Search results

The "obvious" being that an invisible omnipotent being caused water to appear on Earth, after which it left and ended up flooding another planet 50 million miles away, and then left. Somewhere. We seem to be using a different definition of "obvious" So... your rebuttal is "but Russell was...

Wait, the Noahic flood occurred on Mars? If that's how you want to place the burden of proof, and your scenario permits arbitrary changes to physics, then no, I can't disprove its occurrence. And neither can you disprove Russell's teapot. But, like I said earlier, in that case neither are...

:scratch: :confused:

If you start by taking it as a given that the Noahic flood occurred, what follows from it doesn't constitute evidence for it, it constitutes a circular argument. What I'm pointing out is that since hydrogen and oxygen are abundant in the universe (of which our solar system is a part) there...

The point was that both hydrogen and oxygen are abundant in the universe. The water on Earth is but a miniscule speck in comparison that doesn't even register in the rounding error. So why presume that some water emanating from Earth would somehow materially impact the quantities of water elsewhere?

Of course, it allows them to play the martyr card again. And you can't get much more "establishment" than Yoko Ono [snort].

:scratch: What do you think this is made of? Hint: this is not a "true color" image. Each of the red, green and blue channels is actually from a spectral emission line of a particular element. Can you guess what two of those three might be?

Not sure what your location is, but if you're in the US and looking for stuff to hack/cannibalize for parts, it's pretty hard to beat American Science & Surplus: http://www.sciplus.com/ HTH

I'm not sure what "always" means in the event that time is bounded. Can you clarify?

I suppose it's too much to ask that the quality of discussion might improve. :sigh:

He isn't. He's already said before that he's interested only in rhetoric. He's made it very plain before that, in the event of his failing to adequately support his predetermined position, it's necessarily because his rhetorical skills need refinement. Do I have that about right, AV?

It doesn't "know" anything. Please start by defining terms. I'm using the only commonly accepted meaning of the term "information", that is, as defined by Shannon. In that context, I can't even parse your grammar above. Do you have a different definition you wish to use?

No, the story about the term being co-opted is apochryphal. They actually are related, and Shannon pointed this out in his paper when he defined the term. There's actually a reference in there to "statistical mechanics". It turns out that entropy as defined by Shannon is linearly related to...

This one again? Ok... whatever. I'll assume again that you use the term "information" with its conventional meaning, as in, as originally proposed by Claude Shannon. If you have an alternative definition, please provide it together with a justification. In this case, there is no mystery as...

Of course, I'll have to disagree that this can be called "proof"... It's very strong evidence, given that it presents an opportunity for falsification of common descent, and the data are very unlikely to have arisen by chance in the case that there is no common descent.

:scratch: I'm not sure I'm getting the usefulness of the term "fault" in this context.

I think you're expanding the meaning of the term "evolution" quite some way beyond the bounds intended by the OP...

What definition of "heretic" are you using here?

Am I the only person who thought Dr. Sarfati here must surely be one of those animatronic device thingies like you might find in Ken Ham's creationist museum? Something about the glazed expression and monotonic delivery... I searched in vain for anagrams of "Johnathan Sarfati", hoping to find...

Poll: Epigenetics is the result of research pursued by: a) Biologists who (still) accept evolution b) Creation scientists (sic)