FPGA Central

http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html

There ain't nothing like the scientific method!

Ciao,

Peter K.

in article [email protected], Peter K. at
[email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 22:24:

>
> http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html
>
> There ain't nothing like the scientific method!
>

more FSMism. yum!

anyway, on a more "serious" note, i was pleased as punch to hear the court
decision regarding ID in Pennsylvania where the judge called the ID
proponents (some specific persons such as the school board members that had
voted to inflict ID into the biology class and some to IDers in general)
that they were just "dishonest". and this judge is Bush appointee. it's
good someone in an official position is starting to cut the bullshit and
name this for what it is.

--

r b-j [email protected]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> in article [email protected], Peter K. at
> [email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 22:24:
>
>
>>http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html
>>
>>There ain't nothing like the scientific method!
>>
>
>
> more FSMism. yum!
>
> anyway, on a more "serious" note, i was pleased as punch to hear the court
> decision regarding ID in Pennsylvania where the judge called the ID
> proponents (some specific persons such as the school board members that had
> voted to inflict ID into the biology class and some to IDers in general)
> that they were just "dishonest". and this judge is Bush appointee. it's
> good someone in an official position is starting to cut the bullshit and
> name this for what it is.
>

ID and macro-evolution should both be hauled to the trash heap. They have
exactly the same amount of physical evidence in support.

in article 9S4qf.3035$9e.3[email protected], Bryan Hackney at
[email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 23:28:

> ID and macro-evolution should both be hauled to the trash heap. They have
> exactly the same amount of physical evidence in support.

oh really? i didn't know that "macro"-evolution required the establishment
of a deity, something kinda hard to measure with scientific instruments.
the *theory* of (macro|micro|whatever) Darwinian evolution and natural
selection has holes in the fossil record, unanswered questions, and parts
that will be revised in the future (meaning those parts, now generally
accepted are *wrong*), but its amount of physical evidence is not zero.
until some scientist makes a "God-detector", ID and Creationism have *zero*
physical evidence.

--

r b-j [email protected]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:38:19 -0500, robert bristow-johnson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>in article [email protected], Peter K. at
>[email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 22:24:
>
>>
>> http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html
>>
>> There ain't nothing like the scientific method!
>>
>
>more FSMism. yum!
>
>anyway, on a more "serious" note, i was pleased as punch to hear the court
>decision regarding ID in Pennsylvania where the judge called the ID
>proponents (some specific persons such as the school board members that had
>voted to inflict ID into the biology class and some to IDers in general)
>that they were just "dishonest". and this judge is Bush appointee. it's
>good someone in an official position is starting to cut the bullshit and
>name this for what it is.

What I liked about this ruling, as I understand it, is that ID was
thrown out as inappropriate for a biology class. That's the right
decision IMHO. If it were a philosophy or civics or comparative
religion class or something along those lines I think it would be
fine, but it's definitely not science and this is what the judge
ruled.

More power to 'im. And I concur, finally somebody with some chops
takes a stand.

And thanks to Peter K for the original link, too. Pasta and beer for
everyone! Yaaaay!

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:38:19 -0500, robert bristow-johnson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >in article [email protected], Peter K. at
> >[email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 22:24:
> >
> >>
> >> http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html
> >>
> >> There ain't nothing like the scientific method!
> >>
> >
> >more FSMism. yum!
> >
> >anyway, on a more "serious" note, i was pleased as punch to hear the court
> >decision regarding ID in Pennsylvania where the judge called the ID
> >proponents (some specific persons such as the school board members that had
> >voted to inflict ID into the biology class and some to IDers in general)
> >that they were just "dishonest". and this judge is Bush appointee. it's
> >good someone in an official position is starting to cut the bullshit and
> >name this for what it is.
>
> What I liked about this ruling, as I understand it, is that ID was
> thrown out as inappropriate for a biology class. That's the right
> decision IMHO. If it were a philosophy or civics or comparative
> religion class or something along those lines I think it would be
> fine, but it's definitely not science and this is what the judge
> ruled.
>
> More power to 'im. And I concur, finally somebody with some chops
> takes a stand.
>
> And thanks to Peter K for the original link, too. Pasta and beer for
> everyone! Yaaaay!
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
> My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
> http://www.ericjacobsen.org


I am surprised why peoples want to stick to an idea which was baseless
even when it was proposed as well as it is today specially when we are
scientifically so advanced that we have completely studied the human
cell and it is found to be astonishingly so complex which could never
possibly be mutated randomly.

But out there are poeples who want to teach their young generations
that there great great grand pa and ma was Monkey.

The theory of evolution has so many holes that it should be rejected
now in our comtemporary age.

Random can never lead to intellegent and cannot always pick the best
choice or avail the best chance available. survival is impossible!!

Gold

robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> in article 9S4qf.3035$[email protected], Bryan Hackney at
> [email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 23:28:
>
>
>>ID and macro-evolution should both be hauled to the trash heap. They have
>>exactly the same amount of physical evidence in support.
>
>
> oh really? i didn't know that "macro"-evolution required the establishment
> of a deity, something kinda hard to measure with scientific instruments.
> the *theory* of (macro|micro|whatever) Darwinian evolution and natural
> selection has holes in the fossil record, unanswered questions, and parts
> that will be revised in the future (meaning those parts, now generally
> accepted are *wrong*), but its amount of physical evidence is not zero.
> until some scientist makes a "God-detector", ID and Creationism have *zero*
> physical evidence.
>
Kind of depends on your viewpoint. One could argue that all of creation
is evidence.

robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> in article 9S4qf.3035$[email protected], Bryan Hackney at
> [email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 23:28:
>
>
>>ID and macro-evolution should both be hauled to the trash heap. They have
>>exactly the same amount of physical evidence in support.
>
>
> oh really? i didn't know that "macro"-evolution required the establishment
> of a deity, something kinda hard to measure with scientific instruments.
> the *theory* of (macro|micro|whatever) Darwinian evolution and natural
> selection has holes in the fossil record, unanswered questions, and parts
> that will be revised in the future (meaning those parts, now generally
> accepted are *wrong*), but its amount of physical evidence is not zero.

Species jumping evidence is very close to if not zero. If it were not,
we would know about it, because the evolution proponents are desparate to
keep their religion (sic) afloat. It may be a religion without a diety,
but it requires no more faith than your garden variety deity based
religion.


> until some scientist makes a "God-detector", ID and Creationism have *zero*
> physical evidence.
>

Bryan Hackney wrote:

> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> > in article 9S4qf.3035$[email protected], Bryan Hackney at
> > [email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 23:28:
> >
> >
> >>ID and macro-evolution should both be hauled to the trash heap. They have
> >>exactly the same amount of physical evidence in support.
> >
> >
> > oh really? i didn't know that "macro"-evolution required the establishment
> > of a deity, something kinda hard to measure with scientific instruments.
> > the *theory* of (macro|micro|whatever) Darwinian evolution and natural
> > selection has holes in the fossil record, unanswered questions, and parts
> > that will be revised in the future (meaning those parts, now generally
> > accepted are *wrong*), but its amount of physical evidence is not zero.
>
> Species jumping evidence is very close to if not zero. If it were not,
> we would know about it, because the evolution proponents are desparate to
> keep their religion (sic) afloat. It may be a religion without a diety,
> but it requires no more faith than your garden variety deity based
> religion.

You mean "no less faith". Yes, well, the more things change the more they stay
the same.

-jim

> > until some scientist makes a "God-detector", ID and Creationism have *zero*
> > physical evidence.
> >


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

gold wrote:
> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:38:19 -0500, robert bristow-johnson
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>in article [email protected], Peter K. at
>>>[email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 22:24:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html
>>>>
>>>>There ain't nothing like the scientific method!
>>>>
>>>
>>>more FSMism. yum!
>>>
>>>anyway, on a more "serious" note, i was pleased as punch to hear the court
>>>decision regarding ID in Pennsylvania where the judge called the ID
>>>proponents (some specific persons such as the school board members that had
>>>voted to inflict ID into the biology class and some to IDers in general)
>>>that they were just "dishonest". and this judge is Bush appointee. it's
>>>good someone in an official position is starting to cut the bullshit and
>>>name this for what it is.
>>
>>What I liked about this ruling, as I understand it, is that ID was
>>thrown out as inappropriate for a biology class. That's the right
>>decision IMHO. If it were a philosophy or civics or comparative
>>religion class or something along those lines I think it would be
>>fine, but it's definitely not science and this is what the judge
>>ruled.
>>
>>More power to 'im. And I concur, finally somebody with some chops
>>takes a stand.
>>
>>And thanks to Peter K for the original link, too. Pasta and beer for
>>everyone! Yaaaay!
>>
>>Eric Jacobsen
>>Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
>>My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
>>http://www.ericjacobsen.org
>
>
>
> I am surprised why peoples want to stick to an idea which was baseless
> even when it was proposed as well as it is today specially when we are
> scientifically so advanced that we have completely studied the human
> cell and it is found to be astonishingly so complex which could never
> possibly be mutated randomly.
>
> But out there are poeples who want to teach their young generations
> that there great great grand pa and ma was Monkey.

The putative purpose of teaching evolution is that if it is not taught,
the only alternative is the Genesis story, and then we will be all out
of scientists.

We're running out of scientists anyway, and the evolution proponents
are some of the dullest and dishonest bipeds on the planet.

>
> The theory of evolution has so many holes that it should be rejected
> now in our comtemporary age.
>
> Random can never lead to intellegent and cannot always pick the best
> choice or avail the best chance available. survival is impossible!!

I would not say never, but the ball is going to tend to rest in the
valleys rather than the peaks. And there's this nasty little question
if the second law of thermodynamics to contend with.

>
> Gold
>

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:38:19 -0500, robert bristow-johnson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>in article [email protected], Peter K. at
>>[email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 22:24:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html
>>>
>>>There ain't nothing like the scientific method!
>>>
>>
>>more FSMism. yum!
>>
>>anyway, on a more "serious" note, i was pleased as punch to hear the court
>>decision regarding ID in Pennsylvania where the judge called the ID
>>proponents (some specific persons such as the school board members that had
>>voted to inflict ID into the biology class and some to IDers in general)
>>that they were just "dishonest". and this judge is Bush appointee. it's
>>good someone in an official position is starting to cut the bullshit and
>>name this for what it is.
>
>
> What I liked about this ruling, as I understand it, is that ID was
> thrown out as inappropriate for a biology class. That's the right
> decision IMHO. If it were a philosophy or civics or comparative
> religion class or something along those lines I think it would be
> fine, but it's definitely not science and this is what the judge
> ruled.

I was watching one the educational channels a few weeks back about what
the media has dubbed "hobbit" that were found on Flores island. They
had a bunch of people called scientists row across the strait to the
island in a raft which the program described as being one of the most
treacherous bodies of water in the world. This was given as "evidence"
that it was plausible that homo erectus did the same. This don't seem
to me as being a rigorous argument.

There was a NOVA special on string theory a while back. One of the
things stated was that no one has yet figured out an experiment to
verify the validity of the theory. Several of the scientists featured,
asked the question, "Is this science?." It's sure as shit is taught in
physics classes at our best universities.

IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.

>
> More power to 'im. And I concur, finally somebody with some chops
> takes a stand.
>
> And thanks to Peter K for the original link, too. Pasta and beer for
> everyone! Yaaaay!
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
> My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
> http://www.ericjacobsen.org

Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
>> in article 9S4qf.3035$[email protected], Bryan Hackney at
>> [email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 23:28:
>>
>>
>>> ID and macro-evolution should both be hauled to the trash heap. They
>>> have
>>> exactly the same amount of physical evidence in support.
>>
>>
>>
>> oh really? i didn't know that "macro"-evolution required the
>> establishment
>> of a deity, something kinda hard to measure with scientific instruments.
>> the *theory* of (macro|micro|whatever) Darwinian evolution and natural
>> selection has holes in the fossil record, unanswered questions, and parts
>> that will be revised in the future (meaning those parts, now generally
>> accepted are *wrong*), but its amount of physical evidence is not zero.
>> until some scientist makes a "God-detector", ID and Creationism have
>> *zero*
>> physical evidence.
>>
> Kind of depends on your viewpoint. One could argue that all of creation
> is evidence.

Maybe, but it seems mostly to be evidence that, given enough time (infinity?), a
random process (e.g. quantum jitter) can, at least once, produce something
extra-ordinary and, at least in the short-term, non-reversible. Indeed we only
need it to happen once, and all the evidence indicates that indeed it has
happened at least once - we are here, observing it. And in a few years, we
should know if the delightfully named "God particle" (Higgs boson) exists.
Somehow, particles exist, in very, um, particular forms, with and without mass,
and given the extra-ordinariness of this, the emergence of the cell from a
similar random process should be less surprising. Intuitively we might suppose
the existence of particles without mass to be the weird part, but in practice
scientists are struggling more to explain the particles ~with~ mass.

In the meantime, ID has a real problem (among many others) in that its founding
premise is that something is intrinsically inexplicable; which is different from
acknowledging that something hasn't been explained yet, and which is totally
opposite from actually explaining anything!

So so far, the best evidence for the existence of God is the existence of
randomness; without which was not any thing made that was made.

On which note, I wish a Happy Solstice to everyone, and a Happy Christmas too to
those for whom that is meaningful.

Richard Dobson








Richard Dobson

Richard Dobson wrote:
> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>
>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>>> in article 9S4qf.3035$[email protected], Bryan Hackney at
>>> [email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 23:28:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ID and macro-evolution should both be hauled to the trash heap. They
>>>> have
>>>> exactly the same amount of physical evidence in support.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> oh really? i didn't know that "macro"-evolution required the
>>> establishment
>>> of a deity, something kinda hard to measure with scientific instruments.
>>> the *theory* of (macro|micro|whatever) Darwinian evolution and natural
>>> selection has holes in the fossil record, unanswered questions, and
>>> parts
>>> that will be revised in the future (meaning those parts, now generally
>>> accepted are *wrong*), but its amount of physical evidence is not zero.
>>> until some scientist makes a "God-detector", ID and Creationism have
>>> *zero*
>>> physical evidence.
>>>
>> Kind of depends on your viewpoint. One could argue that all of
>> creation is evidence.
>
>
> Maybe, but it seems mostly to be evidence that, given enough time
> (infinity?), a random process (e.g. quantum jitter) can, at least once,
> produce something extra-ordinary and, at least in the short-term,
> non-reversible. Indeed we only need it to happen once, and all the
> evidence indicates that indeed it has happened at least once - we are
> here, observing it. And in a few years, we should know if the
> delightfully named "God particle" (Higgs boson) exists. Somehow,
> particles exist, in very, um, particular forms, with and without mass,
> and given the extra-ordinariness of this, the emergence of the cell from
> a similar random process should be less surprising. Intuitively we might
> suppose the existence of particles without mass to be the weird part,
> but in practice scientists are struggling more to explain the particles
> ~with~ mass.


One might argue that particle accelerators evolved to create sub atomic
particles.


>
> In the meantime, ID has a real problem (among many others) in that its
> founding premise is that something is intrinsically inexplicable; which
> is different from acknowledging that something hasn't been explained
> yet, and which is totally opposite from actually explaining anything!
>
> So so far, the best evidence for the existence of God is the existence
> of randomness; without which was not any thing made that was made.
>
> On which note, I wish a Happy Solstice to everyone, and a Happy
> Christmas too to those for whom that is meaningful.

Perhaps in a parallel universe.

>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>

robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> in article [email protected], Peter K. at
> [email protected] wrote on 12/20/2005 22:24:
>
>
>>http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html
>>
>>There ain't nothing like the scientific method!
>>
>
>
> more FSMism. yum!
>
> anyway, on a more "serious" note, i was pleased as punch to hear the court
> decision regarding ID in Pennsylvania where the judge called the ID
> proponents (some specific persons such as the school board members that had
> voted to inflict ID into the biology class and some to IDers in general)
> that they were just "dishonest". and this judge is Bush appointee. it's
> good someone in an official position is starting to cut the bullshit and
> name this for what it is.

I never thought it would come to this, but I intellectual honesty moves
me to defend ID. There are honest -- but I think misguided -- believers
in ID. That members of the Dover school board dishonestly used it as an
underhanded substitute for the creationism that they knew would be
disallowed doesn't change that.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Bryan Hackney wrote:

...

> Species jumping evidence is very close to if not zero. If it were not,
> we would know about it, because the evolution proponents are desparate to
> keep their religion (sic) afloat. It may be a religion without a diety,
> but it requires no more faith than your garden variety deity based
> religion.

For the record: "sic" is Latin for "thus", and is used in quotations to
mean "his error, not mine".

All beliefs are ultimately based on faith. Science is distinguished from
other faiths in that it makes testable predictions. Most sciences evolve
as their unsupportable theories are modified to conform to experimental
observation or replaced altogether. Evolution is no exception, but it is
remarkable how robust Darwin's outline has proved to be.

If a belief system isn't falsifiable (i.e. if it doesn't lead to
predictions that can be checked against reality) it isn't science. True
or not, intelligent design isn't science.

The agency of a deity is commonly invoked in the absence mechanistic
knowledge. A common diagnosis in army field hospitals in Korea was
"GOK": God only knows.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:50:58 GMT, Bryan Hackney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Species jumping evidence is very close to if not zero.
>

Of course, only a proponent of ID would think that the Theory of
Evolution proposes "species jumping".

Just Cocky wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:50:58 GMT, Bryan Hackney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Species jumping evidence is very close to if not zero.
>>
>
>
> Of course, only a proponent of ID would think that the Theory of
> Evolution proposes "species jumping".

like kangaroos?

On 21 Dec 2005 02:02:16 -0800, "gold" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I am surprised why peoples want to stick to an idea which was baseless
>even when it was proposed as well as it is today specially when we are
>scientifically so advanced that we have completely studied the human
>cell and it is found to be astonishingly so complex which could never
>possibly be mutated randomly.
>

The fact that you don't understand the ideas behind Evolution is a
limitation of your brain, not of Nature's ability to evolve toward
complexity.

>
>But out there are poeples who want to teach their young generations
>that there great great grand pa and ma was Monkey.
>

Your ignorance is noted. No one's ancestors were monkeys.

>
>The theory of evolution has so many holes that it should be rejected
>now in our comtemporary age.
>

The holes aren't as big as your skull, though.

>
>Random can never lead to intellegent and cannot always pick the best
>choice or avail the best chance available. survival is impossible!!
>

Ok, here the thing. You are a retard. If you were the product of
Intelligent Design, then you god is dumb as a brick.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:56:24 GMT, Bryan Hackney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I would not say never, but the ball is going to tend to rest in the
>valleys rather than the peaks. And there's this nasty little question
>if the second law of thermodynamics to contend with.
>

Living organism aren't closed systems. It's perfectly consistent with
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for entropy to decrease open systems.
Besides Biology, your ignorance of Physics is also showing. Not
surprise here, though.

Just Cocky wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:50:58 GMT, Bryan Hackney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Species jumping evidence is very close to if not zero.
>>
>
>
> Of course, only a proponent of ID would think that the Theory of
> Evolution proposes "species jumping".

Species jumping is my term, perhaps misunderstood. I would define it
as the process by which earthworms become polar bears.

Maybe earthworms don't evolve into polar bears, but there are many
apparently rational people who believe that a single cell final
organism + 10^6 years = higher life form + a bucket of entropy.

How silly is that, in the face of no observable evidence?

Peter K. wrote:
> http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html
>
> There ain't nothing like the scientific method!
>
> Ciao,
>
> Peter K.
>
>
>
>
Two thoughts, semi unrelated.

1) The most ardent atheists I personally know, either went to Catholic
schools and/or had strongly religious parents.

2) I don't ever recall that being skeptical was a winning strategy in
public school in any science class. The most successful students where
the ones who regurgitated what was feed them. I can only conclude that
my science classes were trying to teach me how to be a penguin via metaphor.

Merry Christmas to all.

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Bryan Hackney wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Species jumping evidence is very close to if not zero. If it were not,
>> we would know about it, because the evolution proponents are desparate to
>> keep their religion (sic) afloat. It may be a religion without a diety,
>> but it requires no more faith than your garden variety deity based
>> religion.
>
>
> For the record: "sic" is Latin for "thus", and is used in quotations to
> mean "his error, not mine".
>

"sic" - retained or written intentionally, according to American Heritage.
I looked it up after your comment - I was not sure myself.

> All beliefs are ultimately based on faith. Science is distinguished from
> other faiths in that it makes testable predictions. Most sciences evolve
> as their unsupportable theories are modified to conform to experimental
> observation or replaced altogether. Evolution is no exception, but it is
> remarkable how robust Darwin's outline has proved to be.
>
> If a belief system isn't falsifiable (i.e. if it doesn't lead to
> predictions that can be checked against reality) it isn't science. True
> or not, intelligent design isn't science.

I don't have a dog in this fight - my job is to point out the fantasy
of macro-evolution, not to promote ID as part of science (or anything else).
The ID argument is a straw man or even a red herring when used in this
manner. Of course, the ID argument is what brings the topic out to begin with.
If not for that, we would let the evolutionists go about their fantasies without
bothering them.

>
> The agency of a deity is commonly invoked in the absence mechanistic
> knowledge. A common diagnosis in army field hospitals in Korea was
> "GOK": God only knows.
>
> Jerry

Just Cocky wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:56:24 GMT, Bryan Hackney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I would not say never, but the ball is going to tend to rest in the
>>valleys rather than the peaks. And there's this nasty little question
>>if the second law of thermodynamics to contend with.
>>
>
>
> Living organism aren't closed systems. It's perfectly consistent with
> the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for entropy to decrease open systems.
> Besides Biology, your ignorance of Physics is also showing. Not
> surprise here, though.

I'll let you draw your control surface anywhere you want.

You have resorted to ad homimen attacks - goodbye.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:13:48 GMT, Bryan Hackney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Just Cocky wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:50:58 GMT, Bryan Hackney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Species jumping evidence is very close to if not zero.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, only a proponent of ID would think that the Theory of
>> Evolution proposes "species jumping".
>
>Maybe earthworms don't evolve into polar bears, but there are many
>apparently rational people who believe that a single cell final
>organism + 10^6 years = higher life form + a bucket of entropy.
>
>How silly is that, in the face of no observable evidence?
>

As silly as thinking that one can get to "2" by repeatedly adding
10^-100 to "1" 10^100 times.

Oh, and it was ~10^9 years and the bucket of entropy you talk about is
absolutely irrelevant as Earth is *NOT* a closed system.

As for evidence, what do you think the field of molecular genetics is,
witchcraft?

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:25:56 GMT, Bryan Hackney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I don't have a dog in this fight - my job is to point out the fantasy
>of macro-evolution
>

There is not such thing as macro-evolution. All evolution is micro.