OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.cont
raspam.yuk> wrote (in <oL6vUFCfPpYAFwOR@jmwa.demon.co.uk&gt about 'OT:
Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar 2004:

only life-forms that include non-destructive (or simply
inadequately efficient) DNA survive to reproduce.

Oops! That should be 'adequately efficient'.
--
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

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Roger Gt <not@here.net> wrote (in
<XOx8c.28521$iO7.13156@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar 2004:

Mystical like the "Seventh son of a seventh son"

And in what way is THAT mystical? As opposed to just 'of infrequency
occurrence'.
--
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

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Daniel Haude <haude@physnet.uni-
hamburg.de> wrote (in <slrnc65b1h.o2r.haude@kir.physnet.uni-hamburg.de&gt
about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar
2004:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:54:13 -0500,
Glenn Ashmore <gashmore3@cox.net> wrote
in Msg. <WXr8c.3123$pM.1875@lakeread04
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,

Who is "the current administration"? This is an international newsgroup.

Indeed. But you are not allowed to know who or what the current
administration at world level is. (;-)
--
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

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Daniel Haude <haude@physnet.uni-
hamburg.de> wrote (in <slrnc65aj7.o2r.haude@kir.physnet.uni-hamburg.de&gt
about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar
2004:

On 24 Mar 2004 07:39:14 -0800,
Dave <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote
in Msg. <5591d176.0403240739.20548844@posting.google.com

Yes the universe is filled with unknowns. Shall every unknown be a
rationale for religious fervor until it is finally understood?

This is what a vested expert on unknowns had to say about this subject
recently:

As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We
also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are
some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the
ones we don't know we don't know.

Indeed. That is all perfectly logical and correct. Only fools find it
amusing. Most scientists have realised the facts embodied in that
statement since the complacency at the end of the 19th century was
shattered by new and totally unexpected discoveries.

Things we know that we know:

Electromagnetics (Maxwell)

Things we know that we don't know:

Turbulence

Things we don't know that we don't know:

{I'm not allowed to tell you about them.](;-)
--
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

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Scott Stephens
<scottxs@comcast.net> wrote (in <i0z8c.89159$1p.1343704@attbi_s54&gt
about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar
2004:

Creationists operating on the premise that the Biblical
account is accurate develope hypothesis and set out to do experiments
which prove their convictions.

Do you know of any reports of the results of these experiments?
--
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:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Snookered is not quite accurate. Creationism is a theory.

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

It is a theory.

No it aint. Sorry mate, but your completely clueless on this, so much so
I cant be bothered to correct you.

Creationists operating on the premise that the
Biblical account is accurate develope hypothesis and set out to do
experiments which prove their convictions.

ROTHLMAO. Get real.

Show me someone walking, unaided, on water... I suppose you'll cop out
and say, well, he didn't have the holes in his feet the first time
around.

It is prejudiced science, but science just the same.

Simply, clueless. Oh dear, you the bit about experimental support...

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.

You have no idea what an open-mind means.

Here we go..., one is not so open minded that ones brains fall out.

Look, dudes, those of us who have *really* looked at this, know what the
score is, e.g. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/religion.html

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


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

Yes, like the gambler that figures the same lottery number wont come
up again, he eliminates it from his randomly generated list.

Again, clueless. This is apples and fishnet stockings. Its a totally
irrelevant statement.

And he looses his shirt.

Evolution doesn't work like this.

No doubt it works the way your faith in your college profs that are
supplanting the theocracy, in their moral claim for the tithes of the
believers.

What a cop out. It got f'all to do with what I have been taught. I have
never been taught to be a non-believer. Quite the contrary, throughout
school in the UK, they drum it into you that there is a supreme entity.

You comment is simply incededible. My beliefs are based on a solid
understanding of the way it is, i.e. theoretical arguments backed up by
extensive experimental support, to wit,
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html. Faith is simply
irrelevant.

Socialists demand tithes from the taxpayers for their
monopoly on the wisdom to tell us our lives our meaningless,

In the big scheme of things, they are. Live with it.

and they
are deserving of our private property and servitude for the moral
authority to tell us we're accidents.

We are. End of story. Not liking the idea is irrelevant. You clearly
believe what you want to believe in, not how it actually is. Grow up
sonny.

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.

And it just happens to know ahead of time what independent structure
will independently evolve to symbioticaly cooperate to produce a
beneficial adaptation.

Its a guessimate, based on past learning. It doesn't always work, but
its better than pure random chance, and that is all that matters.

Essentially, you have no idea at all. You are spouting off about thing
that you have not the slightest idea about other than knowing the words.
You say nothing, new, and all of it well refuted in any basic
introduction to evolution.

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.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTR
ACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <gDB8c.75$a.28@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net

) about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25
Mar 2004:
Quite the contrary, throughout
school in the UK, they drum it into you that there is a supreme entity.

There are TWO. Apart from the head teacher, there's the canteen
manageress. Greatly to be feared and revered. (;-)
--
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

 

[Richard Henry]

"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.

Which atom is at the vertex of the angle? In what proportion of the water
molecules?

 

[Bob Stephens]

On 24 Mar 2004 17:27:50 -0800, JeffM wrote:

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.

"In a soldier's stance I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach.
Fearing not I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preached."

- Bob Dylan

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigita
l@earthlink.net> wrote (in <1lerahir2404s$.d04tzhud9lck$.dlg@40tude.net>
) about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25
Mar 2004:

On 24 Mar 2004 17:27:50 -0800, JeffM wrote:

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.

"In a soldier's stance I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach.
Fearing not I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preached."


Makes about as much sense as most of his lyrics - zilch.

--
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

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:37:23 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin 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.


In your opinion maybe, but not mine. Your argument is circular.

Maybe I'm just having more fun than you are.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:44:14 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> 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.

We should be grateful that it is. Many stars would periodically toast
all of their temperate satellites. If Earth were a few percent closer
or farther from the Sun, we wouldn't be alive. If the Sun were closer
to the galactic center, we'd be blasted by supernova gammas often
enough to sterilize everything; if farther out, we'd be poor in heavy
elements.

Earth is an uncannily lucky place. We have an atmosphere dense enough
for flight and clear enough to see the stars. We have free oxygen
above, free fuel below, and lots of beautifully differentiated metals
and minerals to make things out of. We have liquid water, clouds, ice,
and snow to ski on. I like it.

John

 

[Roger Gt]

X-No-Archive: yes
"John Woodgate" wrote
: Roger Gt wrote :
: >Mystical like the "Seventh son of a seventh son"
: And in what way is THAT mystical? As opposed to just 'of
infrequency
: occurrence'.

The Seventh son of a seventh son was to be able to see the future.
Have the power to heal, and other powers. Are you saying you have
never read anything from what you would call the Occult? If not
you have a really Big hole in your learning.

Have you at least read the Apocrypha?

May Bast forgive you, and Hectare bless your house.

There are 1580 Deities common in our Pantheon. You know of only
one?

Come on, you pulling my leg!

 

[Roger Gt]

X-No-Archive: yes
"Scott Stephens" wrote
: Glenn Ashmore wrote:
:
: Yea, a lot of this is about politics. Who gets your tax dollars
to
: impress the public with their rhetoric.
:
<snip>
: > This is a VERY dangerous group of people we have running the
country
: > right now.

A group which replaced an equally corrupt group who are attacking
the current administration.

Nice thing about elections, they are implied violence against the
very ones we dislike, and the one's we dislike most are not in
power.

The Left is out, now we need to get the Religious right out!

 

[Bob Stephens]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:47:01 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigita
l@earthlink.net> wrote (in <1lerahir2404s$.d04tzhud9lck$.dlg@40tude.net
) about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25
Mar 2004:
On 24 Mar 2004 17:27:50 -0800, JeffM wrote:

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.

"In a soldier's stance I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach.
Fearing not I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preached."


Makes about as much sense as most of his lyrics - zilch.

Whoops! I sense a generation gap issue.

Give me the good old days when lyrics made sense like:

"Zing! Boom! Tarrarell..."

or

"The Flat Foot Floozie with the Floy Floy"

~

 

[Walter Harley]

"Roger Gt" <not@here.net> wrote in message
news:2fw8c.28515$dc7.6021@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

"Walter Harley" wrote
: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote
: [...] Questioning the scripture
: > that says the world was created in 6 days isn't heresy. [...]

Actually it was 7. And 7 is a mystical prime number.

Genesis says the world was created in 6 days; on the seventh, the Creator
rested.

But whether you think it's 6 or 7, explaining it as "a mystical prime
number" is circular reasoning. Why is it mystical?

The thing that needs to be explained is this: since time immemorial, this
particular creation myth has been associated with the numbers 6 and 7. So
far as I know, this is true at least back to Sumerian times; but I don't
know how much before that it goes, my knowledge of ancient history and
mythology being fairly weak. Why, originally, in that distant past, did
they come up with (one of) those numbers? Was it because seven is prime; in
which case we need to explain why seven, rather than say five or eleven, was
chosen, and we need to know that they had a concept of primality? Was it
because six was the largest number they could express, or the largest number
that the average person could comprehend? Was six, or seven, a
mistranslation of some other word? Or was it simply that they felt the need
to parse the creation into multiple steps, and arbitrarily assigned each
step the duration of one conceptual "day"? The list of possibilities goes
on.

Any answer to that is likely to be purely speculative, given the lack of
real information. So it is interesting to me sure of their answers people
seem to be. To me, the sureness has the ring of received truth rather than
logical reasoning.

 

[Walter Harley]

"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:CkC8c.2664$Q45.779@fed1read02...

Which atom is at the vertex of the angle? In what proportion of the water
molecules?

Which corner is at the vertex of a triangle?

 

[Roger Gt]

X-No-Archive: yes
"Walter Harley" wrote
: "Roger Gt" wrote
: > Have you at least read the Apocrypha?
:
: I think John is playing devil's advocate, trying to force you to
be rigorous
: in your explanation. As shall I: since the Apocrypha were
written much
: later than Genesis, ideas in the Apocrypha cannot be used to
explain ideas
: in Genesis. You can't use the Apocrypha to explain why 7 was a
mystical
: number to the writers of Genesis (or the creation myths that it,
in turn,
: was founded upon). Try again

You clip out one line, make an un related and unwarranted
criticism and you want me to consider you as serious. I suggested
he read a broader range of the old documents, and you pop up with
some nonsense!

Genesis was actually not the original but came from earlier
writings, it simply survived! Look it up your self! There are no
"Ideas" in genesis. Only unattributed and unsupportable
statements.

Besides I think John is satan. (If you know what the word means)
Otherwise, never mind!
I thought I was engaging in a conversation, the lack of common
understanding makes that impossible. I do not instruct those who
do not seek to educate themselves.

 

[Roger Gt]

X-No-Archive: yes
"Walter Harley" wrote
: "Roger Gt" wrote
: > "Walter Harley" wrote
: > : "Paul Hovnanian" wrote
: > : [...] Questioning the scripture
: > : > that says the world was created in 6 days isn't heresy.
[...]
: >
: > Actually it was 7. And 7 is a mystical prime number.
:
: Genesis says the world was created in 6 days; on the seventh,
the Creator
: rested.
: But whether you think it's 6 or 7, explaining it as "a mystical
prime
: number" is circular reasoning. Why is it mystical?
:
<BS snipped>

http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/Seven.asp

Read it!

 

[Roger Gt]

X-No-Archive: yes
"Walter Harley" wrote
: "Roger Gt" wrote
: > "Walter Harley" wrote
: > : "Paul Hovnanian" wrote
: > : [...] Questioning the scripture
: > : > that says the world was created in 6 days isn't heresy.
[...]
: > Actually it was 7. And 7 is a mystical prime number.
:
: Genesis says the world was created in 6 days; on the seventh,
the Creator
: rested.
: But whether you think it's 6 or 7, explaining it as "a mystical
prime
: number" is circular reasoning. Why is it mystical?
:
: The thing that needs to be explained is this: since time
immemorial, this
: particular creation myth has been associated with the numbers 6
and 7.

The myth predate it's inclusion in this religion.

: So far as I know, this is true at least back to Sumerian times;
but I don't
: know how much before that it goes, my knowledge of ancient
history and
: mythology being fairly weak.
: Why, originally, in that distant past, did they come up with
(one of) those numbers?
: Was it because seven is prime; in
: which case we need to explain why seven, rather than say five or
eleven, was
: chosen, and we need to know that they had a concept of
primality? Was it
: because six was the largest number they could express, or the
largest number
: that the average person could comprehend? Was six, or seven, a
: mistranslation of some other word? Or was it simply that they
felt the need
: to parse the creation into multiple steps, and arbitrarily
assigned each
: step the duration of one conceptual "day"? The list of
possibilities goes
: on.
:
: Any answer to that is likely to be purely speculative, given the
lack of
: real information. So it is interesting to me sure of their
answers people
: seem to be. To me, the sureness has the ring of received truth
rather than
: logical reasoning.
:
http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/Seven.asp

Gee, don't you ever do any Googleing?