X-No-Archive: yes

Followed up the usual dilv links and came eventually to this...

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=47dab3e63175e9c64d15

Couple of things:   First we have an all singing and dancing forum for 
believers called............ godtube   !!!!
Godtube...my goodness, whatever next..?
Then I find the above is the author(s) norman geisler & frank turek, 
founders of a very dodgy organisation called 'cross examined.org' aimed at 
getting into campuses to infiltrate and promte the whole god package.
This is centre field dilv territory and echos of his posts are 
representative  of the book written by these authors..."I don't have enough 
faith to be an atheist"
Try and stick with the short clip, it's 5 minutes long and he gets in good 
about 2 minutes in with some good analogies.... even richard dawkins gets a 
mention!
Anyone care to point out the errors and misunderstandings  he is peddling 
from this clip...?  [...apart from his book, of course!]
This is dilv material first hand and illustrates the kind of background 
information he launches off with here..


Mark

mark wrote:

> 
> http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=47dab3e63175e9c64d15
> 
... snip ...
> Anyone care to point out the errors and misunderstandings  he is peddling 
> from this clip...?  [...apart from his book, of course!]

Firstly, he tries to imply that a 1 cell amoeba is the starting 
point for life. This isn't what is claimed by any evolutionist. But 
it wouldn't have sounded so impressive to explain that the 
corresponding 4 letter structure of a viroid can be written in a few 
lines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viroid

Secondly, his major point is the old "747 from a hurricane in a 
junk-yard" straw man, that Fred Hoyle started:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html

It is all the old argument from personal incredulity, but his 
audience don't know enough about logical reasoning or evolutionary 
biology to understand that.

His whole argument is logically flawed and so fails on that basis - 
we don't even need to examine the detail to be able to dismiss it.

regards, Ian

On Jul 28, 11:38 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> mark wrote:
>
> >http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=47dab3e63175e9c64d15
>
> ... snip ...
> > Anyone care to point out the errors and misunderstandings  he is peddling
> > from this clip...?  [...apart from his book, of course!]
>
> Firstly, he tries to imply that a 1 cell amoeba is the starting
> point for life. This isn't what is claimed by any evolutionist. But
> it wouldn't have sounded so impressive to explain that the
> corresponding 4 letter structure of a viroid can be written in a few
> lines:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viroid
>
> Secondly, his major point is the old "747 from a hurricane in a
> junk-yard" straw man, that Fred Hoyle started:
>
> http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html
>
> It is all the old argument from personal incredulity, but his
> audience don't know enough about logical reasoning or evolutionary
> biology to understand that.
>
> His whole argument is logically flawed and so fails on that basis -
> we don't even need to examine the detail to be able to dismiss it.
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY:  We BOTH know that there is design and engineering to our
Universe Ian.  Until you can show that this design and engineering can
come from materials, gasses, explosions, by way of accidents....then
you are only keeping up the charade for not wanting to admit there has
to be some Intelligence to the construction of this Universe/Earth/DNA/
Human Anatomy. , etc.    We can speculate as to why you would want to
do this...but we also know the answer to that as well, and, its just
as the Bible accurately declares in Romans 1:18-22  .  Why set
yourself up for a very very regretful end to your life and transition
into eternity ?  Why do you want to do that ?  Is personal Freedom and
entititlement to live life according to Ian that important to miss out
on knowing and enjoying our Creator ?  You know it isnt.

In article 
,
 "IlBeBauck@gmail.com"  wrote:

> On Jul 28, 11:38 am, Ian Smith 
> wrote:
> > mark wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=47dab3e63175e9c64d15
> >
> > ... snip ...
> > > Anyone care to point out the errors and misunderstandings  he is peddling
> > > from this clip...?  [...apart from his book, of course!]
> >
> > Firstly, he tries to imply that a 1 cell amoeba is the starting
> > point for life. This isn't what is claimed by any evolutionist. But
> > it wouldn't have sounded so impressive to explain that the
> > corresponding 4 letter structure of a viroid can be written in a few
> > lines:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viroid

Colour me unconvinced. Viroids cannot live on their own; they need a far 
more complex host in order to be able to wreak their mischief.

> > Secondly, his major point is the old "747 from a hurricane in a
> > junk-yard" straw man, that Fred Hoyle started:
> >
> > http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html
> >
> > It is all the old argument from personal incredulity, but his
> > audience don't know enough about logical reasoning or evolutionary
> > biology to understand that.
> >
> > His whole argument is logically flawed and so fails on that basis -
> > we don't even need to examine the detail to be able to dismiss it.
> >
> > regards, Ian
> 
> REPLY:  We BOTH know that there is design and engineering to our
> Universe Ian.  Until you can show that this design and engineering can
> come from materials, gasses, explosions, by way of accidents....then
> you are only keeping up the charade for not wanting to admit there has
> to be some Intelligence to the construction of this Universe/Earth/DNA/
> Human Anatomy. , etc.    We can speculate as to why you would want to
> do this...but we also know the answer to that as well, and, its just
> as the Bible accurately declares in Romans 1:18-22  .  Why set
> yourself up for a very very regretful end to your life and transition
> into eternity ?  Why do you want to do that ?  Is personal Freedom and
> entititlement to live life according to Ian that important to miss out
> on knowing and enjoying our Creator ?  You know it isnt.

Well, this is classic Dave. I don't suppose he will ever change.

The problem seems to me that there is a certain level - call it that of 
common sense, if you will - at which Dave's kind of reasoning makes a 
lot of sense. Some people may be too sophisticated to accept the 
argument from incredulity at face value, but I suspect that is always 
going to be a minority.

Alwyn

On Jul 28, 9:47 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:


MORE DILV BULLCRAP

Answer the fucking questions you ASSHOLE

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:  We BOTH know that there is design and engineering to our
> Universe Ian.  

On the contrary. I see no evidence for any entity that would be 
capable of performing such a feat.

You have been asked to provide such evidence, but have so far 
avoided answering the question.

> Until you can show that this design and engineering can
> come from materials, gasses, explosions, by way of accidents.

Evolution has reduced the onus on science to demonstrating that the 
very simplest forms of self replicating entity could have been 
produced by one of a near infinite set of parallel random processes.

The Miller-Urey experiment back in 1953 demonstrated that this is a 
possibility and experiments since have demonstrated production of 
RNA and DNA bases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

So, the very opposite of what you claim is true - we have infinitely 
more evidence of our claims than you do.

However, please feel free to start presenting the evidence that 
supports your position. Until then, your view is rapidly losing 
credibility in the world and we know that we only have to sit back 
and smile to see your superstitions washed away following a victory 
that was won in that famous debate in 1860 by Huxley, following on 
Darwin's publication of Origins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley.

regards, Ian

Alwyn wrote:

>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viroid
> 
> Colour me unconvinced. Viroids cannot live on their own; they need a far 
> more complex host in order to be able to wreak their mischief.

Of course, but if you want an example of what the simplest form of 
life might have looked like, this is nearer than a single celled 
creature being used by the creationists.

It is unlikely, in today's biologically competitive environment 
(which wouldn't have been competitive at the time), that examples of 
the original replicating entity would survive.

regards, Ian

In MsgID<raKdnZP3nfwvXhPVnZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@posted.plusnet> on Tue, 29 Jul
2008 08:16:03 +0100, in uk.philosophy.atheism, 'Ian Smith' wrote:

>The Miller-Urey experiment back in 1953 demonstrated that this is a 
>possibility and experiments since have demonstrated production of 
>RNA and DNA bases.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Thank you greatly for that, it filled several largish holes in my
knowledge of the origins of (the hypothesised routes to production of) the
early nitro organics.

Dave J.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:44:00 +0100, Dave J. 
wrote:

>In MsgID<raKdnZP3nfwvXhPVnZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@posted.plusnet> on Tue, 29 Jul
>2008 08:16:03 +0100, in uk.philosophy.atheism, 'Ian Smith' wrote:
>
>>The Miller-Urey experiment back in 1953 demonstrated that this is a 
>>possibility and experiments since have demonstrated production of 
>>RNA and DNA bases.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
>
>Thank you greatly for that, it filled several largish holes in my
>knowledge of the origins of (the hypothesised routes to production of) the
>early nitro organics.

Another early one was Sidney Fox who created protocells in the lab by
heating amino acids to form thermal proteins, and immersed the residue
in salt water. Two ordinary natural processes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

His presentation at a Vatican symposium, where he described it in
detail for educated laymen:

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

A video showing the latest understanding, for the layman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

>Dave J.

In MsgID on Mon, 11 Aug 2008
12:24:11 -0400, in uk.philosophy.atheism, 'Christopher A. Lee' wrote:

[..]
>>>The Miller-Urey experiment back in 1953 demonstrated that this is a 
>>>possibility and experiments since have demonstrated production of 
>>>RNA and DNA bases.

>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

>>Thank you greatly for that, it filled several largish holes in my
>>knowledge of the origins of (the hypothesised routes to production of) the
>>early nitro organics.

>Another early one was Sidney Fox who created protocells in the lab by
>heating amino acids to form thermal proteins, and immersed the residue
>in salt water. Two ordinary natural processes:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox
>http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

>His presentation at a Vatican symposium, where he described it in
>detail for educated laymen:

>http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

I waited until I had time to visit before replying; not that there's
anything controversial to be seen, looks to be good background knowledge.

Very much recommended to anyone who wants to learn about routes to
building blocks of life, or anyone who still thinks there's a magic wand
involved. The second from last link (the one directly above) is the
'nicest' WRT practical explanation as it gives what seems to my
(relatively uneducated) mind quite a detailed, but also quite
comprehensible, description of possible early chemistry. 

Along with discussing possible routes to the spontaneous genesis of the
chemicals involved it demonstrates the grayness of the 'line' between
chemistry and 'life', potentially demonstrating that there isn't a clear
distinction.

Not saying it's primarily an educational piece; as the title says it's
about presentation of the research to the pope, but the research is talked
about in enough detail to give an excellent good summary of the thinkings
and it provides lots of starting points for further searching.


>A video showing the latest understanding, for the layman:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg


The last link, the u-tube one, is a beautiful presentation of the
thinkings; ideal for showing to sceptics with unused synapses. Amazing
compression of years of speculation / testing / learning from results into
about ten minutes. 

[1]

Anyhow, the understanding has gone way further than I knew, not that it's
surprising given the superficiality of my education in the area.

Thanks

Dave J.

[1] The only warning to interested parties is to ignore the initial 'turn
up the volume' instruction on the video; there's no oral information, the
soundtrack only demonstrates that sufficient intelligence to apply
'ancient equals probably long since improved upon' to superstition doesn't
guarantee sufficient intelligence to apply it to music. (*Opera* FFS!
<retch>) 
'Classical' music as a background might have been tolerable, not too bad
for its time, but the inclusion of howlingly abused voices ruined it.

Though, if you want to convert an OAP the prehistoric soundtrack might be
handy, some folk haven't realised that opera belongs in the same museum as
the square wheel (and the bible). Valid research in its own way, just a
turned out to be a dead end.

In MsgID on Mon, 11 Aug 2008
12:24:11 -0400, in uk.philosophy.atheism, 'Christopher A. Lee' wrote:

[snip prebiotic 'chemical evolution']

>A video showing the latest understanding [of the above] for the layman:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Here's another one I found while digging via the may-also-interest-you
links around the above. 

It's a lovely demolition of ye-olde 'how could a random box of gears
evolve into a clock' strawman. A computer simulation, with a few tweaks to
make the gears interact and conglomerate in a similar way to
proteins/lipids etc, shows that a box of totally random gears springs and
hands actually *would* evolve into a clock if the naturally selective
drive were present.

Fascinating graphs shown of the progress. As a side benefit these graphs
neatly demolish another fave of the anti-science nuts - the lack of
ape-man 'crossover' fossil records.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Luckily, the background music on this one, although you can hear strains
of its early 'classical' predecessors, has evolved to include many of the
modern improvements. Even better, the operatic 'strangled howling'
dead-end has completely evolved *out* of this genus. :-) 

Joking apart, the video above is worth a watch for any interested party. 

I don't know about others here, but I would never have thought deeply
enough about the problem (although it's quite obvious with hindsight) to
think that you could persuade a clock, a literal clock, hour, minute,
second hands and all, to evolve from a heap of random bits. This is a
lovely presentation of just that.


Dave J.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:51:01 +0100, Dave J. 
wrote:

>In MsgID on Mon, 11 Aug 2008
>12:24:11 -0400, in uk.philosophy.atheism, 'Christopher A. Lee' wrote:
>
>[snip prebiotic 'chemical evolution']
>
>>A video showing the latest understanding [of the above] for the layman:
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
>
>Here's another one I found while digging via the may-also-interest-you
>links around the above. 
>
>It's a lovely demolition of ye-olde 'how could a random box of gears
>evolve into a clock' strawman. A computer simulation, with a few tweaks to
>make the gears interact and conglomerate in a similar way to
>proteins/lipids etc, shows that a box of totally random gears springs and
>hands actually *would* evolve into a clock if the naturally selective
>drive were present.

The stupids (opposite of rights) project their Biblical "poof, it all
happened at once" mentality where it didn't onto processes that
weren't random because they used what went before anyway.

Even Paley's watch used what was there already, as any visit to a
horological museum shows.
 
There's a good one at the Greenwich Observatory (as in GMT) which is a
wonderfule place to visit for visitors to London. Get the boat from
Charing Cross Pier on the Thames.

>Fascinating graphs shown of the progress. As a side benefit these graphs
>neatly demolish another fave of the anti-science nuts - the lack of
>ape-man 'crossover' fossil records.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
>
>Luckily, the background music on this one, although you can hear strains
>of its early 'classical' predecessors, has evolved to include many of the
>modern improvements. Even better, the operatic 'strangled howling'
>dead-end has completely evolved *out* of this genus. :-) 

A good one.

But the people who need to see it won't.

>Joking apart, the video above is worth a watch for any interested party. 
>
>I don't know about others here, but I would never have thought deeply
>enough about the problem (although it's quite obvious with hindsight) to
>think that you could persuade a clock, a literal clock, hour, minute,
>second hands and all, to evolve from a heap of random bits. This is a
>lovely presentation of just that.
>
>
>Dave J.

> 
> A video showing the latest understanding, for the layman:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Brilliant - and the wonderful Beethoven's 9th in the background (it 
isn't opera, by the way, its choral). One of the greatest pieces of 
music ever written!

regards, Ian

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:50:03 +0100, Ian Smith
 wrote:

>
>> 
>> A video showing the latest understanding, for the layman:
>> 
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
>
>Brilliant - and the wonderful Beethoven's 9th in the background (it 
>isn't opera, by the way, its choral). One of the greatest pieces of 
>music ever written!

CDK007's other stuff on youtube is pretty good as well.

Trouble is, the people who need to watch it, won't.

>regards, Ian

In MsgID on Thu, 21 Aug 2008
10:34:48 -0400, in uk.philosophy.atheism, 'Christopher A. Lee' wrote:

>The stupids (opposite of rights) project their Biblical "poof, it all
>happened at once" mentality where it didn't onto processes that
>weren't random because they used what went before anyway.

I sometimes wonder if the educational lack isn't in hings as late as
biological understanding, genetic theory or half a grasp of chemistry, but
is more an inability to visualise a halting and leaping (mostly halting)
flow of progress, over millions of years. The slow stumbling development
that *eventually* produced some chemicals that acted in ways partially
resembling life, at least as far as a minority of the branches 'consuming'
many of the others, providing another semi stable plateau, from which
*another* aeon of fumblings eventually produced cellular organisms,
leading to the next plateau, leading to... Belief in that relies on having
a mental map upon which to project it.

I suspect the educational lack is a really early one; I wonder if an
understanding of the enormous potential of thousands of millennia of
random fumbling, when filtered by simple survival-selection, is simply out
of the reach of someone who didn't 'feel' the power of numerically large
scale mathematics quite early in their childhood. 

Rhe phrase 'orders of magnitude' or the usefulness of a logarithmic graph,
are ways to sum up what I'm thinking of. Are they parts of a 'map' that is
lacking in children that haven't been shown it quite early?

The theoretical power of infinity, the limits imposed by only 'tending
toward' infinity, the way that periods can be seen as being 'as good as
infinite' in some contexts but absolutely not in others, the almost
un-grokkable number of orders of magnitude between the time that lies in
the past and the periods we can directly perceive; these are the things I
think true scientists should be pushing for early presentation to
children. 

IMO the *detail* of how things may have worked can wait until there is an
interest, but the 'inbuilt' grasp of the power (though also the limits) of
geological time are things that are vital for everything else to rest on.

Don't really know if there's enough in my thinkings that's worth
presentation. I do have a partial grasp of the holes in my understandings
of various fields, but I still like to think that perhaps my ponderings
are of interest and I certainly wonder if they make any sense.

I strongly believe I've a better 'feel' for the mental development of
children (formed partially directly from my own memories rather than from
theories built on theories built on suppositions) than most of the leaders
of our educational system. 

The gaps I think I see alarm me hugely. They perhaps partially explain the
strength of the ignorance-lobby. IMHO they badly need filling.

I worry greatly at the removal of the intuitive methodology of teaching
that I percieve. The so-called leaders don't seem to have grasped that it
is impossible (so far, AI research notwithstanding) to replace
inuitive/instinctive methods of education with *any* set of fixed rules.

(now half considering CPing to a uk.edu group, educational errors are
significantly reponsible for the perpetuation of mythology)

Dave J.