Posted on 08/23/2005 10:39:22 AM PDT by woodb01
Splendid! How about a bit of the old ultraviolence, then?
If you're very wrong, you'll be punished eternally for worshipping a false god. Try a little game theory with that premise ;)
between Ichneumon & Co. I believe the groodiest of tolchocks have already been delivered.
If i'm wrong .... i'll embrace the darkness when I die... If i'm right .... i'll embrace the savior.
How about this....I don't know and when I die I may find out. Or do you have to have an answer now?
You have not addressed an error in part 4 of Theobald's work where he states (which you aped in what you said "are my own writings") wherein it is stated:
this process [retroviral integration] is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
Retroviral integration is not random, nor fairly random.
Do you think the conclusion that "finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry" is weakened given non-random retroviral integration? Or does the random nature or non-randomness of the integration not effect the conclusion.
That's the choices? No third alternative, no fourth, fifth, etc.? I will grant as given that God created great whales, but some of the other things He let the earth bring forth and the waters, too. Some of the other things He let be, which is not the same as creating. It's kind of an active/passive thing. He let light be, but he made whales.
True enough...but to figure out how the islands formed an efficient scientist wouldn't simulate a random process and wait until something looking like Hawaii popped up.
True, and neither do abiogenesis researchers. They learn as much as they can about biochemical processes and then use that knowledge to gain insight into the earliest stages of the formation of life.
We are able to use observations and logic to skip the random experiment and hone in on a conceptualization of the process.
Exactly.
Climate modelers have been relatively successful at generating plausible physically realistic outcomes given realistic inputs to a complex system.
And so have biochemists.
To your knowledge has much progress be made in this way with regard to the generation of life from chemicals?
Yes, there has actually been an *explosion* of productive research in this field in the past ten years, and especially the past five years, as knowledge in several different relevant fields (information science, biochemistry, DNA sequencing, geophysics, phylogenetics, etc.) have reached the "take-off" point and come together with respect to being able to provide a real foundation for abiogenesis research. This is why the new Harvard research program on abiogenesis has been begun recently, whereas it would not have made sense even five years ago. The field has now reached the point where there are several promising lines of research which have a good chance of bearing fruit, and thus it makes sense to begin a coordinated project bringing together researchers in the relevant disciplines.
Multiple creationists have already tried to spin this new project as an act of "desperation", but they're just whistling past the graveyard. Science doesn't embark on such research projects unless it already has pretty good reasons to expect useful results. The fact that they're starting a full-scale research project indicates confidence, not nervousness.
I was about to thank you for pinging me until I choked on the muffin I was having for dinner whilst reading the article. It was a very good muffin, but I don't think my lungs appreciated it.
Mostly because of the staggering amount of evidence in favor of evolution.
If you knew anything about biology, this article could help you.
Have you found your billion year old human fossil yet?
Interesting. A verbatim of a blog which violates Godwin's rule in the original post, rather than later in a comment.
Has it become normal to just copy from other blogs and post them here?
If you knew anything about biology you'd not be wasting time on this side show.
355/113 kudos
awww, naw... not Pascal's Wager AGAIN?
That uses an artificially simplified Given set.
As a result, its set of consequences is far from comprehensive.
lemme see if I can find that old elaboration of that silly Wager...
dammit... it's buried DEEP.
I'll have to find it (or recreate it in full) one of these days.
here's a precis:
Pascal's Given
1. God IS
2. God IS NOT
A. I believe
B. I don't believe
Pascal's Consequences
1A. I go to Heaven
1B. I go to Hell
2A. I'm in error, but no harm
2B. I'm in error, but no benefit
Sounds fine, until you realize there's more than one godstory out there
Revised Given
1. God Exists
2. Bog Exists
3. Nyarlathotep Exists
4. Shiva exists
...
...
...
(infinity-n). The Great Pumpkin exists
A. I believe in Deity #1, and none of the other deities either exist or -if they do- mind all that much
B. (as above, for D2)
C. (as above, for D3)
...
...
...
(Z-inf-n). (as above, for the Great Pumpkin)
A'. I believe in D1, but D2098675 really IS, and he' gets riled easily
(etc...)
don't even ask me to make the consequence set for you: you either get the point now, or nothing I could say further will aid you in finding it.
I suppose that, in some circles, doing so passes for penetrating thought and cogent argument
Has it become normal to just copy from other blogs and post them here?
Yes. Itchyman did this in 16. I guess it is par for the course (i.e. has become the norm) on these threads.
Still, is it better to re-hash what is written by another on their blog and present it as if it is the poster's own work (as itchyman did previously) or to post the blog verbatim?
Probably the latter. The former if proper attribution is given.
I haven't read the thread or this particular article yet, so let's have some fun. I have a theory. Anything from NoDNC.com and authored by "Staff" is a thinly disguised vanity by the poster. A previous thread left that very distinct impression.
Maxwell's "demon" hypothesis. It's false.
But you approve of the original article and the posting of such.
Yeah. ME TOO! (appropriate caps used).
I had to hear about it second hand..... (/pout mode)
"Delusions of Adequacy -- one person's attempt to Disprove Evilootion and Square the Circle whilst skipping his Medication"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.