Originally posted by King TigerWell of course you can't if you choose not to. But thats on you.
No, I do not think you've convinced me of anything other than one can't have an academic conversation with you.
For some reason the discussion of probability I hear discussed in higher academics is wrong according to this thread.
And I would be happy to explain where and why it is wrong and if you wish, present academics even higher than your references that agree with me, but I would rather you understand it for yourself rather than relying on the word of someone else.
I'm not avoiding you as you assert but rather refusing to be pulled in any further than I already have.
Same difference.
I noticed one of the posters on here instead if critically engaging info from ICR and Answer in Genesis just asserts the spew nonsense. Very academically honest.
It wasn't me.
Tell me why it's nonsense other than saying its been disproved.
I am happy to explain in detail why its nonsense but you don't want to get 'pulled in' ie you'd rather not know the truth if it disagrees with your religion.
How you can call a Phillip Johnson, a Polkinghorn (spelling), Lenox, etc nonsense is beyond me. I'm not suggesting they are who I cited but they largely hold my views.
I am sure the poster would be happy to explain why its nonsense if you are willing to discuss it. But you apparently 'hold the same views' without actually understanding them, ie you are deferring to authority.
One thing is certain-if you can't win the message you attack the messenger which is why some atheist scholars prefer to attack the person in the opposition rather than the material (read Dawkins the God Delusion for a healthy dose).
I have attacked the message in some detail and you chose to 'not get pulled in'. You did however try to 'attack the messenger' yourself several times.
As I have said a number of times, this is trivial to resolve: Explain what you were trying to calculate the probability of and why and I will explain the correct way to calculate the probability and why your calculation was wrong.
1 edit
I've sourced the article KT cites in his OP. It's called 'The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution', written by one of the founders of the Institute for Creation Research Henry Morris PhD.
http://www.icr.org/article/493/
It should be noted Henry Morris degree is in Hydraulic Engineering and this article was written in the early 1970's. A long time ago and he's not a specialist in mathematics or biology.
This is the opening paragraph which KT didn't quote in his OP.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
Mr Morris premise is flawed. The Lenski e-coil experiments undeniably demonstrate this.
Originally posted by King Tigeryet i did bother to read yours, i identified your points, counter argued on each the best that i could, and kept it between us, since you pm-ed me.
No, I didn't even bother reading your PM honestly.
what do you think that says about you? that when faced with opposition, you make yourself dissapear? that when shown with numerous points that your position is flawed, you don't respond? what does it say about your position? could it be indefensible?
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhen it comes to building things I'd look to an engineer, when it comes
I've sourced the article KT cites in his OP. It's called 'The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution', written by one of the founders of the Institute for Creation Research Henry Morris PhD.
http://www.icr.org/article/493/
It should be noted Henry Morris degree is in Hydraulic Engineering and this article was written in the early 1970's. A long t ...[text shortened]... uote]
Mr Morris premise is flawed. The Lenski e-coil experiments undeniably demonstrate this.
to issues in building things, I'd look to an engineer. So flaws in design
methodology are in a engineer's wheel house, not many of us here are
specialist in mathematics or biology.
I'd also ask that you quote or some how show the relevant parts of how
the Lenski e-coil experiment undeniably demonstrate this, saying it isn't
showing it.
Kelly
Originally posted by King Tiger"one can't have an academic conversation with you."
No, I do not think you've convinced me of anything other than one can't have an academic conversation with you. For some reason the discussion of probability I hear discussed in higher academics is wrong according to this thread. I find that interesting. I'm not avoiding you as you assert but rather refusing to be pulled in any further than I already have ...[text shortened]... n in the opposition rather than the material (read Dawkins the God Delusion for a healthy dose).
yet they did have an honest conversation with you. they did prove your "scientists" have a poor understanding of probabilities or they simply misrepresent them in the context of creation. they did everything right, maybe because a new creationist on this forum, even if it's sad to get another YEC, is an interesting thing. we were all happy to have someone other than rjhinds to converse with. so far, i am not seeing any difference between you and him, except that your posts are longer and give the appearance of being "sciency".
"I'm not avoiding you as you assert but rather refusing to be pulled in any further than I already have. "
so basically what you are saying, you went on a debating forum, started your first debate and now you are withdrawing because people do not agree with you?
"I noticed one of the posters on here instead if critically engaging info from ICR and Answer in Genesis just asserts the spew nonsense. Very academically honest. "
i presume you are talking about me. allow me to explain. we have been through this with rjhinds, and carrobie and checkbaiter. those sites ARE nonsense, we proved that, countless of times, with other sites that offer real scientific evidence, better presented, substantiated by peer reviewed (the proper kind of peer review, not review by people who agree with you).
yes, it is not academic to dismiss something without proof, what you have to understand is that we do not wish to go through that process again everytime a YEC comes back thinking he has found definitive proof about a 6 day creation.
icr and answersingenesis are biased. one tends to dismiss it automatically. please post findings by professors who managed to get published by real science magazines.
"Dawkins the God Delusion "
that is the purpose of that book. as much as i read it, it is not really about evolution except to prove god is unnecessary. he attacks religion because his opinion is that is detrimental to science. i would agree it is detrimental to science if it mixes with it, i do not agree that a religious scientist is incapable of doing real science (as long as he keeps faith out of his work).
if you would read dawkins materials on evolution, watch his talks on just that subject, you would see he is a good biologist. that he comes off as arrogant is irrelevant in other instances is irrelevant.
Originally posted by KellyJayBut we're not discussing 'building things', we're discussing probability within evolutionary biology.
When it comes to building things I'd look to an engineer, when it comes
to issues in building things, I'd look to an engineer. So flaws in design
methodology are in a engineer's wheel house, not many of us here are
specialist in mathematics or biology.
I'd also ask that you quote or some how show the relevant parts of how
the Lenski e-coil experiment undeniably demonstrate this, saying it isn't
showing it.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by King Tigerhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
No, I do not think you've convinced me of anything other than one can't have an academic conversation with you. For some reason the discussion of probability I hear discussed in higher academics is wrong according to this thread. I find that interesting. I'm not avoiding you as you assert but rather refusing to be pulled in any further than I already have ...[text shortened]... n in the opposition rather than the material (read Dawkins the God Delusion for a healthy dose).
here is something from your own people. read it, it is better than nothing. ideas so stupid even your people are dismissing.
Originally posted by KellyJayHere you go, the first of a five part article written by Christian scientists detailing the Lenski experiments.
When it comes to building things I'd look to an engineer, when it comes
to issues in building things, I'd look to an engineer. So flaws in design
methodology are in a engineer's wheel house, not many of us here are
specialist in mathematics or biology.
I'd also ask that you quote or some how show the relevant parts of how
the Lenski e-coil experiment undeniably demonstrate this, saying it isn't
showing it.
Kelly
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-1
Originally posted by King TigerYour interpretation of any discussion about probability in higher academics is either wrong, or the higher academics in question have no business discussing probability.
No, I do not think you've convinced me of anything other than one can't have an academic conversation with you. For some reason the discussion of probability I hear discussed in higher academics is wrong according to this thread. I find that interesting. I'm not avoiding you as you assert but rather refusing to be pulled in any further than I already have ...[text shortened]... n in the opposition rather than the material (read Dawkins the God Delusion for a healthy dose).
The models you use in order to arrive at your probabilities are absurd, and your conclusions are little better.