Page 160 of 161 FirstFirst ... 60110150159160161 LastLast
Results 5,566 to 5,600 of 5609

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #5566
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,666

    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
    41,507

    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
    26,666

    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
    1,357

    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
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,485

    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)

  6. #5571
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    1,357

    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

  7. #5572
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,485

    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 GSoE - hardly "solid as the Laws of Gravity " i suggest?
    Last edited by Frank!; 11-18-2018 at 04:38 PM.

  8. #5573
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,507

    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.

  9. #5574
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    1,357

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    From an article on another subject, a psych portrait of Frank!:

    The Dunning-Kruger effect explains that the problem isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed, which creates a double burden.
    Studies have shown that people who lack expertise in some area of knowledge often have a cognitive bias that prevents them from realizing that they lack expertise. As psychologist David Dunning puts it in an op-ed for Politico, “The knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task — and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at the task. This includes political judgment.” These people cannot be reached because they mistakenly believe they are the ones who should be reaching others.
    I suppose something like this ought to have been posted earlier.
    "The future is already here it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  10. #5575
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,485

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    So - i have a question....

    Can anyone find a definitive estimate for the weathering rate of Ayers Rock?

    Is it indeed true that it could not last 100,000 years?

  11. #5576
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,507

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    So - i have a question....

    Can anyone find a definitive estimate for the weathering rate of Ayers Rock?

    Is it indeed true that it could not last 100,000 years?
    Depends on both the rate of weathering, and HOW BIG IT WAS as the softer rocks eroded from round it.
    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.

  12. #5577
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    19,846

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    I love the idea of a "definitive estimate"...

    What we need is a brand new, solidly proven idea.
    Creationists aren't mad - they're possessed of demons.

  13. #5578
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,485

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    I think we can all be ashamed of ourselves.
    In a thread "Scientific Knowledge" the posts have been characterized by the Dunning - Kruger Effect , colloquially a "dickhead response" (or for those who might take umbrage , "d..khead").

    I have searched "Ask a Geologist" on the net with no response so far, but simple maths says that for a 1000' high rock to erode in 100,000 yrs - thats 1/100' per yr or 1/2 " in 50 yrs.
    now that chain set up on the path to the summit would have been there for near that time - anybody noticed the rock eroded 1/2" down from the level of the concrete the posts would have been set in?

    I would have continued this with a rant lamenting the degeneracy in science and knowledge (such that we seek to deny the clear evidence for the Noahic event) of these days and linked it to the warning that when the whole world had sunk into "violence and wickedness" as in the "days of Noah" - the 'second coming' will. - but i await confirmation / refutation of such clear evidence as the erosion of The Rock.

    bated breathedly,

    frank

  14. #5579
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,507

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Who cares?

    Anyone?
    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.

  15. #5580
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,485

  16. #5581
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Concord, Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,357

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    We have discussed Ayers Rock and the GAB ad nauseam.
    "Wherever there is a channel for water, there is a road for the canoe. " - Thoreau

  17. #5582
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,507

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitz View Post
    We have discussed Ayers Rock and the GAB ad nauseam.
    But no one has yet agreed with Creation.crap's stuff on it, so Frank! is going to keep on and on and on asking until some one does.
    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.

  18. #5583
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,485

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    No, nothing ends up missing.

    Think about it: you used the word "something" because you can't even state what ends up missing.

    Thats the beauty of evolutionary science - not only does everything work perfectly with no losses - you even get gains!

    (they should apply for perpetual motion or free energy patents)

    What is lost is information

    in the selection process of natural selection only some of the possibilities are expressed (longer hair for Arctic Wolves) If the climate gets warmer those wolves would be stuck with the longer hair - unless they could interbreed with some wolves that have retained the short hair genes (?)

    (i have put the (?) because i recognise i may have mangled the argument - but essentially, do i not have a valid point there?).

    Regards,

    Frank

  19. #5584
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    50,332

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge



    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  20. #5585
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,485

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    hey keithy - did you actually attempt to find an answer to your 'angry god ' problem?

  21. #5586
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    50,332

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Not my problem.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  22. #5587
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    26,540

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.
    Trump is doing beautifully.





  23. #5588
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,485

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    No. Because information is lost only in your model, which you got from a creationist website and carted over here. If you were curious, which you are not, you would google and find that information is not lost.
    Ok I'll have you on - just what would be the Google question please?
    or better yet - a reference that you had in mind

    (promise I will check it out)

    Frank

  24. #5589
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,507

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    ^ I wonder what his last slave died of?
    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.

  25. #5590
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,485

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    https://theoccasionalinformationist....uld-it-matter/

    Was what I came up with when I searched conservation of information.
    They seemed to be pretty sure that the general consensus was that information was not conserved and I would suggest that since DNA information depends upon a physical medium - that is atoms and molecules- then the laws of entropy say that it must be lost

  26. #5591
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,507

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    https://theoccasionalinformationist....uld-it-matter/

    Was what I came up with when I searched conservation of information.
    They seemed to be pretty sure that the general consensus was that information was not conserved and I would suggest that since DNA information depends upon a physical medium - that is atoms and molecules- then the laws of entropy say that it must be lost
    Nope, that is not what they concluded.
    It seems clear that the answer to the question as to whether information is conserved is still an open one. But any answer must inevitably begin with the caveat that, first and foremost, it depends what we mean by information. This need not be a sterile argument about the meaning of words, but rather a means of exploring different concepts of information, and – crucially – the ways in which information of different kinds may interact, and provide linkages between the physical, biological and social worlds.
    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.

  27. #5592
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,485

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    This makes no sense.
    As I read the article , it said that it was an "open question" as to whether information could be conserved - just on purely theoretical grounds.

    I suggest that , in the real world , because the information depends on being carried by physical matter , and physical matter is subject to entropy , then the information that it carries will be degraded by that entropy.

    No matter how many times you pass your floppy disk with a copy of Windows 10 on it through the airport scanner , you will never get an upgrade to Windows 11 let alone an Apple Macintosh program - or would you?

    Regards,

    Frank
    Last edited by Frank!; 11-16-2018 at 08:10 PM.

  28. #5593
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    12,573

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    ^ Eh mugilah, tell me about the age of Biaiamie's Ngunnhu and scientific methodology, paleofluvial landscapes. Pity you.
    Last edited by purri; 11-17-2018 at 02:38 AM.
    Xanthorrea

  29. #5594
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,485

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    ???

  30. #5595
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Concord, Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,357

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Ad nauseam.
    "Wherever there is a channel for water, there is a road for the canoe. " - Thoreau

  31. #5596
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Seymour, TN
    Posts
    10,222

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Jeebus!

    Youse lot would pick a scab until it became an ulcer and resulted in gangrene.

    Feckin' just ignore the buggar.

    Like Sam F there's NO feckin' arguing with the man... all he's after is the "unending argument".


    GIVE IT UP!

    I'm (IMHO) tired of seeing this dung heap.

  32. #5597
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,485

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Very eloquent Vince....

    So do you happen to have a figure for the erosion rate of the Ayers Rock formation?

    Failing that or at least some miraculous mechanism that preserves the rock from weathering for millions of years you are faced with the collapse of the millions and billions of years into mere thousands (at least for this planet) - with all that entails.

    High Stakes mate - I would tread carefully if I were you!

    Cheers,

    Frank!

  33. #5598
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    12,573

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Another mugilah writ large with his self constructed onanist "innerlectual" landscape
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    ???
    Xanthorrea

  34. #5599
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,485

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Maybe - or maybe thats you?

  35. #5600
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,666

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    I think we can all be ashamed of ourselves.
    In a thread "Scientific Knowledge" the posts have been characterized by the Dunning - Kruger Effect , colloquially a "dickhead response" (or for those who might take umbrage , "d..khead").

    I have searched "Ask a Geologist" on the net with no response so far, but simple maths says that for a 1000' high rock to erode in 100,000 yrs - thats 1/100' per yr or 1/2 " in 50 yrs.
    now that chain set up on the path to the summit would have been there for near that time - anybody noticed the rock eroded 1/2" down from the level of the concrete the posts would have been set in?

    I would have continued this with a rant lamenting the degeneracy in science and knowledge (such that we seek to deny the clear evidence for the Noahic event) of these days and linked it to the warning that when the whole world had sunk into "violence and wickedness" as in the "days of Noah" - the 'second coming' will. - but i await confirmation / refutation of such clear evidence as the erosion of The Rock.

    bated breathedly,

    frank
    Having trouble understanding the difference between natural erosive process and that cause by high traffic, ie thousands of booted feet per year?
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

Posting Permissions

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