"A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan

[Dobermonster]

Gerry's anti-science stance is wonderfully illustrated in this post:
"
Again, I see your point. But in my personal case, I would be compromising my intuitions regarding the matter; intuitions that are based on 60-some years of first-hand experience. I'm not as willing as Dawkins and Crick to simply set aside the "illusion of design" that is so striking everywhere we look. And again, while it's true that "God's ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts," I don't think (on the grounds that we were created in His image) that His ways and thoughts are necessarily or utterly different in kind than ours; I believe it has to be more a matter of degree in any subject that is essential to us."

Science eschews intuition as a method for determining truth from non-truth. The scientific method is specifically organized and continually improved upon to compensate for the biases and flawed perspectives that "human intuition" may influence the data with. We are pattern-seeking, fearful creatures with limited cognition and senses that have evolved to operate within an extremely narrow scope. Our "intuition" is reasonably good at keeping us from being lion-fodder, but it's shit at intuiting that stars are massive spheres of dense gases or that time and space are inseparable concepts. You have to do better than "what my gut tells me" if you want to go beyond living in caves and build skyscrapers instead.

[Recusant]

Some homework for you: "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

I must admit, the title made me curious, so I went in. I must say, I was surprised, and in a very positive way, by how comprehensive that paper is, what with presenting the information in a bite-sized, for-the-uninitiated way.

It's a good primer on the strengths and shortcomings of radiometric dating methods. Some advances have been made since it was written, but in my opinion that doesn't detract very much from its usefulness. Young Earth Creationists tend to dismiss it, though.

[Niya]

Gerry, I think you should not rely on creation websites for articles on evolution they simply are wrong on many instances, as I also showed you in the last article you cited regarding bottlenecks. Much of what you answer to questions related to evolution is based in misinformation. If you look at the DNA alone, the evidence is undeniable. I don't want you to take my word for it but I would recommend spending a year studying evolution, in detail.

[Recusant]

. . . In fact, I got myself kicked off Dembski's Uncommon Descent site some years ago for pressing the issue.

They say that they've un-banned all previously banned accounts. "UD Announces General Amnesty"

[Icarus]

Gerry: Perhaps you do not know much about Niya. Here's the short description. She is biblical scholar, a Christian, a doctor of theology. She is quietly brilliant, one of our most respected and appreciated participants. Right, we are a bunch of atheists who care very much about a Christian lady who happens to be exceptionally well educated and superbly pleasant to deal with. Her advice is golden. Do what she says if you really want to learn about how we got here.

Niya, if you happen to be reading this, I will not put up with fits of modesty from you.

 

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Once you actually learn about a topic, in this case evolutionary theory,  you'll see just how much sense it makes.   As I've said before, forget fossils, most of the evidence for evolutionary theory hinges on molecular biology and genetics, things Darwin didn't even know about. It's a topic well worth researching in depth, and once you do so much makes sense.

When I look at things at the molecular level I see design, design, design, just like I see at ordinary everyday levels. This, for example: http://www.iubmb-nicholson.org/swf/ATPSynthase.swf

[xSilverPhinx]

Once you actually learn about a topic, in this case evolutionary theory,  you'll see just how much sense it makes.   As I've said before, forget fossils, most of the evidence for evolutionary theory hinges on molecular biology and genetics, things Darwin didn't even know about. It's a topic well worth researching in depth, and once you do so much makes sense.

When I look at things at the molecular level I see design, design, design, just like I see at ordinary everyday levels. This, for example: http://www.iubmb-nicholson.org/swf/ATPSynthase.swf

Why do you see design in ATP synthase? You think it's like a perfect motor or couldn't have evolved?

[Gerry Rzeppa]

If you change your mind and actually want to go through the science in the Wiens article and the counterclaims made by Walker, I am willing to do so.

Now and then I find myself roped into shopping for clothes with my wife. And the difference in our approaches is striking. She will enter a store, immediately go to the closest rack, and start looking for her size. I, on the other hand, will stand by the door and survey the entire store, get a general "feel" for the place, and make an "executive decision" about whether I even want to go further in at all. Sure, I may miss a few "extraordinary bargains" doing things my way; but on the whole my way has proven more effective in getting the job done.

It's the same thing here: I have no interest in details until I'm convinced regarding the overall plausibility of a theory; whether that theory is consistent with what I already know about myself, other people, the world, and the universe at large; whether the theory appears to be philosophically and artistically and emotionally and aesthetically and morally appealing (as well as scientifically accurate, a determination that is typically made at a later stage). What does it matter if a theory has all its detailed ducks in a row if there's a fatal flaw in the overall idea? Like this:

"The Principia Mathematica (by Russell and Whitehead) was an attempt to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. As such, this ambitious project is of great importance in the history of mathematics and philosophy, being one of the foremost products of the belief that such an undertaking may be achievable. However, in 1931, G?del's incompleteness theorem proved definitively that PM, and in fact any other attempt, could never achieve this lofty goal; that is, for any set of axioms and inference rules proposed to encapsulate mathematics, either the system must be inconsistent, or there must in fact be some truths of mathematics which could not be deduced from them."

Godel was also not a fan of evolutionary theory: "The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components."

Here's an interesting page on the mathematics of evolution: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/

[Gerry Rzeppa]

You have to do better than "what my gut tells me" if you want to go beyond living in caves and build skyscrapers instead.

Of course you do. But you don't want to ignore your gut either. After all, it's intuitions and inspirations and hunches and curiosities that drive the entire scientific enterprise. And in any case, you don't need (or want) the evolutionary paradigm when you're actually building skyscrapers. That kind of thing -- like everything else we make -- is a thoroughly top-down creationist endeavor.

[Niya]

 ???

[Niya]

Now and then I find myself roped into shopping for clothes with my wife. And the difference in our approaches is striking. She will enter a store, immediately go to the closest rack, and start looking for her size. I, on the other hand, will stand by the door and survey the entire store, get a general "feel" for the place, and make an "executive decision" about whether I even want to go further in at all. Sure, I may miss a few "extraordinary bargains" doing things my way; but on the whole my way has proven more effective in getting the job done.

It's the same thing here: I have no interest in details until I'm convinced regarding the overall plausibility of a theory; whether that theory is consistent with what I already know about myself, other people, the world, and the universe at large; whether the theory appears to be philosophically and artistically and emotionally and aesthetically and morally appealing (as well as scientifically accurate, a determination that is typically made at a later stage). What does it matter if a theory has all its detailed ducks in a row if there's a fatal flaw in the overall idea? Like this:

"The Principia Mathematica (by Russell and Whitehead) was an attempt to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. As such, this ambitious project is of great importance in the history of mathematics and philosophy, being one of the foremost products of the belief that such an undertaking may be achievable. However, in 1931, G?del's incompleteness theorem proved definitively that PM, and in fact any other attempt, could never achieve this lofty goal; that is, for any set of axioms and inference rules proposed to encapsulate mathematics, either the system must be inconsistent, or there must in fact be some truths of mathematics which could not be deduced from them."

Godel was also not a fan of evolutionary theory: "The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components."

Here's an interesting page on the mathematics of evolution: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/

As Pauli said it "It is not even wrong."

[Gerry Rzeppa]

If you look at the DNA alone, the evidence is undeniable.

When I look at DNA I see something that looks a lot like a program. And I know a lot about programs, having spent the better part of the last three decades creating them. And I know something about probabilities since I have a degree (with honors) in mathematics. Things like DNA are obviously designed. And randomly messing with the bits can only, in the end, degrade the system.

I don't want you to take my word for it but I would recommend spending a year studying evolution, in detail.

Here's a link to a page about the mathematics of evolution: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/ .  Perhaps you should spend just twenty minutes looking at that: it doesn't matter how enticing a story is if it's a mathematical impossibility.

I also highly recommend C. S. Lewis' The Funeral of a Great Myth (http://fpb.livejournal.com/297710.html) which clearly separates the mythical elements of the evolutionary paradigm from the actual scientific facts.

[Dobermonster]

You have to do better than "what my gut tells me" if you want to go beyond living in caves and build skyscrapers instead.

Of course you do. But you don't want to ignore your gut either. After all, it's intuitions and inspirations and hunches and curiosities that drive the entire scientific enterprise. And in any case, you don't need (or want) the evolutionary paradigm when you're actually building skyscrapers. That kind of thing -- like everything else we make -- is a thoroughly top-down creationist endeavor.

It drives the curiosity, but it's a very poor tool for determining the answers. And you are taking literally - on purpose?- the skyscraper analogy. It's a remark on intuition. You can't intuit your way into making an earthquake-resistant building, you have to operate on scientific principles, and scientific principles were made to compensate *for* the ineffectiveness of 'gut feelings'.
Example - which is the more aerodynamic craft?





Intuition would lead you to choose the second one. It looks like an airplane, it has wings. Its like what every kid makes to chuck across the classroom. But when you test the two designs, and study the physics, you find out that the cylinder will fly farther and straighter than the airplane-shaped one every time.

I'll step off here now...I think Niya might have a better insight into your way of thinking.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Why do you see design in ATP synthase?

As I said in another thread where we were discussing our ability to detect design: "We are alerted to the presence of design when we see several interacting parts working together to perform some kind of function." I see that in the ATP "motor".

You think it's like a perfect motor or couldn't have evolved?

I think such things are clearly designed and could not have evolved via the mechanisms currently proposed by materialists.

[xSilverPhinx]

Why do you see design in ATP synthase?

As I said in another thread where we were discussing our ability to detect design: "We are alerted to the presence of design when we see several interacting parts working together to perform some kind of function." I see that in the ATP "motor".

You think it's like a perfect motor or couldn't have evolved?

Yes, I think such things are designed and could not have evolved via the mechanisms currently proposed by materialists.

Actually here's one study that proposes that ATP synthase came about by modular evolution. That is, non related proteins evolved and combined to form the enzyme, it wasn't "designed" in one go. 

unit of the ATP synthase.

The F1 and F0 sectors of the ATP synthase have been proposed to have evolved from functionally unrelated ancestral proteins (Walker, 1998;Mulkidjanian et al, 2007). This is supported by earlier studies, indicating that F1 assembles independent of F0 (Schatz, 1968; Tzagoloff, 1969). Whether F0 can also assemble as an independent unit has been more difficult to unravel because of the high turnover rate of Atp6p and peripheral stalk subunits in mutants arrested in assembly of the F1?F0complex (Paul et al, 1989; Helfenbein et al, 2003). To circumvent this problem, we have taken advantage of the relative stability of the core subunits of F0 when they are synthesized in isolated mitochondria and of their ability to assemble into larger complexes (Herrmann et al, 1994b; Tzagoloff et al, 2004; Jia et al, 2007).