FPGA Central

On 21 Dec 2005 18:31:47 -0800, "gold" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Just Cocky wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>>>>The fact that you don't understand the ideas behind ID Creation is a limitation of your brain toooooo.
>
>
>> >
>> >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.
>>>>> I was taking it as a general class such as your respected apes (*_*).
>> >
>> >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.
>> >>>> But I'm sure it is larger than your empty skull.
>> >
>> >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.
>>>> You have been given a time and brain to think (which seems to be empty right now), as soon as your time will end you will get to know clearly about this. Believe it or Not!!
>
>Enjoy!!
>

Such a genius can't even properly quote.

robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.

My first thought when I heard the news was "There is a God!". ;-)

Someone in my family said:

"God asks you to believe, He doesn't ask you to stop thinking."

Ciao,

Peter K.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:13:28 +0000, Bryan Hackney wrote:

> Jerry Avins wrote:
>> Bryan Hackney wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>>
>> What is "macro-evolution", as distinct from "evolution"? All I can think
>> it might be is a direct transition from amoeba to aardvark. Does anyone
>> believe that?
>>
>
> Macro-evolution is what I would call big steps required to get from
> amoeba to aardvark.
>
> If you think there are no big steps, and everything is just one big
> continuum from single cell to human, then I suggest that almost all
> the fossil record is missing.

You would be right. The current conservative estimate is that only one
species in 10,000 made it into the fossil record. Of all Americans alive
today, it is estimated that only 50 bones (each human has 206) would
survive into the fossil record, and those 50 bones would of course be
spread randomly over the entire country.

However, your assertion that there are no transitional forms appears to be
completely wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

--
Regards,
Bob Monsen

Jerry Avins wrote:

> He didn't write "falsified", but "falsifiable". If no circumstance can
> demonstrate that a statement is false, that statement is not
> falsifiable.

So the "Truth" is not falsifiable?

Cheers,
David

Jerry Avins wrote:

>
> > It's tainted by the emotions of its proponents.
>
> Emotions don't taint a theory. I suspect that you don't know what a
> theory is.
>

So you think the theory of intelligent design is not at all tainted by the emotions
of it's proponents?
In the theory of the Survival of the Fittest, 'Fitness' becomes defined as
whatever we find it to be.
In intelligent design 'Intelligence' is defined as whatever we find it to
be.

What's the difference? both can be tested against the fossil record.


>
> > Take you and Mr. Cocky for instance your so blinded by your emotions you
> > assert repeatedly that Mr. Hackney is a proponent of ID when he never said
> > one thing in support of ID and has stated clearly he is not.
>
> You can't cite a message in which I claim that Hackney proposes ID. I
> haven't written one. You need to distinguish imagination from reality.

You argued against Intelligent Design in direct response to his post. I interpreted
that to mean you thought he supported ID. Apparently you feel there can be some
other interpretation.

This discussion is all about interpretation of facts. I don't see where the
scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation plays any role as you claim.
It's simply about gathering disparate and badly degraded evidence and spinning a
story around it. And both sides think the other guys story is a threat to their
very survival And excuse me if I harbor a strong suspicion that the evidence
itself is tainted by the preconceived notions of its gatherers.

The whole thing seems about as scientific as the reading of tea leaves except
that in the latter case they are working with better quality data.


>
> > One has to wonder why its so important to defend evolution. The argument
> > is really about Hegemony. The proponents of evolution believe this so way to
> > important for the standard rules to apply. If you lose this one everything
> > changes. So there really is no room for someone who looks at the evidence and
> > says 'well it looks to sparse to draw any meaningful conclusions'.
>
> It's not important to defend the theory of evolution as such. It's
> vitally important for us as a society to know what is science and what
> is not.

Translation:
It's vitally important for us as a society to know what is true and what is not.


> I don't object to alternatives to evolution or to those who
> believe them to be true.

Yah, right.


> I do object to calling any of the currently
> touted alternatives "science".

And how is that different from objecting to alternatives to evolution or to those
who
believe them to be true. Oh I get - your willing to let them hold these beliefs as
long as they pronounce them to the public as false.

-jim



> Only theories that can generate testable
> predictions are properly subjects of science. Some creationists
> denigrate evolution by saying that it is "only" a theory. If course it's
> a theory; it would not be scientific otherwise. I have little use for I
> have little use for Revealed Truth in matters of scientific inquiry.
>
> > The same thing, of course, applies to the proponents on the other side,
> > but you already knew that.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


----== 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 =----

Peter K. wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> My first thought when I heard the news was "There is a God!". ;-)
>
> Someone in my family said:
>
> "God asks you to believe, He doesn't ask you to stop thinking."

Galileo is said to have quoted a Church official as having said that the
Bible, "tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." The
article in which I read that says much of what I've tried to, better
than I can. Here are some excerpts:

"Or consider the seventeenth-century Dutch astronomer
Christiaan Huygens, whose achievements include constructing the first
working pendulum clock and discovering the rings of Saturn. In his
charming book "The Celestial Worlds Discover’d," posthumously published
in 1696, most of the opening chapter celebrates all that was then known
of planetary orbits, shapes, and sizes, as well as the planets’ relative
brightness and presumed rockiness. The book even includes foldout charts
illustrating the structure of the solar system. God is absent from this
discussion—even though a mere century earlier, before Newton’s
achievements, planetary orbits were supreme mysteries.

"Celestial Worlds" also brims with speculations about life
in the solar system, and that’s where Huygens raises questions to which
he has no answer. That’s where he mentions the biological conundrums of
the day, such as the origin of life’s complexity. And sure enough,
because seventeenth-century physics was more advanced than
seventeenth-century biology, Huygens invokes the hand of God only when
he talks about biology:

"I suppose no body will deny but that there’s somewhat more of
Contrivance, somewhat more of Miracle in the production and growth of
Plants and Animals than in lifeless heaps of inanimate Bodies. . . . For
the finger of God, and the Wisdom of Divine Providence, is in them much
more clearly manifested than in the other.

"Today secular philosophers call that kind of divine invocation 'God of
the gaps'—which comes in handy, because there has never been a shortage
of gaps in people’s knowledge."

Humorously:
"And what comedian designer configured the region between
our legs—an entertainment complex built around a sewage system?"

Seriously:
"Another practice that isn’t science is embracing ignorance. Yet it’s
fundamental to the philosophy of intelligent design: I don’t know what
this is. I don’t know how it works. It’s too complicated for me to
figure out. It’s too complicated for any human being to figure out. So
it must be the product of a higher intelligence.

"What do you do with that line of reasoning? Do you just
cede the solving of problems to someone smarter than you, someone who’s
not even human? Do you tell students to pursue only questions with easy
answers?"

Read the whole essay. It's worth it, no matter where you stand on this.

http://research.amnh.org/users/tyson...Ignorance.html

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

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Bryan Hackney wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> If you think there are no big steps, and everything is just one big
>> continuum from single cell to human, then I suggest that almost all
>> the fossil record is missing.
>
>
> Most if it is. Did you think otherwise? Do you know of any knowledgeable
> biologist who does?
>
> Jerry

Change "most" to "virtually all". There had to be millions of versions
of goat-horse between goat and horse (assuming that's the direction),
and if none of these millions of verions exist in the fossil record,
then the record is virtually non-existent.

Just Cocky wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:22:16 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Rune Allnor wrote:
>>
>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Just Cocky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
>>>>>>>>>subjects of science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How about string theory?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
>>>>>>>exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
>>>>>>>testable prediction, it will fade away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jerry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class,
>>>>>>because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the
>>>>>>establishment of a pasta deity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
>>>>>is, in principle, falsifiable.
>>>>
>>>>So if it's falsified, then it's a valid scientific theory? Please
>>>>explain this further. I don't get it.
>>>
>>>
>>>A theory is "scientific" if one can make some prediction based
>>>on the theory, and then design an experiment to see if the prediction
>>>holds. Some theories pass this test, others don't. What we know as
>>>"science" is the set of theories that repeatedly pass this test.
>>>
>>>Rune
>>>
>>
>>So by this criteria string theory is, what?
>>
>
>
> A speculative theory.

I asked Rune the question. The question was if the theory was
scientific. All theories are speculative to some extent.
>
>
>>Can someone describe a prediction that evolution has made that was
>>verified by experiment?
>>
>
>
> The Theory of Evolution predicts that genomes change in response to
> enviromental pressures. Ever heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

My understanding is that the genetic traits for antibiotic resistance
existed prior to the introduction of antibiotics. Natural selection
killed off the competition without those traits.
>
>
>>What about dark matter in astronomy?
>>
>
>
> This is not a prediction. "Something" is there because it can actually
> be measured.

But what?
>
>
>>It seem that it take a bit of faith to believe that the experiments exist.
>>
>
>
> Experiment for what?

String Theory. Duh!

Just Cocky wrote:
>(snip)
>
> The tests certianly exist. But they require access to very high energy
> levels. The inability to test right now is essentially technological.

I don't believe that this is correct. No one is talking about building
larger particle smashers to verify string theory (as yet). You just
took a leap of faith and asserted that a test certainly exists without
any evidence that it may.



>
>
>>It seems to me like this is a step in faith or at least a
>>philosophical argument.
>>
>
>
> Faith for what? The theory either works or not. No one know right now.
> Where's the faith?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:44:29 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Just Cocky wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:22:16 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Rune Allnor wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Just Cocky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
>>>>>>>>>>subjects of science.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How about string theory?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
>>>>>>>>exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
>>>>>>>>testable prediction, it will fade away.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jerry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class,
>>>>>>>because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the
>>>>>>>establishment of a pasta deity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
>>>>>>is, in principle, falsifiable.
>>>>>
>>>>>So if it's falsified, then it's a valid scientific theory? Please
>>>>>explain this further. I don't get it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A theory is "scientific" if one can make some prediction based
>>>>on the theory, and then design an experiment to see if the prediction
>>>>holds. Some theories pass this test, others don't. What we know as
>>>>"science" is the set of theories that repeatedly pass this test.
>>>>
>>>>Rune
>>>>
>>>
>>>So by this criteria string theory is, what?
>>>
>>
>>
>> A speculative theory.
>
>I asked Rune the question. The question was if the theory was
>scientific. All theories are speculative to some extent.
>

It is scientific (because it's falsiable) and speculative (because
it's virtually impossible to do any experiments to disprove it right
now.)

>>
>>
>>>Can someone describe a prediction that evolution has made that was
>>>verified by experiment?
>>>
>>
>>
>> The Theory of Evolution predicts that genomes change in response to
>> enviromental pressures. Ever heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?
>
>My understanding is that the genetic traits for antibiotic resistance
>existed prior to the introduction of antibiotics. Natural selection
>killed off the competition without those traits.
>

Huh?

In any case, here's more for you:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051221/..._resistance_dc

>>
>>
>>>What about dark matter in astronomy?
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is not a prediction. "Something" is there because it can actually
>> be measured.
>
>But what?
>

No one knows.

>>
>>
>>>It seem that it take a bit of faith to believe that the experiments exist.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Experiment for what?
>
>String Theory. Duh!
>

Answered already.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:35:57 -0500, David Kirkland <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>> He didn't write "falsified", but "falsifiable". If no circumstance can
>> demonstrate that a statement is false, that statement is not
>> falsifiable.
>
>So the "Truth" is not falsifiable?
>

Hmm, is "Truth" a statament?

David Kirkland wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>> He didn't write "falsified", but "falsifiable". If no circumstance can
>> demonstrate that a statement is false, that statement is not falsifiable.
>
>
> So the "Truth" is not falsifiable?

Many notions once believed to be true have turned out to be false.
"Truth" -- the capitalization is important* -- is neither falsifiable
nor science.

Jerry
_______________________________________
We say that a thing is "true" when it agrees with reality. We say it is
"True" when it is a matter of faith.
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Bryan Hackney wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>>Bryan Hackney wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>If you think there are no big steps, and everything is just one big
>>>continuum from single cell to human, then I suggest that almost all
>>>the fossil record is missing.
>>
>>
>>Most if it is. Did you think otherwise? Do you know of any knowledgeable
>>biologist who does?
>>
>>Jerry
>
>
> Change "most" to "virtually all". There had to be millions of versions
> of goat-horse between goat and horse (assuming that's the direction),
> and if none of these millions of verions exist in the fossil record,
> then the record is virtually non-existent.

The fossil record is exceedingly sparse. There is, however, more than
enough of it to show that the family "tree" of life is much more like a
bush, with no real trunk and branches growing in all directions, most of
them short. It is not a progression with humans at the top; we are, in
fact, insignificant. There is more biomass of insects than of mammals,
more biomass of bacteria and fungi than insects and vertebrates
together. What does success mean in this context?

Of course, many find it easier to suppose "God did it" (and I know all
about it because He told me) than to really think about it.
Misinformation and mistaken assumptions make it easier yet to do that.

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

axlq wrote:
> [x-posting to talk.origins where this belongs; followup set accordingly]
>
> In article <dockio$49f$[email protected]>,
> Stan Pawlukiewicz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Rune Allnor wrote:
>>
>>>A theory is "scientific" if one can make some prediction based
>>>on the theory, and then design an experiment to see if the prediction
>>>holds. Some theories pass this test, others don't. What we know as
>>>"science" is the set of theories that repeatedly pass this test.
>
>
> I would add also that what we know as "science" doesn't have to
> invoke the supernatural as an explanation.
>
>
>>So by this criteria string theory is, what?
>
>
> I don't know much about string theory myself; it seems to be a
> mathematical construct devised to explain, describe, or unify other
> parts of science. It doesn't invoke the supernatural. I personally
> would classify it in the "tool development" subset of science.
>
>
>>Can someone describe a prediction that evolution has made that was
>>verified by experiment?
>
>
> Gosh, where to begin? Here are a few. You can also look at
> http://www.talkorigins.org for more.
>
> ================
> Prediction: If all organisms evolved from a common ancestor, then
> transitional forms must have existed in the past.
>
> Experiment: Excavate fossils and observe.
>
> Finding: Fossil record confirms that transitional forms exist.
> Among the examples are many by which, beyond any doubt, a species
> or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual
> transformation is also exhibited by subfamilies and occasionally for
> families.
>
> (The fossil record isn't persuasive to creationists who point at
> a gap, and when you fill it, they point at the two gaps on either
> side. You can never fill enough gaps for them. But see the next
> prediction.)
>
> ================
> Prediction: Aside from the fossil record, we should be able to find
> other corroborating evidence from fields of science unrelated to
> paleontology.
>
> Experiment: Look to other fields for corroboration. Some evidence
> such as geological distribution was even known to Darwin, but other
> evidence has only recently come within reach technologically.
> Creationists tend to focus on paleontology in part because Darwin
> saw the imperfect geological record as a weakness in his theory - he
> devoted a full chapter to it.
>
> Finding: Molecular biology provides some good examples, for
> instance, the similarities in DNA of related organisms, or
> quantitative variations in cell proteins that confirm genealogical
> relationships. Cell proteins such as hemoglobin B, fibrinopeptide
> A, or cytochrome C, can take on a bewildering myriad of forms, and
> every species has unique forms of these proteins. The degree of
> difference in protein forms can be quantified and used to determine
> relation distance between two species. For example, a sparrow's
> cytochrome C will have more similarity to a parrot's than to the
> cytochrome C of an octopus. By analyzing molecular differences
> between proteins of different species, we can reconstruct a "tree
> of life" showing the genealogical relationships of the Earth's
> creatures. You get similar trees using different proteins.
>
> The fact that basing a molecular study on a different protein
> results in a closely similar family tree is itself amazing,
> considering that over 650 million possible trees can represent the
> relationships between just 11 creatures. For twenty creatures, the
> number of possible family trees is about 10^22. But what's really
> amazing is that the resultant tree also agrees closely with the
> fossil record tree from paleontology! This is a beautiful example of
> how one science provides independent confirmation of findings from
> another unrelated discipline.
>
> There are many instances of independent confirmation from different
> areas of science. For example, different methods of dating, using
> radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, or corals, all give consistent
> results. Such coherence practically requires that a theory be
> accepted as fact for all intents and purposes. That's why scientists
> accept evolution: when you have such a vast and diverse framework of
> corroborating evidence, you don't need faith.


DNA mutates. This really does't expalin why some mutations survive and
other s become exinct. The fact that DNA mutate supports an piece of
Evolutionary theory but it doesn't corroborate it in whole.


I'm an engineer. I like theories that are predictive in a more concrete
way. I can use classical mechanics and build all sorts of usefull
things. I realize that the "science" might not be mature enough at this
point but wouldn't it be nice to make a prediction like:

"These are the genetic characteristics for this sub-population of this
species that will doom this group as global warming takes hold and these
are the genes that will let this other group survive and by the way they
will have less hair and a tendency to flatuate."


I'm not really sure if this is a well formed prediction. Physics sets a
very high standard for predictions and experiment. Evolution doesn't get
close to that. In another thread, someone had said that evolution
predicted the advent of antibiotic resistant bacteria. As far as I
know, it wasn't predicted (and the prediction shared by a concensus of
biologist) prior to these bacteria showing up. Natural selection was
used to explain it, not predict it.



>
> -A
>

Just Cocky wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2005 18:31:47 -0800, "gold" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Just Cocky wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>>>>The fact that you don't understand the ideas behind ID Creation is a limitation of your brain toooooo.
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >>>>> I was taking it as a general class such as your respected apes (*_*).
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >> >>>> But I'm sure it is larger than your empty skull.
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >>>> You have been given a time and brain to think (which seems to be empty right now), as soon as your time will end you will get to know clearly about this. Believe it or Not!!
> >
> >Enjoy!!
> >
>

> Such a genius can't even properly quote.

I don't claim I am genius but definitely better than you.

Just Cocky wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:44:29 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Just Cocky wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:22:16 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rune Allnor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Just Cocky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
>>>>>>>>>>>subjects of science.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>How about string theory?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
>>>>>>>>>exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
>>>>>>>>>testable prediction, it will fade away.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jerry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class,
>>>>>>>>because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the
>>>>>>>>establishment of a pasta deity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
>>>>>>>is, in principle, falsifiable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So if it's falsified, then it's a valid scientific theory? Please
>>>>>>explain this further. I don't get it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>A theory is "scientific" if one can make some prediction based
>>>>>on the theory, and then design an experiment to see if the prediction
>>>>>holds. Some theories pass this test, others don't. What we know as
>>>>>"science" is the set of theories that repeatedly pass this test.
>>>>>
>>>>>Rune
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So by this criteria string theory is, what?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>A speculative theory.
>>
>>I asked Rune the question. The question was if the theory was
>>scientific. All theories are speculative to some extent.
>>
>
>
> It is scientific (because it's falsiable) and speculative (because
> it's virtually impossible to do any experiments to disprove it right
> now.)

What makes it falsifiable. You said that in principle its falsifiable.
What principle?


>
>
>>>
>>>>Can someone describe a prediction that evolution has made that was
>>>>verified by experiment?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The Theory of Evolution predicts that genomes change in response to
>>>enviromental pressures. Ever heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?
>>
>>My understanding is that the genetic traits for antibiotic resistance
>>existed prior to the introduction of antibiotics. Natural selection
>>killed off the competition without those traits.
>>
>
>
> Huh?

The DNA did not change in response to the stimulus. The stimulus
selected the DNA that survived.

This wasn't a prediction, this was an explaination after the fact.
>
> In any case, here's more for you:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051221/..._resistance_dc
>
>
>>>
>>>>What about dark matter in astronomy?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This is not a prediction. "Something" is there because it can actually
>>>be measured.
>>
>>But what?
>>
>
>
> No one knows.
>
>
>>>
>>>>It seem that it take a bit of faith to believe that the experiments exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Experiment for what?
>>
>>String Theory. Duh!
>>
>
>
> Answered already.

Not really. What makes it falsifiable?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:28:31 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>DNA mutates. This really does't expalin why some mutations survive and
>other s become exinct. The fact that DNA mutate supports an piece of
>Evolutionary theory but it doesn't corroborate it in whole.
>

The other piece, of course, is selection.

>
>I'm an engineer.
>

Have fun with Genetic Algorithms/Programming then:

An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms (Complex Adaptive Systems)
(Paperback)
by Melanie Mitchell

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/026...lance&n=283155

>
>I like theories that are predictive in a more concrete way.
>

Like what?

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>
>> Just Cocky wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>>> String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
>>> is, in principle, falsifiable.
>>
>>
>>
>> So if it's falsified, then it's a valid scientific theory? Please
>> explain this further. I don't get it.
>
>
> He didn't write "falsified", but "falsifiable". If no circumstance can
> demonstrate that a statement is false, that statement is not
> falsifiable. "The sum of the squares on the two sides is equal to the
> square on the hypotenuse" is falsifiable.



That's just a way to say that
> it's testable while specifying what a test must be able to do.

This I can understand. Thank you. So by this, if indeed string theory
can not in principle be tested, it is not falsifiable.


>
> ...
>
> Jerry

Just Cocky wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:28:31 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>DNA mutates. This really does't expalin why some mutations survive and
>>other s become exinct. The fact that DNA mutate supports an piece of
>>Evolutionary theory but it doesn't corroborate it in whole.
>>
>
>
> The other piece, of course, is selection.
>
>
>>I'm an engineer.
>>
>
>
> Have fun with Genetic Algorithms/Programming then:
>
> An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms (Complex Adaptive Systems)
> (Paperback)
> by Melanie Mitchell

No one has shown that genetic algorithms do better that plain old branch
and bound. IMHO genetic algorithms are a misnomer.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/026...lance&n=283155
>
>
>>I like theories that are predictive in a more concrete way.
>>
>
>
> Like what?

Do you normally snip in such a disengenous manner?

Mechanics does a pretty good job of predicting the locations of
kinematic objects. I've read that quantum electrodynamics has been
verified by experiment to 12 significant figures. Need more?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:58:10 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Just Cocky wrote:
>>(snip)
>>
>> The tests certianly exist. But they require access to very high energy
>> levels. The inability to test right now is essentially technological.
>
>I don't believe that this is correct.
>

Who cares what you believe?

>
>No one is talking about building
>larger particle smashers to verify string theory (as yet).
>

It's a technological impossibility as of now.

>
>You just took a leap of faith and asserted that a test certainly exists
>without any evidence that it may.
>

String theory makes *PREDICTIONS*. As such, the theory is falsiable
because experiments can be devised to test those predictions.

For example:
http://www.superstringtheory.com/experm/exper4.html

Why do you insist on your arrogant posture when it is quite obvious
you know nothing about the subject at hand?

jim wrote:
>
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>
>>> It's tainted by the emotions of its proponents.
>>
>>Emotions don't taint a theory. I suspect that you don't know what a
>>theory is.
>>
>
>
> So you think the theory of intelligent design is not at all tainted by the emotions
> of it's proponents?

I don't see how any theory can be tainted. What does "tainted" mean in
that context?

> In the theory of the Survival of the Fittest, 'Fitness' becomes defined as
> whatever we find it to be.

"Survival of the fittest" is not a theory, it's a mechanism supposed by
some as an explanation.

> In intelligent design 'Intelligence' is defined as whatever we find it to
> be.
>
> What's the difference? both can be tested against the fossil record.

How do you test "God, in His infinite wisdom, made it so'?

>>> Take you and Mr. Cocky for instance your so blinded by your emotions you
>>>assert repeatedly that Mr. Hackney is a proponent of ID when he never said
>>>one thing in support of ID and has stated clearly he is not.
>>
>>You can't cite a message in which I claim that Hackney proposes ID. I
>>haven't written one. You need to distinguish imagination from reality.
>
>
> You argued against Intelligent Design in direct response to his post. I interpreted
> that to mean you thought he supported ID. Apparently you feel there can be some
> other interpretation.

You misinterpret many statements. Show me.

> This discussion is all about interpretation of facts. I don't see where the
> scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation plays any role as you claim.
> It's simply about gathering disparate and badly degraded evidence and spinning a
> story around it. And both sides think the other guys story is a threat to their
> very survival And excuse me if I harbor a strong suspicion that the evidence
> itself is tainted by the preconceived notions of its gatherers.

Evolution is hardly an experimental science. Neither are cosmology and
geology.

> The whole thing seems about as scientific as the reading of tea leaves except
> that in the latter case they are working with better quality data.

The data may have sharper edges, but if you think their predictive
quality is high, this discussion is worthless.

>>> One has to wonder why its so important to defend evolution. The argument
>>>is really about Hegemony. The proponents of evolution believe this so way to
>>>important for the standard rules to apply. If you lose this one everything
>>>changes. So there really is no room for someone who looks at the evidence and
>>>says 'well it looks to sparse to draw any meaningful conclusions'.
>>
>>It's not important to defend the theory of evolution as such. It's
>>vitally important for us as a society to know what is science and what
>>is not.
>
>
> Translation:
> It's vitally important for us as a society to know what is true and what is not.

Bad translation. There's a distinction you evidently don't (or won't)
understand.

>>I don't object to alternatives to evolution or to those who
>>believe them to be true.
>
>
> Yah, right.

Are you calling me a liar? I think you are.

>>I do object to calling any of the currently
>>touted alternatives "science".
>
>
> And how is that different from objecting to alternatives to evolution or to those
> who
> believe them to be true. Oh I get - your willing to let them hold these beliefs as
> long as they pronounce them to the public as false.

You apparently equate "science" with "true", and "non-science" with
"nonsense". We don't share enough vocabulary to communicate effectively.

...

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

Just Cocky wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:58:10 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Just Cocky wrote:
>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>The tests certianly exist. But they require access to very high energy
>>>levels. The inability to test right now is essentially technological.
>>
>>I don't believe that this is correct.
>>
>
>
> Who cares what you believe?
>
>
>>No one is talking about building
>>larger particle smashers to verify string theory (as yet).
>>
>
>
> It's a technological impossibility as of now.
>
>
>>You just took a leap of faith and asserted that a test certainly exists
>>without any evidence that it may.
>>
>
>
> String theory makes *PREDICTIONS*. As such, the theory is falsiable
> because experiments can be devised to test those predictions.
>
> For example:
> http://www.superstringtheory.com/experm/exper4.html
>
> Why do you insist on your arrogant posture when it is quite obvious
> you know nothing about the subject at hand?

This is a quote from your citation:

There is a good chance we could start to see superpartners in future
particle experiments.

"good chance" and "could" Don't talk to me about arrogance.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:20:09 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0sp"@[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>So you think the theory of intelligent design is not at all tainted by the emotions
>of it's proponents?
>

"Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory.

>
> In the theory of the Survival of the Fittest, 'Fitness' becomes defined as
>whatever we find it to be.
>

Wrong! Fitness is ability to leave descendants.

>
> In intelligent design 'Intelligence' is defined as whatever we find it to
>be.
>

This is dishonesty. Everybody knows that the designer was god.

>
> What's the difference? both can be tested against the fossil record.
>

This is a lie. Whatever one finds in the fossil record, one can always
say that "goddit".

On 22 Dec 2005 07:38:33 -0800, "gold" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Just Cocky wrote:
>> On 21 Dec 2005 18:31:47 -0800, "gold" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Just Cocky wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >>>>>The fact that you don't understand the ideas behind ID Creation is a limitation of your brain toooooo.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >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.
>> >>>>> I was taking it as a general class such as your respected apes (*_*).
>> >> >
>> >> >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.
>> >> >>>> But I'm sure it is larger than your empty skull.
>> >> >
>> >> >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.
>> >>>> You have been given a time and brain to think (which seems to be empty right now), as soon as your time will end you will get to know clearly about this. Believe it or Not!!
>> >
>> >Enjoy!!
>> >
>>
>
>> Such a genius can't even properly quote.
>
>I don't claim I am genius but definitely better than you.
>

Of course you are, son. Now, go take your meds.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:43:16 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Just Cocky wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:44:29 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Just Cocky wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:22:16 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rune Allnor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just Cocky wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
>>>>>>>>>>>>subjects of science.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>How about string theory?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
>>>>>>>>>>exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
>>>>>>>>>>testable prediction, it will fade away.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Jerry
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class,
>>>>>>>>>because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the
>>>>>>>>>establishment of a pasta deity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
>>>>>>>>is, in principle, falsifiable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So if it's falsified, then it's a valid scientific theory? Please
>>>>>>>explain this further. I don't get it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A theory is "scientific" if one can make some prediction based
>>>>>>on the theory, and then design an experiment to see if the prediction
>>>>>>holds. Some theories pass this test, others don't. What we know as
>>>>>>"science" is the set of theories that repeatedly pass this test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rune
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So by this criteria string theory is, what?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A speculative theory.
>>>
>>>I asked Rune the question. The question was if the theory was
>>>scientific. All theories are speculative to some extent.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It is scientific (because it's falsiable) and speculative (because
>> it's virtually impossible to do any experiments to disprove it right
>> now.)
>
>What makes it falsifiable. You said that in principle its falsifiable.
>What principle?
>

The theory is falsifibale because it makes predictions that can be
eventually tested and proved to be wrong.

>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>Can someone describe a prediction that evolution has made that was
>>>>>verified by experiment?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The Theory of Evolution predicts that genomes change in response to
>>>>enviromental pressures. Ever heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?
>>>
>>>My understanding is that the genetic traits for antibiotic resistance
>>>existed prior to the introduction of antibiotics. Natural selection
>>>killed off the competition without those traits.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Huh?
>
>The DNA did not change in response to the stimulus. The stimulus
>selected the DNA that survived.
>

That's how natural selection works, genius!

>
>This wasn't a prediction, this was an explaination after the fact.
>

You are a lost cause. It's probable not your fault. It's your genes,
I'm sure.

>>
>> In any case, here's more for you:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051221/..._resistance_dc
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>What about dark matter in astronomy?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is not a prediction. "Something" is there because it can actually
>>>>be measured.
>>>
>>>But what?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No one knows.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>It seem that it take a bit of faith to believe that the experiments exist.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Experiment for what?
>>>
>>>String Theory. Duh!
>>>
n>>
>>
>> Answered already.
>
>Not really. What makes it falsifiable?