Page 160 of 160 FirstFirst ... 60110150159160
Results 5,566 to 5,578 of 5578

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #5566
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,606

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Why, why do you guys bother? Let it die.
    I guess we keep expecting that open mind Frank claims to have. 159 pages and Frank has not changed his view on one thing.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  2. #5567
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,349

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    I guess we keep expecting that open mind Frank claims to have. 159 pages and Frank has not changed his view on one thing.
    Yet he put me on ignore when I suggested that he was dishonest.
    Perhaps I should have called him deluded instead.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  3. #5568
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,606

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Here’s a question given that after the flood the only living humans were Noah and his family. What would be the expected population now?
    Second question given the racial characteristics of Noah and his family what would explain the wide range of racial types we have now?
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  4. #5569
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    1,343

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    But didn't Ham get rich by opening up a series of tanning salons, thereby producing a race bearing the mark of Cain? That would only have taken a year or two, wouldn't it?
    "The future is already here it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  5. #5570
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cows
    Posts
    404

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Is nobody prepared to admit that because Dawkins only cited examples that had no bearing upon the validity of Evolution - then he can therefore make no claim for the validity of Evolution?

    How would you know?

    You have never read Dawkins.

    And, you will never read Dawkins.

    Because, Dawkins is over your head, and also you are afraid of reading Dawkins.

    So, why do you continue to mention Dawkins?
    bccphalarope(dot)com

  6. #5571
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cows
    Posts
    404

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    I understand his own contributions as a scientist are quite modest.

    A few years ago I went to a seminar by Dawkins at Rockefeller University. Rockefeller has something like 23 Nobel Laureates associated with its faculty, and does not suffer fools. Dawkins was an invited speaker. The 2 day symposium had also featured the first results of the genome for Neanderthal. The auditorium was packed. I noticed three Nobel Laureates, Rockefeller faculty, in the audience. They had come to listen to Dawkins.

    I remember one slide, an 1800s pen and ink drawing of a rhinoceros, the finale to a buildup that bacteria pass on their genetic information to progeny in 20 minutes' time...and then there is the rhinoceros. The audience all laughed. You had to be there, I guess.

    Anyway, Frank, read The Selfish Gene, please. It is a landmark work.

    I won't hold my breath.
    bccphalarope(dot)com

  7. #5572
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,471

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    A few years ago I went to a seminar by Dawkins at Rockefeller University. Rockefeller has something like 23 Nobel Laureates associated with its faculty, and does not suffer fools. Dawkins was an invited speaker. The 2 day symposium had also featured the first results of the genome for Neanderthal. The auditorium was packed. I noticed three Nobel Laureates, Rockefeller faculty, in the audience. They had come to listen to Dawkins.

    I remember one slide, an 1800s pen and ink drawing of a rhinoceros, the finale to a buildup that bacteria pass on their genetic information to progeny in 20 minutes' time...and then there is the rhinoceros. The audience all laughed. You had to be there, I guess.

    Anyway, Frank, read The Selfish Gene, please. It is a landmark work.

    I won't hold my breath.
    Wow! - August company here ....... folk who mix with even august-er company .....

    I have tried to read Dawkins - in fact i started on "Greatest Show....." because he affirmed in the beginning that he was, in this book, going to set out the evidence for Evolution.

    He stated that, in all of his previous books, though he wove evolution into them, he had never actually set out the evidence .....

    Well, fair enough - so i didnt suppose, going on that statement, there was / is much purpose in my bothering with The Selfish Gene.

    So i waded in - the GSoE is a big book - and i was blown away with his eloquence. I wont say i was captivated by his stories about Natural Selection, fascinating as they were - I was looking for that Evidence for Evolution. in the end i gave up on him. i couldnt find anywhere where he presented a verified mechanism as to how Chimps got to be Smarter Chumps - or anything that showed how variation within a limited gene pool of the species, or kind, or whatever, could break out beyond the limitations of that gene-pool - and establish a novel gene-pool - something that had not been around before.

    Then, towards the end of the book, i came across what i took to be a most damming admission, to the effect that he didnt know - and nobody knew....

    So i gave up on him again.

    I can only assume he was invited to speak for his entertainment value. i cant imagine that he had anything of substance to contribute to that audience. I guess got a good reception for his Tribal Misotheist cracks and left everyone with a warm, selfsatisified glow....

    even as rome burned -even the royal society was apparently unable to pull any rabbits out of the mess that is the state of Evolutionary "Science".

    the wheels of science, as has been pointed out repeatedly here, must eventually grind out the truth - but it can take decades - viz poor old Semmelwieis. meanwhile career structures, egos, funding streams, tribal loyalties , etc, etc ,tend to keep bankrupt ideas steamrollering on - aided sometimes , perhaps, with a touch of bloodyminded (or casual- , or blind- , or whatever, take your pick) evil.....

    breath easy ( just maybe there is Someone in charge waiting out in the wings for the fullness of things)

    frank(ly)

  8. #5573
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cows
    Posts
    404

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    i couldnt find anywhere where he presented a verified mechanism as to how Chimps got to be Smarter Chumps

    This is the same error that Aquinas made - setting up his own standards to be met. He would choose individual bird species, and find that there was a lack of information on their evolution - and he never looked at the sum knowledge on bird evolution. You should examine all of the questions for which there are answers, rather than seek out questions which have not been answered as evidence of a divine presence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    - or anything that showed how variation within a limited gene pool of the species, or kind, or whatever, could break out beyond the limitations of that gene-pool - and establish a novel gene-pool - something that had not been around before.

    This shows again your profound lack of understanding about evolution. It has already been explained to you, well over 100 pages ago, how gene variation, and the formation of new genes, occurs. You have never attempted to understand gene duplication, gene mutation, and geographic isolation, as engines of species divergence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Then, towards the end of the book, i came across what i took to be a most damming admission, to the effect that he didnt know - and nobody knew....
    Didn't know what, exactly?


    Again, Frank, your ignorance is not a strength with which to bludgeon, it is a weakness.
    bccphalarope(dot)com

  9. #5574
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cows
    Posts
    404

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    I can only assume he was invited to speak for his entertainment value. i cant imagine that he had anything of substance to contribute to that audience. I guess got a good reception for his Tribal Misotheist cracks and left everyone with a warm, self-satisified glow....

    But, then, you really don't know, do you?
    bccphalarope(dot)com

  10. #5575
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cows
    Posts
    404

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    even as rome burned -even the royal society was apparently unable to pull any rabbits out of the mess that is the state of Evolutionary "Science".

    Please re-read what you have posted here. It makes no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    ...meanwhile career structures, egos, funding streams, tribal loyalties , etc, etc ,tend to keep bankrupt ideas steamrollering on - aided sometimes , perhaps, with a touch of bloodyminded (or casual- , or blind- , or whatever, take your pick) evil.....

    Here you seem to be saying that scientific pursuits are fraudulent, to acquire money, or other personal gains other than seeking understanding of nature.

    I hope that is not the case, because you are absolutely unable to support such a smear.
    bccphalarope(dot)com

  11. #5576
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    1,343

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Wow! - August company here ....... folk who mix with even august-er company .....

    I have tried to read Dawkins - in fact i started on "Greatest Show....." because he affirmed in the beginning that he was, in this book, going to set out the evidence for Evolution.

    He stated that, in all of his previous books, though he wove evolution into them, he had never actually set out the evidence .....

    Well, fair enough - so i didnt suppose, going on that statement, there was / is much purpose in my bothering with The Selfish Gene.

    So i waded in - the GSoE is a big book - and i was blown away with his eloquence. I wont say i was captivated by his stories about Natural Selection, fascinating as they were - I was looking for that Evidence for Evolution. in the end i gave up on him. i couldnt find anywhere where he presented a verified mechanism as to how Chimps got to be Smarter Chumps - or anything that showed how variation within a limited gene pool of the species, or kind, or whatever, could break out beyond the limitations of that gene-pool - and establish a novel gene-pool - something that had not been around before.

    Then, towards the end of the book, i came across what i took to be a most damming admission, to the effect that he didnt know - and nobody knew....

    So i gave up on him again.

    I can only assume he was invited to speak for his entertainment value. i cant imagine that he had anything of substance to contribute to that audience. I guess got a good reception for his Tribal Misotheist cracks and left everyone with a warm, selfsatisified glow....

    even as rome burned -even the royal society was apparently unable to pull any rabbits out of the mess that is the state of Evolutionary "Science".

    the wheels of science, as has been pointed out repeatedly here, must eventually grind out the truth - but it can take decades - viz poor old Semmelwieis. meanwhile career structures, egos, funding streams, tribal loyalties , etc, etc ,tend to keep bankrupt ideas steamrollering on - aided sometimes , perhaps, with a touch of bloodyminded (or casual- , or blind- , or whatever, take your pick) evil.....

    breath easy ( just maybe there is Someone in charge waiting out in the wings for the fullness of things)

    frank(ly)
    Well, here again, it's just Frank! being Frank! -- which is to say Frank! isn't being frank.
    "The future is already here it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  12. #5577
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,471

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    Here’s a question given that after the flood the only living humans were Noah and his family. What would be the expected population now?
    Second question given the racial characteristics of Noah and his family what would explain the wide range of racial types we have now?
    Sorry Gary, finally got round to your questions .......

    Short Ans....
    1. Just what it is now...
    2. Natural Selection and Variation within the Kind / Species / gene-pool...

    Refs and comments:
    - exponential growth and doubling times - creation.com/population-growth-since-flood.

    - if humans had been around for a million years, at a natural increase rate of 0.1% (approx a tenth of the long term average), there would be 10^48 (that number is bigger than Texas) humans today - https://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people

    - off the top of my head, within Noahs family there would already be some different genetic lines (through the families of the women) so would there not be all sorts of combinations and variations possible? But , even starting with Adam (and Eve), provided he was loaded genetically with all the information necessary for all the variations you see, then Natural Selection and environmental factors , and geographical separation will do the necessary...

    Again, if you grab a single (ordinary brown) pair of guppies from the creek , you can, over a few generations by separating the reddish tails from the yellowish tails, get an aquarium full of red tails , and one of yellow. no big deal.
    What intrigues me though, is that if you mix them up and include all the 'discarded lines' and let them breed back to ordinary brown - you will not find it so easy to get the red and yellow again.

    Now im no biologist - so i will allow someone else to tidy up this argument.

    The point is - this is why the speculative process of " gene duplication, gene mutation, and geographic isolation," that Twodot mentioned, cannot work - because, in the long term, something ends up missing, and the process falls apart, and over millions and billioms of years, chaos rules! ( - IMHUnderstanding. as an engineer)

    frank

    oh and btw for Dawkins dilemma see P 419 of GSoS - hardly "solid as the Laws of Gravity " i suggest?

  13. #5578
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,349

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Dunning Kruger Rules - OK.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •