|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Evolution is a Fraud | |||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Sorry, it was just the way that your post came across. I was more curious than anything else And puzzled. When we only have words to communicate with, it can be difficult to imagine all the possible ways those words can be taken.
Besides, it has been a common, but not too frequent, creationist tactic to attack my name rather than to respond to my questions. When I wrote to Kent Hovind asking for clarification on his solar-mass-loss claim, he persistently dodged my questions and twice tried to provoke me into a fight over my AOL screenname. So mistreatment by others had made me a bit too apt to perceive the same thing coming around again. Though it was much more wondering what I could have written on that page that would have been found to be so objectionable. Again, from many creationist hit-and-run hostile emails attacking me for things I never wrote -- "run-by fruitings", if you would. Glad the misunderstanding's been cleared up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
This is really disheartening. Just when we thought that Evolution Crusher was the dumbest monkey on the planet, along comes this report:
Paignton Zoo scientific officer Dr Amy Plowman said: "The work was interesting but had little scientific value, except to show that the 'infinite monkey' theory is flawed." Doesn't Dr. Amy know that it takes a minimum of 27 monkeys to approximate an infinite population? What university has a doctorate program in shit shoveling? And why is the random typing of A, J, L, and M considered an improvement over typing straight S's? It is gratifying, though, to know that the 2,000 pounds wasn't wasted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
From your review of the book on Amazon.com:
quote: I would agree that it's a valuable contribution if an author is able to explain something complex so that it can be understood by the reader. But only if he does not distort it or convey completely bogus (dis)information! Here's a bit of an extreme example. Please bear in mind that I am in no way trying to associate the contents of this web page with you nor with Sutcliff. Rather, it is meant only to serve the purpose of demonstrating that giving someone a explanation they can understand doesn't mean that you've told them the truth. The page in question is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1260.cfm. I don't know what the rest of the Cutting Edge Ministries site is like, but this page appears to be way off-the-wall. It revolves around an Illuminati plot to usher in the Antichrist by igniting Jupiter to create a second sun in the sky. The Illuminati were going to do this on 06 December 1999 and they were going to accomplish it by crashing the Galileo spacecraft into Jupiter, whereupon its nuclear power modules would cause a nuclear explosion that would ignite the planet. Honest! I'm not making any of this up! BTW, Galileo was crashed into Jupiter on 21 September 2003 "to avoid any chance of it contaminating local moons with bacteria from Earth" (Galileo (spacecraft) - Wikipedia) and there was no nuclear explosion. OK, on that page, they arrive at the question of how feasible it would be for Jupiter to ignite. In the section, "JUPITER NOT A PLANET, BUT AN UNLIT GASEOUS BODY", they report having consulted a NASA site, a university site, and writing directly to [what I assume to be] an astronomer and they present the information/responses they got. Each one informed them that Jupiter is not massive enough to ignite into a star; ain't gonna happen. They write:
quote: The real explanation: stars "burn" by a fusion reaction in their cores which requires at least a minimum amount of mass to get the core hot enough for that reaction, and Jupiter is just not even close to having that much mass. Therefore, it can't ignite as a star. The bogus explanation: stars burn by combustion in their upper atmospheres. The only thing that would keep Jupiter from not burning is the fact that it doesn't have enough oxygen in its upper atmosphere. They couldn't understand the real explanation, but the bogus one suited them just fine. BTW, I found that page while researching what Hovind has to say about how stars, and the sun in particular, burn. Because I suspected that he believes that it burns by combustion, which is supported by another quote (kent-hovind.com - , "Quacky Quotes", Basic Science I):
quote: This is the guy who, in his seminar tapes, would repeatedly boast about being an expert on science and math because he had taught both subjects in high school for 15 years -- 'course, that high school was a religious one that he had founded and ran. I wonder if anyone has done a follow-up study on how his former students ended faring. Oh, and he also appears to believe that combustion results in the annihilation of the fuel being burned. Judging from his solar-mass-loss claim. Edited by AdminWounded, : Edited to remove excessively long url disrupting page width, converted into inline link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
While stumbling around your site, I came across your write-up on Gish's bullfrog antics. As it happens, I was at the Minnesota Kitcher/Gish debate, and was one of the troublemakers shouting "Bullfrog!" I was somewhat chagrined to read that I wasn't the first person to think of shouting "Bullfrog!" at the old fraud, but I guess I will have to settle for the fact that I came up with it independantly.
Thanks for the full back story on that.
I know, this is off topic, but since it looks like EC has probably headed for the hills, there doesn't seem to be much left to discuss regarding the OP anyway. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Actually, it does tie in to the topic.
Gish's claim ("Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom", KPBS, 7 July 1982 -- cited at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html), after Dr.Doolittle related his story of the chimpanzee blood proteins all matching up exactly with human proteins until, much to everyone's relief, they finally found one that was different: quote: Dr. Doolittle's response: "Oh bullfrog! I've heard that gibberish before, I have to tell you." Gish's source for this claim made on national TV? A joke he had once overheard. Seriously. Which ties in to Sutcliff's use of The Onion in his research. I guess the subliminal message the creationists are trying to send us is that it's all a joke to them. BTW, I had just discovered the NCSE having just heard Fred Edwords mention it on the radio. I think that my first issue of Creation/Evolution Newsletter was the one carrying that story. I had tried to catch the PBS show, but cable service on-base was really flaky at that time in carrying PBS. The signal would just drop out in the evening and they couldn't find anything wrong with the circuitry when they checked it during the day. Fortunately, the signal came back right at the end so I was able to write down the info for ordering the transcript. Edited by dwise1, : added the BTW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
What's your assessment of the Sutcliff work? Some here have suggested that it might be a parody, but I don't think so. It doesn't "feel" like a parody, even trying to look at it in that light.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
I'd be assessing it sight-unseen, but it seems to me like the author is serious, even though it's undoubtedly a hack job. Just like the vast majority of creationist books. Even its joke of a bibliography, which I'm sure the author and his fans think is impressive, sounds typical of creationist works.
Reminds me of a friend's reaction in the early part of the first season of "Star Trek: The Next Generation". For most of the season we'd been hearing hearing about the Ferengi as this huge threat to the Federation and then finally they show those weaselly freaks for the first time. Next time we met, she said in utter disbelief, "These are the terrors of the Galaxy?" This book is a threat to evolution? Uh ha, yeah, right. Whatever.Wake me when something really happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
EC, you appear to be opposed to evolution. Like you want to do something about it. Like you want to fight evolution. Based on that assumption, I have a suggestion to make.
Learn everything you can about evolution and about the associated sciences. Everything you possibly can. Not the junk that the IDists say about it. Not the rubbish that creationists spew out. All they do is misrepresent it and lie about it and about anything else they think is necessary. Don't learn the lies and the distortions and the misrepresentations, but rather learn what evolution really is and what evolutionary theory really says. Learn the truth! Thus armed, you will be able to find and attack evolution's actual weaknesses, not just some lies somebody dreamed up. You will be able to construct real arguments and real critiques, rather than some deceptive lies. Shoot for the real thing, not some flimsy strawman faade. So get out there and start learning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
I'm not so sure about that. As time goes by, it is getting harder and harder to tell what's real creationism and what's parody. I've seen some pretty convincing creationist work written by jokesters. In fact, sometimes it's even better than real creationism. I'd be assessing it sight-unseen, but it seems to me like the author is serious, even though it's undoubtedly a hack job. Anway, I'm keeping this option open because honestly I can't tell the difference anymore between a joke and real creationist work.
Reminds me of a friend's reaction in the early part of the first season of "Star Trek: The Next Generation". For most of the season we'd been hearing hearing about the Ferengi as this huge threat to the Federation and then finally they show those weaselly freaks for the first time. Next time we met, she said in utter disbelief, "These are the terrors of the Galaxy?"
If I remember correctly, the first time the Ferengi was shown was the episode where both the Enterprise and the Ferengi ship were trapped in some kind of ancient tractor beam. In much of the episode, we are to believe that the Ferengi indeed have technology that surpasses the federation by centuries. Anyway, I'm just thankful they stopped dressing Diana Troi in a clown suit by the 3rd season.
This book is a threat to evolution?
If it's a threat to evolution, it's not because of its merits. It could be a threat to evolution because of all the people who'd buy into its crappy arguments... and they vote. We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true. _____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : monkey make typo. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Speaking of the Internet and infinite monkeys:
quote:No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2795.txt released on 01 April 2000 Also, from one of PBS' "Nerds 2.0" [name?] shows, I think they showed one of the first DARPAnet switches whose acronyms was IMPS. PSExplanatory note to non-geeks: RFC means "Request for Comment". RFCs form the documentation for the Internet, TCP/IP, and all the protocols involved. For example, if you want to know how a particular aspect of TCP/IP works, then you read the applicable RFCs. If you want to write a web browser or a utility that will get a file that forms part of a web page, then you will need to read the applicable HTTP RFCs to know how to talk to a web server. At times, especially on 01 April, a humorous RFC would get published. PPSIn the ARPANet, IMP stood for "Interface Message Processor". IMPs formed the nodes of the network. Interface Message Processor - Wikipedia Edited by dwise1, : postscript Edited by dwise1, : PPS
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024