In his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope reportedly stated that evolution is "more than a hypothesis." At first, some critics of evolution argued that the pope was mistranslated into English here. What he really said, they argued, was that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution."Even the English language edition of the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, seemed to concur, until a corrected translation was published. John Paul II did say evolution was "more than a hypothesis," according to the paper.
In any event, it seems clear that the pope thinks evolution is supported, at least to some extent, by the evidence. Noting various discoveries and evolution's progressive acceptance by "researchers," he concluded, "The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
But what if between one sample and the next sample, the amplitude of the signal goes up by *half* of a digital "step"? Do you get no change in the sampled value for that time interval, or do you get a full step change for that sample interval? It has to be one or the other.
It doesn't matter. Sampling theory says that as long as you sample at greater than twice the frequency of the sound, you can reproduce the original signal *exactly*. (Assuming ideal reproduction equipment.)
It's usually imperceptible, but maybe there's an audiophile out there who can actually hear it.
Except I don't know of any double-blind tests that have acutally proved this.
One need not be opposed to evolution to be inspired by the possibility that life as we know it emerged (and continues to emerge) according to the design of a higher intelligence.
Sure it's possible. It's just untestable and unfalsifiable, and hence, useless.
The theory that life emerges as protozoa, or virii, or any other miniscule or molecular creature in any way that could survive the ravages of nature by a process of evolution toward greater degrees of organization, according to the laws of physics, without the intervention of pre-existing intelligence, fails the basic test of science: Reproducability.
First off, it's "viruses". Secondly, the exactly same thing can be said for the idea of an Intelligent Designer. Has anyone seen an example of the Designer designing anything lately? Also, if the designer is so intelligent, how do you explain that the human body is so poorly "designed"?
Until you can show me that life can emerge from a naturally occurring (meaning under present or past conditions), non-living chemical mix, in a repeatable fashion, then it is not unreasonable to assume that life does not simply emerge from nothingness.
Yes it is, actually. Since there IS a plausible hypothesis for how life (starting from reproducing molecules) could have happened using the laws of chemistry and physics as we know them, and since there is NO plausible hypothesis explaining how life emerged from nothingness, then it's very unreasonable to assume the latter. Sorry.
Try to convince me that all of that -- and a ton more -- arived by accident from a bubbling pile of organic ooze (that somehow managed to arrange a plasma membrane, that's another discussion)
That fact that you used the word "accident" demonstrates that your "very religious" biology teacher has failed. Evolution is not accidental or random. It is directed by selection pressures from the environment.
Easy. Grasshoppers have six legs. Four they can walk on and two large legs they hop on.
Sorry, they use all 6 to walk.
Now do rabbits chew cud? Absolutely.
Absolutely not, actually. Eating feces pellets is completely different from chewing cud. Cud chewing involves bringing partially-digested food back up from the stomach for further chewing.
Bats aren't birds? That's man's opinion.
Yes indeed, but one is a mammal and one is a bird. They are not even close to being the same thing.
But the word "birds" comes from the Hebrew "'owph", meaning "to cover or to fly".
Actually, according to calculations done on the model by JBS Haldane, the maximum number of mutations (of any sort -- duplication, base-pair, etc) between man and the most recent ancestor of man and apes is 1,667 based on the evolutionary timetable.
Except that there are cases where you NEED to make those sudden, high-speed swerves. Like to avoid a big chuck of debris in the road. Or a deer that decided to leap in front of you. Or some kid who ran into the street to retrieve his ball.
What you're saying is that science is too dumb to figure anything out.
No. I'm saying that there is no way to prove absolutely 100% that any theory is true. If I drop an apple one million times and it falls to the ground every time, the best I can say on the million-and-first drop is that past experience suggests that it is likely to fall to the ground.
General Relativity appears to hold in all the cases it's been tested. That doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be true, it just means we haven't found a case yet where it fails.
The fossils show that this does in fact happen for tens of thousands of years. Then, suddenly, creatures which are significantly different from what came before appear.
Look up "punctuated equilibria".
Evolution offers no adequate explanation as to how such sudden major changes happen. According to its predictions, such changes shouldn't happen.
Because they always bring up the "slippery slope" argument and say "well, if space aliens designed life on earth, then what designed the space aliens?"
Well? Answer please.
To ignore the possible branches of study that analyze life as a possibly designed structure, is pure folly.
It's folly because there is no evidence of a structure that was designed. Is it folly for astronomers to ignore the possibility that the universe was created last Tuesday, with everything intact?
There are only two possible viewpoints of existence- either it had elements of design OR it is purely random.
You are wrong. Evolution is not purely random. It is guided by selection pressures.
By that logic, nothing can be proven, which makes no sense.
Nope, the original poster is entirely right. Nothing is ever proven in science. Relativity has passed every test thrown at it so far, but we still call it a theory. Note that if it hadn't passed the tests it would have had to be changed or tdiscarded. Same for the theory of quantum dynamics. Or for that matter, the germ theory of disease.
Einstein himself said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
As to whether he's a "real" doctor or not, that same site quotes Dr. Hovind's response to this very question. It's interesting to note that this site is indulging in the very sort of ad hominem attack that he discusses in his response.
Are you choosing to ignore the parts that demonstrate that he's a liar?
Slashdot Mirror
Now, here's a Darwinist claim: SOME unintelligent natural process created a living organism.
Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, only how species change over time.
They are opening a museum in Kentucky, and have a very talented Dinosaur modeller working for them.
This would be the museum with the Triceratops with a saddle on its back?
This is based on a misreading of the pope's statements.
1 02-97/Article3.html:
From http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0
In his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope reportedly stated that evolution is "more than a hypothesis." At first, some critics of evolution argued that the pope was mistranslated into English here. What he really said, they argued, was that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution."Even the English language edition of the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, seemed to concur, until a corrected translation was published. John Paul II did say evolution was "more than a hypothesis," according to the paper.
In any event, it seems clear that the pope thinks evolution is supported, at least to some extent, by the evidence. Noting various discoveries and evolution's progressive acceptance by "researchers," he concluded, "The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
Without a specific theory of abiogenesis, there is not really a reason or evidence to think that all are related, especially given the fossil record.
Sure there is. DNA similarities for starters.
But what if between one sample and the next sample, the amplitude of the signal goes up by *half* of a digital "step"? Do you get no change in the sampled value for that time interval, or do you get a full step change for that sample interval? It has to be one or the other.
It doesn't matter. Sampling theory says that as long as you sample at greater than twice the frequency of the sound, you can reproduce the original signal *exactly*. (Assuming ideal reproduction equipment.)
It's usually imperceptible, but maybe there's an audiophile out there who can actually hear it.
Except I don't know of any double-blind tests that have acutally proved this.
One need not be opposed to evolution to be inspired by the possibility that life as we know it emerged (and continues to emerge) according to the design of a higher intelligence.
Sure it's possible. It's just untestable and unfalsifiable, and hence, useless.
The theory that life emerges as protozoa, or virii, or any other miniscule or molecular creature in any way that could survive the ravages of nature by a process of evolution toward greater degrees of organization, according to the laws of physics, without the intervention of pre-existing intelligence, fails the basic test of science: Reproducability.
First off, it's "viruses". Secondly, the exactly same thing can be said for the idea of an Intelligent Designer. Has anyone seen an example of the Designer designing anything lately? Also, if the designer is so intelligent, how do you explain that the human body is so poorly "designed"?
Until you can show me that life can emerge from a naturally occurring (meaning under present or past conditions), non-living chemical mix, in a repeatable fashion, then it is not unreasonable to assume that life does not simply emerge from nothingness.
Yes it is, actually. Since there IS a plausible hypothesis for how life (starting from reproducing molecules) could have happened using the laws of chemistry and physics as we know them, and since there is NO plausible hypothesis explaining how life emerged from nothingness, then it's very unreasonable to assume the latter. Sorry.
Try to convince me that all of that -- and a ton more -- arived by accident from a bubbling pile of organic ooze (that somehow managed to arrange a plasma membrane, that's another discussion)
That fact that you used the word "accident" demonstrates that your "very religious" biology teacher has failed. Evolution is not accidental or random. It is directed by selection pressures from the environment.
Easy. Grasshoppers have six legs. Four they can walk on and two large legs they hop on.
Sorry, they use all 6 to walk.
Now do rabbits chew cud? Absolutely.
Absolutely not, actually. Eating feces pellets is completely different from chewing cud. Cud chewing involves bringing partially-digested food back up from the stomach for further chewing.
Bats aren't birds? That's man's opinion.
Yes indeed, but one is a mammal and one is a bird. They are not even close to being the same thing.
But the word "birds" comes from the Hebrew "'owph", meaning "to cover or to fly".
So, the Bible is only inerrant in Hebrew?
I have worked on so-called contradictions on the Bible from that Skeptics Annotated Bible site and have successfully debunked all that I have studied.
Including the parts of Leviticus that say grasshoppers only have 4 legs, bats are birds and rabbits chew the cud? I'm impressed.
Actually, according to calculations done on the model by JBS Haldane, the maximum number of mutations (of any sort -- duplication, base-pair, etc) between man and the most recent ancestor of man and apes is 1,667 based on the evolutionary timetable.
Except that Haldane was wrong.
I am not trying to be picky, but I hate to see a general statement like that without an example.
Snowflakes? Minerals crystals? Hurricanes?
Nah, Alexander Abian. The one that also wanted to re-orbit Venus into an Earth-like orbit to cure disease. Or something.
So whats the story with voice acting work... any more coming up?
He does the voice for Richard Burns in GTA San Andreas.
Having people pledge alliegence to the Country they belong to is a bad thing? That's brainwashing?
Yes. You don't find the idea of a State-sponsored loyalty oath a bit... off?
So because the scientists in private companies don't get to suck off the teet of government tax money they simply won't innovate?
You sound like Ronald Reagan when he asked, "Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?"
Except that there are cases where you NEED to make those sudden, high-speed swerves. Like to avoid a big chuck of debris in the road. Or a deer that decided to leap in front of you. Or some kid who ran into the street to retrieve his ball.
What you're saying is that science is too dumb to figure anything out.
No. I'm saying that there is no way to prove absolutely 100% that any theory is true. If I drop an apple one million times and it falls to the ground every time, the best I can say on the million-and-first drop is that past experience suggests that it is likely to fall to the ground.
General Relativity appears to hold in all the cases it's been tested. That doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be true, it just means we haven't found a case yet where it fails.
Frankly, you're a moron if you're not aware of the evolutionist-created timeline.
...or are you just trolling?
Please cure my moronitude then and explain what the hell you are talking about...
There's no way to reason with you and your dogma.
The fossils show that this does in fact happen for tens of thousands of years. Then, suddenly, creatures which are significantly different from what came before appear.
Look up "punctuated equilibria".
Evolution offers no adequate explanation as to how such sudden major changes happen. According to its predictions, such changes shouldn't happen.
Wrong.
even though its disproven.
Wrong.
Please provide your proof to show there is no intelligent design. Thanks.
Please provide your evidence to show there is even the possibility of intelligent design. Thanks.
Really read up on evolution. There are huge missing factors and gaps in logic.
Such as?
Darwin knew this.
Darwin lived a long time ago. Unlike creationism, science has progressed since then.
Because they always bring up the "slippery slope" argument and say "well, if space aliens designed life on earth, then what designed the space aliens?"
Well? Answer please.
To ignore the possible branches of study that analyze life as a possibly designed structure, is pure folly.
It's folly because there is no evidence of a structure that was designed. Is it folly for astronomers to ignore the possibility that the universe was created last Tuesday, with everything intact?
There are only two possible viewpoints of existence- either it had elements of design OR it is purely random.
You are wrong. Evolution is not purely random. It is guided by selection pressures.
Well, it's already common knowledge that evolutionism effects dating systems.
Really? Can you please cite a paper demonstrating that well-known fact?
X form of carbon deterioration goes on year B of the made-up timeline, and so forth.
Um, you don't use carbon dating to date fossils. You use some other form of radiometric dating.
Were it not heavily enforced by the school system, I'd wonder why in the world anyone would give it much credit at all.
Were creationism not heavily enforced by fundamentalists, I'd wonder why in the world anyone would give it much credit at all.
By that logic, nothing can be proven, which makes no sense.
Nope, the original poster is entirely right. Nothing is ever proven in science. Relativity has passed every test thrown at it so far, but we still call it a theory. Note that if it hadn't passed the tests it would have had to be changed or tdiscarded. Same for the theory of quantum dynamics. Or for that matter, the germ theory of disease.
Einstein himself said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
As to whether he's a "real" doctor or not, that same site quotes Dr. Hovind's response to this very question. It's interesting to note that this site is indulging in the very sort of ad hominem attack that he discusses in his response.
l #G4
Are you choosing to ignore the parts that demonstrate that he's a liar?
Also, read the talkorigins page for a complete refutation of his "arguments". For example: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.htm