Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?

Certainly it contains all finite strings of numbers. I'm not sure about infinite strings ... does it contain itself? Oy!

I asserted that, and I sure think I saw a proof somewhere, but I'm having a bit of trouble digging it up. In the meantime, Search the first 400 million digits of pi.

Joe's given a good reply, but a few things to add:You are being lied to by your supposed friends. You know almost nothing about geology and biology, and what you do know has come from unreliable (to say the least!) sources. 1986. Can't you even get the simplest of facts right? The samples were specifically and dishonestly selected to fool the method. No real scientist would have gotten that result. See CD013_1 and Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals. That's a serious accusation. Let's see your evidence for it. It has happened a very few times, a very small percentage of the time. Dalrymple found that 3 out of 21 historic lava flows exhibited slight problems. (Note carefully: real scientists don't characterize a method by only a few examples chosen specifically to fit with their preconceptions, they take statistically significant and fully representative samples). See Radiometric Dating, near the end (although reading all of it and understanding how it blows your "argument" out of the water would be worthwhile).As Joe has pointed out but bears repeating, the vast majority of dating studies use methods such as isochrons and concordia-discordia which give both an age and an indication of the reliability of that age, and are not susceptible to the possibility of excess initial daughter product. Your pals discuss only K-Ar dating (avoiding discussion of the methods that are widely used) because that's the only method which has any possibility of being invalid, and even that cannot be invalid often enough to fit your peculiar chronology of the age of the Earth. An ancient canard, long debunked. Raising such "arguments" illustrates only your ignorance (not intended as an insult, just an observation). See Claim CC310 and Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?, but read the Weins paper, to which Joe pointed you, first, or you won't know enough to understand it). Most of them were Christians (Teller was jewish), but none of them were young-earth creationists. And they used only naturalistic explanations in their scientific work. Let's see your evidence for that "thousands" (and don't forget that you also have to establish that they are YECs and not merley progfessing Christians) and your evidence for them being "systematically ignored". Dn't forget that people who don't submit papers can't be ignored. We do know the story of the MRI. Not particularly. If you read a selection of reports rather than trusting overly biased sources like AIG, you'll find that there's good reason to beleive that Damadian did not deserve a share of the prize. Hoever, even if he did deserve it, that has nothing to do with the validity of mainstream geology and biology. Geez, you couldn't even be bothered to look up a decent page on Haeckel? Nonetheless, his work is only peripheral to evolutionary theory (it's certainly not a basis for such) and his errors have been corrected, long ago. See Claim CB701 and Haeckel's embryos.There have indeed been a few errors and even frauds in the history of evolutionary biology, all corrected by scientists. But you don't want to go there because AIG and the ICR and the like have a long history of fraud, orders of magnitude (in number and severity) greater than the few that you can come up with in evolutionary bioogy.

Note that drawings and photographs that are similar to Haeckel's appear in most biology textbooks, and are accurate representations of embryonic development. Haeckel's drawings weren't far wrong, they were simplified more than appropriate to emphasize certain features. Please list the textbooks in which Haeckel's drawings appear and are not noted as being erroneous. Not drawings similar to Haeckel's but accurate; Haeckel's drawings. Please provide evidence of "evolutionists" who defend Haeckel's drawings being on modern textbooks without a notation that they are erroneous. For example, see Wells and Haeckel's Embryos:
A Review of Chapter 5 of Icons of Evolution, which soundly condemns using Hackle's drawins without noting their erors. Please provide evidence of suppressed data. That is a serious accusation. Sigh. Yet another gulible creationist ... beleive anything that you like and disbelieve everything that makes you uncomfortable. No reference to evidence or reality.OK, start a thread on Ota Benga and/or the massacres of aborigines. Make sure to include your evidence that the massacres actually occured for the reasons claimed by Answers in Genesis and your evidence that the deplorable treatment of Ota Benga and the Australian aborigines has some relationship to the validity of evolutionary theory.People have done horrible things in the name of Evolution, in the name of Islam, in the name of Christianity,and in the name of many other ideas. That's not reason to conclude whether or not the ideas are invalid. Does the Children's Crusade render Christianity invalid? Not in my opinion, but it's a logical extension of AIG's claims about Ota Benga and aborigines.In the case of evolution and science, it's the evidence that matters, not what misguided people may have done. Please provide evidence of this accusation. To which page do you refer, and where is the lie? On the subjects of the age of the Earth and Haeckel's drawings yes, you are ignorant. That's the only possible conclusion from the evidence of your writings. But ignorance is curable, if you do not wish to remain so. Unjustified assumption. Your posts have already clearly indicated your level and sources of knowledge; mine have only scratched the surface. I have read and studied much of the material produced by both sides of the "controversy" and have formed my opinions and conclusions based on the evidence.

It's dangerous to get your science from the popular press. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.Professor Protsch does appear to have comitted fraud. Far from being hidden by "evolutionists", his fraud was revealed and spread by "evolutionists".The fossil in question was never thought to be a "missing link' between modern humans and neandertals; it was and is an anatomically modern human. Protsch's results were always suspect and not widely accepted; many people couldn't see how anatomically modern humans and neandertals could have coexisted in the same ecological niche for so long without one or the other dying out or moving away because of the competition for the same resources. The new dating of the fossil makes the issue much less severe by reducing the overlap of neandertals and moderen humans in the area.So, one misguided person appears to have commited a fraud. His results were never widely accepted. The fraud was exposed and publicized by "evolutionists". Doesn't support your claim.

Not at all. Your conclusion is fallacious. Analogies are just that; analogies, and no more. An analogy is "similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). Sharing some features in a valid analogy does not necessarily mean that the theory of evolution and religions share any other features. If you want to argue that the ToE is a religion, go into one of the many topics on that already such as A puzzling thing about traditional religion or Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion. and discuss it there.BTW, this is your first mention of the tired ol' "evolution is a religion" lie in this thread. Are you trying to set some sort of record for number of blindly parroted and unsupported assertions? If that's your aim, you're going to have to try much harder; I've seen much better parrots than you.I notice you have not addressed any substantive issues that various people have brought up. More evidence about your knowledge and abilities.

"Very little crap the Creationist put out...", hum? Is that intentional or a Freudian slip?The crap the creationists put out doesn't see the light of day because it's crap. The Smithsonian story isn't all known yet, but there's little if any evidence for suppression; the allegations by Klinghoffer were (like all of yours) offered without evidence. The evidence gathered thus far indicates that Klinghoffer was wrong, and Sternberg has not been punished or inconvenienced in any way for his views. From A Second Dimension to "Sternberg vs. Smithsonian":

quote:

---

Although I do not wish to debate the merits of intelligent design, this forum seems an apt place to correct several factual inaccuracies in the Wall Street Journal’s Op Ed article by David Klinghoffer, The Branding of a Heretic (Jan. 28, 2005). Because Dr. von Sternberg has filed an official complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, I cannot comment as fully as I would wish.
1. Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.
2. He is not an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. His title, Research Associate, means that for a three year, potentially renewable period he has permission to visit the Museum for the purpose of studying and working with our collections without the staff oversight visitors usually receive.
3. I am, and continue to be, his only supervisor, although we use the term sponsor for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever assigned to or under the oversight of anyone else.
4. Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed.
5. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.
6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such.
On behalf of all National Museum of Natural History staff, I would like to assert that we hold the freedoms of religion and belief as dearly as any one. The right to heterodox opinion is particularly important to scientists. Why Dr. von Sternberg chose to represent his interactions with me as he did is mystifying. I can’t speak to his interactions with anyone else.

​

Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Coddington

---

(which as been verified to have actually been written by Dr. Coddington). The Smithsonian Office of Public Affairs wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal:

quote:

---

To set the record straight:

​

It should be noted that Richard Sternberg is not a Smithsonian employee. He is a staff member of the National Center of Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health. As a research associate he has permission to study collections at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History for a three-year term.

​

Dr. Sternberg’s characterization of his work conditions and treatment at the Smithsonian is incorrect. He was never denied office space, keys or access to the collections. More importantly, the private religious beliefs of employees and research associates are respected by the museum, and have no bearing on their professional standing within the museum.

​

Randall Kremer
Director of Public Affairs
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington

---

Yup. The evidence clearly indicates which side is correct; I notice you still haven't posted any evidence.Note that I am not saying that Christianity or the Bible is wrong; just your peculiar interpretation of the Bible is obviously, ludicrously, horrendously wrong. As I like to say, God wrote the rocks; Man wrote the Bible. I believe what God wrote. Absolutely. So what? That's Pascal's wager, and is wrong on its face. It would seem foolish to practice only one religion, and not even the largest religion. Otherwise all your eggs are in one basket. Better start worshipping Baal and Thor and Mithras and Krishna and Zeus and ...

The late Mr. Johnson said it wasn't. Let's see your evidence that it's a joke. No, it really isn't. If you want to establish that talkorigins.org is not a reliable source, you're going to have to come up with much more than that. Take a look back at the number of links that I've posted and the amount of discussion that I've written on the inaccuracy of your sources, and that's just off the top of my head without really trying. You're making a claim about talkorigins.org, it's up to you to provide sufficient evidence for that claim.

Believed. He died in 2001. Obituary: Flat Earth Society head, Charles K. Johnson, bites the dust (mine).

ROTFL! Still waiting for evidence of this assertion. I have often seen this claim, in many forums, and I have often seen offers from textbook authors and publishers to fix the error if only the poster will identify where to look for the error. Like you, no poster ever comes up with a modern textbook in which Haeckel's drawings are used without identifying their errors.List the textbooks that do this and I will personally make sure the problem is fixed.I already posted a link to PZ Myer's critique. He didn't sit, nor did Gould. Wells and Haeckel's Embryos:

quote:

---

In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.

​

Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best evidence for Darwin's theory." ...

​

In 1977, Gould wrote an excellent scholarly book on the intertwined history of embryology and evolution, titled Ontogeny and Phylogeny. As might be guessed from the title, Haeckel is a prominent character in the book, and his theories and their consequences in the field are dissected in detail and without mercy. Gould also returned to this topic in his column in Natural History magazine in 2000, centering his commentary on the discovery of a scathing critique of Haeckel by one of his contemporaries, Louis Agassiz. Gould has also written other related articles, disparaging textbook authors for their deplorable habit of recycling text and figures well beyond reason.

---

RIght. They promote science. Creationism and ID are not science. Such as? Where does the NCSE ridicule creationists as insane people? The only occurrence of the string "insane" on the NCSE website is in a quote from a flat-earther at Morality, Religious Symbolism, and the Creationist Movement. You'r a liar ... The most recent mention of Haeckel in Time magazine was in 1925, in a book review. Search Result. To what article do you refer? Still waiting for evidence that there are evolutionists who defend the use of Haeckel's drawings. Where? Certainly not at the talkorigins.org page to which you linked. Sigh. Pasteur proved that modern organisms do not arise spontaneously from formerly living matter, which is true but has nothing to do with scietific theories of how life originally arose. You are, of course, referring to yourself. We have presented evidence, discussion, and references to more information, as is typicalof "evolutionists". You have ranted and raved and produced nothing but unsupported assertions. What are the statistics of the incidence of fraud in evolutionary biology?