Incredibly fantastically remote?
1 in 200 billion? That DNA match would convict somone for murder. But that's just observable stars in our galaxy.
1 in 1.6x10^25? For a rough estimate of all the stars.
But they might have more than one planet each... Lets take 9 as average, and ignore moons. Then remember this is an event that only has to happen once in billions of years...
1 in 1.4x10^65?
I'd say that was fantastically remote....
Originally Posted by fuddam
My perception is that ID involves a supernatural power, becasue the people who invented the idea say it does. Nothing more is needed for it to contradict science. If these 'scientists' interpret ID differently than that, they need to come up with a new name.
Probability of a monkey writing shakespeare is about 1 in 8.9x10^31. So if you have 8.9x10^31 monkeys, ecah tapping away, one of them will create shakespeare.
Well, we have 1.4x10^65 planets...
Which is as close to a certainty as you'll ever get!
Who are these so called profs anyway?
good question. excellent question.
As far as I'm concerned, science just seeks to explore the foundations & rules laid out by God.
They are a bunch of people who run a christian website. There are a couple of with 'show up and pray' religious degrees, but two have physics backgrounds, and have published works equating science with religious views including shuch valuable works as:
Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFOs and Extraterrestrials
Prophets of the Apocalypse: David Koresh and Other American Messiahs
All appear to be the American Evangelical Christian types..
In recent statistics didn't it say that 53% of scientists in the US believe that the universe was created by a "maker" ?
Just to throw some more info in
Yes, and even more recently, recent statistics recently said that less than 1% of scientists, and 4% of priests, believed in a maker anywhere in the world outside of America. They also discovered that a previous study, know only as 'recent statistics' only asked people with square heads.In recent statistics didn't it say that 53% of scientists in the US believe that the universe was created by a "maker" ?
Just to throw some more info in
see how things can get 'lost' in the details?
3 with physics backgrounds and PhDs therein, 4th with background in energy gamma-ray astrophysics, and then the 2 with non-science degrees.
Some of their other publications, the ones that Teepee doesn't bother to mention since he wants to rubbish them regardless of their scientific rigour:
Antenna Arraying Techniques in the Deep Space Network introduces the development and use of antenna arraying through the use of the Deep Space Network. RTB staff scientist Dr. David Rogstad was a principal engineer and technical group supervisor over the team that pioneered this research at JPL. The group's groundbreaking efforts saved the Galileo Mission after its antenna failure. This book describes key concepts and techniques for antenna arraying and suggests directions for future research.
and
Stellar Structure & Evolution [B9510] R. Kippenhahn and A. Weigart have prepared a thorough treatment of the physics of the interiors of stars and the underlying processes that describe how a star works. They give a complete and comprehensive treatment of the physics of the stellar interior and the underlying fundamental processes and parameters. They explain the stability, dynamics, and evolution (change through time) of a star's life and have written a text based on their own pioneering work in stellar modeling. This book considered a classic by many astrophysicists and researchers, be appreciated by graduate students in the sciences.
etc etc. So one can assume they know a little about the scientific process.
http://www.reasons.org/about/biographies.shtml
2 physics PhD's and no R. Kippenhahn or A. Weigart to be found.
I'm sure they do know a lot about the scientific method, but as we have seen many times, when brainwashed from birth, many people, even excellent scientists, have trouble applying their critical faculties to their religion. This is part of why it is so important that children must not be taught religious doctrine as fact.
You know I was considering checking out this podcast even thought I suspect that it is really just evangelical propaganda.
Can somebody who is not on the ID side and has listened to it correct me if i am wrong and i will listen to it.
Fuddam, I can tell you what I have watched/listened too/read, and that is hundreds of hours worth of documentaries, lectures and books on phsyics and the universe and evolution. From all of that information I cannot conclude anything else other than ID is basicly a load of psuedo-science designed to indocrinate/brainwash children.
You show us one pod cast and I am supposed to take the word of these 'scientists' or rather "the bible" but you ignore the links I posted in the other thread that esssentialy de-bunk ID by showing the evidence of evolution.
Also humans not decended from apes???
Seriously what planet are you on? we ARE apes, we ARE primates, the opposible thumbs give it away.
HEXUS FOLDING TEAM It's EASY
Listen to the first 20 seconds..
'The god of the bible is the only possible explanation why the universe can have such a incredibly high level of design in it'.
patronising. conjecture. unsupported by evidence
one of their podcasts (not listened yet):
Science magazine's top ten breakthroughs of the year evaluated: "Junk" DNA; Speciation/mate preference and viral evolution; Origin of life date; Human migration patterns; Planetary blitz; Mars rovers and the search for water; Stardust mission (comet trails); Deep imact mission. "Breakthrough of the Year: Evolution in Action," Science 310 1878-79 (2005). Resources: The Genesis Question, 2nd ed., by Hugh Ross. Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross. Questions: Is there a first cause? What is the percentage difference in noncoding DNA for chimp/human genomes? A possible solution to Pioneer 10 and 11 anomalies. More avaialable at http://www.reasons.org/resources/mul...io/cu_archives Audio
another:
Discussion of ID ruling in Dover, PA. Book review on scientific credibility of multiverse theory. Biblical basis for Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, plus how other faiths view the Incarnation. Call-in Questions: Geologic timing of life-forms on Genesis creation day five. Is RTB open to another cosmological model? Is Big Bang theory dependent on a supernatural agent? Several questions on black holes. How to approach teaching a creation class at a predominantly young-earth church. What did it look like when Adam was created? Is there a good reason for the DNA/uracil connection? Has the dark side of the moon always been on the dark side? Hugh Ross, Jeff Zweerink, Kenneth Samples, and Joe Aguirre.
another:
New confirmation of the large-scale structure of the universe. Biochemical design in bacterial chemotaxis. General discussion of evolution and ID as cited in Skeptical Inquirer. Call-in Questions: Can scientists track creation of elemntary particles? About a college classroom discussion on evolution/creation. What does RTB mean by intelligent design? How is evolution taught in schools? Hugh Ross, Jeff Zweerink, Fuz Rana, and Joe Aguirre.
another:
Most precise test to date of E=mc^2. Fundamental constants test reveals no change. Does string theory tie nature's laws together? What is the argument from reason? Listener Questions: Why is gravity a mystery? Is there a reverse entropy? Is atheism a religion? Why is it more rational to believe in a triune God? Is God male? Does the infinity of God mean that he is dimensionless and cannot be measured at all?and more
so, seems they discuss all sorts of issues. you decide if you want to spend the time.
You also dont see much from them via google other than their nut job stuff.
I tried for a couple of my old uni profs and they get many more hits.
Perhaps I should ask my gf about stuff out of her field.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote