Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:10 pm**

How about posting some of these other untrue math statements?
If you don't like Bgood's perfectly valid explanation, try these on. [And please state they you are just joking when you say math doesn't work, even if you really think it doesn't. Otherwise I will be really depressed.]

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.missing.dollar.html wrote: This question has been sent to Dr. Math many times. Here's a sampler of answers from a variety of 'math doctors':

1. From Doctor Ethan:

The problem is that the question is always cleverly phrased to conceal what is really going on. Since I don't want to just give you the answer, I'll tell you how I think about it and then you can see if you understand it.

First let's locate all that money. There are two ways to think about how much money is there, and the trick in this question is that it combines the two ways:

1. How much money did the men originally pay?
2. How much money did they end up paying?

For (a), we need to account for $30. The owner keeps $25, the bellboy gets $2, and the men get $3 back. That adds up fine.

Now let's look at (b). How much money did the men end up paying? $27, of which $25 went to the owner and $2 to the bellboy. That adds up too.

The problem with the question is that the $2 the bellboy gets is already contained in the $27 that the men end up paying, so we shouldn't expect adding that $2 to anything to be meaningful.

2. Dr. Rob says:

Since each man has now paid $9 for the room (3 x 9 = 27), and the bellboy has $2 in his pocket (27 - 2 = 25), the rest of the money is in the hotel till.

The trick is to realize that the $2 has to be subtracted from the $27, not added to it.

3. Dr. Wilkinson adds:

"...three nines are $27, plus the $2 which the bellboy got is $29. Where did the extra dollar go?"

Be careful about accepting what you are told! The flaw is in the phrase "plus the $2 which the bellboy got." This should not be added; it should be subtracted, since the $2 the bellboy got is part of the $27 dollars the three men spent altogether. If you subtract the $2 from the $27 you get the $25 that goes into the till.

4. Dr. Pete elaborates:

Write out a table:

Deskman Bellboy Men
----------------------------
$0 $0 $30 <-- men have not yet paid for room
$30 $0 $0 <-- men pay deskman
$25 $5 $0 <-- deskman pays bellboy
$25 $2 $3 <-- bellboy stiffs men
----------------------------
$25 $2 -$27 <-- what each group of people has
after all the transactions

Here, the last row is simply the difference between row 4 and row 1. In all but the last row, the sum of the dollar values along each row is constant and equal to $30. In the last row, the apparent fallacy is that the men and the bellboy should have 30 dollars between them, but this statement is false, as it obviously ignores the question of what the deskman has. In fact, the correct statement about the last row is that the sum of what the deskman and the bellboy have must equal the debt of the three men.

The men have collectively paid 27 dollars for the room, which is obvious, since the bellboy took $2 and the actual cost was $25. And so we see that there is no missing dollar, because the $27 the men paid is a debt, written as a negative number, and the $2 the bellboy took is a profit, which is a positive number, and the sum is not $29, but a debt of $25, which was paid to the deskman.

To exaggerate the example, suppose the cost of the room is $5, the bellboy taking $22, the men getting $3. Then it becomes clear that the $27 that the men wind up paying for the room "plus" the $22 the bellboy takes just doesn't equal anything meaningful. What's going on is that $22 of the $27 that the men pay has wound up in the bellboy's pocket, so adding $22 to $27 is in essence counting the bellboy's money twice.

5. Dr. Rothman numbers the dollars:

Let's give each of the $30 a number from 1-30, keep track of each individual dollar, and see how the problem works.

Dollars numbered 1-30 are given to the manager. Then he wants to give $5 back, so he keeps the dollars numbered 1-25, and gives numbers 26-30 to the bellboy in the form of a five dollar bill. The bellboy splits up the five to get 5 one's: numbers 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30. He gives numbers 26, 27 and 28 to the customers and keeps numbers 29 and 30 for himself.

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:15 pm**

Wall-dog wrote:

$25 + $3 + $2 = surprisingly $30.

You answer this in your next post. Really what should work is the following:

(10*3)=(9*3)+(2)

or

(What each man paid initially)=(What each man paid after getting reimbursed)+(What the bellhop kept)

I'm not going to say that it does work. Obviously it doesn't. But it is still logical when you walk through it. If those three guys were business men they would each write down '$9' on their expense reports. They really did each pay $9. It should work. Scroll up and read it again. Show me a break in logic. The best you can do is tell me I can't substitute back in $9 for $10-$1 when they get their money back - but the only reason I can't do it is because if I do the math fails. 10-1 is 9. Logically It should work.

That said, I'll grant that it doesn't.

Wall-dog, sorry to interject but I may be able to clear this up. There's an inherent flaw in your logic in that you are adding the $2 the bellhop kept as a cost to the customers whereas it should be subtracted. Think of it in terms of accounting or assets and liabilities.

1. Customers pay $30 so the hotel has an asset of $30 and the customers have a liability of $-30 (assets = liabilities).

2. Hotel gives bellhop $5 to refund to customers except he gives them only $3. Hotel assets are now $30 - $5 = $25, customer liability is $-30 + $3 = $-27. Now the problem is where do we stick the $2 to make assets = liabilities? Well, if you want to classify the bellhop as part of the hotel's assets, then you list it as such, in which case the hotel assets become $25 + $2 = $27, the same as the customer liability.

On the other hand, if you classify it as a liability or expense, then hotel assets stay at $25, and customer liability minus bellhop expense becomes $-27 + $2 = $25.

I prefer the first method since, as you correctly stated, when the customers file their expense reports, total expenses (liability) should match the hotel assets and it does, $27. This is the bottom line: customers paid $27 of which the hotel has $25 and the bellhop has $2. Everything ties in. If you want to account for all monies by tying it back to the original $30 paid, then it is $27 paid by customers + $3 refund = $30.

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:52 pm**

Byblos wrote:
Wall-dog wrote:

$25 + $3 + $2 = surprisingly $30.

You answer this in your next post. Really what should work is the following:

(10*3)=(9*3)+(2)

or

(What each man paid initially)=(What each man paid after getting reimbursed)+(What the bellhop kept)

I'm not going to say that it does work. Obviously it doesn't. But it is still logical when you walk through it. If those three guys were business men they would each write down '$9' on their expense reports. They really did each pay $9. It should work. Scroll up and read it again. Show me a break in logic. The best you can do is tell me I can't substitute back in $9 for $10-$1 when they get their money back - but the only reason I can't do it is because if I do the math fails. 10-1 is 9. Logically It should work.

That said, I'll grant that it doesn't.

Wall-dog, sorry to interject but I may be able to clear this up. There's an inherent flaw in your logic in that you are adding the $2 the bellhop kept as a cost to the customers whereas it should be subtracted. Think of it in terms of accounting or assets and liabilities.

1. Customers pay $30 so the hotel has an asset of $30 and the customers have a liability of $-30 (assets = liabilities).

2. Hotel gives bellhop $5 to refund to customers except he gives them only $3. Hotel assets are now $30 - $5 = $25, customer liability is $-30 + $3 = $-27. Now the problem is where do we stick the $2 to make assets = liabilities? Well, if you want to classify the bellhop as part of the hotel's assets, then you list it as such, in which case the hotel assets become $25 + $2 = $27, the same as the customer liability.

On the other hand, if you classify it as a liability or expense, then hotel assets stay at $25, and customer liability minus bellhop expense becomes $-27 + $2 = $25.

I prefer the first method since, as you correctly stated, when the customers file their expense reports, total expenses (liability) should match the hotel assets and it does, $27. This is the bottom line: customers paid $27 of which the hotel has $25 and the bellhop has $2. Everything ties in. If you want to account for all monies by tying it back to the original $30 paid, then it is $27 paid by customers + $3 refund = $30.

You explained it so well, you've got yourself a new fan.

Actually a renewed fan.

=)
How have you been?

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:04 pm**

Three men go into a hotel and order a room. The manager tells them the room will cost $360. Each man pays $120 (120*3=360).
A little later the manager realizes that he made a mistake. The room was on super-special. It should only have cost $110. He gives a bellhop $250 [two $100 and five $10] and tells him to give the men their change (110+250=360).

On the way up to the room the bellhop realizes that he can't break the $250 evenly. He doesn't have any change. No matter, he figures. He rates a tip anyway. He gives each man $10 (10*3=30) and keeps the other $220 himself (30+220=250).

So to recap, each man paid $110 for the room (120-10=110) and the bellhop kept the other $220.

The only problem is that 110*3=330 (what the men paid for the room after getting their change) and adding the bellhop's $220 in brings the total to $550. So where did the extra $190 come from?

That's not a riddle. There is no solution. There is nothing wrong with that synopsis. You could take three men and a hotel and re-create it in their respective expense reports.
PS - On the side, I run a small company investing in hotel rooms offered at the wrong rate. Please send me lots of cash - the above proves we can make money.

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:11 pm**

A three-man band goes into a hotel and orders a suite. The manager tells them the suite will cost $3000. Each man pays $1000 (1000*3=3000).
A little later the manager realizes that he made a mistake. It is good publicity having the band stay there. He decides to give them the suite for free. He gives a bellhop $3000 and tells him to give the men their money back.

On the way up to the room the bellhop realizes that only rich people get stuff for free. He doesn't have any change and his kids don't have shoes. No matter, he figures. He rates a bonus anyway, putting up with these obnoxious rock stars. He gives each man $0 (0*3=0) and keeps the entire $3000 himself (0+3000=3000).

So to recap, each man paid $1000 for the room (1000-0=1000) and the bellhop kept the other $3000.

The only problem is that 1000*3=3000 (what the men paid for the room after getting nothing in change) and adding the bellhop's $3000 in brings the total to $6000. So where did the extra $3000 come from?

That's not a riddle. There is no solution. There is nothing wrong with that synopsis. You could take three men and a hotel and re-create it in their respective expense reports.

Posted: **Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:09 am**

OK. So the riddle is only a riddle. How about abstract algebra:

http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~mileti/mu ... gebra.html

Algebraic implied division by zero:

http://vsbabu.org/mt/archives/2003/04/2 ... _math.html

More fun with math (really I should have posted this one first):

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/index.shtml

There are many, many other examples. Most use some for of implied division by zero but you can get really complex when working with infinity, negative square roots, and other abstractions as well. Word problems dealing with these abstractions usually make logical sense - particularly the implied division by zero since the zero is usually replaced with a variable in the equation.

Infinity is the real problem with math and that is the reason you can't divide by zero. A whole number is infinitely divisible by zero...

But the three guys in a hotel is more fun, and if we delve deeper we should be able to add the two dollars back in to the 27 to get 30. Doing so breaks a mathmatical rule of substitution, but it breaks no rule of logic. THAT is why it's such a great riddle! I'll post the whole thing again looking for a flaw in the logic:

1. Three guys pay $10 each for a $30 hotel room.

No problems there. 10*30=30.

3. The room was only $25. The manager gives $5 to the bell hop.

No problems there. 30-5=25.

4. The bell hop gives $3 to each man in the room and keeps $2 himself.

No problems with the logic here either. 30-5 still equals 25.

5. Each guy got a dollar back, so they each paid $9 for the room.

No problems here either. 10-1=9.

6. If each guy paid $9 for the room, and the bell hop only kept $2, then 9*3=27 plus the bell hop's $2=29. Where did the other dollar go?

The flaw isn't really the subtraction. That's too simplistic an answer since the addition makes logical sense until we apply it to mathmatics. That's why it's a great riddle... But the substitution implied by the subtraction is illegal.

If you subtract the $2 out you are no longer making the illegal substitution and everything will work again.

Is it really just a slight of hand? Mathmatically yes. Slow down though before you completely discard it. Philosophically, it's not that simple. If it were - well - then it wouldn't be such a fun riddle.

None of the 'fallacies' are really 'mathmatical fallacies' since, though many are quite subtle, all break fundemental rules of math. The problem with rules such as implied division by zero though is that you can design word problems around them that substitute real numbers for the variables and that are 100% logical at face value, but that don't remove the implied division by zero (or other broken rule) and thus come up with funny results and yet these statements are only illogical when you map them back out into math.

So - while the trick to the riddle may have been exposed, the damage is still done.

Posted: **Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:49 am**

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: You explained it so well, you've got yourself a new fan.

Actually a renewed fan.

=)
How have you been?

Thanks BGood, I've been busy to say the least. But like JBuza, I've also been lurking in the background.

Posted: **Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:33 am**

Wall-dog wrote:OK. So the riddle is only a riddle. How about abstract algebra:

http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~mileti/mu ... gebra.html

This is an example of how some people blindly use equations without a full understanding of the application of mathmatics, ther are no tricks here. Please stop, this is irritating.

Wall-dog wrote:Algebraic implied division by zero:

http://vsbabu.org/mt/archives/2003/04/2 ... _math.html

This equation works because you're doing an illegal operation, dividing by zero.

Wall-dog wrote:More fun with math (really I should have posted this one first):

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/index.shtml

There are many, many other examples. Most use some for of implied division by zero but you can get really complex when working with infinity, negative square roots, and other abstractions as well. Word problems dealing with these abstractions usually make logical sense - particularly the implied division by zero since the zero is usually replaced with a variable in the equation.

No the problems work by confusing you into thinking your making logical sence.

Wall-dog wrote:Infinity is the real problem with math and that is the reason you can't divide by zero. A whole number is infinitely divisible by zero...

But the three guys in a hotel is more fun, and if we delve deeper we should be able to add the two dollars back in to the 27 to get 30. Doing so breaks a mathmatical rule of substitution, but it breaks no rule of logic.

Yes it does, when you think about it's not logical to count money twice.

Wall-dog wrote:THAT is why it's such a great riddle! I'll post the whole thing again looking for a flaw in the logic:

It works because people are not logical enough to get it right away.

Wall-dog wrote: 1. Three guys pay $10 each for a $30 hotel room.

No problems there. 10*30=30.

3. The room was only $25. The manager gives $5 to the bell hop.

No problems there. 30-5=25.

4. The bell hop gives $3 to each man in the room and keeps $2 himself.

No problems with the logic here either. 30-5 still equals 25.

5. Each guy got a dollar back, so they each paid $9 for the room.

No problems here either. 10-1=9.

6. If each guy paid $9 for the room, and the bell hop only kept $2, then 9*3=27 plus the bell hop's $2=29. Where did the other dollar go?

The bell hop kept 2 of the dollars the men PAID the hotel got the rest.

It is ILLOGICAL to add how much the men paid to how much the bell man got paid. Period.

Wall-dog wrote:The flaw isn't really the subtraction. That's too simplistic an answer since the addition makes logical sense until we apply it to mathmatics.

The addition makes absolutely no logical sence!!

Wall-dog wrote:That's why it's a great riddle... But the substitution implied by the subtraction is illegal.

If you subtract the $2 out you are no longer making the illegal substitution and everything will work again.

Is it really just a slight of hand? Mathmatically yes. Slow down though before you completely discard it. Philosophically, it's not that simple. If it were - well - then it wouldn't be such a fun riddle.

I'm sorry your on your own here. Philosophically your logically flawed to add two items which are unrelated.

Wall-dog wrote:None of the 'fallacies' are really 'mathmatical fallacies' since, though many are quite subtle, all break fundemental rules of math.

I don't think you have even cracked what math really is.

Wall-dog wrote: The problem with rules such as implied division by zero though is that you can design word problems around them that substitute real numbers for the variables and that are 100% logical at face value, but that don't remove the implied division by zero (or other broken rule) and thus come up with funny results and yet these statements are only illogical when you map them back out into math.

No they are only illogical in the math if you use the math incorrectly. 4/5 does not always describe the same thing such as if the denominator is the subject of change. It's your application and understanding of math which is flawed, not the math.

Wall-dog wrote:So - while the trick to the riddle may have been exposed, the damage is still done.

???
How can one learn when one is so stubborn?

Posted: **Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:30 am**

Wall-dog wrote: I'll post the whole thing again looking for a flaw in the logic:

1. Three guys pay $10 each for a $30 hotel room.

No problems there. 10*30=30.

3. The room was only $25. The manager gives $5 to the bell hop.

No problems there. 30-5=25.

4. The bell hop gives $3 to each man in the room and keeps $2 himself.

No problems with the logic here either. 30-5 still equals 25.

5. Each guy got a dollar back, so they each paid $9 for the room.

No problems here either. 10-1=9.

6. If each guy paid $9 for the room, and the bell hop only kept $2, then 9*3=27 plus the bell hop's $2=29. Where did the other dollar go?

The flaw isn't really the subtraction.

Yes, the flaw is in the sign. What you are doing is the same as saying 'I'm going to add all my credit card debt to the balance of my checking account and that's how much money I have'. In effect, that's what you're doing above when you add the $2 the bellhop made (which is an income item) to the $27 the customers paid (which is an expense item). You simply cannot add income and expense items using absolute values. You must respect the signs. The $27 expense is a negative amount by nature. When you add $2 income, which is a positive amount by nature, you get $-27 + 2 = $-25, not $27 + 2 = $29. I hope this shows you where the flaw is.

Posted: **Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:44 pm**

Well, I guess I got caught up in my own riddle. I thought it was an example of implied division by zero... I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. Sorry! I look pretty foolish right now.

It really is a good riddle.

I'm not going to say I don't have a basic understanding of math but I will admit to looking stupid...

Throw out that riddle and take any legitimate example of implied division by zero from any of the other examples I posted. They make logical sense even though they don't make mathmatical sense. That was my point. But it was a side point. This isn't central to the discussion at hand.

Moving on...

No but we must be able to show proof of it other than the artifact. For example if you have no knowledge of water chemistry how can you say that a stalagtite formed from mineral deposition?

We do have examples of intelligence that we can use for empirical analysis. ID Is only a theory when intelligence is applied to things like cellular biology.

Again experiments have shown that the mechanisms of evolution occur.

Only on the micro-level. In fact, the fossil record essentially disproves it at the macro-level.

But let us say for a moment that there were no fossils. You can show evolution at the micro-level. I can show intelligent design with man-made objects. You assert macro-evolution as a theory to explain the origin of species. I assert intelligent design with things like cellular biology as a theory for the origin of species. We both have empirical evidence in the real world that can be measured, analyzed, tested, and those tests can be reproduced. The only difference I see is that macro-evolution isn't supported by the fossil record.

Have you actually examined the data, or are you just repeating what you ave been told? I can reopen the cambrian thread if you would like.

I've got a better idea. Since it is pertenant here, why not re-post it here?

I have personally examined the data? I'm a computer programmer. What am I going to do with the data? I'm not qualified to form a conclusion from it. I rely on the opinions of those who are more qualified than I am. And then I post their conclusions. Would it carry more weight with you if I said it? After my math foible I would doubt it.

I don't follow. Have you ever examined the organisms from the Cambrian?

No. Nor would I be qualified to draw conclusions from them if I did. But Dr. Wells is qualified and the conclusions I posted are his.

Is your argument that you have looked at them yourself and are more qualified than someone like Dr. Wells to form conclusions? I've posted Dr. Wells qualifications. If that is your position, then perhaps you should post yours.

Perhaps you didn't grasp the meaning of proteins which fold by themselves according to the natural laws of the Universe. Would you like me to go into more detail on proteins protein structure and how it relates to DNA?

Please do. And then I'll quote some of America's most promenent experts showing that protein folding is not an explanation for the Cambrian explosion. And, as I've been doing, I won't just post them saying so. I'll post them telling us why.

His theories were given credence when an eclipse allowed scientists to measure stars behind the sun actually appearing to be closer to the sun than they actually are. Gravitational lensing was shown experimentally to be plausable.
http://library.thinkquest.org/25886/yproverel.htm
The idea that time is not constant is also a practical tool as signals which go out into space need to be recalibrated before being sent back to Earth due to the time dialation.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5102-10878-5727092.html

I'm not questioning the theory of relativity so I don't know how this is relevant. I'm simply questioning whether the theory of relativity applies to the reality of time and space or the perception of time and space. As 'perception' is not a naturalist term I'm not sure it's possible to say. That notion by the way is as old as the theory itself. It was Einstein who came up with it.

Again the experiments can still be conducted whether or not we have an answer for the origin of life.

But if the theorized natural process cannot be started naturally, then what is the point? Is your position that intelligence was necessary to start evolution?

That might work on the uninitiated but embalming fluid is not harmful to all life. Plus the result was not exactly embalming fluid. There was a much greater and more valid reason why the results of the experiment were rejected by the scientific community.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/16040.pdf
But that's besides the point the theory existed before the experiments, and it still stands today. No matter that the experiment was flawed and a dead end. This experiment did not discount othr experiments.

Has there been another experiment that created amino acids through natural processes? If so I'd be interested in hearing about it. If not, then what's your point?

No I am not. Tell me how can we test God? You're making an illogical conclusion.
The whole point of science is to do the experiment and go from there. How can you reject that idea?
The results don't point away from God they just don't address him.
For example a chemiststudies how various compound form and interact. The results don't address God, does that mean chemists are precluding the existence of God? What of a lawyer or a computer scientist? Why target biologists?

I'm not asking you to test God. I'm asking you to accept that it is possible to test for the probability that intelligence was necessary for any given process. That to me represents experimentation and thus scientific process.

The Bible makes specific claims that can be tested in the natural world. You cannot completely divorce religion from science. There is too much overlap.

I'm not targeting biologists. I started a 'problem of cognitive thought' thread because as a computer programmer I find that interesting and I know more about it than I know about cellular biology. But one of my favorite sources, Dr. Michael Behe, is a biologist so that is what he focuses on. We all tend to focus on either our areas of interest or on the areas of interest of others that we can use as sources.

They could only see where improvements were necessary by building the innitial phones in the first place. I see that you still are having trouble separating factors which are just a byproduct of the example.

No. I think you are having problems with human intelligence as a part of the design process. How do you think the initial phones came about? Did proteins fold in a natural event called the ATT explosion and form them without human involvement? Come on BeGood - your argument here is as flawed as my aborted (and embarassing) math example.

Testing and modification is the common denominator here. For example for a new motorola antannae they only had the specifications for the new array. How did they design it? They did computer models of every varient they could think of and tested each one! The ones which worked best were used to test actual varients built in the lab. Does this process sound familiar? the only intelligence involved was in the measurement and the innitial specifications. The actual design was developed through brute force testing.

Brute force testing may be used in some cases, but even then someone decides what the parameters of the test should be and what kinds of results they are looking for. You cannot rationally divorce intelligence from the process of human design. Perhaps you are trying to do so because admitting that humans utilize intelligence to design man-made objects would legitimize ID as a theory?

Our perception of time is based on entropy. If we build two atomic clocks and set one on Earth and one in orbit the one in orbit will tick slower.

Maybe, but since 'perception' isn't a measurable concept I don't know that atomic clocks really answer the question. I mean, do atomic clocks measure absolute time, or perceived time?

No you still think time exists outside of perception. You're logic is based on experiences here on Earth, you have not made your point.

Actually, Einstein had the same questions. I have to say that now because otherwise someone will bring up my math skills again.

But that's not really the question. The question is whether time is relative or just our perception of time? In other words, is there such a thing as absolute time? We know we age slower when we travel at higher speeds. We know that the effects of time on matter change at higher speeds. But is it time that changes, or just the effects of time? And don't just say I don't get it because Einstein died without finding what he considered a satisfactory answer.

But also please keep in mind that this is another side issue. This isn't central to the issue at hand...

Posted: **Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:04 pm**

Wall-dog wrote: Moving on...

No but we must be able to show proof of it other than the artifact. For example if you have no knowledge of water chemistry how can you say that a stalagtite formed from mineral deposition?
We do have examples of intelligence that we can use for empirical analysis. ID Is only a theory when intelligence is applied to things like cellular biology.

Again there is no basis on which to apply it to biochemistry. The parts of a cell come together because of natural laws not because of screws and bolts.

Wall-dog wrote:
Again experiments have shown that the mechanisms of evolution occur.
Only on the micro-level. In fact, the fossil record essentially disproves it at the macro-level.

How so?

Wall-dog wrote:But let us say for a moment that there were no fossils. You can show evolution at the micro-level. I can show intelligent design with man-made objects. You assert macro-evolution as a theory to explain the origin of species. I assert intelligent design with things like cellular biology as a theory for the origin of species. We both have empirical evidence in the real world that can be measured, analyzed, tested, and those tests can be reproduced. The only difference I see is that macro-evolution isn't supported by the fossil record.

Don't you see a flaw in your logic here?
"Microevolution" is observed in living organisms.
You're examples of ID are not even organic in some cases.

Wall-dog wrote:
Have you actually examined the data, or are you just repeating what you ave been told? I can reopen the cambrian thread if you would like.

I've got a better idea. Since it is pertenant here, why not re-post it here?

For the uninitiated words such as phylum and phylum level changes seem like huge gaps.
But the fossils of the cambrian period are beleived to represent the first memebers of a group of creatures, which later diversified according to the theory of evolution into what we see around us today.
For example the phylum chordata, which includes animals as diverse as a shark, osprey, and orangutan is represented in Cambrian layers by creatures like Yunnanozoon:

Look carefully and you can see several aortic arches, the only major anatomical difference between this representative of the phylum chordata and an earthworm is the positioning of the main nerve.

Is this the huge gap you were speaking of? The only huge gap is the conceptual gap of body plans which constitute the major groups of animals today came relatively all at once in the cambrian. But this only makes sence, because of the sexually incompatibility between groups of animals, naturally divergence is inevitable.

Think of it like Adam and Eve. At first there was only one family, today there are billions of families, some more related to others, which can be grouped by race or language.

Wall-dog wrote:I have personally examined the data? I'm a computer programmer. What am I going to do with the data? I'm not qualified to form a conclusion from it.

It's not as complex as one might think.

Wall-dog wrote:I rely on the opinions of those who are more qualified than I am.

You absolutely do not, you pick and choose the opinions you like.

Wall-dog wrote:And then I post their conclusions. Would it carry more weight with you if I said it? After my math foible I would doubt it.

I don't discount your intelligence, only because of one mistake, why would I bother continuing this conversation if I beleived you to be unintelligible?

Wall-dog wrote:
I don't follow. Have you ever examined the organisms from the Cambrian?
No. Nor would I be qualified to draw conclusions from them if I did. But Dr. Wells is qualified and the conclusions I posted are his.

Perhaps you should, then come back and see what he is really saying.

Wall-dog wrote:Is your argument that you have looked at them yourself and are more qualified than someone like Dr. Wells to form conclusions? I've posted Dr. Wells qualifications. If that is your position, then perhaps you should post yours.

I can post more of the fossils themselves.

Wall-dog wrote:
Perhaps you didn't grasp the meaning of proteins which fold by themselves according to the natural laws of the Universe. Would you like me to go into more detail on proteins protein structure and how it relates to DNA?
Please do. And then I'll quote some of America's most promenent experts showing that protein folding is not an explanation for the Cambrian explosion. And, as I've been doing, I won't just post them saying so. I'll post them telling us why.

???
I never stated that protein folding explains the cambrian explosion. Perhaps all the time I spent discussing the framework of biology was time wasted.
=(

Proteins exist whether or not we need them in each and every one of our cells. Proteins will interact with other proteins in our cells, usually getting lodged into the cell wall and occationally interfereing with necessary cellular functions. But the proteins we are interested are not these types. The cellular function of tree bark and that of a dog is practically the same. What we are looking for here are the proteins which govern, chemically, the organization of the body.

Wall-dog wrote: I'm not questioning the theory of relativity so I don't know how this is relevant. I'm simply questioning whether the theory of relativity applies to the reality of time and space or the perception of time and space. As 'perception' is not a naturalist term I'm not sure it's possible to say. That notion by the way is as old as the theory itself. It was Einstein who came up with it.

NO Your point was comparing Einsteins theory of relativity to dembski's proof on sets.

Wall-dog wrote:
Again the experiments can still be conducted whether or not we have an answer for the origin of life.
But if the theorized natural process cannot be started naturally, then what is the point? Is your position that intelligence was necessary to start evolution?

What process are you talking about?

Wall-dog wrote: Has there been another experiment that created amino acids through natural processes? If so I'd be interested in hearing about it. If not, then what's your point?

The point is that the failure of that particular experiment did not invalidate the results of other experiments.

Wall-dog wrote:I'm not asking you to test God. I'm asking you to accept that it is possible to test for the probability that intelligence was necessary for any given process. That to me represents experimentation and thus scientific process.

How do we test for a probability? There are two types of probability figures. Computed and Observed.
An observed probability can be discovered by conducting a trial and noting the outcome.

A computed probability can be tested by conducting trials and seeing if the set of outcomes agrees with the figure.

How can we do this for ID?

Wall-dog wrote:The Bible makes specific claims that can be tested in the natural world. You cannot completely divorce religion from science. There is too much overlap.

We'll agree to disaree here. In science the observations stand on their own.

Wall-dog wrote:I'm not targeting biologists. I started a 'problem of cognitive thought' thread because as a computer programmer I find that interesting and I know more about it than I know about cellular biology.

Ok lets target computer scientists then. When they develop an enterprise application for a company are they leaving God out of the equation?

Wall-dog wrote:
They could only see where improvements were necessary by building the innitial phones in the first place. I see that you still are having trouble separating factors which are just a byproduct of the example.
No. I think you are having problems with human intelligence as a part of the design process. How do you think the initial phones came about?

Are you saying that you have scientific proof that intelligence is behind the first lifeform?

It sounds like you are saying that the innitial phones are a result of intelligence. I thought we were talking about organisms.

In other words you are taking an analogy and stretching it too far.

Wall-dog wrote:Did proteins fold in a natural event called the ATT explosion and form them without human involvement?

That's why the analogy breaks down, because proteins in a cell do fold acording to natural laws.

Wall-dog wrote:Come on BeGood - your argument here is as flawed as my aborted (and embarassing) math example.

How so? All you have shown is that the innitial stage is different for man made objects and for life.

Wall-dog wrote:
Testing and modification is the common denominator here. For example for a new motorola antannae they only had the specifications for the new array. How did they design it? They did computer models of every varient they could think of and tested each one! The ones which worked best were used to test actual varients built in the lab. Does this process sound familiar? the only intelligence involved was in the measurement and the innitial specifications. The actual design was developed through brute force testing.
Brute force testing may be used in some cases, but even then someone decides what the parameters of the test should be and what kinds of results they are looking for. You cannot rationally divorce intelligence from the process of human design.

Again you are failing to see the significance here. Survivability is the process by which natural organisms are tested.

Wall-dog wrote:Perhaps you are trying to do so because admitting that humans utilize intelligence to design man-made objects would legitimize ID as a theory?

Nope.

Wall-dog wrote:
Our perception of time is based on entropy. If we build two atomic clocks and set one on Earth and one in orbit the one in orbit will tick slower.
Maybe, but since 'perception' isn't a measurable concept I don't know that atomic clocks really answer the question. I mean, do atomic clocks measure absolute time, or perceived time?

You tell me what is absolute time then?

Wall-dog wrote:
No you still think time exists outside of perception. You're logic is based on experiences here on Earth, you have not made your point.
Actually, Einstein had the same questions. I have to say that now because otherwise someone will bring up my math skills again.

That is not what puzzled Einstein, what puzzled him was the quantum nature of reality and how to come to terms with the contradictory nature of general relativity.

Wall-dog wrote:But that's not really the question. The question is whether time is relative or just our perception of time? In other words, is there such a thing as absolute time? We know we age slower when we travel at higher speeds. We know that the effects of time on matter change at higher speeds. But is it time that changes, or just the effects of time? And don't just say I don't get it because Einstein died without finding what he considered a satisfactory answer.

What is your source for this?

Posted: **Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:36 pm**

BeGood,

I don't have time for a detailed post right now, but I do have time to quote Dr. Wells on the examples of life that you are showing and that you claim are 'wormlike' and thus that you imply are similar to one another:

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJo ... p3?id=1144

(3) The Cambrian explosion

Organisms in the animal kingdom are classified into various groups; these are (from smallest to largest): species, genus, family, order, class, and phylum (plural: phyla). Individuals in the same species are very similar; individuals of two species in the same genus are slightly more different; while two individuals in different phyla are very different, and are organized according to fundamentally different body plans.

According to Darwin's theory of evolution, all animals are descended from a common ancestor in the distant past. Supposedly, a single primitive species gradually diverged into two species, then those diverged over millions of generations to the point where we now see the major differences in body plans among worms, clams, crabs, starfish and vertebrates. Yet when we look at the fossil record we see that most of these major differences were present at the earliest appearance of animal life. Darwin himself knew this, and in The Origin of Species he called it a “serious” problem for his theory.

The geologically abrupt and simultaneous appearance of most of the major groups of animals is now known as the “Cambrian explosion,” after the name of the geological period in which they first appear. Darwin thought that the Cambrian explosion might simply be an illusion caused by flaws in the fossil record, but a hundred and forty years of additional fossil collecting have dispelled this notion. Paleontologists James Valentine and Douglas Erwin wrote in 1987 that the Cambrian explosion “is real; it is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record.” And in 1991, Valentine and his colleagues wrote that the Cambrian explosion “was even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned.” (In Raff & Raff, eds., Development as an Evolutionary Process, Liss, 1987, pp. 84-85; and Evolutionary Biology 25, 1991, pp. 279-281)

In my presentation to the Ohio State School Board on March 11, I explained that the “major differences among animals are called phyla.” I also pointed out that the Cambrian explosion of the animal phyla has led some biologists to question whether Darwin's theory of natural selection and random variation is adequate to explain these major differences. For example, McGill University (Canada) paleontologist Robert L. Carroll wrote in 2000: “The explosive evolution of phyla with diverse body plans is certainly not explicable by extrapolation from the processes and rates of evolution observed in modern species.” (Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15, 2000, pp. 27-28) I concluded by asking: “Should teachers be free to tell students that some scientists doubt whether natural selection explains the 'diversity and unity' [a phrase used in the proposed Ohio science standards] of all past and present life forms?”

During the question-and-answer period after the initial presentations, Miller made the following statement to the Ohio State School Board: “The picture of the Cambrian explosion that is consistently presented by the advocates of intelligent design [I was there, in part, to defend intelligent design theory as a scientific alternative to Darwinism] is that in the Cambrian period--which goes from about 565 million years to 535 million years, give or take a few--there's the sudden emergence of all major animal body plans. . . . By saying the major animal groups, they often convey a false impression. Do you consider insects to be a major animal group? I consider them to be the major animal group. They don't appear in the Cambrian. Neither do mammals, reptiles, amphibians, or anything that resembles a modern fish. . . . So therefore it's phony to pretend that all major animal body plans appeared at this point.”

Of course, insects, mammals, reptiles and amphibians are not phyla. Insects are one of several classes within the arthropod phylum, while mammals, reptiles and amphibians are classes within the chordate phylum. As a biology teacher, Miller is very familiar with these distinctions. In his textbook, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)--the one currently being used in Ohio public schools--he wrote: “To survive, all animals must perform the same functions: body support and movement, feeding and digestion, respiration, excretion, internal transport, and response to the environment. But if all animals do the same things, why don't we all look alike? Because each major group of animals evolved its own ways of performing these functions. Over evolutionary time, each phylum combined a particular type of breathing device, a certain type of body support, and its own variations on other bodily functions. The result is a unique body plan for each phylum.” (p. 445)

On the preceding page of the same textbook, Miller included a section entitled “The Cambrian Explosion.” In it, Miller wrote: “The ancestors of almost all major living animal groups appeared in the fossil record for the first time.” (p. 444)

In other words, Miller knows very well that the “major groups” of animals are the phyla, and that most of these first appeared in the Cambrian explosion. When he told the Ohio State School Board that insects are “the major animal group,” he changed the meaning of “major group” from “phylum” to something like “most widespread group.” This is equivocation--an ancient debate tactic that changes the meaning of a word midway through an argument in order to justify an invalid conclusion. But equivocation is not science; it is sophistry.

Although Miller might be able to claim ignorance in the case of peppered moths or the case of vertebrate embryos, his own textbook deprives him of that excuse in the case of the Cambrian explosion. He himself has written that most of the major groups of animals--the phyla--first appeared in the Cambrian explosion. So he clearly knew what he was doing when he resorted to equivocation to portray me as a “phony.”

Posted: **Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:49 pm**

Wall-dog wrote:BeGood,

I don't have time for a detailed post right now, but I do have time to quote Dr. Wells on the examples of life that you are showing and that you claim are 'wormlike' and thus that you imply are similar to one another:

I'll reply to this article when you have posted your responce.

But for the record I did not want to imply that all the forms were similar, only that the words first appearance of a particular phylum produce a far different mental picture than the actual evidence.

The cambrian forms were not all similar at all. The point is that the drastic differences imagined are not real.

Posted: **Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:31 am**

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I can post more of the fossils themselves.

Yes, please do. Post some pictures (photos or drawings) of representative samples of different phyla from the Cambrian and also pictures from later era. Since there was a one time occurrence of major diversity (in the Cambrian), readers will have no trouble matching later pictures with the appropriate Cambrian ancestor. [Remember that neat little chart someone posted - 5 branches coming from a root or 5 separate stalks, neither with any further branching?]

Wall-dog wrote: Come on BeGood - your argument here is as flawed as my aborted (and embarassing) math example. ... Maybe, but since 'perception' isn't a measurable concept I don't know that atomic clocks really answer the question. I mean, do atomic clocks measure absolute time, or perceived time?

The weird thing about your math example was how willing you were to accept that math made no sense because you didn't understand something. Don't you think the Enron people would have found some way of utilizing such inconsistencies? It is sort of the same thing here with time - clocks have no perception, so if they measure perceived time are you imagining that different people look at the same clock and get different numbers? Or as different people in a group swap the clock around, the time it shows changes?

Posted: **Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:43 pm**

Don't you think the Enron people would have found some way of utilizing such inconsistencies?

I'm a computer programmer, Sandy. I spend more time on Sarbanes Oxley related issues surrounding the code I write than I spend writing code. Absolutely they used 'blame the computer' as an excuse which is absolutely stupid considering that what they did was intentional. You can't mandate morality. But that's another story.

I wasn't willing to say that math made no sense. I thought that the riddle was explained by algebraic implied division by zero, which is well known for being able to cause funny results like 29=30. The riddle may not have been a good example, but the statement that math has problems dealing with abstractions (like the square root of negative numbers), the infinite, and algebraic implied division by zero, is absolutely true. That doesn't mean math doesn't work. It just means that math has limitations when dealing with things like infinity.

But that was all a side line that came up because BeGood asked me why I believed in some theories but not others after I started using the theory of relativity and its implications in cosmology. Cosmology is relevant to our discussion but my views on relativity are not. I'm sorry I brought it up because in BeGood's last post he's trying to make it sound like it's a part of the argument when it isn't. I was answering an unrelated question when that was brought up.

Yes, please do. Post some pictures (photos or drawings) of representative samples of different phyla from the Cambrian and also pictures from later era. Since there was a one time occurrence of major diversity (in the Cambrian), readers will have no trouble matching later pictures with the appropriate Cambrian ancestor. [Remember that neat little chart someone posted - 5 branches coming from a root or 5 separate stalks, neither with any further branching?]

The Cambrian pictures are a parlor game. BeGood has already agreed with Dr. Wells that animals within a given phyla have more in common with each other than they do with animals in other phyla. Showing a picture of two vastly different creatures to show that they look very little like later creatures does not explain how those creatures came about. You go from single-cell organisms and sponges to all phyla in a span of no more than 10 million years. Some Chinese scientists (where many of the fossils are coming from) are saying it was only 5 million years. Look at what BeGood has already posted. He shows an incredibly complicated creature complete with intestine, esophagus, epidermal, cuticle, and a cerebral ganglia (primitive brain). He could also have put up pictures of creatures with eyes and skeletons but for obvious reasons he wants to use the simplist-looking organisms he can find. Remember that these creatures shows up in the blink of an eye with no ancestors. Evolution has no explanation for them. All BeGood can do is say 'hey - they don't look like crocododiles so they must have evolved!' In truth, the phyla the crocodile is in has far more in common with the crocodile than it has in common with any of the other phyla from the period. So my 'BAM there's a crocodile!' analogy stands exactly as before. It's exagerated for emphasis but the premise is absolutely true. So we go from single cell organisms to advanced and incredibly complex life in 5 to 10 million years. You want more pictures? What I'd like BeGood to post is how fast evolution has to get before he's willing to give it a speeding ticket.

Here is the thing. For the theory of evolution to hold the model has to work using unguided principals. Once you throw that out suddenly all of the other breaks in the fossil record are up for grabs too. And every fossil is an island. There are no chains - only islands. Evolution looses it's empirical backbone on the Cambrian explosion. While we know it occurs at some level we can no longer assume that it occurs any further than we can actually account for because we also know that it does NOT occur at all levels!

To pull out a succinct part of that long Wells quote:

According to Darwin's theory of evolution, all animals are descended from a common ancestor in the distant past. Supposedly, a single primitive species gradually diverged into two species, then those diverged over millions of generations to the point where we now see the major differences in body plans among worms, clams, crabs, starfish and vertebrates. Yet when we look at the fossil record we see that most of these major differences were present at the earliest appearance of animal life. Darwin himself knew this, and in The Origin of Species he called it a “serious” problem for his theory.

The geologically abrupt and simultaneous appearance of most of the major groups of animals is now known as the “Cambrian explosion,” after the name of the geological period in which they first appear. Darwin thought that the Cambrian explosion might simply be an illusion caused by flaws in the fossil record, but a hundred and forty years of additional fossil collecting have dispelled this notion. Paleontologists James Valentine and Douglas Erwin wrote in 1987 that the Cambrian explosion “is real; it is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record.” And in 1991, Valentine and his colleagues wrote that the Cambrian explosion “was even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned.” (In Raff & Raff, eds., Development as an Evolutionary Process, Liss, 1987, pp. 84-85; and Evolutionary Biology 25, 1991, pp. 279-281)

What BeGood either fails to understand or (more probably) just isn't willing to admit is that this statement, which he made, proves the point:

But for the record I did not want to imply that all the forms were similar, only that the words first appearance of a particular phylum produce a far different mental picture than the actual evidence.

The 'mental picture' isn't relevant. What is relevant is that evolution cannot account for those organisms. Folding proteins and the notion that a single cell found a new piece of ocean and said "Hey! This isn't populated yet. BAM I'm a really advanced organism now!" well - that just doesn't work. I mean when you really think about it, it just doesn't work. Who cares what those incredibly complex creatures looked like? They sure didn't look like anything that came before them. And since evolution DEFINITELY cannot explain the phylum, why should we believe without empirical proof that it occurred at other levels? The only level we know it occurs in is the species level and as Dr. Wells said, the further from species we go the less likely evolution gets.

If you remember nothing else from this entire debate, remember to ask yourself this - if the appearance of complex life in the Cambrian explosion cannot be explained by evolution then why should we assume that later developments can be? Pictures don't cut the mustard. We need empirical evidence.

BeGood - I just looked through your last post and I think I've covered everything in it while responding to Sandy except some of the non-topical stuff relating to relativity. Did I miss anything?

Evidence for God from Science

The Scientific Method of Evolution - Tangential Issues

side diversion

good

better