|
|
|
|
#101
09-27-2000, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Please Close This Thread
This thread should be closed.
The issues: a. have been beaten to death b. require intelligent bantor about the subject c. have taken a back seat to the fact that the thread starter and sympathizers are ignoring any points made, albeit points made many times before. d. makes me want to read through an evolution/creationism discussion that at least exchanges good points and provides supporting evidence, theories and other intelligent dialogue. 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#102
09-27-2000, 04:35 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Then fucking leave. Quote:
Then fucking leave. Quote:
All issues that were addressed, but because you enjoy being willfully ignorant and in fact seem to revel in your ignorance, it does not matter, does it. Then fucking leave. Quote:
Then fucking leave. Quote:
Then fucking leave. __________________ Yer pal, Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR: Five months, two weeks, four days, 19 hours, 39 minutes and 9 seconds. 6872 cigarettes not smoked, saving $859.09. Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 2 days, 20 hours, 40 minutes. "I'm a big Genesis fan."-David B. (Amen, brother!) [/b]
|
|
#103
09-27-2000, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#105
09-28-2000, 09:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
pldennison wrote:
Quote:
Once, a Creationist e-mailed me to say that the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria was not evidence for evolution!
|
|
#107
10-01-2000, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe he didn't expect to run into people who have actually read the book, instead of excerpts and commentaries on Cretinist websites, and who could clearly state why Behe's little musings are in no way "proof against Darwin".
Or maybe his supervisor found out that he was spending his time at work posting to Message Boards and had his proxy revoked...
|
|
#108
10-01-2000, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It just goes to show you. The only anti-evolutionists who have the stomach to go toe-to-toe with knowledgable people are those who are religious fundamentalists. Every "creation science" idea can be debated and refuted. Those who try to use "creation science" find themselves demolished and leave. Only the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" crowd can take the heat.
Honesty, you have shown yourself to be woefully ignorant. "I hate Charles Dickens! After all, his novels don't discuss what it's like to be an Australian Aborigine!" "Newton's theory of Gravitation must be wrong, because it doesn't explain why I had chicken vindaloo for dinner last night!" Shyeah, right.... Then you claim that you have good reason to reject science, reason, logic, AND religion too, yet you fail to explain WHY. Wait, I know! You must be a solipsist! Yes, you're a brain in a jar, so you believe in last Thursdayism! ROFLMAO....
__________________
All that is required for neutral to triumph is for good and evil people to do nothing.
|
|
#109
10-02-2000, 02:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"What Would Darwin Do?"
Here are some replies (following the *) I have to a long list of supposed "proofs against evolution" that someone sent to me.
Enjoy!! -Lupulin Well, I should be writing my thesis but instead I'm reading through this list of Eric's: > Reasons for Creationism vs. Evolution > Section 1: Cosmology, Astronomy, Planetary Geology > 1.1: The sun contains most of the mass, but only 2% of the angular momentum > of the solar system. If the solar system had condensed from a gas cloud, > most of its angular momentum would be in the sun. * This value of 2% sounds way off but I don't have my astronomy books here. Of course, no reference is given ("Down Mike, down!"). In any event, this could easily be an oversimplification as, according to current theory about the origin of the solar system there would have been a lot of material leftover from the initial disk of material that subsequently got blown away when the sun achieved the density necessary for thermonuclear ignition. > 1.2: Most sets of fundamental constants would lead to a universe in which > life could not exist. Therefore, the fundamental constants of the universe > must have been fine-tuned by a creator who wished to bring man into > existence. * The conditions support life as we know it. That /anything/ about the current universe (or our solar system or planet in particular) is conducive to life forms tells us nothing about how those conditions came about! If you think about this, the very fact that we are here requires that the conditions around us allow us to be here - it could be no other way!! Note that the above statement is but one example of grossly over interpreting the observation cited. Using phrases like "must have been a creator" or "proves the existence of a creator" or "proves evolution is false" don't follow from the specious arguments they present. This is seen again and again throughout this list... > 1.3: At the present rate of influx of meteoritic dust from space, the earth > and moon after 5 billion years should each be covered with a meteoritic dust > layer more than 180 feet thick. * Earth's surface isn't static, there has been constant weathering as well as geologic upheaval during the Earth's history so it is not surprising at all that there is not a lot of "meteoric dust" here. Also, apparently little of the metors that strike the Earth contribute anything at all to the Earth's surface - the vast bulk of the mass is burned up in the atmosphere. I don't know about the moon, I'm only an amatuer astronomer and don't know jack about the geology of the moon. > 1.4: The 1st law of thermodynamics states that the energy in the universe is > constant. The Big Bang theory states that the universe came out of nothing, > so it violates this thermodynamic law. * The first law only applies to the universe /as it now exists/ - it says nothing about the origin of the universe. > 1.5: The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that disorder in the universe > always increases. This means that the universe could not have started in an > ordered state unless it was "wound up" by a Creator. * Again, as with 1.4 it only applies to the universe as it now exists. > 1.6: The rotation of the Earth has been slowing at a rate of 30 seconds per > century. If the Earth were billions of years old, the rotation rate at the > outset would have been so great that the planet could not have held > together, much less support life. * No reference is given to this value of "30 seconds" (which, by the way is not a rate!). > 1.7: Quantum mechanics proves the existence of a creator, since there must > have been some entity external to the universe to observe it and thus > collapse it into a determinate state. * This is a ridiculous statement. It is also striking that they often stress the point that "nothing in science can ever be proven" yet they often say this or that aspect of science "proves" the existence of a creator - you can't have it both ways!! > 1.8: Big Bang theory says the universe came from nothing. But something > cannot come from nothing, so God must have created the universe. * No, it says it came from an incredibly dense singularity. Also, the first law again relates only to the universe as we see it currently. The question of whether or not we are in an oscillatory universe or not appears to still be open to debaye. Again, they allow no alternative to their position - God "must" have created the universe. The old question of "Who created God?" springs to mind here... If God has always been then why can't the universe have always been here? > Section 2: Terrestrial Geology, Radioisotope Dating I'm not a radio-geologist but here are some comments: > 2.1: Many test using 14C give dates that are obviously wrong or conflict > with dates given by other radioisotope tests. For instance, a living mollusk > was once shown by 14C dating to be dead for 3,000 years. * How many? No test is perfect. It is important to know this is a /significant/ number or not. No percentage is given and no reference. The HIV blood test gives both false positives and a false negatives but overall the test is very reliable, useful, and valid. The anecdote given is just that- an anecdote (unreferenced). Making broad, general condemnations against radiocarbon dating (or any other scientific technique for that matter) without backing up that claim by anything more than a couple of anecdotes is useless. How are we to judge the validity of their claim? > 2.2: The ages of rocks are determined by the kinds of fossils they contain, > but the dating of the fossils depends upon evolutionary assumptions. The use > of the old age of rocks to support evolution is thus a circular argument. * The presence of fossils may provide clues to the age of a geologic formation but it is not the only source of info (indeed, fossils are not universally present in rock samples) radioisotopic analysis as well as positional information are also used. > 2.3: The rate of decay in the geomagnetic field sets an outside limit of > 10,000 years for the age of the earth. * But this assumes we know what the field strength was at t=0 (Earth's formation) how would we know this?? > 2.4: If the earth were as old as geologists say, uranium decay would have > put into the atmosphere more helium than we currently find there. * I believe that helium is thought to escape from the atmosphere into space. > 2.5: There are places where "older" rock strata lie above "younger" rock > strata. * The Earth is very active - tectonic movements induce upliftings and subductions. We've all seen deformations of rock strata in highway cuts through mountains, how hard is it to believe that in places this or similar processes could invert some strata? > 2.6: Radiometric dating is extremely inaccurate, as is shown by the fact > that such experiments frequently have error factors of a few million years. * Again, no reference. No specifics as to /which/ techniques they are talking about or /how frequently/ these errors occur. It should be obvious that what's important here is what is the /magnitude/ of the error? All measurements have errors. If we are talking about an isotopic ratio method where the halflives can measure time in billions of years then the error of a few million is trivial! > 2.7: Many radiometric dating tests have yielded false results. Evolutionists > discard all those that are inconsistent with their prior assumptions and > keep those that "verify" their theory. * If true this would of course go against the principles of scientific integrity. Again, no references are given for this accusation... > 2.8: Radiometric dating reports the earth to be old only because the > cataclysmic action of Noah's Flood changed the radioisotope concentrations > in the young earth. * And just /how/ would a flood do this? > 2.9: Noah's flood was caused by the condensing of a vapor canopy that > contained the waters of the flood. Prior to the flood, the vapor canopy also > extended people's lifespans to the huge ages listed in Genesis, because it > blocked out harmful UV rays. * We've already discussed this one. P.S. - UV rays are not the cause of aging! > 2.10: Niagara Falls is moving upstream at a known rate each year. Its > current location allows only about 5,000 years since the time it started > eroding. * We've gone over this one too. > Section 3: Origin of Life > 3.1: The law of biogenesis states that life comes only from previous life. > Therefore prebiotic synthesis - which states that life first developed from > nonliving molecules - contradicts a major law of science. * As with the First law of thermodynamics, biogenesis applies only to the conditions /extant today/ - it has no bearing on the conditions of a prebiotic Earth. > 3.2: Amino acids in living organisms are all left-handed, but in nature, > equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids form, so one would > expect them to occur in equal proportions in living organisms if abiogenesis > were true. * Wrong. I think Mike addressed this already. > 3.3: Nucleic acids cannot replicate without the help of proteins. Proteins, > however, cannot form unless specified by nucleic acid sequences. Thus, > genetic systems could not have started naturally. * Wrong. There are variuos ways to conceive of a genetic system based on only one componenet. The other componenet could have become associated at a later time. The two main componenets listed contribute the following: nucleic acids : information storage proteins : catalytic ability. The current best guess is that RNA or something like it may have been an early genetic system. This is because RNA has been shown to posess catalytic abilities in addition to information carying. Or, there may have been intermediate forms that are no longer in evidence in today's life forms. A great analogy of this is an arch. If you see a simple stone arch it is hard to see how that system could have come about - without the entire structure present all at once it does not function. But, you can easily imagine that during the arch's construction some sort of scaffolding or support structure could have filled in the arch til lit was completed then the support is removed leaving no trace. > 3.4: There are n! ways of an enzyme or DNA strand of n parts forming > prebiotically. Since the smallest proteins have at least 100 amino acids, > the chance of forming a particular enzyme prebiotically is at most 1/100!, > which is small enough to be disregarded. * This is totally misinterpreting or misrepresenting the role of chance or randomness in such a process. It ignores the power of selection, the possibility of building up from smaller structures and modular recombinations. Yes, it is improbable that any given sequence would form totally at random but this is not what biologists postulate happened. This is a common misunderstanding. > 3.5: Even though the Earth is an open system, the second law of > thermodynamics still poses an insuperable barrier to abiogenesis, since > order in an open system will increase only when there is a complex system > (such as a host of enzymes or a supernatural creator) to influence the > reactions. An increase in order in the absence of such a complex system > would be like sunshine causing loose parts in a junkyard to assemble itself > into a pickup truck. We've discussed this ad nauseum. There's nothing wrong with fecreases in entropy as long as total entropy in the universe increasaes with time. Again, I'll give the ice formation example - where is the "complex system" responsible for the local decrease in entropy when water spontaneously forms ice on my windshield in the mornings??? > Section 4: Biological Evolution, Mutations, Speciation > 4.1: Chromosome numbers cannot change without producing very harmful > effects. * Absolutely untrue! > 4.2: The perfection of the structures of the various life forms on earth > clearly reveal themselves as the work of an intelligent designer. Nowhere is > this more evident than in the unbelievably complex human eye. * Perfection?? How are life forms considered to be "perfect?" Even if they were, how would this "clearly reveal...?" What about rudimentary organs and other structures? > 4.3: Evolutionists cannot tell us exactly how most organisms arose. For > instance, no one can explain what series of mutations could have given > caterpillars the ability to metamorphose into butterflies. * This is analogous to the arguments put forward against the fossil record - if science can't explain everything or show evidence of every single step then the entire concept is supposedly invalidated. This is a ridiculous argument. > 4.4: The genetic variation in populations that allows them to adapt to > environmental change through microevolution (as revealed in industrial > melanism and bacterial antibiotic resistance) was deliberately put in place > by the creator. * This is one interpretation but there is no evidence for this. Where is this mentioned in the Bible? If true, why then couldn't He have used macroevolution as well??? > 4.5: Homologous features do not prove any ancestral relationship between > organisms, because all classifications above the species level are man-made > and arbitrary. * No, they are just consistent. The classifications are far from arbitrary. > 4.6: Industrial melanism does not demonstrate evolution at all because no > speciation occurs. * Ths is utterly ridiculous. Evolution is merely a process and this example supports that this process takes place. The concept they are trying to refute here is that the species we see today arose through this process. The industrial melanism example occurred on a timescale not even close to what current theory says would be required for speciation. On top of this, the adaptation to this one relatively small environmental condition wouldn't even be expected to generate a whole new species! > 4.7: Mutations are universally deleterious, and thus cannot be a driving > factor in evolution. * Also ridiculous - their own #4.6 argues directly against this! > 4.8: There are plenty of records of mutations causing birth defects, but > none of mutations causing "birth improvements." * Also incorrect. There is constant variation generated. Whether or not these are "improvements" depends upon the selection pressures in the environment. > 4.9: The rate of mutation is so small that it could never serve as a source > of variation. * First, mutation obviously serves a s asource of variation. Second, there are different kinds of mutations that act at different rates and produce different types and degrees of variation. Third, the consensus of scientific evidence points to a VERY old Earth so even slow mutation rates could eventually contribute. > 4.10: Macroevolution remains unproved because no one has observed it. In > fact, macroevolution is in principle unobservable, so evolution must be > unscientific. * It cannot be /directly/ observed but direct observation is not a prerequisite for being scientific. > 4.11: No one has ever seen one species arise from another. * No one expects to. > 4.12: If evolution were true, then fish would have evolved into amphibians > and land animals more than once. * Not necessarily but who says they didn't? > 4.13: Sexual reproduction could not have come about through evolution. * Why not? > 4.14: There is no evidence for the rapid development of new species. * ? > 4.15: Natural selection is tautological: the fittest survive, and those who > survive are the fittest. * No, this /statement/ is tautological though. The process of natural selection can be demomnstrated. It stems from competition for limited resources by populations with excess breeding capacity. Populations exhibit variation. Certain of these variations confer a natural advantage to the individuals posessing them. Since these (phenotypic) traits are heritable they will increase in frequency in the next generation. The key is that variation is constantly being generated otherwise it would be a simple cycle and no evolution would occur. > 4.16: Organisms feature numerous "irreducibly complex" structures and > processes, which could not have developed via small evolutionary steps. > Evolutionists have not even tried to explain how such structures and > processes could evolve. * Wrong and wrong. > 4.17 Given uniform population growth rates, we can extrapolate backwards > from today's population to prove that there could not have been humans > before 10,000 years ago. * This would only prove that what we typically think of as "humans" existed that far back. besides, it assummes a constant exponential growth rate but this wouldn'y have always been the case bnecessarily - think of the lag time your yeast starter goes through before it begins exponential growth. Also, don't such estimates clash with most fundamental creationists' expected age of the Earth of 6000 years? And, as stated here and elsewhere, they believe that Old Testament lifespans were vastly longer - this would push humans back even further... > 4.18 Haldane's Dilemma proves that humans could not have evolved over the > time span evolutionists say they did. * Here they go again, "proving" that evolution couldn't occur... what is "Haldane's Dilemma" anyway? > Section 5: Paleontology, Fossils, Transitional Forms > 5.1: The feather impressions in fossils of Archaeopteryx are forgeries. * Really, then why are they calling it a bird in the next statement (5.2)? Do they have any evidence to back up this extraordinary claim? What about the newer fossil forms showing apparent intermediaries between reptiles and birds - all forgeries too?? > 5.2: Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form but a full-fledged bird. Any > reptilian characteristics it displays are mirrored in modern birds such as > the hoatzin. * Directly contradicts 5.1! > 5.3: Protoavis precedes Archaeopteryx in the fossil record, so Archaeopteryx > cannot possibly be a transitional form. *? > 5.4: The Cambrian explosion is a sure sign of the activity of the Creator, > suddenly creating a multitude of complex forms out of nothing. There are no > fossils before the explosion. * Wrong. Again a "sure sign." Their unwillingness to entertain any alternative explanations is unacceptable. > 5.5: All of the explanations of gaps in the fossil record, such as the > invocation of punctuated equilibrium and the low probability of > fossilization, render the evolutionary prediction of transitional forms > unfalsifiable. Damn, I'm getting tired of this! I'm gonna pick a few more then stop.... > 5.7: In their search for transitional forms, the evolutionary community has > been taken in by outright fraud, as in the case of Piltdown Man, which was > accepted as a valid specimen for 40 years, and by unfounded speculation, as > in the construction of Nebraska Man from what later turned out to be a pig > tooth. This shows how unobjective evolutionists are. * So it's surprising that they were fooled by someone deliberately trying to mislead them? What are they trying to imply here - that all the other evidence is also bogus? They should point out that creationists are just as likely to make mistakes - there's the classic case of the "Paluxy Man Tracks" case where Morris and his crew claimed to have found fossilized human footprints mixed in with dinosaur footprints. Examination by scientists determined that they were all dinosaurian - none were human. This is even worse than the Plitdown case as no-one was trying to purposely deceive the creationists they deceived themselves! > 6.1: It is likely that many structures in the universe were created with the > mere appearance of old age. * "Likely?" based on what? isn't it more likely that they /are/ aged?! > 6.2: Evolution teaches that there are no such things as souls, that the > Bible is fraudulent, and that God does not exist. * Evolution teaches no such thing! > 6.3: Great scientists such as Newton and Kepler believed in a literal > Genesis. * Just as many great scientists believe in evolution - so what? > 6.4: Evolutionists are trying to take over the school system and force their > beliefs upon the students. * No, we are just trying to keep science education limited to matters of science not mythology. > 6.5: Natural processes cannot be the cause of qualities seen in humans like > love. For instance, the cause of love must be something loving. * As wonderful as it is and as good as it feels there's no reason to think this is nothing more than a result of biochemical reactions in the brain. Certain psychoactive drugs induce the same state and this is clearly a purely physical cause... > 6.6: There are many theories of evolution, each of which "conclusively > disproves" the other. * This is ridiculous. > 6.8: Electrons are materially inconceivable, but physicists largely accept > them as real entities. So what is to keep one from accepting the reality of > an inconceivable Creator? * We can /test/ for the presence of electrons. They are ammenable to scientific analyses. A supernatural creator is not. There is no scientific evidence for its presence. > 6.9: The exclusive teaching of evolution in the science classroom violates > the teaching of multiculturalism, because many different cultures have > creation myths which contradict evolution. * Again, evolution is taught in science class because it is /science/ - it is not mythology class. > 6.11: Nothing can be proven, particularly events in the past. Therefore, > creationism must be just as reasonable as evolution. * No, nothing can be absolutley proven but theories can be supported by evidence. > 6.12: There is nothing wrong with invoking supernatural explanations. * No, it just isn't scientific. How are we supposed to choose between the various (unsupportable) supernatural explanations?? > 6.13: There are many unanswered questions in science, such as the details of > the origin of the universe and of prebiotic synthesis. Thus we require a > supernatural God for explanation. * Another ridiculous argument - just because we don't have all the answers or are unlikely to answer some questions does not mean we "require a supernatural God for explanation! PHEW!
|
|
#110
10-02-2000, 08:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakin' of strawman arguments against evolution, have you seen the Chick Tract called "Big Daddy"?
It's at http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp, and is quite a riot.
|
|
#111
10-02-2000, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm still waiting for HideoHo to come back with his quotes from Behe that undermine "Darwinism". Regardless of the fact that Behe does not question that descent with modification through the mechanism of natural selection is probably the dominant fact of the history of life on Earth.
Heck, I'm still waiting for College Student to post how archaeology supports a literal interpretation of the Bible and disproves "Darwinism". (For that matter, I am still waiting for someone whom I shall not name to post at least the title of the book he found in that New Age bookstore near Stonehenge that disproves "Darwinism". Do I see a pattern here?)
__________________
"... at last, they reached Ganymede, under sail."
|
|
#112
10-02-2000, 09:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is how Urban Legends start!
Quote:
I think that I, in a lampoon of he-who-cannot-be-named, made reference to a book purchased in a New Age bookstore near Stonehenge. I don't think that he-who-cannot-be-named actually made that reference. So, I'm laughing over here, but also I am proud that my lampoon was so dead-on, someone I hold in such high esteem thought it was real!  __________________ Yer pal, Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING: Five months, three weeks, three days, 13 minutes and 38 seconds. 7080 cigarettes not smoked, saving $885.05. Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 14 hours, 0 minutes. "I'm a big Genesis fan."-David B. (Amen, brother!)
|
|
#113
10-02-2000, 09:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This is how Urban Legends start!
Quote:
|
|
#114
10-02-2000, 10:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you.
For you see, like the demons of old, we fear that if we name him, he may show up again. (Hey, it happened on LBMB2 -- they mentioned Daniel Schwarr and he appeared!)
|
|
#115
10-02-2000, 10:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named did in fact mention the book from the New Age section near Stonehenge, though, although since the thread is gone it can't be proven either way. But I'm pretty sure in his first few posts he mentioned the book he found there that would disprove evolution.
|
|
#119
10-03-2000, 10:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am a little busy right now, preparing a new novel, and filling out patent applications for my new inventions, but next week, when I have time to write a more extensive post on the subject, I will reveal to everyone just who the mysterious poster who cannot be named really was. (note: I shall show not only the board name, but the true identity of the PWCBN, and give a brief proof of those facts I have been able to obtain from certain government files made available to me.) For now, it will have to suffice that the PWCBN is greatly feared here, mostly because his clear logical thinking, and forthright ideals were a threat to the closed minds which congregate here.
When I do post these missives, which will have to be done in several parts, owing to the need for thorough exposition, I will include several references showing his complete debunking of “Evolutionism” and the cabal of science involved in supporting this bankrupt philosophy. I have to go now, my laboratory work is at a critical stage. Tris.
|
|
#121
10-03-2000, 11:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Proof that you are just a religious as anybody.
|
|
#122
10-03-2000, 12:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
He Who Cannot Be Named is before my time, but in my backwards browsing I've come across some very singular posts by a certain person--he, as ever, doesn't really use sense--whom I imagine to be the one referred to.
N'est-ce pas?
__________________
I'm a blogger!
|
|
#123
10-03-2000, 12:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
lissener wrote:
He Who Cannot Be Named is before my time, but in my backwards browsing I've come across some very singular posts by a certain person--he, as ever, doesn't really use sense--whom I imagine to be the one referred to. Robert Persig? Didn't he write a couple great/crazy books!
__________________
Better a bleeding heart than none at all!
|
|
#124
10-03-2000, 05:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well I remember a very long thread which started with a man, a book and a refutation of Darwin.
Unfortunately I have (genuinely) forgotten his name. But you chaps can see when I joined SDMB, so there's a limit how far back you have to look. Does anyone remember Guy Stuff? That was much more enjoyable!
__________________
Arnold Winkelried: 'glee, I take my hat off to you.... at first I thought you were kidding with your cite but I looked it up and it was indeed accurate. (Still in awe at the magnificent answer)'
|
|
#126
10-03-2000, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
them's fighting words . . .
Quote:
Put 'em up. 1) To calculate a probability it is necessary to either be in control of or to be able to accurately describe the field of all possible outcomes. Neither is the case with abiogenesis. (ex: what are the odds that I will have chicken for dinner tonight? Is it accurate to simply add up the number of different foods in my refrigerator and place that number over 1?) 2) To calculate a probability for any natural abiogenesis to occur it is neccessary to fully enumerate all possible paths to life. This is beyond our capacity at present, and will quite possibly always be beyond our capacity. (ex: I say hello to you in your living room. You point immediately to your front door, which has 17,458,321,677,976,324,787,688,354,546 deadbolts in place and conclude that I could not have walked in. I ask if you have a back door.) 3) There is no "largest number ever". There never will be. If you like books I suggest searching any decent source on the words "Cantor" and "infinite". (ex: Oh yeah! Well I have infinity plus one reasons why life could never have evolved!)
|
|
#127
10-03-2000, 06:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oooops.
I've been away too long, my reflexes are off. I got to the end of page 1 and hit "reply". Please excuse the non-sequitor.
|
|
#128
10-03-2000, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Tris
__________________
       
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
