"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dead one

sephir0th wrote: »

There was awful disputes over whether the world was round or flat, and whether the sun went around the earth or vice versa. Both parties clearly wrong.

Like I said, there are fundamental flaws in creationism, there is truth somewhere in evolution and there is truth in some where in creationism... You cant cherry pick truth of one side to malign other...

Sarky

There is no truth in creationism. That's the whole point.

swampgas

dead one wrote: »

... The truth is in middle between creationism and evolutionist....

For one thing, there is no middle position between creationism and evolution - they are not on some kind of sliding scale.

For another thing, just because two people or groups have different ideas of the truth doesn't mean that the real truth is somewhere in the middle. One can be 100% right and the other 100% wrong. The truth should be determined on the merits of the arguments put forward, and that's where creationism falls down.

dead one

Sarky wrote: »

There is no truth in creationism

define truth, Is the truth incontrovertible, Is truth Malice free, Is truth faith-free?

dead one

swampgas wrote: »

. One can be 100% right and the other 100% wrong.

You're contradicting physics here... It isn't impossible for a machine to be 100 efficient -- Same is case of human, no human is perfect. We all have our errors

swampgas

sephir0th wrote: »

I'm confused, what is 'information' and how is it relevant in biological systems?

I had assumed (erroneously?) that information in this context corresponds to the content of an organism's DNA. I suspect that the creationist argument is that all mutations occur in way that reduces the total useful content of the information encoded in an organism's DNA.

This self-serving creationist view is not borne out by the observed behaviour of DNA in the real world, but hey, when has creationism been concerned with the facts?

swampgas

dead one wrote: »

define truth, Is the truth incontrovertible, Is truth Malice free, Is truth faith-free?

You say that 2+2=4, I say no, 2+2=5. (We're talking normal integers here, no fancy maths.)

You'd be right, I'd be wrong.

The correct answer would not be somewhere in the middle, such as 4.5.

oldrnwisr

sephir0th wrote: »

I'm confused, what is 'information' and how is it relevant in biological systems?

OK, I have explained to JC before how his bull**** claim of CFSI doesn't hold up to scrutiny particularly when applied to information theory but I think a little example will show why JC is talking through his arse when he says that mutations decrease information.

Our method for quantifiying information in biological systems or any other field is information theory.

Information theory was devised by a scientist working at Bell Labs called Claude Shannon. In fact Dembski claimed to base his work on that of Shannon even though he got eveything wrong.

Shannon defined information initially as a probability. For example, a message Xi has the probability p(Xi). So if you asked someone their birthday, assigning the value of Xi to 1st January would yield p(Xi) of 0.003.

Shannon then formalised this postulate by defining the information content of a stream as its entropy given by:



so for p(x) = 0 and p(x) = 1, the function has a value of 0.


Now, we'll take a biological example to show how mutation leads to an increase in information.

Let's start with a population of 1000 individuals. 500 of these individuals (which we'll call group A) have a gene with the codon CAG and 500 (which we'll call group with the codon CCC. So p(A) = 0.5 and p(B) = 0.5. Therefore, H = -(0.5*log2(0.5) - 0.5*log2(0.5)) = 1.000.

Now in the next generation, group A remains unchanged. However, in group B, thanks to a random mutation, there are 499 individuals with codon CCC and 1 mutant with CCG. Therefore, the sum of entropies is now:

p(CAG) * log2(p(CAG)) = 0.50000
p(CCC) * log2(p(CCC)) = 0.50044
p(CCG) * log2(p(CCG)) = 0.00997

So now, H = -(0.50000 + 0.50044 + 0.00997) = 1.01041

Therefore the information has increased thanks to this mutation.


This alone is why JC and Dembski are full of **** and creationism too. Mutation does lead to an increase in genetic information as dictated by information theory and there is a wealth of research to support this.

I will post a short bibliography of the relevant research later when I respond to JC's last post but this is probably the best single paper to explain things.

Evolution of Biological Complexity

Galvasean

dead one wrote: »

define truth, Is the truth incontrovertible, Is truth Malice free, Is truth faith-free?

Do we really have to define words which already have specific and clearly defined meanings? Just seems like a waste of time to me.

Sarky

Creationist and other frauds do this all the time. Their proponents call themselves doctors because they buy degrees from places that are only called universities because they redefine the term. Kent Hovind bought his "degree" in a shed. Ken Ham did similar.

They claim their work is peer reviewed because they redefine the term, when in reality the scientific community regards their papers as worthless vomit. No fact-checking, no repeatable or independently verifiable methodology, and rejecting evidence when it contradicts the bible are all familiar to the "creation scientist". And it is why they are anything but scientists. Frauds, cowards, liars, occasionally criminals, but not scientists.

They claim there's no evidence for evolution because they continually redefine what evidence is. This is completely unscientific, and just another reason why nobody with any sense takes them seriously.

sephir0th

oldrnwisr wrote: »

.
Our method for quantifiying information in biological systems or any other field is information theory.

Thanks for explaining. Why do we need to use this algorithm to quantify information in biological systems at all though? Is the metric useful in some way?

dead one

swampgas wrote: »

You say that 2+2=4, I say no, 2+2=5. (We're talking normal integers here, no fancy maths.)

You'd be right, I'd be wrong.

The correct answer would not be somewhere in the middle, such as 4.5.

We are talking about creation of life, it's not simple as 2+2=4 or 2+2=5
It is also not word play/troll like this...

a = b
a2 = ab
a2 − b2 = ab − b2
(a − b)(a + b) = b(a − b)
(a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b)
(a + b) = b

therefore:
a + a = a
2a = a
hence
2 = 1

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

We are talking about creation of life, it's not simple as 2+2=4 or 2+2=5
It is also not word play/troll like this...

a = b
a2 = ab
a2 − b2 = ab − b2
(a − b)(a + b) = b(a − b)
(a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b)
(a + b) = b

therefore:
a + a = a
2a = a
hence
2 = 1

I've never seen someone go to such effort to avoid agreeing with someone :eek:

dead one

koth wrote: »

I've never seen someone go to such effort to avoid agreeing with someone :eek:

Dear Koth,
This is the science we believe, which divides/multiply us on its rule... There's nowhere else to climb, and no more excuses for remembrance to explore. I will abandon this body and take to the air.... I will signal the news of our ascent to each and every dying star."

Galvasean

dead one wrote: »

I will abandon this body and take to the air.... I will signal the news of our ascent to each and every dying star."

Okie dokey. And when you do could you do us all a MASSIVE favour and come back to visit us and confirm for us that the afterlife is real?

oldrnwisr

sephir0th wrote: »

Thanks for explaining. Why do we need to use this algorithm to quantify information in biological systems at all though? Is the metric useful in some way?

No problem. Anytime.

To answer your questions, we don't need to use this method to quantify biological information, it's just a rather useful verification tool.

Secondly, information theory can be quite useful in making predictions. One are of where this is particularly beneficial is immunology, trying to understand how diseases become drug resistant. Shannon's work can be used to predict the areas of a genetic sequence that could confer resistance if changed. Here is an internal resource document from Los Alamos which explains it better:

Shannon Entropy Readme

Imagine for example, you were interested in a particular position where mutations can confer drug resistance. Knowledge of the frequencies of different amino acids in that position drawn from resistant and susceptible populations would enable you to calculate the Shannon entropies, a reflection of how well you would be able to guess what amino acids would be next in an unknown sample drawn from each population. You might be able to narrow down or define drug resistance sites in complex genomes by defining positions in proteins that were "certain" in drug susceptible populations (low entropy), but uncertain in drug resistant populations (significantly higher entropy). Even if the consensus amino acid was the same in both sets, sites could be identified that tended to vary more in resistant viruses.

Delirium

spotted this earlier and thought I'd share it on thread

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, I have explained to JC before how his bull**** claim of CFSI doesn't hold up to scrutiny particularly when applied to information theory but I think a little example will show why JC is talking through his arse when he says that mutations decrease information.

Our method for quantifiying information in biological systems or any other field is information theory.

Information theory was devised by a scientist working at Bell Labs called Claude Shannon. In fact Dembski claimed to base his work on that of Shannon even though he got eveything wrong.

Shannon defined information initially as a probability. For example, a message Xi has the probability p(Xi). So if you asked someone their birthday, assigning the value of Xi to 1st January would yield p(Xi) of 0.003.

Shannon then formalised this postulate by defining the information content of a stream as its entropy given by:



so for p(x) = 0 and p(x) = 1, the function has a value of 0.


Now, we'll take a biological example to show how mutation leads to an increase in information.

Let's start with a population of 1000 individuals. 500 of these individuals (which we'll call group A) have a gene with the codon CAG and 500 (which we'll call group with the codon CCC. So p(A) = 0.5 and p(B) = 0.5. Therefore, H = -(0.5*log2(0.5) - 0.5*log2(0.5)) = 1.000.

Now in the next generation, group A remains unchanged. However, in group B, thanks to a random mutation, there are 499 individuals with codon CCC and 1 mutant with CCG. Therefore, the sum of entropies is now:

p(CAG) * log2(p(CAG)) = 0.50000
p(CCC) * log2(p(CCC)) = 0.50044
p(CCG) * log2(p(CCG)) = 0.00997
So now, H = -(0.50000 + 0.50044 + 0.00997) = 1.01041

Therefore the information has increased thanks to this mutation.
So now, H = -(0.50000 + 0.50044 + 0.00997) = 1.01041

Therefore the information has increased thanks to this mutation.


This alone is why JC and Dembski are full of **** and creationism too. Mutation does lead to an increase in genetic information as dictated by information theory and there is a wealth of research to support this.

I will post a short bibliography of the relevant research later when I respond to JC's last post but this is probably the best single paper to explain things.

Evolution of Biological Complexity

Creation Scientists don't use Shannon Information as a measure of CFSI.
Shannon Information measures the volume of information ... and not its quality or functionality. Even an increase in 'noise' will result in an increase in Shannon Information.
For example, your formula H = -(0.50000 + 0.50044 + 0.00997) = 1.01041 measures the increase in the volume of the information ... but it is likely that the CCG Mutant will have serious deleterious problems if this is a within a critical sequence that controls a critical biochemical pathway.
There are many examples of situations where additional genetic information creates problems ... rather than providing improvements.

Sarky

So what the hell DO creationists use? We've been asking you for years and you've never gone into specifics, almost as if there ARE no specifics.

Come on, J C. cfsi; rigorous definition and examples of how it quantifies information, its quality and functionality. Now.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Do we really have to define words which already have specific and clearly defined meanings? Just seems like a waste of time to me.

I agree with you that many words are self-evident ... truth is what is objectively correct ... and Complex Functional Specified Information is the type of information that is produced by the appliance of intelligence ... and found in everything from meaningful writing, computer programmes ... and genetic information.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Creationist and other frauds do this all the time. Their proponents call themselves doctors because they buy degrees from places that are only called universities because they redefine the term. Kent Hovind bought his "degree" in a shed. Ken Ham did similar.

They claim their work is peer reviewed because they redefine the term, when in reality the scientific community regards their papers as worthless vomit. No fact-checking, no repeatable or independently verifiable methodology, and rejecting evidence when it contradicts the bible are all familiar to the "creation scientist". And it is why they are anything but scientists. Frauds, cowards, liars, occasionally criminals, but not scientists.

They claim there's no evidence for evolution because they continually redefine what evidence is. This is completely unscientific, and just another reason why nobody with any sense takes them seriously.

Where does one begin when faced with such bare-faced lies and outrageous prejudice and character assassination directed at a particular group of honourable people.
Creation Scientists are also hampered by the absolute intolerance and job discrimination likely to be visited upon anybody foolhardy enough to reveal that they believe in the 'C' word.
... but there are very brave scientists who allow their names to be published to face down lies like the ones you have just told (that Creation Scientists buy degrees from places that are only called universities because they redefine the term ... and they are anything but scientists. Frauds, cowards, liars, occasionally criminals, but not scientists).:mad:
... and for every person going public there are many others who are Creationists ... but who dare not speak it's name!!!
... some situation for our supposedly tolerant and liberal societies to find themselves in!!!
... so here is a list that puts your lies to shame:(:-

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Dr. Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
George S. Smith, M.S., Chemistry
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?
As far as we know, the scientists of the past listed here believed in a literal Genesis unless indicated with an asterisk. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. But because the idea that the earth is ‘millions of years’ old has been disastrous in the long run, no present day ‘long-agers’ are included intentionally, because we submit that they should know better.

Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.

Early
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method.

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?)
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614–1672)
Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623–1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
J
ust Before Darwin
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
Early Modern Period
Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist

Sarky

Really, J C? Yore going to miss the point that spectacularly again?

Sonics2k

Pretty sure if you're going to copy+paste on boards.ie you're supposed to give a source JC.

Gosh, it'd be a shame to see you get banned so close to the 10k cap.

Galvasean

Plastic surgeons? Now that's me convinced.

sephir0th

J C wrote: »

I'm not arguing that it's impossible for a mutation to confer a benefit ... I'm arguing that any 'benefit' comes at a loss in information.

J C wrote: »

Shannon Information measures the volume of information ... and not its quality or functionality.

In summary you're saying:
1. The benefit from mutation is a loss in information.
2. Information is an increase in quality or functionality.

How is a beneficial mutation not increased 'quality or functionality'?

joseph brand

Warning: This will make you angry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

At 4:54 she interrupts with the words "excuse me". :mad:

On a scale of wilful ignorance and stupidity, this blonde breaks it!

robindch

J C wrote: »

Where does one begin when faced with such bare-faced lies and outrageous prejudice and character assassination directed at a particular group of honourable people.

"Honourable people" who lie? It's a definition of "honourable" I'm not familiar with, I must say!

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists are also hampered by the absolute intolerance and job discrimination likely to be visited upon anybody foolhardy enough to reveal that they believe in the 'C' word.

Do you think that honest people would want to work with a creationist? They're quite right to discriminate against buffoons.

J C wrote: »

Frauds, cowards, liars, occasionally criminals, but not scientists)

Criminals like Inmate Hovind?

J C wrote: »

Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics

Mr MacIntosh is a Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory, not of "Combustion theory, aerodynamics".

dlofnep

The overwhelming majority of the academic and scientific elite accept evolution as a fact. So you can post as many lists as you want, it won't change it being a fact.

J C

robindch wrote: »

"Honourable people" who lie? It's a definition of "honourable" I'm not familiar with, I must say!

They don't lie ... please stop this nonesense!!!

robindch wrote: »

"Do you think that honest people would want to work with a creationist?

... that's what bigots the world over say ... 'do you think that honest people would want to work with (insert group you don't like)??'
Robin your intolerant illiberalism are not exactly doing the image of Atheism much good!!!

robindch wrote: »

They're quite right to discriminate against buffoons.Criminals like Inmate Hovind?

Kent Hovind isn't a Creation Scientist ... he is a church pastor and Creationist ... who is in Jail because he has taken the 'logic' of the separation of church and state to the point where he refused to pay taxes to the state on his church income.
I think that he should have paid taxes on his church to the state ... but he is a man of strong principles ... and is paying the price for his principles.

robindch wrote: »

Mr MacIntosh is a Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory, not of "Combustion theory, aerodynamics".

Dr Andy C. McIntosh is Professor of Combustion Theory at Leeds University, U.K. His early career was focussed on aerodynamics in Cranfield. A number of his students later worked for Rolls Royce, designing aircraft engines.
I'd say that the description that was on my list was accurate ... and I would ask you to behave in a civil manner and address people by their earned conventional qualifications ... so he is Professor MacIntosh BSc, PhD, DSc, FIMA, CMath, FInstE, CEng, FInstP, MIGEM, FRAeS to you Robin (if you don't mind).:(

Here is a summary of Professor MacIntosh's eminent Academic Career to date:-
1970 - 1973 University College of North Wales, Bangor :

1973 BSc Degree: 1st Class Hons. in Applied Mathematics University of Wales, UCNW Bangor.
Sept 1973 - Sept 1977 Scientific Officer, Royal Aircraft Establishment (Bedford)

1977 - 1980 Cranfield Institute of Technology, Bedford,

1981 PhD in Theory of Combustion. Title of Thesis: "Unsteady Premixed Laminar Flames". Aerodynamics Dept., Cranfield Institute of Technology. Supervisor: Professor J.F. Clarke.

Oct 1980 - Apr 1982 Research Officer (supported by DOE contract), Sch. of Mech. Eng., Cranfield Inst. of Tech.

Apr. 1982 - Sept 1984 Research Officer (supported by SERC), College of Aeronautics, Cranfield Institute of Technology.

Sept 1984 - Dec 1985 Lecturer in Mathematics, Luton College of Higher Education.

Jan 1986 - July 1995 Lecturer in Fuel and Energy Department, University of Leeds.

August 1995 Reader in Combustion Theory in Fuel and Energy Department, University of Leeds.

Aug. 1996 Appointed a Fellow of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications (FIMA) with Chartered Mathematician status (C. Math.).

July 1998 Awarded DSc degree : University of Wales. Title of thesis : "Mathematical modelling of unsteady combustion processes within gases, fluids and solids".

Sept. 1999 Appointed a Fellow of the Institute of Energy (FInstE) with Chartered Engineer status (C. Eng.).

Aug. 2000 Appointed Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory in Fuel and Energy Department, University of Leeds.

Jan. 2002 Appointed a Fellow of the Institute of Physics (FinstP).

J C

joseph brand wrote: »

Warning: This will make you angry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

At 4:54 she interrupts with the words "excuse me". :mad:

On a scale of wilful ignorance and stupidity, this blonde breaks it!

I'd say that Prof Dawkins met his match in this very capable lady ... who held her own in the argument ... and told him a few home truths.

Wendy Wright ... is right !!!:)

joseph brand wrote:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." — Edward Gibbon.

If Edward Gibbon were alive today ... he could validly say that :-
"Evolution is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.":eek::)