Posted on 01/22/2005 7:38:12 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Darwin himself was a creationist.
The "truth" is the interpretation of the data. That is what a theory is. Data by itself is useless.
Abiogenesys. Observing the unaided self-sequencing of DNA base pairs into a viable original living entity.
There are no fewer than 4 such scientifically backed projects along that train of thought right now, with Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos showing particular promise with his PNA angle.
I've got problems both with random (how to do it and be objective, maybe digits in an irrational number?) and sequential (possibly smaller than optimal population of posters)
Maybe both and compare.
Y'know, when I registered I thought I'd mostly be posting on expanding the right to bear arms. Oh, well.
Theories come after, not before, an inital collection of observations (data).
I hear ya. I never thought I would be here either.
Please show your work backing up this assertion. Specific calculations would be appreciated.
Off topic:
I'm out to shovel snow.
How's your weather?
However, you know that once the sequence leading to the first life is demonstrated in the lab, the IDers will point out that it couldn't have come about without the intervention of intelligence -- i.e., the researchers.
Snowing hard in South Jersey. We look to get about 6-10 inches. Much worse up North.
Where are you?
"It was in the link that I gave in my original post, if you want the math for sequencing."
Ok, I read it... good grief. Here is his conclusion:
"In light of this, I find it impossible to believe that "chance" had anything to do with the process that created life. How can I suppose that Shakespeare himself was the result of a random process when it is quite clearly impossible for even a trivial fragment of his work to have arisen by chance? No sir, I see information all around me, and I conclude that it is the product of a far, far greater intelligence.
Information is the product of intelligence, not chance."
Since it would take an astronomical amount of time for the monkeys to type shakepeare, life could not have evolved? What kind of a lame argument is that?!?! It makes absolutely no sense. Just because he wrestled us through his grade 8 math tutorial on probability, we should just believe his conclusion that has nothing to do with his data?
Also, with regards to his monkey logic, he is WRONG. The saying specifies an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typwriters. In the guy's logic, he does the math for ONE monkey! Not that it matters, since his conclusion was a non-sequitur anyway, and, well infinity is an abstract concept in mathematics, so you couldn't use it in the equation anyway. Which means he should have known better from the start.
This is the best argument you have for ID? Have you glanced lately at the thousands of technical papers published on evolution in the actual scientific literature?
The article is right on. Creationism is a threat to the security and well being of The United States of America. Rest assured that God shakes his head in dismay at the damage that's being done to America by creationists.
I BELIEVE that is true.
Unlike creationists, I don't know for sure.
poing
Here we go AGAIN! You don't postulate a theory. You postulate a hypothesis and then a hypothesis becomes a theory AFTER substantial observations verify the validity of the hypothesis.
What really bothers me is the fear that the press will soon figure out that they can easily use this creationism stuff to bash the Republican party. When they realize how devastating this tactic will be, you may be certain that at every press conference that every Republican candidate has in the future, the press will ask him his views on evolution vs. creationism. And if the guy says he's a creationist, he'll be ridiculed as an idiot out of the Dark Ages.
I'm seriously worried that Creationism has the potential to destroy the Republican party. As I've said before, this issue will hang like an albatross around our necks. And that's why I think these threads are so important.
Oh for the love of...Hypothesis are postulated...NOT theories!
Theories are solid representations backed by numerous evidence and observations.
Oh, you mean that debunked probability analysis that assumes there is no order to nature and that everything is totally random. That would be like saying the sun had a 50/50 chance of rising the next day and if it did rise there was a 50/50 chance that it would be green.
And if he says no, he will be castigated by the ID crowd.
I'm seriously worried that Creationism has the potential to destroy the Republican party. As I've said before, this issue will hang like an albatross around our necks. And that's why I think these threads are so important.
This is the issue the Evangelicals will use to hold the GOP hostage, like the greens & left hold the Dems hostage.
This will be our abortion & homosexual marriage albatross. We are handing the MSM and the Dims a club to bludgeon us with.
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.