Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Evolution is a Fraud
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 61 of 72 (402030)
05-23-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
05-23-2007 5:14 PM


Re: dwise1
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-23-2007 5:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 62 of 72 (402031)
05-23-2007 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Zhimbo
05-22-2007 9:09 PM


Re: For those interested in the monkey "experiment"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Zhimbo, posted 05-22-2007 9:09 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 63 of 72 (402035)
05-23-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Evolution Crusher
05-22-2007 6:11 PM


Making it understandable don't necessarily make it correct.
From your review of the book on Amazon.com:
quote:
Sutcliff makes the complex understandable with this unprecedented dismantling of evolution. The book is non-technical and easy-to-follow without talking down to the reader in its explanation of why evolution is mathematically and genetically impossible.
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:
We were still not sure exactly why Jupiter could not ignite, especially if it were hit with the huge atomic explosion of 1,750 Megatons, as occult sources are saying will occur when the 49.7 pounds of plutonium in the spacecraft Galileo is turned into the planet on December 6. After all, the largest thermonuclear explosion on earth was the Russian test of only 100 megatons in 1961. The answer we received from a Christian scientist, Dr. Kent Hovind, [ Dinosaur Adventure Land ] explained the science to us so we could understand. In the NASA excerpt, quoted above, we learned that "most" of the mass of Jupiter is Hydrogen and Helium, a most explosive mix, if it is mixed with sufficient oxygen in order to burn this mixture. Dr. Hovind says Jupiter does not contain enough oxygen in order to sustain the type of continuous burning that would be needed to produce a star. Now, we understand and now it all makes sense. No matter how large the initial explosion might be, the lack of sufficient quantities of oxygen would snuff out any resulting fire rather quickly.
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:
Listener's letter: [.....] It is said the Sun is a burning ball of gas, in other words fire. What is the one thing that fire needs to burn? Oxygen. How come that stars continue to burn if they have no oxygen to keep them burning? [.....]
Hovind: Excellent question, Andres. I'm sorry but I don't know that I have a positive answer. [....] As far as the oxygen required, I'll have to pass on that one too and do some more study on that one. I don't know that I could prove one way or the other. I think there are different types of burning though - some do not require oxygen. Sorry about that, Andres. I'll have to do some research and check back with you on that one.
Source: Truth Radio 5 August 2003 @ 37:50
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Evolution Crusher, posted 05-22-2007 6:11 PM Evolution Crusher has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 64 of 72 (402041)
05-23-2007 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by dwise1
05-23-2007 3:38 PM


Bullfrog!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by dwise1, posted 05-23-2007 3:38 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 05-23-2007 8:26 PM subbie has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 65 of 72 (402043)
05-23-2007 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by subbie
05-23-2007 8:07 PM


Re: Bullfrog!
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:
If we look at certain proteins, yes man then, it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But, on the other hand, if you look at certain proteins, you will find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is to a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by subbie, posted 05-23-2007 8:07 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by subbie, posted 05-23-2007 8:46 PM dwise1 has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 66 of 72 (402044)
05-23-2007 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by dwise1
05-23-2007 8:26 PM


Re: Bullfrog!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 05-23-2007 8:26 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 05-24-2007 2:37 AM subbie has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 67 of 72 (402071)
05-24-2007 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by subbie
05-23-2007 8:46 PM


Re: Bullfrog!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by subbie, posted 05-23-2007 8:46 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 05-24-2007 11:55 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 68 of 72 (402072)
05-24-2007 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Evolution Crusher
05-22-2007 6:11 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Evolution Crusher, posted 05-22-2007 6:11 PM Evolution Crusher has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 69 of 72 (402109)
05-24-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by dwise1
05-24-2007 2:37 AM


Re: Bullfrog!
dwise1 writes:
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.
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.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 05-24-2007 2:37 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 70 of 72 (402209)
05-25-2007 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Evolution Crusher
05-22-2007 6:47 PM


Speaking of the OP . . .
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.
- Robert Wilensky
_____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : monkey make typo.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Evolution Crusher, posted 05-22-2007 6:47 PM Evolution Crusher has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 05-25-2007 6:26 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 72 by dwise1, posted 05-25-2007 10:38 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 71 of 72 (402216)
05-25-2007 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Archer Opteryx
05-25-2007 3:37 AM


Re: Speaking of the OP . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-25-2007 3:37 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 72 of 72 (402233)
05-25-2007 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Archer Opteryx
05-25-2007 3:37 AM


Re: Speaking of the OP . . .
Speaking of the Internet and infinite monkeys:
quote:
RFC 2795: The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS)
Abstract
This memo describes a protocol suite which supports an infinite number of monkeys that sit at an infinite number of typewriters in order to determine when they have either produced the entire works of William Shakespeare or a good television show. The suite includes communications and control protocols for monkeys and the organizations that interact with them.
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.
PS
Explanatory 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.
PPS
In 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-25-2007 3:37 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024