mr or Ms sdrawkcab.

As Annyday pointed out, we are focused on discussing evolution and the (mis)deeds of its deniers - this doesn't mean many of us don't find other things interesting, but it does mean that those things are not why we're here.

My concern about Mr Robinson stems from the likes of this (referenced here):
Quote
Keith Robinson has dedicated his life to teaching others about the evidence for creation and against evolution. He has presented his research findings to school district administrators, fellow teachers, students and church members.


"He has presented his research findings to... students".  This is worrying, given that he teaches in a public school, where religious proselytising is not allowed.  It's especially worrying since his opposition to the theory of evolution appears to be entirely based on religion: on the evidence of this, he's done no real research at all.  This, for example:
Quote
"Why don't we have more mutations?" he asked. "There are a miniscule amount that are helpful, and then still disappear. Why is that? We don't see mutations helping animals and people. We don't see mutations adding to anything. They're just taking away."

suggests little or no knowledge of biology, and this:
Quote
"Evolution can explain the negatives around us like slavery and abortion, but how do you explain beauty or love?" he said. "Why would someone take the time to make anything beautiful?"

is verging on being too silly to respond to.  (Evolution can explain slavery and abortion?  Huh?)


On a related note, I was intrigued by this sentence in your post:

Quote
Being a biotechnology student, I have to sit in whole class periods about evolution and other things I don't believe in.

Does your non-belief in evolution result from examining the evidence, or are your reasons purely religious?  If the former, would you be willing to talk about your objections?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2007,18:01   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 21 2007,15:50)
Quote
But what I can't see is why this has to be such a big deal. It's just a 276 page book. Get over it.


276 pages, huh? Anyone else suspicious that Wonk might not be exactly who he says he is?

Quote
the things we teach our children in schools.


...

Benefit of the doubt, Steve.  Innocent until proven tard.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2007,18:02   

Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 21 2007,17:55)
Meh, sounds like a highschooler to me. One that apparently doesn't believe in all sorts of things (s)he learns in his/her biotechnology class. Aside from evolution, I wonder what those things could be. Independent assortment? RFLP? Inquiring minds want to know. Unfortunately, this one smells like a drive-by.

Robinson is a high school music teacher/band director. Robinson hasn't responded to messages sent to his school district e-mail address.  I also left a comment under the web version of the article about the book in the local paper, and the comment included a link to this thread, which is possibly how junior found his/her way here.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2007,18:06   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 21 2007,18:00)
As Annyday pointed out, we are focused on discussing evolution and the (mis)deeds of its deniers - this doesn't mean many of us don't find other things interesting, but it does mean that those things are not why we're here.

Many? Not all? There are some of us who ... don't have any interests besides creationists?

Hot damn. Poor bastards. It does explain some things, however.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2007,18:24   

Quote (wonkuoynahtevoleromdeeni @ Dec. 21 2007 @ 18:17)
Being a biotechnology student, I have to sit in whole class periods about evolution and other things I don't believe in.

I don't get it. Why do people keep thinking that what they beleive about the world (and I mean literal, non-personal matters like the origin of life or this universe) matters a damned thing. The universe does not care about what you beleive, evolution isn't suddenly bullcrap just because you don't beleive in it. You've got no influence on that, reality does not work that way. Also, I wonder about how educated you are about evolution and subjects surrounding that. I noticed in high school that teaching about evolution was poor, very poor. Not that they were against it, they just simplified it soooo much that loads of important nuances were swepped away wich can easly lead to lots of missconceptions about evolution. A shame really, science should work more closely with school imo, at least here in Holland.
Quote
Now I know I'm only 16 and I'm probably way younger than anyone else but I have good perception and I'm intelligent.

I thought the same when I was 16, e.a a year ago. Lots of people, not only on this forum, waked me up from that thought. It's easy to say from yourself that you've got a good perception.
And ofcourse, like the rest sad, this forum isn't about Iraq. It's about evolution, and more important about the people who oppose evolution, there idea's, methodes, "theory's" etc etc.
Quote
the things we teach our children in schools.

You don't wanna know how many people want to see stuff like he wrote in schools.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2007,21:23   

Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 16 2007,11:15)
This synopsis seems to leave out inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism. Genes are selfish, people aren't necessarily so.

That said, welcome, Keith Robinson, when and if you should show up.

Pseudo-scientific certitude makes bad art - precious dialogue, stilted plot, long-winded solilquies clumsily advancing said plot ("You mean you don't believe in Darwinism?" "As an engineer who has written a self-playing chess program, before I met my wife and single-handedly revived the space program, I can say with certainty that--") I suspect his novel needs a rewrite. (What say, Lou?) ;)
Quote
Keith Robinson has a Bachelor of Arts and a Master Degree. Keith is from Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Ohhhhh, my. Keith Robinson is also taking correspondence courses in creative writing, I'd wager. :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,02:49   

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 21 2007,21:23)
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 16 2007,11:15)
This synopsis seems to leave out inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism. Genes are selfish, people aren't necessarily so.

That said, welcome, Keith Robinson, when and if you should show up.

Pseudo-scientific certitude makes bad art - precious dialogue, stilted plot, long-winded solilquies clumsily advancing said plot ("You mean you don't believe in Darwinism?" "As an engineer who has written a self-playing chess program, before I met my wife and single-handedly revived the space program, I can say with certainty that--") I suspect his novel needs a rewrite. (What say, Lou?) ;)
Quote
Keith Robinson has a Bachelor of Arts and a Master Degree. Keith is from Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Ohhhhh, my. Keith Robinson is also taking correspondence courses in creative writing, I'd wager. :p

Well, since we're being mean, nasty, and otherwise wicked now, it's probably noteworthy that the previewable pages feature their fair share of oddness. For the record: "radioplasmic" isn't a word, exceeding c isn't easy, and "with an air of mystery, said" should never be written by anyone ever in any language. It's just not natural.

Now that that's off my chest, I can resume my hobbies: burning churches and building ebola bombs.

P.S.: Have you ever seen Un chien andalou, Kristine?

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,06:25   

Quote (Kristine @ with an air of mystery, said,)
"As an engineer who has written a self-playing chess program, before I met my wife and single-handedly revived the space program, I can say with certainty that--") I suspect his novel needs a rewrite. (What say, Lou?) ;)

I have more than enough on my plate at the moment, thank you, but I'll put it in the queue.

*note to self, add a good radioplasmic c+ sex scene to his novel, it'll sell better.  Also add "It was a dark and stormy night" to the beginning, just for Annyday.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,08:14   

You wouldn't!

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
angst



Posts: 6
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,13:27   

The Amazon reader reviews are all creationist 5 star love:
       
Quote
By Kafonino "Kafonino" (MO):

... I loved every bit of this book. The way he constanly brought you back to the realization that evolution could not be true was a great feat.

       
Quote
By BETTYBOOP2 (HUDSON,FL):

... This book is great for teens and adults and reaches out to those who would rather get their facts from an adventure story than from a text book.

   
Quote
By Peady S (Wisconsin):

A fantastic story that not only is entertaining, but also challenges the theory of evolution!


The second one is my personal favorite.

  
KARobinson



Posts: 6
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,14:40   

Greetings.  Thank you for the invitation to join the group.  I believe that one should not be afraid to discuss ideas with others who hold opposing viewpoints, for if your ideas are correct, then they should withstand scrutiny.  In fact, I sign all of my books with one of my favorite quotes, “Real Gold Fears No Fire.”

That being said, I will only continue with a discussion as long as it remains civil.  Judging by some of the personal attacks already posted against me on this discussion board, I don’t have very high hopes.

In response to some of your questions…

First, I have not responded to e-mails because I never received them.  My school e-mail account has a very strong filter on it that sometimes doesn’t even allow parent e-mails to get through.  

Second, when my bio refers to my sharing my research with students it is in reference to meetings for church youth groups and college campus ministries.  I am not a fool and would never proselytize in my classroom.

Third, the arguments presented in Logic’s End are NOT based on religion at all, but rather on logic and science.  In fact, although I am a Christian, this book is more from the Intelligent Design standpoint than the creationist standpoint.

Judging by your comments, it sounds like any discussion we have would merely be an exercise in futility, as you probably have heard all of my arguments and I have probably heard all of yours.  In my experience, most of the conflict in regards to this issue is a matter of interpretation of scientific data and disagreements in logic.  However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and offer my first discussion point.  One of the four main issues I deal with in Logic’s End is the scientific observation that natural processes cannot produce a code system.  Therefore, how can evolution account for DNA, since it is the most advanced information storage system known to man?

I look forward to your responses (as long as they are civil).  After all, to personally attack someone you don’t know and put down their ideas based on a very brief newspaper article and online bio is behavior more fitting to a 15 year-old.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,14:56   

Welcome Keith. (I do hope you don't mind me calling you Keith, it's just easier)

I Would like, a civilly as I can, to request some of this evidence for creation and/or ID. Note, I will not accept evidence against evolution, I want the evidence FOR your position.

I would also like for you to answer a series of questions, if that is acceptable. I will not go into petty insults, nor will I swear AT you (I may swear near you, I tend to swear a lot, even in typed conversation, but don't worry, it won't be of the "You stupid (insert expletive)" variety unless you absolutely fail to discuss the points raised and simply run away screaming persecution. A tactic fairly popular with a number of people who have visited here.

Thefirst question: Is the biblical account of the flood correct? Was it a global flood survived only by those people and animals on the ark, not including fish?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,15:02   

Welcome, Keith.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,15:06   

Quote (KARobinson @ Dec. 22 2007,14:40)
One of the four main issues I deal with in Logic’s End is the scientific observation that natural processes cannot produce a code system.  Therefore, how can evolution account for DNA, since it is the most advanced information storage system known to man?

It is more accurate to say that science has no consilient explanation AT THIS TIME that fully explains how the code in DNA developed. There are testable hypotheses, however, and it is possible that this gap in our knowledge can be filled. It is also possible that we will never know for sure. It is a significant overstatement to say that "natural processes cannot produce a code system". In centuries past science had no evidence to explain lightning, for example, but it would also be an overstatement to say that "natural processes cannot produce lightning."

It is, however, not logical to jump from this lack of information to assert that it provides some kind of support for another explanation which is equally (actually more) handicapped by a lack of evidence.

Do you have an explanation for the development of the coding system in DNA that you would like to share with us?  If so, does your explanation come complete with testable hypotheses?

Thanks

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,15:54   

My question is that appears that you version of evolution in the book is a simplisitic kill or be killed version. There has been a lot of work over the last 20 years around altruism and co-operation. This is seen now as an important part of evolution and is in many popular science magazines and book. Why didn't you include this in your book?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,16:26   

Quote

In fact, although I am a Christian, this book is more from the Intelligent Design standpoint than the creationist standpoint.


It's the same place, so that can be accomplished without moving an iota.

Coding, for example, is an old antievolution argument that has been inherited by intelligent design creationists.

I was there in court when Steven Harvey proved to Scott Minnich that the argument from bacterial flagellum was wholly owned by the young-earth creationists long before Mike Behe and he picked it up and used it again. Minnich simply did not get it.

As for more technical critiques of intelligent design, you might want to look at the essay by Jeff Shallit and I about Dembski's CSI.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,16:32   

Concerning the canonical genetic code, while we don't have a good record of the particulars of its emergence over 3 billion years ago, we do have good data concerning the pattern of what few divergences there are from it, and they totally support an inference of descent with modification.

See this page for pointers to more.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,17:36   

Quote (Richardthuges @ Dec. 22 2007,15:02)
Welcome, Keith


Yes. Welcome. I'd encourage you to tell us if anything we do is unnecessarily off-putting due to tone or content, we generally don't mean to do anything that'd harm a dialogue unduly. Except for Arden. Arden's just evil.

Quote (bystander @ Dec. 22 2007,15:54)
My question is that appears that you version of evolution in the book is a simplisitic kill or be killed version. There has been a lot of work over the last 20 years around altruism and co-operation. This is seen now as an important part of evolution and is in many popular science magazines and book. Why didn't you include this in your book?

That's the tip of the iceberg.

Genetic success isn't about you, it's about your family. It's about your siblings and your cousins and your nieces and nephews, and most importantly, it's about your children.

The children are our genetic future. Won't someone please think of the children?

This alone is a pretty good explanation for the problem of compassion and planning for future generations. Failing to plan and care for your eventual progeny isn't Darwinian, it's the exact opposite.

Beauty, also, can have a function. Spiders are probably not intelligent enough to have complex feelings, in my own humble opinion. Their nervous system is just too primitive for it. However, they make complicated and beautiful spider webs, have discerning taste in webs, and go to great lengths to maintain their webs. That's because function follows form- beautiful things are useful. Interesting and aesthetically pleasing webs are also the most useful for survival.

So are interesting and aesthetically pleasing mates, for that matter. Even insects are picky about their mates, because they're after good genes. They probably can't be said to experience anything as complicated as falling in love, but the function is very similar.

These are the things that interest me the most, which is why the arguments about them made me grimace.

On the origins of DNA, though, let's suppose the theoretical barriers to the synthesis of early RNA and DNA can't be overcome within any known model of an early Earth. The very most this does is raise the necessity of some mechanisms for early reactions that we are totally ignorant of. You could hypothesize whatever you want about mechanism X, but from there descent with modification seems to be the rule. Basically, problems with the origins of early DNA alter our understanding little, if at all, of more recent organisms anyway.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,18:42   

KARobinson, if someone is personally insulting you hit the 'report this post to a moderator' button, or send a message to me, Wesley, or Lou FCD, and we'll take care of it.

Now, on to business. You don't seem to have any education in biology or philosophy. Have you ever taken any classes in these subjects? Do you have any textbooks like Intro to College Biology or Philosophy of Ethics?

Edited by stevestory on Dec. 22 2007,19:42

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,19:25   

KARobinson, welcome to the forum.  Mind the gap and duck the snark, there's plenty of good folks willing to engage in conversation with you.  There's a veritable wellspring of knowledge and expertise in the relevant fields here, and it all lies at our fingertips, for the asking.

It doesn't get any better than that.

If there's anything I can help you with regarding the board, or any issues you might need addressed, please feel free to click the little PM button.

Lou

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2007,21:32   

I think it might be a good idea to focus on Mr. Robinson's book and its premise, which is (I think) that the the logical end of "Darwinism" is asymmetrical body plans, amorality, and, as someone suggested earlier, bein' all mean an' stuff. Let's try not to come at this from 40 directions at once.

Perhaps Keith (if I may) might want to provide his own synopsis, and we can go from there.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,07:30   

My my, no reply yet?

Come on Keith, lets be having you.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,11:36   

Quote (KARobinson @ Dec. 22 2007,14:40)
One of the four main issues I deal with in Logic’s End is the scientific observation that natural processes cannot produce a code system.  Therefore, how can evolution account for DNA, since it is the most advanced information storage system known to man?

Perhaps if I begin by addressing this bit from Keith we can get him involved in a discussion.

You say that "...natural processes cannot produce a code system" is a "scientific observation."  I'm sure you must be aware that there is a great deal of ongoing work in science in this area, and that no one except people with religious predispositions has given up on it yet.  The answer to the question, "...how can evolution account for DNA...?" would be better expressed as "How can scientific investigation account for DNA?" and the answer is that there is no firm answer. What you're proposing is a classic "God of the Gaps" argument--science can't presently explain it, therefore God.  I'm sure you must realize that this is fallacious reasoning, which makes the title of your book (and your premise for it) somewhat ironic.

Is it your position that we should abandon investigations for natural causes in cases where such causes aren't immediately in evidence?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,12:17   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 28 2007,09:36)
 
Quote (KARobinson @ Dec. 22 2007,14:40)
One of the four main issues I deal with in Logic’s End is the scientific observation that natural processes cannot produce a code system.  Therefore, how can evolution account for DNA, since it is the most advanced information storage system known to man?

Perhaps if I begin by addressing this bit from Keith we can get him involved in a discussion.

You say that "...natural processes cannot produce a code system" is a "scientific observation."  I'm sure you must be aware that there is a great deal of ongoing work in science in this area, and that no one except people with religious predispositions has given up on it yet.  The answer to the question, "...how can evolution account for DNA...?" would be better expressed as "How can scientific investigation account for DNA?" and the answer is that there is no firm answer. What you're proposing is a classic "God of the Gaps" argument--science can't presently explain it, therefore God.  I'm sure you must realize that this is fallacious reasoning, which makes the title of your book (and your premise for it) somewhat ironic.

Is it your position that we should abandon investigations for natural causes in cases where such causes aren't immediately in evidence?

I think we should give Keith a free pass this week - many people are otherwise occupied at the moment, and he may have other things to do besides engage us in discussion.

Keith, I'd like to expand a little on Jim's point.  You said "natural processes cannot produce a code system."  Are you basing this on the fact that a fully detailed explanation of the origin of DNA has not been found, or are you claiming that DNA, or any analogous way of storing and replicating data, cannot in principle be created by natural processes?  If the latter, I'd like to see your evidence.  DNA, while an extremely complex molecule, is built from less-complex, well-understood components, and we see nothing supernatural in its means of construction.

Finally, given that part of your opening post appeared to be aimed at my earlier comments, I apologise if they caused offence.  The newspaper article contained some apparently contradictory statements, but I should have allowed for the possibility that your views were being misrepresented.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
KARobinson



Posts: 6
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,23:14   

Thank you all for the warm welcome, and thank you for your patience during the holidays.

I think Mr. Wynne’s suggestion is a good one.  He is correct about the premise of my book.  Besides dealing with what I believe are the logical results and consequences of the theory of evolution (such as asexual creatures, asymmetrical bodies, no objective basis for right and wrong, etc), I also include several of the arguments from Intelligent Design, such as Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information.

I do not believe that either creation OR evolution can actually be proven, since both deal with the issue of origins, thus they are not repeatable in a laboratory.  Even if scientists could create life in a laboratory with from non-living matter, it would, in my opinion, still fail to prove that life could arise by natural processes alone since scientists had to use their intelligence to design the experiments that produced the life.  

Instead, we must look at what we observe around us and try to create the best model to explain the evidence.  In my opinion, I believe that the creation model makes the most logical sense and offers a simpler explanation for the evidence we observe in nature.  

I have spent many hours reading the articles on the Talk Origins website, and in some cases, I believe that they have some valid points, but in most cases, I believe that the counter arguments from creation websites such as http://www.trueorigin.org and http://www.answersingenesis.org are stronger and more logical.  

As for Mr. Wayne’s last question, I would have to say that it depends on what you are looking for.  When it comes to the origin of life, then I would agree that I believe we should not waste time and money searching for a natural cause, when it seems logical to me that only an intelligent being could create the amazing life we see that functions at such complexity and order at a microscopic level.    However, if you are looking for the origin of some disease or trying to figure out what happened to destroy a forest, then I would say it is logical to look for a natural cause, even if one isn’t readily apparent.  The difference is that we are talking about the origin of something from nothing, which I believe only God could do, as opposed to something already in existence affecting something else already in existence.

Let me also say that the arguments I present in my book are based upon my own reading and research of what others have done.  I am not a scientist, but an author.  My arguments are based upon the authority of others who are knowledgeable in their fields.  Therefore, I will respond to Mr. Elsberry’s counter-arguments about DNA and the origin of information by referring him to an article by Dr. Royal Truman at http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp.

Finally, I will end with several questions of my own: how could evolution go from asexual reproduction to male and female?  In my book, I make all of the aliens on my fictitious planet asexual because I believe this would be a much more logical result of evolution.  Furthermore, evolution obviously must have started off with asexual reproduction, so even if it were possible to evolve the incomprehensible complexity of sexual reproduction, why would life go that route?  Asexual reproduction is much more efficient.   (I have read the True Origin answer and find it very lacking.)

I look forward to your responses.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,23:22   

Hi Mr Robinson.

You realize that the consequences, whether real or otherwise are argument to consequences?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,23:40   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 31 2007,00:22)
Hi Mr Robinson.

You realize that the consequences, whether real or otherwise are argument to consequences?

He's probably never taken so much as an Intro to Logic class, from the looks of it, so I doubt he's heard of Argument to Consequences.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2007,02:30   

K. Robinson:

Quote

I have spent many hours reading the articles on the Talk Origins website, and in some cases, I believe that they have some valid points, but in most cases, I believe that the counter arguments from creation websites such as http://www.trueorigin.org and http://www.answersingenesis.org are stronger and more logical.  


That's informative. Of course, given the following, maybe it isn't as portentous as it first appears.

Quote

Let me also say that the arguments I present in my book are based upon my own reading and research of what others have done.  I am not a scientist, but an author.  My arguments are based upon the authority of others who are knowledgeable in their fields.  Therefore, I will respond to Mr. Elsberry’s counter-arguments about DNA and the origin of information by referring him to an article by Dr. Royal Truman at http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp.


Mr. Elsberry is my father. I'm either Wesley or Dr. Elsberry.

Given that Truman does not, in the linked essay, discuss the pattern of differences in genetic codes in extant organisms, nor give any defense of the specific problems identified by Jeff Shallit and I in Dembski's CSI, I infer that Robinson has conceded the points.

Of course, Robinson will be hard put to find an authority who even discusses, much less rebuts, the arguments made in the essay I linked earlier. I am a scientist, and I'm not passing off the argument to someone who doesn't even discuss the points at issue.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2007,10:04   

Quote (KARobinson @ Dec. 30 2007,23:14)
I think Mr. Wynne’s suggestion is a good one.  He is correct about the premise of my book.  Besides dealing with what I believe are the logical results and consequences of the theory of evolution (such as asexual creatures, asymmetrical bodies, no objective basis for right and wrong, etc), I also include several of the arguments from Intelligent Design, such as Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information.

I do not believe that either creation OR evolution can actually be proven, since both deal with the issue of origins, thus they are not repeatable in a laboratory.  Even if scientists could create life in a laboratory with from non-living matter, it would, in my opinion, still fail to prove that life could arise by natural processes alone since scientists had to use their intelligence to design the experiments that produced the life.

Let's dispense with the formalities. I'm Jim, you're Keith, Wes is Wes.

A couple of points for starters: as is the case with many creationists, you conflate abiogenesis and evolution. They are separate (albeit related) fields of study. Thus it's possible to believe in both special creation and evolution.

Next, surely you must be aware that at various times in history people have said that because there's no natural explanation for some observed phenomenon, it must be the result of supernatural causes. You don't have to go back very far in time, for example, to find widespread belief that paranoid schizophrenics were demon-possessed.  The idea that we should abandon research into natural causes for the origin of life springs from ignorance and fear, and not rationality.  In fact, Darwin himself remarked:
Quote
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.


With regard to Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information, it would be well if you could tell us the best arguments against those notions, and your answers to those arguments, rather than assuming them to be accurate.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2008,10:01   

Bump.  I hope Keith hasn't forgotten about us.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
KARobinson



Posts: 6
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2008,21:27   

Sorry I haven't replied lately, but I have been very busy both with my job and personal life.  In fact, yesterday, as you may have heard, a tornado passed through Kenosha and came within half a block of hitting my house.  However, my church was not so fortunate.  The tornado damaged much of the church, and things have been a little crazy around here.  (Please no jokes or comments about the church getting hit.)

I should have time within the next couple of days to give a proper reply.  Thanks for your patience.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2008,21:38   

Hope you and yours are okay, Keith.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2008,21:55   

Quote (KARobinson @ Jan. 08 2008,21:27)
Sorry I haven't replied lately, but I have been very busy both with my job and personal life.  In fact, yesterday, as you may have heard, a tornado passed through Kenosha and came within half a block of hitting my house.  However, my church was not so fortunate.  The tornado damaged much of the church, and things have been a little crazy around here.  (Please no jokes or comments about the church getting hit.)

I should have time within the next couple of days to give a proper reply.  Thanks for your patience.

Nice to see you back.  I'm in Kenosha too, and a bit farther south of where the action was.  Sorry about the church (really), but personally I thank jeebus Tacos El Rey was spared, despite what  this alarming headline says.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,05:37   



Let's try to keep in the general vicinity of the topic and hang on to a modicum of decorum in this thread.

There's as yet no reason for hostilities to break out in full force here.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
KARobinson



Posts: 6
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2008,22:24   

Well, things are settling down now, so I can get back to our discussion.  Thank you for you concern about my church.  Our insurance is great, and they expect to have the building back to normal in 4 to 5 months.  We are now focusing on how we can help those in our neighborhood who were hit.

Now, back to the topic on hand...
   
Quote
A couple of points for starters: as is the case with many creationists, you conflate abiogenesis and evolution. They are separate (albeit related) fields of study. Thus it's possible to believe in both special creation and evolution.

I understand the difference.  Any time you try to mix special creation with evolution, you have to compromise something.  If God created the first life in the primordial ocean, then evolution is wrong that life arose randomly.  If the earth began as a molten blob that cooled, then the Bible is wrong because it says that the earth was covered with water when it was first created.  They can't both be right.  So yes, you can mix them, but both theories must be compromised.  So what parts of each are true?  Who determines what is true?  Do you believe that abiogenesis is not true, but evolution is?
   
Quote
Next, surely you must be aware that at various times in history people have said that because there's no natural explanation for some observed phenomenon, it must be the result of supernatural causes. You don't have to go back very far in time, for example, to find widespread belief that paranoid schizophrenics were demon-possessed.  The idea that we should abandon research into natural causes for the origin of life springs from ignorance and fear, and not rationality.

I disagree.
   
Quote
With regard to Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information, it would be well if you could tell us the best arguments against those notions, and your answers to those arguments, rather than assuming them to be accurate.

Irreducible Complexity and CSI are two very deep subjects.  Lets just deal with CSI first.  I must admit that I did not read all of Wesley's paper.  I did read several pages of the beginning, and skimmed some of the rest.  Since I have not read all of Dembski's work either, I had a hard time following Wesley's paper.  Would it be possible for you to summarize your basic argument, Wesley?

From Richard Hughes:

   
Quote
You realize that the consequences, whether real or otherwise are argument to consequences?

I don't understand why you said this?  I am not saying that because morals are desirable then evolution can't be true.  I am saying that I believe if you follow evolutionary logic to its conclusion, then there is no basis for morals.  Same with my other arguments.

I am still waiting for your responses to my post about how evolution can account for male and female.

Keith

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,01:30   

Quote (KARobinson @ Jan. 11 2008,22:24)
Now, back to the topic on hand...
     
Quote
A couple of points for starters: as is the case with many creationists, you conflate abiogenesis and evolution. They are separate (albeit related) fields of study. Thus it's possible to believe in both special creation and evolution.

I understand the difference.  Any time you try to mix special creation with evolution, you have to compromise something.  If God created the first life in the primordial ocean, then evolution is wrong that life arose randomly.  If the earth began as a molten blob that cooled, then the Bible is wrong because it says that the earth was covered with water when it was first created.  They can't both be right.  So yes, you can mix them, but both theories must be compromised.

my bolding.

I don't understand how you could write this paragraph with a straight face.  You first state that you know the difference between ToE and abiogenesis.  You then go on to repeat that ToE is responsible for the rise of life, by which I can only assume you mean the creation of life--and therefor abiogenesis.

Even if you want to assume front-loading by a deity, ToE is not ruled out, even in its entirety.  Do you understand HOW you are conflating the two?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,04:23   

It is possible our friend is just a sloppy writer, but read literally ...

 
Quote
 
Quote
The idea that we should abandon research into natural causes for the origin of life springs from ignorance and fear, and not rationality.


I disagree.

the above would seem to indicate that he believes that

1. we should abandon research into natural causes for the origin of life and

2. he has a rational argument as to why we should abandon that line of research

I'd like to hear the rational argument.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,08:39   

Quote (dhogaza @ Jan. 12 2008,04:23)
It is possible our friend is just a sloppy writer, but read literally ...

   
Quote
   
Quote
The idea that we should abandon research into natural causes for the origin of life springs from ignorance and fear, and not rationality.


I disagree.

the above would seem to indicate that he believes that

1. we should abandon research into natural causes for the origin of life and

2. he has a rational argument as to why we should abandon that line of research

I'd like to hear the rational argument.

Keith said this earlier:
Quote
When it comes to the origin of life, then I would agree that I believe we should not waste time and money searching for a natural cause, when it seems logical to me that only an intelligent being could create the amazing life we see that functions at such complexity and order at a microscopic level.    However, if you are looking for the origin of some disease or trying to figure out what happened to destroy a forest, then I would say it is logical to look for a natural cause, even if one isn’t readily apparent.  The difference is that we are talking about the origin of something from nothing, which I believe only God could do, as opposed to something already in existence affecting something else already in existence.

[My bold]

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,08:47   

Quote (KARobinson @ Jan. 11 2008,22:24)
Irreducible Complexity and CSI are two very deep subjects. Lets just deal with CSI first.  I must admit that I did not read all of Wesley's paper.  I did read several pages of the beginning, and skimmed some of the rest.  Since I have not read all of Dembski's work either, I had a hard time following Wesley's paper.

Keith, earlier you said:
Quote
Besides dealing with what I believe are the logical results and consequences of the theory of evolution (such as asexual creatures, asymmetrical bodies, no objective basis for right and wrong, etc), I also include several of the arguments from Intelligent Design, such as Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information.


You use CSI and IC as a basis for your book's thesis, but apparently without having a reasonable understanding of the two ideas. My point in asking you for the best arguments against those two well-refuted concepts was to gain some insight into your own understanding of them. I don't understand how you can honestly represent them as helping your case when you admit that your knowledge of the source material is lacking.  My suspicion is that this dearth of knowledge also exists in your understanding of science.

Edit: Typo

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,09:38   

Quote

Any time you try to mix special creation with evolution, you have to compromise something.  If God created the first life in the primordial ocean, then evolution is wrong that life arose randomly.


Evolution doesn't make the claim you attribute to it.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,10:00   

Quote

Would it be possible for you to summarize your basic argument, Wesley?


Sure. The proffered definitions of CSI are incoherent. The claimed "law of conservation of information" is no such thing. A wide variety of claims made in support of CSI are simply wrong. (Example: the "CSI holism" in Dembski's "No Free Lunch" claims that several bits of information are missing when one tries to compute the CSI in a sentence from parts of the sentence; Dembski overlooked the spaces in the sentence, which contribute exactly the deficit he was trying to claim showed that CSI was "holistic".) CSI doesn't work, which explains why no one has produced a complete, successful, real-world, non-toy analysis using the full "generic chance elimination argument" framework (either the one from TDI or the somewhat different one from NFL). In fact, Dembski himself has only provided actual calculations and numbers of any sort with respect to four examples. Of those, one concerned a fictional scenario from a movie, two produced results not exceeding the "universal small probability", and the last failed to even attempt to produce a specification according to the full GCEA requirements. Even if one somehow overlooked those problems and accepted Dembski's "explanatory filter" as workable, it turns out that even that is fraught with philosophical problems.

As I said to Dembski and the Haverford Conference in 2001, Dembski's "explanatory filter"/"design inference" is the wrong tool for the job.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,11:11   

In addition it appears to be impossible for an example of the EF to be given that includes any significant level of detail.

There are no worked examples of the EF. None. It cannot be applied to arbitrary objects.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,11:17   

OM did you see the reply by Patrick, posted on OE, to the claims made by Sally_T about peanut butter sandwiches?

I think carlson posted it a while back on the UD thread.  Sally never answered.  Patrick floundered a bit, said that a peanut butter sandwich had about 3 bits or so of information, then said that we should be more concerned with the upper limit, not the lower limit, of CSI.  He also avoided the issue regarding DNA (we know it's designed, per the ID'ers) in the peanut butter being an inference stopper, since any entity containing peanut butter must also be designed, etc.

How can anyone maintain that CSI means anything, or that the EF can do a single thing (given the problems with the input data), is beyond me.  I suppose it is similar to the experience of our friend Keith here, who does not understand the claims but knows that they support his presuppositions so he uses them anyway.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,11:20   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 12 2008,11:17)
OM did you see the reply by Patrick, posted on OE, to the claims made by Sally_T about peanut butter sandwiches?

Oh yes, vastly amusing to see smug old Patrick put on the spot and unable to answer.
Dembski makes the claims but his minions are the ones who pay the price  in "egg on face" when asked to back up his claims.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,11:22   

well, ala FtK, I am fairly sure he doesn't see it that way.

I don't understand how he can maintain his position, given the trouble he went to in order to post that flop of a defense.  Sure is curious.

I wish they would come up with some more bogus concepts.  Wes hardly leaves us any crumbs to clean up.  Fisk, Fisk Fisk.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,11:28   

Keith, I recommend you check out what happened when Salvador Cordova was asked for a demonstration of the EF
http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?topic=114.0

If you have an example of the EF in use we would all love to see it.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,12:31   

Quote
Furthermore, evolution obviously must have started off with asexual reproduction, so even if it were possible to evolve the incomprehensible complexity of sexual reproduction, why would life go that route?  Asexual reproduction is much more efficient.


A species that can recombine DNA from multiple individuals is much more adaptable to a changing environment than is a species that can't do that. For one thing, if all individuals of a species were clones of each other, a parasite or disease that adapted to that species would then have a field day (i.e., an all it can eat buffet without any need to re-adapt for the next host or victim).

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,15:35   

Quote
I am saying that I believe if you follow evolutionary logic to its conclusion, then there is no basis for morals.


Nope. The conclusion of evolution theory is that if a species is such that cooperation of neighbors is advantageous for that species, then DNA that encourages that behavior will accumulate in the species. That in a nutshell is the evolutionary basis for morals. (Biologists can put more detail into that than I can, of course.)

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2008,12:57   

Speaking of summaries, I wonder what problem there was with this one:

Quote

Abstract

Intelligent design advocate William Dembski has introduced a measure of information called “complex specified information”, or CSI. He claims that CSI is a reliable marker of design by intelligent agents. He puts forth a “Law of Conservation of Information” which states that chance and natural laws are incapable of generating CSI. In particular, CSI cannot be generated by evolutionary computation. Dembski asserts that CSI is present in intelligent causes and in the flagellum of Escherichia coli, and concludes that neither have natural explanations. In this paper we examine Dembski’s claims, point out significant errors in his reasoning, and conclude that there is no reason to accept his assertions.


That's the abstract from the essay I've been linking to.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2008,13:06   

You've got the full essay too? Sounds like an interesting read.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2008,13:08   

Full essay.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2008,13:25   

Thanks, that'll keep me busy ;)

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,08:02   

Quote
Furthermore, evolution obviously must have started off with asexual reproduction, so even if it were possible to evolve the incomprehensible complexity of sexual reproduction, why would life go that route?  Asexual reproduction is much more efficient.


Then why didn't the Intelligent Designer make us that way?  

It'd also surely help alot with the problem of sin?    :p

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
KARobinson



Posts: 6
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2008,22:42   

From blipey:
 
Quote
I don't understand how you could write this paragraph with a straight face.  You first state that you know the difference between ToE and abiogenesis.  You then go on to repeat that ToE is responsible for the rise of life, by which I can only assume you mean the creation of life--and therefor abiogenesis.

Even if you want to assume front-loading by a deity, ToE is not ruled out, even in its entirety.  Do you understand HOW you are conflating the two?


My apologies.  I was trying to make a point about compromising one's position, and I used the wrong term.  I should have used abiogenesis.  Sorry.

 
Quote
You use CSI and IC as a basis for your book's thesis, but apparently without having a reasonable understanding of the two ideas. My point in asking you for the best arguments against those two well-refuted concepts was to gain some insight into your own understanding of them. I don't understand how you can honestly represent them as helping your case when you admit that your knowledge of the source material is lacking.  My suspicion is that this dearth of knowledge also exists in your understanding of science.

There are many authors that deal with Irreducible Complexity and information content in DNA, such as Dr. Werner Gitt and Dr. Walt Brown to name a few.  I have read some of Dembski's stuff, but that was years ago when I was researching Logic's End.  Also, the material I read from Dembski was at a less technical level than the material that Wes discusses in his essay.

As for arguments against IC, I am aware of co-option, I just don't buy it.  Even if you borrow a few parts from another molecular machine, I just don't believe that you can get ALL of the parts from there.  Furthermore, that doesn't explain how you can get all of those parts in the exact place and in the exact order necessary for the new part to function.  And, that doesn't explain how you get new structures or parts when mutations don't add information to DNA.  AND, it doesn't explain the origin of parts specific to that machine.  The more I learn about the microscopic structures in living things (such as feathers, eyes, ears, etc), the more evolution seems unreasonable.

From Henry J:
   
Quote
A species that can recombine DNA from multiple individuals is much more adaptable to a changing environment than is a species that can't do that. For one thing, if all individuals of a species were clones of each other, a parasite or disease that adapted to that species would then have a field day (i.e., an all it can eat buffet without any need to re-adapt for the next host or victim).

I accept this as a reason why having two sexes is better than one, but this doesn't explain HOW two sexes would ever evolve.  I might think it would be better to have wings and the ability to fly, but that doesn't help me to evolve wings.  Furthermore, why just two sexes?  Why not evolve the ability to recombine the DNA from three or more?  Wouldn't that be even MORE beneficial?

Also from Henry J.:
 
Quote
Nope. The conclusion of evolution theory is that if a species is such that cooperation of neighbors is advantageous for that species, then DNA that encourages that behavior will accumulate in the species. That in a nutshell is the evolutionary basis for morals. (Biologists can put more detail into that than I can, of course.)

This is not altruism, but rather selfishness.  Animals hunt in packs because there is strength in numbers, not because of morals.  I have yet to hear a good explanation of how evolution can explain things like Wesley Autry, the man from New York who risked his own life to save a complete in the NY subway by using his own body as a shield.  What possible evolutionary advantage would that give him if he had died?  In addition, how can DNA encourage a behavior like self-lessness?

Finally, I would like to make a few statements and see if you agree with them.

DNA is the most efficient informational storage system in the known universe.

There is enough information in human DNA to fill 1000 books with 500 pages each.

Scientists are studying DNA in an effort to make more efficient supercomputers.

A single cell is more complex than a space shuttle.

The chance of a single cell forming randomly (according to Sir Fred Hoyle) is 10 x 40,000.  According to Emil Borel, any chance above 10 x 50 is considered mathematically impossible.

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”   Werner Gitt

Keith

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2008,22:47   

Dammit.

He broke out Walt Brown.

We lose.  See you guys somewhere else.  Have to find a new playground.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2008,22:54   

Can I scratch of "Tornado / Junkyard" on my Creobingosheet for the Hoyle spontaneous generation canard, or is that a different one..?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2008,00:15   

Quote
The chance of a single cell forming randomly (according to Sir Fred Hoyle) is 10 x 40,000.  According to Emil Borel, any chance above 10 x 50 is considered mathematically impossible.

(Presumably 10^40000 and 10^50 were intended)

No biologist would ever claim that a single cell formed randomly. The fact that you present this, apparently with approval, convincingly shows that your knowledge of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution is close to zero.

Edited to insert a couple of missing words.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2008,01:06   

Quote


Quote


You use CSI and IC as a basis for your book's thesis, but apparently without having a reasonable understanding of the two ideas. My point in asking you for the best arguments against those two well-refuted concepts was to gain some insight into your own understanding of them. I don't understand how you can honestly represent them as helping your case when you admit that your knowledge of the source material is lacking.  My suspicion is that this dearth of knowledge also exists in your understanding of science.


There are many authors that deal with Irreducible Complexity and information content in DNA, such as Dr. Werner Gitt and Dr. Walt Brown to name a few.  I have read some of Dembski's stuff, but that was years ago when I was researching Logic's End.  Also, the material I read from Dembski was at a less technical level than the material that Wes discusses in his essay.


I'm not sure how the stuff that followed the quoted paragraph can be considered a response to the points made there. The part about basing things on less-technical source materials seems particularly puzzling to me.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2008,01:30   

Quote

I accept this as a reason why having two sexes is better than one, but this doesn't explain HOW two sexes would ever evolve.


While the specifics of the evolution of sex haven't been reduced to the video-camera level of certainty desired by antievolutionists, there are certainly indications of intermediate conditions in organisms that we can observe today.

Bacteria share DNA via conjugation. In eukaryotes, there are species whose gametes are the same size (isogamy). Differentiation of gamete size (anisogamy) is, of course, one of the things that we tend to know about our own biology. Most fertilization that occurs is external; even within the sub-phylum vertebrata a substantial proportion of species still utilize external fertilization. And similar intermediate conditions are observed for secondary sexual organs. FtK got all huffy after commenting on the wondrous human "tingly bits" and I pointed out that in planarians, penises exist but no vaginas; gametes are delivered by stabbing through the integument. Some invertebrates ingest gametes, and others ingest males, with subsequent delivery to where they can do the most good.

What there is no evidence for, at all, is the notion that the human particulars of sexual reproduction had to be arrived at directly in a single step from asexual fission.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2008,03:10   

Quote (KARobinson @ Jan. 16 2008,22:42)
There are many authors that deal with Irreducible Complexity and information content in DNA, such as Dr. Werner Gitt and Dr. Walt Brown to name a few.

Keith,
As DNA contains information and this information is apparently important to your case, could you perhaps order the following from most information to least?

An Onion
A Bacteria (of any type!)
A Virus (of any type!)
A Human
A peanut butter sandwich.
A Nicotiana tabacum plant.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2008,14:14   

All quotes are from Keith:
 
Quote
There are many authors that deal with Irreducible Complexity and information content in DNA, such as Dr. Werner Gitt and Dr. Walt Brown to name a few.  I have read some of Dembski's stuff, but that was years ago when I was researching Logic's End.  Also, the material I read from Dembski was at a less technical level than the material that Wes discusses in his essay.

Good. We know now that you consider (even in researching a book, apparently) secondary (at best) sources reliable while knowing little or nothing about the primary material.  All science so far!
 
Quote
As for arguments against IC, I am aware of co-option, I just don't buy it.  Even if you borrow a few parts from another molecular machine, I just don't believe that you can get ALL of the parts from there.

Arguments from personal incredulity are irrelevant in any discussion about science unless you're planning on doing some science to support your disbelief.  You claim to know something about The End of Logic, then defend the claim with logical fallacies.
 
Quote
I accept this as a reason why having two sexes is better than one, but this doesn't explain HOW two sexes would ever evolve.  I might think it would be better to have wings and the ability to fly, but that doesn't help me to evolve wings.  Furthermore, why just two sexes?  Why not evolve the ability to recombine the DNA from three or more?  Wouldn't that be even MORE beneficial?

If it were, one would think that your omnipotent deity would have done it that way.  Evolution is not directed towards any particular goal. It's about adaptability. Organisms aren't expected to develop ideal adaptations, just ones that work.
 
Quote
This is not altruism, but rather selfishness.  Animals hunt in packs because there is strength in numbers, not because of morals.

Mutually beneficial cooperation between members of populations (or even between different populations) is selfish how? What does hunting in packs have to do with anything? If hunting in packs occurs "because there is strength in numbers," why aren't all animals gregarious? It works for some, but not for others because of selection pressures and adaptation, but it still has nothing to do with altruism. Cultural mores evolve, and the concepts are in some cases roughly analogous to biological evolution (and sometimes affected by it). Cultures survive as species do--by adaptation, but cultures also survive as a result of pragmatic cooperation, and the basic rules are referred to as "morality."  No Bible needed, thank you.
 
Quote
DNA is the most efficient informational storage system in the known universe.

Define "efficient" and "information" and demonstrate quantitatively how DNA is more efficient than the "information storage system" of your choice.
 
Quote
There is enough information in human DNA to fill 1000 books with 500 pages each.
Or 500 books of 1000 pages each. All meaningless until you've defined (and you've shown how to quantify) "information."
 
Quote
Scientists are studying DNA in an effort to make more efficient supercomputers.
Have these scientists published any data? Citations, please.
 
Quote
A single cell is more complex than a space shuttle.
These "Oh, wow!" sound bites are really a little tiresome after a while. I trust you're able to quantify this complexity for us using your space shuttle example. Science is all about the data, doncha know.
 
Quote
The chance of a single cell forming randomly (according to Sir Fred Hoyle) is 10 x 40,000.  According to Emil Borel, any chance above 10 x 50 is considered mathematically impossible.
The Argument from Probability and Really Big Numbers was long ago considered and summarily dismissed. The fact that you invoke it demonstrates profound ignorance of basic probability theory.  I'll give you a hint, though: the probability of something impossible happening is zero. Any number greater than zero (no matter how close to zero it is) means that the phenomenon in question is possible. To say that any probability less than one in x (so long as it's not zero) is impossible makes no sense.  

You also have to consider the idea that when we talk about the random ordering of a finite set of things, some order is inevitable.  The deck-of-cards example is often used to illustrate the idea: in an ordinary deck of 52 playing cards, the number of possible sequences is 52!, which is a Very Big Number (~70 digits). Using your argument from probability, if you were handed a deck of cards and examined the order, you would have to conclude that a miracle had occurred, because there would be only a 1 in a brazillian chance that the cards could be in that particular order.  If you want to talk about some specified order, it's a different story, but to do that you first have to assume your conclusion, which doesn't pass the logic test.

At this point we can charitably assume ignorance on your part. But if after having been informed of the problems with your arguments and the fact that you need data you don't have, you continue to invoke them, it becomes dishonesty.  Your choice.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2008,14:44   

I counted a jar full of change today, because I switched my car insurance to Geico, and that was either how much I saved or how much it cost, I don't remember.  What I remember is how I was amazed at the complexity of the order of the $739.24  It is utterly and impossibly improbable that those coins would be in that particular order.

Then I realized that we are living in the best of all possible worlds.  The sands of the beaches are all arranged in the most improbable manner!  They could be in any number (almost) of configurations, but they are in THIS PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION.

QED QED QED QED QED QED

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,08:42   

Bump.

This isn't going to be much fun if Keith just drops in once a week with AiG talking points.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,09:22   

Have we scared keith off?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,09:30   

No, but it would be typical of those that argue the ID/Creationist or cdesignproponentsist side.

After all, AiG is where all the secrets are kept.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,12:45   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 22 2008,09:22)
Have we scared keith off?

I think we probably have. I doubt that he's used to being asked by knowledgeable people to defend his ideas.  Keith is my backyard (figuratively, I hope), and on Friday there was another local yahoo, this time with an op-ed column in the local paper. It was a true Gish Gallop, and he invoked all of the usual canards, or nearly all.  Unfortunately the paper doesn't post those on its website, but I addressed it here.

The guy takes an interesting tack, characterizing (and quotemining, of course) Darwin's eye example* as a "wacky test" that could never be verified and then scores an own goal by citing complexity as an argument against evolution.

*"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,20:51   

Most people in Keith's position are going to be scared off. (I don't know if Keith himself has, I'm just making a general point.) Think about it from Keith's point of view. He's got ideas he's sure about, yet a group of people who know much more about those subjects are telling him he's wrong ten ways to Sunday. And these ideas, which he's discovering he can't defend very well, are at the core of his identity. Probably most people in that situation would find this door



pretty quickly. The small number of people who stick around to argue for a long time are, I'm sure you've noticed, a little 'touched in the head'.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,20:54   

By the way, does anyone else typically pronounce Sunday "Sun-day", but pronounce Sunday in the phrase 'ten ways to Sunday" as "Sun-dee"?

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,22:02   

Quote
The small number of people who stick around to argue for a long time are, I'm sure you've noticed, a little 'touched in the head'.


No, not you Hughes.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,22:05   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 26 2008,20:54)
By the way, does anyone else typically pronounce Sunday "Sun-day", but pronounce Sunday in the phrase 'ten ways to Sunday" as "Sun-dee"?

I do not.  But I also pronounce "aunt" to rhyme with "gaunt".  I'm also a Missourian who says "mi-ZUR-ee".  Perhaps I'm not the one to ask.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,23:00   

It might just be because the guy I got 'ten ways to Sunday' from, Steve Abrams of Lake City, Florida, pronounced it 'ten ways to Sundee".

We could ask Arden, the linguist, but Saturday is Date Night with his boyfriend.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,00:42   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 26 2008,23:00)
It might just be because the guy I got 'ten ways to Sunday' from, Steve Abrams of Lake City, Florida, pronounced it 'ten ways to Sundee".

We could ask Arden, the linguist, but Saturday is Date Night with his boyfriend.

That could explain a lot of things.  Steve Abrams is the guy who was the head of the Kansas Board of Education that presided over the Science Standards hearings.  He'd know a lot about the Sundee-come-to-Meetin.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,06:11   

I was raised in Philly, but I've lived in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia for long stretches.  I tend to be inconsistent in pronouncing just about anything.

I've been told that when I get angry, my Philly accent really comes through, and when I'm tired or have been drinking the Hillbilly accent takes over.  It sometimes also depends on to whom I'm speaking.  Add that to the fact that there are still the occasional words and phrases left in my family left over from the boat trip from England in the 1880s, and it's probably a wonder anyone can understand me when I speak.

The short answer is that I say both Sunday and Sundee interchangeably.  The woman who gave birth to me is referred to as Mom, Ma, Mamma, Mum, and Mother with fairly equal frequency, for a better example.

That place from which blipey hails however, is always Mi-ZIR-a, a pronunciation which I picked up sometime during adulthood.  As in, "Your ass has never really been cold until it's spent the night in a foxhole at Fort Lostinthewoods Mi-ZIR-a".

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,07:35   

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 27 2008,04:05)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 26 2008,20:54)
By the way, does anyone else typically pronounce Sunday "Sun-day", but pronounce Sunday in the phrase 'ten ways to Sunday" as "Sun-dee"?

I do not.  But I also pronounce "aunt" to rhyme with "gaunt".  I'm also a Missourian who says "mi-ZUR-ee".  Perhaps I'm not the one to ask.

Isn't that how you're supposed to pronounce Missouri?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,07:58   

a friend who did spend some time in missouri at "fort lost-in-the-woods" pronounced it "misery".

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,08:28   

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 27 2008,01:42)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 26 2008,23:00)
It might just be because the guy I got 'ten ways to Sunday' from, Steve Abrams of Lake City, Florida, pronounced it 'ten ways to Sundee".

We could ask Arden, the linguist, but Saturday is Date Night with his boyfriend.

That could explain a lot of things.  Steve Abrams is the guy who was the head of the Kansas Board of Education that presided over the Science Standards hearings.  He'd know a lot about the Sundee-come-to-Meetin.

Yeah, I was actually thinking of the wrong person. I meant to name Steve Adams, of Lake City, Florida.

   
KARobinson



Posts: 6
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,21:20   

I haven't been scared off, I just have been too busy with life lately.  I'm sorry to break it to you guys, but debating with you is not at the top of my "to do" list.  I'll hopefully have time to reply to your comments in the next week.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,23:41   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Jan. 27 2008,07:35)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 27 2008,04:05)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 26 2008,20:54)
By the way, does anyone else typically pronounce Sunday "Sun-day", but pronounce Sunday in the phrase 'ten ways to Sunday" as "Sun-dee"?

I do not.  But I also pronounce "aunt" to rhyme with "gaunt".  I'm also a Missourian who says "mi-ZUR-ee".  Perhaps I'm not the one to ask.

Isn't that how you're supposed to pronounce Missouri?

Yeah.  But not if you're from Missouri.  If you're a native, it's pronounced with the full complement of soft A sounds as in, "Muh-zur-uh".

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,12:09   

Quote (blipey @ Feb. 01 2008,21:41)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Jan. 27 2008,07:35)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 27 2008,04:05)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 26 2008,20:54)
By the way, does anyone else typically pronounce Sunday "Sun-day", but pronounce Sunday in the phrase 'ten ways to Sunday" as "Sun-dee"?

I do not.  But I also pronounce "aunt" to rhyme with "gaunt".  I'm also a Missourian who says "mi-ZUR-ee".  Perhaps I'm not the one to ask.

Isn't that how you're supposed to pronounce Missouri?

Yeah.  But not if you're from Missouri.  If you're a native, it's pronounced with the full complement of soft A sounds as in, "Muh-zur-uh".

It's the USA's revenge for Leicester, Gloucester and Keighley.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
  98 replies since Dec. 16 2007,11:49 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]