…and this is a 
One of the oldest canards in the creationists' book is the claim that evolution must be false because it violates the second law of thermodynamics, or the principle that, as they put it, everything must go from order to disorder. One of the more persistent perpetrators of this kind of sloppy thinking is Henry Morris, and few creationists today seem able to get beyond this error.
Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes. The interesting question is: "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution. which goes from disorder to order?" Perhaps the evolutionist can ultimately find an answer to this question, but he at least should not ignore it, as most evolutionists do.
Especially is such a question vital, when we are thinking of evolution as a growth process on the grand scale from atom to Adam and from particle to people. This represents in absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law.
As most biologists get a fair amount of training in chemistry, I'm afraid he's wrong on one bit of slander there: we do not ignore entropy, and are in fact better informed on it than most creationists, as is clearly shown by their continued use of this bad argument. I usually rebut this claim about the second law in a qualitative way, and by example — it's obvious that the second law does not state that nothing can ever increase in order, but only that an decrease in one part must be accompanied by a greater increase in entropy in another. Two gametes, for instance, can fuse and begin a complicated process in development that represents a long-term local decrease in entropy, but at the same time that embryo is pumping heat out into its environment and increasing the entropy of the surrounding bit of the world.
It's a very bad argument they are making, but let's consider just the last sentence of the quote above.
This represents in absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law.
A "gigantic increase in order and complexity" … how interesting. How much of an increase? Can we get some numbers for that?
Daniel Styer has published an eminently useful article on "Entropy and Evolution" that does exactly that — he makes some quantitative estimates of how much entropy might be decreased by the process of evolution. I knew we kept physicists around for something; they are so useful for filling in the tricky details.
The article nicely summarizes the general problems with the creationist claim. They confuse the metaphor of 'disorder' for the actual phenomenon of entropy; they seem to have an absolutist notion that the second law prohibits all decreases in entropy; and they generally lack any quantitative notion of how entropy actually works. The cool part of this particular article, though, is that he makes an estimate of exactly how much entropy is decreased by the process of evolution.
First he estimates, very generously, how much entropy is decreased per individual. If we assume each individual is 1000 times "more improbable" than its ancestor one century ago, that is, that we are specified a thousand times more precisely than our great-grandparents (obviously a ludicrously high over-estimate, but he's trying to give every advantage to the creationists here), then we can describe the reduction in the number of microstates in the modern organism as:
Now I'm strolling into dangerous ground for us poor biologists, since this is a mathematical argument, but really, this is simple enough for me to understand. We know the statistical definition of entropy:
In the formula above, kB is the Boltzmann constant. We can just plug in our estimated (grossly overestimated!) value for Ω, have fun with a little algebra, and presto, a measure of the change in entropy per individual per century emerges.
Centuries are awkward units, so Styer converts that to something more conventional: the entropy change per second is -3.02 x 10-30 J/K. There are, of course, a lot of individual organisms on the planet, so that number needs to be multiplied by the total number of evolving organism, which, again, we charitably overestimate at 1032, most of which are prokaryotes, of course. The final result is a number that tells us the total change in entropy of the planet caused by evolution each second:
-302 J/K
What does that number mean? We need a context. Styer also estimates the Earth's total entropy throughput per second, that is, the total flux involved from absorption of the sun's energy and re-radiation of heat out into space. It's a slightly bigger number:
420 x 1012 J/K
To spell it out, there's about a trillion times more entropy flux available than is required for evolution. The degree by which earth's entropy is reduced by the action of evolutionary processes is miniscule relative to the amount that the entropy of the cosmic microwave background is increased.
This is very cool and very clear. I'm folding up my copy of Styer's paper and tucking it into my copy of The Counter-Creationism Handbook, where it will come in handy.
Styer DF (2008) Entropy and evolution. Am J Phys 76(11):1031-1033.
Life Science
Physical Science
Comments
Posted by: Sarcastro | November 10, 2008 12:18 PM
I usually rebut this claim about the second law in a qualitative way, and by example...
I just point at the sun.
Posted by: gribley | November 10, 2008 12:21 PM
Sarcastro is right -- the simplest rebuttal is to point out that the Second Law applies to a closed system. I don't know why creationists don't get that; probably they just hope that their target audience won't pick up on it.
That said, great post about a great topic! I'm glad the physicists (among whom I used to be numbered) are proving useful.
For those of us interested in reading the original paper, I found it here [PDF].
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 12:21 PM
Paging Mr. Stimpson.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 10, 2008 12:21 PM
All self respecting scientists know the entropy argument was bunk, but it is always nice to see some numerical values. Twelve orders of magnitude. Well, this will make the creationist argument a trillion times more silly than before, but what do they care? The entropy lie will still be repeated.
Posted by: ryanm | November 10, 2008 12:22 PM
The biggest obstacle for the cretinists seems to be, as has been stated a million times before, local vs. total decreases in entropy. If there couldn't be local decreases in entropy, then how could we ever build a bridge, skyscraper, type a letter, or do anything for that matter? Physics would be violated any time us humans tried to create complexity in this world, and surely the godbots don't think this is happening, right?
Posted by: Guy G | November 10, 2008 12:23 PM
Nice. Just last week I was wondering what sort of numbers could be applicable for the entropy argument. I must say I'm very impressed with just how big those numbers are.
Posted by: Ibid | November 10, 2008 12:24 PM
Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
That, in a nutshell, is what entropy's about,
you're now down with a discount.
--copy pasta from mchawking.com
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 10, 2008 12:26 PM
One of their biggest mistakes is in confusing complexity and order.
Entropy is always increasing complexity, some of which does show up in evolution as variety (though natural selection ruthlessly hacks away at much variation). Increasing order, in fact, is not something that we see in evolution, or at least it can't be quantified as such.
Of course Granville Stewart yammers on about all this, making the factual point that the sun's input of energy doesn't mean that just anything can happen--like a PC randomly self-assembling over the time the earth has existed. Well of course that's true, but evolution is readily fueled by the sun's input.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Frasque | November 10, 2008 12:35 PM
I wonder how they account for digestion.
Posted by: raven | November 10, 2008 12:36 PM
It does? That means life is impossible.
1. Farmers supposedly plant seeds every spring. These little oblong objects put in the dirt turn into corn, wheat, and other plants which we eat, photosynthetic, self reproducing, evolving machines that turn sunlight, CO2, and water into organized matter. Obvious fairy tale.
2. Supposedly in animals and higher primates (humans), two haploid cells fuse to form a zygote. 20 years later, the zygote weighs 160 lbs and wants more money for college and plans to fuse haploid cells with some other multikilogram higher primate to make more zygotes. Another fairy tale that violates the second law and clearly impossible.
Posted by: maria | November 10, 2008 12:37 PM
If you repeat a lie enough times people will believe it. I've heard this argument refuted so often that I'm amazed that it still come up.
Thank you for writing this blog.
Posted by: Sean Carroll | November 10, 2008 12:38 PM
Darn it, that's a nice little calculation. Wish I had thought of doing it first.
It's not strictly right, as you point out, as he's trying to give the creationists every benefit. But there is a problem in identifying the "reduction in the number of microstates" from one generation to another, because it's not precisely the same degrees of freedom being re-arranged. I wonder if it's possible to fix that part up just a bit. (You'd get the same conclusion, obviously.)
Posted by: blf | November 10, 2008 12:41 PM
I just point at the sun.
It's probably been excerpted on FSTDT or similar (I'm too lazy to look right now), but some years ago a fundie-nutter argued the closed constraint was obviously bunk because if it was true, then the Earth violated the law because there'd have to be a gigantic source of energy somewhere, and there clearly isn't. I swear I'm not making this up...!
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 12:44 PM
Also: Nonequilibrium thermodynamics
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-nature-breaks-the-second-law
and also:
Natural selection for least action
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/50874678nw60t5l2/
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 10, 2008 12:45 PM
raven@10: Exactly! If you read discussions of extra-terrestrial life (say Carl Sagan in Pale Blue Dot) "life" is more or less defined as "that which locally pumps away entropy" (at least if we treat machines as extensions of the life forms that built them). So, for example, if we found a planet with oxygen and methane in the atmosphere, whatever was replenishing them (however odd to us) would be worth of the name "life".
Posted by: SteveM | November 10, 2008 12:50 PM
here:
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 10, 2008 12:50 PM
The existence of mathematics proves the existence of a mathematics-maker!!! Hah, refuted you!!!
Posted by: Simong | November 10, 2008 12:51 PM
I've never actually had a creationist try to use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as an argument against evolution. Perhaps I've only argued with a better class of nutter, 'cause all it really shows is that the person knows next to nothing about entropy. Generally, I suspect I'd take it as a good indication that any discussion was a waste of my time.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 12:52 PM
best fstdt quote evah
Posted by: blf | November 10, 2008 12:57 PM
SteveM, yep, that's the "argument" I was thinking of. My jaw is still bouncing off the floor…
Posted by: Xerxes | November 10, 2008 12:57 PM
This doesn't affect the argument at all, but the Earth's radiation doesn't go into the cosmic microwave background (the field of photons permeating the universe that have not interacted with anything since the universe became transparent 300ky after the Big Bang), it just goes into the generic photon background. Aliens with large infrared telescopes could observe these photons to determine the Earth's temperature and maybe get some spectral information about it. Recent experiments have used space probes to look at the Earth's radiation from far away to see if the signatures of life can be picked out. That might give us a good idea what to look for when examining exoplanets.
Posted by: genewitch | November 10, 2008 12:58 PM
way to go pz. I spit coffee out my nose at work on the "trillion times" part.
Jerk.
:-D
Posted by: Randy | November 10, 2008 12:59 PM
I am SOOOOO downloading that paper right now.
Posted by: Jim | November 10, 2008 12:59 PM
Although intended to illustrate a much different point about thermodynamics, Drexler's Engines of Creation contains an excellent counterexample to the "disorder always increases" myth, which is simple enough that even a creationist might be able to understand it:
Posted by: Pete UK | November 10, 2008 1:04 PM
In the space of a few words, he more or less accepts the validity of physics, chemistry, biology and even geology as sciences, and of course he is upholding the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the basis for his argument.
So he seems to be supporting the scientific method and (most of) its cumulative achievements. But evolution - oh no!
A bit selective, wouldn't you say?
Posted by: O-dot-O | November 10, 2008 1:09 PM
In this month's Scientific American: Does Nature Break the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-nature-breaks-the-second-law
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 10, 2008 1:19 PM
The Commander-in-Chief answers him while chasing a fly
Saying, "Death to all those who would whimper and cry"
And dropping a bar bell he points to the sky
Saving, "The sun's not yellow it's chicken"
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 10, 2008 1:23 PM
SteveM #16,
what you might not know, is that the fruitbat who came up with that hilarious statement did manage to add some more inepsies later on, after someone pointed out that the sun was such a source of energy :
"I didn't explain why the sun doesn't count"
It doesn't get any better than this !
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 1:25 PM
READY! SET! FAIL!
Posted by: Sili | November 10, 2008 1:26 PM
Aha!
Since everything has to from order to disorder, it's perfectly natural to ice to melt! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!!
Posted by: Les Lane | November 10, 2008 1:26 PM
Lack of peer review is a unifying feature of pseudosciences. In this regard creationism is indistinguishable from astrology , homeopathy, etc. Effective peer review would cause all these "fields" to quickly disappear.
Posted by: Desert Son | November 10, 2008 1:36 PM
negentropyeater at @28:
And here I was all set to suggest that the world's major theistic traditions need to go back to worshiping Ra,
Ancient Egyptian deity of the sun.
Ra Ra Ra!
Sis boom ba!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: speedwell | November 10, 2008 1:40 PM
why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?
I seriously think this moron thinks that a tree, say, is "dead" when you cut it down. Any gardener knows that parts of a "dead" plant can be grafted or rooted, "assuming a sufficient supply...".
I get much the same level of argumentation from people who believe that you should eat bean sprouts because they are "living" food.
Posted by: blf | November 10, 2008 1:40 PM
negentropyeater, I'm glad I put the café down before reading that follow-up. Even so, we need a warning on those sorts of posts. Something like:
TOYIMPDTCAFCYM...
Turn Off Your Irony Meter, Put Down The Café, And Firmly Close Your Mouth...
Posted by: Curt Cameron | November 10, 2008 1:42 PM
AS IF a creationist would have any hope of understanding entropy calculations!
The simpler path would just be to point out to them that their second-law argument would also prove that an embryo could never increase in complexity to become an adult. Either their argument is flawed, or we don't exist.
Posted by: tsg | November 10, 2008 1:42 PM
This has always bothered me, too. I've always wanted to point them at a bunch of Perpetual Motion nutters and say, "these guys think thermodynamics is bunk, so there goes your argument."
Posted by: Anthony Popple | November 10, 2008 1:43 PM
I have had this debate with friends and relatives before.
I usually ask them if they know of a child who has grown into an adult. If they say yes, I tell them that their argument is therefore clearly wrong.
To be fair, the argument isn't wrong so much as it is imcomplete. A thermodynamic argument is necessarily quantitative; you haven't made the argument until you give real numbers.
Posted by: Tom | November 10, 2008 1:43 PM
Boltzmann Constant. Named after Ludwig Boltzmann I believe. My favourite scientist, way ahead of his time. A tragic story too, if you care to look it up - Wikipedia describes him well. Statistical entropy is a cool theory (if you'll excuse the nerdy pun).
Posted by: Skeletor | November 10, 2008 1:44 PM
You can also think of entropy as thermodynamic equilibrium, removing the whole disorder idea all together.
http://www.entropysite.com/entropy_isnot_disorder.html
Posted by: Kalirren | November 10, 2008 1:44 PM
Sounds like a physicist's argument to me. He's only looking at organisms, and failing to take into account all of the possible states of the biosphere = (organisms + environment).
Although if you're dealing with a creationist that has that deep of a understanding about what a system, whether open or closed, really is, then you may as well go back to pointing at the sun.
I wouldn't disseminate that paper. It's just throwing them ammunition.
Posted by: rob | November 10, 2008 1:46 PM
why did the author pick the factor of a 1000 as the ratio of the initial and final entropies? the author writes:
"I regard this as a very generous rate of evolution, but you may make your own assumption."
hmmm...let's say that the final state is ONE BILLION times as improbable!!! heh, heh, heh...(evil scientist laugh)
in the calculation, we replace 10^-3 with 10^-9 and get
k*ln(10^-9)=k(-20.7233)= 3* k(-6.91) = 3 times authors calculation.
so, by increasing the improbability factor from 1000 to 1 billion, you only change the amount of entropy flux by a factor of 3, which is still much much less than the available entropy flux on the earth.
with this in mind, one might ask oneself if there is so much entropy flux available why don't we see advanced species like sharks with frickin'laser beams? how come evolution moves so slowly.
Posted by: Josh | November 10, 2008 1:48 PM
Link to the paper by Styer? Googling his name and the title you give only links to this page.
Posted by: Loren Petrich | November 10, 2008 1:50 PM
I once saw a similar sort of argument about William Shakespeare and the plays that he had written -- how does the entropy decrease of composing his plays compare to the entropy increase of his metabolism?
We can get a hint by considering the number of bits needed to write down his entire collective works. Project Gutenberg has a collection of his works that is a total of 5458199 bytes of plain-text file. Each byte has 8 bits, making 32749194 bits.
Entropy = k(boltzmann) * ln(2) * (number of bits) = 3*10^(-16) joules/K
-
William Shakespeare likely ate about 2000 food calories / day, which is 100 watts of energy consumption. About 20% of it would be used by his brain; that is 20 watts. His body temperature was 37 C or 98.6 F, meaning that his brain produced metabolic entropy at 0.065 (joules/K)/s.
This, a few seconds of metabolism result in an entropy gain MUCH greater than the entropy loss of all his works.
Posted by: Tom | November 10, 2008 1:50 PM
Another word about Boltzmann and then I'll shut up! From the wikipedia article:
Check him out. He is a relatively untold hero of the science story.
Posted by: G.D. | November 10, 2008 1:51 PM
Please, everyone, also take a look at this one from another science blog "Good Math, Bad Math" - an excellent piece (from an excellent blog); on information theory - which is, to put it mildly, pretty relevant to the topic:
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/08/why_is_randomness_informative.php#more
Posted by: Hans | November 10, 2008 1:54 PM
Love this stuff. Reminds me of how woo-woo types love to latch on to the uncertainty principle, and bloviate endlessly and irrelevantly. But when you go back to the science, and look at the equations, you realize that not only do scientists know what they don't know, they can tell you exactly how big it is.
In the words of xkcd's author: "Science: it works, bitches"
Posted by: Darth Wader | November 10, 2008 1:58 PM
Ω, Its Greek to me
Posted by: charley | November 10, 2008 2:01 PM
These creationists imply that wherever entropy decreases God is defying physics to perform a miracle. He must be so busy building each snowflake from random water molecules, and grabbing CO2 and H2O molecules to stack into oak trees and dandelions and the like. How does he find time for managing the rest of the universe and hating gays?
Posted by: michel | November 10, 2008 2:02 PM
just the number -302, followed by the number 420 x 10^12 made me laugh out loud.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 2:03 PM
Link to abstract for "Entropy and Evolution" (for those who don't have access to AJP)
And here's the author's home page:
http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/index.html
Posted by: jackalopemonger | November 10, 2008 2:03 PM
blf @13:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232
That's the source, from what I can tell. Naturally, said fundie-nutter knew all about the sun, and clarified his position thusly:
Sorry, my mistake guys, I didn't explain why the Sun doesn't count. Here is the info on that from ChristianAnswers.net:
Is Energy the Key?
To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?
Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?
A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.
If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?
What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
You were born perfect, now I don't mean perfect like muscly body and everything is the "normal" conditions. I mean perfect as in you haven't sinned. I doubt that anybody has come out of their mother and shouted the f word.
In response to Crimson King: Of course we use science to prove you wrong, but of course you just deny it. Jesus is the son of God so therefore can perform miracles. Raising from the dead is nothing short of a miracle. Creationists have their essential beliefs about God, and take those views and put them to use when they find scientific evidence. Those views more than always agree with the evidence.
Which I guess can be summarized as: if the Sun can't perform miracles and bring plants back to life, then evolution can't occur.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 10, 2008 2:04 PM
But who determined the LAW?!?!? There has to be celestial law bringer!
Posted by: Michael X | November 10, 2008 2:04 PM
I realized I was a child of the internet, when I read how much entropy we (highly overestimated!) humans cause per second as: -302 units of Just Kidding.
Is it just me? It's just me isn't it?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 10, 2008 2:05 PM
I wrote "Granville Stewart" in #8, when it should have been "Granville Sewell." It's hard to keep these bozos straight--especially when they're as pathetic as Granville is.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: QDA | November 10, 2008 2:05 PM
To anyone that can provide some insight:
Does acceptance of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory necessitate denying that a God might exist?
Yes, I'm a 'troll' as most of you would refer to me, but no, it's not a loaded question. A valid, respectful, insult-free response would be appreciated and I'll be on my merry little way. Thanks.
Posted by: uncle noel | November 10, 2008 2:06 PM
The 2nd Law argument is obviously bunk. I mean good lord: even condensation entails entropy reduction! But - just being the devil's advocate here - wouldn't the creationist respond that the biggest reduction in entropy occurs in going from inanimate matter to living thing? Doesn't the argument beg the question when we can't say exactly how that happened or how long it took? There seems to be a big difference in entropy between a prokaryote and a crystal. This may be a different issue than the one of whether evolution can occur, but it is related.
The 2nd Law argument is also used to "refute" the Big Bang theory. Again, it is the initial state that is tricky. "Let there be light" is not too different a theory. I mean, except for God and stuff.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 10, 2008 2:06 PM
did you see me lay down the law?!!!
I am the law giver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghANtP1JPPg
Posted by: templewhore | November 10, 2008 2:09 PM
Science and math make me very happy.
Posted by: Sili | November 10, 2008 2:10 PM
QDA,
No. Or no, if that's your poison.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 10, 2008 2:13 PM
Nope QDA. Plenty of people accept the fact of evolution without ever giving up their superstitions. They just usually fold evolution into whatever "sacred" beliefs they have. The biblical story of "creation" is just so silly, how could they not?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 10, 2008 2:13 PM
Certainly not, at least not without the rest of science providing the same "agnostic" message as evolution does.
Evolutionary science simply fails to support the claim that God exists, along with the other divisions of science.
If, say, meteorology indicated a rational mind behind weather, the silence of evolution would do nothing to gainsay the evidence provided by meteorology. Likewise with cosmology.
The only reason evolutionary theory is supposed to be especially contrary to the idea of God is that religious folk have held onto life as "proof" of God in a more central manner, and for longer, than they claimed, for instance, that the weather was due to God/the gods. Then came Darwin, and he was blamed for "God's death," when theist Newton is at least as responsible--not least because evolution brings biology into the same realm of causation as the "celestial spheres" are, hence it is basically the extension of classical physics (with a smatter of QM) into biology.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 10, 2008 2:15 PM
No it says nothing about it. Now reaching that conclusion after understanding and accepting the validity of the Theory of Evolution and weighing it with a multitude of other bits of data, that's another thing.
your millage may vary.
Posted by: oldtree | November 10, 2008 2:16 PM
I would expect a correlation with time. The lack of a timepiece may be causing the person some distress. Entropy may look like decay to someone out of time.
Posted by: The Chemist | November 10, 2008 2:21 PM
Ha! I was just working an entropy problem before I came here, and I was earnestly thinking about evolution in the same context.
Quite stealing my thoughts PZ! My tinfoil hat shall defeat you!
Posted by: Greg R. | November 10, 2008 2:22 PM
PeteUK
Ah, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a LAW, created by God, while the theory of evolution is merely a theory, created by man. Fixed.
Posted by: Epikt | November 10, 2008 2:28 PM
Tom:
In (IIRC) Goodstein's graduate text on stat mech, there's a nice riff to the effect that the study of this stuff induces depression. It describes Boltzmann's work on the subject and his subsequent suicide. Ditto for Paul Ehrenfest. Then, to encourage the student, there's something like "Now it's our turn to study statistical mechanics."
Posted by: Lee Picton | November 10, 2008 2:35 PM
Sigh. I don't get the math (never having gotten past high school third year algebra), but then, I have the security of relying on experts who know what they are talking about. Having some expertise in other fields prompts me to mention that minuscule is spelled minuscule. You're welcome.
Posted by: Christian A. | November 10, 2008 2:40 PM
I am i bit annoyed I did not look into Pharyngula earlier today. That awesomestnerd bit is really the bestest quote evar!!!!!1!one It's a bit like a bullet stuck in my skull. I *feel* that quote from time to time moving in my head, especially when someone mentions evolution and entropy. It's a highlight of ignorance, kind like ignoring a bat when hit by it.
Posted by: tsg | November 10, 2008 2:42 PM
No, but it is one less thing for which god is needed as an explanation.
Posted by: Travis | November 10, 2008 2:45 PM
Suddenly I feel a song coming on
http://www.imeem.com/joshgreenslade/music/-EvoJAbV/flanders_and_swann_first_and_second_law/
Yeah - that's entropy, man!
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 10, 2008 2:47 PM
Hi Rev a #3,
Thanks for the page. Looks like I got back from vacation just in time. I am at work right now so my comment will be brief. Consider this strawman statement:
Of course creationists understand that entropy can decrease. We also understand that the earth is not a closed system. Some of us are even smart enough to wear sunscreen to reduce our risk of skin cancer.
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 2:51 PM
Exactly! Here we can employ complexity theory and information theory in a framework of systems-thinking to once and for all present a fatal argument against that creotard nonsense. Life on earth is a self-organizing system without teleology. The entropy can decrease within the (interest-relative) boundaries of the system "earth", more specifically "life on earth", there can be a local increase in order/systematic complexity through self-organization, which we know occurs naturally (for more see Self-Organisation at Scholarpedia). There is always at least one system of which the system with local increase in order and complexity is a real subsystem, in which the entropy increases over time. And any system, even the most complex systems will "gravitate" in their behaviour towards certain attractors - these attractors can be very complex, and thus it is entirely explicable that such complex systems as life on earth or even human mental activity should exist - this does not conflict with thermodynamics because the systems gravitate to specific attractors in their energy-state and there is always at least one system that includes the initial one where the entropy increases.
I mean, I can see how the creotard idiot might impress someone who is generally hostile to evolution and might have heard about "thermodynamics" and "entropy" fleetingly. But surely it is impossible to be aware of the above facts about entropy and complex systems and still believe that evolution is thermodynamically impossible? Which leaves it to people like PZ, Daniel Styer and us to educate the people we meet - "immunize" them against creationist nonsense. I only wish more people took an interest in the world as understood by science...
Posted by: Chris Crawford | November 10, 2008 2:52 PM
When I was an undergraduate at the University of California at Davis, around 1970, a creationist by the name of Duane T. Gish gave a lecture in which he made the same claim about 2nd Thermo. He was corrected on it by one of the physics professors in the audience. These people don't seem to learn, do they?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 10, 2008 2:53 PM
QDA@55,
A "troll" is someone who comments on a blog simply to annoy or waste time, not to make a contribution to the discussion or ask a sincere question, so on the evidence so far you're not one - and have been answered politely. Incidentally, the original derivation of the term is apparently from a method of rod-and-line fishing, not from the mythical ugly creature that lurks under bridges.
Posted by: bill ringo | November 10, 2008 2:53 PM
When biophysicists are around biologists we talk physics, around physicists we talk biology. Amongst ourselves we talk about our grandchildren.
Nice paper, nice commentary by our host.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 10, 2008 2:56 PM
En-tro-py
And I-vo-ry
Live together in perfect har-mo-ny
Side by side on my piano keyboard
Tell me:
Why can't we?
Posted by: frog | November 10, 2008 3:05 PM
And of course, there is still no good measure for entropy of far-from-equilibrium systems!
That's the nailer that everyone pretends isn't there --- most measures of entropy, all the way to grand canonical, assume close-to-equilibrium conditions. On top of that, almost every real calculation of entry drops half the dimensions of that calculation -- the distribution of velocities.
So, not only is there a sufficient energy gradient to support the "negentropy" of life --- but in fact that negentropy might not exist at all, but is purely an artifact of improper entropy calculations!
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 3:07 PM
Hear hear PZ and Daniel Styer...!
We can employ complexity theory and information theory in a framework of systems-thinking to once and for all present a fatal argument against that creotard nonsense. Life on earth is a self-organizing system without teleology. The entropy can decrease within the (interest-relative) boundaries of the system "earth", more specifically "life on earth", there can be a local increase in order/systematic complexity through self-organization, which we know occurs naturally (for more see Self-Organisation at Scholarpedia). There is always at least one system of which the system with local increase in order and complexity is a real subsystem, in which the entropy increases over time. And any system, even the most complex systems will "gravitate" in their behaviour towards certain attractors - these attractors can be very complex, and thus it is entirely explicable that such complex systems as life on earth or even human mental activity should exist - this does not conflict with thermodynamics because the systems gravitate to specific attractors in their energy-state and there is always at least one system that includes the initial one where the entropy increases.
And since these systems are so complex as to be unpredictable without running a complete facsimile (like cellular automata, see Complex Systems at Scholarpedia and Cellular Automata on Wikipedia), we know with certainty that even deism or "god-guided evolution" is wrong because the only way god could have planned for any of what happens in life on earth today is if he already ran exactly this universe before he did ours... what a pathetic god that would be.
I mean, I can see how the creotard might impress someone who is generally hostile to evolution and might have heard about "thermodynamics" and "entropy" fleetingly. But surely it is impossible to be aware of the above facts about entropy and complex systems and still believe that evolution is thermodynamically impossible? Which leaves it to people like PZ, Daniel Styer and us to educate the people we meet - "immunize" them against creationist nonsense. I only wish more people took an interest in the world as understood by science...
Not only does science not show that evolution is incompatible with theormodynamics, all of science - especially systems theory, biology, complexity theory, information theory - show that Theism and even Deism are incompatible with the universe as we understand it scientifically and rationally.
Posted by: Adrian | November 10, 2008 3:18 PM
"Thou are a geek tho"
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 3:19 PM
...and by the way... which measure of entropy or complexity are these creationists talking about? Oh that's right... they haven't got a clue because they didn't think it through... they're just spouting pseudo-scientific bullshit.
When we employ the concept of Kolmogorov-complexity, we can clearly see that even very complex systems like neural networks, individual neurons or even an individual in thermodynmaic exchange with its environment over the course of its history will "gravitate" towards energetically relatively more stable points, ie it will move - energetically - on a gradient towards some attractors of lower-energy states for the system. We can even describe the learning of a neural network (ie learning as it occurs in creatures with brains, like us), and the learning of an individual neuron in a network in terms of entropy - this model is called "Boltzmann Learning". - And the heat-dissipation of even such complex processes of learning within a biological brain in context with its environment - even things as complex and "improbable" as this always dissipate enough heat not to make it impossible for the universe as a whole to move towards increased entropy... not even the entropy in the solar-system as a whole is increased much by it... as the paper PZ introduces explains. The kolmogorov-complexity of the complex, biofunctional systems is lower than that of total chaos because it observes patterns in which it transduces entropy/information... we have biofunctionality - the bifurcation of the complex thermodynamic system of life on earth... this is all perfectly within the grasp of science.
I find it so utterly abominable when creationists use pseudo-scientific thinking to make an impression on those who perhaps could be educated about the actual state of affairs, and how little these idiots know of real science.
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 3:25 PM
Damn... sorry bout that double-post. I accidentally pressed post shortly before I pressed "Preview", then made the corrections and then re-submitted it since I didn't think it got through the first time... my browser was very slow and the submission of the preview timed out at my first attempt...
I apologize
Posted by: Vadjong | November 10, 2008 3:26 PM
The thermodynamics argument against evolution is refuted in every breath it is uttered with.
Simple.
Posted by: Eric Atkinson@msn.com | November 10, 2008 3:26 PM
I was exposed to thermodynamics in school and learned quite a bit more in the Navy. Boy It made my head hurt.
One snarky way of summarizing the three laws is as follows:
First Law. Heat can be converted to work.
Second Law. But completely only at Zero Deg. K.
Third Law. You can't get to Zero Deg. K.
Great post Dr Myers. Thanks. I love the way you put that old creationist saw to rest, if there isn't math its just opinion.
Posted by: Alex | November 10, 2008 3:31 PM
"they haven't got a clue because they didn't think it through..."
For sure. That's what they love to do. They cherry-pick parts of a complex scientific issue and poorly apply it as support for their delusions. It's complete dishonesty. They don't actually to the research. They're satisfied with a piss-poor supposition that they can tell their echo-chamber followers "disproves" evolution (or "proves" their deity), and maybe even let the real scientists chase a red-herring.
They have the scientific community at a disadvantage in that they can be sloppy and imprecise - and still manage to speak from authority. Of course, science has them at a disadvantage because science deals with reality, which always seems to decisively dismantle their poorly constructed notions.
Posted by: Kobra | November 10, 2008 3:31 PM
PWNED!
Posted by: Alex | November 10, 2008 3:34 PM
"Boy It made my head hurt."
While studying it in college, the course earned the moniker "Thermogoddamnics".
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 3:45 PM
Alex,
Absolutely! That's a good formulation.
Posted by: Dancaban | November 10, 2008 3:46 PM
If things are getting disordered as cretinists argue then surely they must do all they can to preserve what order we have left in the genome? Therefore they must weed out the undesirable elements and stop them reproducing as they are only contributing to this "disorder". Even better give them no chance at all to contribute to this disorder by rounding them up and putting them into special "safe" places. And if that doesn't work, well, "special" action might be called for. Anybody for the New (dis)Order?
Posted by: Pablo | November 10, 2008 3:52 PM
Maybe because it's not true.
Here is the Kelvin statement of the 2nd Law:
"It is not possible to create a system in which the sole result is the addition of heat and its complete conversion to work"
Notice that there is nothing in this statement about open or closed systems.
Given this statement, I can readily show that, for a closed system, dS > 0 for a spontaneous process. However, the SLoT also applies to everything, everywhere. It's just that the implications of the SLoT in an open-system are very different from those in a closed system. Mathematically, the best statement of the SLoT is the Clausius inequality, TdS > dq (I can derive this using the Kelvin statement).
So in the end, while it is definately true that creationists haven't got a clue about the SLoT, it is also important that we counter them with an accurate version.
It is true that the requirement that entropy must increase only applies to a closed system, and you can correctly point that out. But don't go about claiming the 2nd law "doesn't apply." It most certainly does.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | November 10, 2008 3:57 PM
So, if entropy affects all real processes, is god less powerful now than any point in the past? If so, then god will end up so much less powerful in the future, we can ignore it safely. If god isn't affected by entropy, by the creationist's logic, god isn't real...
Posted by: pboyfloyd | November 10, 2008 3:59 PM
Does he not try to be even more confusing(or authoritative) by claiming it is 'Newton's' law? A lot of 'em do.
I like it when they are trying to imagine where energy might come from. Some powerful force in the sky that makes the grass grow and the wind blow.
"Well, that sure 'sounds' like(wait a second, the Sun is shining on my monitor), what was I saying, oh yea, sure 'sounds' like GOD to ME!"
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 10, 2008 4:00 PM
That's the nailer that everyone pretends isn't there --- most measures of entropy, all the way to grand canonical, assume close-to-equilibrium conditions. - frog@77
There's an article in November's Sci. Am. by J. Miguel Rubi, about extending applications of the Second Law to far-from-equilibrium systems. If any thermodynamicists have read it, I'd be interested in an opinion.
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 4:00 PM
The thing is, the boundaries of any system (especially more more complex systems) are always interest-relative - there is no clear boundary, the boundary is defined by the property or properties according to which the observer distinguishes the system. Except - that is - for the universe as a whole. (Or perhaps multiverse - leave that one to the cosmologists) The universe/multiverse is necessarily all-encompassing - by the very definition of the term. And as such it is the only real system with non-interest-relative boundaries, and since it is complete, ie contains all other systems (where there are as many arbitrary subsystems as there are elements in the power-set of the set of all the constituents of the universe), it is only system which does not have information/energy-exchange with another... as long as the total entropy of everything together doesn't tend to decrease, thermodynamics is not violated.
And in any complex system you can arbitrarily define a subsystem whose entropy decreases, simply by picking out the spacetime-volume where locally the order increases while globally the entropy increases. So it is no surprise that we should find such pockets of low entropy - in fact, as we know, it's not surprising that we should exists in such a pocket of low entropy... only there can we exist.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | November 10, 2008 4:02 PM
"One of the more persistent perpetrators of this kind of sloppy thinking is Henry Morris..." - PZ
Make that a was, not an is - Henry Morris died in 2006, and is getting a well-deserved roasting along with Jerry Falwell and other Liars For Jesus™.
Posted by: Alverant | November 10, 2008 4:04 PM
The entropy argument is useful in one sense, anyone who uses it you know has limited knowledge of science and if they're above college age you know they don't WANT to understand either. It's a flag indicating there's nothing you can do to them to change their minds. The best you can do is humiliate them into silence by revealing their ignorance. As I told one of these jokers, "If you bothered to go to physics class in school and pay attention, you'd remember the 'closed system' part of the second law of thermodynamics." That shut him up rather quickly.
Posted by: Pablo | November 10, 2008 4:05 PM
Interesting comments, MPhil.
Which leads to my next observation: Assuming that we consider the universe to be a closed system, we can then say that an implication of the 2nd law is that the entropy of the "universe" must increase, right? Interestingly, that is only true because of the expanding universe. If the universe were collapsing (dV
Posted by: amphiox | November 10, 2008 4:07 PM
#32:
I think the most appropriate Egyptian deity is actually Aten rather than Ra.
Ra was a sun-god, but he was an anthropomorphic one. That is, although he was in charge of the sun, he was actually humanoid in form.
Aten, however, was the actual disc of the sun.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | November 10, 2008 4:08 PM
"One snarky way of summarizing the three laws (of thermodynamics) is as follows: First Law. Heat can be converted to work...." - Eric, #83
1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.
Posted by: Pablo | November 10, 2008 4:09 PM
Personally, I challenge them to show me how evolution violates the Clausius inequality.
Posted by: SteveM | November 10, 2008 4:09 PM
Hardly snarky at all. The truly snarky summary is:
1)you can't win
2)you can't break even
3)you can't get out of the game
Posted by: Paper Hand | November 10, 2008 4:10 PM
I'm surprised no one's commented on this from the quote in #28
This guy doesn't even know his own religion's theology! What ever happened to Original Sin, hunh?
Posted by: Sili | November 10, 2008 4:13 PM
I thought the witty formulation was:
1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 10, 2008 4:18 PM
On account of uttering the Anglo-Saxon word for "sexual intercourse" is a known sin. It's right there in The Holy Bible, seriously.Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 4:19 PM
Pablo,
I seem to vaguely remember something like that. And surely, if we "travelled" through spacetime in the opposite direction for the entire history of the universe, we would observe such things as exhaust fumes going back into the engine etc... and temporally locally there would be a drastic decrease in entropy - but we'd end up with the big bang, the initial conditions... and as we know, as we approach the big-bang, travelling backwards in time in a collapsing universe - the immense heat means a very high kolmogorov-complexity, no real order, high entropy, no complex subsystems. Neither at the beginning nor at the end of universe from our view of the direction-of-time have complex subsystems... only in the middle do we have these. Neither heat-death nor condensation at the big-bang allow for complexity. As such, the overall tendency is there because of inflation - but in a reversed space-time, a collapsing spacetime, we would also "end up" without order.
Posted by: SteveM | November 10, 2008 4:21 PM
Pablo and MPhil,
I thought Hawking showed that even if the universe were to stop expanding and recollapse, entropy would continue to increase and time would not reverse.
Posted by: Alex | November 10, 2008 4:23 PM
sin, blasphemy, prayer, holy, heaven, hell, angels, demons - all meaningless words designed to artificially prop up a non-existent, fabrication of reality.
Posted by: OilBoy | November 10, 2008 4:23 PM
Im confused about which entropy we are talking about. The 2nd law applys to thermodynamic entropy, but the Boltzman stuff is statistical entropy. The 2nd law doesnt say 'disorder increases' at all, rather its a mathematical statement of the usable heat energy that remains after a process.
Posted by: The skepTick | November 10, 2008 4:23 PM
302 J/K every second? That's the same units as thermal conductance (W/K). If so, then wouldn't it be correct to say that evolution has about a thermal conductance somewhere between Portland Cement (0.29 W/mK) and dry sand (0.35 W/mK)?
Posted by: Pablo | November 10, 2008 4:23 PM
I've heard this line before, but I will admit I don't really understand the third one. There are different ways of stating the third law, often involving the Nernst heat theorem and whatnot, but a common concise statement is, "The entropy of a perfect crystal is zero at zero kelvin."
How does this imply "You can't get out of the game"?
Posted by: Katkinkate | November 10, 2008 4:24 PM
Posted by: rob @ 41 "... with this in mind, one might ask oneself if there is so much entropy flux available why don't we see advanced species like sharks with frickin'laser beams? how come evolution moves so slowly."
We may eventually, if people or sharks don't go extinct first. It all takes time and there is several billion years yet to go before our sun goes nova.
Posted by: Bert Chadick | November 10, 2008 4:25 PM
Oh Noes! Now my Honda won't start! It seems that it only wants to sit and decay in order to comply with the second law of thermodynamics.
Posted by: tcb | November 10, 2008 4:27 PM
Of course, the sad part of all this is that such a journal article is even necessary.
My mother took her Mech.E. degree in the 1940s. When I was young I used to look at the pretty color plates in her old textbooks and try to figure out what they were about. Presumably as a result, the qualitative laws of thermodynamics seem like the tritest common sense to me. I finally understood(ish) classical phase space after reading a Sci. Am. article some time in the 70s or 80s.
Now, I can't be all that exceptional. We need to get some better physics (yes, physics - sorry) into K-12 classrooms in the hope that others will absorb the principles as "trite common sense."
The calculations are another matter, but not everyone needs to actually perform them.
Slightly OT - I was about to despair of seeing any more science posts on here; sorry for doubting you, PZ!
Posted by: PurpleTurtle | November 10, 2008 4:27 PM
Not a scientist, as you will shortly be able to tell...
I thought that a singularity was the highest form of order, and that increasing complexity was therefore an increase in disorder, no matter how well it appeared organized? Is this totally wrong, or as a scientific moron, am I just simplifying things to the point of unhelpful?
Also, is there a reading list knocking around along the lines of science for total beginners who don't want to read books aimed at 5 year olds?
Much thanx.
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 4:31 PM
Pablo,
in addition to my last comment (I forgot to mention this)...
Complex systems which can be described as performing certain functions - ie automata-theoretic models (non-deterministic finite automata) of systems (we can view an organism as some form of automaton, and even life on earth as a general phenomenon) can be described with lower kolmogorov-complexity than complete chaos - we can describe the algorithmically, give a function which the system observes in a certain respect... for a completely chaotic system in contrast to a more ordered system like a brain or life on earth versus a chaotic distribution of particles over time in a certain space, the kolmogorov-complexity will always be higher. Even in an ideally minimal (non-redundant or pleonastic) language the description of a system like the universe entering heat death or the approaching the big-bang (backwards in time) will always require a more extensive description - since a complex functional system (like an eye, a pocket calculator, a brain or a PC) is ordered in virtue of being describable as performing a certain function (which can also be expressed in purely thermodynamic/information-theoretic terms)... I am currently doing research on this for the application in my master's thesis in neurophilosophy/philosophy of mind (I'm a student of formal logic, formal meta-science and philosophy, specializing on the philosophy of mind, Naturalism vs Dualism/"Supernaturalism", mind-brain relation)... this last bit of information just to explain the context of my posts...
Posted by: SteveM | November 10, 2008 4:32 PM
The law actually refers to an asymptotic process, effectively saying that zero K cannot be achieved by a finite number of processes. I assume that achieving zero K is effectively "getting out of the game".
Posted by: Alex | November 10, 2008 4:35 PM
"...why don't we see advanced species like sharks with frickin'laser beams?"
If you consider human acts as a function of Nature, then sharks with laser beams is no problem. It's something that can be easily done. Silliness aside, applied intelligence can affect entropy. Taking that one step further is when evolution creates a self-sustaining, self-replicating, self-improving AI - albeit by human acts. That's what's next.
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 4:36 PM
Pablo,
in addition to my last comment (I forgot to mention this)...
Complex systems which can be described as performing certain functions - ie automata-theoretic models (non-deterministic finite automata) of systems (we can view an organism as some form of automaton, and even life on earth as a general phenomenon) can be described with lower kolmogorov-complexity than complete chaos - we can describe the algorithmically, give a function which the system observes in a certain respect... for a completely chaotic system in contrast to a more ordered system like a brain or life on earth versus a chaotic distribution of particles over time in a certain space, the kolmogorov-complexity will always be higher. Even in an ideally minimal (non-redundant or pleonastic) language the description of a system like the universe entering heat death or the approaching the big-bang (backwards in time) will always require a more extensive description - since a complex functional system (like an eye, a pocket calculator, a brain or a PC) is ordered in virtue of being describable as performing a certain function (which can also be expressed in purely thermodynamic/information-theoretic terms)... I am currently doing research on this for the application in my master's thesis in neurophilosophy/philosophy of mind (I'm a student of formal logic, formal meta-science and philosophy, specializing on the philosophy of mind, Naturalism vs Dualism/"Supernaturalism", mind-brain relation)... this last bit of information just to explain the context of my posts...
Posted by: Desert Son | November 10, 2008 4:44 PM
amphiox at #97:
Thanks for that follow-up. I was unfamiliar with Aten, so defaulted to the only Ancient Egyptian sun deity I knew. Good to learn more, and your suggestion makes much more sense!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Alex | November 10, 2008 4:44 PM
"...and that increasing complexity was therefore an increase in disorder, no matter how well it appeared organized?"
Order & disorder are loaded terms. They place a value-judgment. Using neutral terminology helps with the precision. However, using complexity to describe systems can be trick. Regarding geometric distributions of objects, it can be said there are 2 kinds of complexity (or order), grouping order, and symmetry order. As an example, the distribution of checker-pieces at the beginning of the game is symmetry order - reds on ones side, blacks on the other. An even distribution of red and black pieces over the board is symmetry order. It would seem that it could be described that the Universe is going from grouping order (lumpy) to symmetry order (smooth).
Posted by: George | November 10, 2008 4:44 PM
First, as others have noted it applies to a closed system. It also applies to entropy - the availability of the systems energy to do work. I do not recall the term "order" arising
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 4:49 PM
Damn - another double post. Again Pharyngula told me first that my comment would not be posted because I had already posted many in such short time - so I should try again later. I did - and get another double-post. I'm really sorry, people - I really don't mean to spam... it seems there's something wrong with my connections. My dlan has been acting up lately. Again, - I'm really sorry, folks!
On the subject of thermodynamic vs statistic entropy/disorder... since all information must be "embodied" somewhere - and every structure/system that isn't totally random/chaotic under any formal description of entropy/order/complexity also "embodies" some information (I think information has become an accepted quantity in the natural science, thanks to applied mathematics in information-theory, systems theory etc..) - we can say that anything that we can reasonably describe (pick out) as a distinct "process", changes the configuration of the system in a discernible way, the heat/energy throughput is a valid description of the system over time - there is also an information-theoretic description of the system. When the global entropy of a system increases, it means that it requires - overall - more extensive information to describe than a sub-region of that system where energy/heat decreases locally, where there is order, information, structure... and my thesis is that spatiotemporal structure is the central defining aspect of systems - this unites the thermodynamic, complexity-theory, information-theoretic and model-theoretic views of systems.
Posted by: Alex | November 10, 2008 4:49 PM
"...the distribution of checker-pieces at the beginning of the game is symmetry order..."
correction:
the distribution of checker-pieces at the beginning of the game is grouping order
Posted by: Watchman | November 10, 2008 4:49 PM
<zardoz>
"Pay no attention to the layers of sedimentary rock behind the curtain!"
</zardoz>
Posted by: Randy | November 10, 2008 4:50 PM
Like most engineers, I had to study thermodynamics including an entire 400 class on the subject so I really find it bemusing when religious fundamentalists attempt to lecture me on the subject.
Posted by: Alex | November 10, 2008 4:58 PM
"...so I really find it bemusing when religious fundamentalists attempt to lecture me on the subject."
There you go...you snobby know-it-all sciency types thinking you can explain everything! Have you ever given birth to a baby?! Do you know where we go when we die?! Do you know how the Universe was created?! Do you?! Do YOU!!?
[/hysterical god -botting]
Posted by: frog | November 10, 2008 4:59 PM
MPhil:
Symmetry-breaking? I've had a thought that what distinguishes non-equilibrium systems is the asymmetry that would shift entropy measurements to counting pathways rather than just component distribution -- the minimal case being where all pathways are possible, ie, equilibrium conditions with low asymmetry in all dimensions.
I sure wish someone would figure this out so I would stop wasting my spare capacity --- this problem keeps on sneaking into the back of my head. I guess it's the only real problem. How to count, that is.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | November 10, 2008 5:06 PM
yeah, closed system, point at the sun, utter silliness. Thank goodness they don't try using something REALLY mysterious like Gibbs Free Energy to prove the folly of evolution. Honestly, Entropy, that's so 1850's.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 10, 2008 5:08 PM
Taking that one step further is when evolution creates a self-sustaining, self-replicating, self-improving AI - Alex
It's arguable we are such systems. Human cognition is heavily dependent on invented symbol-manipulating processes, both external and internalised - so in that sense, we are partially artificial.
Posted by: Anders | November 10, 2008 5:31 PM
First time poster here
I didn't see this mentioned, but the major flaw in the reasoning is that it is assumed that the second "law" must be upheld. Science is all about observation, so *if* (big if) the argument that evolution goes against the second law, then - since evolution has actually been observed to happen - all that properly follows is that the second law is wrong and must be modified. Observation overrules calculation any day
Now, I'm not saying that the second law is wrong, or that evolution implies that it is, I'm just pointing out a flaw in the reasoning.
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 5:37 PM
frog,
Symmetry-braking? Well, quite - bifurcaton of complex systems. In bifurcated complex systems, information is present as distributed, meaningfully-discernible structure. Lookning at life on earth as a whole, and human knowledge and technology (including language and media) specifically, we find that information is also "mirrored", transduced and processed in specific ways - through similarity relations. Like between a printed picture of the horsehead-nebula, our mental representation of the printed picture of the horsehead-nebula, the data stored in my PC's harddrive of the picture of the horsehead nebula and the nebula itself. Now, the system composed of all these things - the printout, my brain, the hard-disk shows - as a whole, a complex form of self-similarity, namely that specific parts of it are similar to other parts of it, - the spatiotemporal, and thus also informational structure of these subsystems are affine translations/transformations of each other.
In physical reality, we have to assume there is some lowest level, some fundamental constituent (strings, particles, local excitations of fields, whatever) - in contrast to the hypothetical infinite divisibility in abstract mathematical representations and quantifications. As such, there will be a lowest level. But otherwise, a good analogy (if not taken too literally) would be a fractal... as we zoom in, we find certain parts similar both to other parts at the same level of "zoom" and similar to structures at other levels. In such immensely complex systems as life on earth, perhaps even life on earth plus the things external to earth of which we humans have created informational representations... there is perhaps little similiarity between different levels of "zoom"... but there are certainly still many similarity-relations between sub-systems. This again brings us back to Complexity of description - algorithmic/kolmogorov-complexity.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | November 10, 2008 5:38 PM
Anders, that is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.
If a person who is stating that evo defies 2nd thermo, then states that either evo or 2nd thermo is wrong is ignoring the possibility that they are in fact the one that is wrong.
I like it.
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 5:45 PM
Anders,
Well, there is something to be said for this. But it's also a bit naive - all observation is theory-laden. Observation is more than mere perception. In observing (not merely perceiving) something, we conceptualize it in a certain way that takes certain things for granted. For example, when we data we got from an experiment (observation), we take a lot for granted when we draw conclusions from that - namely everything that is presupposed by all of science, plus everything that is presupposed by the specific methods we employ.
Thus, all observation is "tainted" by theoretical presuppositions (the scientific instruments of measurement of physicists for example are constructed and interpreted according to a specific theoretical understanding of that which is studied and observed, - which has to be true if the readings of these instruments are to be meaningful).
So, there is no strictly clear line of demarcation between "observation" and "theory".
Posted by: frog | November 10, 2008 5:47 PM
Mphil:
I like to keep it down to counting. What do we have to count? That's a tricky problem - as K complexity shows, since you can't count K, just give it an upper bound.
I hate putting it into words --- the problems are always due to words. If you can reduce all you're saying down to counting --- I'd find it a bit more digestible. All that nastiness of scales and self-similarity just make it harder to figure out what we're supposed to be counting.
Posted by: Anders | November 10, 2008 5:54 PM
MPhil,
I'm not sure what's so naive about the notion of falsifiability. It is the core of the scientific method. If something is predicted by a theory, but it is observed not to be the case (repeatably), then the theory must be modified.
In this case, if (font size 300 IF) the second law of thermodynamics did indeed predict that evolution could not happen, then - since we have observed it happening - we would have to modify the second law to take into account the new findings.
Of course, I don't think the creationists are really gunning for the second law, they hope their argument will be solely against evolution
And as many other posters have pointed out, the second law predicts no such thing, so it's bunk to begin with, but IF it did, the thing modified would have to be the second law, not evolution
Posted by: frog | November 10, 2008 5:59 PM
Anders: Science is all about observation, so *if* (big if) the argument that evolution goes against the second law, then - since evolution has actually been observed to happen - all that properly follows is that the second law is wrong and must be modified. Observation overrules calculation any day
Mmmm. I'd have to suggest that we put the benefit of the doubt towards physics.
First, evolution is not primarily observations --- but it's the body of theory that makes those observations make sense.
Second, the general rule is we believe the physicists first, and then the biologists. Simpler systems and more rigorous theories. The thermodynamic observations can be much more rigorously controlled than evolutionary observations, and thermodynamic theory can be worked from first principles in a way that evolutionary theory has not been.
So, if evolutionary theory actually contradicted physical theory --- then we'd be better off betting that biologists had been misinterpreting their observations than that physicists had. The latter is always possible -- but I wouldn't bet my mortgage payments on it.
Science isn't just about observations -- it's about a system of interpreted observations that are consistent. Usually, when your observations don't match the well-tested calculations, it's your observations that are wrong. But it is much more interesting when you find that the calculations are actually wrong.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 10, 2008 6:04 PM
Anders,
correct, but these fruitbats are all about denying that Evolution is actually observed.
You know, they'll pull the old canard that only micro-evolution is observed, and then they'll use their mistaken interpretation of the second law to confirm their affirmation that macro-evolution has never been observed, as it is physically impossible that it occurs.
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 6:05 PM
frog,
I think we have to distance ourselves from the focus on "counting". Some aspects can be formally described, not by literally counting - ie by a one-dimensional metric, but only by more complex formal, perhaps (but not necessarily) quantitative representations. Applying mathematics in theories in empirical science is all about relations - not merely between numbers on a one-dimensional metric (of the real-numbers for example)... but potentially about describing formally more complex relations - consider the properties of the Lorentz-attractor as a representation of the development of a chaotic system. The discernible structure is not expressible in a one-dimensional metric (ie "counting"). Or consider spacetime topology inside a system over time. We can formally describe a system over time as the configuration between its fundamental elements over time - and we can represent each intrinsic property of an element as a vector or a value of a dimension - and the topological relation between the elements, the dynamic behaviour of the system (including shifting electromagnetic fields etc) will be describable so that we can formally, strictly constitute homeomorphisms or topological isomorphisms in abstract vector-spaces.
These kinds of mathematics can be used in game-theory and decision-theory, as well as automata-theory and neural network theory. All completely scientific. But sometimes we need more complex and abstract methods of description than mere counting - constituting topological/structural and/or informational homeomorphisms in systems is one such instance.
It's still perfectly legitimate scientific, methodological thinking.
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 6:14 PM
anders,
I was not criticizing falsification - absolutely not. I was making the independent point that observation is always theory laden - and that consequently, when a prediction turns out not to be observed, we cannot say with certainty where the error was specifically in the specific theory that made the prediction. And the theory as well as our means of testing it (interpreting our raw-data - our observations) take certain things for granted - and the error, the reason why the prediction doesn't match the observation can lie anywhere within the entire complex of assumptions of the theory and its presuppositions - as well as the pre-suppositions of the method we chose to test the theory.
Popper had it right that falsification is our primary method. But such people like Imre Lakatos, W. Quine, and P. Dunhem, Sneed and Suppes have shown that science has other aspects as well - for example the under-determination of theories by empirical data (a specific set of empirical data is never only compatible with one single theory-network) and theory-ladenness of observation (as the saying goes "the sciences face trial as a whole").
If this interests you, I'd recommend looking up the "Duhem-Quine thesis" (Wikipedia-Article
Posted by: EB | November 10, 2008 6:22 PM
OK, but what justifies the 0.001 reduction in microstates each generation? Why not 0.1, or 0.000001? Instead of Styers' approach, my problem with the creationist's argument is that they never talk in terms of microstates, which is the only way to deal with entropy. Creationists equate "humans" with "order" (i.e. few microstates), and "human ancestors" with "disorder" (i.e. many microstates). Where in the world does this argument come from? In fact, who's to say that evolution leads to fewer microstates... maybe if we do the astronomically difficult calculation of determining the microstates of a human vs. a dinosaur, there would be *more* microstates in the human?! i.e. we could have Sf > Si, rather than Sf
Posted by: Anders | November 10, 2008 6:27 PM
negentropyeater,
True, they never stick to one argument. When it's shown to fail, they move immediately on to the next, until they run out of arguments, at which time they start over again. If that energy could be harnessed, we would be well on the way to energy independence :)
But I still enjoy pointing out to them that their arguments, even if you accept all their invalid premises, still don't lead to the conclusion they hope
Posted by: frog | November 10, 2008 6:31 PM
Mphil:
Isn't topology just another way of counting as well? One hole, two holes, knot hole, ripped hole?
I don't think we're capable of any kind of "mathematics" that doesn't ultimately reduce to counting -- in some dimensionality (i.e., we can count more than one box at a time). The proliferation of words may be perfectly methodological --- but it's also dangerous, if it leads us to think that we're doing anything other than counting.
That's why entropy is so satisfying -- it brings back all the nastiness back to how many pigs we can fit in the pen, and how to find the fattest one.
Posted by: Anders | November 10, 2008 6:36 PM
MPhil,
Sure, we are all making assumptions all the time, to make life easier (and more full of jesus images in toast).
But it is still the fact, that if you make a direct observation that turn out to be contrary to the predictions of a theory, something has to be changed. Assuming the test setup is correct, within the framework of accepted scientific theory, some part of some theory has to go. You don't change the observation. It may be some theory involved in creating the testing equipment, or it may be the theory that made the contradicted prediction.
But you don't just throw out the observation, and that is what the argument sounded like to me (evolution can't be right, no matter how often it is observed, since it violates the second law of thermodynamics!)
Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | November 10, 2008 6:38 PM
1. You can't win
2 You can't break even
3 Things will get worse before they get better
4 They will not get better
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 10, 2008 6:48 PM
frog:
Depends on the nature and quality of the observations. Biology and geology trumped physics in the debate over the age of the solar system, because the sun is not a sufficiently simple system, and it involves energy-production mechanisms that contemporary physicists had not yet taken into account.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 10, 2008 6:51 PM
I think Raven's argument at #10 is fairly representative and well said. But is there anyone here who can put their critical thinking cap on and explain what is wrong with his argument or all you all just a bunch of ditto-heads?
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 10, 2008 6:54 PM
Who are you talking to?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 10, 2008 6:59 PM
Randy,
If you have a point to then make it. Making ambiguous statements and/or asking us to make your arguments for you is a non-starter around here.
Posted by: frog | November 10, 2008 7:04 PM
Anton Mates: Depends on the nature and quality of the observations
Well, yes, of course -- it's not about institutional priority, but scientific principle. So your solar age counter-example is good, but off-point. No one tried to use the incorrect physical datings of the solar system to, say, disprove thermodynamics (which was one of the sources of the calculations).
The bets were "unknown energy source", not accounted for, which turned out to be nuclear physics. The equivalent here is that we're calculating the entropy of the system incorrectly; just as in the solar case we calculated the rate of burn and output incorrectly.
But if we can every eliminate that, I'd bet against biology. Just as if we could have actually eliminated all "unknown energy source" from the solar case, I would have bet against geology!
Fortunately, we still have a long way to work on entropy -- and we found the "unknown energy source" -- so I don't have to bet against either physics or biology.
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 7:04 PM
Anders,
Indeed. That's the way it is. But it's also a fact that we cannot know where the problem lies - we don't throw away the observation - but we must also question the assumptions underlying our interpretation of the raw data (and observation is always an interpretation of perception). For example - we have reason to take it as given that a certain instrument of measurement shows a certain value (for example that a digital thermometer shows +290.3 degrees Kelvin), but if we predict something about a system and measure it with highly complex instruments, and the prediction doesn't match the observation - the error may also lie in the assumptions underlying our belief that the output of the instrument tells us something about a real property of a system... ie the theory that underlies the functioning of the instrument.
No, we don't throw away the observation - but we must be aware that we can never give a definitive answer to the question "where exactly the error lay" when a prediction doesn't match the theory. We may be fundamentally in error in our scientific interpretation of the world - that's the skeptic challenge. The construct of all the accepted scientific theories (accepted as "working-hypotheses") cannot prove its own truth - that's why there is no final verification of theories in science, as we all know. But we have task-independent measurements of the quality of an explanatory approach: Parsimony, broadness of explanation, Corroboration, increase of logical and structural coherence when introduced into a framework of background-assumptions, and being (part of) a progressive (not stagnant or regressive) research-program.
Then we have some reasonable pragmatic rules of scientific methodology - for example methodological naturalism, which says in essence nothing more than "'Magic' is just not an explanation". This leads us not only to all our scientific insights, but also to the conclusion that we have no reason to accept the hypothesis that any sort of deity exists. We cannot prove that we are right - but this way, we can show that such a rationalist worldview as we hold is the best we can do, and that creationist nonsense is entirely inadequate. It's not coherent, not parsimonious, wildly arbitrary and has no explanatory value whatsoever, because it postulates "magic" as an explanation.
Posted by: trollfeeder | November 10, 2008 7:06 PM
No. One is a scientific theory. The other a religious concept. They have nothing to do with each other.
FWIW, the Pope accepts evolution and AFAIK isn't an atheist.
Posted by: frog | November 10, 2008 7:15 PM
MPhil: No, we don't throw away the observation - but we must be aware that we can never give a definitive answer to the question "where exactly the error lay" when a prediction doesn't match the theory.
Actually, in practice we do -- all the time. It's only when you get 10, 100, a 1000 "wrong" observations (depending on field) that we start to suspect that the theory's got a hole in it, instead of throwing away the data.
Just imagine a graduate student goes to their boss and says, "See this little stem cell dish? Well, a little George Bush formed in it!" What's the boss say --- "That's just fungus. Go repeat your experiment". Next day "I've got Palin in a dish!" -- "Go repeat it. That's just fungus". Next day "I've got Jeb in a dish!" -- "Okay, wash out the entire apparatus and start from scratch".
Repeat for 5 years. If you still have incompetent little stooges growing in your dish, your boss (and committee) may consider letting you publish on this.
Posted by: Anders | November 10, 2008 7:18 PM
frog,
But if we can every eliminate that, I'd bet against biology. Just as if we could have actually eliminated all "unknown energy source" from the solar case, I would have bet against geology!
But the issue here was that a physical theory made a prediction about something in biology. Are you suggesting that if that prediction turns out to be wrong, it is still right, simply because it is physics?
You also said
and thermodynamic theory can be worked from first principles in a way that evolutionary theory has not been.
I'd like to see you try to deduce from first principles that no energy is ever created or destroyed. I also can't quite picture what a proof from first principles of entropy would look like.
These things are all derived from observation.
Posted by: Anders | November 10, 2008 7:21 PM
frog in #151,
That's why I said "repeatable" observations. I think "repeatable" is stronger than "repeated"
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 7:21 PM
No, it's not a necessity at all. Otherwise most scientists would be in trouble there.Posted by: Anders | November 10, 2008 7:23 PM
MPhil,
I agree with you completely, we can't know for certain where the problem lies without a lot more work.
But my original point here was just that the creationist argument "if the theory says it's wrong, then it's wrong, even if it's observed" is clearly bunk.
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 7:25 PM
frog,
I'm just saying that this, what we're doing all the time - namely deciding upon a specific evaluation of our observations and their relations to our theories... is not something where we can 100% certain. We're just going with what works best - but we have no 100% guarantee that we're right - the skeptical challange: we cannot even prove logically (ie with mathematical certainty) that anything outside our own minds exists... so how could we be 100% certain that any conclusion, any scientific judgement we arrive will be true? We cannot - not even about where the error lay. We can make educated guesses, but we cannot exclude the logical (we deem it remote) possibility that some underlying assumptions in the general framework for our interpretation of our perceptions are wrong.
That's why we have relative measures of explanatory adequacy of theories that do not necessitate knowing with absolute certainty that the theory is true or false... namely parsimony, explanatory broadness, corroboration and elimination of anomalies between underlying background-assumptions.
Our best current scientific theories are always the best bet because they are the most methodological and thus reliable informant for our view of the world. We cannot prove anything of it is true - (we can only prove tautologies), but we can show that science is the best we have - and that it simply works! It works wonderfully, in fact.
Posted by: MPhil | November 10, 2008 7:33 PM
Anders,
Absolutely! I was just remarking that even with all the effort we can put into questioning where the error lay, why there is a mismatch between observation and theory, there is a specific fundamental uncertainty which we cannot eliminate - namely that all observations have underlying assumptions and all ways to find out where the error lies work on the basis of certain assumptions as well... scientific thinking cannot prove that scientific thinking is anywhere absolutely true. But, as I said - we can show that compared to myths, pseudo-science, post-modernist ideology and or wishful-thinking, science and methodological rationality as exemplified in empirical sciences, structural and informational sciences, analytical philosophy etc does far better and is for all intents and purposes preferable.
This is also something the creationists and religious don't seem to understand.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 10, 2008 7:38 PM
where did you go Randy? Coward! you think that all of this is wrong, tell us. don't just sit back and throw stones
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2008 7:45 PM
One hundred billion. Please. Did you pay any attention in Evil Medical School?
Sure you can. Just not in a closed system. Harhar.
BTW, it's "Kelvin", not "degree Kelvin".
Since when is there a 4th Law of Thermodynamics? I only know about the 0th...
Posted by: frog | November 10, 2008 7:50 PM
AM: But the issue here was that a physical theory made a prediction about something in biology. Are you suggesting that if that prediction turns out to be wrong, it is still right, simply because it is physics?
Nope --- I'm just saying which way I'd bet until it was absolutely, iron-clad conclusive. Iff physics made a prediction that contradicticted a biological observation, I would bet that something was incorrectly interpreted in the biological observation. Just as the fools who say that the "observed" increase in biological order entails a a decrease in entropy --- and we can see that it's a misinterpretation of the biology and the physics.
I'd like to see you try to deduce from first principles that no energy is ever created or destroyed. I also can't quite picture what a proof from first principles of entropy would look like.
These things are all derived from observation.
Bzzzz --- wrong!
Which observations show you that no energy is created or destroyed? "All" observations? Which experiment could falsify conservation of energy, in practice? No conservation of energy implies no conservation of momentum, it means a completely different understanding of force -- it wrecks everything about physics. Without conservation of mass-energy, you can't interpret your experiments in the first place --- it would be a reboot in physics.
It would take a hell of a lot more than a few observations to do that!
It just ain't that simple -- it's not a unidirectional flow from observation to theory. We're more than willing to eliminate marginal observation that messes up a really satisfying and powerful theory. It's a balancing act between observation and theory, in practice.
In particular, entropy is easily derived from counting the ways you can arrange things, defining your set of equivalent arrangements and then figuring out what the probability of the different sets of arrangements are. Iff the world is the kind of place that is consistent, energy meaningful, and counting appropriate, the increase in entropy is necessary.
Pick up Feynmann's book on statistical mechanics. He does not start with experimental results -- he starts with a first principles derivation of entropy. Of course, observations led us to derive entropy --- but the experimental results are not sufficiently constraining to define entropy --- the logical mapping from randomly moving particles to homogeneous bulks was just (if not more) important, which we then went forward with to explain and find further experiments.
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 10, 2008 7:52 PM
frog:
No, but they were used to disprove what I would say was an equally fundamental component of physics at the time--the constancy of the elements. (Rutherford actually spun the discovery of radioactivity to Kelvin that way--he credited Kelvin's calculation for proving, through its absurdity, that there must be an unknown source of energy in nature!)
True, but there's a difference between performing the steps of the calculation incorrectly, and basing the calculation off incorrect theoretical assumptions. Kelvin's math was right--his theory was wrong, in a big way.
If it turned out that animals were actually dumping entropy into another dimension or something, I think that would count as more than just a calculational error; it would signal a fundamental change in our understanding of thermodynamics.
Thing is, that's exactly what Kelvin thought he did. He observed that the sun's heat must be gravitational in origin because "no other natural explanation, except by chemical action, can be conceived."
He was wrong, of course, but that's because you can't actually eliminate unknown energy sources--or unknown entropy sinks, for that matter. That follows from their being unknown! All you can do is eliminate the known ones that are implied by your current understanding of physics.
But, as you say, our current theories of physics are entirely consistent with our current theories of biology. Except for bumblebee flight, which is clearly a matter of divine fiat.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2008 7:53 PM
Isolated system, Randy. A system where neither matter nor energy can enter or leave. Living beings are not isolated systems. That's why growth is possible, why life (DNA repair and stuff) is at all possible, and why evolution is possible.
Posted by: frog | November 10, 2008 7:55 PM
MPhil: we can show that science is the best we have - and that it simply works! It works wonderfully, in fact.
Agreed. The keyword is show. At some point the whole thing just holds together --- and you just point at the multicolored jacket. We have TV's, nuclear power, cars, computers, extra-solar satellites --- either accept science or go live in a cave: no other alternative is acceptable.
I'm aiming at the folks who claim an elementary school type of science where you hypothesize, experiment, then repeat! That's not science -- that's a science project!
Posted by: Howard A. Landman | November 10, 2008 7:59 PM
I once heard an estimate that the average human being has 4 or 5 mutations that their parents don't. Assuming these are SNPs and are randomly distributed over about 3 billion base pairs, we get that the number of possible mutation-sets is around 9 billion to the 4th or 5th power, or roughly 10 to the 40th or 50th. Let's assume 1045. Since 103 is roughly 210, that's 2150, so mutation is generating about 150 bits of uncertainty (informational entropy) in the gene pool for each person born.
Natural selection reduces this uncertainty by eliminating individuals and genes (mutations) from the population. In a species with stable population and stable genome size, these two tendencies cancel each other on average. The total information content of the species gene pool stays about the same over time, though the specific information will change.
It can go up if the genome gets bigger (gene duplication, chromosome duplication, full-genome duplication, or lateral gene transfer from another species), if the population gets bigger, or (a little) if the environment temporarily favors more diversity.
This is probably one reason why full-genome duplication has been so widespread (the vertebrate line has gone through at least 2 rounds of FGD and has a quadrupled genome; some fishes at least 3 and octupled). It's the easiest way to get a lot of "blank paper".
Posted by: frog | November 10, 2008 8:01 PM
AM: If it turned out that animals were actually dumping entropy into another dimension or something, I think that would count as more than just a calculational error; it would signal a fundamental change in our understanding of thermodynamics.
I think we're agreed. It would require a fundamental change in our understanding of thermodynamics -- which is exactly why it's the last possible choice we'll make, after we've exhausted ever other possible mistake we could be making.
Like writing code -- first, you assume a local bug. Then a global bug. Then, that you need more sleep. Next, a library bug. Then finally, an operating system bug. At which point you give up, get drunk and come back again.
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 10, 2008 8:05 PM
Not entirely. The uncertainty principles do falsify classical conservation of energy and momentum, and it's still up in the air (as I understand it) whether these quantities are conserved on a universal scale. But none of these exceptions are sufficiently in-your-face to make the classical conservation laws unusable for most experiments and situations we encounter.
Likewise, if the 2nd law were found not to hold in the case of evolution, the violation would necessarily be extremely subtle--we already know the 2nd law works just fine for predicting all sorts of behavior in all sorts of systems. So I don't think you can conclude that "either the 2nd law is correct, or physics breaks."
Posted by: Anders | November 10, 2008 8:18 PM
frog,
We're more than willing to eliminate marginal observation that messes up a really satisfying and powerful theory.
You're an engineer, aren't you.
When I talk about "an observation" now, I obviously don't mean just one single instance. I did say "repeatable". I also assume that it has already gone through the usual stages of peer review and reproduction by independent parties.
If at that stage, theory conflicts with observation, then the theory must be modified. There is no other option, if you want to continue calling yourself scientific.
The size of the error in the theory isn't really relevant. Even a small error, if it can be shown to not be due to methodological problems, must be taken into account when designing a theory.
And no, discovering that energy could be destroyed would not require a reboot of physics, because all previously made observations would still be true. All that would happen is that a new theory is built up, which incorporates the newly discovered phenomenon, along with everything else previously discovered - just as Relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics on scales where the relativistic error is small enough.
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | November 10, 2008 8:30 PM
"First Law. Heat can be converted to work.
Second Law. But completely only at Zero Deg. K.
Third Law. You can't get to Zero Deg. K.
Sure you can. Just not in a closed system. Harhar.
BTW, it's "Kelvin", not "degree Kelvin"."
I don't think so bub. You can get close to -273.15Deg.C with
cryocoolers, but as far as I know 700nK is about the coldest
temp. produced. So how do you get to zero k in an open system?
True, people say 0.0 Kelvin, but the scale is based on the Celsius scale, so to me it sounds like saying " the temperature is 79F." Six of one and half dozen of the other
Posted by: Michael | November 10, 2008 8:34 PM
Best post for a few weeks -- I'm so glad someone covered entropy from this perspective
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 10, 2008 8:54 PM
Ahem.
ΔxΔp ≥ ℏ/2
So far, the above has met observation, as far as I know.
Or were you being facetious?
Posted by: noncarborundum | November 10, 2008 9:15 PM
DaveScot over at UhDuh, for one, says right out that he violates 2LoT every time he sits down to type at his keyboard. At first blush you might think that, if we can violate 2LoT any time we wish, that must mean it's no big deal if evolution does too -- but no. Apparently it's his spiritual component that does the violating; his physical body couldn't do this by itself. Thus the only way for the development of life through violation of 2LoT can occur is if it's similarly driven by a spiritual force.
Posted by: Vincent | November 10, 2008 9:53 PM
I do not get why such a complicated case as to be made.
Here how I would rebuck it :
the second law of thermodynamics states that entopy of CLOSED systems increases.
Atoms/Molecules/DNA/Cells/Organism are NOT CLOSED.
end of it.
A drawing about that :
http://bp1.blogger.com/_8DsgTX-uczM/SFHn5JNanKI/AAAAAAAAA78/AXPpVfo92_8/s1600-h/youtube.jpg
:-)
Posted by: noncarborundum | November 10, 2008 9:55 PM
Just to be clear, about 40% of U.S. scientists believe in a personal God, and the rest express "doubt or disbelief", according to 1996 survey. I haven't found the breakdown, but one might suspect that the doubters outnumber the outright disbelievers, as they do in the society at large, in which case it's true that the majority don't find that denial is necessary. On the other hand, if you focus in on the subset of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences (whom the survey team calls "'greater' scientists"), things change quite a bit. Nearly 3/4 of them express personal disbelief and only 20% are agnostic - leaving only 7% believers.
Posted by: abb3w | November 10, 2008 10:01 PM
Since it bears repeating: see "Natural selection for least action", by Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178). To boil that down: when the second law of thermodynamics expressed for connected subsystems with mass-energy flow between, natural selection is a mathematical consequence.
The Steyer paper is doi:10.1119/1.2973046 if any one cares (or for that matter, even if they don't).
Posted by: abb3w | November 10, 2008 10:05 PM
Vincent: it's more effective to be able to note that not only does their "entropy increases" Second Law require closed systems, but to be able to note that for open systems connected by mass-energy flows, evolution is a direct result of that Second Law.
Posted by: Kel | November 10, 2008 10:25 PM
For personal God it's not a huge amount, but if you take God as any concept from personal to pantheist I thought the number was around 60%.Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 10, 2008 10:55 PM
PurpleTurtle (#113):
You're trying to reason with some frightfully ill-defined terms, which is rather a recipe for trouble! "Singularity", for example, is meaningless in this context. It is true that, generally speaking, making a system more "complex" means that more information is necessary to describe it. This is the sense that the string of characters "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" is simpler than, say, "QOP4E3YP8709UPWYTENVAPIWYT5OH". For a string of the former type, all you have to say is, "Type so-and-so many As in a row", while the latter string probably doesn't have a description much shorter than itself.
"Entropy" has a precise, technical meaning, and scientists have technical definitions for "complexity". It's when you try to map these ideas onto woolly words like "order" and "disorder", which have all sorts of emotional baggage of their own, that difficulties are likely to arise.
Anything by Larry Gonick, anything by Carl Zimmer. For what you might find to be a useful perspective on entropy and how it relates to "order", try Richard Feynman's The Character of Physical Law. A few parts are out of date, mostly in the last chapter; Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter is a good way to start catching up. (The only things I'd add to the latter book are that yes, we did find the top quark, and the work of Ken Wilson and company has somewhat drawn the fangs of the "renormalization" problem.)
Posted by: Michael | November 10, 2008 10:56 PM
I love when creationists claim to care so much about the Laws of Thermodynamics while in the process of arguing for the ultimate perpetual motion machine.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | November 10, 2008 11:18 PM
QDA,
Well that depends on which god you happen to consider the 'real' god. In the case of the creationist's god, who supposedly created humans from whole cloth, sorry, dust, had his creations mess up on him which of course forced him, an omnipotent, omniscient but apparently childishly temperamental superdude, to punish them while kindly including a future out from eternal damnation for some of their descendants, the answer is a resounding yes. Without the salvation that comes from the death of god's alter ego and sacrificial lamb* Jesus, modern Christians have no link to god, so evolution, which shows Adam and Eve and their subsequent offspring could not have existed, pretty much removes the reason for their faith.
To a Biblical literalist, common descent and an old Earth both mean god didn't do what he said he did.
However if the 'real' god is just your average 'hide in the gaps' kind of guy, evolution really can't even suggest he doesn't exist because even as the gaps become fewer and fewer, eventually he will retreat to an area where evoluton just doesn't apply ... unless you conflate evolution with atheism and atheism with abiogenesis, star evolution and the BB.
Unless we eventually understand everything perfectly there is always a place for a nameless intelligent designer.
How's that for a non-answer?
*If you or I needed to sacrifice ourselves to ...** ourselves... even though we are immortal and not sacrificable, before we could forgive our creations for being naughty children as we knew they would be, we would be quite correctly considered nuts.
**substitute dramatic pause for '...'.
Posted by: jufulu, FDC | November 10, 2008 11:18 PM
Life is a meta-stable state.
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | November 10, 2008 11:40 PM
"Daniel Styer has published an eminently useful article on "Entropy and Evolution"
Anybody got a copy they want to share?
Posted by: John Morales | November 10, 2008 11:44 PM
Gary @179, nice explanation.
BTW, re "modern Christians", that would be those belonging to one of the 39,000 Christian denominations. It can be fun to lurk on Christian boards and watch the venomous internecine feuding between those who profess love and forgiveness.
Posted by: John Morales | November 11, 2008 12:02 AM
EA @181, that was funny.
Posted by: John A Anderson | November 11, 2008 1:42 AM
I always answer the entropy argument by pointing to my house. After all, it started with a disorganized pile of lumber, nails and bricks. Now look at it. It's a filthy, crappy heap worth half what I paid ... Oh, yeah. Maybe they're right.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 2:09 AM
Well it seems that Randy Stimpson has STILL managed not to show himself and argue for his presumed rightness. I guess he wants to remain delusional. Besdies, The 2nd Law isn't a law of energy so much as statistics. I've read Brian Greene's books The Elegent Universe and Thbe Fabric of Spacetime, and mostly it is just that things are easier to break than unbreak, snd that is the statictical aspect that makes it a law, the part that says it won't suddenly decrease for no reason.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 11, 2008 4:04 AM
abb3w,
?? Please explain ??
Posted by: AJS | November 11, 2008 4:47 AM
The bit the Creationists missed is simple.
It's not absolutely impossible to create a local decrease in entropy -- it just requires Work to be done.
The fact that an air conditioner works at all, shows that a localised decrease in entropy is possible. The electricity meter counting down faster while the aircon is on, shows that Work is being done while this happens.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | November 11, 2008 5:04 AM
Well, as soon as I hear someone calling entropy "disorder" I know the coming argument will be only mildly informative at the very, very best. I never thought that making a usable estimate of the change in entropy caused by evolving life was currently possible, however. This is very cool.
Posted by: Mark | November 11, 2008 7:38 AM
When people tell me they don't believe in evolution because of the second law, I ask them if they believe in refrigerators.
Posted by: Stefan | November 11, 2008 7:40 AM
> I knew we kept physicists around for something; they are so useful for filling in the tricky details.
Thank you. I've always had the suspicion that my job might be a useful one.
Posted by: jim | November 11, 2008 9:10 AM
@Loren Petrich (#43): You're overestimating the Bard, I'm afraid. A byte from a file of ASCII text doesn't have 8 bits of entropy; if it did, you wouldn't be able to compress text, when in fact it compresses very well. The actual entropy is about 1 bit per character (Shannon estimated it as between 0.6 and 1.3), so you're probably out by a factor of 8.
Re the Three Snarks of Thermodynamics: The usual followup is to note that all the major belief systems of the world are based on denying one of the laws. Capitalism is the belief that you can win; communism is the belief that you can break even; religion is the belief that you can quit the game.
Posted by: St | November 11, 2008 9:13 AM
Don't ask about refrigerators, ask them if they believe that water can freeze in winter. Ice has lower entropy than liquid water...
Posted by: samson | November 11, 2008 9:19 AM
Hey guys.I have a creationist friend who says the argument goes like this.Thermodynamics doesn't stop order.It stops complex biological systems from forming.Prigogine showed that simple things like crystals can form,but creationists know that energy is not enough to violate thermodynamics.It requires a machine that can do work.That machine must already be complex or already contain the information for complex machinery.Since something like an embryo or seed already contains the information and complexity to do work,it is able to evercome the second law."biological machines" are not simply in order, rather they are complex. One cannot separate one part from other otherwise there would be no function. Crystallization of ice is much different from complexity of a cell.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 11, 2008 10:00 AM
Meaningless. Obviously FALSE. Meaningless. What does "it" refer to ? No, it doesn't have to overcome the 2nd law, as it simply doesn't apply to an obviously open thermodynamic system such as an embryo or a seed.Tell your creationist friend that ridiculous mumbo-jumbo is not considered a valid scientific argument.
Posted by: Cancuk | November 11, 2008 10:38 AM
In 1984 I attended a lecture given by Prigogine called "the meaning of the second law" which was given at the ETH, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, Zürich, the school Einstein went to. I doubt that the creationists even understand, in any real sense, exactly what the second law means.
A number of things come together here to make it more than likely that life could arise and evolve. Prigogine's demonstration of order arising out of chaos, the notion that a flux of matter and energy are readily available in the biosphere and that there is no violation of the second law in this system, and the ideas that have arisen from Wolfram's research on the game of life - that a tiny number of very simple rules of behaviour, applied repetitively, iteratively, can produce structures of astonishing complexity.
I don't think these guys have a clue about the case FOR evolution. They have a predetermined pitch they want to make, and they say any stupid shit to support it.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 11, 2008 11:19 AM
"eric williams"+panspermia = Charlie Wagner, crackpot
Posted by: Daniel Cring | November 11, 2008 11:19 AM
As a biological anthropologist, I'm interested in explaining why creationists exist, and why they appear to be growing in activity, if not in numbers. Creationism is but one symptom of religious revitalisation movements in many of the world's religions- not just the biblical big three: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Posted by: Jason A. | November 11, 2008 1:48 PM
"Prigogine showed that simple things like crystals can form,but creationists know that energy is not enough to violate thermodynamics."
Is this like the thermodynamics equivalent to the 'microevolution not macroevolution' thing? You friend says that, okay, a little order can arise, just not too much.
Where's the cutoff between 'simple' order like crystals and 'complex' order like life forms? What causes it? As it is, all he has is a special pleading fallacy
Posted by: Jason A. | November 11, 2008 1:49 PM
Oh, and:
"creationists know that energy is not enough to violate thermodynamics"
What exactly do creationists think thermodynamics is about, if not energy?
Posted by: Anita | November 11, 2008 2:52 PM
I truthfully don't think you people (evolutionists) are thinking logically here at all.
For one thing, what happens to a pen when you throw it up into the air? Yes it has all this great trusted energy as its going up, but than it eventually comes crashing down.
The calculations for disorder done in the opening paragraphs of this forum suggest that the sun allows for more order. However I think that this is just an temporary illusion. In the long run (just like the pen) things become completely disordered and do not have any more energy to appear ordered. Such as water running upstream, or ice melting and crystallizing, metabolism, digestion, condensation, or a seed and an embryo.
These things are just temporary illusions. Thus in the overall scheme of things, they are becoming disorder.
Life (such as a seed or embryo) has only the exact amount of thrusting energy it needs to allow it to grow and serve its purpose. This "information" was ALREADY previously assigned to it in the blueprint of its DNA (assigned by the creator). There is no mechanism that shows us that DNA can evolve... meaning it has no available assigned energy left other than to procreate and pass on its genetic material. A living thing only has enough time and energy to be born, live and die.
Conclusion... Entropy is eventually closing in on all of us. The Universe tells us this! It is steadily loosing gas. This means less stars are being born and eventually the lights will all go out.
Additionally, the Human geno can only replicate offspring so many times before things go haywire. That is why we should not have kids with our brothers or sisters.
All these little technicalities concerning entropy or the labeled 2nd law of thermodynamics are just inconsistencies that serve for nothing. It serves no purpose in arguing about these technicalities especially when one opens their eyes and truly LOOKS - our resources are diminishing.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 11, 2008 3:02 PM
Aaaaaaaand fail. You sure tried to sound like you had a point, then you brought the ultimate get out of science free card.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 11, 2008 3:07 PM
Anita, may I respectfully ask you to consider the concept that you don't have anyh idea what you're talking about?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 3:10 PM
I wonder about creobots. They claim that the second law doesn't seem to apply to evolution, but where do they present their information? Why do they post it here, instead of writing up a nice paper following the rules of science and submitting it to an appropriate peer reviewed journal for publication? Maybe because they know their arguments are just sophistry, not scientific, and will not pass peer review. Very telling about the strength of their arguments at the end of the day.
Posted by: SC | November 11, 2008 3:13 PM
Personally, I prefer Pete Rooke's "arch-Darwinists."
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 11, 2008 3:16 PM
Dharn htypos
Posted by: Steve_C | November 11, 2008 3:21 PM
Wow. I thought she was gonna go all woo-new-age on us...
She's completely lost.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 11, 2008 3:49 PM
I'm working on the assumption that Anita@201 is yet another "humourous" Poe. Personally, I don't find the "pretending to be a pig-ignorant spankweasel" genre particularly amusing.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 11, 2008 4:00 PM
Well that is true. No one is saying otherwise. Any decrease in entropy will be local both in space and time. As Keynes had it in the long run we are all dead. And in long run all or societies will collapse and any thought we had including any concept of a god will be forgotten. All species, including our own, will one day be extinct. Each planet that has supported life will eventually stop doing so. At some point the universe will be too disordered to support anything as complicated as life.We aren't IN the long term. Not by physics' standards. all of life on Earth is the short term. We are simply a somewhat interesting temporary blip in a vast universe. Learn to love the impermanence.
Posted by: samson | November 11, 2008 4:09 PM
Anita basically said much of the same things my friend said.Only,at least she sounded like a 5th rather than second grader.That must be on one of the creationist websights they go to.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 11, 2008 4:17 PM
No, this isn't required. The apparent problem of information increase from one generation to the next in general constructive automata (self-replicating machines) was a conundrum until the 1949, when it was resolved by John von Neumann. IIRC, the parent machine passing along a complete blueprint of itself (which, of course, all living things do via DNA inter alia), only places a lower bound on the information in the child machine. McMullin gives a pretty good historical summary of work on variations of this problem. Of course, it is also empirically observed in biology, so this creationist canard holds no water whatsoever.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 11, 2008 4:19 PM
If anyone wants a spare definite article, there's one in my #211
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 4:19 PM
MY GOD!! (or rather, MY VOID!!) i can't believ i never posted this link :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
any and all complaints should address these specific possibilities and how they are wrong and violate the 2nd LoT
Posted by: ConcenedJoe | November 11, 2008 4:32 PM
Man ask dem creabots to chew on this a bit...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-nature-breaks-the-second-law
Damn scientists always making things weeell... complex and controversial! Gosh god is much easier to understand!
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 11, 2008 4:39 PM
Recipie for an anitalicious post
You will need :
-a few scientific terms : eg entropy, energy, disorder, information, ...
-a few undisclosed definitions of said terms, of your own imagination
-a random generator
-text to fill, to your own liking
First, with the help of the random generator, start by assigning the definitions to the terms and repeat until you have a sufficient quantity of freshly processed terms.
It is important in this process that you make absolutely sure that you, nor anybody, understands what these terms could possibly mean.
Sprinkle the freshly processed terms in the available text.
There you have it, a wonderful anitalicious post, ready to provide endless wonder and bemusement for all.
Posted by: SC | November 11, 2008 4:41 PM
Emmet - you're best! I'll put it aside for future. Thanks!
Posted by: Kel | November 11, 2008 4:42 PM
What I don't get about the SLoT creationists is how they think babies are made. We see descent with modification every time there is a birth. Why does that not violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics yet the same process over a long period does?
Posted by: PurpleTurtle | November 11, 2008 4:51 PM
@Blake Stacey (#177)
Thankyou, and noted :)
Posted by: samson | November 11, 2008 5:15 PM
Posted by: Kel | November 11, 2008 4:42 PM
What I don't get about the SLoT creationists is how they think babies are made. We see descent with modification every time there is a birth. Why does that not violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics yet the same process over a long period does?
Hey kel.The response i got was that living things already contain the information to do all of those things.(of course implying here that a god created and programmed this to happen)And of course that followed by the old most mutations are bad argument.
Posted by: Fatboy | November 11, 2008 5:36 PM
Matt Heath already beat me to my main response to Anita. I did notice one more thing, though.
Some of us manage to find enough time and energy to comment on blogs, too.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 5:40 PM
i always thought there was a sort of caveat for the second law, and that was that overall, "disorder" would have to increase slower the futher in time we were to go from a specific event, due to the fact that disorder of a pile of papers on a desk isn't going to be altered if this stack were to topple over and spread out. it is simplistic, but the idea is that entropy makes big differences the futher back in time we go (which is precisely how the 'arrow of time' came to be defined). I am only making a guess as to this property, but i have been compelled by it nonetheless.
A separate issue, how is talkorigins.org NOT credible? i ran into someone else on another blog who thinks this and i am at a loss as to why that would be the case.any help guys, i would appreciate it.
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 11, 2008 6:02 PM
Barring air resistance, Anita, a pen comes back down with the same energy it had going up. That's what makes the crash, in fact.
Posted by: Kel | November 11, 2008 6:08 PM
Yeah, that's pretty much been my experience too. I've even tried explaining it in very simple terms (I started with "when mummy and daddy love each other") and got ignored for being condescending. Which is fair enough, for someone who kept saying evolution couldn't happen because of thermodynamics they demonstrated the intellect of a 5 year old.And that's one thing that really grinds my gears. It seems all creationists love to use the phrase "I'm a fan of science", and make it out like they aren't being hostile to science - yet they are just ignoring it. It's just the same as the "I'm not a racist, but" comment where people are admonishing their own guilt by trying to make it seem like they are onside. Nothing but mental manipulation, it might work on others but it won't work on anyone who actually knows anything about science.
Posted by: bombay mix | November 11, 2008 6:19 PM
Why can't evolutionists and creationists accept the fact that you are probably all wrong?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 11, 2008 6:23 PM
... and fornicate. Don't forget fornication.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 6:26 PM
Bombay, there is overwhelming evidence showing that evolution has occurred. There is no evidence to support creationism. So we are right, they are wrong. When the creationists finally admit they are wrong, we will get along.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 6:48 PM
um, so no one has an opinion on what i said huh? *sigh* you can argue with idiots anytime, but i'm here to learn something guys.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 11, 2008 6:59 PM
Because reality has a known liberal bias?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 11, 2008 7:02 PM
Word salad, Charlie. Pure word salad.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 7:04 PM
EW, can you reference a peer-reviewed journal article for your claim? Or are you just hot air?
Posted by: IST | November 11, 2008 7:16 PM
EW> Organisation you say? So, the overall decrease in the complexity of matter over time as a result of the expansion of the universe, supernovae, etc isn't a decrease in organisation? The concept of heat death seems to me to be a massive increase in entropy, local increases aside.
Logical entropy? or local, did you mean? Increases in LOCAL entropy can be readily observed... Hint: ever heard of a nebula?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 11, 2008 7:19 PM
Shorter Eric Williams:
How many yellow dreams smell like buffalo?
Hah! Take that, evilutionists!
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 7:42 PM
what do you mean owlmirror "liberal bias" they would still be scientifically correst right?
EW: ARE you for real?! what the hell is logical entropy? What about snow, you dumbass, it happens all the time; millions of trillions of water molecules organise themselves in very ordered faxhion and guess what? Clouds have no brains!
Posted by: Zarquon | November 11, 2008 7:43 PM
Protons organise themselves into more complex helium nuclei without intelligent input.
4p -> α + 2e+ + 2ν
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 7:43 PM
EA, failure to cite a scientific journal to back up your claims means you are nothing but hot air.
Nothing to see here. Go about your business.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 11, 2008 7:47 PM
You did, as an embryo. Crystals and snowflakes do. Ants.Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 7:55 PM
he won't accept embryo, cus there's DNA in there. Ants also have instict and rudimentary intelligence. Zarquon, what about all the other elements up until iron which are produced in fussion as well? what about the forming of a galactic disk from gravity? what about the structure of the entire universe for christs sake, which was produced by the hyperinflation of spacetime in the early universe (which by the way, dramatically lowered entropy. that's more than one example. you fail
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 7:58 PM
people who say intelligence have one big problem to overcome: we are all entirely composed of unintelligent matter, so what you say is baseless in the first place. The "life from life" argument was refuted the very first time they synthesised urea
Posted by: Kel | November 11, 2008 7:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yldmXWu745wPosted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 8:01 PM
EA, if you such a hotshot argument, you should quit bothering us with it, and write it up properly and send it to an appropriate scientific journal. If it disproves evolution, I would recommend Science or Nature to ensure your Nobel prize.
But then, if you are full of hot air......
Posted by: Kel | November 11, 2008 8:03 PM
Ahh, irreducible complexity. That problem was solved almost a century before we had even heard of Behe.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 11, 2008 8:04 PM
eric williams @240
Fuck off with the copy'n'paste from Charlie Wagner's website, you pathetic troll.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 8:08 PM
Well, well, EA (CQ) ain't long for this blog.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 8:08 PM
ok i get your drift, you're saying irreducable complexity:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 11, 2008 8:10 PM
Of course. That's the whole point. talkorigins cites reality-based science. Creationists perceive that very citation of reality based science as "bias".
BTW, "Reality has a known liberal bias" is a joke originally made by Stephen Colbert. Except it isn't actually a joke; anti-evolutionists are opposed to reality.
PS: "eric williams" is a sockpuppet for Charlie Wagner, as I pointed out above.
When you see the same arguments being made in the same style over time, you just automatically recognize them.
Have you read a book on developmental biology or cellular biology or evolutionary biology yet, Charlie? I bet you haven't.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 8:11 PM
CW, not CQ. DOH *headdesk*
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 8:15 PM
yeah, that is what i thought it would be like owlmirror. thanks.
DAMN YOU KEL!!! not only did you refute him first, but your article is better than mine. Damn you! i just loved how you all pounded him at nearly the same millisecond. hilarious
Posted by: abb3w | November 11, 2008 8:15 PM
negentropyeater: ?? Please explain ??
Again, see the paper on it: "Natural selection for least action", by Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178). When the second law of thermodynamics is expressed for connected subsystems with mass-energy flow between, natural selection is a mathematical consequence.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 11, 2008 8:16 PM
Oh FFS. So, it's a drooling imbecile sockpuppet rather than a sniveling sycophant plagiarising a drooling imbecile.
Is that better or worse?
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 8:23 PM
#252
now i know why they say athiests are angry and hateful. Geez
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 11, 2008 8:28 PM
What features of the mousetrap itself tell you that its function is to catch mice, rather than to catch voles, or to catch the fingers of people reaching into dark places, or to be a one-shot percussion instrument?
If that's the important point, you will no doubt provide evidence that such adaptation requires insight, rather than just asserting that it does over and over again.
Have you tried?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 8:30 PM
Rickroll, CW has been banned:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php
He shouldn't be posting here.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 8:30 PM
the base of a mousetrap is unnecessary. You could use the floor as a base. Therefore the mouseztrap isn't irreducibly complex
Posted by: Monado | November 11, 2008 8:31 PM
#48: what charley: said: if entropy precludes evolution, it precludes snowflakes!
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 8:34 PM
still, my point stands, nerd. a simple "aloha" is good enough. he doesn't deserve our replies, mush less our anger
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 8:37 PM
Rickroll, when a person is stupid enough to sockpuppet, which is using a second moniker to either create controversy or evade the ban, that is another crime committed, so we can lambaste them. We aren't polite to those who don't obey PZ's rules.
Posted by: Monado | November 11, 2008 8:38 PM
#13, I believe that PZ blogged about this in "Creationists almost discover the sun."
The sun doesn't count!? Who makes the damned rules?
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 8:39 PM
still, my point stands, nerd. a simple "aloha" is good enough. he doesn't deserve our replies, mush less our anger
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 8:44 PM
i didn't mean to post it twice lol. actually, i use a differnt moniker sometimes (not on this site), but only for a specific subject that makes it seem like "the enemy" isn't telling them to do it:
http://johnshoreland.com/2007/09/16/what-the-atheists-taught-me/
see, nothing evil there lol
Posted by: Kel | November 11, 2008 8:44 PM
Have you read Orr's review of Darwin's Black Box?Posted by: Kel | November 11, 2008 8:46 PM
Jerry Coyne's review is well worth the read too.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 8:48 PM
nope. I don't read psuedo science (unless Hofstadter is psuedo scitntific. *gasp* i hope not)
Posted by: Kel | November 11, 2008 8:54 PM
It's well worth the read
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 11, 2008 9:13 PM
abb3w,
thx, restating the evolutionary principle by natural selection in terms of statistical Physics and chemical thermodynamics, but that's simply ... great stuff !
(Sorry hadn't noticed that you had already provided the link in your previous comment)
Posted by: IST | November 11, 2008 9:26 PM
EW/Creationist Troll> I responded to your question reasonably, as did others... care to reply? Or is that beyond you today? Of course, you can simply rehash Behe's refuted arguments again if you prefer...
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 11:22 PM
i think he was axed i don't even see his comment anymore IST. oh well, no big deal i guess.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 11:27 PM
Rickroll, IST, it looks like PZ went through and deleted all the banned persons posts. He won't be back under that moniker.
Posted by: Kel | November 11, 2008 11:37 PM
But he'll be back under another. The guy just can't take a hint, even when that tap on the shoulder is done by a sledgehammer. If he can't learn how evolution works, how's he going to learn his inane ramblings are unwelcome here?Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 11:50 PM
yep indeed. so what do you think about my statement of slowing of entropy, Nerd?
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 11, 2008 11:54 PM
nerd has left the builing. i still want someone to comment on what i said, i want to know if i'm way out in left feild on that one. how about Kel?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 11, 2008 11:56 PM
And not just evolution. He doesn't want to learn anything about how science in general works, either.
I pointed out that his steady-state universe was contradicted by the big-bang model of the universe, and his "eternal regress of life" was therefore contradicted by basic cosmology and astrophysics. Did he pay attention to this? He did not.
He's a silly old crackpot.
And he'll probably be back.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 12, 2008 12:06 AM
but while he's gone we don't need to talk about him. all this bad mouthing is counter-productive. he's wasted enough of our time while he WAS here, quit helping him steal our sanity
Posted by: Kenneth Barr | November 12, 2008 2:20 AM
We dont even need to do entropy calculations (which i think were grossly underestimated). Biochemistry gives us the answer. All lifeforms get their complex macromolecules by some set of reactions that increase entropy. We do it largely through the breakdown of glucose into water and carbon dioxide. Not only that, but every step in our metabolic pathways gives an overall increase in entropy!!!!
So evolution has drastically increased entropy, as it has lead to this entropy-increasing metabolism we have.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 12, 2008 2:52 AM
indeed Ken-bar, protazoans use alot less energy and disperse less of it than say a tree. and the same tree uses monumentally less energy than a shrew, which is an incredibally entropic critter. But i think that intelligence (while itself the faculty of which is very energy intessive- the brain uses some thing like 80% of our energy) actually seeks to lessen the effect of entropy on the world (all of our inventions utilise this property). i think that really, though energy increases, this also allows more flexability with it as well
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 12, 2008 3:15 AM
i think really, though that as ENTropy increases, this also allows more flexability as well
Posted by: jo5ef | November 12, 2008 3:18 AM
OK this is a great discussion on a subject I find endlessly fascinating so while we've got you all here:
If seems all agree that living organisms can be seen as a special type of ordered system that can arise from a disordered environment under certain conditions given sufficient energy input. However it seems no one has any idea why this should be (Note I am talking about the origin of life here, I have no problem with evolution by NS). Obviously the religious folks will seize upon this and say Aha! You cant explain it therefore god is the causative agent, however what I'd like to see is someone come up with some scientific principal that will predict how and why this should occur. I think that if the puzzle of the origin of life is framed in this way, we might have some hope of arriving at a satisfying explanation. It appears to me that it may to come down to the complex relationship between information and thermodynamics which my feeble brain has been mulling over for 10 years and, with the kind of brainpower I see here on these subjects I think we have a chance to crack this.
It appears to me that there are two possibilities: there are such principles but we don't yet know what they are (the Laws of infodynamics?) or: we don't need any new laws or principals to explain the origin of life (in which case why has no one come up with a convincing explanation?). I'm inclined to the first but am open to other points of view, any takers? (I know im going to get shredded here, but it'll be worth it).
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 12, 2008 3:29 AM
It's always been obvious that creationist/ID/anti-evolutionists who use the complexity-vs-entropy argument to dismiss evolution (or ANY process) as capable of producing local pockets of complexity within a larger system, have no intention of arguing WITHIN any understanding of the science, but IN SPITE of it: their entire "argument", of course, consists of wanting to sound and look scientific.
They use the word "entropy" or raise the concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a means of striking a blow against evolution (the target idea which they do not resist on any scientific grounds in the first place, but literally "hate" purely on ideological grounds). Their ground of argumentation is must obviously be mired entirely in rhetoric...or "the sell".
Always glad to see ANOTHER nice treatment that puts the nonsense away, but this one better helps to specifically target their claims.
Alas, they won't understand it, but they don't have to in order to sound sufficiently knowledgable to those who listen to them as they pretend to refute it. They KNOW that the folks they're talking to who throw money at them know as little as they do, and will continue to listen attentively. The moolah is a powerful inducement. Cultivating it as a sustainable resource is desirable. The product of the harvest are most desirable. Such are the beneficial fruits of Good Housekeeping Salesmanship.
Sean Carrol #12: you're right. Those aren't strictly the same. (The reduction in the # of microstates with generations isn't strictly the same as the degrees of freedom rearranged). It IS "possible to fix that part up just a bit" - and there are some other things that might stand it to. Cleans it up; "same conclusion, obviously". Looking forward to seeing how you do it.
The mathematics are definitely indispensible, but only to those who can grasp it; yet there are LOTS of ways to demonstrate or express all of this and they don't have to be hidden within a language that's opaque to non-mathematicians. It is not only possible but OKAY to translate the concepts in "plain language" for the consumption of the general public...WITHOUT dumbing it down, PLEASE! That's the most injurious cop-out (or outright incompetence) of institutional "outreach" programs. The VERY WORST of the trend comes about by these institutions salivating over the success of popular modes of stroking the public, as in intensively striving to emulate Hollywood. Every time I see an example of that, I succumb to a twinge of despair.
It's a duty of every scientist to help out in educating a public that is not only uninformed but alarmingly proud of it. It will NOT be accomplished by feeding the public "science bites" with the equivalent of fast food, like all the other junk that is served to them on the chief priority of "the sell". It can only be accomplished with real and sincere communication. That's MUCH harder than pitching a sale, and it will take time. but at least it has the possibility of a positive result.
Otherwise? All we're really doing with this public outreach stuff is EXACTLY the same thing that the creationist/ID/antievolutionists are doing. And we don't realize it EITHER.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 12, 2008 3:34 AM
i'm sure then than you have looked up the wikipedia article on this very subject then huh? Well Jo3, one of the best examples i got was the thesis of Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglass Hofstadter: any sufficiently powerful system by definition has the inate property of self referance. Meaningless information therefore aquires meaning despite itself.
i think that this is an essential way to frame the problem, even though the book is now rather antiquated. Please do yourself a service and read this escellent book. it may help you out on this.
Posted by: IST | November 12, 2008 7:27 AM
He's gone? nice... a chance for an intelligent discussion...
K. Barr and Rickroll> Obn the Biochemical entropy argument: Does the synthesis of macromolecules, using energy resulting from ATP pathways, actually result in an increase in entropy? I've not bothered calculating (although my students may be doing that as a review today just so I can see the results), but it seems that this wouldn't be the case. Only the final decomposition of organisms would result in an increase in entropy. Again, not a closed system, so it doesn't matter, but I would take issue with that statement until it is demonstrated otherwise. It's also possible I misinterpreted what you meant, and that you were implying that the acquisition of macromolecules or energy from outside sources constitutes an increase in entropy (mirroring the input from the Sun), in which case I have no argument.
Posted by: Velok | November 12, 2008 8:06 AM
@Anton Mates #161:
I hope you were joking about the bumblebees and how they can't fly?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1076/is-it-aerodynamically-impossible-for-bumblebees-to-fly
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 12, 2008 8:22 AM
There's always that one drive by comment that takes the level of teh dumb to another level.
Posted by: Mike | November 12, 2008 9:53 AM
The continued use of this by creationists leads me conclude they are:
a) too lazy to read the scientific explanation
or
b) too stupid to understand the explanation
or
c) too dishonest to admit the correctness of the explanation
or
some combination of the above
Posted by: frog | November 12, 2008 9:53 AM
Anders: And no, discovering that energy could be destroyed would not require a reboot of physics, because all previously made observations would still be true. All that would happen is that a new theory is built up, which incorporates the newly discovered phenomenon, along with everything else previously discovered - just as Relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics on scales where the relativistic error is small enough.
????
Nope -- not unless it's a really marginal observation. I don't think you really get how observations are made, and how dependent they are on our analytic technique.
The "observations", without a 99.999% (as Anton so kindly points out) matchup, would be as useless as the experimental results of the phlogiston scientists. Observations do not pre-exist theory: the mapping is necessary.
Now, most of the time our theory changes so little in relation to observation that we can adapt previous observation in our new theory --- at the end of the day, relativity is not very different from Newtonian physics. But Copernican astronomy made much of the "observation" -- and not just theory -- of Aristotelian astronomy useless.
We throw out both observation and theory in a dialectic. That dialectic is the key to science and distinguishes science from the purely aesthetic realms of "knowledge" that preceded it.
In the short term -- science looks as you describe it. But in the long-term, it's a dialectic. How much pre-Darwinian "observations" do we actually use in biology? Not much -- they were looking at the wrong things.
Posted by: currious? | November 12, 2008 10:42 AM
Can someone please explain to me why if we have increased entropy such as in digestion or metabolism that in the long run we still end up eventually dying?
How could such processes create evolution? And why aren't we "positively" seeing it?
Basically, what I want to know is how evolution (Darwin's theory) can defy entropy?
There has certainly got to be some good scientists here on this forum that can satisfactorily answer this question for me.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 12, 2008 10:47 AM
It doesn't
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 12, 2008 11:01 AM
I'm not a physical chemist, but with all this talk of entropy, what is being missed is that the free energy (delta G) of the reaction is what drives whether a reaction will go or not. Entropy (delta S) is just one component of the calculation, along with the heat difference (delta H). If the heat given off (or absorbed) is sufficient, the entropy contribution, even if unfavorable, can be overwhelmed. So, if applied to an individual, as long as more heat is being absorbed (sunlight for plants say) or given off (all those that eat plants), the free energy is favorable to run evolution. Entropy is just a red herring.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 12, 2008 1:26 PM
IST @278: dude, i suck at chemistry, don't ask me. I was merely talking in general terms about metabolism and entropy.
#285: On that not Redhead, this post is officially done with. thanks for killing it Nerd
Posted by: Currious | November 12, 2008 2:15 PM
#284
Than I'm not clearly understanding something. Please tell me what the whole argument is about?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 12, 2008 2:50 PM
Perhaps this will help:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
Posted by: Kel | November 12, 2008 3:40 PM
Evolution is descent with modification.When a child is born, about half the DNA comes from the father and half from the mother. But there are also some copying errors or random mutations. If these mutations are advantageous they are more likely to be passed on to the next generation that children that don't have them. Over enough time an isolated population has enough mutations that they cannot produce fertile offspring with other populations of the same species. We call that event speciation. Once two populations cannot exchange DNA, they will continue to diverge.
Now what part of that violates the second law of thermodynamics?
Posted by: Currious | November 12, 2008 3:42 PM
Ok thanks for that #288! (even though your verbiage was still confusing to me).
But now I have other questions? Firstly, the earth can be looked at as both a open system and a closed system. I tend to view it as a closed system (Earth complete with Universe)because when I look at the Universe "at large" everything seems to be corresponding to the influence of something else (a type of equilibrium). This is likened unto our human body and the cells that work within it, (I would consider a human body to be a closed system in which nothing else can come in except for food and nutrients to sustain it). When we boil everything down, it all deduces to atoms which are composed of everything. If I am wrong in this thinking please correct me.
Secondly, I can see that there are many processes where things that are in the process of disorder can become ordered, but I see these things as only temporary things. Just like food and nutrients entering the human body where it is used only to "sustain" it for short periods of time before it needs more.
Thirdly, what I would like to know is if these small increases in entropy can really be seen as "evolution"? Or rather, can this system truly produce enough energy to change all sorts of living species into another?
I am dismal to think it can. This is because I don't think this is the "right type" of increased entropy inside of a closed system that can generate things to change.
Please correct me if I am wrong in this thinking.
Posted by: Currious | November 12, 2008 3:59 PM
Hi #289 (thank you for that).
You said: When a child is born, about half the DNA comes from the father and half from the mother. But there are also some copying errors or random mutations. If these mutations are advantageous they are more likely to be passed on to the next generation that children that don't have them. Over enough time an isolated population has enough mutations that they cannot produce fertile offspring with other populations of the same species. We call that event speciation. Once two populations cannot exchange DNA, they will continue to diverge.
I comment: But from what I understand about DNA and copying errors, this is not any sort of evolution. From what I am told, a "mutation" is not an added gene of any sort, rather it is a gene that is missing which usually amounts to a defect that is not favorable. I am also told that tandem repeats in genes do not spell mutation either. I was also informed that not one single "added" gene has ever been observed in any living thing. Additionally I was informed that not even with "natural selection" does it change (add or subtract) the genes, however there are many tandem repeats, but a dog still remains to be a dog.
Posted by: Kel | November 12, 2008 4:12 PM
No, not all mutations are defects. Most mutations are actually neutral, and each one of us has them. It's just that we see the bad mutations in a macroscopic way. Mutation is the mechanism of change, natural selection is the quality control and genetic drift is the mechanism of speciation. (all in the basic sense) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html What criteria are you looking for? You can only modify what's there, that's evolution. And a human is still a human, and a goldfish is still a goldfish. But if breeds of dog are kept apart from long enough and there are enough of the right kinds of mutations then eventually the isolated breeds will no longer be able to reproduce with fertile offspring. That point is called speciation and after you have that, give enough time and you'll have divergence in morphology.Again, what of this violates the 2nd law?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 12, 2008 4:18 PM
currious @ #291:
Then you have been lied to.
Every one of these things you have been told is simply a flat-out LIE.
Mutations include additions, deletions, duplications and rearrangement of genes (among other possibilities I may have left out). The claim that only deletions count is a LIE.
Some mutations are beneficial to the organism, some are harmful, most are actually neutral. The claim that all (or even most) mutations are harmful is a LIE.
All these types of mutations have been observed in real, living creatures, both in the lab and and in the wild. To claim otherwise is a LIE.
Your last sentence is completely incoherent, and to claim it is even intelligible is a LIE.
The bottom line is, creationists are liars. They have to be, because their delusions cannot survive without being propped up by a never-ending supply of lies.
Posted by: Kel | November 12, 2008 4:27 PM
I really don't get the argument from the 2nd law. What does natural selection, mutation and speciation have to do with thermodynamics?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 12, 2008 4:37 PM
Kel, what I am reading is that several biological properities, like expanding to fill all ecological niches, appear to behave similar to gas laws, where the expansion of a gas into a smaller cylinder is due to entropy effects.
I'm still not convinced it is entropy, even though it has the appearance of entropy. But then, I'm a bit weak in physical chemistry.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 12, 2008 4:39 PM
i find it impossible to beleieve that "a dog is still a dog" makes sense to you, you can't brred a female chiuaua with a great dane. What you're saying is erroneos from the get-go. Blue eyes, actually, ar a mutation that has spread, and it can be traced back to one man. if that isn't adding infromarion, i don't know what is. adaption to environments is the factor that separates the various populations of a speceies and causes different breeds to engender speciation. In fact, "species" is an incredably variable term, because of the amout of evolution that occurs all the time. this is also stated in Talkorigins.org
Posted by: Kel | November 12, 2008 5:48 PM
Fair enough.What I don't get though is how to match that to our observations on biology. We can see descent with modification, evolution is simply that process over a longer time scale. If evolution violated entropy, surely we wouldn't be able to have offspring. When we have observed mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and speciation, what else is there that could possibly violate thermodynamics?
Posted by: AJS | November 12, 2008 6:42 PM
Logistical difficulties with the traditional method notwithstanding, great Dane sperm will actually fertilise a Chihuahua egg if introduced artificially and the offspring will be fertile.All domesticated dogs can also interbreed with wolves to produce fertile offspring. Breeds of dog (including the wolf) are not distinct species.
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 12, 2008 8:47 PM
The same is true of many pairs of distinct species, however. Sometimes the reproductive barrier is behavioral rather than physiological.
Wolves can also interbreed with coyotes and jackals, however, who are considered separate species.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 12, 2008 9:28 PM
what about the mule then huh? that is a special example in and of it's own. as soon as you use the word "artifiscial" you aren't talking about nature. your argument makes no sense. besides, there is this tendancy of "ring species that form around mountain ranges. There is a few entrys in talk origins in the CC index.
Posted by: Currious | November 12, 2008 10:15 PM
#293
You said: Every one of these things you have been told is simply a flat-out LIE. Mutations include additions, deletions, duplications and rearrangement of genes (among other possibilities I may have left out). The claim that only deletions count is a LIE.
I say: Okay, I have double checked with certain sources. I think it is you who is misinformed and uneducated on the subject. Yes, there are as you say deletions, duplications and rearrangements, but there are no "additions". These are just tandem repeats of the same existing information... THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION.
Still nothing new is happening here (evolution wise). The word "mutation" is a scary undefined word.
Posted by: Kel | November 12, 2008 10:24 PM
How is it not new information? Just how do you think evolution works? It only modifies what's there. Gene duplication and modification can lead to increased information.Posted by: Kel | November 12, 2008 10:32 PM
Maybe this will help you
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Posted by: Currious | November 12, 2008 11:51 PM
Kel said: How is it not new information? Just how do you think evolution works? It only modifies what's there. Gene duplication and modification can lead to increased information. Maybe this will help you
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
I say: Only modifying what's there is called "natural selection". And natural selection is not mutation (and many scientists are careful to claim that it is). Since it uses the same genes. The gene sequence can duplicate itself, but again its still using the same information. A rat is still a rat, it cannot change into a cat.
One of the articles that you supplied said: Rather than get bogged down trying to define what information is, let's just look at a few other discoveries made by biologists in recent years. For instance, it has been shown a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?
I say: I am familiar with this, but what this article fails to tell us is that something like this does not happen naturally in nature (it has never been observed) only in a laboratory.
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 12:04 AM
If you think a rat changing into a cat is evolution, then you really need to go and read up on the basics. Because a rat will never change into a cat. Not in 1 generation, not in 1,000,000 generations. Evolution doesn't work that way, it doesn't work anywhere near that way. A rat and a cat share a common ancestor. Just as a rat and a human share a common ancestor. But under no circumstance will a human give birth to a rat, we simply don't have the genetic code in us to make it so.All we can give birth to is slightly mutated humans and over time given enough isolation and genetic drift, the descendants of mine may not be able to reproduce successful offspring with your descendants. At that point there will be two species of human rather than one, and that means that future mutations will not be shared across species.
No, modifying what's there is called mutation. Whether those mutations survive and mix back into the genepool is a combination of natural selection and genetic drift.
Nylon-eating bacteria. Mutated and observed in nature. Not that it matters whether it's observed in nature or the lab, just that it's observed. Being in a lab offers several advantages too, we can control the environment far more and that way we can take our variables in order to increase our understanding of the processes at hand.
So what does all this have to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 13, 2008 12:16 AM
Sigh.
It is modification of a repeated gene that can give rise to a new gene that does something genuinely different from the original gene it arose from.
A simple example is that we know that the human genes for detecting red and green wavelengths arose as a duplication of a gene for detecting a single wavelength in that frequency range (it's actually more complicated than that, but that's the simple version).
New copy of pigment gene + modifications of original and copy of pigment gene = full color vision (as we understand color, anyway).
It doesn't happen quickly, but the whole point is that it absolutely does happen.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 13, 2008 12:22 AM
Kel said,
Not much. If you think of entropy only in terms of thermodynamics then there isn't much of a connection. Think instead of how entropy applies to information. If you begin to randomly modify information (such as DNA) you eventually have nonsense. Evolution argues that random modification of information creates more information rather than turning it into nonsense.
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 12:31 AM
No it doesn't, and I'm really surprised that you can think it would. I've asked for clarification several times in the Texas Petition thread about the matter because after pondering the question I couldn't see how you would come to that conclusion.In nature:
Good mutations = more likely to be passed on.
Neutral mutations = no more or less chance to be passed on.
Negative mutations = less likely to be passed on.
Extremely negative mutations = will never be passed on.
Any vital code that becomes "nonsense" will be eliminated from the genepool and won't get passed on. Any mutation that inhibits the organism will be less successful. Any mutation that aids the organism will be successful. In information theory, you have specified information that can only degrade from perfection. You don't have that in nature, there is no single code for humanity. Now a lot of the code does specified functions, so if any of that code is detrimental then the organism won't survive to passed on. Our code will never descend into nonsense because if any of the vital coding sequences break, the line stops there and others who don't have that coding sequence error keep on.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 13, 2008 12:32 AM
I thought it was Shannon Theory of Information that said that.
Of course, I doubt that's the kind of information you're talking about: The longer description you need to use to produce the string means it has more information, or something like that.
Of course, the "nonsense" thing is nonsense: DNA isn't a message that gets garbled. It's roughly analogous to building instructions that can be improved by changing them. Unless you're going to argue that DNA started out perfect, or that all changes are detrimental, I don't see much point to your line of argument.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 13, 2008 12:38 AM
Precisely because of selection. Those modifications that lead to "nonsense" (which is to say, an absolutely fatal flaw in development) are not viable. They die. They do not develop; they do not reproduce. They shuffle off the mortal coil; they push up the daisies; they join the genome invisible. They are EX-genes.
Dammit, this is still all in the FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF005.html
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 13, 2008 12:41 AM
Yes it is. That's why we will all die. See Genetics of Aging
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 12:45 AM
Ageing != reproduction. Evolution is to do with reproduction.Posted by: Owlmirror | November 13, 2008 12:47 AM
Do you actually have any understanding at all of the differences between meiosis and mitosis?
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 13, 2008 1:01 AM
Owlmirror,
From this point on you can assume that I am educated and that I have read a couple of books on genetics and that I have also read much talkorigins.org.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 13, 2008 1:04 AM
Kel,
As you pointed out, I ignored natural selection in my last comment. So would you agree that we are arguing about whether or not natural selection is able to overcome entropy?
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 13, 2008 1:17 AM
Randy, you have said directly to me that Talkorigins isn't credible. You ignored my question on Your post that merely asked "why?" Then come over here to resume this attack on sanity. The genetic degeneration an individual faces has little to do with evolution. Evolution has to do with populations and species, not individuals
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 13, 2008 1:19 AM
let me clarify, oh wait i don't have to:
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 12:31 AM
If you think of entropy only in terms of thermodynamics then there isn't much of a connection. Think instead of how entropy applies to information. If you begin to randomly modify information (such as DNA) you eventually have nonsense.
No it doesn't, and I'm really surprised that you can think it would. I've asked for clarification several times in the Texas Petition thread about the matter because after pondering the question I couldn't see how you would come to that conclusion.
In nature:
Good mutations = more likely to be passed on.
Neutral mutations = no more or less chance to be passed on.
Negative mutations = less likely to be passed on.
Extremely negative mutations = will never be passed on.
Any vital code that becomes "nonsense" will be eliminated from the genepool and won't get passed on. Any mutation that inhibits the organism will be less successful. Any mutation that aids the organism will be successful. In information theory, you have specified information that can only degrade from perfection. You don't have that in nature, there is no single code for humanity. Now a lot of the code does specified functions, so if any of that code is detrimental then the organism won't survive to passed on. Our code will never descend into nonsense because if any of the vital coding sequences break, the line stops there and others who don't have that coding sequence error keep on.
Bother reading it this time
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 13, 2008 1:32 AM
Let me illustrate how devastating modification is to information. Consider the following sentence.
"Kel is a computer programer."
There are a vast number of single character modifications that could be made to this sentence. I let you do the math to compute the number of modifications possible by changing a single character, adding a single character, or deleting a single character. I think there is only one modification that will improve the information. I misspelled "programmer"; so the information can be improved by inserting an "m" at the right place.
So I think you are fooling yourself when you say that most mutations are neutral.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 13, 2008 2:02 AM
Rickr0ll,
Correct me if I am wrong ... Isn't talkorigins.org written by activist atheists? If you are going to reference talkorigins.org its a little like being a republican quoting Karl Rove.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 13, 2008 2:06 AM
Randy, don't be foolish. genes are instructions, noy declarative sentances,quit being so dense about it. besides, your definition of imptovement has no beasring on whether or not it is an actual improvement. you are making all sorts of linguistic and grammatical rules to fit that statement in, while a larger amout of changes might result in A. a better sentance (i.e. more complexity and literature value) B. the sentance in a different langueage, or C. something completely different and valid. After all as a writer, people weed out words that they feel to be not descriptive enough, or are misspelled, or add whoole other peices of vocabulary. Restricting your example to a single sentance is completely intellectuall disengenuous, as opposed to the tomes of information stored in DNA
Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 13, 2008 2:10 AM
Consider the following sentence.
"Kel is a computer programer."
Consider instead
"$%%^%&*&*^(*(*((Kel%^&%^*&**((&()()()is&^%*&^*&*&*&*&*&^*&(a^%&^%*&(*(*(*(computer^&^%&^&*&*&(*(*(*)()((*)programer*^&((*&)(_)(*^)(*_))^(".
Most mutations will be neutral.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 13, 2008 2:16 AM
Correct me if I am wrong ... Isn't talkorigins.org written by activist atheists? If you are going to reference talkorigins.org its a little like being a republican quoting Karl Rove.
Ridiculous ad hominem; talkorigins.org offers arguments, which stand on their own merit regardless of who wrote them. And "activist atheists" is not a synonym for "evolutionary biologists".
But by your logic ... isn't anything you write written by idiot? If you're going to offer up your views, isn't that a little like you quoting zippy the pinhead?
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 13, 2008 2:19 AM
holy shit, Randy, you just parroted Stephen Colbert rith there. ROFL: "reality has leftist tendancies." Wow, just wow. argument from authority, means nothing in respect to this argument
Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 13, 2008 2:23 AM
From this point on you can assume that I am educated and that I have read a couple of books on genetics and that I have also read much talkorigins.org.
But we don't need to assume that you're an idiot who isn't capable of understanding what you read ... that is evident.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 13, 2008 2:29 AM
Stephen Colbert
Rob Corddry: "it's become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda".
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 13, 2008 2:47 AM
actually there was another one that was even better in response to me on another post (but which one, DAMN this site is too busy lol!) tm
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 4:01 AM
There's nothing to overcome! That's the problem Randy, DNA is not specified information in the way that information theory dictates. There's no one perfect being that as it gets replicated over and over it slowly degrades like Shannon Entropy does. Indeed, it would be a huge problem for evolution if there was such little genetic variation as there would be from a single source.Consider the Cheetah, about 10000 years ago the population size dropped to as little as 7. Now every cheetah in the world has so little genetic variation it's like they are all siblings. Skin grafts taken from one can work on cheetahs all around the world. They have the same problems that are associated with inbreeding.
Did you ever watch the NOVA series Evolution? Fascinating show, highly recommended. Anyway in there they had an episode on why sex. Because by using sex we are only passing on 50% of our own DNA. Wouldn't it be better to pass on all our own DNA? Well no. They took two different populations of fish in South America I believe. One reproduced asexually the other had sexual reproduction. What they found was the asexual fish had problems with bacteria that the sexual fish did not.
Then came a drought and a small population of the fish were isolated. What they found was because there was so little genetic variation in the sexual fish because of the low population, they were now the ones affected with bacteria. It was like they were inbred! Then they took some other fish from a lower pond and put them into the genepool and the problem went away.
What all this means is that genetic change is not only a useful function of evolution, it's a vital function! We need to keep mutating because we are always in an arms race for survival. For us it's the microscopic world. For the Zebra, it's against the cheetah. For the Peacock, it's against the Peahen. We need genetic variation in order to survive, we need mutations because other organisms are mutating too. Why do you think Smallpox ravaged South America but the Conquistadors were unaffected? Because their ancestors had developed a resistance to it and they became carriers for a germ that wiped out an empire.
Shannon Entropy doesn't apply to evolution because change is a part of the process. The phrase "Mathematics is the language of science" is specified information that can only come about through intelligence, DNA however is not specified like that.
When you have the code
AUG UCU AAC GGU AAC UAA
How is that any different from
AUG UCG AAU GGG AAU UAA
?
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 4:05 AM
Ahh, the monkey at the typewriter argument, I really should get back to finishing my post about how this doesn't apply to DNA.Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 4:36 AM
You have hundreds of mutations in your code from your parents and the overwhelming majority do not affect your survival or reproduction strategies one bit. It's only on the odd occasion do we hear of mutations that manifest on the macroscopic level and most of them are harmful but there are a few that are useful. The harmful ones get destroyed by natural selection while the advantageous ones get passed on.If it doesn't impede on your ability to have fertile offspring, how is it harmful?
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 13, 2008 4:42 AM
Blue iris coleration is a mutagenic trait! it has been traced back to one man in history. that alone dismisses your entire premise Randy!
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 4:47 AM
What DNA really tells us...
On common ancestry with Chimpanzees
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 13, 2008 4:49 AM
ands here's the article:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2045q6234h66p744/fulltext.html
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 13, 2008 7:45 AM
#include *facepalm*
#include *weary sigh*
And that, too, is in the FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601_1.html
Which is why assuming that you have read anything, or more importantly, understand anything that you have read, is a very very bad idea.
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 7:53 AM
If he's meant to understand how evolution works by reading Talk.Origins, then why is he making the same terrible argument about information theory?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 13, 2008 8:22 AM
More to the point, evolutionary biology is not done by "activist atheists", it's done by evolutionary biologists.
And only someone utterly and profoundly ignorant, or a disingenuous lying moron, would assert otherwise.
See also:
http://ncseweb.org/media/voices/religion
And:
http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html
Posted by: abb3w | November 13, 2008 10:45 AM
Randy Stimpson: If you think of entropy only in terms of thermodynamics then there isn't much of a connection.
Wrong. AGAIN, see paper: "Natural selection for least action", by Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178). When the second law of thermodynamics is expressed for connected subsystems with mass-energy flow between, natural selection is a mathematical consequence.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 13, 2008 11:40 AM
Currious @ #301:
Once again, your "sources" are lying to you.
One particularly interesting example of a beneficial, additive mutation occurring in a living creature (which your "sources" have told you is impossible) is of bacteria that gained the ability to metabolize nylon, opening up an entirely new food source. This change was the result of a point insertion mutation, the addition of a single base pair. This actually happened, the genes of both the original and mutant strains have been analyzed, it IS an addition. And no matter how many times your "sources" lie about it, it won't change the facts.
Though maybe you should consider why you keep getting such bad information from these "Sources" of yours. Do these "Sources" by any chance include convicted felon Kent Hovind or known piglet rapist Ken Ham? You can't learn anything about evolution from creationists, they're liars, and they go to great lengths to avoid learning anything on the subject, and to misinform at every opportunity.
Currious again, not living up to the name:
Only because you don't bother to look up the definition or learn anything. Doesn't sound like the way a "currious" person would act, avoiding new information like the plague. Though an irrational fear of the truth is normal for creationists...
Posted by: currious | November 13, 2008 12:23 PM
All of this is just crazy! One says one thing and someone says another... do any such scientific test really prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt? Can we really say for sure considering that what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning? Furthermore, when we discuss such issues as to evolution, entropy, natural selection or mutation. These are all wide-ranging words encompassed by many different POINTS OF VIEW. Just because a well accredited, or notorious scientific person gives his/her heehaw on the matter does not mean it is by any means CORRECT!
Whoever in this forum said it was an ATTACK ON SANITY, was correct!
There are just to many fine lines and inconsistencies, as well as points of view that are building anger, and to which only serve to downplay the creators works.
However, I would suggest that we caution just what "FACTS" we think are so, since if someone can get people to believe something that is not true, and that belief leads to those people taking actions to change the world (in terms of scientific views) in a manner that the claimant wishes, this could be more devastating to an "open" society than a nuclear bomb! Darwinism and evolutionism may be that very theory through which evil strives to take the "morality" away from humankind. For what hope have we left if evolutionary biology is correct. It would only serve to pull all our heavenly desires to a grinding hopeless halt.
Yes, I am a CREATIONIST in the highest degree! All said and done, I will be leaving now.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 12:26 PM
Well Duh!. We figured that out a while back.Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 13, 2008 12:58 PM
Kel,
I was hoping you would notice the difference between my argument and the monkey at the type writer argument. Its not the same.
I've been reading your blog. It looks like we can continue the discussion over there at a slower pace. I've got too much work right now to be responding to everyone else. I'll try to post a comment there today or tomorrow.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 1:10 PM
Only if you ignore the thousands of articles cited and referenced.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 13, 2008 1:17 PM
*yawn* Only if all your "heavenly desires" require myths to be "true" and empirical observation to be "wrong."Posted by: Currious | November 13, 2008 1:50 PM
Some last comments before I move on...
#342 said: *yawn* Only if all your "heavenly desires" require myths to be "true" and empirical observation to be "wrong."
Well than, you might as well kiss your "life-after-death" goodby. Oh and BTW, what was your point in making "points" in all your posts here, to what means and purpose did they serve if it is all for naught (no life-after-death)?
You might also be alarmed to find out that all of your input here was based on "FAITH" (the substance of things not seen, but believed).
Either way, there is no escaping G-d!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 1:53 PM
Very easy to do. He/she/it doesn't exist.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 1:54 PM
I second his yawn.
Posted by: abb3w | November 13, 2008 1:59 PM
currious: do any such scientific test really prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt?
In the sense that you might wish to prove that you have a brain inside your skull instead of a piece of cauliflower? Yes.
currious: Can we really say for sure considering that what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning?
To the degree you can really say for sure that you have a brain inside your skull instead of a piece of cauliflower? Yes... though technically, these are inferences from observed evidence, not themselves observed evidence.
currious: Just because a well accredited, or notorious scientific person gives his/her heehaw on the matter does not mean it is by any means CORRECT!
No. However, to determine whether or not it is "correct", you must use the methodology of Science.
currious: There are just to many fine lines and inconsistencies, as well as points of view that are building anger, and to which only serve to downplay the creators works.
Presumes there is a creator, and that any alternatives are "better" than evolution in terms of "fine lines and inconsistencies".
currious: However, I would suggest that we caution just what "FACTS" we think are so, since if someone can get people to believe something that is not true, and that belief leads to those people taking actions to change the world (in terms of scientific views) in a manner that the claimant wishes, this could be more devastating to an "open" society than a nuclear bomb!
Indeed... which is exactly PZ and others oppose religions, whose claimants appear to be behaving in a manner exactly as you describe.
currious: Darwinism and evolutionism may be that very theory through which evil strives to take the "morality" away from humankind.
Presumes... a heck of a lot. Mainly, that "evil strives", and that a better understanding of evolution won't lead to an improvement of humanity's morality.
currious: For what hope have we left if evolutionary biology is correct.
First, Science may contradict Faith, and precludes Belief, but cannot preclude Hope. Second, we may have Hope and even Belief that while we may not exist forever, something very much like us may continue to exist after we are gone... and perhaps, be better than we ourselves are.
currious: It would only serve to pull all our heavenly desires to a grinding hopeless halt.
Presumes any of our desires are "heavenly", and that mundane desires for the future are not worth considering.
Posted by: Currious | November 13, 2008 2:02 PM
Yawning signifies loss of oxygen to the brain.
I can hear the desperate jauntiness of an orchestra fiddling away for dear life on a sinking ship.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 2:04 PM
Yes the giant vacuum that is your ignorance is sucking it all out of the room.
Posted by: abb3w | November 13, 2008 2:05 PM
Currious: You might also be alarmed to find out that all of your input here was based on "FAITH" (the substance of things not seen, but believed).
That's a sloppy definition of faith. For myself, I reserve the term "Faith" for the primary tenets that must be believed without possibility of proof, as opposed to propositions proven as inferences under some rule (which itself is a proposition). I refer to the latter as "Inference"; "Belief" includes both.
The input here is inference, based on the primary propositions of Faith that Logic (EG: Wolfram's Axiom) is valid for philosophical inference, that jointwise affirmation of the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms is self-consistent, and that Reality is at all relateable to Experience.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 2:10 PM
Currious, you said you were leaving two posts ago. Just another Liar for JebusTM. And yyyyaaaawwwwwnnnn.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | November 13, 2008 2:39 PM
If all of your endeavor in this life is pointed toward another one after death, then it is you who is wasting time. I'd say you're going to be disappointed, except you won't be. Being, y'know, dead and all.And what in the world does the veracity of biological evolution have to do with your hope of life after death, anyway?
Posted by: Currious | November 13, 2008 2:46 PM
I am leaving as I finish with some closing points. I realize that I had not responded properly to #301
#301 phantomreader42 said: Once again, your "sources" are lying to you. One particularly interesting example of a beneficial, additive mutation occurring in a living creature (which your "sources" have told you is impossible) is of bacteria that gained the ability to metabolize nylon, opening up an entirely new food source. This change was the result of a point insertion mutation, the addition of a single base pair. This actually happened, the genes of both the original and mutant strains have been analyzed, it IS an addition. And no matter how many times your "sources" lie about it, it won't change the facts.
I say: This is still working with "existing information" is it not? Bacteria becoming immune or even an immunity to the AIDS virus is still not "IN MY POINT OF VIEW" anything truly new.
Point of view my friend, POINT OF VIEW! However, you still choose to argue the point.
#348: What could be sloppier about faith? Faith is faith... hope and belief in the things not seen.
Faith is belief or trust in something (including devotion) to something without any logical substantial proof.
It is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not yet seen.
The whole premise of evolutionism is subject to this very bases since we cannot find the transitional fossils that led one species to the next. We surmise all this and tell ourselves that indeed this very evidence is fleeting right before our eyes especially when we can see the resemblance between monkeys and man. BUT WHERE IS THE TANGIBLE EVIDENCE MY FRIEND? And if you really think they are there, than you need to take a closer look again. THEY ARE NOT! Again, this is a good example of the fine line drawn between POINTS OF VIEW.
Therefore, (without tangible evidence) and while not even realizing it, evolutionism is a RELIGION unto itself which is based off of FAITH (things hoped for, not seen, but believed).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 2:51 PM
God doesn't exist, which makes religion and faith irrelevant. You won't get the last word, so quit trying.
Posted by: Currious | November 13, 2008 2:53 PM
#350: Its about "morality".
Without morality, it can destroy the whole human society. Its not just merely about life-after-death it can also spell the havoc for society. There would be crimes, killings, lying cheating, steeling... ext...
Can you imagine what it would be like without morality or moral laws?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 13, 2008 2:55 PM
Wrong, wrong, aaaaand...wrong. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Your POINT OF VIEW is based in ignorance. You're making a fool of yourself.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 2:56 PM
Morality can be had without god or theology. To say otherwise is a huge lie. God doesn't exist, so man defines what is moral and what is not.
Posted by: Currious | November 13, 2008 3:04 PM
Nerd of Redhead said: God doesn't exist, which makes religion and faith irrelevant. You won't get the last word, so quit trying.
I say: You wouldn't have said that if you were one of the 6 million years who witnessed G-d's thunderous speaking firsthand at Mount Sinai. THIS IS AN ENTIRE NATION. It is called a NATIONAL REVELATION! And it is documented in the Torah as an eye-witness to this event.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 13, 2008 3:04 PM
So...if biological evolution has in fact occurred (and contrary to your silly statements, all available empirical evidence is clear that it has), then there can be no morality?
You're nuts.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 3:05 PM
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
No transitional fossils? Seriously, that is one of the dumbest most ridiculous things that can be said.
Posted by: Currious | November 13, 2008 3:07 PM
#355 Nerd of Redhead:
Do you have any idea where the morals of our society originally came from?
Try looking in your Bible for once (starting with the 10 commandments).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 3:08 PM
Ok I'm tempted to call Poe. What are you smoking?
6 Million years witnessed god speaking?
Huh?
What the hell are you even talking about.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 3:09 PM
Currious, you are getting more incoherant as time goes on. The earth is 4 billion years old, give or take. Life evolved here on earth with needing divine interference. You god is imaginary. People define what is moral and not, and have been doing it as long a humans have been around.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 3:10 PM
Are you suggesting that the idea of not killing or stealing started with the 10 commandments?
Posted by: Currious | November 13, 2008 3:11 PM
#360 I meant 6 million people (the entire Jewish nation).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 3:11 PM
Currious, guess who wrote the bible. Humans. No god involved since god doesn't exist.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 3:14 PM
6 Million people? Where are you getting those numbers?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 13, 2008 3:19 PM
6 million people heard God speak 4000 years ago. We know this because an eyewitness wrote it in a book.
Can you spot the flaw in this logic?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 3:20 PM
No no , I want to know where she is getting the 6 million number from.
Posted by: Patricia | November 13, 2008 3:20 PM
Wow.
You gents have a cute one here.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 13, 2008 3:22 PM
I know. A separate good question.Posted by: CJO | November 13, 2008 3:23 PM
You wouldn't have said that if you were one of the 6 million years who witnessed G-d's thunderous speaking firsthand at Mount Sinai. THIS IS AN ENTIRE NATION. It is called a NATIONAL REVELATION! And it is documented in the Torah as an eye-witness to this event.
Bwahahahaha!
6 million whoozits? Moses was the only one who heard the Big Guy, everybody else was gettin' busy with the golden calf, and looking nervously up at the storm cloud, right? You do realize that the people of Judea were polytheists at this time, and that there is no such thing as the Torah until Ezra came out of Babylon, in the 5th Century BCE? Do you believe every piece of fiction written from an ostensible point of view is actually the account of an eye-witness? If not, why do you give the anthologized myths and legends of Judean bandits and goat-herders privileged status?
Posted by: Currious | November 13, 2008 3:26 PM
Well its obvious that birds of a feather flock together. I fully expected this on a bias forum such as this.
However, I had enormous fun riling up the darkened souls! :)
Moving onto the next bias forum...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 13, 2008 3:30 PM
The very definition of a troll. You suck. Don't let the door bruise yer ass on the way out of this bias forum. Second thought, go ahead and get bruised and splintered.
Posted by: CJO | November 13, 2008 3:30 PM
I meant 6 million people (the entire Jewish nation).
With Moses on the Exodus? Wandering in the desert. Six. Million. People. Holy shit, you are cracked.
Look into the archaeology of the region. There is no evidence of ANY habitation in the time-frame required by Exodus at ANY of the sites mentioned by name. 6 million people simply cannot camp out in a freakin' desert without leaving a pretty serious pile of trash. (And of course that number is entirely fabricated anyway. No credible estimate of the population of Iron Age Judea comes anywhere near even that order of magnitude.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 3:31 PM
Currious, you come to a forum where evolution and atheism are the main thrusts. What else did you expect?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 13, 2008 3:32 PM
That'sa lotta manna!Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 3:32 PM
Translation: I lost the argument and the questions started getting too hard to I'm going to run away with my tail between my legs.
Way to represent your side currious.
typical
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 3:34 PM
to = so
Posted by: Patricia | November 13, 2008 3:39 PM
The number in Exodus was congregation (?). They heard thundering and backed away from the mountain.
Six million is an interesting number.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 3:42 PM
Yep. I'm interested where he/she gets that number.
Posted by: Patricia | November 13, 2008 3:45 PM
I just went and looked it up Rev. as usual the christian is confused.
Six million jews is the holocaust, not Exodus.
Duh, I can't believe I forgot that.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 3:47 PM
Yeah but I'm pretty sure he/she's not confusing that. She/he has had that number fed to her.
I want to know where from.
i could be wrong.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 13, 2008 3:49 PM
Not from here. "Only" about 2.5 million. *snicker*
Posted by: Patricia | November 13, 2008 3:54 PM
The part that threw me was citing the Torah, which I know next to nothing about.
Good question though, which sect is feeding their congregations that crap? Don't know.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 4:01 PM
Can you just imagine trying to move even 20,000 people through the Sinai desert with its limited resources? A million just boogles the imagination.
And here Rickroll was worried that I killed the thread about 100 posts ago.
Posted by: Patricia | November 13, 2008 4:01 PM
Ah ha. Thanks for that Sven. I was looking in Chapter 16 of Exodus, because of the Mt. Sinai remark.
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 4:11 PM
Wow Currious turned out to be a complete moron. Here I was thinking he would have learned something. And now Randy is going to infect my blog by posting comments there? Shit. This thread hasn't turned out well for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqYhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
It's actually a joke in my household, some guy who said to me there are no transitional fossils. So every time we are watching a science documentary one of us says "there are no transitional fossils" in a sarcastic manner. It's sad that this creationist doesn't look at the evidence. Watch the two videos I posted.
Posted by: Currious | November 13, 2008 4:22 PM
I guess I'm still lingering around to see the fruit of my mission.
Now that is what I like to see! You guys scrambling to check Biblical scripture (I bet it just kills you to do so).
Perhaps learning something arent you?
You are correct Patricia! It was not 6 millions Jews at Mt. Sinai, (I thought I would test your ineptness) rather it has been estimated somewhere around 3 million. Though nobody really knows for sure since the Torah does not completely specify a complete number of Jews, rather it only tells us that it was an ENTIRE PEOPLE that heard G-d speak at Mount Sinai, experiencing national revelation. G-d did not just appear to Moses in a private rendezvous, but to an entire nation of people. This claim is mentioned many times in the Torah.
[Moses told the Israelite's]: Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld. Do not remove this memory from your heart all the days of your life. Teach your children and your children's children about the day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horev [Mount Sinai]...
G-d spoke to you from the midst of the fire, you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His covenant, instructing you to keep the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.' (Deut.4:9-13)
You have been shown in order to know that G-d, He is the Supreme Being. There is none besides Him. From heaven he let you hear His voice in order to teach you, and on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words amid the fire. (Deut. 4:32-36)
Moses called all of Israel and said to them: Hear, O Israel, the decrees and the ordinances that I speak in your ears today - learn them, and be careful to perform them. The Lord your G-d sealed a covenant with us at Horev [Mount Sinai]. Not with our forefathers did God seal this covenant, but with us - we who are here, all of us alive today. Face to face did G-d speak with you on the mountain from amid the fire. (Deut. 5:1-4)
I love scripture! :)
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 4:25 PM
Creationism and evolution are not points of view, one is a fairy tale, the other is based on empirical science. Mutation has been observed, natural selection has been observed, speciation has been observed. New features have been observed. Evolution is science, creationism is what retards cling to because they either don't know better or don't want to know better. Yeah, your argument is the opposite of the monkey at a typewriter. Instead of getting to that information over time, it's about that information being lost. But it seems you can't grasp my argument that DNA isn't specified information like language is so what you say can't apply.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 4:26 PM
Currious, thank you for the supplying source of the numbers. However, your imaginary god doesn't exist, your bible was written from oral history many years after the events, and it was written by humans. So we are less than impressed when you try to quote the document as being a reliable source.
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 4:29 PM
Yes, we've all realised that you are a scientifically retarded. Congratulations. Can you go away now? It's a shame to watch someone who has a brain let it go to waste.Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 13, 2008 4:30 PM
back to Irony Meters R Us, I guess.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 4:31 PM
You are correct Patricia! It was not 6 millions Jews at Mt. Sinai, (I thought I would test your ineptness)
LIAR
You had to check yourself once I called you on it and then played the classic internet ploy of NOOOOO i was just testing you.
You are a liar
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 4:32 PM
There were 3 million Jews wandering in the desert for 40 years? So why if there was a population that large is there not a shred of archaeological evidence to support the exodus? Why is there not a shred of archaeological evidence to support that they were once Egyptian slaves? Why is there not archaeological evidence to support the 10 plagues? And why the fuck would anyone worship a deity that ensured that the plagues would end in infanticide? This is supposed to be a loving God?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 4:34 PM
Currious, quoting scripture in not proof of anything other than your ability to regurgitate what your pastor has told you or what you read.
That's it.
What version of the bible should we trust?
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 4:39 PM
I want to know why almost none of the bible matches to the archaeological evidence we find.
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 4:44 PM
I want to know why almost none of the bible matches to the archaeological evidence we find.
I guess believers think of archaeology the same as they find natural science. If it don't match, it's because of the incompetence of science. And what is evidence anyway? The bible is evidence and that's all that matters.
Posted by: CJO | November 13, 2008 5:01 PM
You guys scrambling to check Biblical scripture (I bet it just kills you to do so).
Perhaps learning something arent you?
Smug little prick. There are regular posters on this site whose knowledge of scripture puts your feeble cut and paste exercise to shame. That's knowledge of scripture: its history and interpretation. You know, intellectually honest scholarship, as opposed to the credulous recitation that only passes for knowledge among the ignorant, the deluded, and the liars.
Posted by: CJO | November 13, 2008 5:05 PM
I want to know why almost none of the bible matches to the archaeological evidence we find.
I always imagine YHWH with a little whisk broom and a dustpan traipsing around Sinai behind Moses and his Merry Band of Men.
Posted by: abb3w | November 13, 2008 5:08 PM
Currious: What could be sloppier about faith? Faith is faith... hope and belief in the things not seen. Faith is belief or trust in something (including devotion) to something without any logical substantial proof.
I suspect equivocation on the nature of "proof". The word is from the Latin "probare", meaning to test. In science, hypotheses are proven by testing against each other for "best" describing the current set of evidence.
Currious: The whole premise of evolutionism is subject to this very bases since we cannot find the transitional fossils that led one species to the next.
Presumes that the "transitional" fossils you think are needed are required for proof. This is incorrect; formally, proof only requires correctness on the current set of evidence. This does mean that what the "proven theory" is may evolve, based on (a) new evidence, shifting the balance, or (b) a new hypothesis previously unconsidered. This potentially allows for the supplanting of evolution or the discovery that your brain really is a piece of cauliflower; however, neither alternative is "valid" until suggested and supported as "best".
Currious: BUT WHERE IS THE TANGIBLE EVIDENCE MY FRIEND?
You added an "R" there. Chromosome 2 is the most piece of evidence closest to "smoking gun". However, every piece of evidence from biology is relateable to other pieces via the theory of evolution... so, "in every known living thing" seems the answer to your question.
Currious: Again, this is a good example of the fine line drawn between POINTS OF VIEW.
No, this is an example of your failure to understand the principle of Minimum Message Length Induction as a basis of competitive testing, and that it is formally proven correct (in the mathematical sense) under the primary premises that Logic (EG: Wolfram's Axiom) is valid for philosophical inference, that jointwise affirmation of the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms is self-consistent, and that Reality is at all relateable to Experience. Such testing is a form of proof, which distinguishes the propositions so tested as Inference and not as Faith.
What you seem to be referring to as a "point of view" appears analogous to a hypothesis, where a conjecture is used to describe how elements within a data set are interrelated. Such hypotheses can be tested for probability of correctness, via MMLI. Science does such testing; evolution holds the title belt as Theory, creationism doesn't. Evolution is not based on Faith, but on Inference.
Currious: Therefore, (without tangible evidence) and while not even realizing it, evolutionism is a RELIGION unto itself which is based off of FAITH (things hoped for, not seen, but believed).
First, the only points of Faith involved are those I've listed:
1) Logic (formally, either the Boolean, Robbins, or Wolfram axiom expression) is valid for inference
2) Joint affirmation of ZF is self-consistent
3) Reality is relateable to Experience (evidence).
All other points at hand are not Faith, but Inference by means of such Faith from evidence.
Second, disputing these points of Faith is not challenging evolution alone, but challenging all of science.
Third, while science may be on its way to becoming a religion, it isn't one yet. While the exact demarcation is disputed, the usual criteria in religious studies are having moral teachings, sacred scriptures, and holy rituals. Star Trek has these; it is a religion. Science at present lacks these; it is not.
Posted by: Patricia | November 13, 2008 5:14 PM
And once again you are wrong. The entire congregation did not hear gawd speak.
They were forbidden to touch Mt Sinai under punishment of death. They heard thundering and moved back from the mountain. I'm not going to give you the book and verses on it, since I'm sure you must already know. Liar.
You are bearing false witness against gawd, a holy prophet, and the children of Israel. Have fun in hell.
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 6:14 PM
His argument in a nutshell
1. Ignore evidence
2. Conclude there is no evidence
3. Since faith is believing without evidence, evolution must be a religion
4. Therefore my point of view is jsut as valid as there
5. I have God on my side
Therefore: Creationism happened
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 13, 2008 7:01 PM
Curious, you dumbass!!! when i said that "this is an attack on sanity", i was referring to nutjobs like you!
BTW, who the hell cares about what was written in some book written by Moses thousands of years ago. When moses wrote all this stuff down supposedly, thjis was 500 years before the nation of Isreal was a literate one. think about that! And what the hell does this have to do with entropy?!
If you want to talk about God then talk about why Jesus is a liar! it is mentioned in the book of John, chapter 10 i believe. and Yehweh isn't a proper name, it means "mind your own damn busines." "I am as i am" what a crock! And you wanna know what else? his Real name is El, the God of the canaanites at the time of Abraham.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 13, 2008 7:05 PM
Something I'm betting he's heard a lot in his life.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 13, 2008 7:11 PM
there was a show on the history channel called "Decoding Exodu" and it explains a great deal of what you call attention to Kel. They were slaves, but not anywhere near the time of Ramses II. that esitmate is off by like 1,500 years. and 40 isn't a real number, it is symbolic, like the 40 days of Jesus in the wilderness, the 40 days of rain in Genesis, ect. alot of numbers in the Bible are like that.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 13, 2008 7:18 PM
By the way, can we get back to the issue at hand? entropy has nothing to do with biblical literalism, as newton said, he saw thaty Nature was a book of god's revelationa as well, of the same caliber as the Bible. He was wrong, but only because he lived in the wrong place and time. his point about taking the natural laws seriously is something that needs to be hammered into the heads of all these xians(i love that term, it's so derisive!) and ID wackos
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 7:18 PM
I have no idea what this sentence is talking about.Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 13, 2008 7:21 PM
Patricia, wow! Nice fangs! hahaha. I couldn't agree with you more. and might i add that you are very attractive as well lol? Sometimes it's worth letting idiots have a say simply to watch them get beaten with the stupid stick (not the ugly stick, but similar)
Posted by: CJO | November 13, 2008 7:31 PM
They were slaves, but not anywhere near the time of Ramses II.
The Judeans were never slaves in Egypt. There may be elements in Exodus drawn legendary tales of the expulsion of the Hyskos from Egypt.
Essentially nothing in the Hebrew Bible is history (as opposed to orally transmitted myth and legend) until you get to the Deuteronomic History, and even then, it's political propaganda using the names and exaggerated deeds of dimly remembered near-legendary figures like David and Solomon.
Posted by: CJO | November 13, 2008 7:34 PM
#408
"drawn legendary" should be "drawn from legendary"
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 7:35 PM
If Randy comes and taints my blog with his asininity, I'll echo the posts here for you all to rip apart.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 7:40 PM
Kel, keep telling Randy he is so brilliant that he
shouldhas share his findings with us scientists by publishing in a respectable peer reviewed journal. Since he knows he is full of shit, this will drive him crazy.Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 7:46 PM
True, I'll even point him in the direction of the Tempeton Foundation. Why if he has a great idea that can bring down evolution is he arguing with a Computer Science graduate? Shouldn't he be writing into peer reviewed journals, contacting biology departments, and pushing his idea onto those that matter? I'm a nobody with no say on whether evolution is correct or not, I merely echo what I learn from actual biologists who have far more training and understanding of the processes than I do.
But fuck, if I can see he is full of shit then he has no hope. His ideas are fundamentally wrong at the core, it's both a pervasion to natural science and to information theory. As a computer science person thingy, I won't stand for him misrepresenting the scope of information theory.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 7:51 PM
Kel, Randy just wants to play rhetorical games. Then he can declare victory. By not playing those games you frustrate him. He will go away.
And don't sell yourself short. I raise my libation in salute to you, sir.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 13, 2008 7:52 PM
Kel, i was harrassing Randy at his own blog. i suggect you guys do the same. Unfortunately, he is "too busy" to talk to me there one on one, but he thinks he'll make time for you on yours? what an idiot
CJO, you didn't look into it very far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_origins_of_the_Hyksos
it says that the hyksos were from canaan, so yes, the judeans
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 7:54 PM
That should have been Templeton, something is really wrong with my brain today - I'm making typos all over the place. No idea why.
Posted by: Patricia | November 13, 2008 8:10 PM
Rickroll, Why thank you! It is tough keeping my fangs so pearly white with all the christian biting I do.
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 8:15 PM
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. Given it's my blog, I would like my responses to seem somewhat dignified and informative, and for it not to descend into a exercise in poo-flinging. I really don't want to get my hands dirty. Fuck it, it's a waste of time. If he can't grasp that any detrimental mutation would not be able to be passed on, then he has no hope.Posted by: Rey Fox | November 13, 2008 8:33 PM
This thread is pretty much scorched earth by this point, but if Currrrrious is still around, then I have a question: why do you keep omitting the vowel from "God"? Does it have something to do with that prohibition of using the Lord's name in vain? Do you know what "in vain" means (which I ask not only because you seem to be censoring his name indiscriminately, but I'm truly curious myself)? And finally, a god being that insists that you can't say his name either at all or only in certain narrow circumstances: doesn't that strike you as rather petty and immature behavior?
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 13, 2008 8:39 PM
Kel,
Looks like you have made another false assumption --detrimental mutations often are passed on. There are over 4000 known inherited genetic disorders.
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 8:47 PM
And how many of those manifest before reproduction? Yes there are plenty of genetic disorders, it doesn't mean they are ultimately detrimental to the species survival. Reproduction is the key event that matters. Evolution is not a race to perfection, it's a survival of the genes. Genetic disorders that don't impede survival simply don't matter.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 8:48 PM
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 13, 2008 8:55 PM
I am not sure what your point is.
Posted by: John Morales | November 13, 2008 8:55 PM
Randy Stimpson #419:
Wait, aren't you supposed to be arguing in favour of "intelligent design"?
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 13, 2008 8:58 PM
Nerd of Redhead,
What was the lie?
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 13, 2008 9:02 PM
John,
I write software for a living -- thus my alias. Software is intelligently designed but it isn't bug free.
Posted by: John Morales | November 13, 2008 9:12 PM
Randy, you're saying the error-correction in the genome copying algorithm is even worse than existing human error-correction codes? Hm.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 13, 2008 9:16 PM
Rickr0ll,
Are you trying to Molly Award or what?
Posted by: MikeG | November 13, 2008 9:20 PM
Randy, who is Award, and that does it mean "to Molly"?
You other folks have quite a "winner" here. More entertaining and less scary than Eric A, but just as stupid.
Posted by: Patricia | November 13, 2008 9:24 PM
Calling someone a nutjob and a dumbass is Molly worthy?
er...I ... can't comprehend that.
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 9:26 PM
That genetic disorders that affect people later in life aren't detrimental to the survival of the species. Most people have children early on in life, before they are 35 or so. If a genetic disorder doesn't hit until later in life, then there's no problem of reproduction. If the person with a genetic disorder has successful offspring then what's the problem?Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 9:29 PM
Randy, what is the difference between software and DNA?Posted by: CJO | November 13, 2008 9:29 PM
Rickroll,
Yes, the Hyskos were a Semitic people, but "Judean" is a specific group of people. Clearly, going back to the early Bronze Age, we're not going to find much clarity on who claimed to be from where originally, and the problem is compounded by the fact that such claims amounted to claims on the land and so were political. But no scholar, to my knowledge, avers that the people who came to be known as the tribes of Israel were the direct descendents of the Hyskos. So no, not Judean. Semitic.
Posted by: John Morales | November 13, 2008 9:30 PM
Patricia, MikeG: Randy is just evading an uncomfortable cognition and trying to distract.
Randy, presumably you're familiar with Shannon's Theorem, and how close LDPC codes approach the limit.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 13, 2008 9:43 PM
Randy, if you don't lie, you would be publishing in a peer reviewed scientific journal. And you know that. If you post something here, I presume it to be a lie until you back it up with a citation from the scientific literature. This is partially a science blog. In science, the burden of proof is always on those making the claims, in this case you. So cite your source from the scientific literature for your argument, or go away.
Posted by: Patricia | November 13, 2008 9:43 PM
Oh, thank you John.
Well hell Randy why didn't you just say so. See the thing to do is call me an ignorant slut, Janine a brazen hussy, and all the gents here assholes, and then threaten to leave the blog.
Troll Tantrums are a real phenomenon, we expect them.
Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 10:55 PM
Yeah Randy, why aren't you posting in a scientific journal? Why are you coming to the masses with your idea as opposed to fighting it out in academia? This is not peer review, and if you are using it as such take the hint that not a single person who understands evolution or information theory can see any merit in your idea.Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 14, 2008 12:24 AM
I just had dinner and a movie. I'm back.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 14, 2008 12:25 AM
well CJO, i default. i guess i'll just have to take your word for it then. in addition to the relaease of canaanite slaves, Decoding Exodus also makes metnion more than once of greek hyksos. if that were to be incorrect, then i wouldn't have to think that anything else that the program stated was factual either. I guess i just assumed that the History Channel would have got it right. Maybe not. I still find the historical analysis of Yehweh to be deeply compelling however, which was a separate program altogether.
Wait, wait wait patricia, hold on.... You telling me that Randy THREATENED to leave the blog, and you stopped him?
By the way, what is the Molly Award?
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 14, 2008 12:28 AM
Patricia, clearly you don't understand me. I'm not trying to win a Molly award. But you haven't answered my question. What was the last thing I said that was a lie.
Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 12:29 AM
And we are all just tickled pink because of that.Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 12:34 AM
This is the Molly Award. I wants it precious. I, wants it!Posted by: Patricia | November 14, 2008 12:40 AM
Clearly, I don't understand you. That much is true.
No Rickroll - I HOPE he threatens to leave the blog like most other trolls do.
If what you say, Randy, is proven, a fact and not a lie, then why haven't you submitted it to peer reviewed papers? If you can prove the existence of god, surely the world will bow to you, and we heathens will be proven wrong.
Posted by: Patricia | November 14, 2008 12:47 AM
We all wants it precious...snap, snap.
Even us sluts have dreams.
But you deserve it Kel.
Oh, and maybe that brazen hussy too. *grin*
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 14, 2008 12:52 AM
The point that I was making was that quite a few detrimental genetic disorders are inherited. You seem to be arguing that they are not.
If one of you guys (like Kel) says something stupid I am wondering if PZ will step in with valid information.
Posted by: melior | November 14, 2008 12:53 AM
John Morales @ 423:
God made those anencephalics in his own image.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 14, 2008 12:54 AM
Patricia,
I know I don't understand you. You seem to hate religious people. Maybe you don't but it sure seems like it? Why?
Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 12:59 AM
Of course they are inherited. We can see them being passed down the line. What I'm arguing is that if the genetic disorder was a problem for the species, then it would not make it through the reproductive cycle."No doubt some of your cousins and great-uncles died in childhood, but not a single one of your ancestors did. Ancestors just don't die young!" - Richard Dawkins
For someone who can't grasp that information theory doesn't prevent evolution, I wouldn't be throwing the word stupid around. Why don't you watch that first youtube video I posted and tell us how that could have come about without common ancestry?Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 14, 2008 1:02 AM
That's the wrong question. What you should be asking is "what do they have in common?"
A partial answer to that is that they are both forms of information. And information that is subject to random modification eventually turns to nonsense.
Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 1:05 AM
You've said nothing but stupid things, and PZ hasn't stepped in. The difference between you and me Randy is I understand I'm not a biologist. That's why all I do is echo what biologists and biochemists say, I don't know better and I don't pretend to.You on the other hand are trying to prove the scientists wrong and you are doing so by posting on this blog. The scientific process is open to anyone, but the peer review process is where it takes place. Posting on here is nothing but a game of mental manipulation, that even if you were right all you are doing is wasting your effort on people who have no say on the outcome. Submit your ideas for peer review, test them out in academia rather than in this faux-intellectual exchange.
Posted by: John Morales | November 14, 2008 1:07 AM
Melior, :)
I see you're back, Randy.
Instead of being indignant at Patricia, you may wish to explain how the "intelligent designer(s)" used algorithms so inferior to the currently available ones.
Unless, of course, all you have is bluster and misdirection.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 14, 2008 1:11 AM
By the way, I think using the word "mutation" to describe changes to DNA isn't the best choice. The very word seems to imply that all changes to DNA are negative. It might be preferable to talk about random modifications and non-randon modifications.
Recombination is the most dramatic modification that we see in DNA and I would consider that non-random modification.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 14, 2008 1:16 AM
"God made those anencephalics in his own image." HOLY SHIT, that's sick and twisted!
"A partial answer to that is that they are both forms of information." Dammit Randy, EVERYTHING is a from of information. you don't know anything about quantum mechanics either i suppose!
"Rickr0ll. Are you trying to Molly Award or what?" Nope, i'm just a tenacious son of a bitch! By the way, isn't there a picture of it? like so the winner can totally pimp their ID? so that it would show up to all your comments? that would be Sweeeeet.
Posted by: John Morales | November 14, 2008 1:18 AM
Randy, mutation means change, nothing more.
You're blustering again, and avoiding my question.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 14, 2008 1:19 AM
John. I wasn't being indignant. I was asking a sincere question. I may get sassy at times forget to stick my tonque out like this :P so that you know I am kidding but I am never indignant. I really would like to know what is going throught Patricia's head.
Also, I am not a Christian so I don't assume that God is all knowing and can create a perfect design. All things designed have flaws. My frickin pressure washer blew up today and reminded me of that. But even if some designed things didn't have flaws they would still acquire flaws due to entropy.
Posted by: John Morales | November 14, 2008 1:23 AM
Rickr0ll, if you see an OM after the name of a poster here, it generally means, to use John Cleese's expression, "somebody who's so smart I'd be scared to open my mouth in his or her presence". Not all winners care to use the honorific, however.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intellegent Designer | November 14, 2008 1:26 AM
Well Rickr0ll, It's been 29 years since I took a class in quantum mechanics. I've forgot almost everything. Maybe you should give me a lesson :P
Posted by: John Morales | November 14, 2008 1:31 AM
Randy,
Um. Earlier @307, you wrote "If you think of entropy only in terms of thermodynamics then there isn't much of a connection. Think instead of how entropy applies to information", but now you're referring to thermodynamic entropy (i.e. the physical mechanism of duplication).Oddly enough, computer hardware is also subject to entropy, and it copies information, and we use error-correction to adjust for this.
IOW, you've again evaded the question and blustered instead.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 14, 2008 1:32 AM
i have seen that. neat. i would rather change my name after winningl; Rickr0ll is just a meme i stole from morsec0de, the polite athiest lol (note the 0, which he wears on his head in most of his Youtube videos, cus he's in OSU)
sorry i'm not saying anything pertinent right now, but when Randy wants to take this seriously, i will
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 14, 2008 1:33 AM
In fact, I was taking Relativity and Quantum Mechanics at the University of Washington the year that PZ graduated from there. It must be a sign.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 14, 2008 1:34 AM
huh, the 0 doesn't show up? bummer
Posted by: RickrOll | November 14, 2008 1:40 AM
well, it's a zero people. i'm not an idiot, trust me. well, i guess since i haven't noticed it, that doesn't help me... why am i writing all of this?
so Randy, gonna continue to ignore the whole article or what? If you want to charm us with your personality, you are generally speaking not supposed to let us on to the fact that you are a greasy weazel Before you try being nice.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 14, 2008 1:45 AM
Seth Lloyd and Rudy Rucker both are computer programmers, and they don't see that there's some "issue" with evolution. I have thier books to prove it. Programming the Universe, and The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul, respectively.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 14, 2008 1:45 AM
I wasn't saying that. But that's a good question. I read somewhere that there is something like 1 copy error per billion nucleotides copied. Or maybe it was 2 or 3. Something like that. I am not sure how reliably we can transmitt information these days. But DNA copying happens in a much harsher environment. It's amazing how accurate it is.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 14, 2008 1:50 AM
Sorry Rickr0ll, I don't know what article you are talking about and I am to lazy reread all these blog entries to find out.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 14, 2008 1:54 AM
Actually Rickr0ll,
I don't know anything about you. Are you a college student or what?
Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 1:59 AM
The difference between DNA and code is that DNA is self-replicating. If the changes in DNA are good, then the organism survives and gives more offspring. If the changes ever are "nonsense", then it won't get passed on. If you wreck the code that makes our lungs, then you can damn well be sure that person won't survive to reproduce. Nonsense won't get passed on, it's that simple. Any offspring that has code that means they will have severe heart defects will be weeded out by natural selection. You just can't pass on nonsense, it's that simple.How do you expect an offspring that has severe problems to reproduce?!?
Posted by: Stanton | November 14, 2008 2:05 AM
So, Mr Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer, what concrete evidence do you have to demonstrate that life is intelligently designed, and what laboratory experiments have you done to verify your claims? Furthermore, if the countless flaws and imperfections seen in living organisms and organelles were made due to accumulated errors on these designers' part, to say nothing of the fact that many biochemical processes are structured exactly like extremely byzantine Rube Goldberg devices, why should we even consider them to be "intelligent" in the first place?
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 14, 2008 2:07 AM
the article Randy, is the one that the post consists of. Duh. What really irks me is that for all your blustering, you have utterly failed to use any kind of science to back up your claims. all you are doing is arguing.
My identity is unimportant :P I might be a college proffesor of Anthropology for all you know.
Posted by: melior | November 14, 2008 2:07 AM
@464:
Here's the RickRoll link again.
Posted by: Stanton | November 14, 2008 2:08 AM
Of course, then there is the problem that many genetic disorders arise de novo due to accidents during gametogenesis within the gonads of the parents.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 14, 2008 2:13 AM
Melior was the 1st one to do it since i've been here. and it's been like 2 weeks! you guys should be ashamed of yourselves for your lakiluster performance in this area!
thanks melior, you saved my life. just when i had thought of giving up, that there was no hope, you restored my broken soul. God bless you
Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 2:14 AM
The contention here is whether the "flaws" are detrimental. Our system not only can handle change in code, but for evolution to work it is required. A mutation to a vital component of the system is fatal, but that won't be passed on. But if it's not to a vital part of the system and doesn't affect the survival chance, then what is the problem? If someone survives to pass on their genetic code to their offspring, then their code is still a valid survival machine.We don't have a design on which to decay, shannon entropy is talking about set specified information. DNA is not set specified information in that manner. Your genetic code and my genetic code are different by about 3,000,000 characters. Now which of us is nonsense? Are we not both survival machines? Have we not both reached the age where we can have children? At your age, I'm sure you've already had children and thus your DNA was successful.
I have yet to sow my seed, but I'm still young and there is time. Maybe I won't get a chance too, that I didn't have what it takes to pass on my offspring or I choose not to. I'm still young, I have time. But the fact is that if any of my children have bad errors, or "nonsense" in their code, then they won't survive. It's already happened to two of my siblings, and 5 potential siblings. But me and my two other siblings have survived long enough to be potential parents (well my youngest sibling is only a teenager but he technically still could).
The point is that you can't get to nonsense because there are certain parts in your code that need to stay as they are in order for reproduction to occur. There are other parts that can change freely that aren't essential to our survival. If they change, so what? That's what your mistaking, that all you can do is have a code go to nonsense. You don't, you have a code that can change and does change. Some of those changes bring about advantageous traits, some cause problems. Most are neutral and have no bearing on our survival abilities.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 14, 2008 2:15 AM
Kel,
I agree that natural selection is one of many ways to weed out negative modifications to DNA. The point of my post at #318 is that random modifications to information are zillions of times more likely to be harmful than benificial.
It would take a lot of lucky modifications to create a new feature in a lifeform -- and before all those lucky modifications could co-exist they would be clobbered by unlucky ones.
Posted by: John Morales | November 14, 2008 2:17 AM
Randy,
Hm. If your disk drive had like 1..3 copy errors per gigabyte, you'd throw it away PDQ.For reference, the UBE (Unrecoverable Bit Error) rate for SCSI drives is typically specified at 1 bit in 10E15.
As to the environment being "harsh", you're also arguing it was "designed" to be so, remember?
Posted by: RickrOll | November 14, 2008 2:21 AM
"zillions of times more likely..."
WOW. FUCKING GREAT MATH. I can't believe it never occured to me like that! your deductive skills hev rendered me breathless*
*from laughing*
Posted by: Randy | November 14, 2008 2:21 AM
I don't quite a agree with that. If you are talking about random modifications then I certainly don't.
I am going to go out on a limb here is suggest that a lot of changes to DNA are orqestrated -- like recombination. We just don't yet know how much orchestrated changes there are.
Posted by: melior | November 14, 2008 2:21 AM
Hmm, I wonder if learning something about information theory might help here...
Could it be the answer is, arbitrarily reliable, so long as we're willing to make a tradeoff?
Thermodynamics of error correction: speed-error-dissipation tradeoff in copying
Bennett, C.H. Donkor, M.
T.J. Watson Res. Center, IBM Res., Yorktown Heights, NY;
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 14, 2008 2:26 AM
Melior,
Damn it. There is something I don't know. I must be an idiot. I suppose there is a book you want me to read. Well send it to me in care of PZ. I hear he is getting a lot of those these days.
Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 2:28 AM
Yes, there are more harmful mutations than beneficial. But that doesn't matter. There are far far more neutral mutations than detrimental. You should check out CDK007's video on this matter. No, it just takes an evolutionary arms race or a niche to fill. Remember that the time scales we are talking about are millions of years, hundreds of thousands of generations. Enough change over enough time on a smallish population will eventually lead to speciation. And once you have speciation then there can be no more interchange of genetic code and variation will accumulate.Posted by: RickrOll | November 14, 2008 2:30 AM
Just look at the link you nimrod and quit being suck a god-damned brat! You aren't 5 are you Randy? Grow up!
Posted by: melior | November 14, 2008 2:34 AM
S'okay, I'll give instructions even an idiot could follow: scroll up to my previous comment (#477) and point your mouse at the blue part and click the left mouse button. That will make the screen in front of your face display something called an "abstract" from a "journal article", in Information Theory Workshop, 2008. ITW '08. IEEE.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 14, 2008 2:35 AM
Well actually I might not have time to read that book. Kel wants me to watch a bunch you YouTube videos, Rickroll wants me to read talk origins and a couple of wikipedia articles and learn some quantum mechanics. Nerd of Redhead want me to write something in a peer reviewed journal. Santon wants me to do some labratory experiments. I just don't know what to do first. Maybe you guys should get together prioritize my todo list :P
Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 2:36 AM
This series is really good Randy.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=019F146277A3EDFD
Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 2:42 AM
The videos are only 10 minutes each and cover exactly what you are talking about.If you want to inform yourself watch the videos and read the articles. If you want your idea to be taken seriously (i.e. you think you have a clue) present your findings in academia through peer review.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson | November 14, 2008 2:48 AM
Kel,
I doesn't matter how many billions of years go by. Lucky modifications will continue to be overwhelmed by like harmful modifications. And everytime I here that arms race bullshit I laugh.
Posted by: melior | November 14, 2008 2:55 AM
*blows whistle*
Randy, you're doing it wrong.
Rule 12 clearly states that you don't get the extra 10 points on the Crackpot Index until you offer us prize money.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory
Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 2:55 AM
If you won't watch the first youtube video, at least read this
We have, as I'm sure most people know, 46 chromosomes in our human cells. That means we have 23 pairs of chromosomes because you get 23 from mom and you get 23 from dad, so we've all got 46 total. We've got 23 pairs.
Now, the curious thing about the great apes is they have more. They have, as you can see from the slide, 48 chromosomes, which means they have 24 pairs. Now, what that means, Mr. Walczak, is that you and I, in a sense, are missing a chromosome, we're missing a pair of chromosomes. And the question is, if evolution is right about this common ancestry idea, where did the chromosome go?
Now, there's no possibility that that common ancestry which would have had 48 chromosomes because the other three species have 48, there's no possibility the chromosome could have just got lost or thrown away. Chromosome has so much genetic information on it that the loss of a whole chromosome would probably be fatal. So that's not a hypothesis.
Therefore, evolution makes a testable prediction, and that is, somewhere in the human genome we've got to be able to find a human chromosome that actually shows the point at which two of these common ancestors were pasted together. We ought to be able to find a piece of Scotch tape holding together two chromosomes so that our 24 pairs -- one of them was pasted together to form just 23. And if we can't find that, then the hypothesis of common ancestry is wrong and evolution is mistaken.
Go to the next slide. Now, the prediction is even better than that. And the reason for that is chromosomes themselves have little genetic markers in their middles and on their ends. They have DNA sequences, which I've highlighted in here, called telomeres that exist on the edges of the chromosomes.
Then they have special DNA sequences at the center called centromeres, which I've highlighted in red. Centromeres are really important because that's where the chromosomes are separated when a cell divides. If you don't have a centromere, you're in really big trouble.
Now, if one of our chromosomes, as evolution predicts, really was formed by the fusion of two chromosomes, what we should find is in that human chromosome, we should find those telomere sequences which belong at the ends, but we should find them in the middle. Sort of like the seam at which you've glued two things together, it should still be there.
And we should also find that there are two centromeres, one of which has, perhaps, been inactivated in order to make it convenient to separate this when a cell divides. That's a prediction. And if we can't find it in our genome, then evolution is in trouble.
Next slide. Well, lo and behold, the answer is in Chromosome Number 2. This is a paper that -- this is a facsimile of a paper that was published in the British journal Nature in 2004. It's a multi-authored paper. The first author is Hillier, and other authors are listed as et al. And it's entitled, The Generation and Annotation of the DNA Sequences of Human Chromosomes 2 and 4.
And what this paper shows very clearly is that all of the marks of the fusion of those chromosomes predicted by common descent and evolution, all those marks are present on human Chromosome Number 2.
Would you advance the slide. And I put this up to remind the Court of what that prediction is. We should find telomeres at the fusion point of one of our chromosomes, we should have an inactivated centromere and we should have another one that still works.
And you'll note -- this is some scientific jargon from the paper, but I will read part of it. Quote, Chromosome 2 is unique to the human lineage of evolution having emerged as a result of head-to-head fusion of two acrocentric chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. The precise fusion site has been located, the reference then says exactly there, where our analysis confirmed the presence of multiple telomere, subtelomeric duplications. So those are right there.
And then, secondly, during the formation of human chromosome 2, one of the two centromeres became inactivated, and the exact point of that inactivation is pointed out, and the chromosome that is inactivated in us -- excuse me, the centromere that is inactivated in us turns out to correspond to primate Chromosome Number 13.
So the case is closed in a most beautiful way, and that is, the prediction of evolution of common ancestry is fulfilled by that led-pipe evidence that you see here in terms of tying everything together, that our chromosome formed by the fusion from our common ancestor is Chromosome Number 2. Evolution has made a testable prediction and has passed.
How else can you explain our fused chimp chromosome without common ancestry?
Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 2:59 AM
No they won't, if you would only inform yourself about how natural selection works then you would see that it's not a problem. Natural selection weeds out the bad mutations. Watch the CDK007 video and see how it works, he uses computer simulations of fitness to show how negative mutations get weeded out.Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | November 14, 2008 3:00 AM
Ok. It's midnight here in Seattle. I should go to bed so that I can be alert enough to do decent work tomorrow. Good night.
Kel, I think we should make a bargin. I'll take the time to watch those you tube videos if you take the time to download the application I've been working on and try it out. http://www.prtracker.com That's my business website.
Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 3:16 AM
If you don't want to watch the videos and remain ignorant of how the process works, fine. Don't let me stop you. Just don't preach that it can't happen when there is information out there detailing how it can and does happen. This issue is not going to be won or lost on your ability to argue, it comes down to the evidence. If you are just going to ignore it and claim that information theory that has no relevance to the type of information DNA is invalidates evolution, you are going to continue to remain wrong and mocked by those who know better.Posted by: RickrOll | November 14, 2008 3:17 AM
Randy, I've had to question your intelligence before, but leaving your business site at a place like this, saying the things you've said... well, that just isn't safe. Hopefully no one will destroy it while you sleep.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 14, 2008 10:45 AM
Hey, I've got a suggestion for Priority #1!Posted by: abb3w | November 14, 2008 11:34 AM
Rickroll: as newton said, he saw thaty Nature was a book of god's revelationa as well, of the same caliber as the Bible
Arguably, of higher caliber. From a religious viewpoint, the universe is the direct handiwork of God without mundane intermediaries, while Bibles and Q'rans are copies made via human means.
Randy Simpson: And information that is subject to random modification eventually turns to nonsense.
Unless, of course, the errors occur in a process of duplication, and there are selective pressures to eliminate nonsensical copies.
Kel: The point is that you can't get to nonsense because there are certain parts in your code that need to stay as they are in order for reproduction to occur
No, you can get to that kind of nonsense. You can even "get" to nonsense that is intrinsically fatal. It's just that such nonsenses tend to be self-eliminating over (possibly very short) time.
Of course, some nonsense is close enough to sense to work for quite a while.
Kel: How else can you explain our fused chimp chromosome without common ancestry?
1) Chance; odds of approximately one in 2^(10^9), IIR.
2) Design... which, however, requires evidence of purpose to "independently" creating either the ape or the human species so similar to the other. Without specifying the design's purpose, the claim of design is meaningless. Without evidence to support a specific purpose, odds are the same as chance. And even then, since the design process is an evolutionary competitive selection of variations (see historian George Basalla's book "The Evolution of Technology"), the mechanism of the purpose must be distinguished, and a probability established under present evidence relative to ordinary evolutionary mechanisms.
Posted by: StuV | November 14, 2008 1:24 PM
Damn it. There is something I don't know. I must be an idiot.
Witness, oh fellow Minions... Randy is starting to see the light!
(Took him long enough)
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 14, 2008 1:49 PM
Priority 1: Stop being a disingenuous lying moron. This is absolutely critical.
Priority 2: Learn something about biology. You think you understand genetics, population dynamics, cellular biology, and evolution, and you obviously don't.
Priority 3: Learn something about thermodynamics. You think you understand entropy, and you obviously don't.
Priority 4: Learn something about the intersection of biology with information theory. You think you understand biostatistics and probability, and you obviously don't.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 14, 2008 1:59 PM
For those who are curious about what archaeology actually has discovered about the tales in the Torah:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 14, 2008 2:48 PM
You make a Bose-Einstein condensate, which has 0 K. The trick is you can't get all atoms in your sample to join the condensate; some stay outside and carry the remaining heat energy, and that's why the temperature of the whole thing is given as micro- or nanokelvins.
So what? It's called "degrees Celsius", but "Kelvin". :-|
Naaah. You've overlooked the Catholic way out of this: having evolved from mere animals, we have a sinful nature and do too need salvation. Never misundreshtmate the ability of Catholic theologians to wrap their theology around anything.
To a Biblical literalist, common descent and an old Earth both mean god didn't do what he said he did.
Indeed.
In the process, countless molecules of ATP get cleaved into ADP and P. This increases entropy, because instead of one molecule there are now two that can move around at random. And the preceding buildup of ATP also increases entropy, because it involves turning glucose and oxygen (one big and a few small molecules) into carbon dioxide and water (lots of small molecules). You can't win, and you can't break even :-)
Murphy's Law: our repair processes tend not to keep up forever.
What do you mean? We are seeing it. What does "'positively'" mean?
No, you don't get to define technical terms as you please. "Closed system" means "a system which matter can neither enter nor leave", and "isolated system" means "a system which neither matter nor energy can enter or leave", and entropy only has to increase in isolated systems.
Websites by creationists who don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about, it seems.
And then one of the duplicates starts mutating by substitution (or deletion perhaps). There you go.
See above: you were just one step away from noticing that this is wrong.
Wrong. You have been too lazy to look up its definition -- that's what's going on here!
Yet another term that you have been too lazy to look up the definition of!
That's because laboratory air contains pixie dust, which works magic that cannot happen elsewhere, right? Right?
Logic: ur doin it rong.
The argument from consequences is a logical fallacy. And you're full of curry.
Of course not. Nothing is ever truly new in evolution. :-)
Not at all. It's just "I am/was/will be" in the imperfective aspect -- recall that Biblical Hebrew has no tenses, just the perfective and the imperfective aspect. "I am becoming" has been suggested as the best translation, and that would make a lot of sense...
That's a later merger.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 14, 2008 2:56 PM
The whole exodus story means Babylon when it says "Egypt". Saying "Babylon" would have been too obvious for something that was apparently written in Babylon during the Babylonian exile (which is well documented on Babylonian clay tablets).
Same as how the Book of the Revelation to John means Rome when it says "Babylon".
Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 5:56 PM
I thought that was my point.Posted by: Intelligent Designer vs Kel | November 14, 2008 10:15 PM
Ok. I have fired the first shot at Kel blog entry "There's a monkey sitting at the type writter".
Posted by: Kel | November 14, 2008 10:21 PM
What does that have anything to do with evolution? I made that quite clear."This method does not work in the way evolution does, that was the point of the entire post. Language and DNA are simply not comparable. The whole point was to show how we can recognise specified information because it can't be generated any other way."
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 14, 2008 10:32 PM
*Standing O, applause*
Well done David. aren't you sure your name shouldn't have an MO next to it lol? I know EXACTLY where to take your link. thanks much!!
However, "I am becoming as I am" doesn't really help as i see it. And what do you mean by "later merger"? Please do explain.
Posted by: John Morales | November 14, 2008 10:38 PM
Um, Rickr0ll, David does have an OM.
Also, it's considered rude to ask for stuff before doing a bit of research.
Posted by: Rickr0ll | November 14, 2008 10:39 PM
Randy, the monkeys wouldn't be sitting at typewriters, they would be typing on computers, 'writing' code for programs. Taking the proper metaphor, the claim is much easier to understand. I am not entirely sure who first made this significant logical leap in correcting this deeply flawed analogy (it was i think either in Godel, Escher, Bach, or one of the two programmers that i mentioned already; there is an off chance that i'm still wrong, and it is in another book i have), however, this is what would be proper to discuss. More importantly, it's right up your alley!
Posted by: RickrOll | November 14, 2008 10:46 PM
Aha, here it is: "Computation and Complexity", pg 55-61 in Programming the Universe by Seth Lloyd
sorry, i failed to notice that at first David :P. Anyway, i thought it would be simple enough to ask. For one thing, i wouldn't know exactly where to start and also run the risk of getting MISinformation. Sorry if it rude to ask, i am relitively new here; forgive my insolence *bows*
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008 3:11 PM
I was told you love CREATIONISTS here!
1. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION
Evolution falls flat on it's face before it even starts. It requires NON-living things to naturally turn into living organisms all by themselves! This is SCIENTIFICALLY and NATURALLY IMPOSSIBLE. It has never been observed and there is no evidence whatsoever that it could ever happen, under any natural circumstances. Evolution is a Fairy Tale that Mother Goose wouldn't believe!
In plain language, to believe in evolution, that all life had a common ancestor, and that life formed from non-life, you MUST believe that YOU came from a ROCK! You gotta have ROCKS in your head to believe that! Must be STONED!
Not only that, but you must believe that ALL LIFE made itself from a ROCK. That takes more faith than the Bible account could ever require. Only a gullible religious FANATIC could possibly swallow that!
If it could ever happen, it would be SUPER-natural. That would verify Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth! Evolution says that life arose from non-life, naturally, which is an oxymoron! It CAN'T happen naturally.
There are really only two possibilities. Life arose naturally and created itself, or life was created Super-naturally. The only other possibilities are believed by people in rubber rooms who wear their sleeves tied behind their back. One is that we are not here, we only think we are. The other is that there was no origin, we have always been here. Both of those ideas are more bird-brained than a Cuckoo clock!
If "life" could ever be created in a laboratory (no one has come close), all it would prove is that intelligent beings, working in a controlled environment, manipulated and experimented until they CREATED life! It would vindicate Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth! Evolution says that the life arose by ITSELF, not with the help of a Creator.
Do not let someone fool you with the misnamed "Micro-evolution" vs. "Macro-evolution" farce. What they call micro-evolution is not evolution at all. It is genetic variation and adaptation. It does happen naturally, has been observed, and can be replicated. The ability is already contained in the genes of the organism, and is limited by those genes. Anybody who tries to confuse the two got into the gene pool while the lifeguard wasn't watching .
Evolution (macro) says that one kind of animal TURNS INTO ANOTHER kind. It is the Fairy Tale of "The Frog Prince", except instead of a kiss turning the frog into a Prince, it takes "millions of years", instead. The "kiss" version is more scientific and believable! This has NEVER been observed, cannot be repeated, has absolutely NO empirical evidence, and is no more scientific than the Sunday Funnies. It is more comical than a Three Stooges film festival.
Evolution says that a mouse becomes a moose, or a goose becomes a moose, a birch becomes a perch, a horsefly becomes a horse, and a frog becomes a Prince. Yes, it is a fairy tale too unbelievable for the brothers Grimm to include.
2. MISSING LINKS
The term "missing link" is an incredible underestimation, the whole CHAIN is missing! There are NO links they are ALL missing. There should be numerous transitional life forms between every species (thousands if not millions of different ones), but there is NOT even ONE indisputable link! Some evolutionists will try to claim one or two are, but they are highly suspect. All that have been proposed so far (Archaeopteryx, the horse series, Lucy, et al) have been thoroughly discredited.
The straw that evolutionists will grasp is to claim that the links must be out there somewhere, we just haven't found them yet. This shows the utter lack of intellectual honesty they exhibit. Evolutionists have been searching diligently for nearly 140 years since Darwin's Fables was published. If they can't uncover even ONE missing link in a century and a half, why should we believe anything they spew out? No evidence in 140 years, and that's supposed to masquerade for 'science'?
Darwin was at least honest enough to say that the fossil record should bear the missing links IF his theory was true. The fossil record has failed miserably to show evolution. when it comes to empirical evidence, evolution is "without form and void". Not only are there no new links discovered in the past 140 years, but there are even LESS "disputable" ones, as those formerly offered have been proven false.
Supposedly, a theory that cannot be visibly substantiated can be verifiable or falsifiable by predictions it should be able to make. The predictions of evolution would be that the fossil record would show all kinds of transitional forms, since creatures allegedly change from one into another. The predictions of the Genesis Creation model would be that the fossil record would show all creatures fully formed, with no fractional transitions. The Creation scenario is exactly what 140 years of the best efforts of evolutionists purposefully trying to document their own foolishness have uncovered in the fossil record. Evolution is unable to make predictions worthy of a fortune cookie!
The biggest gaps in the theory come at the beginning. We have one celled creatures. The next most "simple" creatures contain thousands of cells. Where are the two-celled transitions? How about the four-celled links? Anybody for eight? Sixteen? 32, 64, ...hut! ? They have been missing longer than Amelia Earhart.
Then comes the gap between soft creatures and invertebrates. Invertebrates have no backbone, so they instead have a shell like a lobster. How could soft tissue evolve into a lobster shell with no transitional phases on the way? Houdini could not pull that one off.
How about invertebrate to vertebrates (creatures with a backbone)? The shell suddenly folded up, stuffed itself inside the creature, and began working as a complicated spine with no in-between stages? No, actually the theory is what suddenly "folded up"!
There are no transitions between ANY of the species. But if there could be, they would be a PROBLEM, not the solution. How could legs evolve into wings (or scales into feathers, etc.) without first being incomplete as EITHER? That would make the evolving creature highly susceptible to being caught by predators, and being unable to catch food itself, thereby becoming extinct. If someone espousing evolution had any less sense, he'd have to be watered twice a week.
Think about this, how did sea life supposedly evolve up into mammals, and then the whales decided to go back into the water? Are whales backsliders?
Mammals (which whales are) give birth HEAD-first (except, of course, partial-birth aborted humans, which are turned backwards on purpose, so their brains can be sucked out before their head is out of the womb). If whales gave birth like mammals should, we wouldn't worry about having to "save the baby whales", they'd all drown! It takes too long for a whale to give birth. Wouldn't you know, whales naturally give birth upside-down! Now how did evolution 'know' how to do that? Did it wait until all the babies drowned and then realize that they needed to give breach birth? Too late, they'd be as extinct as the theory of evolution!
Add to this the irregularity of the fossils than do exist. Many of them are found in the wrong stratas, some are found upright through more than one strata. that would mean they took millions of years to be fossilized (if the supposed ages are accurate, which they're not, which is another dagger into evolution). They would have decayed in that time. The Grand Canyon, for example, is missing nearly 200 million years of fossil layers.
If you give an evolutionist a penny for his thoughts, you'd get back change.
3. THERMODYNAMICS
The first two laws of Thermodynamics render evolution as impossible as a Cadillac evolving from an old Datsun, after an accident. They are LAWS, provable, demonstrable, testable, repeatable, empirical, scientific LAWS, not some wild dream like evolution.
The 1st Law is the law of conservation. It states that neither matter, nor energy, can be created or destroyed. One can be changed into the other, but it cannot be annihilated.
This proves that no matter or energy can be created by natural means. It is impossible. Again, it requires something SUPER-natural, and we are back to Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Evolutionists just cannot get past the very first verse in the Bible. No matter how hard they try to avoid it, we keep coming back to Gen 1:1. If one can accept that "In the beginning GOD...", the rest of the Bible comes easy.
They cannot explain how the first thing came into existence out of nothing. Some call that first item, the "Cosmic Egg". Well, how did it get there? Was it laid by a cosmic chicken? Evolutionists really cannot tell which came first between the chicken and the egg!
The second law is the law of entropy. When changing form, some of the energy becomes unusable, and thus everything runs down, decays, ages, breaks-down, becomes random, etc. when left to itself.
This proves that evolution is absurdly impossible because it claims that we have evolved progressively. According to true science, all things break down. We should be de-volving, if natural processes take their course, they opposite of what evolution says. Of course we do not become another kind of creature, but we do age and decay as required by the 2nd law.
Evolution is in the unenviable position of having to assert that random mutations somehow reverse the tendency of destruction inherent in the 2nd law as well as the mutations themselves.
This law also proves impossible that something has always existed. Nothing can exist infinitely, it would wear-out sooner or later. Evolutionists must have a time buying a used car and expecting it not to break-down in spite of the maintenance and fuel added to it.
The argument that evolutionist will use is to claim that the laws of Thermodynamics only apply to a closed system, not to an open one. There are more holes in that claim than in Swiss cheese after a machine gun attack!
1) Thermodynamic laws have operated on every system ever observed, open or closed. It's an open and shut case. They simply hope and pray that somewhere there is an open system that violates the law. It takes more faith than a religious zealot to believe that in the face of the fact that it's never been observed.
2) The universe is a closed system. An open system has an outside source feeding it energy. Of course, that means the outside source would undergo entropy. If there is something outside the universe feeding it, it is something beyond what is natural. It would be something SUPER-natural. Here we go again, right back to Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The main idea of evolution is that the universe got here with NO outside help. They cannot explain how the FIRST thing got here, without God.
3) We are an example of an open system. We get our energy (fuel) from food and the sun. Nonetheless, we still age and DIE. Obviously the 2nd law still works in an open system. If aging and death are the evolutionist's idea of victory over entropy, then they can expect a huge rebate from this taxing of their brains.
4) Growth is not an example of improvement or defeating entropy. Everything needed for the entire life of an organism is present in the genes. Growth is not necessarily an improvement. It requires outside fuel, thus the provider undergoes entropy. As something grows it needs more and bigger organs to accomplish less than the original single-celled organism! Imagine how complex that original zygote must have been. Growth still doesn't explain how one kind of creature can change into another, which is what evolution requires.
5) Even if a living creature could defeat entropy temporarily, that doesn't explain how the entire universe could support any kind of evolutionary scenario. The universe would've been destroyed before it could ever create increasing complexity all by itself (we are back to Gen 1:1 and the SUPER-natural again!)
6) Evolutionists believe that the very same processes that have been observed only to cause decay, death, and destruction caused NOTHING to create something, and the something to make itself come alive and then to evolve into more complex creatures culminating with man. What great faith!
7) An open system alone would not be enough to form life, even if it could defeat entropy. Also needed would be an adequate supply of energy, a conversion system to make the supply of raw energy constructive, and a control system to direct and regulate the conversion. All must exist simultaneously. None of these conditions are inherent in the origin of the universe.
It looks like the theory of evolution is suffering from a severe case of entropy.
5. BIG BANG BALONEY
The first question that must be asked is, "What banged?" How did the "Cosmic Egg", or "Hot Dot", (or whatever the going theory proposes) come into existence? Where did the energy come from to make it bang? The Big Popgun theorizes that the egg/dot spun rapidly to form the energy to be put into motion. But, what made it spin? How did it get hot? Do they really expect sane people to believe that all of the matter in the universe was compacted into something the size of an egg or a dot! Once again, evolutionists can't get beyond the first verse in the Bible.
There is one fatal flaw in the Big Bang bunk. The Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum specifies that if a rotating object breaks up, the pieces will continue spinning in the same direction until acted upon by an outside force. Of course, we are talking about the origin of matter and energy, there WAS no outside force to interfere with the motion, except "In the beginning God..."!
The problem is that two planets (Venus and Uranus), and several moons spin backwards! Some of the moons even rotate north/south instead of east/west. Some are even revolving backwards around their planet! The Angular Momentum is yet another empirical scientific LAW that must be broken for evolution to be true. If evolution keeps on being such a lawbreaker, pretty soon it will have to deal with the Lawgiver!
The Big Bang is backwards! As a matter of fact, in the Bible account, that's not how the world began, that's how it will end!
6. OXYGEN DILEMMA
One more simple fact that evolutionists ignore is the oxygen dilemma.
Evolutionists know that if oxygen was present when their theory of origins was taking place, that organic molecules would be destroyed before they could be made. Thus, they pretend like there was no oxygen in the early earth model.
The problem is, with no oxygen (which would also mean no Ozone which is oxygen with an extra atom per molecule), there'd be nothing to filter the earth from harmful radiation from the sun. This includes dangerous ultra-violet rays, gamma rays, infra-red light, and others. They, especially the UV, are fatal to a forming life. UV light destroys amino acids for one.
Thus, with, or without, oxygen, life couldn't have naturally arisen. One more time, that puts the beginning of life in the SUPER-natural realm, back to Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Ho, hum, the evolutionists still can't get past the very first verse in the Bible.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 15, 2008 3:21 PM
What a dunderhead. Starts out confusing evolution with abiogenesis, and goes even further into stupidity as he describes what he thinks evolution says or doesn't say.
Show me the scientific papers, from refereed scientific journals, to back up your wild, irrational arguments. If you can't do that, you have no evidence, and no argument.
Seems to think rhetoric equals science, which is utterly false. That post is so wrong, it isn't even wrong.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 15, 2008 3:26 PM
Teno: Why are you afraid of evolution?
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 15, 2008 3:41 PM
Teno Groppi at #506, You've spammed Freerepublic with this, verbatim, in 2003, promising we'd have fits and run away, and you only now get around to field-testing your claims? You left off the funniest part of your so-called E-Z Evolution Refuter, the preamble!
(Is Gumby available in blockquotes for commenters? I'll just put a hanky on my head then, shall I?)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 15, 2008 4:29 PM
Ken, thanks for the history with with this troll. Five years to polish and find scientific evidence to back up his ideas, and still nothing. Says something about the laziness and moral bankruptcy of creobots.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 15, 2008 4:29 PM
Well, that's your first lie.
And the rest is 40 paragraphs, some 300-odd sentences, of additional, already-refuted lies.
That's a lot of lying.
I think that crosses the line into genuine false testimony. If there's a Hell, you're going to Hell.
Posted by: tresmal | November 15, 2008 6:16 PM
That's quite a steaming pile of wrong you dumped there Teno.
(pokes at it with stick) I don't suppose you intend to clean it up?
I'll just respond to one of your points: the "oxygen dilemma". Abiogenesis is thought to have occurred in water, which, if it is deep enough, does a fine job of blocking harmful radiation. That was easy!
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008 7:17 PM
"Abiogenesis is THOUGHT to have occurred in water"
What a laugh -- "THOUGHT"! You are delusional, where is any of this proof?! I suppose only in theory.
Try again, this lacks believability.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 15, 2008 7:23 PM
Everything you wrote lacks believability, you bearer of false witness.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 15, 2008 7:25 PM
Teno, still no cited scientific literature for your ideas? Are you just an idiot? If you have an argument, you need some facts (evidence) to back it up. Attempting to tear down the other side does not prove your ideas. Now, time to cite the scientific literature backing your ideas, or go back home and stay there. Without proof you have nothing. At the moment, you just look like an illiterate fool.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 15, 2008 7:27 PM
Teno Groppi,
What will you do when your ludicrous ravings have no effect? There isn't a fresh thought in the whole stinking heap of feculent vomit you just produced. Idiots like you have been spewing rubbish like this for 150 years, while evolutionary theory goes from strength to strength, and research on the distinct problem of abiogenesis makes rapid progress. On the latter, have a look at the work of Shostak for example, and come back with a detailed, rational critique - or not at all.
Posted by: tresmal | November 15, 2008 7:36 PM
Yes Teno, it is thought to have occurred in water. Just about all of biochemistry happens in water. All of our oldest fossils come from aquatic environments. Its not exactly a wild shot in the dark to suppose that abiogenesis occurred there.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 15, 2008 7:46 PM
And the evidence is as follows:
1) Every living cell is composed of mostly water;
2) Water is absolutely vital to life; all of the chemical reactions that involve life require water
3) The ocean is teeming with life, more so than the land, and far more so than the air. A bucket of ocean water will have billions of microscopic organisms living in it.
4) The Szostak Laboratory and other researchers into the origins of life have found several promising chemical reactions, all of which take place in liquid water.
5)
a) Water is very common, covering 75% of the planet, with the oceans reaching from the equator to the poles, and to depths of some 10 kilometers.
b) Light penetration in all frequencies falls off in recognizable gradients as depth increases.
c) Convection brings warmer water up into lighter zones and back down again into darker zones.
6) Water temperatures on the Earth can range from completely frozen to ice-water slurries to ordinary liquid, to boiling, to superheated states under extreme pressures. This allows for an equally large range of chemical reactions that can take place in each of these conditions.
And so on. So that's 6 thoughts with a large range of potential implications for the origins of life.
Meanwhile, theists can't get God to talk about what he allegedly did. Theism fails.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 15, 2008 7:47 PM
where is any of this proof?! I suppose only in theory.
See, this sort of mocking response (with the capslock and exclamation marks and the ignorance of the way words like proof and theory are used by people with even a high school level of understanding of science) shows that TG's style of discourse is suitable only for those who reject and deny science, out of stubborn, willful ignorance, and sheer intellectual sloth.
Posted by: tresmal | November 15, 2008 8:01 PM
Which brings up another point. Between complete ignorance of abiogenesis and having it nailed down is a wide spectrum of levels of knowledge. While science doesn't know (yet) how it occurred, it has moved far enough along that spectrum to disturb the sleep of any creationist scientifically literate enough to understand it (which obviously excludes Teno Groppi.)Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008 8:10 PM
Hogwash about the water. Science 101 on hydrolysis tells us that water is "necessary" for life, but it is also detrimental "to the origins" of life since it decomposes the molecules of amino acid bonds. Look it up, its in your basic chemistry book.
Your imagination here that water creates life resembles the wings of a pig.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 15, 2008 8:20 PM
Hogwash on you. Look up the origins of life research.
Your imagination that God creates life is less believable than the wings of a pig.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 15, 2008 8:26 PM
Teno, that is not what I taught in introductory organic. Just another creation liar. Your lies are just too easy to refute. Time to shut up.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 15, 2008 8:29 PM
Your imagination here that water creates life resembles the wings of a pig.
Nobody here has made a claim even remotely similar to the claim that water creates life. Adding reading comprehension to the checklist.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 15, 2008 8:33 PM
Reminds me of one creationist nut who said water breaks down all chemical bonds, and apparently believes the world turns into soup whenever it rains.
This is slightly less stupid. I have a hard time believing this because aren't all our amino acids in water right now?
As for Creationism, as so many others have pointed out, it hasn't gotten beyond screaming "Magic! Voodoo! Pixies! Chi!" as their explanation for anything.
Posted by: John Morales | November 15, 2008 8:44 PM
I wish I could link to an article I read some time back, which listed the umpteen times that creationists predicted the imminent "death of Darwinism", beginning shortly after the On the Origin of Species was published, but I can't find it with a quick search (there's too much "noise"). It was a looooooong list, well-populated in the 19th and 20th centuries, and it apparently continues.
Posted by: tresmal | November 15, 2008 8:45 PM
..."it decomposes the molecules of amino acid bonds" Whaaa? That's gibberish. Nobody said, or believes, that water "creates" life; water is the environment in which live arose. If you are going to persist in this, you really should educate yourself about the science you're criticizing. You wouldn't go to a physics site to argue quantum theory armed only with what you remember from high school physics, would you? Then why would you come here with only the misinformation and the cartoon version of evolution you picked up from creationists?Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008 8:53 PM
I had noticed that some of you are very careful in choosing your words and responding that science doesn't know (yet) how it occurred. This is obviously the truth along with acknowledging that IT HAS NEVER BEEN WITNESSED not even in the most sophisticated laboratories in the world.
You people are sitting in a sewer of crapulous lout and adding to it. And, you are so full of it that even the toilets are jealous.
Your claims (and theories) are essentially rootless.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 15, 2008 8:59 PM
Teno Groppi,
You are a pathetic moron. Of course we say that we don't yet know how life first emerged, because we don't. Science is not complete, peabrain, but advances continue apace, with absolutely no reason to think abiogenesis cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Until you've done as I suggested, and studied current work, such as that of Shostak, your stupid remarks are worthless. Now fuck off, there's a good troll.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 15, 2008 9:02 PM
Says the guy speaking for a God that never says anything at all.
They are based on reason and evidence.
Your claims and arguments are obviously all false, you liar.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 15, 2008 9:07 PM
Teno crappino, why don't you take a gander at wikipedia's article on abiogenisis before you sling anymore of your ignorant shit around eh?
Posted by: tresmal | November 15, 2008 9:09 PM
Teno groppi said:
Science hasn't been able to reproduce an event that took place more than 3.5 billion years ago,over a period of thousands, if not millions of years, under conditions only partially understood.
Exactly what Jesus would have said!Wow. What a comeback. You sure got us there Teno. /sarcasm
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the hypothesis of natural abiogenesis is correct. What makes you think that science should be able to replicate it?
Posted by: John Morales | November 15, 2008 9:09 PM
Teno, you do realise the TOE doesn't address abiogenesis, but change of existing life?
No, it hasn't been observed (hard to do, it occurred billions of years ago). However, science is close to duplicating that feat - i.e. creating life de novo.
You're in denial.
Posted by: tresmal | November 15, 2008 9:15 PM
Let me amend my last comment to read: Why should science be able to replicate it today right now?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 15, 2008 9:15 PM
By the way, Groppi, just what is a "sewer of crapulous lout"? I don't think the words in that phrase mean what you think they do. But then, there clearly aren't many things that mean what you think they do.
Posted by: John Morales | November 15, 2008 9:25 PM
tresmal, even if (I think when) science creates life from scratch, it will only prove that it can be done, not that it was the way it actually happened. I can't see how that can ever be definitively known, but doing that much is enough to remove any need for the supernatural.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008 9:26 PM
You finally concede!
I never though the day would come.
I will certainly be going now to let you hoodwinked fools bicker endlessly (unresolved) among yourselves.
Maybe you'd be better off doing some soul searching.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 15, 2008 9:28 PM
listen Teno, if your god is SO DAMN SMART, have him submit his own fucking researcth paper! OR at the very least, dictate it to someone! That would solve all your problems, but sadly, illusions are not a suitable substitute for Scientific trial and mathmatical/experimental rigor, and they never will.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 15, 2008 9:32 PM
#537.
TG declares victory and scarpers. Nobody could have seen that one coming.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 15, 2008 9:34 PM
Teno, you don't have theory until you prove god exist. Where is your proof for god? A nice piece of physical evidence is required. Or is that beyond your feeble skills?
No god, no creation. Simple.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 15, 2008 9:35 PM
Who conceded what?
I concede that Teno Groppi is a liar.
Posted by: tresmal | November 15, 2008 9:35 PM
Teno Groppi bullshat:
I never though the day would come.
I will certainly be going now to let you hoodwinked fools bicker endlessly (unresolved) among yourselves.
The ol' Vietnam strategy; declare victory and leave. You really mean you got your ass handed to you and are now tucking your tail between your legs and are scurrying away.
Maybe you should do some science searching.Posted by: John Morales | November 15, 2008 9:37 PM
@537: apotheosis of denial.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 15, 2008 9:42 PM
well, if he's gone, that's one less ulcer in my stomach. and that's all that matters at the end of the day right?
Posted by: tresmal | November 15, 2008 9:45 PM
John Morales @536 I agree completely.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 15, 2008 9:45 PM
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
Is Teno from an alternate reality?
More comedic gold.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 15, 2008 9:46 PM
Two thoughts: It may be possible to show that whichever way was found was indeed the most uniquely probable chemical reaction path due to the various contingent conditions.
And if it doesn't look like that particular chemical reaction path was particularly unique, why stop at just one process of creating life? I can see abiogenesis research branching into both continued applied biotechnology and more and more advanced organic chemistry, and of course, both branches building upon and feeding into each other.
The point being, the science would not just stop even if one particular definite abiogenesis process was discovered, and if there are more to be discovered, they will be.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 15, 2008 9:56 PM
Ah, what a despicable tactic. Just declare victory (don't even say how it's a victory) and leave. Fortunately, it's fooling no one.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008 10:01 PM
Dear Redhead,
Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 15, 2008 10:03 PM
Two lies (or three? or four?) in one comment...Posted by: RickrOll | November 15, 2008 10:04 PM
Teno, you are irrelavent and an ignoramus, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out ok?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 15, 2008 10:04 PM
Teno, the burden of proof is upon those making the claims. If you claim god caused creation, then you must prove god. You non-answer is really an answer saying you are a lying sack of shit because you know you can't prove god. Time to put up or shut up. Shut up means going away and never returning.
Posted by: John Morales | November 15, 2008 10:07 PM
Owlmirror,
Well, we're sure bickering, aren't we? ;)I love science - so many things what were unimagined by our ancestors have come to pass in my lifetime - things which were considered impossible by science past (actual imaging of atoms and of extra-solar planets, for instance).
You remind me of Clarke's "laws".
Science is anything but dogmatic, though practicioners of it may well be.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 15, 2008 10:08 PM
my vote's "shut up." How do we know he isn't a sockpuppet anyway? there's alot of stupid floating around here these days... On the other hand, his stupid has a distinct revolting smell, dirrerent from the other's...
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 15, 2008 10:12 PM
Teno Groppi #506,
Did you even what this thread is about? At the very top of the page this argument is completely destroyed.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 15, 2008 10:16 PM
Clarke's 3rd is my favorite one to ponder. I actually did a short story once from the perspective of a sentient being made of nanobots that lived around one of the brine seas on the ocean floor once. Superintelligent algea basically, "magic weed" lol. I was wondering, has ANY scientific theory ever been discarded without a replacement being made first? If there hasn't, it makes it completely idiotic for any ID/creationist nuts to be raving about how wrong we are because they have no theories or hypothoses to speak of, only notions and ideas, with no math/ evidence to back it up.
Posted by: abb3w | November 15, 2008 10:17 PM
Teno Groppi [...]
Sigh.
1) Spontaneous generation
1.1) ...more properly should be referred to as "Abiogenesis" or "the Biogenic Transition", to separate it from the discredited conjecture involving timescales eight to twelve orders of magnitude smaller.
1.2) ...is separate from the question of evolutionary development after the development of a universal common cellular ancestor.
1.3) ...has a fair bit of research supporting it. See doi:10.1039/a803602k for a overview of the chemistry, and doi:10.1073/pnas.0806714105 for a recent overview of the math.
Incidentally, you misuse the terms microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution refers to genetic mutations within a population with the potential to diffuse (EG: sexually) within the rest of the population. Speciation results when a population is divided into two (or more) groups where there is a substantive probabilistic barrier against such diffusion Thereafter, new microevolutionary mutations in one subgroup are macroevolutionary to the other.
2) Missing links
2.1) ...are example of how the data set is incomplete. However, a complete data set is an impossibility; data are always incomplete. Science is a philosophical tool designed to determine the most probable character of data yet to be found.
Also, you misunderstand "falsifiability". In a more formal mathematical sense, this equates to "is distinguishable from the null hypothesis". Let me know if you want details.
3) Thermodynamics
3.1) First law, see below under "big bang".
3.2) AGAIN, see paper: "Natural selection for least action", by Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178). When the second law of thermodynamics is expressed for connected subsystems with mass-energy flow between, natural selection is a mathematical consequence.
4) There was no 4.
5) The Big Bang
5.1) The big bang is also independent of the question of evolution, as with the Biogenic transition.
5.2) Weirdly, the total mass-energy of the universe to within measurement limits is... zero. If correct, the big bang does not violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. There is a related analysis showing that the entropy increase involved means that having something is higher entropy than having nothing.
5.3) The "problems" with angular momentum result from assuming a perfectly uniform distribution of the universe. The development of local backward "eddies" is easy enough in several models of solar system development (EG: coalescence from a cloud of atoms with initial velocities random but bounded by net mass escape velocity), especially with Jupiter providing "slingshot" effects.
6) Oxygen
6.1) ...existed, but was admittedly tied up in compounds instead of O2 and O3
6.2) ...of those compounds, H2O and CO2 provide perfectly tolerable UV barriers
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 15, 2008 10:18 PM
Dear Keno,
It is incredible how little I talk of god when there is no religious person around to bring up the topic.
But, hey, you "won". Go celebrate! Break open the champagne and stray it about. You deserve it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 15, 2008 10:24 PM
RickrOll, Ken Cope #509 mentioned Teno is an old creobot who hasn't changed his arguments in five years. Typical. The creationists haven't had an original thought since Darwin's day. So at the end of the day, they sound very similar. Meanwhile, science has progressed 150 years which they never seem to grasp. Teno will be back to try to get the last word. But we will.
Very true. Science will change as the evidence changes. But for creationism/ID to be considered, they have to prove their case with evidence (not rhetoric) that isn't explained by evolution. So far, the creationist/ID movement has been very poor about getting their physical evidence into the scientific literature.
So Teno, you need to publish your evidence in scientific journals instead of posting rhetoric here.
Posted by: John Morales | November 15, 2008 10:24 PM
abb3w, that was great. I'll be doing some reading, just so you don't waste your effort on the creobot.
"Pearls before swine" and all that...
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 15, 2008 10:29 PM
abb3w,
LMAO.....Teno couldn't even correctly number his bad arguments.
Posted by: tresmal | November 15, 2008 10:42 PM
Abb3w; wow, you slogged your way through that entire mess. If I could buy you a drink I would.
The thing that strikes me is that I get the impression that he(?) genuinely thinks that that pitiful pile of errors, non sequiturs, assertions and gibberish is really truly a devastating and fatal critique of evolution. Sad. Hilarious, but sad.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008 10:42 PM
All you people are good for is leading the league in nostril hair! Your defeat over me is like being savaged by dead sheep.
Look, you conceded that there IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that living things evolved from water. Yet you continue to imagine like teddy bears eating cookies that it somehow found a way, which let me remind you has not been discovered yet, nor will it ever be. Szostak Laboratory is nowhere near creating life consisting of 100% left handed amino acids (which are completely evident in all forms of living things). It isn't creating anything new. It uses existing materials that were all ready present. This is just manipulating things that we already have here on earth.
You continue to envision something that is not there. Now I suspect that you will come back with some sort of trolling retort spinning what I just said to your own means.
This forum is very bias, I think I should invite some of my creationist friends to even things up.
Posted by: Kel | November 15, 2008 10:42 PM
New creotard makes Randy seem intelligent
Posted by: John Morales | November 15, 2008 10:45 PM
abb3w, your second link seems at first sight to be somewhat ad-hoc, if not facile. It seems more of a tutorial on using (simple) math than an examination of physical cosmology. It doesn't, for example, address dark matter/dark energy.
Which is not to say I dispute the point you make in the comment.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 15, 2008 10:47 PM
Abb3wL @557: Excellent.
*sigh* How much blame can i put on the creobots when our own education system in this country is Atrocious! it makes me so sad that we are still producing morons like these by default in the Bible Belt, and it doesn't help that in genral there is a completely anti-intellectual movement in this country (evidenced by S*r*h P*l*n- i dares not speaks it's name hissssss!! The attacks on Obama as an 'elitist' spring from this very same primitive sector of the brain). Looking at the education systems of Russia (my chemistry Proffesor is from Russia, so i know from her) and Japan, where Calculus is taken in 8th grade, to mention only 1 example, it makes me wonder if there is any chance that this epiphenomenon of blustering idio-centric, anti-evolution bollocks will dissapear. But i digress...
Posted by: nanu nanu | November 15, 2008 10:47 PM
I think it's probable Teno, currious and randy are the same person as all three continually use differently spelled variations of their names. My kill-file is damn near useless because I keep having to add them again when they post as the spelling has changed just that much.
I know currious has posted here before because of that annoying thing where instead of quotation marks or block quoting they do that "blank said:" thing which annoyed me when someone else (can't for the life of me remember who) did it a while back.
Of course I could just be a paranoid fuck.
Posted by: John Morales | November 15, 2008 10:48 PM
Teno @563, you want to bring in other masochists who wish to be ridiculed as much as you have been? That's weird, and perverse.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 15, 2008 10:48 PM
On the original web-page, there is a heading that includes
"4. MICRO-BIOLOGY". There is no corresponding subsection.
It's said that since at least Feb 2001 (Internet Archive), and possibly earlier (date of the web page).
It's like he spewed out his lies 7 or 8 years ago, and then ran out of steam. Not only did he not correct them with the rebuttals that must have been made many times before now, he didn't even edit the page so that it looked slightly less moronic in terms of the formatting and numbering.
Sloth is a sin, son, as is false witness. You're going to Hell with all the rest of us.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 15, 2008 10:49 PM
Oh, the joys of raving ignoramuses. Most of your statement have already been debunked before you even made them. You haven't read the scientific literature, and it shows.
Be a good little boy and go back to cellar and tinfoil hats. Somebody is out to get you.
Posted by: Kel | November 15, 2008 10:50 PM
No, but there is plenty of proof that livings things do and have evolved. The moment of abiogenesis took place around 3.8 billion years ago, and all we have to recreate it is a few rocks and minerals from that time. We don't know the series of events that led to life, but that is abiogenesis and not evolution. Evolution happened, it's scientific fact. We see mutation, adaptation and speciation both in nature and in the lab.Abiogenesis is a necessary consequence of evolution, it's the origin of life as opposed to adaptation. We know it had to have happened, we just don't know how. It doesn't make evolution any less valid, it's just another question that needs to be answered. Not knowing how the solar system formed doesn't make heliocentric orbit wrong.
Posted by: nanu nanu | November 15, 2008 10:51 PM
re-reading the thread it looks like Teno is a distinct personality (ken cope 509)
I maintain my stance that currious has been here before though, no way more than one person uses that type of quoting
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 15, 2008 10:52 PM
Reality and empirical evidence also have a well known liberal bias.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 15, 2008 10:53 PM
Teno Groppi/currious(?)/Randy(?): why don't you go play hide-and-go-fuck-yourself? seriously, are you dropping acid? You fucking imbecile. You know what, no. I'll let the big boys handle you. You aren't worth 1 second more of my time.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 15, 2008 10:54 PM
No-one conceded any such thing, you moron liar, since no one claimed that "living things evolved from water".
Why would anyone care what additional liars say? Until you invite God to demonstrate miraculous creation from nothing, you are all just spewing ignorant lies.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 15, 2008 11:03 PM
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008
All you people are good for is leading the league in nostril hair!
What sport is that, Sport?
Look out, Teno has a magnifying glass, glancing up our noses, counting, counting.
Posted by: tresmal | November 15, 2008 11:16 PM
More noise from Teno Groppi:
You suck at insults. Nobody ever thought that life "evolved from water". Water is the medium in which abiogenesis occurred. If you can't understand that basic a distinction, you have no business being here. Whaaa?
Argument by assertion. Unless you can back that up
You mean scientists aren't done yet? Shocking! Just like abiogenesis. Please do. Maybe 4 or 5 of you could combine to come up with a 3 digit IQ.
WE are envisioning something that isn't there!? Talk about clueless.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008 11:19 PM
Its you people who are paranoid. I was invited to take a look at this forum by the poster Curious.
I would suffice to say that there is no neutral ground. It seems that every square inch and every split second someone is posting some counterclaimed drivel by satan. It just seems to go on and on. I have never seen a forum having people glued to their computers and posting nonstop all day long. If this isnt a measure of control or addiction I dont know what is. I think its actually a sickness!
You people need to get a life and escape out of the realm of satans control. You know, I veagly remember one of Hitlers tactics of control. He wanted all the school books to be indoctrinated the way that he thought they should be as a measure of controling the nations rational thinking -- so that he could control them to see the Jew as something reduced as a plague on society. When in reality is was the Jews that were the real achievers (something that satan drastically hates). I guess hes still trying to destroy the promised seed. The same idea of evolutionist thinking seem to be very prevelent here and working in the fields of science.
Pretty soon they are going to be telling us that since we evolved from our closest ancestor the ape and as a means of this evolutionary step from animal to man many RAPES (uncontested sex) occurred. Therefore in the naturalistic world the rape of a woman is seem as something acceptable. Can you imagine the far reaching power of this indoctrination of evolutionistic ideas.
You people are ignorant and DANGEROUS!
Posted by: abb3w | November 15, 2008 11:24 PM
John Morales abb3w, your second link seems at first sight to be somewhat ad-hoc, if not facile.
The "zero energy" one? True; however, that link's pretty easy to find via Google, so I usually use it when the topic comes up. I haven't bothered to track down a good technical paper on that one yet, nor the followup about how having something is higher entropy than having nothing. My interest is in other areas of math.
Others should feel free to find better references on the topic (EG, via Google Scholar) and post 'em.
I, however, enjoy my sloth.
Posted by: tresmal | November 15, 2008 11:27 PM
So anybody who accepts evolution is a Satan-worshipping nazi rapist? Ooookay. That tinfoil hat you're wearing is defective.
Posted by: Kel | November 15, 2008 11:28 PM
That explains a lot, he was mentally defective too. lol, provide evidence for Satan's existence and irrefutable evidence that we are under his control. Yet in the US prison system there are almost no atheists and there's a disproportionate number of baptists.And teaching science is not indoctrination. Teaching ideas that are contrary to reality and putting hell as a consequence for not believing is indoctrination. Science just works on empirical data, and anyone is free to ignore it as they want with no consequences. Evolution happened, all evidence points to it. If you can't handle that then fine. But the reason it's the only concept of life taught in science is that it's the only idea that fits the evidence. Universe is at least 13.7 billion years old, solar system is 4.6 billion years old, life began around 3.7 billion years ago and there's been gradual change over time. Humans only appear in the last couple of hundred thousand years ago. If you can think of a theory that fits all the evidence, then present it to the academic arena. If you can't, then you are just another indoctrinated fool who thinks their ignorance trumps hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008 11:29 PM
I also observe that many of you use foul words, and are evidently ANGRY! (where is the forum moderator here?)
Once you lose your temper, you've lost the argument.
Posted by: llewelly | November 15, 2008 11:29 PM
Teno Groppi:
Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 15, 2008 11:30 PM
Is that who you really are? Well, it sure makes sense, you being the Father of Lies.
Well, that's why we argue with you, Satan.
Yes, you are. Liar.Posted by: Owlmirror | November 15, 2008 11:34 PM
No, once you lose your mind, you've lost the argument. Which for you looks to have been at least 8 years ago, if not earlier.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 15, 2008 11:34 PM
Lets see. PZ is a mild mannered professor who got thrown out trying to see a movie he was in, but the ID people behind the movie felt he would disrupt it. And the same people let in Richard Dawkins, best selling atheist/evolutionist into that movie. Doesn't speak well for the intelligence or morals of the creobots. You, Teno, fall into the same group of non-thinkers.
Still no physical proof for your god. Still no scientific proof for your assertions. Just intellectually bankrupt verbiage. What a loser.
Posted by: abb3w | November 15, 2008 11:36 PM
Tenno Groppi: I have never seen a forum having people glued to their computers and posting nonstop all day long.
Try Fark.com (which has a thread triggered by the same paper as here dying out as well).
Tenno Groppi: Therefore in the naturalistic world the rape of a woman is seem as something acceptable.
This definition of "acceptable" neglects that morality is itself subject to evolutionary improvement. (See, for example, Darwin's Cathedral, ISBN 0226901343.) Again, the slippery slope to Social Spencerism is raised; it's a strawman these days.
Posted by: Kel | November 15, 2008 11:37 PM
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited. - Adolf Hitler
My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profpoundly than ever before that it was for this that he had to shed his blood on the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice...". - Adolf Hitler
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. - Adolf Hitler
Posted by: John Morales | November 15, 2008 11:41 PM
I think it clear "Teno" is just trolling at this point.
Like any troll, it craves attention, even if it's only insults, and lacks the nous to realise it's not actually disrupting the forum (we're what, into the sixth century of comments?).
Pathetic, I know.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008 11:42 PM
Owlmirror,
Everyone can see that you are the spin-master of the conversation. What a bunch of billage!
As for all you evolutionists. There is a condition worse than blindness, and that's seeing something that isn't there.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 15, 2008 11:42 PM
i see currious has very E-steamed [horse shit] company; what a coward, he won't even come over here himself. You know what, it is very very curious to me that this guy shows up immediatelly after PZ's Mac crashes. do you guys leave the window open all the time and idiots can buzz in like mosquitos (well, no, not mosquitos, because mosquitos take something of SUstanance from their host, as opposed to being copmpletely hare-brained pissants), or is this caliber of shit-for-brains somewhat of a "blue moon" occurance?
Posted by: abb3w | November 15, 2008 11:45 PM
Apropos nothing at hand, anyone still lurking about care to throw out a one-to-three sentence description of how/why Evolutionary variation is radiative, especially when selective pressures are absent?
Posted by: John Morales | November 15, 2008 11:49 PM
abb3w @592, as someone with no more than a high-school education (completed in 1977), I offer this: Niche expansion and adaptation.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 15, 2008 11:51 PM
Because I know a liar when he won't shut up?
Posted by: tresmal | November 15, 2008 11:52 PM
Teno:"As for all you evolutionists. There is a condition worse than blindness, and that's seeing something that isn't there."
And that's not a problem for creationists right? You have absolutely no clue of the complete lack of self awareness you show, do you?
Completely oblivious to irony.
I notice you've stopped even pretending to debate science.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008 11:59 PM
This forum is officially a fossilized wash rag. It lacks narrative, friendliness, good character, believability, and frankly, to any further extent, watchability.
Posted by: tresmal | November 15, 2008 11:59 PM
By the way; you forgot to mention that in addition to being Satan-worshipping nazi rapists, we also eat babies. Live babies. Live unbaptized babies.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 16, 2008 12:04 AM
You describe yourself rather well.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 16, 2008 12:05 AM
i think this whole "the human body is proof" aspect of Creationism is crap. let's see: wisdom teeth, very dangerous development of the brain in adolescents (due to the reason/judgement part of the brainbeing the very last to develop), i see almost no instinct that would help us survive as it were, and the most amazing thing of all: we're improving on God's porported design! it's histerical. I don't know of anyone who has looked deeply into this, but they have made artifiscial red blood cells that are smaller and more effiecient that Real blood cells. And we're not talking only marginally more efficient, they can carry 270x the amount of oxygen as a normal red blood cell. amazing huh? they are working on artificial white blood cells and other things as well. We have made nano-scale material that outstrips a gecko in stickiness by 2-3x, and i could go on... the research is very far from over, and not until we have expanded and improved on every facet that we see in nature, will our work be near completion. Amazing what science can do.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 16, 2008 12:08 AM
Groppi, we can't miss you if you don'e LEAVE!
Posted by: John Morales | November 16, 2008 12:11 AM
Hm, I was too terse in responding to #592. How about "Unavoidable mutation increases variation, which leads to niche expansion, which leads to adaptation; repeat". I suppose that involves selective pressures, but I don't see how such can be avoided, since by definition any environment implies selection for organisms that can survive in that environment, and organisms must (given limited resources) compete with one another.
Still one sentence, though.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 16, 2008 12:12 AM
Please point out to me where any of you thoroughly discussed in full length anything remotely scientific except for pure 100% royal rhetoric in all of these nearly 600 posts?
All you have done is cited others work - like parrots, along with bowing down to the holy scientific textbook (that you hold so dear to you). Who among you has worked in a laboratory to see and witness these things for yourself firsthand?
Posted by: John Morales | November 16, 2008 12:14 AM
@602, Teno trolls again. Teno just loves being put down and derided. Go Teno, go.
Posted by: WithoutSol | November 16, 2008 12:18 AM
Teno,
"Pretty soon they are going to be telling us that since we evolved from our closest ancestor the ape and as a means of this evolutionary step from animal to man many RAPES (uncontested sex) occurred."
What does this even mean? Break it down for us....
You make "set from animal to man" sound like some sort of phase shift. man = animal.
Posted by: WithoutSol | November 16, 2008 12:23 AM
"All you have done is cited others work - like parrots, along with bowing down to the holy scientific textbook (that you hold so dear to you). Who among you has worked in a laboratory to see and witness these things for yourself firsthand?"
Teno, its Textbook(s). Plural. We have more than one book to site, unlike creationist.
Teno, do you even know how scientific research is accomplished?
Hold on, I think I have more troll food in the basement.... brb.
Posted by: tresmal | November 16, 2008 12:23 AM
More Groppi: "All you have done is cited others work "
1) Citing others' work is scientific.
2) Its a hell of a lot more than you've done.
Speaking of which; where is your evidence for creation. Your case against evolution- pathetic as it is- doesn't count. It helps the Hindu creation story and other religions' stories as much as it helps yours. Scripture doesn't count either. You can't use the bible to prove the bible. What I'm talking about here is actual positive evidence for creation. I'm guessing (actually I know) that you've got nothing.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 16, 2008 12:23 AM
RickrOLL,
Your extremism of technology needs to be though of in a different light. Firstly we need to ask the question if it is truly our invention or Gods creation?
Here are some examples:
Camera (lens, focus, iris, film) / Eye (cornea curves to focus, iris, retina)
Microphone / Ear drum / Amphitheatre shape / Outer ear shape
Pump / Heart / Valves Heart valves
Plumbing and hydraulic systems / Circulatory system
Communication / telephone cables / Spinal cord / nervous system
Ball joint / Shoulder joint
Windshield wiper / Eye lid
Wiper fluid / Tears
Knife / Incisor teeth
Mortar and pestle / Molar teeth
Woodwinds / Voice box
Computer / Electronic circuitry / Brain
Computer program / DNA
Bubble level / Inner ear tubes for balance
Construction crane (jointed arm, scoop) / Arm and hand
Honeycomb reinforcements / Bee's honeycomb
Solar panel (energy from light) / Leaf
Fish hook (reverse barb design) / Bee stinger
Light stick (light from chemical reactions) / Firefly
Airplanes (airfoil wings, hollow struts, tail) / Birds (airfoil wings, hollow bones, tail)
Submarine ballast / Fish (ballast bladder)
Sonar / Bats, dolphins
Paper from wood pulp / Wasp hives
Velcro / Thistle burrs (actually inspired Velcro)
Blu-blocker sunglasses / Orange oil in eagle eyes to improve acuity
Suction cups / Octopus
Inboard propulsion (boats) / Squid
Batteries (electricity from chemicals) / Eel
Navigation by stars / magnetic fields / Bird and butterfly migration
Music / Song birds
Anesthetics / Venoms and poisons
Swim fins, paddles / Webbed feet (frogs, ducks)
Water cooled systems / Sweat glands and perspiration
Core aeration for health of lawns / Worms, insects and moles
Hypodermic syringe / Snake fangs, also mechanism used by viruses to inject into cells
Antibiotic medicines / Immune system
Hydraulic shock absorbers / Knee joints
Dust filter / Nostril hairs
VCR, magnetic storage media / Memory, recording/viewing images
Gyroscope, top / Planetary rotation
Magnets / Lodestone
Internet / Brain, also Society
Mirror / Reflection on water
Wheel / Animals that curl and roll (armadillo)
Plastics (of many varieties and qualities) / Carbon-based life forms
(of bone, cartilage, tissues, transparent lenses, wood, feathers, etc., and all bio-degradable!)
Gasoline (expensive, dirty) / Methane (free, clean)
Barb wire fences / Briar bushes, thorns
Bridge supports and weight distribution / Elephant / Dinosaur skeletal framework
Robots / Humans
Nuclear energy or bomb (fusion) / Lamp / Sun
Electric and propulsion motors / Mechanical components of flagellum of bacteria & protozoan
Theme Parks / Nature / State Parks
Helicopter / Bumblebee / Hummingbird / Maple seed pods
Camouflage clothing / Camouflage skin and fur, chameleons
Armor / Exoskeletons
Movies, cast, film crew, director / Life, people, angels, subconscious
Night lights / street lights / The stars and the moon
Baby formula / Breast milk
Water filtration techniques / Same filtering techniques as found in nature and swamps and rivers - charcoal, silt
Fishing / Angler fish
Sponge (synthetic) / Sponge
Satellite / Moon
Cloning experiments / Reproductive systems, asexual reproduction
Pulleys, fulcrums, and levers / Foot joints and ligaments
Smoke detectors / Noses
Cup / Cupped hands
Greenhouse / Earth
Clock / Solar system
Fishing net / Spider's web
Magnifying glass / Droplet of water
Water filter / Kidneys
Irrigation canals / Roots in plants
Fires set to aid heath in agriculture / Naturally occurring forest fires
Protective environmental suit / Egg shell
Key and lock / Enzyme and related substrate
Suspension bridge / Spider web
Shock absorbing helmet / Woodpecker skull
Fix-a-flat for punctures in tires / Coagulants found in the blood
Smoke screen as a defense / Octopus ink
Fuel & air for mechanical engines / Food & air for biological engines
Chemical warfare / The Bombardier Beetle
Snowshoes / Penguin's feet
Frames of Buildings / Skeleton of living organisms
Weaving in a basket / Weaving in a bird's nest
Medicine / Herbs
Religions with rules about God / A relationship of love with God
Evolution of civilization and technology / Evolution of the universe and life
Beaver dams / Water dams
Dreams / Movies
Circular appearance of sun and moon / Wheel
Pliers, tongs / Lobster/crab claws
Fur coats / Fur coats
Hang gliders / Butterflies
Vitamin pills / Fruits and vegetables
Interlocking teeth of a zipper / Linkages between barbs in feathers
Radiator, heat exchange system / Elephant's ears, blood vessels in a whale's tail
We invent nothing / We simply rediscover!
Posted by: RickrOll | November 16, 2008 12:24 AM
science is a community, you jackass!! how about you offer us some science since YOU are the only one Making Supid claims Teno! Science isn't reinvented for each person to submit their paper you idiot, especially since the whole notion of PEER-REVIEW (something you have never tried your luck at, and never will!) is based on said community!
Why do we all have to witness something for it to be real; we aren't all lying son's of bitches that are trying to cram our troll crap down everyone else's throat, like you?! do you not understand that reality is more expansive than that very, very narrow tunnel of your vision (which, i might add, is clouded with all sorts of delusions of angels and demons, & of course tainted with your horrible bias against any form of intellectual discussion)?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 16, 2008 12:27 AM
Please point out anything you have written that is remotely scientific in the 100% false rhetoric of your E-Z list of lies?
And you have done nothing but lie repeatedly.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 16, 2008 12:29 AM
tresmal,
I've pointed out quite a lengthy segment many posts above. I wont repeat all of them, but the later one being amino acids.
Posted by: WithoutSol | November 16, 2008 12:30 AM
Teno,
Thank you for this opportunity to waste your time and energy. We all appreciate it. Laughter is the best medicine and you sir, have provided much.
-- Withoutsol
P.S. "Satellite/Moon" correction: Moon=satellite
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 16, 2008 12:32 AM
First we need to ask the question, when will you stop lying?
Posted by: John Morales | November 16, 2008 12:33 AM
Creobot troll cut'n'paste - the acme of the art.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 16, 2008 12:35 AM
Lies don't count as science.
Posted by: tresmal | November 16, 2008 12:38 AM
Teno @610:"I wont repeat all of them, but the later one being amino acids."
1) You mean the bit about water "decompos(ing) the molecules of amino acid bonds?" That's gibberish.
2) Once again: arguments against evolution are not arguments for creation.
Posted by: Kel | November 16, 2008 12:42 AM
No, it just lacks respect for anyone who thinks their ignorance trumps centuries of accumulated knowledge.Posted by: John Morales | November 16, 2008 12:42 AM
Sheesh, I thought Randy Stimpson was fatuous, but at least he had enough intellect to post his own claims, mostly. This creobot can't even manage that much...
Can it get lower than to cut'n'paste from someone who's also cut'n'pasted from ? Watch it try mightily, exercising it's l33t.
Posted by: llewelly | November 16, 2008 12:42 AM
Teno Groppi:
Obviously the overwhelming majority of human inventions were inspired by natural phenomena. However - all efforts to explain natural phenomena by resorting to a super powerful intelligent creator - 'god' - have failed egregiously. Efforts to explain natural phenomena by processes neither intelligent nor all-powerful have succeeded remarkably well. There is no good reason to believe any of the natural phenomena you have named were 'created by god'.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 16, 2008 12:47 AM
wow, your list is sooo full of errors, i'll just have to settle for a few:
The sun is FISSION, not fusion. music as birds sing comes nowhere near the music that was created by humans. Robots/humans is very laughable, because they are not even close to the same at this point in time. Theme Parks- wow, have YOU seen a living rollercoaster? where?! Fishing predates the Angler fish because the Angler wasn't discovered until far later you nimrod! Butterflies don't glide either, eagles glide.
You are against evolution, and yet here you stated that evolution of society is analgous to the evolution of the universe and life! most, if not all of these inventions work far better than thier natural counterparts, and it is the improvements that man has made upon nature that constitutes invention. non- sequiter's all over the place!
Posted by: abb3w | November 16, 2008 12:47 AM
Teno Groppi: Please point out to me where any of you thoroughly discussed in full length anything remotely scientific
Full length? Intro statistical mechanics and thermodynamics usually takes a textbook or three, and you want it in a blog post? You must be joking. You're getting pointed to relatively lay-readable technical literature with answers to the semi-coherent points you're trying to bring up. If you don't understand the material, feel free to say so and ask for elaboration on specific points.
Teno Groppi: All you have done is cited others work
"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Answers don't have to be original, they merely need to be correct. Most of my foundational approach is ganked off of Godel, Turing, and Chomsky.
Would you agree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, which states that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P)?
Teno Groppi: Who among you has worked in a laboratory to see and witness these things for yourself firsthand?
Most of what I've been pointing to is stuff dabbled with in my physics, chemistry, and bio labs in late high school and early college... although the cutting edge stuff is a bit more complicated and uses heavier-duty math.
There's also some implicit assumptions about the nature of first-hand knowledge in that remark, but there's not much of a point to addressing them. You seem to fail to recognize that it is not sufficient to attack an hypothesis; you must provide a "better" alternative. (You also don't seem to understand the formal definition of "better", either.)
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 16, 2008 12:52 AM
Pretty soon they are going to be telling us that since we evolved from our closest ancestor the ape and as a means of this evolutionary step from animal to man many RAPES (uncontested sex) occurred. Therefore in the naturalistic world the rape of a woman is seem as something acceptable. Can you imagine the far reaching power of this indoctrination of evolutionistic ideas.
You people are ignorant and DANGEROUS!
Teno, you best hang on to your believe in god and satan. It seems that only the threat of eternal pain is supplying your "morals". I would hate for you to see yourself as merely an ape and decide that you must start raping and murdering.
You are no longer amusing. You are just a scared and stupid husk of a human. Please continue on with your insults. It takes up your time, keeping you from doing much worse things.
Engage Killfile.
Posted by: abb3w | November 16, 2008 12:54 AM
Teno Groppi: Firstly we need to ask the question if it is truly our invention or Gods creation?
Requires assumption of the conclusion (divine creation).
Also, as to argument from design:
Technological design is itself an evolutionary process of competitive selection of variations; see historian George Basalla's book "The Evolution of Technology" for elucidation. The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose (or "agency" in philosophy jargon). ID does not have any explicit evidence to support a claim of purpose, or even at present explicit purpose to claim. No evidence, no purpose, no point, no theory, NO COOKIE!
Pardon the cut-and-paste, but it isn't worth more effort.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 16, 2008 12:54 AM
When the Dungeon Master is away, the trolls will play.
Posted by: John Morales | November 16, 2008 12:56 AM
Um, RickrOll, the Sun mainly fuses hydrogen into helium, and a bit more besides.
But yeah, the list is spurious (television = ?) in nature.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 16, 2008 12:57 AM
HOLY SHIT !!! This is guy is totally batshit insane!!
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 16, 2008 1:01 AM
And you're still expending more intellectual effort than Teno the Liar is.
Posted by: llewelly | November 16, 2008 1:10 AM
Teno Groppi, as a minor point, many of your 'human invention'/'natural phenomena' examples are wildly ahistorical. For example - computer programs were devised in Britain in about 1843, by Ada Byron King, countess of Lovelace, and based on rigorous instructions on how to carry out mathematical operations - 'algorithms', of which the earliest recorded examples go back to the work of Eratosthenes in about 200 BC. There was no suspicion that life needed an 'encoding' of any kind until the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859. Even then, neither Darwin nor any of his contemporaries had any notion life needed any equivalent of encoding for algorithms - instead, the mention in Origin focused on a key weakness of Darwin's theory, the fact that it required heredity to be discrete, and it was not known at that time whether heredity was indeed discrete. The rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's work (in the 1910s, I think) showed heredity to be discrete, thus validating Darwin's theory, but still no explicit recognition of a need to encode instructions for development of organisms was forthcoming for many years. The recognition that the encoding of inherited traits in DNA was in many ways similar to computer programs (the principal difference being that computer programs also serve as communication between programmers) did not occur until sometime in the late 1950s - after the discovery of DNA's structure in 1957.
Computer programs, instead, were inspired by the ability of the humans - and many other animals - to follow instructions, and to communicate instructions to other thinking beings (something DNA does not do).
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 16, 2008 1:10 AM
I've heard that one before.
And I've heard that one before from a troll my group liked to refer to as "Cocksnack," especially when he started changing names more and more often, desperately trying to run from his old identity.
Dipping pretty far into absolute relativism/subjectivism/solipsism there aren't, you Teno? Or should I call you Deepak Chopra? Sorry, but objective, repeatable experiments are good no matter who does them. If it were any other way, they wouldn't be repeatable... Unless you're proposing a conspiracy of millions who never slip up in the coverup.
Sorry, Teno, but truth isn't relative to who says it, either. If someone conducted an experiment, the data is true, even if the guy who talks about it didn't perform it himself.
Oh, and I've run a few evolutionary programs myself that Creationists say should fail. They suggest the programs cheat, but are unwilling to point out where they fail. Either that, or they concede defeat on evolution, effectively changing their argument to saying the environment, not the life is designed. And then they conveniently forget by the next thread that rolls around.
Posted by: llewelly | November 16, 2008 1:34 AM
Teno Groppi:
RickrOll :
Although Teno's list is indeed full of errors, the Sun is powered by fusion, not fission. It's primarily fusion of four Hyrdrogen atoms into one Helium, rather than the tritium-deuterium fusion used in nuclear fusion weapons, but it's fusion. Why 'Lamp' is in the middle, when nearly all lamps are either chemical or electromagnetic, I don't know ...
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 16, 2008 1:37 AM
"It lacks narrative, friendliness, good character, believability, and frankly, to any further extent, watchability. "
Hey, you were the one who insulted our nasal hair.
Posted by: Kel | November 16, 2008 1:57 AM
Human inventions paralleling nature? I would have never guessed. Who'd have thought that what we do would be limited by the confines of our reality?
Posted by: RickrOll | November 16, 2008 2:03 AM
they use fusion for bombs too huh? yeah i know guys. i was opperating under the knowledge that nukes were fission, and that the sun was the opposite. i can't believe i made such a rookie error like that. flustered by the troll.
John, not just the tv, the fridge, the screw, the simulation (and therefore "false simulations" like stories and video games), the laser, mathmatics, and the internet surely didn't exist in nature, as animals do not have "external memory devices." Which brings me to my final point: written language, which he hasn't seem to have mastered vey well. with out this, none of this BS he found would even exist!
Rey: thanks for the much needed humor!
Posted by: RickrOll | November 16, 2008 2:09 AM
they use fusion for bombs too huh? yeah i know guys. i was opperating under the knowledge that nukes were fission, and that the sun was the opposite. i can't believe i made such a rookie error like that. flustered by the troll.
John, not just the tv, the fridge, the screw, the simulation (and therefore "false simulations" like stories and video games), the laser, mathmatics, and the internet surely didn't exist in nature, as animals do not have "external memory devices." Which brings me to my final point: written language, which he hasn't seem to have mastered vey well. with out this, none of this BS he found would even exist!
Rey: thanks for the much needed humor!
Posted by: RickrOll | November 16, 2008 2:11 AM
sorry about the double post, it was telling me i had too many comments, but i guess it let it through anyway.
Posted by: John Morales | November 16, 2008 3:06 AM
llewelly @629, I linked to the stellar nucleosynthesis page rather than the Sun page as an obscure bow to Carl Sagan's "[humanity is] star stuff contemplating star stuff", with his silly smile as he beatifically contemplated the numinous and extolled the wonders of science.
Posted by: John Morales | November 16, 2008 3:09 AM
... which I note is on YouTube.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 16, 2008 3:11 AM
Teno Groppi, #607
Your claim that the analogues for human inventions which exist in nature were your alleged god's design might have a chance of being worthy of discussion if said alleged god had ever explained such mystifying concepts to the people of the time.
But he didn't. The bible contains nothing more advanced than what was known by the people at the time it was written. If there was even one prediction of suitably advanced technology which would one day come to pass then we'd know it really did come from god.
Why do you think that is? He was dead-keen on making sure we knew exactly how to sacrifice things; what not to eat, or wear, or do on the sabbath; who to stone, to kill, to ethnically cleanse. How come he didn't mention better building methods? Or medicine? Or simple health practices like washing one's hands?
Inquiring minds wish to know.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 16, 2008 9:13 AM
I get a nights sleep, and poor Teno has not once presented either any evidence for his alleged god, or scientific citations to back up his inane theory. Just a huge amount of cut/paste like one would expect from a monkey. Teno, at some time you will have to present evidence to back up your statements. If you can't do that, stay home.
Posted by: Kel | November 16, 2008 5:08 PM
It seems Teno's real message is "My ignorance is worth more than the centuries of accumulated scientific knowledge"
Posted by: RickrOll | November 16, 2008 11:56 PM
it seems that as soon as Bronze Dog threw out the name Deepak Chopra, our troll was frightend off. very interesting...
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 11:39 AM
Well it looks like the forum has fallen silent without me, GASP!
Deepak Chopra! No he's too much of a cultist spiritualist for me.
Alright, lets play tiddlywinks again,
Hydrolysis -- Splitting a Protein: Proteins are broken down by an enzyme called protease that is secreted by fermentative bacteria. This enzyme separates proteins (polypeptides) into amino acids (peptides). It accomplishes this depolymerization through a process known as HYDROLYSIS. In hydrolysis, a WATER MOLECULE is inserted between the two amino acids that are bonded together. THIS BREAKS THE BOND between them by capping the free reactive ends with the H and the OH. The protein,therefore, is BROKEN DOWN from long chains into its individual molecules, amino acids.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 17, 2008 11:46 AM
All kinds of digestive/catabolic enzymes break bonds by hydrolysis. Your POINT?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 11:50 AM
Teno, still no cited scientific literature, which means you are still spewing nonsense. Time to get with the program and either supply the necessary evidence by citing the scietific literature, or just going away in defeat.
You cannot convince us with rhetoric. Show us the evidence from legitamate sources in the scientific literature. If you can't show the evidence, then go away.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 11:59 AM
Your friend here "tresmal" said: You mean the bit about water "decompos(ing) the molecules of amino acid bonds?" That's gibberish. 2) Once again: arguments against evolution are not arguments for creation.
Water hydrolysis and amino acids have everything to do with creation. How did the left-handed signature in all live come about?
Now be careful when you cite "theories" since science still has no tangible evidence for how "life came about".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, Om | November 17, 2008 12:00 PM
.......................sorry I was waiting to see the point of that.
Do you have a point?
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 12:06 PM
Redhead, before you start flaring off again, I'm sure you are welly informed about the Miller experiment.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 12:09 PM
Rev, Teno has no point since he has present no evidence, like a citation from the scientific literature, to back up his less than insipid logic.
Teno, either cite the scientific literature to prove ID, or acknowledge you have no evidence for your unscientific ideas. Put up or shut up.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 12:12 PM
Let me rephrase this again for the belligerent,
Your friend here "tresmal" said: You mean the bit about water "decompos(ing) the molecules of amino acid bonds?" That's gibberish. 2) Once again: arguments against evolution are not arguments for creation.
My POINT is: Water hydrolysis and amino acids have everything to do with creation. HOW DID THE LEFT-HANDED SIGNATURE IN ALL LIVE COME ABOUT?
And again, be careful when you cite "theories" since science still has no tangible evidence for how "life came about".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 12:14 PM
Teno, you still don't have a point. State your thesis clearly, and then cite the scientific literature to show proof positive for your ideas.
You make the same mistake every creationist does. Alleging proof negative against evolution does not prove your ideas at all. And, since you have no scientific proof, there is no dings at the end of the day to evolution.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 12:18 PM
Teno, you need to clarify, are you arguing against abiogenesis, or evolution? They are two different things.
So pick one or the other, but quit trying to confuse the issue by switching back and forth between the two subjects.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 12:19 PM
The Miller-Urey Experiment is still yielding new results, fifty years later.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 17, 2008 12:22 PM
Clearly English isn't your primary language and all caps doesn't make your point any clearer but let me try.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 12:24 PM
Redhead,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Yes Miller had achieved AMINO ACIDS, but what he did not achieve (as well as any ongoing experimentation today) was/is the complete "left-handed" amino acids which is the essential signature found in all living things.
I'm not looking for theories or hypotheses here, I'm looking for EVIDENCE in any scientific testing.
Can you goons find any?
Well then, put up or shut up as Redhead always says!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 12:28 PM
Teno, please posit your reason that most amino acids are L and most sugars are D, by starting with your premise and citing the appropriate scientific liteature to back up your claims. For example, if claim goddidit, you no show physical proof for god. If you are trying the old comet theory, show the evidence that the amino acids in comets are not racemic. Your evidence please.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, Om | November 17, 2008 12:30 PM
Teno are you a Jehovah's Witness by chance?
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 12:31 PM
Why are we bothering with this cut and paste, capslock creobot? English is not his first language, he's consigned us all to hell and gone and godwinned himself before he got half a dozen posts out. He's repetitive; incapable of comprehension. He introduced himself as here at the invitation of somebody calling himself "Clueless."
Oh, right, comedy. Carry on.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 17, 2008 12:31 PM
@263
haha... er... HAHA.
I wondered if it was just me... or if that really didn't make any sense.
...It's obvious. Everything has a left handed signature because God is left handed. Because... God has hands. Really, isn't it enough to ask for him to be omnipotent, without requiring him to be ambidextrous too? No wonder you atheists don't believe. You just ask too much.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 17, 2008 12:35 PM
Our correspondent is referring to the chirality of amino acids--they can be synthesized in either "left-handed" or "right-handed" enantiomers. Proteins in living thing contain almost all left-handed enantiomers. Nobody knows why (a few ideas can be found starting here).So what?
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 17, 2008 12:35 PM
*253
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 17, 2008 12:36 PM
Well Timothy I actually understand the left handed Amino acid thing, it was more that he hasn't made a fucking coherent point coupled with the typical creationist lack of understanding what a theory is..
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 12:38 PM
You are the experts here, you should know this stuff. If you think I'm going to sit at my computer all day and look scientific data up, you are dismally wrong. I have enough backed up knowledge to defend the amino acid premise. Its your jobs here to prove me wrong.
And in this I will tell you that both a combination of (L) and (D) amino acids are symbolic of things that were once alive and are now in the process of dying (decomposing).
What Miller had discovered (in his combination broth of many amino acids) was not any sort of life, but the signature of death.
Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008 12:40 PM
Interesting, the troll Currrious invites the troll Teno to PZ's blog to observe people being deluded by satan. Thats cute.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 12:44 PM
What Miller had discovered (in his combination broth of many amino acids) was not any sort of life, but the signature of death.
Does Death sign his paychecks left-handed or right-handed, and what's the going rate on sin these days?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 12:44 PM
Teno, you not much of what you speak of. The prefered degradation of D-leucine from a racemic mixture by radioactivity has been demonstrated. (Noyes, H. Pierre; Bonner, William A.; and Tomlin, J. A. (1977), "On the origin of biological chirality via natural beta-decay" (Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, Volume 8, Number 1 / April, 1977)) It only takes a small preference to create chiral induction, where you end up with only on prefered enantiomer.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 12:51 PM
S, DiMilo,
Quoted from you: Our correspondent is referring to the chirality of amino acids--they can be synthesized in either "left-handed" or "right-handed" enantiomers. Proteins in living thing contain almost all left-handed enantiomers. Nobody knows why (a few ideas can be found starting here).
So what?
Look, firstly you said it yourself these are only IDEAS. And then you say, SO WHAT!
SO WHAT, don't you have any sort of logically thinking hearsay to the opposition of evolution? You say it is the creationist who is illogical and refused to open their minds to the possibility of evolutionary precepts.
Still, I would like to know WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE MY GOOD FRIEND? I suppose the evidence for the left-handed amino acid signature in all life fits into the same category as transitional (intermediate) forms. (where are they?)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 17, 2008 12:52 PM
The point here Teno is that whether Miller Urey fails to be ultimately successful or not is not any form of support for ID or creationism.
If you can't grasp such a simple concept then how are you going to handle the more complex stuff?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 17, 2008 12:58 PM
If you think I'm going to sit at my computer all day and look scientific data up, you are dismally wrong. - Teno Groppi
Relax, Groppi, no-one here is under the illusion that you have either the faintest interest in scientific data, or even the most rudimentary capacity to understand them. You've made that abundantly clear.
A question for you: don't you get tired of repeating the same ignorant distortions again and again and again? Can't you at least think of some new ones?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 1:01 PM
Teno, you argument has been disproved. What next?
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 1:05 PM
Can't you at least think of some new ones?
I haven't found any evidence of originality in the list of distortions Groppi has used for years, except perhaps, in the specific phrasing.
His routine of arrogantly ignorant head-spinning and bile-spewing, with the bedpost-levitating and epithet-hurling is mildly entertaining. Wildly unoriginal, but deserving of at least a coupla style points.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 17, 2008 1:07 PM
The evidence for biological evolution is vast, including direct empirical observation, strong inference from comparative biochemistry, morphology, behavior, and development, pretty much open-snd-shut inference from comparative genomics, inference from biogeography, and--yes--the existence of numerous "transitional" forms in the fossil record.
The question of why biological enzymes sythesize only left-handed amino acids (with exceptions) bears not at all on any of this evidence. It's a fascinating question, to be sure, and AFAIK nobody knows the reason, but that's mainly because we're talking about events that occurred almost 4 billion years ago that left no (yet identified) physical evidence. Of course it's a question dominated by speculation. So what?
What's your explanation? God played eenie-meenie-miney-moe?
What you're not providing, see, is the logical link between "almost all amino acids are left-handed" and "evolution can't be true." There's a lot missing in there.
Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 1:18 PM
(where are they?)
I'm looking at Homo creotardus right now. (And, yeah, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, calling you a homo.)
Also, make more 2nd Law arguments. Much funnier.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 1:45 PM
Redhead,
Homochirality!
You are drawing at strings now. This is still lacking! Again its only a plausible hypothesis.
The Beta-dacay electrons does not explain the process of biological molecules. These are two similar but separate entities. Moreover, we don't catch this happening in living things.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 1:48 PM
Teno, now its your turn to prove something. Trot out your scientific proof by citing the literature like I did.
Now, do you, or do you not have an argument with proof?
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 2:00 PM
What all of this does indeed show, such as in the Miller experiment as well as all theories pertaining to evolution is that no matter how hard we continue to try, science cannot create something from nothing. Everything that science is working with has already been created. Bacteria comes from bacteria.
Evolutionists still cannot get past the idea of what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Evolutionists believe that the very same processes that have been observed only to cause decay, death, and destruction caused NOTHING to create something, and the something to make itself come alive and then to evolve into more complex creatures culminating with man.
WHAT GREAT FAITH!
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 2:04 PM
Shorter Groppi:
SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW EVERYTHING THEREFORE MAGIC MAN IN THE SKY DID IT YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HELL! 11!
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 2:05 PM
Haha.
How old is the earth Teno?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 2:08 PM
Teno, please show us your great idea. Make sure to include the literature citations to back up your idea. That is the only way to show how great you are.
However, if you keep doing the same stupid things over and over, we have your number. Scientificly illiterate troll.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 2:09 PM
CJO in #672, looks like you got your 2nd law arguments served up promptly in #675. They keep getting funnier every time I hear 'em.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 17, 2008 2:12 PM
yawn.
Your entire argument boils down to the classic god of the gaps argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 2:13 PM
For pete sake Redhead, it says it right in the cited material itself.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu801259101p3725/
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 2:21 PM
The dumbass spoketh; Evolutionists still cannot get past the idea of what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Please point out where people are stumped by this "conundrum". Fossilized eggs have been found that predate the chicken by many millions of years.
Just because you are ether stupid or ignorant (or both) does not mean that the people you disagree with are.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 2:30 PM
Teno, time to lay out your great theory for us to bask in your greatness. Just be sure to include the proper citations to the scientific literature. We are not the ones who should be defending our claims. Let's see yours. Quit hiding them. Or are you too scared to show them?
Better yet, put all your arguemnts together a nice scientific paper and submit it to an appropriate refereed journal for publication. That way you can win a Nobel prize by upsetting the science establishment. Nothing stopping you, unless you know you have nothing but rhetoric.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 2:33 PM
They don't come any stupider than you Janine! It kind of reminds me of what I'm dealing with - the whole bunch.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 2:40 PM
They don't come any stupider than you Janine!
Now there's a charm offensive.
My three-year-old in screaming shrieking tantrum mode is more appealing than this FCCwit.
Cork your piehole, Groppi. You win this round of "People Who Need to be Thinned From the Herd."
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 2:40 PM
Teno.
How old is the earth???
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 2:40 PM
Dumbass, please explain why you think people who know that evolution is true are stumped the the chicken and the egg question? Evidence please?
Funny how you are avoiding Nerd's reasonable request. Methinks you are in over your head.
I take great pride in having moral idiots calling me "stupid". After all, you are the slimy shit who believes that the threat of eternal punishment is what keeps you from raping.
Please call "stupid" again. It makes me laugh, you husk of a human.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 2:45 PM
You keep asking for the scientific literature Redhead, and I am only supplying you with what you had supplied me with.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu801259101p3725/
You claimed that this scientific article/experiment was proof of the origin of left-handed amino acids. What you threw at me (obviously because you neglected to either read or understand it properly)is that it clearly states in there the "difference" between Beta-dacay electrons and biological molecules.
And this was your argument for some kind of proof of the emergence of left-handed amino acids? Right, when Bigfoot reveals himself.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 2:52 PM
Teno, I've stopped playing the game you keep trying to play, and I have moved on to make Teno prove his ideas. Now, time for you to prove your ideas. Lay them out, show the proper scientic backing, and we might even applaud. But then, we both know you have nothing except goddidit, which means you have to prove god first. We are waiting.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 2:52 PM
Steve_C,
Teno. How old is the earth???
Lets stick to the topic of amino acids right now. Because your question opens up another heated debate.
How on earth do you people expect to learn anything new from what you were taught if you don't have the decency to think outside of the box? I have learned "both sides" of the story and am thankful I was privy to such.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 2:55 PM
You all misunderstand the dumbass. He merely wants to teach both sides of the controversy.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 2:57 PM
Groppi, Steve_C asked you a simple question. Maybe if you can take a break from your rolling online Tourette's fit long enough to listen quietly for one of the voices in your head, Mother Mary will whisper an answer you can share with the rest of us. How old is the earth? Did goB poof it into existence 4BYA? 10KYA? 6KYA? Last Thursday? How do you know? With what will you support your claim?
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 3:00 PM
Lets stick to the topic of amino acids right now. Because your question opens up another heated debate.
No, you've shown you've got nothing intelligent to say on that topic. Cut your losses, move on. How old is the earth, FCCwit?\
He merely wants to teach both sides of the controversy.
Everything Groppi knows about science he learned from Paul Harvey.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 3:03 PM
Redhead,
You the accuser and now accusing the accused even after I had supplied and exposed your own cited material smack-back in the face of LACKING the distinct difference between Beta-dacay electrons and biological molecules.
The cited material that you cited plainly says what it says. You trying to use it against me(for something its not) is flying in the face of not smelling your own bad breath.
This is the biggest cop-out I've ever heard. You are the one who is hiding behind your own little misunderstanding of amino acids.
Sorry to rain on your pride Redhead especially with all your little cronies blindly following behind you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 17, 2008 3:06 PM
Um no. Not heated.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 3:07 PM
No, he only knows one side, and is stuck on the falacious idea that by disproving abiogenesis he proves ID. The major point he misses is that disproving abiogenesis does nothing for proof positive for his ideas. He's just a stuck in the rut IDiot.Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 3:08 PM
Groppi:
The cited material that you cited plainly says what it says.
Why, so it does:
We already knew you were incapable of parsing an abstract.
How old is the earth, FCCwit?
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 3:08 PM
I'll get to how old the earth is soon enough, its almost like your trying to revert the conversation away from Redheads flub-up on amino acids.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 17, 2008 3:10 PM
Dude. nobody knows the reason for the amino-acid thing. There is a good possibility that it's unknowable.
So what?
I repeat, yet again: so what?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 17, 2008 3:11 PM
Teno, since you've started polluting this thred with your bullshit, upwards of 99% of what you've said, if not ALL of it, has been obvious, blatant lies. Now, isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
I see creationists lie all the time, and not once have I seen one express the slightest remorse, nor any willingness to abandon rhetoric that has been shown to be false. Why is that? You make blatantly false attacks on other people's morals, but you yourself are an unrepentant liar, which is universally regarded as immoral, in fact it's supposedly one of the big ten DON'Ts your imaginary god wrote in stone.
Of course, you're a creationist, so the truth is your mortal enemy, your delusions demand that you ignore the facts and make shit up at every opportunity. You think your imaginary friend will give you a free pass on bearing false witness, because you're doing it to prop up your pitifully weak faith.
You are nothing more than a willfully ignorant lying sociopath. If you had the slightest speck of evidence to back up ANYTHING you've said, you would have posted it by now. You haven't. You haven't even tried. You've got nothing, and on some level you know it. You're a fraud. You keep repeating idiotic arguments debunked decades ago. And you will never have anything to say worth listening to. Just the same bullshit lies creationists have been worshipping for centuries.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 17, 2008 3:12 PM
One more time
God of the gaps.
That's all you've got Teno.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 3:14 PM
Rev is right Teno. And god doesn't exist, so you have no argument whatsoever.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 3:14 PM
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/creation/cedebate.html
http://www.blogger.com/profile/5645637
If this is the same Teno... WOW. What a religious fuckbot.
Dude, you're pretty scary.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 3:18 PM
What flub-up, liar?
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 3:19 PM
http://www.genesisevidence.org/
hehehe... this is too good.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 3:19 PM
Why sure it clearly says that, but it also clearly tells us that it is Beta-decay electrons verses biological molecules.
Hmmm last time I checked, these are two distincly differenct things and they used the experiment only to relate such probabilities. Nothing more. It doesnt prove one iota that left-handed amino acids arose by these means. And it was Redhead who claimed they did.
How much longer to you want to keep rolling with this? I've got all day here. Somebody needs to concede here so I can move onto the next question on the age of the earth.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 3:23 PM
Hehe. Wow. You're really full of yourself. Coming from the founder of the Genesis Evidence Ministry.
No god. No creation. No concessions.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 17, 2008 3:25 PM
How much longer are you going to continue with your argumentum ad ignorantiam?
Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 3:27 PM
I've got all day here. Somebody needs to concede here so I can move onto the next question on the age of the earth.
If you've got all day then we can table the chirality issue. You haven't made any sort of case for its relevance to the larger question anyway, you're just picking on a perceived gap in abiogenesis models (that you've shown no interest in trying to understand) without making even the semblance of an argument as to why we should care.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 3:27 PM
Teno "The Wisconsin Marriage Defender" Groppi
For example, if you believe in evolution, you eventually have to allow for "Spontaneous Generation" which has been proven by EMPIRICAL and TESTABLE SCIENCE to be a greater folly than Mohammar Khaddafi declaring war on the U.S.!
In plain language, to believe in evolution, that all life had a common ancestor, and that life formed from non-life, you MUST believe that YOU came from a ROCK! You gotta have ROCKS in your head to believe that! Must be STONED!
Thank you, Steve C. I get a bad case of the giggles when someone like this calls me stupid.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 3:27 PM
Thank you Steve for those links!
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 3:29 PM
All the better to laugh at you, dumbass.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 3:29 PM
We'll be here for the duration. (And PZ gets paid by the post, and we need to help pay his daughter's tuition.)
Be sure to tip your waitresses.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 3:29 PM
Did you understand anything in the abstract at all?
Do you even understand how probabilities relate to evidence?
If you toss a die 1,000 times, and the number 6 comes up 5/6th of the time instead of 1/6th, is that not evidence that the die is loaded?
The paper shows that the combination of chemical elements can be "loaded" to come up in favor of L-amino-acids.
You liar.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 3:32 PM
Waiting on little Redridinghood to concede. I'm sure you'd all love to know how old the earth really is.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 3:36 PM
Teno. You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here. Whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back.
Yes, I am still laughing.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 3:37 PM
Teno. You're our favorite kind of creobot.
The Deluded Minister.
I posted your links because I know everyone will get a huge laugh from them.
Hey everyone, even better, he voted for RON PAUL! Hahahaha.
Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 3:38 PM
I'm sure you'd all love to know how old the earth really is.
We know just fine. Your stalling tactic is pathetic. I would have thought no way you could come off as more of a loser than your opening salvo showed you to be, but you've proved one thing anyway. I concede that your ability to appear delusional is truly prodigious.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 3:39 PM
CJO,
What is to understand, the cited scientific article plainly states what it does. What is left to talk about it?
It clearly tells us its about Beta-decay electrons verses biological molecules. Again, these are two distinctly different things and they used the experiment only to relate such probabilities. Nothing more. It doesn't prove one iota that left-handed amino acids arose by these means. And it was Redhead who claimed they did.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 3:39 PM
It doesnt prove one iota that left-handed amino acids arose by these means.
Science doesn't deal in proof, which is reserved for math, logic, and whisky. The abstract advanced no proof, only a hypothesis. You're ignorance on the difference is just more evidence of your profound ignorance.
BTW, on the first link from Steve_C, Groppi identifies himself as a YEC. What a surprise.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 3:44 PM
Alright, I can be accused of quotemining but it seems that dumbass is afraid of "HOMO-FASCISTS". Queers are intolerant bigots.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 17, 2008 3:45 PM
And to the larger question your point is exactly what?
Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 3:45 PM
What is to understand...?
I'm not even talking about the cited article, cretin, which you have just latched onto as a stalling tactic. I'm talking about chirality in general, and its irrelevance to the larger issue. Unless you can show that the current uncertainty about the origin of homochirality is somehow an insurmountable problem for either evolutionary theory or current models of abiogenesis, it's a red herring, and we should move on to ridiculing your denial of the consensus on the age of the earth.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 3:46 PM
Well as you say Ken that indeed science is not based on "proof", than its basically in the same catagory as FAITH.
Pick your poison! :D
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 3:46 PM
Groppi, heed well what Janine said at #716. Therefore, make peace with your god, whatever you conceive him to be - hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin. With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal, the world continues to deteriorate.
Give up.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 3:50 PM
This lame creobot is running a very predictable script.
OK FCCwit, if science is identical to faith, when you're sick, do you consult a doctor or a priest?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 3:51 PM
Liar.
Science is based on evidence. You know, the stuff that you don't have any of?
Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 3:51 PM
its basically in the same catagory as FAITH.
It's called 'inference,' moron. Prove the sun will rise tomorrow.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 3:52 PM
I'm sure the Teno believes there was a global flood and that Noah really built an Ark.
How literal is he????
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 17, 2008 3:53 PM
For someone who came here talking a big game you really don't understand science one bit do you?
What is your definition of a scientific theory?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 3:53 PM
This from his header at his T-Rex Soft Tissue blog.
Soft tissue, blood vessels, and blood cells found inside Tyrannosaurus Rex leg bone! It is not millions of years old, probably not even thousands. Dinosaurs lived with man, and were on the ark, just as the Bible indicates.
Teno, we have no reason to wait for your answer. You have your droppings all over the intertubes.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 3:56 PM
Steve C, Teno believes that there were T-Rexes on Noah's Ark.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 3:58 PM
Why certainly CJO it is a red hearing. Not that I'm not seeing the larger issue as you call it, but simply because we DON'T WITNESS HOMOCHIRALITY HAPPENING IN BIOLOGICAL THINGS.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 4:00 PM
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 4:04 PM
Liar and moron.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 4:05 PM
If all cars are not red, then they are all blue *roll*Do you take pleasure in being an intellectual retard?
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 4:05 PM
T-Rex was a domestic animal! They used their giant teeth to crack coconuts!
I bet the AiG Museum is his all time favorite place on God's Green Earth, well, other than church.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 4:07 PM
Thank you for reading the Teno Groppi sites, much appreciated. Maybe it will do you all some good.
BTW, where is Redhead? Has she conceded or is she diligently looking to dredge up some other kind of cited material?
Maybe she has come to finally realize that the F-word has no deterrent power over me -- just as the rest of you will come to find out.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 4:08 PM
Teno, the cited paper is one of a long line showing beta decay is chiral, which means it selectively degrades one enantiomer (D-amino acids and L-sugars). I first read about this in the '70's, in one of Asimov's collection of essays. The source used in the cited paper was carbon 14. Guess what, carbon 14 is produced constantly in the atmosphere, and is present in all recently made organic molecules. You have some in your body.
I also have a paper, if I felt like digging it out in my OPRD collection, where a totally chiral product was made from a mixture with just 1% excess of chiral catalyst. It doesn't take much to perturb the system to make one enantiomer if there is a driving force to do so. That whole line of reasoning has been refuted.
Now lets get to your ideas. Please lay them out with the proper citation of the scientif literature. I won't be holding my breath, as the first thing you have to do is show the unrefuted physical evidence for god.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 4:15 PM
Dino is my dinosaur
His tail is in the kitchen
And his head's out the door
(I apologize for the obscure reference to an eighties song. I loved The Screaming Blue Messiahs!)
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 4:19 PM
A good laugh always does me some good.
Makes my godless liberal heart swell with glee.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 4:21 PM
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008
Thank you for reading the Teno Groppi sites, much appreciated. Maybe it will do you all some good.
And the self delusion continues.
Just to let you know, I am a lesbian, you know, a HOMO-FASCIST.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 4:27 PM
Hello Redhead, at least thank you for talking civilly this time.
Yes I am fully away of the carbon issue. However again, we don't witness homochirality happening in biological things.
And even if it did happen once, it would have to have done this many many MANY times to produce all the different living organisms that we see today.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 17, 2008 4:30 PM
Teno must have watched The Flintstones at some point and thought it was a documentary.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 4:32 PM
You're still a liar and a moron.
The sheer amount of dumb in this sentence is breathtaking.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 4:33 PM
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008
And even if it did happen once, it would have to have done this many many MANY times to produce all the different living organisms that we see today.
He does not understand the concept of "common ancestry". Strike that, he rejects the concept of "common ancestry".
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 4:37 PM
His common ancestor is dirt.
In his case, it's all in his head.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 5:15 PM
Additionally,
Estimates of global species diversity have varied from 2 million to 100 million species, with a best estimate of somewhere near 10 million, and only 1.4 million have actually been named. With new species being discovered every day.
Then (as your theory goes) it breaks off into common ancestry. And one amino acid fluke of left-handedness created all of these? If this is so, why aren't we witnessing any of this today?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 5:18 PM
Teno, we stopped playing your game. Now pony up your ideas and the proof behind them. I especially await the physical evidence for your imaginary god.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 5:20 PM
Because you touch yourself at nightPosted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 5:25 PM
Because, you lying moron, it happened before all modern species evolved; before single cells became multicellular organisms; before photosynthetic bacteria started adding oxygen to the atmosphere.
Do you even understand what "common ancestor" means?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 5:27 PM
The dumbass squawks; And one amino acid fluke of left-handedness created all of these? If this is so, why aren't we witnessing any of this today?
Could it be that if any arises anywhere, there are billions of microbiobs ready to snack on them.
Also, please talk to any expert on DNA if you doubt that all known living things are not related, even if the split in the family tree occurs hundred of millions years ago. Strike that, you believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 5:29 PM
Silly creationist, myths are for kids
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 5:30 PM
Redhead, proof that your theory of left-handed amino acids FAILS in the evidence of all the million of diversified species that exist in the world today. And now you are falling back on your last piece of straw you can pull out of your hat -- proof of God!
God is no more imaginary then your evolutionary theory.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 5:33 PM
"God is no more imaginary then your evolutionary theory."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c
Evolution happened, deal with it.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 5:35 PM
Liar.
Then you should be able to prove that, liar.
Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008 5:36 PM
Kel @ 750 - dammit! There went my ginger ale.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 5:40 PM
Again, where are all the transitional (intermediate) forms?
Mammals (which whales are) give birth HEAD-first (except, of course, partial-birth aborted humans, which are turned backwards on purpose, so their brains can be sucked out before their head is out of the womb. If whales gave birth like mammals should, we wouldn't worry about having to "save the baby whales", they'd all drown! It takes too long for a whale to give birth. Wouldn't you know, whales naturally give birth upside-down! Now how did evolution "know" how to do that? Did it wait until all the babies drowned and then realize that they needed to give breach birth? Too late, they'd be as extinct as the theory of evolution!
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 5:41 PM
Now he's just boring.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 5:41 PM
Teno, you seem to be a bit dense, so I will do you a favor; I will explain what is happening now. We are taunting you with French accents. We are passing gas in your general direction. We are bombarding you with barnyard animals.
Look up!
We are now dropping an empty replica of a Trojan Bunny on your head.
You are ignoring evidence. Mockery is all we have for you now.
Posted by: spurge | November 17, 2008 5:46 PM
Fetchez la vache!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 5:47 PM
Teno, time for you to post your ideas and show their evidence. I have stopped playing the "try to refute the scientist" game because you are so pathetic. So now we will look at your ideas, which you have failed to show.
So, pony out your ideas for us to refute. Be sure to include your physical proof for your imaginary god somewhere in your garbage that you spew. I eagerly await refuting it.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 5:48 PM
Janine, if wit was spit, your mouth would be drier than a shallow well in an African heat wave. :D
Somebody please tell a decent joke! Please alert me here to "EVIDENCE"?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 5:48 PM
Now how did evolution "know" how to do that?
Evolution knows nothing! Those whale that survived are able to reproduce. Those that did not, died out. Nothing intelligent nor magical about it.
At least you are being more honest about where you are coming from, tossing in the bit about abortions. I would suggest you find out about breech birth.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 5:50 PM
Teno, no trotting out of your ideas? Come on, you had a go us. Turn about is fair play.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 5:52 PM
Dumbass, the reason you do not find me witty is because you are a husk of a human with a husk of a brain.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 5:52 PM
Redhead, pony up ay?
Okay -- so you want to play horse. I'll be the front end and you be yourself. :D
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 17, 2008 5:53 PM
Teno Groppi,
Psst, Teno - why not ask them how evolution explains PYGMIES + DWARFS??
Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 5:59 PM
Good grief.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 6:01 PM
Somebody please tell a decent joke!
I don't know any decent jokes. We're hanging around to learn to what depth of madness and stupidity you'll descend next, while taunting you, and, as Janine said, passing gas in your general direction. Because Janine took a particular liberty with her citation of scripture, the obvious implication is that you should probably take into your calculations the likelihood that some of the gas wafting your way is a result of the occasional malicious queef.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 6:01 PM
Janine, evolution knows nothing hey?
With that said, it can certainly be said -- there sits a woman with an open mind. I can feel the draft from here.
See, I can play this game too! :D
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 6:04 PM
Evolution knows nothing at all and it's still smarter and more honest than you are.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 6:04 PM
Ken, both you and Janine couldn't ad-lib a fart after a baked-bean dinner.
This is fun, lets keep it going! :D
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 6:05 PM
Still afraid to put your ideas out there for refutation? What do we have here. Must be some type mad non-scientist, who thinks everybody must perform for him. Now it's time for you to show your ideas, and the evidence behind them from the scientific literature. I'm very interested in your physical evidence for your imaginary god.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 6:06 PM
TENO+ARK WAS REAL=FAIL
Posted by: God | November 17, 2008 6:10 PM
Was someone talking about Me? My nonexistent ears are burning.
Sorry, little creationist, evolution is both a theory and a fact. I made your species by a process of directed breeding of intelligent apes, not by a spontaneous act of special creation.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 6:11 PM
Redhead (I think pinhead now applies), even if I gave you proof of God, its questionable if whether or not you even have the capability to acknowledge Him. Since an atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman!
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 17, 2008 6:13 PM
Apparently, neither can you, since you have to rip-off a well-known John Belushi line.
Posted by: God | November 17, 2008 6:17 PM
You don't have any proof of Me. Believe Me, I would know.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 6:18 PM
Teno, I'm a big boy. I can take real evidence for god. But I can also laugh when the physical evidence, after being examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, is shown to be of natural origin. Score one against god at that point. You have no evidence, and you are aware of that. That is why you keep avoiding presenting anything. So, it's time for you present your ideas and scientific proof. I have the popcorn ready.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 6:18 PM
Teno lives in a magic fantasy world where Jesus and Mary love him.
The discussion is starting to feel as cruel and pointless as teasing a developmentally disabled child. If every minute is a special miracle just for Groppi, who am I to try to pry him out of the intellectual cess pit he's splashing around in?
Posted by: Katharine | November 17, 2008 6:21 PM
Also, to further debunk the creotards' arguments, let me say GENETICS WORKS.
Can we send the creotards to Saudi Arabia?
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 6:22 PM
Wowbagger,
Pygmies and dwarfs come from a process called "natural selection" (this is not evolution of any sort in the creationists view).
However, it appears that dwarfing has infected your brain not
microcephaly, but clue deficit disorder of the third kind.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 6:24 PM
Teno show proof that we're all related to Noah and his family.
Posted by: Katharine | November 17, 2008 6:26 PM
The Muslim fundamentalists and the creotards would get along, lol.
Also:
http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html
Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 6:33 PM
It's just painfully sad to watch stupid people try to be funny isn't it?
More lies, please. More 2nd Law arguments. You have to just let it come from the heart, Teno. You can't force it. Loosen up. Breeeeeaathe.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 6:33 PM
Pinhead,
There is actually more proof for God then you think. The Bible itself is a recorded eye-witnessable testament not only by God Himself, but from writers ranging from 2,000 - 4,000 years ago. This is tangible enough historical evidence backed up by archeological evidence.
It certainly beats an invisible evolutionary theory that was witnessed by the ghost of Elvis.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 6:35 PM
Since creationists are liars, their "view" is false.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 17, 2008 6:36 PM
He's just afraid of evolution. He's afraid of not having his big Daddy who loves him. He's willing to study science to the extent that he can fling some terms around, but when he follows the science towards evolution, he suddenly retreats back to his thousands-of-years-old book of stories.
Posted by: God | November 17, 2008 6:38 PM
Actually, it's not. Or rather, it's full of lies. I told some; the human writers told the rest.
Nope, not that either.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 6:39 PM
In #657, I claimed that Teno was here at the invitation of a poster named "Clueless." Honesty compels me to admit that poor memory, contempt, and a vivid imagination led to that error. In #579 he said he was led here by "Curious," clearly, the only passing acquaintance he has ever had with any form of curiousity.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 6:39 PM
*shows one line of evidence*
"What about ?"
*shows different line of evidence*
"What about ?"
*shows different line of evidence*
"What about ?"
*shows different line of evidence*
"What about ?"
*shows different line of evidence*
"Nope, didn't happen. Goddidit 6,000 years ago"
Genetic evidence shows quite conclusively that we shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Just as it shows we share a common ancestor with all life and certainly all animals. Every piece of evidence points to a gradual emergence of life over billions of years and eventually led to us, just as it did for the millions of other lifeforms that are alive today. There's not a single thing that shows that the world is 6000 years old and was created by a deity.
We have galaxies that are 13 billion light years away from us, that means that light from those galaxies left 13 billion years ago and we look 13 billion years back in time when we see them. The earth ages the same as the moon, as meteorites and as the sun; all of which are over 4 billion years old. We don't see life in the fossil record until 3.5 billion years ago, then complex life around 700 million years ago. We don't get amphibians until 385 million years ago, don't get mammals until about 220 million years ago, and no large mammals until 10 million years after the extinction event known as the K-T boundary which happened around 65 million years ago. Indeed we don't see human-like ancestors until a few million years ago, and we don't see homosapiens in the fossil record until around 200,000 years ago. Humans and dinosaurs are separated by 64,800,000 years!
So even if evolution didn't happen, you still need a mechanism to explain the diversity of life as seen now and in the fossil record. Common ancestry is there in our genetic code, we can see it in the morphology of animals and in the fossil record. If that didn't come about through a combination of mutation, natural selection and genetic drift in isolated populations, then you need another mechanism that fits in with the facts. Evolution not happening doesn't stop the universe from being at least 13.7 billion years old, nor does it stop the earth from being 4.5 billion years old. It doesn't change what the fossil record says about the gradual emergence of life, nor does it change the time scales. So even if evolution is wrong, creationism is by no means right. FSMism is a better fit than creationism because it at least explains the evidence we see.
In short, creationists are gullible fools who believe the desert scribblings of bronze-age herders over the entire scientific establishment. They have no knowledge whatsoever, and use that ignorance as a selling point of their beliefs. Throughout our society we have a pride in knowing, that we want to see experts discuss ideas. We want athletes who are the best competing, we want economists who know what they are doing (whether such a person exists is another story), we want politicians who are going to lead us, we want domain experts in every possible job out there. But when it comes to science, creationists think their own ignorance trumps people who have dedicated their lives to it all because they have a book that isn't even consistent with itself telling htem science is wrong.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 17, 2008 6:42 PM
In summary: the everlasting truth of the Bible is proven by some scattered and largely contradictory eyewitness accounts from hundreds of years ago, combined with a few archaeological finds that show that some of the nations mentioned in the Bible really existed. Evolution, meanwhile, has to be proven by having fossils of every transitional species that ever existed, and video footage of a dog evolving into a cat in an amount of time that can fit inside the attention span of the average creationist.
We're essentially speaking entirely separate languages here. You might as well try to explain vegetarianism to a dog.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 6:43 PM
Teno, no god = no holy scriptures = no theology. QED.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 6:46 PM
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008
It certainly beats an invisible evolutionary theory that was witnessed by the ghost of Elvis.
This is a new one. I never realized that Elvis Presley had anything to do with the theory of evolution.
By the way dumbass, the bible is not a primary source.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 6:47 PM
Funny that the "eyewitness" accounts of the new testament were written by people who never even met Jesus!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 6:49 PM
Janine, Kel, don't you just love godbots who just don't have any idea about how the bible got stuck together? Certainly makes our jobs easier.
Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 6:49 PM
There is actually more proof for God then you think. The Bible itself is a recorded eye-witnessable testament not only by God Himself, but from writers ranging from 2,000 - 4,000 years ago. This is tangible enough historical evidence backed up by archeological evidence.
Yeah, that's the stuff. Stick to what you know best, and it's comedy gold.
Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008 6:50 PM
That Currrious was here before and got stomped. Another idiot christian troll.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 6:52 PM
Liar.
http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 6:54 PM
I'd say it makes it harder, because again their ignorance trumps any knowledge. Just because the historians say that Mark had to be written after the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70CE, and that Matthew & Luke were derived from Mark, and that John was authored by up to three people almost a century later, the bible says they are eyewitness accounts so they must be eyewitness accounts. ;)Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 6:55 PM
Patricia, I'm sure you have taught clan Bucktard much more about scripture than these IDiots will ever know. The clan can certainly recite it better.Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 7:08 PM
The Bible itself is a recorded eye-witnessable testament
Teno's got us here. The Bible is certainly eye-witnessable. I've witnessed Bibles not only in motel rooms but in bookstores, with entire walls full of bibles, displacing science books by the score. I've seen a Gutenberg Bible in the Bancroft stacks in Berkeley, but in my eagerness to peruse an original Shakespeare folio, I ignored it. Why, some of you may even have one in your own home! I don't. I've got young children, one of whom is an avid reader. Like Pete Townsend's Tommy, my son doesn't know who Jesus was or what praying is. I'd like him to appreciate some decent fairy tales before he goes exploring the cheap derivative mind-rot and depravity in that collection of bronze-age pr0n promoted here by the creotards.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 7:13 PM
Well then I suggest that all you who live in America to pack your bags up and move to the Soviet Union where you'll have more luck having your evolutionist ideas believed.
Religion is still the guiding force in the world. And still runs GOVERNMENT! This is because most of Americas principles were founded off of the Judeo-Christian religion and the Bible. It is far more reaching then any of you numbnoggins can comprehend.
And there is far more archeological evidences then you've put forth. Why don't you try some Google searches.
Oh and Kel, if your looking for answers to the age of the Universe and the light issue continue to look to the Teno G. sites.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 7:14 PM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008
Janine, Kel, don't you just love godbots who just don't have any idea about how the bible got stuck together? Certainly makes our jobs easier.
Easier only in that you know exactly where the person is coming from. Difficult in that the person is knowingly wearing mental blinders.
You could have Hector Avolos point out where the stories of the bible come from. Teno would find the primary sources suspect.
I'm Teno Groppi, . Chris Long introduced me to this list. I am a King James Bible believing literal Genesis creationist, basing my beliefs on scripture and science (empirical science, not evolutionary theories).
But he does make for great troll stomping.
Orcball!
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 7:15 PM
Well then I suggest that all you who live in America to pack your bags up and move to the Soviet Union where you'll have more luck having your evolutionist ideas believed.
Religion is still the guiding force in the world. And still runs GOVERNMENT! This is because most of Americas principles were founded off of the Judeo-Christian religion and the Bible. It is far more reaching then any of you numbnoggins can comprehend.
And there is far more archeological evidences then you've put forth. Why don't you try some Google searches.
Oh and Kel, if your looking for answers to the age of the Universe and the light issue continue to look to the Teno G. sites.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 17, 2008 7:17 PM
Hey, Teno, the Soviet Union has been gone for a while now.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 7:18 PM
Still no thesis and evidence posted by Teno. One must begin to think the IDiot is just full of you know what. Come on Teno, show us what you've got. I bet we yawn at it, as we have seen it before.
Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 7:19 PM
the bible says they are eyewitness accounts so they must be eyewitness accounts
It doesn't, actually. The texts of Mark and Matthew have absolutely nothing at all to say about provenance or authorship. Luke, unique in this regard among the gospels, has a brief, formulaic preamble saying that "many have undertaken to compile a narrative" and that "eyewitnesses...have handed them down to us," so the author admits up front that it is at best a compilation of prior eyewitness accounts.
And the traditional attributions to the named authors weren't made until the late 2nd Century at the earliest. (If John Mark were actually the author of Mark, he would have seen Jesus in the flesh at least once on his arrival in the vicinity of Jerusalem, according to Acts, and the attributions to Matthew and John would make them eyewitnesses in the tradition as they were among the twelve.) In any case, the attributions are extra-biblical, made by Papias and other elders of the early church.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 7:20 PM
Oh and additionally someone here asked how do we know that we are all related to Noah?
Again, its in the Bible! This is a word that all you evolutionists should surely know -- GENEALOGY! (recorded genealogy).
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 7:21 PM
No thanks, scientists have a much better track record than you. Here in the southern hemisphere we have the Large Magellenic Cloud. It's a dwarf galaxy that orbits our own. In 1987 a star inside the galaxy and the observation enabled us to gauge how far away it was: 168,000 light years away. That means that the supernova on the LMC happened 168,000 years ago. We have a means to look back in time in space by looking at distant objects, just as we have a means of looking back in time on earth by looking at the lower layers of rock.There are thousands upon thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to learning about the natural world. These are the people I trust with evidence, you have shown that you are just an ignorant retard who thinks he knows better than all scientists combined. A little moron who takes a book of mythology as literal fact. You know nothing, you have no knowledge of science, you don't even understand the basics. Why would I ever read your site when you can't even demonstrate that you understand even the basics of the natural world?
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 7:22 PM
hehehehe...
AWESOME!
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 7:23 PM
Yes, and that's a bad thing. Which, hopefully, can be changed.
Liar.
Far more evidence that the bible is a lie, yes indeed.
Posted by: spurge | November 17, 2008 7:24 PM
Hey Teno,
Why should we listen to a moron that is unaware that the Soviet union ceased to exist in 1991?
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 17, 2008 7:25 PM
"Religion is still the guiding force in the world. And still runs GOVERNMENT! This is because most of Americas principles were founded off of the Judeo-Christian religion and the Bible."
Name three of those principles and where they can be found in the Bible.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 17, 2008 7:26 PM
hilarious.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 17, 2008 7:27 PM
"Again, its in the Bible! "
What, all those "begats"? Man, you have a selectively low standard for evidence.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 7:28 PM
That's it, I'm calling poe.Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 7:30 PM
That was even better than what I had hoped he would say...
So who's my great great great great great great great great grandfather?
Religion is the foundation for our country? Yet it's barely mentioned in the constitution other than defining that there be a clear division between the two.
I wonder what Teno thinks of Unitarians. hehe.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 7:30 PM
What! Is the newly scientific citation more credible then documented history. There are many historic recorded documents that talk about the existence of Jesus even by the Romans. But some of the more phenomenal archeological ones exists in the Old Testament. It is a goldmine of treasures, and some even yet to be discovered!
Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008 7:31 PM
Isn't this joker some old ancient balrog that turns up periodically?
Before I landed here I would have sworn that no christians existed that didn't know the bible thoroughly. This has been quite an eye opener for me.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 7:31 PM
Kel, check out the links that Steve C provided. Teno is not a poe. If
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 17, 2008 7:32 PM
Clearly this happened because God was left handed. Creator of all life and he still can't operate a standard pair of scissors.
Okay,.....Teno Groppi.
Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 7:37 PM
Far more evidence that the bible is a lie, yes indeed.
In and of itself, it's not a lie, any more than The Iliad is. It takes a stupid and dishonest sack of shit like our Teno to make a collection of myths and legends from the Iron Age and make of it a despicable lie.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 7:37 PM
Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008
Before I landed here I would have sworn that no christians existed that didn't know the bible thoroughly. This has been quite an eye opener for me.
Being The Queen Of The Sluts, I thought you would have been more worldly. Or did it take giving up the bible to bring out the slut within?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 7:40 PM
Liar.
Liar.
Pants on fire.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 7:42 PM
You betcha! especially when the "documented history" is nothing more than allegorical mythology. The authors (that's right, there was more than one) of Genesis were not there to witness the beginning of the universe, they were not there in the garden of eden, they were not there when the great flood happened or when the tower of babel was struck down. They were not there when abraham wandered the land, just as they were not there when a few slaves escaped from Egypt. The bible is not a historical document, it's a mythical account of the origins of the tribal middle-eastern herders who settled in a then-fertile area. The tales of the torah have as much historical credibility as the Australian Aboriginal dreamtime myths.The bible is not a historical document, it's fantasy, mythic storytelling. It has as much credibility as a historical document as The Iliad. Just because the greeks existed, and archaeological findings have a place that fits the description of Troy, it does not mean the Goddess Athena appeared to the greeks before the battle.
The facts of the earth's history are imprinted into the lands, we only need to look to learn about the distant past. Just as we only need to look to the stars to see the distant past in space. When we see the moon, we are seeing it 1.2 seconds ago. We are seeing the sun 8.33 minutes ago. We see Aplha Centauri 4.5 years ago. We see the Andromeda Galaxy 2.3 million years ago. We can and do look back in time because the evidence is there. If you are going to ignore it for the sake of belief, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you know nothing and stop arguing against people who have more knowledge than you'll ever aquire.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 7:45 PM
That's like saying Lord of the Rings is evidence of magic Teno.
You're kinda nuts.
There was no ark. The was no immaculate conception. No talking burning bush. No walking on water. No zombie jesus. No adam. No eve. No talking snake. No tree of knowledge. No angels. No demons. No Satan.
Shall I go on?
The bible is not evidence for anything but superstition and deception.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 17, 2008 7:46 PM
Teno, please cite the chapter and verse of the bible where it endorses government via a republic or a democracy rather than a monarchy or a theocracy.
Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 7:50 PM
There are many historic recorded documents that talk about the existence of Jesus even by the Romans.
No, you're lying. True, there is Josephus: regarded as a forged interpolation by most honest (read: "not Christian") scholars, and on good grounds too. The best evidence is the silence of Origen, who is clearly familiar with the Antiquities as he quotes from other parts of it. It's pretty hard to believe he wouldn't have made a fuss about the passage in question. Best guess is it was inserted by a contemporary of Eusebius, or possibly by the man himself. No other Roman, Hellenistic or named Jewish writer of the period has a thing to say about Yeshua ben Yosef.
But hey, buck up! Lying for and about Jesus has a long history at least.
But some of the more phenomenal archeological ones exists in the Old Testament. It is a goldmine of treasures, and some even yet to be discovered!
You better hope it's yet to be discovered, 'cause what we've got so far ain't lookin so good for your team.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 17, 2008 7:55 PM
"You better hope it's yet to be discovered, 'cause what we've got so far ain't lookin so good for your team. "
And every time something new is discovered (e.g., the Gospel of Judas, the Dead Sea Scrolls), the usual religious suspects freak out and declare it heresy.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 7:55 PM
Ray Fox, you asked me to name three principles of American government that are found in the Bible that are based off of Judeo-Christian principles.
Well I think the poster Curious (a friend of mine) had adequately answered this for you. One of them being the right to bear arms in self defense. A second would be one that is still extremely prevalent in all courts of law today -- being the Ten Commandments. And thirdly, marriage laws. Just to name a few, of course there are lots more.
And no to your statement about begats. Its a little more precise then that. These are also backed up by eras. For instance from the genealogy given in the Bible we know that Adam existed around - 930, Lamech - 874-1651, Noah - 1056-2006, Terah - 1879-2084, Abraham - 2009-2184, Flood - 1650.
The timeline today from Jesus was 2,000 years, and from Jesus to Abraham was 2,000 years, and from Abraham back to Adam is about 2,000 years which gives us an approximate age of 6,000 years.
Oh and I also see that Curious did not adequately answer the number of Jews that were present a Mount Sinai during the "National Revelation" of God. I will answer that answer correctly so that you will see how scripture works. And then I will have to adjourn this conversation for tomorrow:
It is quite obvious from the verses in the Torah Starting in Exodus 12:37 - "The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, the men, besides the young children."
"from 20 years old and older" This is actually based on what it says in Numbers chapter 1:
1. The Lord spoke to Moses in the Sinai Desert, in the Tent of Meeting on the first day of the second month, in the second year after the exodus from the land of Egypt, saying.
2. Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by families following their fathers' houses; a head count of every male according to the number of their names.
3. From twenty years old and upwards, all who are fit to go out to the army in Israel, you shall count them by their legions you and Aaron.
and further in verse 46-47:
The sum of all those who were counted: six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty.
But the Levites, according to their father's tribe were not numbered among them.
Hence the term "600,000 of army age" in the article.
Now if you take the number 600,000 (or more accurately 603,550) and add Levites (which in chapter 3, is placed at about 22,000) and add women and children - a conservative estimate of one child per family, would net about 2 million people. In reality, it was most probably over 3 million.
To be adjourned tomorrow.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 17, 2008 7:58 PM
Teno if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?
Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008 8:03 PM
Janine, Before I quit godding I was a very straitlaced fundie christian. My only friends were fundies too. Now I never see them because they're shunning me. That's the best part!
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 17, 2008 8:04 PM
"One of them being the right to bear arms in self defense."
Seriously? Guns in the Bible? You or someone else is going to have to help me out with this one.
"A second would be one that is still extremely prevalent in all courts of law today -- being the Ten Commandments."
Massive fail. There are no laws against coveting (without coveting, our economic system would fail, after all). There are no laws against adultery. There are no laws regulating the honor of one's father and mother. There are no laws against graven images. There are no laws about having no god before the Big G. You'd have to move to Saudi Arabia to find a country that is even close to being ruled by the ten comandments. The only two comandments that are enshrined in law (and NOT in the Constitution, I might add) are the ones against killing and stealing. And do you seriously think that Christians or Jews were the first ones to come up with prohibitions on stealing and killing?
"And thirdly, marriage laws. Just to name a few, of course there are lots more."
I seem to recall there being tons of plural marriage in the Bible. The Bible also doesn't provide much in the way of ways to get out of marriage either, at least nothing remotely pleasant.
Triple massive fail. And here I was all ready to be enlightened on the biblical basis of the three branches of government, bicameral legislatures, and the ways to elect leaders. You didn't even mention democracy, for crying out loud.
Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008 8:05 PM
Hey Rev., did you go take a look at that punk troll over on the promo thread? We're trying to figure out who the little sap is.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 17, 2008 8:07 PM
Circularly polarized light (which is what stars emit) produces just this bias in interstellar gas. Next!
Posted by: CJO | November 17, 2008 8:10 PM
To be adjourned tomorrow.
I can't
fucking believe this shitwait.Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 8:10 PM
Oh and one more thing,
Kel, you say that newly scientific citation are more credible then documented history. And that its nothing more than allegorical mythology. Additionally you say that the Genesis account was not there to witness the beginning of the Universe.
I'll tell you one thing Kel, it certainly gives us more of an adequate answer than that of the evolution theory.
But I'd like to clue you in on something else Kel. Keep in mind that everything we are being told, taught and led to believe as "fact" is simply not fact at all. It is only the "current theory" and "thought of the day", which historically is/has often shown not to be true. And as such, there are no such things as facts, everything is simply an opinion based on the information we have at the current time. Additionally, it should be noted that we are lead to believe that if something is labeled as "scientific fact" that it is true, and this is not the case either. Even Albert Einstein himself (one of the greatest minds in science and philosophy) broke the jurisdictions regarding "facts" when he quoted: If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 17, 2008 8:11 PM
To be fair, there are also some about very special cases of lying -- libel, slander, perjury --, but that's it.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 17, 2008 8:13 PM
Could you show me the census data for Egypt then? the Sinai? So all the boys under 20 weren't counted? What was the error rate of the census?
Devil is in the data.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 17, 2008 8:22 PM
Someone wanna do the dirty work and find out how many points Teno has accumulated in the Crackpot Index . He gets points for the following:
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for each word in all capital letters
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 17, 2008 8:22 PM
Ah. Which one? The older one (Gen. 2:4b onwards) or the younger one (Gen. 1:1 -- 2:3)? Were Man and Woman created last and at the same time as each other, or was Man created first, then the rest of the Earth, and then Woman last, using a pun that only works in Sumerian ("life" and "rib" both pronounced ti) but not in Hebrew, never mind that a Sumerian story about the creation of a goddess from a god's rib exists and uses just this pun? The one with Elohim as the plural creators ("let us make Man"), or the one with Yahwe as the sole creator of perhaps just the Jewish people?
How can one believe to possess the truth and at the same time be a postmodernist? How do you live with doublethink?
This is called quote-mining. It is evil. You're going to find out why.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 8:25 PM
All the wars of the world, all the Caesars, have not the staying power of the Bible.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=2441
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 17, 2008 8:25 PM
I'm open to correction (not being in any sense a Biblical scholar or historian), but AFAIR, even the Vatican, who own the Josephus text in question, now acknowledge that it's a much later forgery. It was said to be the sole contemporaneous record that mentioned a messiah named Yeshua, with the few other "supporting" documents merely mentioning a Jewish messiah, but not by name. Surviving Roman records from the period indicate that self-professed "god men" were ten-a-penny at the time all over the Levant. The "historical evidence" for a particular Jewish messiah named Yeshua and from Nazareth turns out to be extraordinarily thin. What's worse, there's no trace of any settlement in Nazareth for a couple of hundred years either side of Jesus' putative birthday: you'd think it a minor inconvenience for an omnipotent deity to plant a couple of shards of pottery in a piddly desert village.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 17, 2008 8:25 PM
"It is only the "current theory" and "thought of the day", which historically is/has often shown not to be true."
Hate to burst your bubble, Teno, but your biblical worldview "current theory" and "thought of the day" passed its sell-by date hundreds of years ago.
"And as such, there are no such things as facts, everything is simply an opinion based on the information we have at the current time."
Ah yes, the ever-popular last-ditch solipsistic Matrix gambit. If you can't beat the facts, just declare everything invalid and go down in Pyrrhic victory.
Take the red pill, Neo.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 17, 2008 8:32 PM
Also, perhaps he should get points for the following:
-Saying your opponents are under Satan's control and comparing them to Hitler all in the same paragraph.
- Telling your opponents to move to the Soviet Union, even though it was dissolved over 15 years ago.
Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008 8:33 PM
These are some of the lamest troll arguements I've ever seen.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 17, 2008 8:33 PM
And unsurprisingly, it took centuries till the Gospels started to be considered divinely inspired scripture. Even after the churches had managed to agree on which ones to consider genuine, attempts to use all four of them to write a single book about the life and works of Jesus, a so-called gospel harmony, didn't cease for a long time.
I bet you've never encountered the term "gospel harmony", Teno. Google is your friend.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 17, 2008 8:40 PM
Staying power? With all the editing going on throughout the millennia? Google for "documentary hypothesis", and read up on the additions to the gospels, like the Marcan Appendix or the story with "whosoever among you is without sin throw the first stone".
And besides, didn't you just say there was no such thing as a fact, that everything was mere opinion? So isn't the opinion of humanevents.com mere opinion...?
Posted by: Stanton | November 17, 2008 8:44 PM
Then please demonstrate how the Genesis account, and not Evolutionary Biology, gives greater insight into the study of various prehistoric organisms, such as the vetulicolians, placoderms, dinosaurs or ground sloths. Where in the Book of Genesis does it talk about whether or not vetulicolians were deuterostomes or protostomes? Where in the Book of Genesis does it talk about placoderms or dinosaurs, or where does it explain why we can observe that humans have more in common with the common morel than the common dandelion, or even where it says that we have more in common with the common dandelion than we do with Deinococcus?
I mean, Teno Groppi, you are aware that we have witnessed dozens of creationists make this very boast, and none of them have ever bothered to make good on this very boast, right?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 8:56 PM
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008
Even Albert Einstein himself (one of the greatest minds in science and philosophy) broke the jurisdictions regarding "facts" when he quoted: If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
Even with this bit of quote mining, this is prove of the scientific method trumping Einstein. If Einstein did change facts to fit his theory, these facts are testable. Other, perhaps less brilliant scientists, can test Einstein's works and make the changes.
The idea is not to rest on authority. But Teno is the opposite of this process. Teno rests on the authority of The King James Bible
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 17, 2008 9:05 PM
Teno, that article you linked to is merely a variation of this argument; "In God We Trust" is on US currency, therefore the US is a christian nation.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 9:05 PM
Another lie.
Trivia tidbit for the sane people:
I've been reading about the early years of the development of special relativity and general relativity, and of course Einstein wanted to make sure that his theory was in accord with the facts; that is, with empirical experimental data.
His first few calculations for the amount that light would be deflected by the gravity of the sun were wrong; fortunately for his ego, the eclipse-viewers who were going to test his (changing) predictions for what that deflection should be were prevented from doing so by local circumstances (clouds, etc) at the various eclipses they went to. When he finally got the prediction right, it was demonstrated to be correct at the next solar eclipse.
Posted by: windy | November 17, 2008 9:07 PM
There is no Saint Einstein.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 9:26 PM
That's right. If you think the theory of evolution explains the origins of the universe then you are completely ignorant. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet. We use cosmology to understand the universe around us, and geology to understand the world we sit on. We use biolochemistry to understand the origins of life, it's only with the diversity of life that we use evolution. And given cosmology and physics demonstrate the universe to be at least 13.7 billion years old, the world to be between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old, and geology tells us that we see a gradual emergence of life over the course of 3.5 billion years, I'd say that evolution fits far better than the genesis myth. Let me explain to you the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. A scientific fact is an observation, it's a piece of evidence. In the case of evolution, the fossil record and where it sits in the different strata is fact. A hypothesis is an explanation for the facts. A theory is a hypothesis that has been very much tested and attempted to be falsified. Evolution has survived 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny, it's come from an age where there was no knowledge of the atom and ended up when we know the relationship between matter and energy.In short, you still know nothing and it's hilarious to watch someone so clueless flail about in their ignorance. You are incredibly amusing because of how oblivious you are to the world around us and you project your own ignorance onto others. People here on the other hand are trained in the ways of science, they have spent years learning about the things you try and teach them it's wrong. And why? Because you take a book of fairy tales a little too seriously.
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 9:31 PM
Werd to that, it's embarrassing to even read them. Even for a creationist, he's bad.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 17, 2008 9:31 PM
promo thread?
Posted by: tresmal | November 17, 2008 9:59 PM
Damn! Seems like I missed him. If you are wondering what all that amino acid business up in the 640s and later (comment numbers) was all about; here's the story. On Saturday I asked him for some evidence for creation that wasn't a shot at evolution. He mentioned an amino acid comment he had made earlier. I looked and found this: "water decomposes the molecules of amino acid bonds". I called it gibberish, because it is. It seems he meant that water breaks the bonds between amino acids making large complex molecules impossible, hence goddidit.
Today he offered this:
This was an attempt to prove his point. Now every scientifically literate person (which obviously excludes Teno) here immediately sees the fatal flaw with this. That's the fact that this reaction is catalyzed by the protease, which is an enzyme, which is a long chain of amino acids. He is in effect making the claim that long chains of amino acids couldn't form naturally because they would be hydrolyzed by long chains of amino acids.
Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008 10:07 PM
Sorry Rev., stupid spelling typo. PZ tossed the Fester troll in the pit. He was on the pro forma thread. He sure looked familiar.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 17, 2008 10:10 PM
Ahh yeah, I came in there after he got thrown in the latrine.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008 10:12 PM
Sorry to burst your bubbles, but you are the minority. Christianity is still predominant in America as well as the world, with an outreach that is steadily increasing.
According to the CIA, the following is the order of religious preferences in the United States:
Christian: (78.5%)
Protestant (51.3%)
Roman Catholic (23.9%)
Mormon (1.7%)
other Christian (1.6%)
unaffiliated (12.1%)
none (4%)
other or unspecified (2.5%)
Jewish (1.7%)
Buddhist (0.7%)
Muslim (0.6%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2008 10:18 PM
This is the first point you've made that is true.
However, it is essentially meaningless because the facts about cosmology and evolution are not decided by the ignorant (and sometimes lying) majority, but by those who study the evidence.
Or in other words: So what?
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 17, 2008 10:23 PM
Okay, the solipsist gambit isn't quite the last gasp, the appeal to majority is. And specifically, the appeal to authority that fails to mention that the fastest growing religious category is "none of the above".
Posted by: Kel | November 17, 2008 10:23 PM
Winning the battle for the 3rd world, but in industrialised nations, Christianity is falling. What's even funnier is that in the developed world, only the US and Turkey have a substancial number of creationists. Most Christians believe in evolution - the scientific support is just too strong.Posted by: tresmal | November 17, 2008 10:28 PM
"Sorry to burst your bubbles, but you are the minority."
And?
Posted by: Stanton | November 17, 2008 10:40 PM
Teno Groppi, why can't you support your claim that the Genesis Account has explanatory power to describe the diversities of Life on Earth?
Posted by: tresmal | November 17, 2008 10:41 PM
For those who came late to this party Teno makes his entrance at comment #507. It is a long and carefully numbered 6 point refutation of evolution. You might find point #4 especially revealing. (snicker) Tip to abb3w.
Posted by: Stanton | November 17, 2008 10:44 PM
Appeal to Authority fallacy, via Appeal to Tyranny of the (alleged) Majority.Posted by: abb3w | November 17, 2008 11:06 PM
Teno Groppi: It doesn't prove one iota that left-handed amino acids arose by these means.
Ken Cope Science doesn't deal in proof, which is reserved for math, logic, and whisky.
Actually, it does, in the same sense of the word "prove" that someone might use when trying to prove their brain is not a piece of cauliflower.
Note Florida Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence. The formal use of the word "prove" in science is slightly more specific than in mathematics, indicating a probabilistic proof (cf. Arthur/Merlin protocols in mathematical complexity theory).
(I ought to bookmark that paper....)
Teno Groppi Well as you say Ken that indeed science is not based on "proof", than its basically in the same catagory as FAITH.
Wrong, and already addressed earlier.
abb3w: For myself, I reserve the term "Faith" for the primary tenets that must be believed without possibility of proof, as opposed to propositions proven as inferences under some rule (which itself is a proposition). I refer to the latter as "Inference"; "Belief" includes both.
Science is a methodology for inference. Under the assumptions of Logic, ZF, and Reality-Evidence relateability, it has an algorithmic expression which may be proven (in the mathematical sense) to indicate the relative probabilities for correctness within a set of hypotheses.
Teno Groppi And even if it did happen once, it would have to have done this many many MANY times to produce all the different living organisms that we see today.
No. It would have had to occur at a steady rate at the formation of life, thereby altering the rates of autocatalysis and the basis of life.
Teno Groppi If this is so, why aren't we witnessing any of this today?
Depends what you mean by "any of this". If you mean Biogenic Transition, it's because the autocatalytic rate of production is immeasurably slower than for biological production, and thus the few "spontaneous" products (EG, near black smokers) become "alive" because they are incorporated via ingestion. If you mean speciation, science observes it fairly often, at rates consistent with the data of the fossil and genetic records.
Teno Groppi Keep in mind that everything we are being told, taught and led to believe as "fact" is simply not fact at all. It is only the "current theory" and "thought of the day", which historically is/has often shown not to be true. And as such, there are no such things as facts, everything is simply an opinion based on the information we have at the current time.
Science isn't in the business of absolute truth; rather, it is (as I noted just now) in the business of indicating the relative probabilities for correctness within a set of hypotheses. New evidence and new hypotheses can change the probabilities; however, without those, the probabilities remain.
As such, there are "facts": to wit, the individual observations. From there, we proceed to two more relevant Florida Standards: Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
...and... Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.
"Theory" is a title belt, lost by the holding hypothesis only when a new contender or additional evidence sways the balance of "best", under the mathematically provable criterion of Minimum Message Length Induction.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008 11:16 PM
Well, Teno was just as boring as I thought he would be. All the creobot arguments packaged together into one big lie with absolutely no evidence behind any of it.
Teno, I give your arguments one YAWN.
Posted by: abb3w | November 17, 2008 11:22 PM
Oh, and Teno, I ask again: Would you agree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, which states that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P), such that either disjunction may be inferred from the other?
Kel The theory of evolution explains the diversity AND SIMILARITIES of life on this planet.
FTFY.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 17, 2008 11:45 PM
abb3w, I happen to be stubbornly white knuckling my way through a symbolic logic class so that I may repeat the course in the Spring more comfortably as review, so I can confidently claim that you know we're both right. The scientific method is, broadly speaking, inductive, and makes claims that are stronger or weaker, not deductively valid or invalid, as in a deductive argument in which the conclusion would have to be true if the premises were. Science generalizes from observation and experiment, and revises those generalizations when necessary. Not to get all Popperian either, because even Hume advised common sense and Russell didn't lose sleep over the possibility of the existence of the celestial teapot. I have confidence in the scientific method; the claims of science are far stronger than anything so otiose as religion.
Posted by: abb3w | November 18, 2008 1:12 AM
It's actually more subtle than that, Ken. It's possible to mathematically prove correct that an algorithmic version of science will indicate the relative probabilities within a set of hypotheses, positing only that logic is valid for inference, ZF is self-consistent (not complete), and that Reality is relateable to Evidence. If you're taking a math course, you might find reading this amusing, where I outlined the proof for the edification of the Fark masses. =)
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 18, 2008 1:47 AM
Yes, abb3w, just about any such discussion is more subtle than a comments thread will allow, but the correctness of an algorithmic version of science (I'd like some expansion of that, please) is provable mathematically. I've got to respect the disciplines and their boundaries, especially the fuzzy bits. Anybody who rejects evidence has no business discussing the subject of reality. I'm comfortable with computing in general, and am enjoying the applicability of symbolic logic to fiendish online disputation and game design, however, math is at best a second language that I will never learn to think in as a native would. I've exhausted my reserves of polite interest in math, having reached my fifth decade now using more geometry than most people will learn. I plead 2D/3D animation artist (see url by clicking name).
Posted by: Stanton | November 18, 2008 1:47 AM
Strawberry Blondie, you're far more generous than I: I give his lies for Jesus one tepid MEH.Posted by: Brachychiton | November 18, 2008 3:14 AM
Teno Groppi* has a blog that is one big bowl of bile: http://wismd.blogspot.com/
In one of his other blogs (he has seven) he accuses Sarah Palin of being a socialist.
He's clearly got a few roos loose in the top paddock.
*I keep wanting to type Teeny Gropey but making fun of a poster's name would be very childish.
Posted by: Dan Styer | November 18, 2008 8:59 AM
According to Teno Groppi (November 15, 2008 3:11 PM)
In plain language, to believe ... that life formed from non-life, you MUST believe that YOU came from a ROCK!
Two interesting things:
(1) Those who hold that life formed from non-life hold that life came from carbon-containing materials, not from rock.
(2) On the other hand, those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible DO believe that Adam came from pulverized rock: Geneses 2:7 "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 18, 2008 9:36 AM
Stanton, you are right. Probably any response to Teno's less than insipid arguments is too much.
It's the wife who has the red hair. I'm just the bald scientist/nerd that keeps all the electronics running.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 18, 2008 12:06 PM
We're only the custodians of our respective electronic villages, eh Nerd? Now, if I could only get Firefly music server on Vista to cooperate with that old Soundbridge...
Posted by: abb3w | November 18, 2008 12:17 PM
Ken Cope: the correctness of an algorithmic version of science (I'd like some expansion of that, please) is provable mathematically.
By "provable", I mean "follows as a formally correct inference under the rules of Logic".
By "rules of logic", I prefer as a basis the definition of Uniary Negation (aka, NOT) via Joint Denial (NOR), the definition of Logical Inclusive Disjunction (OR) via Uniary Negation and Joint Denial, the Commutativity and Associativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, and the Robbins Axiom stating P is equi-inferrable with ((P NOR Q) NOR (P NOR (NOT Q))) for arbitrary static propositions. This may be shown equivalent to the usual rules of Boolean logic.
By "provable mathematically", I mean that the algorithm's correctness may be shown to follow directly from the ZF axioms (independent of the Axiom of Choice, incidentally).
The algorithm is roughly:
1) Gather evidence/data
2) Form conjectures about interrelation of data
3) Encode expresion of data via conjecture into hypothesis
4) Use criterion to show relative probabilities within set of hypotheses.
By "conjecture", I mean a form of computer program (for a Universal Church-Turing Automata); the hypothesis adds an input set (starting data tape) for this program, so that when the program is run, the computer (UCTA) will output the original data set. As an oversimplificaton, this may be thought of as modeling the "ideal", and then adding tweaks to show how the actual data may be slightly off from "ideal".
The probability of a hypothesis within the set being correct is (as I understand the math) inverse to log of the product of program and input set sizes. Slightly oversimplifying, the simpler the hypothesis, the more likely it is to be correct. For the full proof, you want a pair of papers... which I've temporarily misplaced the bookmark for (courtesy LJ maintenance time). I'll post them once I find 'em.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 18, 2008 12:58 PM
abb3w, thanks. I'll catch up later this evening.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 18, 2008 5:00 PM
Boy this sounds an awful lot like you guys!
Evolution while being conceivable, has not been confirmed and never will be. But most evolutionists are not interested in testing the gradualism of Darwin but rather in protecting their dubious hypothesis (guess). You can imagine the academic chaos if every honest scholar admitted that evolution never took place!
What would it do to every secular college science faculty if creationism were accepted and evolution proved a fraud? They would finally be considered uneducated, unscholarly, and unnecessary. And maybe they would become unemployed! They would fall into the same category as flat-earthers, astrologers, new age gurus, and snake handlers! (That is exactly my attitude toward the soothsayers of science.)
Bigoted judges who have ruled in favor of the myth-tellers would feel the sting of public embarrassment and join the ranks of the unemployed.Scientists would no longer seek to confirm the theory of evolution (now presumed to be a fact before beginning an investigation!) and they could get on with the business of true science. Scientists would no longer see only what is "respectable and acceptable," and would look at the evidence, making judgments based on that evidence even if it contradicts popular theory. They would decide that truth is more important than denigrating, denying and denouncing creationists.
Clergymen and theologians would sheepishly have to apologize to their followers for leading them into the swamps of theistic evolution, day-age theory, gap theory, progressive evolution, and other unscriptural nonsense. Such religious leaders might once again preach that the Bible is reliable in toto as we creationists have been saying for many years.
I can see an assortment of prestigious scientists, clergymen, professors, publishers, film makers, media personalities, and others holding a televised news conference where they apologize profusely to the youth of the world for teaching fraud, falsehood, fakery, and foolishness while calling it "science."Now, a word of advice: Don't hold your breath for that news conference to take place. It won't, because many evolutionists are vain, venal and venomous people. They are especially venomous when dealing with or discussing creationists.
Evolutionists, not being very bright and living in a permanent fog, have not understood that creationism has not been disproved, only disbelieved. Evidently they can't make that distinction. Many of them think that making a statement makes it a fact, and by denouncing creationism, they discredit it! Of course, they only discredit themselves in the eyes of informed, honest people.
Evolutionists have been discrediting themselves for many years, but especially in recent years. And it often takes place in formal public debates with creationists.
The Institute for Creation Research in California has been a pioneer in scientific research, education and apologetics. Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Duane Gish and others have gone into universities and faced evolutionists in public debate-on their turf!Dr. Morris spoke of those debates: "We are always careful to stick to scientific arguments, especially using the fossil record to show that macro-evolution has not occurred in the past". The evolutionists, however, more often than not, do not stick to scientific arguments. They will attack the Bible, show that creationists have religious motivations, argue that one can be religious and still believe in evolution, contend that creationism is not scientific, or attack our personal character or credentials.
"But one thing they will not do is give any real scientific evidence for macro-evolution. This is because there isn't any real evidence for macro-evolution! This is why creationists almost always win the debates. We win, not because we are better debaters, but because creation is true, evolution is false, and real science confirms this."
Evolutionists have learned that creationists are not simply "bible thumpers." They expected creationists to quote a few Bible verses then sit down, but evolutionists have discovered that it doesn't work that way. The creationist deals with geology, biology, paleontology, and other branches of science, and they ask questions that evolutionists cannot answer. The creationists also provide a model that proves to be far more acceptable to thinking people than the claptrap of evolution.Dr. Henry Morris was scheduled to debate a professor at the University of Houston, but a university official canceled the debate at the last minute because he did not want scientific creationism discussed on his campus! Wait a minute! I thought a university was a place for various ideas to be disseminated, debated and discussed by inquiring minds. Surely it is not a place for propaganda-or is it? Could it be that only what is politically correct is permitted at the University of Houston?At the National Academy of Sciences all but one person agreed that debating with creationists should be avoided! Well, wonder what they are afraid of? Could it be the truth? If evolution is really as scientific as evolutionists claim, they should be eager to engage creationists in debate. Maybe, just maybe, the evolutionists are not so sure of the correctness of their cause and are embarrassed to face creationists in formal debates. Maybe that is one reason many evolutionists get mean-spirited when they discuss creationism. They don't have the answers so they attack.
More tomorrow
Posted by: John Morales | November 18, 2008 5:21 PM
You idiot, Teno Troll. Why not just link instead of copy-pasting slabs of second-hand stupidity?
Oh yeah, you stopped pasting early:
No original ideas, no arguments, no honesty, don't know how to link... pathetic.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 18, 2008 5:23 PM
Plagiarist Teno Groppi failed to cite the source for his post #883, which is a verbatim cut and paste from here:
http://www.cstnews.com/Code/MeanSpirited.html
This is the sort of behavior that would get any college student subjected to discipline, suspension, even expulsion.
From a creationist of Teno Groppi's loathsome ilk, it's typical of the sort of dishonest behavior we've learned to expect.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 18, 2008 5:35 PM
Dance dance dance, dance around the arguments. Teno follows up the Matrix gambit with the appeal to popularity, followed by the copy-pasted screed from a like-minded attack chihuahua. What inconsequential gibberish will he try next?
Posted by: Steve_C | November 18, 2008 5:36 PM
Wow Teno is a morphing creobot minister.
such a tool.
Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 5:47 PM
When all else fails, appeal to conspiracy!
Posted by: CJO | November 18, 2008 5:54 PM
Evolutionists, not being very bright and living in a permanent fog, have not understood that creationism has not been disproved, only disbelieved. Evidently they can't make that distinction. Many of them think that making a statement makes it a fact, and by denouncing creationism, they discredit it! Of course, they only discredit themselves in the eyes of informed, honest people.
Projection, thy name is Creationism.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 18, 2008 6:05 PM
Liar.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 18, 2008 6:44 PM
Teno's going to have to do a lot better if wants to discuss something. Cut/paste from creationist web sites is for incompetent losers. Give use some original material, like some physical evidence for god. Otherwise, stay home.
Posted by: tresmal | November 18, 2008 7:35 PM
"The Institute for Creation Research in California has been a pioneer in scientific research, education and apologetics."
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
On the subject of debates. What do they prove? How many people in the typical audience of a debate have the background in basic science necessary to keep the debaters honest. If a creationist were to bring out that old discredited lie that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics, how many people in the audience would be able to spot that lie?
What if a completely different format were used? Something like this: The audience would consist non-scientists but technically and mathematically literate types with some college level science in their background. Engineers perhaps. Individually vetted by both sides to be genuinely uncertain re evolution vs. creationism. Furthermore instead of a few minutes per point each side would have hours to make it's case. The audience would be provided with sources and encouraged to study them and to ask questions. Such a debate might take place over the course of a weekend, with the audience (a de facto jury actually) encouraged to talk with participants and each other and to fact check all the arguments during breaks. Now what happens when the creationists bring out the 2lot argument? Some of the audience members are likely to be very familiar with thermodynamics and able to spot the flaw and explain it to others. Some engineers are going to be involved with flood control and erosion or otherwise have a professional knowledge of geology. Who wants to run "Flood Geology" past that group? Who, in short, wins that debate? And does anyone seriously believe that creationists, denied their Gish gallop, would agree to debate under these terms?
Yes, I know that there is no way in Hell that such a debate would occur.
Posted by: Stanton | November 19, 2008 12:32 AM
Has Teno Groppi pointed out exactly how the Book of Genesis explains the diversities of life on Earth better than Evolutionary Biology can, yet?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 12:59 AM
Teno does cut/paste from known creationist sites. No originality. Absolutely no scientific literature cited. So Stanton, the answer is no.
Posted by: Kel | November 19, 2008 1:10 AM
He won't even explain how we can see the LMC 168,000 light years away or M31 2,300,000 light years away. A star went supernova in the LMC 168,000 years ago meaning it hit the end of it's lifecycle then. How do creationists explain this? "Goddidit that way"
Posted by: Stanton | November 19, 2008 1:14 AM
I thought as much: meh.
Does Teno Groppi even realize that he's made a complete idiot out of himself over having metaphysically scooped his brains and intellectual honesty out of his pumpkin-like head in the name of fanatical piety?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 1:21 AM
Stanton, Teno Groppi is a creobot. He's probably claiming victory to his friends. So of course not. But we know better.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2008 1:58 AM
abb3w @881, I'll spend some energy studying what you gave me, but I'd like to hear from you again after you've had a peek at these two rather non-controversial portions of the talk.origins faq, with which you're no doubt already familiar:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
I am, at least in principle, more comfortable erring on the side of ambiguity rather than certainty about the state of scientific knowledge and proof, which is always in flux, but only up to a point. In practical terms, of course, science is a pragmatic and useful destroyer of both ambiguity, and mistaken certainty; yet at its exotic fringes, science thrives on new and unsuspected (if not rigidly defined) areas of doubt and uncertainty.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 19, 2008 2:02 AM
Teno is too close to the truth.
I've made contact with Beagle Headquarters. Darwin's Bulldogs have given the order to have him terminated.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2008 2:47 AM
Brownian, I hope you realize you've compromised EAC security by posting that here. Oh crap...
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 19, 2008 4:42 AM
"Does Teno Groppi even realize that he's made a complete idiot out of himself "
I think he might be, in some deep and buried way, aware of it. It's only when they get desperate that they pull out the Matrix gambit and the appeal to popularity.
Posted by: abb3w | November 19, 2008 9:02 AM
Cope: I'd agree that Popperian falsification is an oversimplification. I find that the requirement that a hypothesis be distinguishable from the null hypothesis suffices.
There's some subtle philosophical points where the FAQ and I differ. However, this is because I'm in the habit of constructing science from primary philosophical premises up. While I've encountered one or two wags who were willing to reject the validity of experimental methodology as a primary premise, rejection of "Reality is relateable to Experience" is a bit more difficult. Under Minimum Message Length Induction, experiment is simply another form of data gathering (with hopes for easier math), with the heart of science being the analysis of the data.
Even the most iron-headed YEC I've encountered was willing to admit the validity of the axiomatic commutativity of OR; he just considered Biblical Inerrancy a more important premise. The advantage of the ground-up approach is that somewhere along the way, the YEC has to reject a primary premise, or accept the constraints of working within the bounds of Science. Rejecting any of the "inoffensive" primary premises I use results in the minor problem of appearing a fool to third parties to the discussion, and the major problem of being unable to prove that their brain is not a piece of cauliflower.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 9:06 AM
Tresmal, you bring up a very good point for the existence of evolutionists. I guess the false evolutionary precepts in science is a tool that creationists can use to prove their point of G-d's existence.
That in itself may be the only reason it truly exists!
As for copying and pasting an article, I have done nothing wrong here "Don" happens to be a good friend of mine. And if you blind bots cared to read thouroughly you would have noticed at the end of the article some very specific copyrights are posted. I have CAPITALIZED it below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Dr. Don Boys
© 2000 Cornerstone Communications
Evolutionists show their mean-spirited nature when they debate creationists, usually at a state university. One of the best known evolutionists, Niles Eldredge, refers to these debates in his book, Monkey Business: "Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses and staging 'debates' with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the already converted and the faithful."
He continued: "And scientists, until recently, have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology. Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence." (Emphasis added.)
Well, that is some admission from a leading evolutionist! But note that he tried to remove some of the sting by charging creationists with loading the audience with our own people. That is simply not true. In fact, the opposite is true. I know of no debate where the audience has been loaded with creationists. I have debated university professors on affirmative action, homosexuality, sexual permissiveness, etc., and have never had more than three or four people in large audiences who agreed with my position (to my knowledge).
We creationists do not "load" the audience (not that I'm above such a thing). It's only that it is very difficult or impossible to do in a secular university. No, Eldredge was wrong. They lose the debates because they have taken the wrong side of the argument!
The unfair, unreasonable, unacceptable, unblushing, unbecoming, uncivil, unconscionable and ungentlemanly tactics of evolutionists are obvious to all who have seen them in debates or read their books and articles. (Leading evolutionist Stephen J. Gould calls creationists, "kooky," "yahoos" and "latter-day antediluvians" and he characterizes scientific creationism as "the nonsense term of the century.") However, Steve refuses to make those charges in public debate where informed creationists can make him look like a "yahoo." He recently declared, "Creationist-bashing is a noble and necessary pursuit these days." Steve seems to hate creationists because he obviously hates our God.
Isaac Asimov showed his hatred and bigotry (hatred and bigotry on the left?) when he wrote that creationists "...are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way."
Richard Dawkins calls us feeble-minded, pathetic and intellectual cavemen in his book, The Blind Watchmaker. He also wrote: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." Then in a November 1983 article, published in the Times Literary Supplement, Dawkins calls us a "gang of ignorant crackpots." See what I mean when I say that many evolutionists are as mean as a junk-yard dog?Like Gould, Asimov, Dawkins, et al., H. L. Mencken was a writer with bile problems and a hatred toward creationists. He used the Scopes Trial as a showcase for his vindictive, vicious and vitriolic journalism. He gave "thanksgiving" that creationist William Jennings Bryan had not been elected President of the United States, although he was not thrilled with Coolidge. After ridiculing Coolidge, he referred to the Scopes Trial and ridiculed Bryan and Christians everywhere. He suggested that we believe the Earth is square (we don't, but some of us believe his head was), witches should be put to death and Jonah swallowed the whale! Mencken was a hater of God and of creationists and he was a better word-smith than he was a thinker!
Evolutionists hate creationists and anyone who believes that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. They are as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes when we talk of personal accountability to a sovereign God. They are bigots and haters with a few exceptions. Please remember that they are the ones who believe incredibly silly things without any scientific data to support their philosophy and religion. They are often arrogant, asinine and audacious.
Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel summed it up very well: "Meanwhile, their [evolutionists] unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a fanatic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist."
Now, with the above evidence proving that evolutionists are not the loving, kind, gracious, thoughtful, and amiable people they profess to be, I am said to be "too militant" in my approach to this issue. We are in a war, and evolutionists are the enemy. They are after another generation of children, and your tax dollars are funding their nonsense and their non-science.
Evolutionists are mean-spirited because they hate us and our Savior. Let the battle continue without quarter.
Copyright, 2000, Don Boys, Ph.D (Permission is granted for this article to be used by ANYONE, ANYWHERE AS LONG AS NO CHANGES ARE MADE, including this tag. We suggest that pastors and others duplicate it and give to members, publish in newspapers, use on radio and television broadcasts, WEB SITES, etc. (Maybe USA Today and ABC News should receive a few thousand copies of this article. SEND TO YOUR LOCAL EVOLUTIONIST, etc.)
http://www.cstnews.com/Code/MeanSpirited2.html
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 9:45 AM
Teno, if evolution is unscientific, and you have proof positive for another theory, why don't you write up your findings and submit them to an appropriate scientific journal, for example Science or Nature. That way, you get to be the first person to get the theory into print, which will secure your Nobel prize.
But then again, if you have no evidence (proof positive), then your paper will be rejected. We both know you have no scientific evidence for your claims. But you can, with evidence, debate them in the proper forum, which is called the scientific literature. Otherwise, it isn't science, and is called religion.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 19, 2008 10:23 AM
Wow. Teno you're a deluded ignorant fool.
Evolution is a fact. God is a myth.
YECs are really some of he most gobsmacked sad little minds.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2008 11:02 AM
abb3w
Rejecting any of the "inoffensive" primary premises I use results in the minor problem of appearing a fool to third parties to the discussion, and the major problem of being unable to prove that their brain is not a piece of cauliflower.
Teno appeared to be a fool to third parties within a line or two of his first garbage dump here. Nobody with a piece of cauliflower for brains would stoop to behaving like such a stupid, wanking, insipid godbot.
Teno Groppi:
I guess the false evolutionary precepts in science is a tool that creationists can use to prove their point of G-d's existence.
The point of creationists is to prove the existence of a dead and resurrected Nazarene whose believers will wind up in a magic castle in the sky forever and ever if and only if they believe it and regularly ritually cannibalize said dead and resurrected Naz, by rejecting science, common sense, common courtesy, any baseline ethics whatsoever, and otherwise by routinely pissing on other people's legs while claiming it's raining. Got it.
As for copying and pasting an article, I have done nothing wrong here "Don" happens to be a good friend of mine.
Got that? It's OK to steal the work of another writer and represent it as one's own, as long as the work belongs to another creationist.
And if you blind bots cared to read thouroughly you would have noticed at the end of the article some very specific copyrights are posted. I have CAPITALIZED it below.
I would have noticed if I cared to read thouroughly post #883? I noticed it in the material you stole and represented here as your own, material I knew I'd be able to find by yanking a random string of words and entering it in a search engine because you, Teno Groppi are obviously a lying, thieving plagiarist. By excising that paragraph, you ignored the admonition that permission to post the material was conditional, and you violated that condition by truncating the material and posting the rest here as if it were your own original writing. "It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks. You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get *NOTHING*! You lose! Good day sir!"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 11:10 AM
Ken, good work showing Teno is a plagiarist. We always know there are lies in any creationist. They seem to have a fragile hold on telling the truth.
Teno, if you wish to debate evolution, a scientific theory, the scientific literature is the place to do so. The same for the science of abiogenesis. Science is only refuted by more science. Religious myths are irrelevant to science.
Now, if you want to discuss the religious myths for origins, then that can be done anywhere. Just don't expect science to show up, and nothing said in these debates will effect science.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 11:23 AM
Ken sir,
Oh, you should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about. Because as Willy Wonka said: There's no earthly way of knowing, which direction we are going... There's no knowing where we're rowing... Or which way the river's flowing... Is it raining? Is it snowing? Is a hurricane a-blowing? Not a speck of light is showing... So the danger must be growing... Are the fires of hell a-glowing? Is the grisly reaper mowing? Yes, the danger must be growing, cause the rowers keep on rowing... And they're certainly not showing... Any signs that they are slowing!
Invention, my dear friends, is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple. That's 105 percent!
Eh well, it happens every time, they all become blueberries!
Well, the suspense is terrible. I hope it will last... :D
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 11:26 AM
Oh and Ken,
Don is a good friend of mine (a close one at that). Would you like him to pay a visit to this site? I can certainly ask him.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 11:32 AM
Teno, we don't need Don to come. Another IDiot adds nothing to a scientific debate (neither do you for that matter). Come back when you are willing to cite the scientific literature to back up your inane claims.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2008 12:13 PM
Stupid, wanking, insipid, lying plagiarist godbot Teno Groppi in post #908 continues to demonstrate his solitary monkey-at-a-typewriter skill: cutting and pasting.
In post #909,
Don is a good friend of mine (a close one at that). Would you like him to pay a visit to this site?
No need to add sock-puppetry to your epic stack of ethical failures.
Posted by: SteveM | November 19, 2008 12:28 PM
No copyrights were posted in #883 where you first pasted that bilge. No mention that it was written by someone else, and reposted with or without permission. That makes it plagierism, whether "Don" is a friend of yours or not. Whether he gave you permission to post it or not. Posting it as your own is plagierism. There is nothing in 883 to indicate that it was not your own, not even quotation marks.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 1:39 PM
Look Steve however you want to see it -- call it plagiarism if you will. SO WHAT! Don doesn't mind in the least. And besides, how do you know I didn't help him write it?
Now Ken, your just a pitcher with a big mouth, a fast ball and a slow brain! And as for Pinhead, if you look in fine details of the Bible, one can certainly see that SCIENCE (which you hold so dear) is credibly found. In fact so credible is the Bibles performance in science that we have to stop and wonder how it achieved this knowledge some 4,000 ago without some sort of divine intervention. The Bible itself is the very bases for SCIENCE today!
Did you know that many of the military tactics that we use today all stem from the Bible.
Kosher sanitary laws (they even knew about bacteria even before the microscope). These very laws are what put into effect the FDA.
Leviticus 17:11 (which describes the value of blood)- For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your soul, for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. We all know that blood is dependent to all living things. And when we further examine the moving parts of blood we realize that it serves several amazing functions, such as carrying water, oxygen and nutrients to every cell of the body, as well as the function to remove the "waste material" of the body. In essence the blood is a giver of life as well as a purifier. It is indeed the atonement for the soul. So the question remains, besides G-d requiring it, how is it that we knew this without knowing about the moving parts of blood without a microscope.
Additionally for those who study astronomy know that there is a star called Alcyone that is found within the star system of the Pleiades (the seven sisters).
This star (which is the brightest in the constellation Pleiades) is said to be the hinge in which all gravity in our system (galaxy) seems to axis on. Yet in Job 38:31, G-d asks Job, - "Canst thou bind the sweet influence of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?" It is also interesting to know that the Hebrew word for "Pleiades" is "kee-maw" which means "Pivot or hinge". So the intriguing question is, how did Job know that this it what keeps us on our course in the solar system, instead of drifting aimlessly through space?
By some other means Job also seems to know that the earth is suspended in space when he states in (Job 26:7) - He stretches out the north over empty space, He hangs the earth on nothing. The fact that Job knows that the earth floats in empty space (which is a vacuum) by means of gravity is amazing!
In Job 36:27-29 it states - For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man. Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds, the thunder from His canopy? How is it that Job even seems to know about "evaporation"?
Job 26:8 states - He binds up the water in His thick clouds, yet the clouds are not broken under it. Amazingly Job even understands the process of what constitutes "condensation".
Job 37:11 states - Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds, He scatters His bright clouds. As silly at it may sound to us in this day and age, it still begs the question of how Job knew that clouds make water, or better yet how he had a firm understanding of "Hydrology", which is the study of earth's water system, from its distribution, circulation and the atmosphere.
Moreover, so colossal and complete is the bible in its first opening verse of Genesis 1, that it contains all the physics related to our existence in a matter of 5 superseding terms: In the beginning (time) G-d (force) created (action) the Heavens (space) and the Earth (matter).
So off with all of your crapola about science and G-d. The Bible is scientifically based. And additionally archeologically sound as I mentioned in a previous post.
And BTW this information is coming from a book that I'm personally writing. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. :D
To be adjourned...
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2008 1:45 PM
Teno Groppi and his BFF Don Boys may look forward to being kicked to the curb by the GOP:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/19/kathleen-parker-fundies-are-killing-the-gop-should-go-back-to-wooden-crates-on-street-corners/
That blogpost cites Kathleen Parker, writing in the Washington Post, who has this to say about the fundie base of the GOP:
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2008 1:56 PM
Teno, you ignorant ass, science has disproven creationism. The Bible is a piece of literature having nothing to do with science, and trying to represent fanciful tales of gods, monsters, planet drowning floods and the like as literally true is to miss the point of the parables and metaphors.
Now that shameless moron Teno Groppi is spamming the comments here with bible verses, it's time for him to go, be ignored, banished to the dungeon, or all three.
The rest of you may want some more fun kicking him around, but I really don't want to have to scrape any more of that deep stench off of my shoes.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 19, 2008 1:57 PM
As a physiologist, I can only remark:What
the
fuck?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 1:58 PM
Teno, you quoting scripture means you are acknowledging that you have lost the scientific argument because you have no proof. Time to cut your losses and stay home. Any arguments you bring lacking scientific citations are reliqious.
Religious arguments do not effect science in any manner. Religion and science divorced a couple of centuries back, and science just ignores religion these days. There is no going back for science. So you need to adjust your religion to fit with the scientific facts, or just acknowledge you are out of synch with reality.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 2:03 PM
Whats a matter guys, you don't want to be tested in your thinking views as well as your objective views about creation.
I don't think any of you are being intellectually honest with yourselves.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 19, 2008 2:09 PM
You know, he's right--it's all there...all of physics. Incredible! I'm rethinking my entire worldview even as I type.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 2:09 PM
Teno, as a working scientist I have to be honest with myself. However, you haven't proved the necessary background for your scripture to mean anything. First show the physical evidence for your imaginary god (fail). Then you have to prove that the scriptures are divinely inspired (fail). You may want to check the show described in this thread first which really refutes the divine insparation:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/watch_tv_tonight.php
Time for you to be honest with yourself, and acknowledge that you need science to refute science. And science is not found in the scriptures.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 19, 2008 2:15 PM
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008
Look Steve however you want to see it -- call it plagiarism if you will. SO WHAT! Don doesn't mind in the least. And besides, how do you know I didn't help him write it?
Shorter Teno. So what if I am dishonest, I am dealing with dangerous and evil people.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 2:15 PM
Aren't you at least curious as to whats in the Bible pertaining to future technology?
Oh of course not, I forget... Your arrogance blinds you...
additionally you come up with so many excused that you could even continue posting on the back of a microscopic postage stamp with room enough leftover for a shopping list.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 2:22 PM
Teno, I've read the bible twice cover to cover. That was the start of my journey to atheism due to the incoherent ramblings of the deranged authors. They had some real problems, and kept trying to push them on everybody. Plus, the godly seemed to be very amoral.
There is no science in the bible. Period, end of story. God doesn't exist, and the bible is a true work of fiction. So you want to believe fiction is true? What does that say about your mind?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 19, 2008 2:22 PM
Dumbass, the bible has nothing to say about modern technology, let alone future technology.
Also, why should anybody care? You have already stated that it is no big deal the you are not honest. So how can anyone honestly argue with you?
This is the reason why most of the people named in your plagiarized essay will not debate the likes of you. Everyone gets covered in tar. There is no standard to be maintained except everyone must knell to your big sky daddy.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 2:27 PM
No evidence has FAILED here Pinhead. Since we have the actual evidence itself -- the Bible! What I had supplied you with was Biblical scientific doctrine that you refuse to even acknowledge. Why don't you at least try refuting it.
If you want to play this game again, show me evidence that the tongue is connected to the brain?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 2:32 PM
Teno, you have what you need to do in my post #920. Until you show the proper evidence for god, and that the bible is divinely inspired, all you have is your belief. I don't share your belief, and will not share your belief without you proving the above. Claims are cheap. Show some evidence from non-scripture sources.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 19, 2008 2:33 PM
Shorter Teno- How dare you doubt the bible.
Oh dear, he is now blabbering. He was more coherent was he was cutting and pasting. Funny thing, there is still that lack of meaning. Dishonest git.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 19, 2008 2:35 PM
But Nerd, the bible trumps facts!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 19, 2008 2:39 PM
Here you go.(oh...that's not what you meant? Hard to tell sometimes.)
Posted by: CJO | November 19, 2008 2:40 PM
The Bible itself is the very bases for SCIENCE today!
Hoo boy. This just gets better and better.
This star (which is the brightest in the constellation Pleiades) is said to be the hinge in which all gravity in our system (galaxy) seems to axis on.
That is a new one. It's desperately stupid, of course, even more so than standard creationist tripe, but you have acheived something at least: you've made an assertion that I have never heard in 5 years bashing this crap on the toobz. And possibly you've set a new standard for "breathtaking inanity."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 2:41 PM
In Teno's mind, yes. In my mind no.After last nights Nova, Teno should be questioning the accuracy of the bible. Watch the show found in the link in post #920 Teno. You might learn something.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 19, 2008 2:42 PM
Great slabs of plagiarised text and scripture. Thundering stupidity.
Much better.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 2:43 PM
Okay Pinhead I'm game!
How about the scientific analysis that shows evidence that patients prayed over before and after surgery heal faster.
http://1stholistic.com/PRAYER/hol_prayer_proof.htm
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 19, 2008 2:45 PM
show me evidence that the tongue is connected to the brain
The tongue bone is connected to the jaw bone
The jaw bone is connected to the head bone
The head bone is connected to the brain bone
Oh, hear the word of the Lord
Dem bones, dem bones gonna talk aroun'
Dem bones, dem bones, gonna talk aroun'
Dem bones, dem bones, gonna talk aroun'
Oh, hear the word of the Lord
Posted by: CJO | November 19, 2008 2:47 PM
We're in full-on Groppi Gallup mode here, people.
Look out for that cliff, Teno!
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 2:47 PM
I'm mostly interested in this one:
In the most widely publicized studies of the effect of intercessory prayer, cardiologist Randolph Byrd studied 393 patients admitted to the coronary-care unit at San Francisco General Hospital. Some were prayed for by home-prayer groups, others were not. All the men and women got medical care. In this randomized, double-blind study, neither the doctors and nurses nor the patients knew who would be the object of prayer.
The results were dramatic and surprised many scientists.The men and women whose medical care was supplemented with prayer needed fewer drugs and spent less time on ventilators. They also fared better overall than their counterparts who received medical care but nothing more.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 2:48 PM
Teno, that paper was falsified. Other, good work has shown no effect, or a negative effect. Still at square zero.
Just admit you have nothing and go away.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 19, 2008 2:50 PM
Oh, my. I'm afraid I had forgotten all about the incontrovertible scientific evidence for the healing powers of prayer.
Another dent in my worldview...
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 19, 2008 2:51 PM
CJO, too late! He is well over the cliff. If he ever looks down, he will fall. Just like Wile E Coyote.
But then, Teno's reality is just as real as a Loony Tunes short.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 2:52 PM
Still nothing. Yawn. Prayer, if it works, it always works. Doesn't always work. Appears to be the function of who writes the article. Yawn
Now prove your god with some physical evidence moron.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 3:08 PM
Pinhead, show me precisely where it was falsified?
If you yourself would like proof of something (the invisible) that you cant see (working). There is a simple experiment that you can do. Unless you do it yourself instead of taking others words for it. Take four canning jars and fill two with fresh grapes and the other with cooked white rice. Now place Labels on the two grape jars, one reading good and the other bad. Do the same for the cooked white rice. You can use other sources of food but these two (as I've personally observed) allow you to see some real effects.
Now, place these jars on a counter top or a table where several people can view them for at least several weeks. You will see an obvious difference in the ones labeled good and bad -- as the bad ones will have deteriorated (molded) much sooner than the good ones. I've performed this experiment in the view of several large classrooms and each time the experiment reveals the same results -- the bad ones go off sooner than the good ones.
So what is going on here? Its quite obvious that the invisible conscious mind is manipulating atoms behind the scenes. Now if this is so, this logically tells us that when faith and prayer is spoken about (or referred to) in the Bible it has a scientific basis to it (and not just from ones own mind, but from observers).
Hence God is the invisible -- is He not? Even such technological things as the workings of cell phones. You are in a sense also acknowledging the concept of Gods existence.
Why is there this double standard than?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 19, 2008 3:14 PM
So what is going on here? Its quite obvious that the invisible conscious mind is manipulating atoms behind the scenes. Now if this is so, this logically tells us that when faith and prayer is spoken about (or referred to) in the Bible it has a scientific basis to it (and not just from ones own mind, but from observers).
Even if this was true, that the mind can manipulate matter, that is not proof of god. It just proves that the mind can manipulate matter.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 19, 2008 3:14 PM
/jawfloor
Posted by: CJO | November 19, 2008 3:19 PM
Forget intercessionary prayer. I think we've proved Poe's Law, once and for all.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 19, 2008 3:24 PM
@661 Rev. BDC
er. Thanks for the link. I'm afraid though that it's a bit over my head, a bit out of my field, and a bit beyond my current level of motivation to get a grasp of the significance of handedness. It was very well written, but it may be more useful for a more chemistry minded person.
I on the other hand, am halfway through the last paper of my undergraduate career... and it's a bloodbath. So I'll probably have to suspend my autodidactic tendencies until a later date.
On an unrelated note:
... I can't believe you two are still having this discussion. rock on.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 19, 2008 3:26 PM
oh really
Seems not to work at all
What did the American Heart Journal have to say?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 19, 2008 3:32 PM
Teno, what about all the kids that die at the hands of their wacked out parents who think that modern medicine is unnecessary and they can prey away the illness?
Will you pull the no true Scotsman tactic to explain why their prayers weren't enough?
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2008 3:34 PM
BAD grapes! Naughty rice!
I haven't heard of anything so daft since some dimbulb shoved electrified forks in a pickle to make it glow in the dark for Jesus.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 19, 2008 3:40 PM
Last link isn't fully up any longer
so here
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2008 4:01 PM
Hey Rev, I say, give those murderers all the mercy they can successfully intercessorily pray for. In separate, permanently locked rooms.
Posted by: John Morales | November 19, 2008 4:04 PM
Teno Troll:
Bwahahaha!
At least when it stops pasting slabs (no, troll, I don't bother reading them) it's somewhat amusing. Gotta love the "experiment" with the jars - but better take care not to misspell "good" as "god"!
<snicker>
Posted by: Kel | November 19, 2008 4:16 PM
If the bible is evidence, then why did it get so many things wrong? It's hard to find anything in the bible that happened as the bible says; it's not a book to be trusted at all.Surely if the bible constituted evidence, it would have paralleled science as we see it today. Instead it has a creation story that has as much accuracy as the creation story of the Australian Aboriginals.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 19, 2008 4:19 PM
Did Teno seriously just claim that the use of a cell-phone is an acknowledgment of God's existence because we can't see wireless waves and say we're not being intellectually honest?
Teno: You sir, are an affront to human thought everywhere. If you had an ounce of honour you would commit seppuku with a melon-baller and line the inside of your cranial cyst with copies of the 'Parable of the Talents' to atone for your squandering of the brains you believe God gave you.
Neither the god you believe in nor the pantheistic deity you're misrepresenting in a pathetic and desperate attempt to corner us is defined as 'stuff we can't see but still does stuff'. If using a cell-phone is an acknowledgment of God then so is flying a kite, infecting a loved one with the flu, and microwaving a hot dog, and we know you don't believe that, you dishonest cinderblock-headed ignoramus.
Posted by: abb3w | November 19, 2008 4:25 PM
Teno Groppi Did you know that many of the military tactics that we use today all stem from the Bible.
More stem from Caesar's De Bello Gallico and Sun Tzu's Art of War.
Teno Groppi The Bible is scientifically based. And additionally archeologically sound as I mentioned in a previous post.
Not particularly. See this, which PZ pointed to before it aired.
Teno Groppi you don't want to be tested in your thinking views as well as your objective views about creation.
Only if you're willing to start with first principles. Would you agree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, which states that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P)?
Teno Groppi If you want to play this game again, show me evidence that the tongue is connected to the brain?
That presupposes agreement as to a basis of inference between propositions, which you have not yet provided me, and which I am actively seeking. Would you agree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, which states that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P)?
Teno Groppi I've performed this experiment in the view of several large classrooms and each time the experiment reveals the same results -- the bad ones go off sooner than the good ones.
...and you haven't published? And didn't try for the James Randi prize while it was around? Oh, you impoverished fellow.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 19, 2008 4:26 PM
yeah. what he said.
Posted by: windy | November 19, 2008 4:35 PM
What if I crush the grapes and add some sugar and water? Which ones will ferment faster, the "good" or the "bad" grapes?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 4:39 PM
Teno. As I said, falsified. YYAAWWNN.
Now show some physical evidence for your imaginary god. Moses' eternally burning bush would be nice. Or something else that is nice and solid, that can be confirmed by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers to be of divine origin.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 4:50 PM
This is an experiment done by Dr. Masaru Emoto. He additionally has a book out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjfN3K_v1uY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz-cYk9Wu4&feature=related
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 4:53 PM
Poor doctor gets no good results, then writes a book. Well guess what. YAWN.
Now show us your physical evidence for your imaginary god. This is getting very boring with your constant evasions of what should be simple request. One might think you have overreached, and you know it.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 4:56 PM
As you wish Pinhead!
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt_Water_Using_Radio_Waves
I'll wait for your next reply. :D
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 19, 2008 4:58 PM
And further, something bearing Jehovah's signature. I don't want no generic miracles that can just as easily be attributed to Ganesha, Ahura Mazda, or Odin.
You're proving your god; not just any god.
Posted by: SC | November 19, 2008 4:59 PM
Emoto woo!
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/01/your_friday_dose_of_woo_holy_koranic_dr.php
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 4:59 PM
Pinhead, are you making up your own results now?!
Please direct me to where any results were fudged.
Your drawing at strings again. If you start spinning them like Owlmirror you could knit a blanket.
Posted by: John Morales | November 19, 2008 5:02 PM
Nerd @957,
How could it be confirmed to be divine? It would be more parsimonious to consider it the product of as-yet unknown phenomena, or of highly-advanced science. Scientists would not be converting, they'd be rubbing their hands in glee, getting as many observations as possible, and thinking up conjectures to test via experiments so as to begin to develop an explanatory theory.Any deity worth its salt should be able to, you know, avoid parlor tricks and just directly affect belief.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 5:03 PM
SC, until you try the experiment for yourself, you have no room to talk... run along now!
Posted by: w | November 19, 2008 5:07 PM
What a fucking waste of time this clown is.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2008 5:12 PM
Teno, do know how I know that you're lying (and have been lying continuously)?
It's simple.
Even you don't believe that God is real and acts in the world.
Because if you did, you wouldn't be copying and pasting all the nonsense you have been spewing.
You wouldn't have to.
All you would have to do is pray.
"God, show these unbelievers that you exist."
That's it.
If your God were real, your God would answer.
Your God doesn't answer, because your God isn't real.
Your God is imaginary. He's made up. All of your stories about him are made up. All of your "science" about him is made up.
There's no one there.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 5:12 PM
Poster W,
Is that W as in "Wuse"?
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 19, 2008 5:15 PM
Teno, I'm not that familiar with the bible - what does it have to say about approved methods for healing? Does it mention antibiotics, surgery and transplants?
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 5:17 PM
Owlmirror,
How do you know G-d doesn't answer? Maybe he just doesn't answer you, after all who wants to listen to continuous spinning?
I think (like G-d) I'm going to start ignoring you too.
Posted by: llewelly | November 19, 2008 5:18 PM
970 posts? WTF? Did crackers hijack this thread?
Posted by: John Morales | November 19, 2008 5:18 PM
Teno @960, what does the fact that pumping RF into salt water electrolyses it briefly whereupon the products "burn" have to do with evolution, or god, or anything, really?
And I laughingly note it mentions "They subsequently quietly reported that they surpassed 100% efficiency".
Posted by: Brownian. OM | November 19, 2008 5:20 PM
'w' was me, acting through divine revelation from Rev. BDC, KoT.
I assume you meant the word 'wuss'. Such a mistake is proof of Perkūnas, who is not Jehovah, and thus invalidates Jehovah's own claim of solitary godhood.
Please refute.
Posted by: H.H. | November 19, 2008 5:21 PM
Teno, I bet you the experiment won't work when it's double blind. Have someone randomly shuffle the "Good" and "Bad" labels inside duplicate envelopes, then affix them to the food items. When you don't know which item is receiving the good vibes and which is receiving the bad, I bet you suddenly can't tell which is rotting faster. This is because you haven't designed the experiment to account for your own confirmation bias, which appears to be quite strong.
Your badly designed experiments prove nothing, and only a fool would run them as you propose.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2008 5:24 PM
I'm neither deaf nor blind. I see no God and I hear no God. If God spoke I would hear it; if God wrote I would see it.
But I would have no reason to "spin" (tell the truth that you are a liar) if God spoke. God doesn't speak, so I get to keep telling the truth that you are a liar.
Tell you what. You've already posted more than God has. Far, far more than God has.
So now just stop posting and pray to God that he should speak.
Posted by: Josh | November 19, 2008 5:24 PM
Teno Groppi: Did you know that many of the military tactics that we use today all stem from the Bible.
Really? What infantry tactics used by the U.S. Military can be definitively derived from the Bible?
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 5:26 PM
Wowbagger,
You ask a very good question. I'd like to follow up with antibiotics. Many of the herbs and plants that are mentioned in the Bible are actually what goes into our modern medicine today. In fact Moses melted down the golden calf into liquid gold and fed it to the Jews. Gold has many medicinal values in the body, one of them to relieve pain.
And incidentally, the very same principle for the vaccine came from Moses at the bitter waters of Marah (that's a hard one to explain).
Posted by: Josh | November 19, 2008 5:29 PM
Teno Groppi: Did you know that many of the military tactics that we use today all stem from the Bible.
Really? What infantry tactics used by the U.S. Military can be definitively derived from the Bible?
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 19, 2008 5:29 PM
Teno, I've been doing my research - I've found that all the bible has to say about healing and medicine is that if someone's sick or injured the bible says to heal them, all you have to do is a) anoint them in oil and b) pray and they'll be fine.
So, what do you do when you're sick or injured, Teno? Do you listen to the bible? Or do you go to a doctor or a hospital working in 100% non-biblical medicine?
I guess if the answer is the latter we know how strong your faith is.
Posted by: windy | November 19, 2008 5:32 PM
Does it mention antibiotics
Nah, all you need is a band-aid with "GOOD" written on it, that will keep the microbes out.
I'm disappointed that Teno has not answered my question about fermentation. The holidays are coming up and I need to know if it would be better to label the vats "GOOD" or "JESUS" or "BAD EVIL LUCIFER SATAN"
-"I'd like a pound of yeast and ten pounds of sugar, Daddy is baking"
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 5:38 PM
Brownian. OM,
Wuse, wus, wuss, whussss... what the difference?
talk about spelling, how did we go from Brownian. OM to just plain W? Huge spelling difference, its not even close. At this point, you couldn't match wits with a Speak N' Spell! :D
I'm really just joking here.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 19, 2008 5:42 PM
ugh
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 19, 2008 5:42 PM
Only if you willfully ignore the history of the medicinal uses of both biological and non-biological materials in human cultures all around the world.
What actually is hard to explain, you ignorant fool, is why such behaviours are global and pre-date Moses if the knowledge was transmitted from God to Moses.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 19, 2008 5:43 PM
Teno's brilliant logic at work:
Extrapolating in this way he'll no doubt claim that because the bible mentions sand it predicts silicon chip technology and therefore computers; likewise, because it mentions the moon it predicts the Apollo missions.
Keep grasping at those straws, Teno - is that short for 'tenuous'?
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 5:44 PM
Wowbagger,
You've obviously misunderstood me. Modern medicinal technology is an off-shoot of natural ingredients that were used during Biblical times.
Today's medicines are absolutely acceptable to use.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2008 5:44 PM
Joking is not praying.
Stop joking, stop posting, start praying.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 19, 2008 5:45 PM
Wow... really? Hydrogen from H2O??? SHUT UP!
Huh. So there really is a god. Glad that's cleared up.
Posted by: CJO | November 19, 2008 5:46 PM
I'm really just joking here.
Please tell me that goes for all your, erm, output here.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 19, 2008 5:47 PM
Clearly a miracle proving the divinity of Shiva, stupid.
D'uh.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 19, 2008 5:48 PM
Does Teno Groppi win the prize for outright idiocy among all the trolls of Pharyngula? We've had more offensive trolls, more amusing trolls, more repetitive trolls, but have we ever had one who displays the depth and range of pure 24-carat stupid Groppi has produced on this thread? I put this question to those commenters of longer standing than myself.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 19, 2008 5:52 PM
Tenuous Teno wrote:
Heart transplants are an offshoot of herbs, oil and praying? Cochlear implants are an offshoot of herbs, oil and praying? Bone and skin grafts are an offshoot of herbs, oil and praying? Laser surgery is an offshoot of herbs, oil and praying?
I guess that's why we see Dr House consulting the bible on every episode...
Posted by: Kel | November 19, 2008 5:57 PM
He's got my vote.He still hasn't explained how we see galaxies millions / billions of light years away or why everything in the solar system ages to ~4.5 billion years. Come on Teno, the Andromeda galaxy as being measured by different standard candles sits 2.3 million light years away from earth. How is that explained in your model?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 19, 2008 5:59 PM
I don't think so. In fact, it's almost hard to explain how stupid he is. Almost like his stupidity is a miracle in itself. But who to attribute the miracle to? Jehovah wouldn't create the perfect moron to spout his praises, so it couldn't be Him. Proof perhaps of Koalemos?
Posted by: Vitis01 | November 19, 2008 6:00 PM
I just read most of this thread from top to bottom (very slow day at work) and I am almost certain that this Teno guy is pulling your legs. I even went as far as to try and figure out if his name was an anagram of something or somebody we know but if it is I didn't get it. The "good" and "bad" jars seemed to be the tip off and then the totally non-sequitur link to the hydrogen-from-water guy clinched it for me.
Am I right Teno? Are you trying to break some Poe record? Do I win a prize?
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 6:04 PM
Josh,
The first person in recorded history to demonstrate sophisticated tactical warfare was "Abraham" when he rescued his nephew "Lot" from the Mesopotamian army as well as free Israelite captives. Genesis 14:15. This was a nighttime surprise raid from two different direction. Abrahams raid is a classical standard model night time maneuver which is taught in military academies throughout the world.
Abrahams reign did not stop there, it continued through his son Isaac, and from Isaac to Jacob and his 12 sons (the 12 tribes of Israel) who later migrated to Egypt through Jacobs younger son Joseph.
Exodus 17:8-13 - The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim. Moses said to Joshua, Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of G-d in my hands. So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. When Moses' hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up one on one side, one on the other so that his hands remained steady till sunset. So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword.
We read about Joshua and his battle at Jericho. Joshua 6:3-4 - And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. Today the military has developed devices that use high frequency sound waves to cause nausea and disorientate an enemy.
Than we read about Joshua when he burns the city of Ai, Joshua 8:28-29. He used the mountains with the sun rising in the east shinning right in the eyes of the Canaanites and attacking downhill the Canaanites couldn't see fighting in the face of the sun, nor did they eat or prepare since it was early morning.
Joshua defeats the Canaanites. Joshua 10:9-10 - Joshua therefore came unto them suddenly, and went up from Gilgal all night. And the Lord discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.
The next hero of the bible is Gideon, he rises up against the midianites. He chooses "300" soldiers... they carry torches, clay pots and shofers (ram horns) and at midnight Gideon strategically separates his 300 men and positions them around the midian camp on 3 sides leaving the southern part open. Judges 7:20 - And the three companies blew the trumpets, and brake the pitchers, and held the lamps in their left hands, and the trumpets in their right hands to blow withal: and they cried, The sword of the Lord, and of Gideon. The torches are seen by the midianites and in a panic they flee. The midianites are also blinded by the torches and they start fighting themselves... its a state of confusion and complete chaos! While the remaining Israelite army in the southern part is waiting in ambush for the fleeing midianites and slaughter them.
The next military hero of the bible is woman named "Deborah". The Philistines had taken over the Jezreel valley. It also happened to be during the rainy season which made the ground muddy so the enemy could not get there military up the muddy slopes without getting bogged in the mud. Than the Israelites attack down hill with a victorious victory. Judges 4:4-7.
Saul was the next and his son Jonathan using secret ravines to work their way around the Philistines, quarantining them into a small battlefield area and triumphing over them. Soul takes back control over the central mountain ridge of the Canane also cutting the trade routs in the Jezreel valley and made headway in creating a united territorial kingdom for the Israelites. 1 Samuel 13:2
Than came King David when he took out the Philistine giant "Goliath" 1 Samuel 17:44-45 with a rock and sling as a military weapon.
The bible it seems was even used as a guide book by the Greeks during the reign of Leonites. They seem to have applied the same strategy of using "300" Spartan soldiers by way of the narrow Thermopolis pass to hold back nearly 300 thousand Persian soldiers. And as mentioned earlier that many of these strategic maneuvers that were used by the Jews in ancient times are still being taught in militaries throughout the world and are still winning wars and securing territories.
Posted by: John Morales | November 19, 2008 6:13 PM
Vitis01, sad to say, the Teno Troll is, I think, for real.
That's the whole point of Poe's law.
Posted by: Augustine of Hippo | November 19, 2008 6:14 PM
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Posted by: Kel | November 19, 2008 6:16 PM
So this thread has turned from "evolution is an affront to entropy" to "look at how wonderful the bible is". Turns out it's all the same with believers, always about their holy book. It would be funny to put a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a Sikh, and a Muslim all in the same room to battle out theology. They all use the same kinds of justifications for their holy book, and we nonbelievers can sit back and laugh at the whole thing.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 19, 2008 6:18 PM
Yes, and no race or tribe or nation other than the Jews ever devised military tactics without ever having encountered the bible.
Keep grasping, Tenuous Teno. This is fun!
Posted by: SC | November 19, 2008 6:20 PM
1000?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 19, 2008 6:23 PM
I nominate Teno Groppi for the Order Of *nn. Order Of *nn is named after *nn C**lt*r in honor of her ability to continually spew out nonsense in the face of reason.
Posted by: SC | November 19, 2008 6:24 PM
wOOt! (May be a temporary victory. Anyway I'm kind of punchy after much travel, so please forgive me.)
I'm quite sure this is proof of something divine...
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 19, 2008 6:28 PM
@998
Somehow I don't think it would be very interesting...
"It's the truth"
"No it's not. This is the truth."
"No it's not. This is the truth."
"No it's not...
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 19, 2008 6:29 PM
SC, Teno just dismissed you out of hand. But I think he is ignoring me now. It is his way of acting like his big sky daddy.
Teno Groppi: I think (like G-d) I'm going to start ignoring you too.
It was not directed at me. But I think it is a perfect example of his stupid arrogance.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 19, 2008 6:29 PM
show me precisely where it [the Byrd prayer study] was falsified? - Tino Groppi
Byrd himself determined who "did better", and may well have know who was prayed for and who not. That alone is enough to make the study pretty much worthless. Moreover the most objective measures - mortality and length of hospitalisation - showed no effect. Is that really the best evidence you've got for "God", Groppi? Can't he get it on these days, and do us a proper, full-size miracle, like maybe parting the waters of the Mississippi? Or making the stars start flashing on and off in Morse code, spelling out "I AM THAT I AM"? What a worthless, feeble, namby-pamby, underachieving ninny of a deity you worship, Groppi!
Posted by: SC | November 19, 2008 6:30 PM
I've now accepted the teachings of my childhood church and am a proud millenialist.
Seconded.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 19, 2008 6:31 PM
I do not recall once the US military marching around city walls for a week.
Bush did however get his tactics from the bible. Just invade Iraq and pray things go well.
Which is why ham is illegal.....er.....
Aren't you at least curious as to whats in the Poetic Edda pertaining to future technology?
Holy shit, this guy is like condensed stupid.
Posted by: Kel | November 19, 2008 6:31 PM
Just give it time, it will inevitably lead to conflict. Also it will demonstrate one fundamental thing, that each of them has the same justifications for their gods and holy books.Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 19, 2008 6:31 PM
Posted by: SC | November 19, 2008
I'm quite sure this is proof of something divine...
Careful, you will give Teno more ideas. He seems to find a lot of divine intervention.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 19, 2008 6:37 PM
***Too baffled to come up with witty response***
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 6:38 PM
Teno, all you can cite is something that can be explained by natural causes. There simply is no hope for you.
Now, tell me where to find Moses' burning bush, or the equivalent. Anything else means you are a liar. So far you're batting 0.000. One might think you have some mental problems. Keep in mind, you always have the option of just stopping your posts.
Posted by: SC | November 19, 2008 6:43 PM
Oh, I was ignoring that, since I've already done his experiments (prove I haven't, Groppi).
Then nothing took place
I'm not a believer...
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 19, 2008 6:43 PM
Do you mean to say the bible predicts the brown note?
Posted by: Kel | November 19, 2008 6:43 PM
Or, here's a novel idea, we could get back to science and stop talking about people who take fairy tales too seriously.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 19, 2008 6:45 PM
NOOO!
@ Nerd 1011
Don't tell him to quit. It's just too entertaining.
I think he's doing it on purpose. Surely a human being couldn't be that stupid and not forget to breathe.
@no one.
I was thinking... there should be an anti-molly. I guess that my prayers have been answered in the Order of *nn.
All in favor say aye...
aye.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 6:55 PM
Well Pinhead this might be something beyond your means of comprehension. You see G-d clearly works through nature, as in the burning bush. What John K. had discovered was that by putting a basic radio frequency through salt water - it catches fire. Did you also see that the paper towel that was in the flame was not burning (in likeness of the Burning Bush).
Now here is the kicker which I doubt you will understand. As for the rest of the gang here which is clearly a bunch of kindergardeners who hang together looking for acceptance from one another.
Here it is: G-d works through NATURE. The actual Hebrew word for "nature" is the word "Hatevah" which when broken down into Gematria (numbers) it equals the same as the name of G-d (Eloheim). Thus G-d and nature are the same -- working hand in hand. You see not only does the Bible speak in words, it also can be broken down into mathematical code (only by using the Hebrew letters of the Old Testament which was given to Moses by G-d).
Sleep on that one for a while. To be adjourned...
Posted by: John Morales | November 19, 2008 6:56 PM
Eeew. An anti-honour would be actively sought and we'd get even more trollish gadflies here. It may be fun to punch them around, but some of them love it. They want to be fed, no matter how feculent their diet.
I vote no, no, no.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 6:59 PM
That is why I was gone for while. The people who pay me have this nasty habit of wanting some science done for them. It was a good break science wise though.Don't worry TW, Teno can't quit now. He'll be back for more laughs. The actual question is whether PZ will shut down the thread now that we've reached 1000 or let it go a while. If PZ opens a new one, I doubt if Teno could find it.
SC, I'll third the motion.
Posted by: Patricia | November 19, 2008 7:00 PM
I think there is more proof for the Goddess Discordia than there is for jesus or gawd. Certainly the FSM at least shows up for supper.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 19, 2008 7:00 PM
For a person who thinks that the King James Bible is the supreme version of the bible, he seems to love his ancient Hebrew mixed in with numerology.
I will not be sleeping on it. I have more pleasant things to dream of.
Posted by: SC | November 19, 2008 7:01 PM
kindergardeners
I'm stealing that unintentionally great word for kids' horticultural programs.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 7:03 PM
Teno, nothing you say sticks in my brain. I don't need to lose any brain cells to your stupidity.
Again, your religion does not refute science. Only more science can refute science.
Science cannot refute your religion, but it can make it look silly. Your religion is very, very silly.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 19, 2008 7:04 PM
@JM
yeah. you're probably right.
I think the lesson to be learned here is that there is a clear distinction among people. There are those who are rational individuals, who believe for reasons that can be articulated, and who we should seek to discuss these reasons with.
And then there are those others.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008 7:06 PM
Clearly you guys are what I would call "SCARED"! (having learned the truth).
1000 posts means victory.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 7:08 PM
Teno, what a liar. You said you were leaving for the night. If you lie about that, what else will lie about (everything based on your previous posts).
Have sweet, rational dreams of no god.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 19, 2008 7:09 PM
So, some people who invented words for things invented a way of making the word for one thing mean the word for another thing. Yeah, that's a revelation.
Grasp, grasp, Tenuous Teno. You must regrow fingernails at an astonishing rate.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 19, 2008 7:11 PM
I did not realize that shaking with laughter was a sign of fear.
Reaching over one thousand posts is an arbitrary goal. But it suits Teno Gruppi O* well. All his other proofs of god are similarly arbitrary.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 19, 2008 7:13 PM
I like the idea of an anti-Molly. There are many people like Teno who don't deserve to be thrown in the dungeon (just yet anyway), but deserve some sort of punishment for wasting everyone's time.
I fourth the motion.
Posted by: SC | November 19, 2008 7:15 PM
Indeed! Groppi and I alone will be RAPTURED, while the rest of you suckers will be LEFT BEHIND with your so-called reason, intelligence, and evidence.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2008 7:17 PM
No, it isn't. The root word is "teva" ("טבע"), no "ha-" ("ה").
(which is a combining article meaning "the", although used differently in Hebrew than in English, such that when used in a Hebrew sentence, "the nature" can be grammatically correct).
In other words, you have to cheat to make the numbers work.
81 ≠ 86
Just like you've been cheating all along.
Stop posting, start praying.
Posted by: CJO | November 19, 2008 7:18 PM
you guys are what I would call "SCARED"!
Sure. Since you use the rest of the language to mean something between whatever the hell you want it to and nothing much at all, go ahead and redefine "SCARED" as "laughing one's ass off at the deluded moron."
I, for one, am "SCARED" as hell in this brash new linguistic regime.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 7:19 PM
Teno doesn't realize that the 1000 post comment is because of the SB software starts slowing down once 1000 posts are reached (during Crackergate I think one post went over at least 3 X 1200 post threads, or more, so this is nothing). So it is an administrative matter more than anything else. No door prizes, except for PZ. It's money in his pocket.
Posted by: Kel | November 19, 2008 7:20 PM
What are we scared of? You're the intellectual equivalent of a used teabag and you don't even have the most rudimentary knowledge in science. The evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth and the gradual emergence of life on this planet is overwhelming. So what am I scared off? That a book written by broze-age herders invalidates all scientific progress? pfft. Only the ignorant and the stupid believe in a young earth. The need for apologetics to explain why the science doesn't match the creation story is proof itself that the story is myth written by people who didn't know better.Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 19, 2008 7:20 PM
Indeed grasshopper... but victory for whom?
Posted by: tresmal | November 19, 2008 7:23 PM
Teno @ 977: "Wowbagger,
Someone who is more familiar with the bible than I am correct me on this, but isn't this where Moses and co. pour molten gold down the throats of Baal worshippers? I guess it cured their idolatry. Vaccines have nothing to do with bitter waters.Posted by: John Morales | November 19, 2008 7:25 PM
That's the most honest the troll has been yet.Nah, it means PZ is exceptionally tolerant, in an enlightened-selfish way.
And Teno Troll epitomises the aphorism "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning."
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 19, 2008 7:28 PM
I don't know...Teno has really made me think about some things in a new way. The Bible's impeccable archaeology, its trailblazing science content, its prediction of antibiotics and lasers and cell phones, its explicit link between modern physiology and the soul, the fact that it contains all of physics in its first sentence alone, and, of course, the Secret Hebrew Mathematical Code...the demonstrated efficacy of prayer and the ability of nice words to keep rice from rotting...radio waves burning salt water...
It's a lot to think about.
Maybe there's something to this whole G-d thing after all...
Nah.
(Hey Teno, know anything about Near Death Experiences?)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 19, 2008 7:33 PM
Most antibiotics are made from soil bacteria. Penicillin, from a mold, is more the exception than the rule. Herbs are just used in nutriceuticals (food supplements) these days, and tend to show no activity when properly tested, with a few exceptions.
Another lie for the godbotter.
Posted by: SC | November 19, 2008 7:35 PM
Maldito sea, DiMilo. You'd better be prepared to round up a posse/mob. :)
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 19, 2008 7:35 PM
Sven, that is not fair. Kenny just had his NDE. Teno has the amusing ability of pulling new shit out of his ass.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2008 7:41 PM
No, not this time.
Ex 32:19-20 —
19 It came about, as soon as Moses came near the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Moses' anger burned, and he threw the tablets from his hands and shattered them at the foot of the mountain.
20 He took the calf which they had made and burned it with fire, and ground it to powder, and scattered it over the surface of the water and made the sons of Israel drink it.
Given that they had just violated God's law, somehow I don't think Moses was trying to do something nice for them.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 19, 2008 7:42 PM
Teno isn't really familiar with logic is he. It's a trainwreck and kind of hard not to watch.
Teno is a young earth creationist. He could try to point to data that shows the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Posted by: tresmal | November 19, 2008 7:47 PM
Teno @ 913:
Right; the Israelites were the only people in ancient times who grasped a connection between health and sanitation.
And nobody else living at that time had any clue that blood was important.
Whaaa...? Who says this? Can you quote actual legitimate astronomers on this?
Yeah, how did a desert dweller know about evaporation? I could go on, but I'm losing interest.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 19, 2008 7:49 PM
Comment 164:
The vast majority of fishes -- Actinopterygii.
503:
"I become". I was in the university and didn't have the link handy.
First (e. g. in Psalm 86) there was El Elyon, the Most High God, his wife Ashera, and their 70 sons, each of which was the god of one of the apparently 70 nations. Yahwe was the god of Israel, Chemosh was the god of Moab (source: somewhere in Judges 19), and so on.
Then (e. g. in 2 Kings) Yahwe came to be identified with his father. Had to do with the fact that both Israel and Judah were pwned by Assyria and Babylon -- by the old interpretation that would have meant that Yahwe was a worthless wimp; by the new interpretation it meant one god was in charge of all peoples and was punishing the Israelites for whatever sins. That's a much grander worldview. Much more comfortable.
And then (2 Kings again, Deuteronomy) the priests declared all other gods unworthy of worship -- see "whatever sins" above.
----------------------
This is a blog, not a forum. There is no moderator, there's only a blog owner who only cares when people get extremely obnoxious.
How is it possible that you don't recognize a blog when you see one?
You wish.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
My
daynight is saved!Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
I'm trying to say that what you wrote is grammatically correct but doesn't make any sense.
Of course not! Living things have enzymes that can only make left-handed amino acids! What did you imagine?!?
Do you actually know anything?
Didn't you just say the following...
Oh well. I have to go to bed. It's a quarter to 2 at night over here.
Just one thing:
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
"Heated debate"!
Teno, go here, read, and learn. That's an article specifically written for Christians.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 19, 2008 7:50 PM
I did the same. I thought his name was an anagram too: I've never heard either name and the "poe" and "ing" in there were inviting that speculation.
Google to the rescue.
He has a number of blogs, and not the kind of one-pager you might set up for a gag. Ladies and gentlemen, this guy is for real. Stupid in the purest and most concentrated form yet known to Pharyngula.
When I found out this guy is not a prankster, I laughed so hard I peed a little.
When I read some of his blogs, I laughed so hard I had to change my shorts.
Posted by: ennui | November 19, 2008 7:57 PM
It's always more Ox and fucking Donkey with these tards.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 19, 2008 7:57 PM
After having a short look at comments like 977 and 995, I can confidently estimate Teno's insanity at 0.7 Tc. Remember that the TimeCube scale is logarithmic, so 0.7 Tc is ten times as insane as 0.6 Tc.
I never saw anyone before who that desperately wanted to believe.
Doubt is good, Teno. Doubt everything. Doubt the existence of the computer in front of you. Doubt. Or you shall learn nothing.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 19, 2008 8:00 PM
Re Alcyone being " the hinge in which all gravity in our system (galaxy) seems to axis on. ":
Do you even have to ask?
BTW, here's something for Patricia (from Wikipedia):
Posted by: SC | November 19, 2008 8:01 PM
"...especially marches."
"...especially marches."
"...especially marches."
"...especially marches."
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 19, 2008 8:02 PM
"Gold has many medicinal values in the body, one of them to relieve pain. "
*BZZZT* Ohhh, wrong again. Gold is chemically inert to human body chemistry, and thus has no value. Really, join the 21st century, Teno, or at least the 19th.
And for crying out loud, type out the vowel in God's name. You're not fooling him with your silly little evasion, He still knows that you're taking His name in vain. And doesn't that strike you as petty and narcissistic behavior for a deity?
Posted by: God | November 19, 2008 8:07 PM
No, I solemnly assure you that I am utterly, entirely fooled.
Posted by: God | November 19, 2008 8:12 PM
Moi?
I prefer to think of it as protecting My brand or trademark. Can't have dilution; next thing you know, heretics will be saying that nature is Me.
Oh, wait...
Posted by: SC | November 19, 2008 8:13 PM
Patricia,
How are you feeling?
Posted by: John Morales | November 19, 2008 8:18 PM
Rey, Gold itself is physiologically inert, but gold poisoning can occur*, and compounds have theurapeutic potential in some cases.
* From Wikipedia: "Soluble compounds (gold salts) such as potassium gold cyanide, used in gold electroplating, are toxic to the liver and kidneys. There are rare cases of lethal gold poisoning from potassium gold cyanide"
Posted by: Stanton | November 19, 2008 9:21 PM
Botanists of a historical bent suggest that Moses' burning bush may have been a gas plant, Dictamnus alba, that was spontaneously combusting. The gas plant, also known as "False Dittany," secretes copious amounts of aromatic, volatile oils, which cover the plant in a sticky, lemon-scented coating. These oils also readily vaporize, hence the name "gas plant." On especially warm, windless days, some gardeners find it amusing to set fire to the plants, as the coating is extremely flammable, causing the entire plants to ignite in a flash. Sometimes, the oils may spontaneously combust without the aid of a match as they vaporize, leading to their other common name of "Burning bush."Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 19, 2008 9:35 PM
Holy shit.
I can think of no troll more deluded than Teno. The shit he is spewing here is beyond loony toon stupid.
it's not even wrong. It goes beyond the definition of wrong.
A numerologist too?
Teno.
You are a fucking moron.
MORON.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 19, 2008 10:32 PM
Sarah Palin:
Bibles exist, and Sarah Palin's tongue is not connected to her brain, so you can't prove that Teno Groppi isn't God's prematurely cracked up door for Sarah Palin to plow through.
Posted by: abb3w | November 19, 2008 11:09 PM
Teno Groppi: having learned the truth
You've made a vast quantity of assertions, but we have not agreed as for any basis of inference between propositions, much less as to the nature of Truth or the relation of your assertions to it. I ask again, would you agree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, which states that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P)?
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 19, 2008 11:22 PM
"Rey, Gold itself is physiologically inert, but gold poisoning can occur*, and compounds have theurapeutic potential in some cases."
Quiet, or Teno will take that teensy little thread and run with it.
Posted by: tresmal | November 19, 2008 11:24 PM
Abb3w @1058:"I ask again, would you agree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, which states that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P)?"
I feel that over the last few days that I've come to know Teno oh so well that I am confident that I can answer for him thusly: Uhh... commu logic inclusive... uh communism? logic includes communism? I knew you guys were pinkos!
Posted by: RickrOll | November 19, 2008 11:27 PM
David at #1044:
That was the single most impressive paper i have ever read! I think they should hand those things out like friggin' leaflets outside churches! So J worked on the idea that THWH was meta-ashtar, and P on the idea that he was meta-El. i know, major over-simplification, but i just want to bring it back to bare-bones postulates before progressing further... I follow you now?
Actually, i did a mock essay one time (from my ethnocentric perspective) on how God was getting younger, not older, and it was because he isn't old enopugh with a proper grasp of his powers to actually do anything of substance in the Apostollic Age. Similarly, the book of Revelation would refer to him as a toddler who destroys the world in a fit of rage. As he gets older, he gets meaner and more fed up with his impatient and increasingly primitive creations, trying to work backwards to fix his mistakes.
Jesus? The produst of teenage fornication, most likely. He takes time off to mentor his Son in the ways of godhood, but the predictable mess follows. As an old man, God forms man like an old potter working clay (the tinkering type, who obviously forgets, which is why there are something like 3 versions of the creation story in the very first parts of Genisis (We make man and woman in our image, and so he created them man and woman, and the "dust from the earth being the final form)
before his existance is supplanted by Jesus and all the souls that have arrived in heaven with him, which would then operate according to his time (backwards). Fun to discuss, but don't take it too seriously lol.
Stanton @1055: ok, but why is it Talking? I'm pretty sure That is the point of contention. Is it some sort of halluconogen? I have heard such claims to be made, but never have seen any real data behind that assertion, as much fun as it is lol.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 19, 2008 11:30 PM
me at 1061:
grr, YHWH, not THWH, for His sake! lol
Posted by: John Morales | November 20, 2008 12:06 AM
Rey, teensy little thread nothing, I'll give him a cable.
He took the [golden] calf which they had made and burned it with fire, and ground it to powder, and scattered it over the surface of the water and made the sons of Israel drink it.
[If Teno could maintain coherence, it would go thus:]
YOU fools, it got BURNED! And then is was GROUND and SUCCUSSED!! Then it was DILUTED and AQUIFIED!!!! And the burning made SALTS! And the SALTS are poisonous!!! So really, the bibble predicts HOMEOPATHY! And GOLD cures IDOLATRY!@
Posted by: Stanton | November 20, 2008 12:07 AM
I wouldn't know: I do know that gas plant's essential oil is not hallucinogenic: it's still used as a stomach tonic on occasion, but, as far as I know, its acrid taste is off-putting, and there are plenty of more affective and more pleasant-tasting stomach tonics available, i.e., peppermint oil.Aside from Jehovah using it as a mystical telephone, I wouldn't know how to explain why it would talk otherwise: Unlike Teno Groppi, I have absolutely no desire to use my faith to make a malicious, gibbering idiot out of myself; it is impolite, and I don't think God would approve, either.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 20, 2008 12:54 AM
"God wouldn't approve"? From what i've seen of godbots is that God very much approves, he takes very good care of idiots. That's why they have become so numerous and powerful(after all, Palin had a shot at VP and will run again in 2012 - oh wait, then she'll get completely stomped and be forced back into obscurity). Teno i think, is beyond reproof; God wouldn't even bother with him, even if he were a good believer. Stupid of his caliber is a liability, period.
Posted by: God | November 20, 2008 1:28 AM
Alas, I'm a bit hard up for believers nowadays. But you're right, he's not a good believer. He doesn't believe in Me; he believes in making a nuisance of himself.
But if he were a good believer, his stupidity would not matter in the slightest. Indeed, it would probably help. Stupid people are naturally more conservative, and would stick by Me no matter what.
I can see which way the wind is blowing in this modern age, though. People are better fed and longer-lived than in the past; infant mortality rates keep dropping; even natural disasters are no longer quite as deadly as they were, with modern infrastructure and support and recovery efforts.
Modern life has led to greater contentment, and people that are content stop needing Me, and believing in Me, and worshiping Me.
I'd smite a bunch of them to keep them on their toes, but for some reason I seem to have manifested as a turtle recently, and My smites have lost their mojo.
Bah.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 20, 2008 3:07 AM
God (may i just call you andy?), i'm sorry. i feel for your plight. Look somewhere else, and i'm sure you will find some underdeveloped species somewhere that needs the violent nurturing that you can give. All is not lost. Unless as said turtle you cannot travel the intersteller distances. That would indeed be a shame.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 20, 2008 8:30 AM
Posted by: God | November 20, 2008 1:28 AM
I'd smite a bunch of them to keep them on their toes, but for some reason I seem to have manifested as a turtle recently, and My smites have lost their mojo.
Say. Is that an eagle off in the distance?
Posted by: DaveH | November 20, 2008 8:59 AM
Turtles?
There's good eatin' in one of those....
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 20, 2008 9:16 AM
But the Golden Turtle God has at least one sword...Posted by: Watchman | November 20, 2008 11:08 AM
"Did you know that many of the military tactics that we use today all stem from the Bible."
Say what?
Posted by: God | November 20, 2008 11:28 AM
<*meaningful look*><*meaningful look*>
Sigh. See what I'm reduced to?
Posted by: Patricia | November 20, 2008 12:00 PM
Owlmirror @1048 - Thanks for that tip on Freya's hens. I'll look that up.
SC - Thanks for asking. I'm sorta OK, but really off my usual energy. The ER didn't give me anything but a tetanus shot and ice pack. I've been using the hemp on my arm from the elbow to the hand, and I'll be darned if it isn't working. My friends were right, so now I have to eat crow on that. I thought it was just a hippy myth. *wink*
Posted by: abb3w | November 20, 2008 12:00 PM
De Chelonian Mobile.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 20, 2008 12:44 PM
The only one worth answering is Sven DiMilo. He asks me if I know anything about Near Death Experiences?
Yes, I could tell you lots! But first I must tell you that there is no reincarnation or dead peoples ghosts roaming the earth. Hebrews 9:27 - Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.
However, there are certain circumstances where individuals can experience a near death experience. Although not to be confused because this is not an actual death. Some scientist say that this experience is conjured up by the body's defense system which creates chemical hormones that aid death. But this does not explain how one can still hear, see and feel things when there is no brain activity at all, and when they awake they report things that were actually said and seen when their eyes were taped shut and the auditory cells in their ears should technically not be working. Some of these instances have been confirmed by doctors and nurses.
But this is nothing new. Events like these have happened in the Bible as well as still happening today. Sleep and meditation can even bring on a type of paralysis that elevates the spirit out of the body. This is recorded in the Bible as the Merkabah vehicle. It is also talked about in the Oral Torah as well as the whole aspect of the Cabalistic Tree Of Life (diagram). But this is not in any way an actual death. It is only a temporary condition.
As for whoever it was that had mentioned the medicinal values of herbs used in the Bible compared to modern medicines. If you guys only knew the ingredients to some of the cholesterol drugs, pain relievers and such. They are patented secrets, but if you truly delve into it you will find out they are nothing more than a combination dosage and derivative of certain plants and herbs.
For all those who have further questions and are to afraid to ask on this forum please email me at: CAT9999_4@hotmail.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 20, 2008 12:50 PM
Teno, back to confirm the inverse intelligence/belief in god correlation? So far you are off to a good start.
Posted by: abb3w | November 20, 2008 2:08 PM
Teno Groppi: The only one worth answering is Sven DiMilo.
Why? Is my question about whether you agree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction too difficult?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 20, 2008 3:01 PM
Thanks.....
Teno is the FSTDT equivalent of a gold mine.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 20, 2008 4:30 PM
Don't be fooled by liars who pretend to know Hebrew. "Merkava" (מרכבה) just means "chariot".
But it looks like he's winding down.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 20, 2008 5:44 PM
By the way, besides the fact that physically and astronomically and cosmologically this is absolute bullshit from back to front and from one end to the other, the interpretation and understanding of Hebrew is wrong again.
The word for the Pleiades, "kima" (כימה), does not mean "pivot or hinge". It is interpreted in the Talmud as actually meaning "k'mea" (כמאה), meaning "like a hundred", which suggests that some of the sharper-eyed Rabbis (or astronomers/astrologers they were getting their info from) saw hints that there were indeed many stars in what we now understand is a large cluster.
Following a hunch, I checked the Hebrew translation of "Polaris", which does, unsurprisingly, include "ha-tsir" (הַצִּיר) — "the pivot" — as one of its names, because of course, the apparent motion of the stars as they appear to rise and set, following the rotation of the Earth, all go around Polaris (or more precisely, a point very near Polaris).
Alcyone and Polaris are nowhere near each other in the sky (or physically), of course.
Alcyone: Right ascension: 03h 47m 29.1s , Declination: +24° 06' 18"
Polaris: Right ascension: 02h 31m 48.7s, Declination: +89° 15' 51"
(SIWOTI!!)
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | November 20, 2008 5:51 PM
SI really, really, really WOTI!
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 20, 2008 5:56 PM
Tenuous Teno, it was me - and so what? Every Pre-christian human society used plants for healing. Ever read The Clan of The Cave Bear? You should; it's far more interesting - and about a billion times more informative about the real history of the human race - than your bible, and its author doesn't pretend it's anything other than fiction - fiction based on extensive research, that is; pity your lot didn't do a bit more of that.
And you still didn't answer the question about why biblical medicine stops at herbs, oil and praying while contemporary christians are allowed to use non-biblical methods such as prosthetics, heart transplants and so forth.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 20, 2008 5:56 PM
SI Fractally WOTI!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 20, 2008 6:04 PM
Poor Teno, didn't pick up on Sven DiMilo was actually mocking you by seeming to agree with you. This guy is just a mental basket case.
SIWOTI is thirded.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 20, 2008 6:10 PM
Oh damn it. Where'd I put that roach spray again....
Which has exactly zero bearing on any truth in the bible. Mankind has been using herbs for healing way before you little book of stories was coddled together by goat herders R us.
Posted by: CJO | November 20, 2008 6:11 PM
SINEWOTI
HT: Wolfgang Pauli
Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 6:18 PM
What an idiot, seriously I don't think I've ever come across a believer so deluded as that one.
Posted by: Patricia | November 20, 2008 6:26 PM
Clan of the Cave Bear?! What utter tripe.
I concur with you Kel, the man is an idiot.
Posted by: Patricia | November 20, 2008 6:26 PM
Clan of the Cave Bear?! What utter tripe.
I concur with you Kel, the man is an idiot.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 20, 2008 6:32 PM
I think my request for evidence of a young earth should of been answered.
Teno Troll... where is it?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 6:34 PM
If Teno "Troping Poe" Groppie hasn't learned any Hebrew from Owlmirror, he's certainly learned the meaning of "pwned".
Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 6:38 PM
I think that he thinks he is answering it. By trying to show the bible has divine insight, he then can appeal to the bible as proof of a young earth; even if all physics and biology says that's a crock of shit.Posted by: Wowbagger | November 20, 2008 6:43 PM
Patricia, are you sure you haven't absorbed a little too much hemp?
I mentioned Clan of the Cave Bear - not Tenuous Teno. And yes I didn't say it was good, I just said it was better than the bible (I know that's not much of an achievement, but it's still true), and based on research - to an extent at least.
Tripe, yes. But still indicative of prehistoric humans using herbs for healing purposes - meaning that god, as usual, isn't good for anything.
Posted by: Patricia | November 20, 2008 6:44 PM
Damn elbow. Grrr... sorry about the double post.
Posted by: Stanton | November 20, 2008 7:04 PM
Perhaps he will answer them after he points out where in the Book of Genesis its authors mention vetulicolians, placoderms, dinosaurs and ground sloths.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 20, 2008 7:48 PM
Owlmirror, I was ignoring you, up to the point I caught wind of your posting on the Pleiades. I never though I would see the day that you stop spinning! :D
You wrote: By the way, besides the fact that physically and astronomically and cosmologically this is absolute bullshit from back to front and from one end to the other, the interpretation and understanding of Hebrew is wrong again. The word for the Pleiades, "kima" (כימה), does not mean "pivot or hinge". It is interpreted in the Talmud as actually meaning "k'mea" (כמאה), meaning "like a hundred", which suggests that some of the sharper-eyed Rabbis (or astronomers/astrologers they were getting their info from) saw hints that there were indeed many stars in what we now understand is a large cluster. Following a hunch, I checked the Hebrew translation of "Polaris", which does, unsurprisingly, include "ha-tsir" (הַצִּיר) -- "the pivot" -- as one of its names, because of course, the apparent motion of the stars as they appear to rise and set, following the rotation of the Earth, all go around Polaris (or more precisely, a point very near Polaris). Alcyone and Polaris are nowhere near each other in the sky (or physically), of course.
I follow up: Kima is actually pronounced in Hebrew Chimah, but basically its the same as kee-maw (just different ways to spell it in English.
You also bring up a very good point about Polaris also being a pivot. But here is what Job actually meant when he said: "Canst thou bind the sweet influence of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?". We know that the Pleiades is a small cluster of stars that make themselves more visible in the springtime. When the Pleiades become more visible, it is obvious to the ones who know the stars and know the bright cluster of stars that springtime is coming soon. Now Orion is a constellation that announces the coming of winter.
So the Lord is saying, Job, there is nothing you can do about the stopping of spring or the coming of summer. There is nothing you can do about preventing the snows of winter or the chill of the winter winds or the deadness of the autumn. Job, you're going to have to take the spring, the summer, the autumn, the winter. They're going to come. There's nothing you can do about them.
So in a sense these cosmological signs are a sort of hinge in determaning their rotation with the earth and thus the seasons. IT IS THE CENTER OF GRAVITY IN A SPIRITUAL SENSE. But thank you for your research on the subject, there may still be some hope for you yet :D
Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 7:55 PM
Too bad there is no hope for you, reading the bible doesn't make you anything more than a Christfag. If you want to convince others, at least get some rudimentary knowledge on the natural sciences.Posted by: Tresmal | November 20, 2008 7:57 PM
Stop it Teno, you're embarrassing Jesus.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 20, 2008 8:02 PM
Are you sure it's the lord saying that, Tenuous Teno? Are you sure it's not...nothing? Oh, and I like the implication that you're 'ignoring' posters - rather than cowering in the corner like a frightened kitten.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 20, 2008 8:03 PM
Teno, I'll echo there is no hope for you, until you learn the difference between biblical evidence and scientific evidence.
Biblical evidence is all mental masturbation as the words never change, unless you go to a different version of the bible. The bible is at best, fiction stories, at worst bad history. The bible is not and never will be scientific.
Scientific evidence requires some physical proof to back up the claims. That makes it much harder to lie, which is why it is better at the end of the day. Also, theories change as the evidence requires them to change, which doesn't happen with religious ideas.
You keep saying you are going away. When are you finally show us you can tell even a minor truth and do so?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 20, 2008 8:12 PM
I can tell tonight is going to require lots of beer.
Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 8:14 PM
When one doesn't understand the basics of cosmology and astrophysics, when they don't understand basic biology, when they don't understand the basics of earth science, how is it they think they are capable of teaching other people? Surely Teno should recognise that any attempt to get people to God has to be coupled with God being a compatible entity with science. Preaching that science is nothing but a conspiracy theory is just going to show everyone here how much of an idiot Teno is.
Get an education damn it!
Posted by: Stanton | November 20, 2008 8:23 PM
But that's the problem, Kel: Teno Groppi, as with all others who use their piety as a license and aegis for their stupidity, believes that by getting an education, he becomes damned.Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 8:32 PM
Fools, the lot of them! Let them bask in their ignorance elsewhere, here an unwillingness to understand science is a hinderance.Posted by: Owlmirror | November 20, 2008 9:09 PM
I don't need to tell anyone that he's still spewing bullshit, right? Except now it's geocentric bullshit, which is indeed how the human writer of Job thought of the stars and the seasons.
This, though, is bullshit about Hebrew:
Inasmuch as "ch" usually represents in Hebrew transliteration a voiceless velar fricative, as in German "Bach", it most certainly is not.
The initial letter of (כִּימָה) is a kaf with a dagesh, "כִּ". This is always pronounced as a voiceless velar plosive , or "k".
Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 9:23 PM
Anyone who says: IT IS THE CENTER OF GRAVITY IN A SPIRITUAL SENSE. is obviously spewing bullshit. Just more apologetic tripe in order to make an incredulous book more palletable.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 20, 2008 9:26 PM
Comment 714:
He doesn't even understand what the words "electron" and "molecule" mean!!!
Teno, electrons (elementary particles) from beta-decay destroy right-handed amino acids (molecules -- consisting of several atoms, each of which contains lots of elementary particles), leaving the left-handed ones over. That's how you can go from a racemic mixture to left-handed amino acids only. That's what the abstract says.
The electrons crash into the molecules and destroy them! Was that so hard to grasp!?!
...and lo & behold, life only uses right-handed sugars (D-sugars), just how it only uses left-handed amino acids (L-amino acids) except in bacterial cell walls and certain poisons.
Except when they don't.
Moron! My grandmother was born the other way around! It was a completely natural birth. Sometimes, you see, the fetus simply fails to turn itself around.
For land-living mammals, it's a disadvantage when that happens. For water-living ones, it's a great advantage. Suppose the failure to turn around is, even if only to a small degree, heritable. After a couple generations you should see most births in a water-living mammal happen tail-first, because more of them survive being born that way. That's called natural selection.
No. Induction is often used to generate hypotheses, but never to test them. After all, that's something induction simply can't do.
Psychologically interesting how you can't even conceive of the idea of someone being honestly wrong, making an honest mistake. Or should I say "psychiatrically". How is paranoia defined...?
So you didn't even know that the Bible says the Earth is flat? Several times? That it has four corners*, stands on fundaments, and does not move?
* Well. Some books of the Bible say that. Others say it's circular.
If the Bible is reliable in toto, then the Earth is flat.
First Rule of Holes, Teno: if you're in one, stop digging.
And I think that spelling is deliberate. :-D :-D :-D
What brain?
----------------------------------------------
Hmmm... as far as I understand it, J worked on the idea that Yahwe was the youngest son of El Elyon and Ashera, responsible for Israel the same way Chemosh was responsible for Moab*, while P worked on the idea that Yahwe was El Elyon. You should probably read the article again.
* And apparently Molech and/or Milcom was responsible for the Ammonites. I wonder what the difference is between MLK and MLKM, though. 1 Kings:
(Keep in mind that "LORD" is the King James spelling of "Yahwe".)
Incidentally, 1 Kings 11:18-22 has yet another "Pharaoh king of Egypt" whose name is Pharaoh! ROTFL! Check it out!
Then there's Jeremiah 48, which consists mostly of Yahwe taunting Chemosh by boasting on how Moab is going to be pwned.
Numbers 21:29 calls Moab the "people of Chemosh" again. (On the occasion, naturally, of Moab being pwnz0red, though by the Amorites, not by the Israelites, who get to smite the Amorites a few verses later.)
What I talked about yesterday is not Judges 19, but Judges 11:
Chemosh thy god, Yahwe our god.
Though, actually, the addressee of this convoluted speech seems to be "the king of the children of Ammon", not Moab. Confusing.
1 Kings 11:33 is repeated in 2 Kings 23:13:
That king being Josiah, introducing monotheism by death & destruction because of 2 Kings 22:8-11, where "Hilkiah the high priest" suddenly and utterly conveniently "found the book of the law in the house of the LORD", probably Deuteronomy. Incidentally, 23:29-35 have "Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt": note how, as soon as a real pharaoh is mentioned, he almost gets a real name!
Owlmirror, does "Pharaohnechoh" do what I think he does in 23:34? That is, turning Eliakim's name into Jehoiakim, that is, YHWiakim?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 20, 2008 9:28 PM
I wonder if Teno has ever met Mr. TimeCube
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 20, 2008 9:30 PM
I had his number way back when he responded to the paper I cited on the destruction of D-leucine by carbon-14 decay. He had no idea of how chirality works in the real world, whereas I have a good background in that subject. At that point, I figured everything he said was a lie until proven otherwise. I'm still waiting for some proof of his truthfulness.Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 20, 2008 9:30 PM
Shorter Teno Gruppi O*; If it is from the bible yet does not fit into any known facts, it is spiritual.
Teno, Sven was not agreeing with in any way. The bit about near death experience is an in joke. Look up Kenny and NDE. The funny thing is, you probably would find Kenny insightful.
I agree with on one thing, finally. But the reasons are different. I, too, do not think that there is reincarnation. But that is because I do not believe that there is a soul.(But I do believe in soul music.)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 20, 2008 9:36 PM
The desperation is palpable. Comment 1098 says it best.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 20, 2008 9:47 PM
Hm.
I have no idea why "Pharaohnechoh" is written that way; in the Hebrew version, it's clearly two words, "פרעה נכה". And I see that it's only the KJV that does that. Why, I wonder?
Absolutely.
"אליקים" — the bold part is "El"
"יהויקים" — the bold part is "Yhw"
I would transliterate the names as "El-yakim" and "Yeho-yakim", to emphasize that. I'm pretty sure that the "yakim" part means "will raise [up]".
Posted by: Patricia | November 20, 2008 9:50 PM
You folks are having way to much fun with this idiot. *smirk*
I'll pretty much be MIA on the weekends for the next three weeks. The christmas madness bazaars take off. I sell snake oil, hand sewn toys and eggs.
We've decided to donate a weeks worth of egg production to the local old folks home, veterans home and homeless food basket, for thanksgiving, christmas and new years. Guess they can make eggnog, or hangover beer/egg/tabasco. *grin*
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 20, 2008 9:56 PM
There is so much juice being pressed out of Teno. Such a great vintage whine.
So am I going to have to do extra flouncing in order to cover for you? SC! Help!
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 20, 2008 10:02 PM
The only reason I am not shrieking and wailing in despair "Oh, please, dear God-that-does-not-exist, noooooooo! Don't encourage such a cataclysmic combination of stupid!!!" is that I am absolutely certain that Teno has never looked up anything in his life, and is not about to start now, and furthermore, if he did, he wouldn't have a clue on how to do so.
So there's that averted. Whew!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 20, 2008 10:12 PM
Patricia, hope your sales are successful. Make sure you get the needed assistance carrying things so your elbow can heal. We want you to get your flounce back.
Janine, no need to do any extra flouncing on my account. The normal amount is fine.
PZ, you might want to close this thread before another IDiot appears.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 20, 2008 10:37 PM
Owlmirrow, I have to encourage Teno to read some Kenny. I want to have uncomfortably funny stuff like this. Yes, I know I am a disturbed person.
Posted by: Stanton | November 21, 2008 1:30 AM
Hey, Owlmirror, how good are you with Greek and or Latin etymology?
Posted by: RickrOll | November 21, 2008 2:35 AM
David at 1107 (wow, this post is staggeringly huge now, and will probly {my abbreviation for probably, don't you dare correct me [and no complaining about the nested parenthesees either lol]} overtake the Mormom meddlers post. *fingers crossed* lol: wow, so why do you only have ONE molly? You should seriously be ordained to the second or third eschelon of the OM.
Owlmirror, same to you in regards to 1112; i have heard before that it Was to be taken as "El Will Raise up" though probly from you in another post.
"Hmmm... as far as I understand it, J worked on the idea that Yahwe was the youngest son of El Elyon and Ashera, responsible for Israel the same way Chemosh was responsible for Moab*, while P worked on the idea that Yahwe was El Elyon. You should probably read the article again." I have the article in my faves. So, it would appear from this construction that there was in fact, a "proto-Christ" aspect to the construction as well. Very fascinating.
I have heard before the idea that Jesus was the one walking in the Garden with Adam/ Eve.This lends some credance to the idea, but nonetheless, we get In John, i beleive chapter 7, the whole "temple rage" episode, there is often one greatly overlooked detail, and that is that Jesus fashioned for these hypocrites a scorge, not unlike the one(s) used on him. There is this very nice guy on youtube that did a Godless Bible Study, and this was a particular point that was good to make. here's the 1st video, if you are interested http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBMV1RARDQU.
Don't get the wrong impression, he's not doing a proper exegesis -he isn't using a study Bible or anything like my fave, Zondervan, but a KJV
Posted by: RickrOll | November 21, 2008 2:52 AM
unbelievable. Damn. This is what i get for always posting so late at night.
edit: "*finger's crossed* lol):wow, so...."
Wowbager: "Oh, and I like the implication that you're 'ignoring' posters - rather than cowering in the corner like a frightened kitten."
Don't you mean more like a frightened little crack-baby gremlin? honestly, don't insult the kittens.
Oh and Ten[year]o[ld], in regards to this: "So in a sense these cosmological signs are a sort of hinge in determaning their rotation with the earth and thus the seasons. IT IS THE CENTER OF GRAVITY IN A SPIRITUAL SENSE."
BURN THE WITCH!!! God Damns repeatedly the use of astrology, and so your horoscope readin', bible totin', scripture misquotin', brain dead, uneducated ass can BURN like your religion loves to endorse. Turnabout is fair play, jackass.
Posted by: Josh | November 21, 2008 6:44 AM
Teno wrote: Did you know that many of the military tactics that we use today all stem from the Bible.
I replied: Really? What infantry tactics used by the U.S. Military can be definitively derived from the Bible?
to which Teno responded (in italics):
Josh, The first person in recorded history to demonstrate sophisticated tactical warfare was "Abraham" when he rescued his nephew "Lot" from the Mesopotamian army as well as free Israelite captives. Genesis 14:15.
Okay, that's interesting, but do you have a citation to support the assertion that this is the first time in recorded history that "sophisticated tactical warfare" is demonstrated? I'm a geologist, not a historian or a biblical scholar. Sources would be helpful.
This was a nighttime surprise raid from two different direction. Abrahams raid is a classical standard model night time maneuver which is taught in military academies throughout the world.
Well, I have no direct experience with military "academies," but I've attended my fare share of combat schools and have heard a billion OPORD briefings. The U.S. Army Ranger Handbook (pretty much the standard for non SF small unit tactics) defines a raid as "a combat operation to attack a position or installation followed by a planning withdrawal" so okay, I guess we can use your term "raid" and be on the same sheet of music.
Do you have a chapter and verse to cite as to the tactics Abraham employed here? I can't find anything in the Ranger Handbook or in FM 3-2 (the Infantry Battalion), FM 17-98 (the Infantry Scout Platoon), FM 7-85 (Ranger Operations), FM 7-93 (LRSD Operations), or my Special Forces small unit tactics information, that suggests the modern Army ever conducts a dismounted raid from two directions (unless you're considering the team/platoon on overwatch duty as being "from a direction"). So it without more detail as to what exactly Abraham did, it seems at first glance as though we do not employ this sort of tactic anymore. I certainly have never been part of an OP where we conducted a raid from two directions (and it seems to be that it's a great plan to end up getting your joes shooting at each other--not generally a goal of the raid...).
So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill.
High ground is (often) a good thing, but that tactic has been around for a long time. Evidence that its use comes first from the Bible?
We read about Joshua and his battle at Jericho. Joshua 6:3-4 - And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets.
We tend not to march around urban areas so much. And trumpets are not very tactical.
Today the military has developed devices that use high frequency sound waves to cause nausea and disorientate an enemy.
Really? Do you have intel on these weapons? I serve in a USASOC combat unit. You'd think at the very least the guys in my group would have heard of this stuff. It hasn't trickled down to my team yet. Insight?
Than we read about Joshua when he burns the city of Ai, Joshua 8:28-29.
We might burn a city, but we're absolutely not going to tell anyone about it.
He used the mountains with the sun rising in the east shinning right in the eyes of the Canaanites and attacking downhill the Canaanites couldn't see fighting in the face of the sun, nor did they eat or prepare since it was early morning.
Early morning (after dawn) is a terrible time for an assault, for a number of reasons (not the least of which is that we prefer to operate at night because it's much safer). I can find no place in the aforementioned tactical resources where placing the rising sun at our back is something that we have put into doctrine. A mountain range or mountain is a geographical feature that is simply too large to employ in a tactical sense, but if you scale it back to a small hill, then I cannot see why would you want to grab the high ground and then assault down. On the modern battlefield, there's really no advantage in assaulting from a topographically higher point than your objective. Defending high ground sure, but assaulting dismounted from a high point is not the smartest thing in the world to do. Soldiers have a much harder time conducting IMT (individual movement techniques) on an incline than they do on flat topography, and if anything goes wrong and you end up needing to break contact, then all of the sudden you have to turn around and run uphill. Yeah, I'm not going to be so happy about that. Even using mechanized infantry assets I don't want to force my unit to move uphill to get to a rally point if they have to break contact. That's dumb and is going to get a lot of joes dead. Put your overwatch team on the high ground, sure. Put your snipers on high ground, absolutely. Throw mechanized forces up there, yeah, to overwatch. But actually assaulting from high ground with the rising sun at your back? That's tactically really stupid.
The next hero of the bible is Gideon, he rises up against the midianites. He chooses "300" soldiers... they carry torches, clay pots and shofers (ram horns) and at midnight Gideon strategically separates his 300 men and positions them around the midian camp on 3 sides leaving the southern part open. Judges 7:20 - And the three companies blew the trumpets, and brake the pitchers, and held the lamps in their left hands, and the trumpets in their right hands to blow withal: and they cried, The sword of the Lord, and of Gideon. The torches are seen by the midianites and in a panic they flee. The midianites are also blinded by the torches and they start fighting themselves... its a state of confusion and complete chaos! While the remaining Israelite army in the southern part is waiting in ambush for the fleeing midianites and slaughter them.
Okay, yeah. Torches, trumpets, oil, fire. None of this is stuff we're going to use in an assault (unless you count softening the objective with CAS or artillery to be a modern analog). We use the night as a tactical ally. The situation you describe above removes the night as our friend. We cause chaos and confusion with ordinance, not music.
The next military hero of the bible is woman named "Deborah". The Philistines had taken over the Jezreel valley. It also happened to be during the rainy season which made the ground muddy so the enemy could not get there military up the muddy slopes without getting bogged in the mud. Than the Israelites attack down hill with a victorious victory. Judges 4:4-7.
Again with the downhill assault. Again, I cannot find mention of this in tactical doctrine.
Than came King David when he took out the Philistine giant "Goliath" 1 Samuel 17:44-45 with a rock and sling as a military weapon.
My primary weapon is a SOPMOD M4. My secondary weapon is a 9mm pistol. My tertiary weapon is a second 9mm. If I'm to the point of using rocks, I'm not going to be trying to sling them at people. I'm going to be crushing orbits.
The bible it seems was even used as a guide book by the Greeks during the reign of Leonites. They seem to have applied the same strategy of using "300" Spartan soldiers by way of the narrow Thermopolis pass to hold back nearly 300 thousand Persian soldiers.
There isn't enough detail here for me to evaluate what the actual tactic was.
And as mentioned earlier that many of these strategic maneuvers that were used by the Jews in ancient times are still being taught in militaries throughout the world and are still winning wars and securing territories.
Well, again, the question was about which of these methodologies have been incorporated into US military doctrine for use by modern ground forces. It doesn't seem like many.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 21, 2008 6:54 AM
Hmmmm. Perhaps they remembered Exodus and 1 Kings, got confused by the following "king of Egypt", and didn't know any better than the writers of Exodus or 1 Kings that "Pharaoh" was a title...
Though -- when was word separation introduced in Hebrew?
There's a good reason for it: there are so many worthy people that it'll be a long time till we need to make people double-members of the Order! Have you seen the latest Molly thread? A dozen nominees, and almost all of them clearly worthy.
What?
The text says YHWH in no uncertain terms... Jesus was only invented several hundred years later!
Sure, if you start from the concept of the trinity, you can retcon anything, and plenty of Christians (especially Mormons, AFAIK) have tried.
Huh? I mean, how many different ways are there to make a scourge, and that in a culture that considered that an everyday item?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 21, 2008 7:05 AM