Page 33 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2328293031323334 LastLast
Results 641 to 660 of 675
  1. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #641  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Considering one of them may become the future president of the US, I'd like to know what they think makes scientists be so TOTALLY wrong, based on their studies and experiments. 60% of US citizens believe the Noah story in the bible to be word by word true. At least some of them should be on this board and willing/capable of answering my questions above?
    Their 'thing' seems to be to irresponsibly stir the shyte-storm and then sit back and laugh at the attention while they bait/goad others into posting well-considered, rational responses. Why else would they collectively abandon ship on what amounts to their most fundamental core beliefs? There are too many examples of this childish method of self-entertainment on the first page of the Off-Topic Forum alone to be overlooked.
  2. #642  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Their 'thing' seems to be to irresponsibly stir the shyte-storm and then sit back and laugh at the attention while they bait/goad others into posting well-considered, rational responses. Why else would they collectively abandon ship on what amounts to their most fundamental core beliefs? There are too many examples of this childish method of self-entertainment on the first page of the Off-Topic Forum alone to be overlooked.
    Let's face it. There is not a declared atheist among them. It is statistically impossible that they are all theists. Therefore, some of them, not to say, most of them, are pandering. They cannot be trusted.
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #643  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Let's face it. There is not a declared atheist among them. It is statistically impossible that they are all theists. Therefore, some of them, not to say, most of them, are pandering. They cannot be trusted.
    How many disingenuous Buellers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
  4. #644  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Let's face it. There is not a declared atheist among them. It is statistically impossible that they are all theists. Therefore, some of them, not to say, most of them, are pandering. They cannot be trusted.
    Actually, it is not statistically impossible. While it may be statistically unlikekly in a random sample (impossible is to strong, since the sample size is too small), this is not a "random sample". This is a sample of people who are a) republican, b) politicians, and c) want to be president.

    In that sampling group, the number of atheists may be much smaller.

    Chris
  5. #645  
    Just a quick comment.

    I am sort of disturbed by the general "bashing" of religion and theists in this thread.

    I am an atheists, so I agree with many points that people have made, but as somoene else in this thread pointed out, the vast majority of Christians (and theists in general) have no problem with evolution and evolutionary theory. It is only the fundamentalists and literal interpretationalists, mostly here in the US.

    Grouping everyone together and disparaging "theists" as a whole is no better than when a theist groups all atheists together and bashes them based on some pre-conceived stereotype.

    I may disagree with a theist, and I will always try to show them the separation of science and belief, but I am not going to disparage them as a group, like many people seem to be doing here.

    Chris
  6. #646  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    Actually, it is not statistically impossible. While it may be statistically unlikekly in a random sample (impossible is to strong, since the sample size is too small), this is not a "random sample". This is a sample of people who are a) republican, b) politicians, and c) want to be president.

    In that sampling group, the number of atheists may be much smaller.

    Chris
    All right. I agree that the n is too small to justify so sweeping a conclusion. However, I was not limiting my comment to Republicans.
  7. #647  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    Just a quick comment.

    I am sort of disturbed by the general "bashing" of religion and theists in this thread.
    I agree there should be no bashing, even though I am not sure what you refer to. I am not against religion in general, but find the notion that evolution did not take place or that earth is 6000 years old untenable.
    as someone else in this thread pointed out, the vast majority of Christians (and theists in general) have no problem with evolution and evolutionary theory. It is only the fundamentalists and literal interpretationalists, mostly here in the US.
    It is true that on a worldwide basis, most Christians have no problem with evolution and earth being billions of years old, e.g. the whole Catholic church with about 1 billion members. However, you are being overly optimistic as far as US citizens are concerned.

    55% of all US citizens believe god created humans in present form (no evolution of the human species). 65% think creationism should be taught in school alongside evolution, 37% think creationism should be taught instead of evolution. Back to Middle Age...

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in657083.shtml

    I am quite sure that sooner or later this will erode the basis for biological and biomedical research, because this is ultimately based on evolution. Good for Europe though. More and more pharmaceutical products will come from this side of the pond.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #648  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    I agree there should be no bashing, even though I am not sure what you refer to.
    Maybe bashing was too strong a word. It seems to me that the last few pages have had a lot of comments that seem to be looking down on, as a whole, theists and their beliefs.

    But if the people who BELIEVE in God aren't upset, who am I to tell them they should be.

    However, you are being overly optimistic as far as US citizens are concerned.
    I should have clarified. Re-reading my comments it makes it sounds like a fringe minority in the US are the ones expressing problems. I meant to imply that world wide, it is a fringe minority, most of which are here in the US.

    Yes, I have seen the various polls about Christian belief in the US.

    I am a biologist, so I know how this can effect teaching of science, biology, and evolution - and yes, it does scare me.

    Chris
    Last edited by cjvitek; 05/31/2007 at 09:15 AM.
  9. #649  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    All right. I agree that the n is too small to justify so sweeping a conclusion. However, I was not limiting my comment to Republicans.
    Even said, any group of politicians who want to run for president is a pretty small subset, and probably pretty different than a random sampling.

    Chris
  10.    #650  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    After having addressed many issues here, I have a question to the creationists on the board, both young earth creationists and others, and to all those who think the bible is word by word, literally true:

    As pointed out in this thread, there is no shortage of scientific proof for evolution and for earth being billions of years old, not thousands (note: a one-million-fold difference - not a likely scientific error to start off with). Each year, thousands of biologists, geologists and other scientists graduate from universities in the US and the rest of the world without a trace of doubt, based on what they have studied both in theory in practical experiments, that evolution is what happened on earth, and that earth is billions of years old.

    Since their convictions contradict your beliefs, why do you think they are all wrong?
    Did they not study correctly?
    Are they not intelligent enough?
    Are they brainwashed? Naive?
    Is science a huge conspiracy producing false evidence for evolution?
    Other reasons I didn't think of?

    I'd honestly like to know.

    Where are all the believers in the bible being literally, word-by-word true? Why are my questions above not being answered by some of the numerous creationists? Musicman247, anybody? Come forward!
    Sorry, clulup, I was on vacation with my family.

    I would like to answer your question with another question. If all of those who teach evolution and who graduate with degrees are 100% correct and have overwhelming evidence to prove their beliefs, then why are there scientists who do not hold to those beliefs? Why do most mathematicians scoff at the idea of evolution? Are they not being given the same information? Or are those who believe along the lines of evolution just accepting everything they are being taught and not challenging it for fear of being labeled foolish?
  11. #651  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Sorry, clulup, I was on vacation with my family.
    Hope you guys all had fun! Find any nice fossils on the beach?

    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247
    Why do most mathematicians scoff at the idea of evolution?
    Poppycock!!

    As a former mathematician, I can say with certainty that I saw absolutely no sign of this in my career. In fact, I would say just the opposite is true. One of the hottest avenues of study in Probability Theory in recent years is the study of evolving systems. Such systems are models for many physical phenomenon, such as the spread of infectious disease. I'm sure many of you known John Conway's game of Life. That is one of the most simplest models of an evolving system and does not contain any stochastic elements (i.e., nothing is random). The models being studied by probabilists are, naturally, much more involved, but the concept of evolving systems is everywhere in that field.
  12. #652  
    For those truly interested in learning about mathematics and evolution:

    http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v7...s/nrg1941.html

    http://biology.plosjournals.org/perl...l.pbio.0030170
  13. #653  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    I would like to answer your question with another question. If all of those who teach evolution and who graduate with degrees are 100% correct and have overwhelming evidence to prove their beliefs, then why are there scientists who do not hold to those beliefs? Why do most mathematicians scoff at the idea of evolution? Are they not being given the same information? Or are those who believe along the lines of evolution just accepting everything they are being taught and not challenging it for fear of being labeled foolish?
    Most mathematicians scoff? As an amateur mathematician, and someone who knows a few, I don't know any that scoff at it. Can you provide a reference?

    As to why some scientists don't believe, my guess is that one of the following:
    a) they believe in evolutionary theory, just have some problems with some of the some of the details (ie, the mode of evolution might be different, such as people who support punctuated equilibrium). Thier disbelief is mistakenly assumed to be a belief in the theory itself.

    b) they are scientists in other fields who may not really know the theory as well as biologist. I am not a physicist, and if one came up to me and said "XXX is a theory in physics" I would have no basis to say it is true or not.

    c) They are religious people whose personal religious belief tells them to ignore scientific evidence.


    Chris
  14. #654  
    Some more reading for those who are truly interested in learning about evolution and mathematics. Here is a chronological list of milestone papers in this area.

    Cann, R. L. , Stoneking, M. & Wilson, A. C. Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature 325, 31–36 (1987).-An influential paper that discusses one of the first attempts to use mtDNA data to infer the origin of anatomically modern humans.

    Stringer, C. B. & Andrews, P. Genetic and fossil evidence for the origin of modern humans. Science 239, 1263–1268 (1988).-An early synthesis of genetic and fossil evidence that supports the recent African origin of anatomically modern humans.

    Harding, R. M. et al. Archaic African and Asian lineages in the genetic ancestry of modern humans. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 60, 772–789 (1997)-A seminal paper on the use of autosomal resequencing data to infer the history of modern human populations.

    Tavare, S. , Balding, D. J. , Griffiths, R. C. & Donnelly, P. Inferring coalescence times from DNA sequence data. Genetics 145, 505–518 (1997). -Presents for the first time the argument that the likelihood of an evolutionary model can be calculated from a statistical summary of genetic data, rather than directly from the data.

    Harpending, H. C. et al. Genetic traces of ancient demography. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 1961–1967 (1998).-One of the first comparisons of haploid and non-haploid sequence data in the context of explicit models that incorporate a history of bottlenecks and different ancestral effective population sizes for modern humans.

    Harris, E. E. & Hey, J. X chromosome evidence for ancient human histories. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 3320–3324 (1999). -One of the first papers to show the effects of ancient population structure on patterns of polymorphism at a locus in humans.

    Fay, J. C. & Wu, C. I. A human population bottleneck can account for the discordance between patterns of mitochondrial versus nuclear DNA variation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16, 1003–1005 (1999). -The first paper to recognize that differences in the effective population sizes of the haploid and autosomal compartments of the genome result in a different frequency spectrum after a population bottleneck.

    Wall, J. D. & Przeworski, M. When did the human population size start increasing? Genetics 155, 1865–1874 (2000). -Among the first analyses to acknowledge that there is too much variance in the genomic frequency spectrum to be compatible with any simple neutral model of population history.

    Voight, B. F. et al. Interrogating multiple aspects of variation in a full resequencing data set to infer human population size changes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 18508–18513 (2005). - A recent study of 50 non-coding resequenced loci that supports a strong genetic bottleneck as humans migrated from Africa.

    Garrigan, D. , Mobasher, Z. , Kingan, S. B. , Wilder, J. A. & Hammer, M. F. Deep haplotype divergence and long-range linkage disequilibrium at Xp21.1 provide evidence that humans descend from a structured ancestral population. Genetics 170, 1849–1856 (2005). -The first resequencing data set to reject the hypothesis that humans are descended from a single, randomly mating ancestral population.
  15. #655  
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickS View Post
    Hope you guys all had fun! Find any nice fossils on the beach?



    Poppycock!!

    As a former mathematician, I can say with certainty that I saw absolutely no sign of this in my career. In fact, I would say just the opposite is true. One of the hottest avenues of study in Probability Theory in recent years is the study of evolving systems. Such systems are models for many physical phenomenon, such as the spread of infectious disease. I'm sure many of you known John Conway's game of Life. That is one of the most simplest models of an evolving system and does not contain any stochastic elements (i.e., nothing is random). The models being studied by probabilists are, naturally, much more involved, but the concept of evolving systems is everywhere in that field.
    He's probably referring to this:

    Probability Supports CreationThe laws of Probability militate overwhelmingly against evolution and argue eloquently for Creation.

    "CHANCE" HAS NO CHANCE TO CREATE LIFE

    In the famous debate between Wilberforce and Huxley, the latter asked the theologian/mathematician for three assumptions: Ten monkeys that never die, ten perfect typewriters that never break or run out of ink, and unlimited amounts of paper. Having granted Huxley these assumptions, Wilberforce was backed into a mathematical corner: According to the Probability Formula, as you reach infinity in the amount of time, the probability for anything becomes "1," or "a foregone conclusion. Therefore, Huxley's monkeys, clanging away at the typewriters, would eventually type out all the works of Shakespeare, and other works -- including Psalm 23. Shamed, Wilberforce never again spoke in public; the defeat was rabidly pounced upon by Darwinist and liberal theologian alike as a death-knell for rational thought.

    Huxley, however, had a problem that neither he nor any of his contemporaries ever picked up on. His starting assumptions were grossly faulty.

    Leaving aside for the moment a discussion of amino chirality and reversible processes (which dictate that in a random environment amino acids will never form proteins or even peptides due to the nasty little problem of "critical mass"), we note that the universe is not infinitely old. Even rabid evolutionists agree that the universe had an origin. Seeing as how it did, that seriously truncates Huxley's monkeys chances.

    The most liberal (i.e., "favorable to chance") probability I've been able to find calculates the odds of DNA spontaneously producing itself from a primordial "ooze" at 1 in 1070. Let's put that into perspective.

    Granting for the moment the ridiculously inflated estimates for the universe's age given by evolutionists, and assuming that present estimates for the universe's actual volume are correct, we find that:

    There are only 1018 seconds in the history of the universe
    There are only 1066 atoms in the universe
    There are only 1080 particles in the universe

    What this means is that a) there's not been enough time in the universe for DNA to spontaneously generate [if you had one try every second, you're out of luck; even if you had one try every microsecond, that's still only 1024, so you're still out of luck]; b) there's not enough material in the universe to experiment with.

    Now, that's using a very liberal estimate of the chances for DNA to develop randomly. But once you have the molecule, you're still not out of the woods; for DNA to be viable, all the required attendant protein apparatus are necessary for reproduction! It's not as simple as "cooking up the stuff" (the way Stanley Miller tried -- and failed to do back in 1953); the entire molecule must be completely present, absolutely without error, the first time, along with attendant servant proteins, in order to be viable; i.e., to reproduce.

    Why? Superb question! Here's the answer:

    The DNA molecule contains coded information and complex interactions that are so interdependent, that if one of the necessary pieces is out of order or missing, the entire construct becomes unviable. This is made all the more impossible when one considers that in order for DNA to reproduce, there must be a special error-correcting protein that has to travel up the nucleotide chain to check for errors. This protein is in turn produced by the DNA molecule (of necessity, since that's how we get proteins in the first place; from DNA) Which brings up a very irritating (to the evolutionist) twist to the old quandry, "which came first?" The duplication protein, or DNA?



    Both had to be present, in perfect working order, at the same time.

    Add to that the fact that DNA is a truly breathtaking -- and absolutely unparalleled -- example of an information storage system. The information encoded on the DNA molecule is, first of all, digital. It is encoded in 4-bit code [the four bases that make up nucleotides: adenine, thymidine, cytosine, and guanine]. DNA has built-in redundancy to ensure error-free data transfer; that is, many nucleotide sequences occur in multiple places, so that if one sequence is damaged (the special duplication protein knows when it is so!), the backup sequence can take over the production of the necessary proteins! DNA also is error-correcting (the duplication protein travels up the "daugher molecule" checking for errors). In summary, the DNA molecule stores coded information in 4-bit binary, redundant, error-correcting chains. And all this must be in place, perfectly, before any duplication (i.e., "reproduction") can take place.

    Harold Morowitz estimates the probability of all necessary conditions existing simultaneously for a single "simple" cell to be at 1 in 10100,000,000,000, or similar to the odds of winning 10,000 lotteries in a row.

    Sir Frederick Hoyle (an avowed atheist) calculates the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as 1 in 1040,000!

    What are the odds? Well, in order for all of this to occur (and it must in order for evolution to be a viable theory of origins), we compute as follows:



    1017 seconds in the history of the universe (average age estimated by evolutionists)
    1084 particles in the universe (counting baryons)
    1020 events per second (maximum number of conceivable interactions between subatomic particles)
    10121 total events (1017 x 1084 x 1020 = 10121)
    10100,000,000,000 events necessary to produce a single living cell (estimate by molecular biologist Harold Morowitz)
    The equation would be thus:
    Probability of evolutionary start = 10121 / 10100,000,000,000 = 1 / 1099,999,999,879 = zero
    One final thing should be noted: Whereas nothing is mathematically "impossible," strictly speaking, statisticians define odds beyond 1 in 1050 as being absurd, or as being so incredibly unlikely that it will never occur. So, not only is there not enough time in the universe (even granting evolutionists their mythological "billions of years"), and not enough material in the universe for the necessary tries, and not enough chances in the first place in the universe, the best-case scenario for DNA producing itself randomly calculates out to zero, but even the best odds available are definitionally absurd!!!
    Conclusion: Evolution is irrational on pure mathematical grounds.
    Why evolution is stupid

    I guess Shopharim must have read the same page, leading to all his questions regarding the odds.

    Surur
  16. #656  
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickS View Post
    As a former mathematician, I can say with certainty that I saw absolutely no sign of this
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    Most mathematicians scoff?
    Agree with both of you. What is funny is that its mathematics combined with human genome sequencing, that is giving us the most clear evidence yet of human evolution.
  17. #657  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    He's probably referring to this:


    Why evolution is stupid

    I guess Shopharim must have read the same page, leading to all his questions regarding the odds.

    Surur
    Neat stuff. But one should also know who Sir Fred was before jumping to conclusions. http://www.answers.com/topic/fred-hoyle
  18. #658  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    I would like to answer your question with another question.
    And I would still like to get an answer from you, instead of evasive questions. Nevertheless, I will continue to answer yours.
    If all of those who teach evolution and who graduate with degrees are 100% correct and have overwhelming evidence to prove their beliefs, then why are there scientists who do not hold to those beliefs?
    Among thousands of people, there are always a few who hold outlandish views. You can easily find historians who will assure that Jews were NOT killed by Nazis in concentration camps during World War II. Even though a very small fraction of historians say such things, the holocaust is still a reality. Or do you doubt it because a few historians or self-proclaimed historians say such things?

    Evolution is an undisputed fact among the great, great majority of many thousand biologists and other scientists working in similar fields all over the world. There are tons and tons of evidence they can present to prove it. Also e.g. the whole field of astonomy would have to be totally, completely wrong if the universe is only a few thousand years old. For astronomers, it is totally obvious that many stars are millions of light years away from earth. That would be impossible if earth and the universe is only 10000 years old.
    Why do most mathematicians scoff at the idea of evolution?
    You made that up, or you suffer from gross misinformation. If there would indeed be a mathematical issue with evolution, it would have been abandoned long ago. It seems your belief in young earth is based on wrong information e.g. as the above "most mathematicians" myth.
    Or are those who believe along the lines of evolution just accepting everything they are being taught and not challenging it for fear of being labeled foolish?
    Not in the least. Scientists are constantly challenging old views and the work of other scientists. Science is exactly the opposite of what you insinuate. This is one of the cornerstones and drivers of science and the "peer-review" process. If indeed there was any credible evidence which contradicts evolution, a scientist could become extremely famous by showing evolution does not work, similar to Einstein when he showed that there was more than just Newton in physics (even though Newton wasn't all wrong).

    So, I am still waiting for answers from you or somebody else among the 55% of US citizens who believe god made man in his present form and there was no evolution:

    As pointed out in this thread, there is no shortage of scientific proof for evolution and for earth being billions of years old, not thousands (note: a one-million-fold difference - not a likely scientific error to start off with). Each year, thousands of biologists, geologists and other scientists graduate from universities in the US and the rest of the world without a trace of doubt, based on what they have studied both in theory in practical experiments, that evolution is what happened on earth, and that earth is billions of years old.

    Since their convictions contradict your beliefs, why do you think they are all wrong?
    Did they not study correctly?
    Are they not intelligent enough?
    Are they brainwashed? Naive?
    Is science a huge conspiracy producing false evidence for evolution?
    Other reasons I didn't think of?

    I'd honestly like to know.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #659  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    He's probably referring to this:


    Why evolution is stupid

    I guess Shopharim must have read the same page, leading to all his questions regarding the odds.

    Surur
    Actually, no.

    It does lay out the types of concerns I have. However, I don't think it goes quite in the right direction. Namely, origin is not in the scope of the theory. For my interest, it would have been nice to do a second level of analysis that addressed the probability of emergence if the "absurd" actually occurred.
    Last edited by shopharim; 06/01/2007 at 11:58 AM.
  20. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #660  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Since their convictions contradict your beliefs, why do you think they are all wrong?
    Did they not study correctly?
    Are they not intelligent enough?
    Are they brainwashed? Naive?
    Is science a huge conspiracy producing false evidence for evolution?
    Other reasons I didn't think of?

    I'd honestly like to know.
    The crickets are still chirping.

Posting Permissions