I need some help from the YEC's on this board

[Dark_Lite]

Didn't equate science with athiesm (unless you think evolution and science are one in the same) In case you hadn't noticed your mistake

Evolution is science. YECs are just in the business of redefining words in order integrate it with foreign/irrelevant concepts: i.e. evolution = atheism. All science is agnostic; completely neutral to religion. Just because there is science out there that disagrees with your belief system does not mean it isn't science.

Seem to have touched a button here. I'm sorry. I must have missed all the anti-theistic evolution literature out there.

Dawkins and co. are the atheistic version of fundamentalist preachers, too blinded by their trust in science and reason to exhibit actual tolerance. They exhibit only something that barely passes for tolerance, just like the fundamentalists/extremists they so often criticize.

No one in this forum really cares what Dawkins thinks about the validity of God. That is a topic for apologetics, not origins theology.

In any case, perhaps when looking for truth you should start with the Bible. I know its a crazy concept, but name a Christian leader in history who wasn't at least a little crazy

Just because people come to different conclusions about the creation account than you do does not mean they have not read the Bible.

 

[Chesterton]

I am trying to put together a solid, efficient and fast algorithm for syncing data between multiple computers on a wireless internet. I could use some help designing UML, flowcharts and use cases as well.

I suggest duct tape. If it can't be fixed with duct tape, it can't be fixed.

 

[shernren]

I suggest duct tape. If it can't be fixed with duct tape, it can't be fixed.

you forgot the WD40.

 

[shernren]

TE's are afraid of being mocked and persecuted, so they cop out and fall into the trap of syncretism, making a fusion between atheism and Christianity. Being called dumb by an atheist like Dawkins is the worst possible thing for them so they hop on the evolution wagon as not to stand out. Jesus had a lot to say about such people.

Not only is that statement insulting, it's also untrue. Do you want to know what atheists think of TEs?

Me and PZ are on the side of science and rationalism.

Young Earth Creationsts (YEC's) and Intelligent Design Creationists (IDiots) are anti-science because they propose explanations of the natural world that conflict with science. But they're not alone in doing that. Many of the so-called Theistic Evolutionists also promote a version of evolution that Darwin wouldn't recognize. They are more "theist" than "evolutionist."

For some reason the Neville Chamberlain team is willing to attack the bad science of a Michael Denton or a Michael Behe but not the equally—and mostly indistinguishable—bad science of leading Theistic Evolutionists. Isn't that strange?

Public understanding of science will not be advanced by people like Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, and Ken Miller. They are subverting science in order to make it conform to their personal religious beliefs. (Which, by the way, conflict.) They are doing more harm to science than those who oppose it directly from the outside because the Theistic Evolutionists are subverting from within. It is sad that they are being supported by people who should know the difference between rationalism and superstition.

Is the appeasement strategy working? Of course not, but the most amazing thing is happening. The Neville Chamberlain School thinks it is winning in spite of the fact that leading politicians oppose evolution; most schools don't teach evolution; and the general public doesn't accept evolution. Talk about delusion. The appeasers think we should continue down the same path that led us to this situation. They think we should continue to compromise science in order to accommodate the religious moderates.
​

(underlined emphasis mine) Sandwalk: The Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists

Let me spell it out for you: atheists attack theistic evolutionists for believing in God.

Yeah, Jesus had a lot to say about such people. Something about being blessed when others persecute you for His name's sake? Oh, don't ask me. I'm a TE. What could I possibly know about the Bible?

 

[r035198x]

...
The idea for this thread came about when I posted a quote from Francis Collins about genetics (well within his expertise), and had a YEC summarily tell me why everything about that quote was wrong. I think he was a lawyer.

Ah, so it's not really a real problem you're trying to solve? That's a bit disappointing because I was already busy digging through my old graphs and network algorithms sack.

P.S What is a YEC?

 

[r035198x]

..

P.S What is a YEC?

Never mind about that, google helped as usual ... and nah, I doubt that I'm one of those so no help from me either.

 

[crawfish]

you forgot the WD40.

The Man's guide to fixing stuff:

If it moves and it shouldn't, duct tape.
If it doesn't move and it should, WD-40.

 

[laconicstudent]

So crawfish, did any of the YECs ever take you up on your request for help designing that data sync algorithm?

 

[crawfish]

So crawfish, did any of the YECs ever take you up on your request for help designing that data sync algorithm?

No, I'll have to hammer it out myself.

 

[Papias]

AIH wrote:

Papias wrote:

The YEC position is like if I went to the American Medical Association and told them that the germ theory of disease was wrong because no one has ever directly observed a germ in the act of killing someone. Oh, those microscope images? They were misinterpreted!

Papias

and the TE position is, "Evolution is true because more people believe it is and majority opinion is truth."

See? I can play this game too.

AIH, as others have pointed out, that is not what I said. Why do creationists so often distort what someone said to make it look like they said something else?

Crawfish's OP, like my AMA situation, is to show that there are actual experts on things, and those experts are have looked at actual data and their actual understanding of the real evidence is quite relevant. That is very different from the opinions of uninformed people as AIH refers to.

When practically all the experts agree (regardless of faith, nationality, and ideology), then it is foolish to ignore that expert consensus, as creationists do. That's not that one has to accept the consensus view of the experts, only that one must study the data and understand it before doing so. That's why it is correct to rely on expert views - you can see that for yourself here:

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which has:

Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

AIH, do you have plans to enroll for a biology or geology degree? The opinion of the population are useless - about 20% of Americans believe the Sun orbits the earth, after all.

Papias

P.S. Crawfish, why the consternation on the computer problem? The answer is directly given in a literal interpretation of Gen 3:28-31. : D

 

[sfs]

The Man's guide to fixing stuff:

If it moves and it shouldn't, duct tape.
If it doesn't move and it should, WD-40.

To the second you should also add, "and a hammer".

 

[rcorlew]

Well, I am not a YECer but I am a student majoring in Computer Information Systems and am neither a true creationist or evolutionist, but I will take a stab at the OP.

First off, why on earth would you rely on a wireless network for syncing and hashing data? Wireless is nice and convienent, but absolutely wrought with noise issues. Before developing an algorithm, I would suspect that you would need to define many variables like file size, type, location, noise levels, hash checks and so on. Computational Algorithms is not my area of study, network security and database administration is.

Back to the OP, to me it seems that crawfish is making a statement about the inherent lack of intelligence that a person who is a YEC possesses. This argument I have seen carried over to every area on this board, along with homosexuality and abortion comprises in my mind the "Unholy Triad" which brings out many of the unholy traits in those who claim the name of Christ.

Science is full of paradoxes that are contradictory, one example would be the first law of thermodynamics, energy or information cannot be created destroyed, yet both quantum physics and Hawking Radiation both falsify that principle. Quantum Physics states that due to the instability of the atom, an atom or even sub-atomic particle can actually "poof" out or cease to be, Hawking Radiation is based on the obverse of Quantum Physics and that when the proton and anti-proton both simultaneously "poof" into existence and then almost immediately destroy themselves by colliding, but if they do so very near an event horizon, then either the proton or anti-proton may cross over the event horizon and free the other particle thus creating information and violating the first law of thermodynamics.

The reason for the evolution anti-evolution split is simple, arrogance and is exemplified throughout threads just as this one.

 

[Cabal]

Back to the OP, to me it seems that crawfish is making a statement about the inherent lack of intelligence that a person who is a YEC possesses. This argument I have seen carried over to every area on this board, along with homosexuality and abortion comprises in my mind the "Unholy Triad" which brings out many of the unholy traits in those who claim the name of Christ.

It has nothing to do with lack of intelligence per se, although that's sometimes a factor.

The point is creationism is frequently touted by people who by their own words and sometimes, staggeringly, by their own ADMISSION, show that they have no understanding of the thing they're denouncing - and yet they denounce it anyway. It's the arrogance the OP is referring to, not a lack of intelligence.

Science is full of paradoxes that are contradictory, one example would be the first law of thermodynamics, energy or information cannot be created destroyed, yet both quantum physics and Hawking Radiation both falsify that principle. Quantum Physics states that due to the instability of the atom, an atom or even sub-atomic particle can actually "poof" out or cease to be, Hawking Radiation is based on the obverse of Quantum Physics and that when the proton and anti-proton both simultaneously "poof" into existence and then almost immediately destroy themselves by colliding, but if they do so very near an event horizon, then either the proton or anti-proton may cross over the event horizon and free the other particle thus creating information and violating the first law of thermodynamics.

Except a lot of the laws you stated only hold within particular limits, they are not universal.

The reason for the evolution anti-evolution split is simple, arrogance and is exemplified throughout threads just as this one.

Yes, much of it on the creationist side.

I don't know of a single other field where people think it's ok to know nothing about a particular job but still feel qualified to pass judgement on all those who make it their profession.

 

[crawfish]

Well, I am not a YECer but I am a student majoring in Computer Information Systems and am neither a true creationist or evolutionist, but I will take a stab at the OP.

First off, why on earth would you rely on a wireless network for syncing and hashing data? Wireless is nice and convienent, but absolutely wrought with noise issues. Before developing an algorithm, I would suspect that you would need to define many variables like file size, type, location, noise levels, hash checks and so on. Computational Algorithms is not my area of study, network security and database administration is.

Business need. If I told you, I'd have to kill you.

Back to the OP, to me it seems that crawfish is making a statement about the inherent lack of intelligence that a person who is a YEC possesses.

Nope. My point is that YEC's of all backgrounds seem to consider themselves experts in evolutionary biology - so much so, in fact, that they feel they know the subject better than those who have immersed themselves in the subject enough to earn a doctorate and spend their lives researching it. I'm certain I know my area of expertise much better than you; and, as a nascent Computer Science student, I'm sure you would have some idea of what I was doing better than someone whose only exposure was one or two programming courses in college.

YEC's aren't stupid, necessarily; but it takes some ignorance to proclaim yourself an expert in an area where you have very little training or knowledge.

 

[shernren]

Science is full of paradoxes that are contradictory, one example would be the first law of thermodynamics, energy or information cannot be created destroyed,

Um, no. (Nothing about information.)

yet both quantum physics and Hawking Radiation both falsify that principle.

Um, no. (Momentum and energy are conserved in quantum mechanics.)

Quantum Physics states that due to the instability of the atom, an atom or even sub-atomic particle can actually "poof" out or cease to be, Hawking Radiation is based on the obverse of Quantum Physics and that when the proton and anti-proton both simultaneously "poof" into existence and then almost immediately destroy themselves by colliding, but if they do so very near an event horizon, then either the proton or anti-proton may cross over the event horizon and free the other particle thus creating information and violating the first law of thermodynamics.

Um, no. (A black hole is formed when there is a mass smaller than its Schwarzschild radius; this mass "disappears" from the universe, and the Hawking radiation "reappearing" into the universe balances the energy and entropy conservation.)

The irony! It burnssssss.

 

[rcorlew]

Um, no. (Nothing about information.)



Um, no. (Momentum and energy are conserved in quantum mechanics.)



Um, no. (A black hole is formed when there is a mass smaller than its Schwarzschild radius; this mass "disappears" from the universe, and the Hawking radiation "reappearing" into the universe balances the energy and entropy conservation.)

The irony! It burnssssss.

Your reply shows a lack of knowledge about Hawking Radiation, it is a dis-balanced entropy if the anti-proton crosses the event horizon and leaves the proton, the anti-proton will destroy a proton in the singularity, leaving a new proton spontaneously created, not reappearing. It is not the spontaneous creation of the proton and anti-proton that violates this law as they cancel themselves out with a net energy of zero, only when the anti-proton crosses the event horizon and obliterates an already existing proton within the black hole.

 

[shernren]

Your reply shows a lack of knowledge about Hawking Radiation, it is a dis-balanced entropy if the anti-proton crosses the event horizon and leaves the proton, the anti-proton will destroy a proton in the singularity, leaving a new proton spontaneously created, not reappearing. It is not the spontaneous creation of the proton and anti-proton that violates this law as they cancel themselves out with a net energy of zero, only when the anti-proton crosses the event horizon and obliterates an already existing proton within the black hole.

If the anti-proton annihilates with a proton inside the black hole (not a guaranteed event), radiation will be emitted, preserving the energy / entropy balance.

In any case, the energy / entropy of the emitted proton is balanced by the energy / entropy that went into making the black hole in the first place.

 

[r035198x]

If the anti-proton annihilates with a proton inside the black hole (not a guaranteed event), radiation will be emitted, preserving the energy / entropy balance.

In any case, the energy / entropy of the emitted proton is balanced by the energy / entropy that went into making the black hole in the first place.

It's better to argue that black hole information paradox is contentious rather than to deny its plausibility. Other scientists (e.g Kip Thorne) deny Hawking's own 2005 proof that Hawking radiation is unitary.

 

[shernren]

It's better to argue that black hole information paradox is contentious rather than to deny its plausibility. Other scientists (e.g Kip Thorne) deny Hawking's own 2005 proof that Hawking radiation is unitary.

Well, you now know which side of the bet I'm firmly on.

 

[r035198x]

Well, you now know which side of the bet I'm firmly on.

Having a side is not the problem.
Stating that a scientifically contentious paradox is false without giving scientifically acceptable proof is the problem.
That's why I stated that it's better for you to argue by saying that the matter is contentious, which is widely acceptable. Other statements (outside of actual proofs) just show your lack of understanding of the concepts.