tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4980637524105699537..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: What does Stephen Meyer really think?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69357980223092857442015-11-16T13:57:25.713-05:002015-11-16T13:57:25.713-05:00No, we are left with a link to one of the places w...No, we are left with a link to one of the places where you have tried to peddle your stuff before. Anyone can visit it to see that discussion with you is pointless.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54425578679959622522015-11-16T13:20:52.842-05:002015-11-16T13:20:52.842-05:00Piotr Gąsiorowski: "incoherent nonsense"...Piotr Gąsiorowski: "incoherent nonsense"<br /><br />If we remove the derogatory comments, we get a NULL_INPUT_ERROR.ItBeMwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831217883090341492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7017032338170109272015-11-16T12:17:53.279-05:002015-11-16T12:17:53.279-05:00Are you going to spam this blog with the same inco...Are you going to spam this blog with the same incoherent nonsense you've been posting <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2015/10/22/throwback-thursday-how-dark-matters-1-competitor-died-synopsis/" rel="nofollow">elsewhere</a>?Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16080235673948621432015-11-16T12:04:56.662-05:002015-11-16T12:04:56.662-05:00Warren Johnson: The timescale for evolution on ear...Warren Johnson: The timescale for evolution on earth is not in doubt.<br /><br />The timescale, contrary to empirical science, is based on a "fudge factor" theory, named after its fudge factors; officially called "Lambda-CDM model." Lambda = dark energy, CDM = cold dark matter.<br /><br />"Cosmologists have another saying they like to cite: 'You get to invoke the tooth fairy only once,' meaning dark matter, 'but now we have to invoke the tooth fairy twice,' meaning dark energy." NY Times: (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11dark.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)<br /><br />The timescale is based on 96% fudge factors, 100% if we consider inflation.<br /><br /><br />Warren Johnson: It is determined from geology, chemistry, and physics...<br /><br />It is determined by unfalsifiable theories that require the subject to be isolated from external influences not covered by the theory.<br /><br />There's not a single atom on earth that isn't in a constant state of change.<br /><br />The international prototype kilogram is 90% platinum and 10% iridium and is machined into a right-circular cylinder to minimize its surface area. Stored in locked vaults all over the world, everything possible is done to maintain the integrity if the prototype kilogram.<br /><br />Yet, "masses of the entire worldwide ensemble of prototypes have been slowly but inexorably diverging from each other." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram)<br /><br /><br />Warren Johnson: ...the earth is 4.4 billion years old...<br /><br />Empirical science says galaxies and clusters aren't in sustained orbits, thus they can't be billions of years old.<br /><br /><br />Another NASA paper; "The problem of the missing mass ... It is an embarrassment, an obstacle to understanding such things as the structure of galaxies, the evolution of clusters of galaxies, and the ultimate fate of the universe." (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-466/ch22.htm)<br /><br /><br />Warren Johnson: ...age of the universe of 10 billion years... ...favored an age of 20 billion years old...<br /><br />Irregardless of what age one wants to assume the age of the universe is, galaxies and clusters flying apart can't be billions of years old.<br /><br />observation; "...Ambartsumian, ...they are disintegrating, and missing mass is not needed." (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Biviano2/Biviano4_2.html)<br /><br /><br />Warren Johnson: Lots of new evidence has appeared in recent years...<br /><br />Warren Johnson: ...Ethan Siegel has blogged...<br /><br />Ethan Siegel's blog: "...whatever’s making up 98% of the mass of the Universe..."<br /><br />So, the "missing mass problem" hasn't gone away. Observation still shows that galaxies and clusters are flying apart and can't be billions of years old.<br /><br />(Falsification of Dark Matter)<br /><br />What you may have missed in Ethan Siegel's blog, was the falsification if dark matter.<br /><br />"But small-scales still posed a problem for dark matter; it still isn’t as good at explaining the rotation of individual galaxies..."<br /><br />We have to remember that 'dark matter' is just a 'fudge factor' added to change observation to match the theory.<br /><br />The observation dark matter was added to change was galaxies and clusters flying apart.<br /><br />However, the invocation of 'gravitational lensing' to prove the existence of Dark Matter, put dark matter in the wrong place to solve the 'missing mass problem.'<br /><br />The falsification of Dark Matter, falsifies the "Lambda-CDM (cold dark matter) model."<br /><br />"This may indicate that the prevailing cosmological model is insufficient to describe the mass discrepancy on galaxy scales, or that its predictions about the shape of the universe are incorrect." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster)<br /><br />So, we're left without any theories to solve the "missing mass problem."<br /><br />Now we're stuck with reality (empirical science without fudge factors), galaxies and clusters are flying apart and can't be billions of years old!<br /><br />ItBeMwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831217883090341492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86122523739902319692015-11-16T03:46:18.266-05:002015-11-16T03:46:18.266-05:00To ItBeMw. No, this is not a high school science...To ItBeMw. No, this is not a high school science blog, but a blog by a well-know biochemist, Prof. Larry Moran. Most of the regulars here are highly competent biologists, not astronomers. <br /><br />The timescale for evolution on earth is not in doubt. It is determined from geology, chemistry, and physics, and could be summarized by saying the earth is 4.4 billion years old, single cell life started more than 3 billion years ago, and the extensive fossil record of multi-cellular life starts at the beginning of the Cambrian around 541 million years ago. <br /><br />Your references refer (mostly) to old arguments about the age of the Universe, which used to mean arguments about the value of the Hubble constant. In the 1980's, de Vaucoulours argued passionately for a value of 100 km per sec per megaparsec, which leads to an age of the universe of 10 billion years, and Sandage argued equally passionately that the observational data favored an age of 20 billion years old. Whichever, there was never any reason to doubt the geological age of the earth. You can find references to this in the wikipedia article on "Hubble's law". <br /><br />Lots of new evidence has appeared in recent years, and the current consensus is that age of the Universe is almost exactly half way between those old estimates (on a log scale). <br /><br />You refer to Trippe, who is a commentator who still favors "MOND theory" as an alternative to "dark matter". Since it is an ad hoc theory, and dark matter is favored by a number of new observations (especially gravitational lensing), he is pretty much beating a dead horse. Somewhere on the web, astrophysicist Ethan Siegel has blogged the claim that MOND is completely ruled out now. Warren Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06591039769610420106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76277504100332907472015-11-15T21:07:21.310-05:002015-11-15T21:07:21.310-05:00Is this a high school blog?Is this a high school blog?ItBeMwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831217883090341492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84096674195348487032015-11-15T20:58:20.451-05:002015-11-15T20:58:20.451-05:00ItBeMw, please go away before you do something wei...ItBeMw, please go away before you do something weirder.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37327531626492372982015-11-15T20:43:52.058-05:002015-11-15T20:43:52.058-05:00I didn't post the second one.I didn't post the second one.ItBeMwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831217883090341492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34454906111875611602015-11-15T20:34:12.354-05:002015-11-15T20:34:12.354-05:00At least Robert doesn't post the same comment ...At least Robert doesn't post the same comment twice in 61 minutes. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36003361893447908662015-11-15T19:59:42.620-05:002015-11-15T19:59:42.620-05:00Are people already auditioning to be Robert Byers&...Are people already auditioning to be Robert Byers' replacement? He hasn't even been banned yet.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84303758354546602302015-11-15T19:06:52.914-05:002015-11-15T19:06:52.914-05:00You've stirred in too much fudge into your tho...You've stirred in too much fudge into your thoughts. Truth to tell, the stuff is almost undiluted fudge.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71079918228235947692015-11-15T18:52:51.505-05:002015-11-15T18:52:51.505-05:00Galaxies and clusters can't be billions of yea...Galaxies and clusters can't be billions of years old, according to empirical science.<br /><br />The evolutionary timescale is based on fantasy. <br /><br />Known since the 1930's; galaxies and clusters are flying apart; "missing mass problem."<br /><br />http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Biviano2/Biviano4_2.html<br /><br />"unless one is prepared to make wild hypotheses outside the realm of verification by direct observation ... the 'hidden-mass' hypothesis must be ruled out" (de Vaucouleurs)<br /><br />A "fudge factor", dark matter, was added so that we can pretend that galaxies and clusters are in sustained orbits; "wild hypotheses outside the realm of verification by direct observation..." (de Vaucouleurs)<br /><br />A "fudge factor" is something added to a theory to change observation to match the theory.<br /><br />'The standard approach to this "missing mass problem" has been the postulate of "dark matter"...'; http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5904 (Sascha Trippe)<br /><br />However, fantasy dark matter has been falsified for solving the "missing mass problem."<br /><br />"More importantly, astronomical observations obtained during the last decade indicate that dark matter cannot explain the kinematics of galaxies." http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5904 (Sascha Trippe)<br /><br />"dark matter ... offers no specific insight into the original galaxy rotation problem. In fact, the observed ratio of dark matter to visible matter in a typical rich galaxy cluster is much lower than predicted. This may indicate that the prevailing cosmological model is insufficient to describe the mass discrepancy on galaxy scales, or that its predictions about the shape of the universe are incorrect."; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster<br /><br />How is it even possible to pretend to add a 80% to 90% fudge factor to all the mass in the universe? What time frame is the mass added? What happens to the kinematics after one adds this fictitious mass to objects countless light years apart? Are new galaxies and clusters always formed with the missing mass in tow? <br /><br />The actual scientific observation is that galaxies and clusters are flying apart and can't be billions of years old.<br /><br />Evolution's timescale is based on a falsified fudge factor.<br /><br /><br />ItBeMwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831217883090341492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65315775612294563612015-11-13T22:40:13.856-05:002015-11-13T22:40:13.856-05:00Larry:
While you're "pontificating,"...Larry:<br /><br />While you're "pontificating," answer this question: what is a species?Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10765261853092519222015-11-12T06:33:57.427-05:002015-11-12T06:33:57.427-05:00“What natural selection lacks, intelligent selecti...“What natural selection lacks, intelligent selection--purposive or goal-directed design--provides. Rational agents can arrange both matter and symbols with distant goals in mind. In using language, the human mind routinely finds or generates highly improbable linguistic sequences to convey an intended or preconceived idea. … <br />Indeed, in all functionally integrated complex systems where the cause is known by experience or observation, design engineers or other intelligent agents applied boundary constraints to limit possibilities in order to produce improbable forms, sequences or structures. Rational agents have repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to constrain the possible to actualize improbable but initially unrealized future functions. Repeated experience affirms that intelligent agents (minds) uniquely possess such causal powers.”<br /><br />It infuriates me to read dishonest crap like that. It's just 'my chosen God-did-it' dressed up in sciency sounding language. In their lame attempts to sound as though they are doing good science, meyer and the rest of the IDiot-creationist cultists are just trying to <b>steal</b> the credibility of good science and attach it to their heinous theocratic agenda, and there is nothing rational or intelligent about believing in, worshiping, and promoting a contradictory, malicious, petty, jealous, murderous, irrational, imaginary, impossible sky daddy. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27691714717201328682015-11-12T05:50:49.661-05:002015-11-12T05:50:49.661-05:00I just read o'leary's "Complex skelet...I just read o'leary's "Complex skeletons form 550 mya ("earlier than realized")" post at UD and her "Stasis: Life Goes On but Evolution Does Not Happen" post at ENV that she linked to. Letting her and paying her to be a mouthpiece for ID at UD and ENV is a great example of how deranged IDiot-creationists are. <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-997341170438746902015-11-11T19:41:33.335-05:002015-11-11T19:41:33.335-05:00News seems to reason more or less like this:
Thos...News seems to reason more or less like this:<br /><br />Those guys say <i>Namacalathus</i> is a bona fide lophotrochozoan. So let's agree there were lophotrochozoans before the Cambrian explosion. If life evolves, why are there still lophotrochozoans?<br /><br />She doesn't see it's a problem for the "sudden creation of new body types", because she can't think of two things at the same time.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10685209611582109662015-11-11T19:28:59.629-05:002015-11-11T19:28:59.629-05:00Well, we didn't realize how this could be anyt...Well, we didn't realize how this could be anything but a problem for creationists. But over at UD, News/O'Leary points to it as evidence that <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/complex-skeletons-from-550-mya-earlier-than-realized/" rel="nofollow">Complex skeletons form 550 mya ("earlier than realized")</a>.<br /><br />It surprised evolutionists, so it must be a refutation of evolution.<br /><br />I would have thought that seeing bryozoans popping up before the Cambrian would be a problem for Stephen Meyer. Denyse O'Leary makes it sound like support!Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25052449113934341682015-11-11T11:24:51.333-05:002015-11-11T11:24:51.333-05:00The title of this article is "What does Steph...The title of this article is "What does Stephen Meyer really think?", that's true. The body of the article itself spells out the specific questions regarding which Meyer's views are unclear. Thanks for finally admitting that you are as ignorant about that as everyone else seems to be. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71101790119350851722015-11-11T11:19:10.961-05:002015-11-11T11:19:10.961-05:00The question was ‘what does Meyer think?’
The pape...The question was ‘what does Meyer think?’<br />The paper linked to seems to cover that question reasonably well.<br />I have no special knowledge beyond that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-839480916522298952015-11-11T09:29:37.127-05:002015-11-11T09:29:37.127-05:00If a designer was assigned a goal, and it took him...If a designer was assigned a goal, and it took him/her billions of years of trial and error with an almost constant 99% error (extinction) rate to complete his special design in such an inefficient way (a huge universe with a tiny habitable planet) he would've been fired on the spot. Repeated experience affirms it could only have been a politicianDazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619622297229101066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57297307365141472152015-11-11T06:33:20.099-05:002015-11-11T06:33:20.099-05:00Right. So to exactly which "rational agents&...Right. So to exactly which "rational agents" is Meyer referring? Which "matter" and "symbols" the they arrange, and how did they arrange them, to cause the emergence of animals during the Cambrian explosion? Are you saying these agents did not actually intervene during the Cambrian, but somehow set conditions up, maybe at the time of the big bang, such that the evolution of giraffes 14 billion years later was inevitable? Exactly how did these "rational beings" do this? Or is Meyer saying something else entirely?<br /><br />"Rational beings did it." is not an explanation.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19926369043727943722015-11-11T06:28:01.865-05:002015-11-11T06:28:01.865-05:00"What natural selection lacks"
The prob..."What natural selection lacks"<br /><br />The problem is that Meyer doesn't understand how evolution works and thus has no idea what it is capable of. Same for the rest of the ID crowd. Look at Uncommon Descent with Barry thinking that evolution somehow predicted pseudo genes and their slow decay. Evolution had no idea they even existed until molecular biologists observed them and reported their existence.<br /><br />ID: The "science" that doesn't know the difference between a prediction and an observation.Dave Mullenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396248292343586723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10074398688904085682015-11-11T02:08:24.111-05:002015-11-11T02:08:24.111-05:00lutesuite,
I just read the article I linked to, so...lutesuite,<br />I just read the article I linked to, so this is new for me.<br />From the article linked to above (second to last paragraph above the conclusion)-<br />“What natural selection lacks, intelligent selection--purposive or goal-directed design--provides. Rational agents can arrange both matter and symbols with distant goals in mind. In using language, the human mind routinely finds or generates highly improbable linguistic sequences to convey an intended or preconceived idea. … <br />Indeed, in all functionally integrated complex systems where the cause is known by experience or observation, design engineers or other intelligent agents applied boundary constraints to limit possibilities in order to produce improbable forms, sequences or structures. Rational agents have repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to constrain the possible to actualize improbable but initially unrealized future functions. Repeated experience affirms that intelligent agents (minds) uniquely possess such causal powers.”<br /><br />He’s talking about an observable process. With the proper constraints the process you discuss (Neo-darwinism plus drift) might fit the description.<br />It’s a bit like this maybe-<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81490858495357256622015-11-11T01:17:42.568-05:002015-11-11T01:17:42.568-05:00Larry, if it's my comment that you're refe...Larry, if it's my comment that you're referring to, feel free to quote it and/or any other comment of mine. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77051760510455110332015-11-10T22:46:49.482-05:002015-11-10T22:46:49.482-05:00You're welcome.You're welcome. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.com