OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?

[Ian Bell]

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:54:38 +0000, the renowned John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <j8d360pvrvoj1kicika19o7a9nbmvm5mom@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on
Wed, 24 Mar 2004:

It's entirely feasible (I think likely) that
DNA was designed by somebody;

I don't know about 'designed', but he was obviously 'created' by Mr and
Mrs Genome.

Seems like you're making some unwarranted assumptions there..

Are you suggesting that its Mrs Genome and the mailman?

If the cap fits ;-)

Ian

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5591d176.0403240739.20548844@posting.google.com...

Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism?

Or Trolls?

 

[Bob Stephens]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:48:19 +0100, Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5591d176.0403240739.20548844@posting.google.com...
Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism?

Or Trolls?

Bingo.

 

[The other John Smith]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EBl8c.148$Xi5.82@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

DNA may well not act purely by random mutations, in principle, but that
doesn't imply a creator from that non randomness.

Exactly. Water is composed of H2O. So given two H and one O, how will they
combine? Well, the possibilities are OHH, HOH, and HHO. So 1/3 of all H2O
molecules should be OHH, right? They're not. They are all HOH. They do not
combine randomly. So why does DNA have to be a product of randomness?

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:15:53 -0800, the renowned "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:54:38 +0000, the renowned John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <j8d360pvrvoj1kicika19o7a9nbmvm5mom@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on
Wed, 24 Mar 2004:

It's entirely feasible (I think likely) that
DNA was designed by somebody;

I don't know about 'designed', but he was obviously 'created' by Mr and
Mrs Genome.

Seems like you're making some unwarranted assumptions there..

Are you suggesting that its Mrs Genome and the mailman?

An appropriately old joke:-

Doctor: "Mrs. Genome, I have some wonderful news".

Patient: "It's *Miss* Genome".

Doctor: "Miss Genome, I have some bad news".

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:16:22 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:47:47 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:



Yeah, dream on. You know the one, extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.

But this universe, and this planet in particular, are extraordinary.
John

Kind of hard to tell with a sample of only one. There could be
billions more just about the same. From what we can tell, the sun is a
rather ordinary star. The MP troupe had this to say about the matter:


Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[John Popelish]

Dave wrote:

Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism?
(snip)

What fraction of engineers do you imagine are creationists?

Of the engineers who are creationists, what fraction do you imagine
were creationists before they trained to be engineers?

Early training is hard to get around.

--
John Popelish

 

[Richard Lamb]

Scott Stephens wrote:

Dave wrote:

Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism?


"Chance favors the prepared organism". An organism at the right place at
the right time will experience "luck" in being blessed with a usefully
adaptionaly beneficial mutation, if it will allow it to enable the
universe to reach thermodynamic equilibrium faster.

It appears causality is violated, in the an apparently random process is
subverted in that the outcome determines a course of reactions, as if
some intelligent hand were rigging the dice. But this is only because we
are condemned to view the universe along the cause-effect delusion
created by the thermodynamic arrow of time our consciousness processes
information.

That is my theory of "Good Luck" =)

--
Scott

**********************************

Excellent sermon, Reverend Scott.

Amen!

 

[JeffM]

this isn't acceptable to many of the supporters of creationism.
Their preferred curriculum is one of indoctrination in the biblical
scriptures, not critical thinking about the process.
Paul Hovnanian

Amen, brother Paul. Preach!

The thing about critical thinking
is that it robs the high priests of their power.

 

[JeffM]

But then, there's not a lot of point
in teaching the theory of evolution in public schools, either...
it's not of much practical use to the average citizen.
John Larkin

The part that makes me smile is the dairy farmers et al
(whose daily routine is based on selective breeding)
are so often also the first in line to decry Darwinism.

 

[Walter Harley]

"The other John Smith" <jocjo-john@yooha.com> wrote in message
news:THo8c.37061$%06.517@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Exactly. Water is composed of H2O. So given two H and one O, how will they
combine? Well, the possibilities are OHH, HOH, and HHO. So 1/3 of all H2O
molecules should be OHH, right? They're not. They are all HOH. They do not
combine randomly. So why does DNA have to be a product of randomness?

The assertion "the possibilities are OHH, HOH, and HHO" is specious. It is
an artifact of inadequate descriptive language, not a meaningful statement
of the actual set of possibilities. The relationship between the hydrogen
and oxygen atoms in a water molecule is angular, not linear; it is a
consequence of electrostatic forces between the atoms.

 

[Robert Reimiller]

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message news:<4061E6B9.6A75AFDB@Hovnanian.com>...

There are quite a few good courses that examine the various religions'
views of creationism, reincarnation, etc., etc. but these are usually
found at the college level. If one were to attempt this at the public
school (K-12) level, the outcry from the fundamentalist right would be
as loud (if not louder) than that from the secular left.

I remember many years ago taking a class in american "high school"
(probably about grade 11 or 12) titled something like "comparitive
religion". Not sure if those sorts of classes (this was the 70's) are
around anymore. It was interesting, but I had already deduced a few
years earlier that as far as religion goes, people just made that shit
up.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Robert Reimiller wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message news:<4061E6B9.6A75AFDB@Hovnanian.com>...
There are quite a few good courses that examine the various religions'
views of creationism, reincarnation, etc., etc. but these are usually
found at the college level. If one were to attempt this at the public
school (K-12) level, the outcry from the fundamentalist right would be
as loud (if not louder) than that from the secular left.

I remember many years ago taking a class in american "high school"
(probably about grade 11 or 12) titled something like "comparitive
religion". Not sure if those sorts of classes (this was the 70's) are
around anymore. It was interesting, but I had already deduced a few
years earlier that as far as religion goes, people just made that shit
up.

L. Ron Hubbard comes to mind.

I think one has to examine the teachings of the various religions with
the intended audience of their time in mind. Questioning the scripture
that says the world was created in 6 days isn't heresy. It was a story
(whether made up or handed down from a higher power) that was crafted to
be understood by people that wouldn't know how to handle the age of the
universe being 14,000,000,006 years old.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5591d176.0403240739.20548844@posting.google.com...
Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism?

Or Trolls?

Trolls are snookered by Creationism as well? At least they're in good
company.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

 

[Glenn Ashmore]

I have just skimmed this long thread but you guys must realize that the
scientific method is under attack not only by the religious right but,
for a different motive, by the current administration as well.

To placate the Dubya's political base, the parks department is allowing
the book store at the Grand Canyon to sell a creationist book claiming
that the canyon is only 10,000 years old, created by Noah's flood.

http://www.geotimes.org/current/NN_grandcanyoncreation.html

The Union of Concerned Scientists is accusing the President's science
advisor is manuipulating government studies that do not fit into the
administration's agenda.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/report.html

This is a VERY dangerous group of people we have running the country
right now.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

 

[The other John Smith]

"Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:c3tebi$5qj$0@216.39.172.65...

"The other John Smith" <jocjo-john@yooha.com> wrote in message
news:THo8c.37061$%06.517@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Exactly. Water is composed of H2O. So given two H and one O, how will
they
combine? Well, the possibilities are OHH, HOH, and HHO. So 1/3 of all
H2O
molecules should be OHH, right? They're not. They are all HOH. They do
not
combine randomly. So why does DNA have to be a product of randomness?

The assertion "the possibilities are OHH, HOH, and HHO" is specious. It
is
an artifact of inadequate descriptive language, not a meaningful statement
of the actual set of possibilities. The relationship between the hydrogen
and oxygen atoms in a water molecule is angular, not linear; it is a
consequence of electrostatic forces between the atoms.

I paraphrased it from something Isaac Asimov had written. I wasn't trying
for accuracy, just trying to get an idea across. How would you describe the
same idea using the hydrogen and oxygen atoms?

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlog
DOTyou.knowwhat> wrote (in <9074601pln9ngpjp83h51bnskdfgssklni@4ax.com&gt
about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Wed, 24 Mar
2004:

An appropriately old joke:-

Doctor: "Mrs. Genome, I have some wonderful news".

Patient: "It's *Miss* Genome".

Doctor: "Miss Genome, I have some bad news".

Kids these days wouldn't understand that.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Scott Stephens wrote:

Dave wrote:

Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism?

Snookered is not quite accurate. Creationism is a theory.

Nonsense. Creationism is aimless speculation. It is most certainly not a
theory.

Evolution
via natural selection is a theory. Some theories are better than
others, in this case, both theories have shortcomings their opponents
justify their own flawed beliefs on.

Ho hummm. You have no idea what "theory" means. I am not going to repeat
the obvious, its well explained e.g. the talk origins faq.

Random natural selection can't explain adaptive mutation.

Of course it can, and trivially so.

Compound,
random successive scrambling of ordered systems make them more
disordered.

But not relevant. Evolution doesn't work like this.

A proof would be to play the lotter, removing each winning
number from a set a random number generator produced. Or putting some
electronic parts or nuts and bolts in a million blenders and waiting
for a computer or wrist-watch to fly out, or dropping a bomb in a
million junk yards until an aircraft was created from the debris.

Evolution doesn't work like this.

Many seem to miss the fundamentals of evolution. It is initial *non*
random selection of "randomly" generated traits. However, this
"randomness" of generated traits, after sufficient evolution it is no
longer random. If a Replicater, by chance, develops a trait to select
other traits that aid in its Replication, then such a trait will now act
in a non random way. That is, it does not select traits randomly. If the
trait is a trait that controls a "random" trait generator, such traits
will be non random. It only selects good traits. However, it doesn't
require any conscious superior entity to take such directed action.

This is explained in
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html, at the Darwinian
Purpose paragraph. Its simply a fallacy that directed action does not
exist in evolution.

This paper http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/specialreplicators.html
might also be required for the above.

On the other hand, Creationists are typically brought up in the faith
as children, believing the Bible is the very word of God. Every other
notion they hear, they must reconcile to the fundamental core of their
belief system - that the Bible is God's ultimate truth. A book that is
often literally interpreted as history, rather than as a profound
alagory about life. Creationists must reconcile what science they
learn with their Biblical understanding, or discount it as demonic
deception.

I have a mystic belief myself, believing in aspects of both. Life is a
property of particles (a sub-set of the universe' space-time
real-estate) which seek to act to maintain their ability to act to
preserve their influence. Life seeks to flourish, to adapt and
proliferate by sensing, deciding, and acting.

Yes, but this requires zero mysticism to explain.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Walter Harley wrote:

"The other John Smith" <jocjo-john@yooha.com> wrote in message
news:THo8c.37061$%06.517@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Exactly. Water is composed of H2O. So given two H and one O, how
will they combine? Well, the possibilities are OHH, HOH, and HHO. So
1/3 of all H2O molecules should be OHH, right? They're not. They are
all HOH. They do not combine randomly. So why does DNA have to be a
product of randomness?

The assertion "the possibilities are OHH, HOH, and HHO" is specious.
It is an artifact of inadequate descriptive language, not a
meaningful statement of the actual set of possibilities. The
relationship between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in a water
molecule is angular, not linear; it is a consequence of electrostatic
forces between the atoms.

Non of this is relevant to the *point* being made. The details are
simply not important. What is important, is that the laws of physics
demand some action other than another action. For example, a random
collection of charges in a box wont remain random. They will take up
positions demanded by the force laws between them.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:16:22 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:47:47 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:



Yeah, dream on. You know the one, extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.

But this universe, and this planet in particular, are extraordinary.
John

Kind of hard to tell with a sample of only one. There could be
billions more just about the same. From what we can tell, the sun is a
rather ordinary star. The MP troupe had this to say about the matter:


Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

An I'll wash that down with a waaafer thin mint.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.