On 14/09/2011 18:16, James Brown wrote:
In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 14/09/2011 15:35, James Brown wrote:

It was. Try this for size. It's from a chapter Spencer wrote in "The
Evolution Crisis", a compilation of five scientists who reject
evolution:


Sometimes I think folk protest too much. Given the length of time it
would take by a process of unguided evolution for a single cell (coming
in any case from inanimate chemicals) to develop photosensitivity let
alone be part of such a complex item as an eye-ball - personally I find
that a leap of faith which neither satisfies at a scientific level nor
at the level of personal belief.

You have been tricked by the Intelligence Design fraternity - a thinly
disguised alternative bunch of science deniers in the USA who think
Bishop Ushers 6000 year old Earth is true because the Bible says so.

I don't think for one moment that I have Martin. I cannot imagine how
you think an organism with a single working photosensitive cell but
without ALL the necessary brain already in place to process the data
could possibly have an advantage in the survival of the fittest - and
you haven' told me how the cell got photosensitive - or IR sensitive etc.

OK. You are just ignorant. A slightly different proposition.

The first organisms with a photoreceptor were almost certainly single
celled or small colonies of photosynthetic algae rather similar to some
of the ones that still exist (Chlamydomonas and Volvox). They move to
where the light best suits them without any understanding of what they
are doing - basically a random walk with a slight preference for
movement in the direction that is towards where they want to be.

These organisms are still able to survive in the modern environment
essentially unchanged from hundreds of millions of years ago.

Wallow in your ignorance of science and superstitious beliefs if you
wish, but do not expect to get an easy ride. This is the 21st century
and not the dark ages. Goddidit is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

Evolution is not strictly unguided. It is guided by survival of the
fittest that then get to reproduce. In an environment before there are
any photosensors the first organism to develop the slightest
capability of phototropism has an enormous advantage over everything
else.

The human eyeball is an odd design with a blind spot right in the
centre of the field of view. So you are left with either a God that is
a lousy design engineer or evolution as the mechanism. I think on
balance I prefer the latter interpretation. YMMV

You may - with your amazing stereoscopic orbs consider that you would
have done a better exit route for the optic nerve etc. But I wonder if
you haven't just got a bigger blind spot somewhere ;-))

There are several alternative solutions to the problem and other species
have implemented them. Most notably put the wiring behind the
photosensors so there need never be a hole in the imaging detector for
the cable. Cats have reflectors behind the eye to improve photon
efficiency we do not (that is why a cats eye is bright in a torch beam).

You are left with the God of the Gaps - either He is a lousy designer or
his "finest" creation was deliberately designed with a substandard eye.
He managed to get it right for other species...

The get out of jail free card is labelled "God moves in mysterious ways".

Possible of course that God trained as a civil engineer - only they
would be dumb enough to route the sewage system directly through the
entertainment district (a joke incidentally told to me by a vicar).

Science doesn't seek to answer the question is there a God.

I would hope not. Nor try to answer the question - why?

Why? What?

For the record I think Dawkins is wrong to claim absolute knowledge that
N, the number of deities is exactly zero without proof. It is
unscientific to be anything other than agnostic - there is no evidence.

Regards,
Martin Brown

In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 14/09/2011 18:16, James Brown wrote:
In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 14/09/2011 15:35, James Brown wrote:

It was. Try this for size. It's from a chapter Spencer wrote in "The
Evolution Crisis", a compilation of five scientists who reject
evolution:


Sometimes I think folk protest too much. Given the length of time it
would take by a process of unguided evolution for a single cell (coming
in any case from inanimate chemicals) to develop photosensitivity let
alone be part of such a complex item as an eye-ball - personally I find
that a leap of faith which neither satisfies at a scientific level nor
at the level of personal belief.

You have been tricked by the Intelligence Design fraternity - a thinly
disguised alternative bunch of science deniers in the USA who think
Bishop Ushers 6000 year old Earth is true because the Bible says so.

I don't think for one moment that I have Martin. I cannot imagine how
you think an organism with a single working photosensitive cell but
without ALL the necessary brain already in place to process the data
could possibly have an advantage in the survival of the fittest - and
you haven' told me how the cell got photosensitive - or IR sensitive etc.

OK. You are just ignorant. A slightly different proposition.

The first organisms with a photoreceptor were almost certainly single
celled or small colonies of photosynthetic algae rather similar to some
of the ones that still exist (Chlamydomonas and Volvox). They move to
where the light best suits them without any understanding of what they
are doing - basically a random walk with a slight preference for
movement in the direction that is towards where they want to be.

These organisms are still able to survive in the modern environment
essentially unchanged from hundreds of millions of years ago.

Wallow in your ignorance of science and superstitious beliefs if you
wish, but do not expect to get an easy ride. This is the 21st century
and not the dark ages. Goddidit is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

Evolution is not strictly unguided. It is guided by survival of the
fittest that then get to reproduce. In an environment before there are
any photosensors the first organism to develop the slightest
capability of phototropism has an enormous advantage over everything
else.

The human eyeball is an odd design with a blind spot right in the
centre of the field of view. So you are left with either a God that is
a lousy design engineer or evolution as the mechanism. I think on
balance I prefer the latter interpretation. YMMV

You may - with your amazing stereoscopic orbs consider that you would
have done a better exit route for the optic nerve etc. But I wonder if
you haven't just got a bigger blind spot somewhere ;-))

There are several alternative solutions to the problem and other
species have implemented them. Most notably put the wiring behind the
photosensors so there need never be a hole in the imaging detector for
the cable. Cats have reflectors behind the eye to improve photon
efficiency we do not (that is why a cats eye is bright in a torch beam).

You are left with the God of the Gaps - either He is a lousy designer
or his "finest" creation was deliberately designed with a substandard
eye. He managed to get it right for other species...

The get out of jail free card is labelled "God moves in mysterious ways".

Possible of course that God trained as a civil engineer - only they
would be dumb enough to route the sewage system directly through the
entertainment district (a joke incidentally told to me by a vicar).

Science doesn't seek to answer the question is there a God.

I would hope not. Nor try to answer the question - why?

Why? What?

For the record I think Dawkins is wrong to claim absolute knowledge
that N, the number of deities is exactly zero without proof. It is
unscientific to be anything other than agnostic - there is no evidence.

I understand that Dawkins doesn't claim that absolute knowledge. See

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html

(citing p. 73 of "The God Delusion").

Regards,
Martin Brown

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Sep 14, 7:07*pm, James Brown
wrote:
In message
,
Dawlish writes





On Sep 14, 3:35 pm, James Brown
wrote:
It was. Try this for size. It's from a chapter Spencer wrote in "The
Evolution Crisis", a compilation of five scientists who reject
evolution:

Sometimes I think folk protest too much. Given the length of time it
would take by a process of unguided evolution for a single cell (coming
in any case from inanimate chemicals) to develop photosensitivity let
alone be part of such a complex item as an eye-ball - personally I find
that a leap of faith which neither satisfies at a scientific level nor
at the level of personal belief.

Paul of course you can and no doubt will continue to exclude people from
your list of friends who hold an alternative view, though I find this
selectiveness strange - almost as if you have become prematurely
narrow-minded. But to call people who hold a different and to my mind a
more rational understanding of the origins of life 'dangerous' is more
typical of the mind-set of someone who is alarmingly an extremist and
totalitarian in outlook. The world has enough of those already who say
'don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind'.

No cheers
James
--
James Brown

Creationism is; "To my mind a more rational understanding of the
origins of life" and an opponent of this is described as "alarmingly
an extremist and totalitarian in outlook"............................
good grief.

Indeed - but I didn't describe you as dangerous Paul. However if you
were ever elected as Prime Minister then I might have to revise that
;-))



The best desrcription of an open mind that I've seen is the one that
says; "I have an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall
out".................or in this case have been washed out. *))

Well the first part I would agree with - anything that requires you to
leave your brains at the door before entering isn't something I would
wish to take part in. But some brains could definitely do with a
cleansing if our current world situation is anything to go by ...

Ah well, I suppose all these recent debates in this ng add colour if not
much light!

Cheers
James
--
James Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All these recent debates????

If you are going to express creationist ideas in a scientific
newsgroup; expect opposition and if people ever wish to propose that
dangerous (yes, dangerous) nonsense like this, that belongs in the
middle ages, should be taught in schools, expect people like me there
to put a stop to it before it takes root. There are particular ideas
that should not be encouraged. rcism is one; creationism is another.
You are lucky to be in a democracy that allows you to expound such
views*, but don't ever expect an easy ride if you do.

*As Voltaire said however and to paraphrase the great man's comment;
no matter how much I despise fundamentalist religious views and the
creationist view of evolution, I would fight to protect your right to
say it. That's how lucky you are to be in the UK.

The first organisms with a photoreceptor were almost certainly single
celled or small colonies of photosynthetic algae rather similar to some
of the ones that still exist (Chlamydomonas and Volvox). They move to
where the light best suits them without any understanding of what they
are doing - basically a random walk with a slight preference for
movement in the direction that is towards where they want to be.

These organisms are still able to survive in the modern environment
essentially unchanged from hundreds of millions of years ago.

I am amazed that given how long ago these things were supposed to happen
that without the ability to witness these events that you can write with
such certainty. Without the ability to prove I would have expected a
little more humility - but I guess that has yet to evolve ;-)

Wallow in your ignorance of science and superstitious beliefs if you
wish, but do not expect to get an easy ride. This is the 21st century
and not the dark ages. Goddidit is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

Goodness me, you are on a crusade aren't you! I delight in every true
discovery of science of the amazing universe in which we happen to live,
but I am not so closed in thinking as to have to dismiss a creative
power as a so called proof of rationality.

Regards,
James
--
James Brown

If you are going to express creationist ideas in a scientific
newsgroup; expect opposition and if people ever wish to propose that
dangerous (yes, dangerous) nonsense like this, that belongs in the
middle ages, should be taught in schools, expect people like me there
to put a stop to it before it takes root. There are particular ideas
that should not be encouraged. rcism is one; creationism is another.
You are lucky to be in a democracy that allows you to expound such
views*, but don't ever expect an easy ride if you do.

Ah well Paul, OTOH I count it a positive thing that your ability to
create a school of clones of your way of thinking is limited. You have
of course conveniently forgotten that you were the instigator of this
debate when you chose to drag the religious views of certain folk into a
tirade in this NG. And as long as open NG's exist then you are as likely
to find yourself challenged. If OTOH you could keep to the subject
matter of the charter then I think we would all benefit. However, I have
discovered very few folk who don't mind not having the last word -
probably including myself;-)

*As Voltaire said however and to paraphrase the great man's comment;
no matter how much I despise fundamentalist religious views and the
creationist view of evolution, I would fight to protect your right to
say it. That's how lucky you are to be in the UK.

I think that statement is contradictory - but there you go.

Regards,
James
--
James Brown

On Sep 15, 9:24*am, James Brown
wrote:
If you are going to express creationist ideas in a scientific
newsgroup; expect opposition and if people ever wish to propose that
dangerous (yes, dangerous) nonsense like this, that belongs in the
middle ages, should be taught in schools, expect people like me there
to put a stop to it before it takes root. There are particular ideas
that should not be encouraged. rcism is one; creationism is another.
You are lucky to be in a democracy that allows you to expound such
views*, but don't ever expect an easy ride if you do.

Ah well Paul, OTOH I count it a positive thing that your ability to
create a school of clones of your way of thinking is limited. You have
of course conveniently forgotten that you were the instigator of this
debate when you chose to drag the religious views of certain folk into a
tirade in this NG. And as long as open NG's exist then you are as likely
to find yourself challenged. If OTOH you could keep to the subject
matter of the charter then I think we would all benefit. However, I have
discovered very few folk who don't mind not having the last word -
probably including myself;-)



*As Voltaire said however and to paraphrase the great man's comment;
no matter how much I despise fundamentalist religious views and the
creationist view of evolution, I would fight to protect your right to
say it. That's how lucky you are to be in the UK.

I think that statement is contradictory - but there you go.

Regards,
James
--
James Brown



I am always happy to have the last word - or not. If my "clones" are
all the open-minded, non-creationists in the world, I'm very likely to
be in far better company that I would be in yours James - and many of
those aren't great! *))

Bye.

On Sep 14, 7:16*pm, "Col" wrote:
Dawlish wrote:

Yes he did, checking back. I still think we deserve a reason why he
thinks this, as it just seems a bizarre position to take, in the face
of all the contrary predictions and the recent trend.

I suspect it's the Piers Corbyn approach. By the time it's
apparent what you've predicted couldn't possibly happen,
everybody has long since forgotten about it.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

I think Lawrence has gone to ground.

In the meantime, the NSIDC has called the summer low. Second lowest in
the satellite series:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

I am always happy to have the last word - or not. If my "clones" are
all the open-minded, non-creationists in the world, I'm very likely to
be in far better company that I would be in yours James - and many of
those aren't great! *))

Bye.

I think I'd actually enjoy your company Paul as I like stimulating
conversation - but just to set the record straight - I find it hard to
understand why a person's political or faith views should alter
statistical evidence based science. I am personally of the firm opinion
that AGW IS taking place, (Just as is the case with ozone) and that if a
negative feed-back mechanism doesn't reveal itself - such as the low sun
spot theory, or deep water overturning etc. then we will indeed be
responsible for creating yet more misery for folk, which in the complex
interconnected society in which we now live could well have catastrophic
results.

Cheers
James
--
James Brown

On Sep 15, 6:27*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Sep 14, 7:16*pm, "Col" wrote:

Dawlish wrote:

Yes he did, checking back. I still think we deserve a reason why he
thinks this, as it just seems a bizarre position to take, in the face
of all the contrary predictions and the recent trend.

I suspect it's the Piers Corbyn approach. By the time it's
apparent what you've predicted couldn't possibly happen,
everybody has long since forgotten about it.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

I think Lawrence has gone to ground.

In the meantime, the NSIDC has called the summer low. Second lowest in
the satellite series:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

Blimey Paul its not a foxhunt and there is more than one model. Of
course they all will show a vey low level of arctic ice level in what
has been as far as any accuate records show. a lean few years. Howevr
all is well temps have flattened and sea levels fallen. It's funny f
cold fusion is finally acheieved and energy revolutionised its all
going to be fantastically hunky dory as well as very interesting.

On Sep 15, 9:07*pm, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:27*pm, Dawlish wrote:





On Sep 14, 7:16*pm, "Col" wrote:

Dawlish wrote:

Yes he did, checking back. I still think we deserve a reason why he
thinks this, as it just seems a bizarre position to take, in the face
of all the contrary predictions and the recent trend.

I suspect it's the Piers Corbyn approach. By the time it's
apparent what you've predicted couldn't possibly happen,
everybody has long since forgotten about it.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

I think Lawrence has gone to ground.

In the meantime, the NSIDC has called the summer low. Second lowest in
the satellite series:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

Blimey Paul its not a foxhunt and there is more than one model. Of
course they all will show a vey low level of arctic ice level in what
has been as far as any accuate records show. a lean few years. Howevr
all is well temps have flattened and sea levels fallen. *It's funny f
cold fusion is finally acheieved and energy revolutionised its all
going to be fantastically hunky dory as well as very interesting.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

?? Could someone interpret this post please? And could you, Lawrence,
now try to answer the question that you've been asked, instead of
constantly trying to dodge it?