1 2 3 4 5 6
Hi rhetor

commenting briefly:

(Good. You should also read William Dembski's articles on his homepage.)

I had a look.Crank science again, I'm afraid.

(What does "it" refer to? Do you mean his original steady-state theory? Yes.)

Tout à fait

(you needn't promote a scenario as to who actually DID commit the crime; you merely have to show who DID NOT commit it.)

It may work in the courtroom, but scientific proof is a better test. First do the science. Produce your evidence and let it be tested. The world could have been transformed by cold-fusion, had the theory not been bogus. To say nothing of Lamark, phlogiston, Lysenko et al.

(What "observed reality" are you talking about?)

Perhaps I should have said "the second law of thermodynamics"

In general, I think it is better to develop a theory from careful observation of the evidence, rather than to attempt to shoehorn an arbitrary selection into your creationist agenda. Although I do concede Crick and Watson resorted to inspired guesswork, but then they were lucky in that they happened to be right. As the science showed afterwards.
You're welcome. And thank you for an entertaining glimpse into the turgid world of the knee-jerk evolutionist; a world in which a request for evidence is interpreted as an attack on science.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2456&program=CSC&callingPage=di...

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2447&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2457&program=CSC-News&callingPa...

I had a look.Crank science again, I'm afraid.

Guess I must have missed it. Ummmmm, precisely what part of which article is "crank" science, and for what reason? Easy questions to answer if you've actually read Dembski.

(you needn't promote a scenario as to who actually DID commit the crime; you merely have to show who DID NOT commit it.)

First do the science.

OK, precisely WHAT science has been "done" in Darwinian evolution? Specifics.

Produce your evidence and let it be tested.

OK, precisely WHAT evidence has been produced in favor of Darwinian evolution? Specifics.

(What "observed reality" are you talking about?)

Perhaps I should have said "the second law of thermodynamics"

What does Boltzmann entropy have to do with any of this? The main issue that Darwinism cannot solve is the INCREASE in genomic information. This involves Shannon entropy, not Boltzmann entropy.

In general, I think it is better to develop a theory from careful observation of the evidence, rather than to attempt to shoehorn an arbitrary selection into your creationist agenda.

Ohhhhh, but apparently it's all right to shoehorn an abitrary selection of evidence into an evolutionist agenda, right? Read Berlinski's article linked above. There is ZERO incontrovertible evidence for Darwinism. Darwinism is a matter of belief and faith. Even Sir Karl Popper had problems fully accepting the theory. At one time, he even said that evolutionary theory was a "metaphysical research programme," not a scientific one.
My reference to the second law of thermodynamics was intended to point out that if any scientific theory, however seductive, were inconsistent with the second law, it (or the second law) would have to be abandoned. So a good way to disprove evolution would be to find such if it exists.

Shannon entropy equations (thank-you for introducing me) appear to be very useful to those involved data compression.

I am pleased and relieved to read the quality and commitment of thought in the many threads that I have happened onto, while trying to be fair to you by reading Berlinski and Demski (sorry, they still seem cranks to me), so ID may have had the perhaps unsought result of forcing people to think harder.

I predict ID has nothing of substance to offer to the scietific community or the wider world. Lets wait and see
My reference to the second law of thermodynamics was intended to point out that if any scientific theory, however seductive, were inconsistent with the second law, it (or the second law) would have to be abandoned. So a good way to disprove evolution would be to find such if it exists.

Why choose the 2nd law of thermodynamics as the acid test? Why not one of the conservation laws? Or one of Newton’s laws of motion? For example, there's nothing in the geocentric model of the solar system that violates the 2nd law, yet it's considered wrong, mainly because a better model came along and gained acceptance. Darwinism, by the way, does not have to be wrong in order for ID to be right. It just has to know its place. Darwinism is very good at explaining how different kinds of dogs can be bred from an original stock; it's good at explaining why a fruit-fly develops legs coming out of its head when zapped with enough radiation; it's good at explaining why there are different varieties of roses. It's useless, however, at explaining the origin of life (as even non-ID biologists like Lynne Margulis admits), the origin of species, or a presumed "macro-evolution."

Shannon entropy equations (thank-you for introducing me) appear to be very useful to those involved data compression.

And you won’t find a biologist anywhere in the world who won’t proclaim DNA – let alone an entire cell – an astonishing bit of “data compression.” The questions that Darwinism has failed to answer (and cannot answer, given its assumptions) is “Where did the data come from in the first place?” "How did it get compressed in the first place?" Being an expert in the field of probability and information theory, Dembski is very good on these points (I strongly recommend his 2002 book, "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence." Only recently has a True Believer like Richard Dawkins made attempts to answer some of the problems with Darwinism raised by considerations of concepts that were simply unknown (or very imperfectly defined) in Darwin's day, such as "information," "compression," "redundancy," "efficient/inefficient codes," etc.

I am pleased and relieved to read the quality and commitment of thought in the many threads that I have happened onto, while trying to be fair to you by reading Berlinski and Demski (sorry, they still seem cranks to me), so ID may have had the perhaps unsought result of forcing people to think harder.

So far, we haven’t seen a single substantive post or argument; just your opinion that certain writers are "cranks." Your statement implies, by the way, that evolutionists would not think harder were it not for challenges posed by information theory, complexity theory, and (following Michael Behe) modern biochemistry.

I predict ID has nothing of substance to offer to the scietific community or the wider world. Lets wait and see.

ID, in its “hard” or “soft” version, is already being published by peer-reviewed journals (though not without controversy), and has already been published by established scholarly publishers (like Cambridge University Press) for over ten years.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Hi! I'm Eivind from Norway - sorry, I didn't bother to register. Too many passwords to remember in this world.

Anyway:
I do not believe in God. I'm convinced that there is no God... and I do question the sanity and knowledge of anybody who actually believes in religion today.

If the world was "created" - somebody had to create the creator and so on.

But mostly I base my belief on religious text. It's easy for us living in 2005 to sort out historical facts and filter out the religious beliefs.

Furthermore religion as such is nothing but politics. A political trap that even children can relate to.

I have no problem believing that Jesus is a historical person - but I question the so called miracles, and ofcourse he didn't die hangin' on that wooden cross.

yup - I'm a proud 100% atheist.
I do believe in god.

There must be a reason why we are born to this world. Where we are going after we died. What will happen to us.

So far no evidence of science can answer all this question. We are human being comprises of physical and spiritual. What happen to our spiritual part after we die. But with religion ,it all answered.
Dear Guest,

I agree with you : There has got to be a creator to create the Superpower - God.

Whether God exists or not, Politicians are making a better use of it. We have many instances to cite.

Praveen.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
I am ok about this god thing.
Show more