tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post8972516109103207181..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Evolution and chanceLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-54316024503969058442008-03-02T13:44:00.000-07:002008-03-02T13:44:00.000-07:00raatraniAm I suffering from a bizarre hallucinatio...<B>raatrani</B><BR/><BR/><I>Am I suffering from a bizarre hallucination, or is 4000 Myr = 4 billion years? And 4.2b and 3.7b respectively?</I><BR/><BR/>You are not hallucinating. Myr (or Mya) does indeed mean million years (ago), and 4,000 Myr = 4 billion (4x10^9) years ago.<BR/><BR/>I think the source of confusion comes from the fact that life itself is about 3-4 billion years old (3-4 x10^9), but <I>multicellular</I> dates from about the Cambrian/late Precambrian, about 500 million years ago (500x10^6 or 5x10^8).Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-67909675629156949662008-02-28T21:26:00.000-07:002008-02-28T21:26:00.000-07:00Re: Anon"Citing the Wikipedia "The study by Maher ...Re: Anon<BR/><BR/><I>"Citing the Wikipedia "The study by Maher and Stephenson[19] shows that if the deep marine hydrothermal setting provides a suitable site for the origin of life, abiogenesis could have happened as early as 4000 to 4200 Myr ago, whereas if it occurred at the surface of the earth abiogenesis could only have occurred between 3700 and 4000 Myr"</I><BR/><BR/>Am I suffering from a bizarre hallucination, or is <I>4000 Myr</I> = 4 billion years? And 4.2b and 3.7b respectively?<BR/><BR/>Please correct me if I'm wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-75746460827272429882008-02-20T10:56:00.000-07:002008-02-20T10:56:00.000-07:00The most important (and definitely the most diffic...<I>The most important (and definitely the most difficult) course of my college career was kinetics.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not surprised: anything that changes in time is difficult. The kinetics of materials such as Kevlar and Teflon are a giggle compared to the dynamics of even a bacterium.<BR/><BR/><I>However, I am a bit of a gambler - and if I was given a choice between the collective effort of the top scientists for the last 50 years or the efforts of a random-walk practive associated with nature during a 500 million year window.... I would have a hard time betting that nature would win.</I><BR/><BR/>Casinos make money because, with no disrespect intended, people such as yourself rely on their <I>intuitive</I> notions of probability rather than on rigorous analysis.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-23087170144036787482008-02-20T09:46:00.000-07:002008-02-20T09:46:00.000-07:00Barefoot, technically speaking many materials are ...Barefoot, technically speaking many materials are not quite static. In fact, this is the aspect that makes material science exciting (to me at least). The most important (and definitely the most difficult) course of my college career was kinetics. <BR/><BR/> Without going into too many of the boring details, things such as the solidifcation of metals has dramatic impact on the final properties. Improper cooling rates, alloy additions or "seeding" is the difference between a properly functioning jet engine and a catastrophic failure (from dyanmic forces such as creep and fatigue).<BR/><BR/> Other areas of material science have similar (or greater) levels of complexity. The development of semiconductor industry and the selective doping of the materials comes to mind. <BR/><BR/> What does that prove? Not too much... especially since I am NOT a biochemist. I can not pretend to understand the depth of the complexity of their science.<BR/><BR/> However, I am a bit of a gambler - and if I was given a choice between the collective effort of the top scientists for the last 50 years or the efforts of a random-walk practive associated with nature during a 500 million year window.... I would have a hard time betting that nature would win.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-66045830639245326832008-02-19T17:54:00.000-07:002008-02-19T17:54:00.000-07:00Anon: Why should bacteria be less complex? The mat...Anon: Why should bacteria be less complex? The materials you deal with in materials science are static; life forms are inherently dynamic. Dynamic systems have not only additional complexities in three dimensions, they have an entirely new dimension, time. It's not just <I>plus</I> something, it's something to the <I>fourth</I> power.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-992378609627210302008-02-19T15:30:00.000-07:002008-02-19T15:30:00.000-07:00Sacred Slut you are correct in the vastness of tim...Sacred Slut you are correct in the vastness of time, but to me it still seems incomplete. <BR/><BR/>In the last 150 years a variety of complex polymers have been developed (I am a materials scientist), such as Kevlar, Teflon, and a slew of other polycarbonates, ceramics and engineered metals (such as shape memory alloys). However, despite the efforts of many scientist, over many years, we have been unable to spawn life... which again on the level of bacteria... should be less complex. <BR/><BR/>Also, we are not really talking about billions of years. Citing the Wikipedia "The study by Maher and Stephenson[19] shows that if the deep marine hydrothermal setting provides a suitable site for the origin of life, abiogenesis could have happened as early as 4000 to 4200 Myr ago, whereas if it occurred at the surface of the earth abiogenesis could only have occurred between 3700 and 4000 Myr"<BR/><BR/> While we can all agree that 200-400 million years is still an amazingly large amount of time. I still wonder why it has taken scientists, who were able to invent and market teflon in less than 10 years, 150 years to duplicate the feat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-6172799165765465592008-02-19T14:02:00.000-07:002008-02-19T14:02:00.000-07:00Anon wrote: How can we expect something to have ha...Anon wrote: <I>How can we expect something to have happened spontaneously (even over many multiples of generations) if after 150 years we have been able to duplicate something that should (on the surface) be pretty basic?</I><BR/><BR/>LOL. Seriously, think about what you just said here in the context of the timeframe of the universe, which seems to have taken billions of years to develop life. Try watching this video clip from Cosmos for a little perspective.<BR/><BR/>http://youtube.com/watch?v=EYzx6C4irsI<BR/><BR/>A few hundred years ago, the best thinkers still imagined demons caused illnesses and that the heart was the seat of rational thought. We've only had the scientific method since the 17th century or so.Reason's Whorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09386477323714963087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-37243476254547158442008-02-19T11:29:00.000-07:002008-02-19T11:29:00.000-07:00if creating life is being compared to getting a ma...<I>if creating life is being compared to getting a man to the moon... I wonder how artificial (or natural life) could be accomplished without a team of scientists?</I><BR/><BR/>There are two separate concepts here: natural vs. artificial and natural vs. supernatural (or paranormal).<BR/><BR/>Of course, creating <I>artificial</I> life will require a team of not just scientists, but also engineers, technicians, managers, executives, clerks and janitors.<BR/><BR/>It's very probable that the creation of artificial life will not shed all that much light on how terrestrial life actually arose on Earth. For that, you'll need to investigate other sciences. Keep in mind that much of the evidence of the actual origins of terrestrial life is buried under four billion years of history.<BR/><BR/>artificial life can, however, perhaps shed some light on some of the philosophical issues.<BR/><BR/>The creation of artificial life shows is that supernatural or paranormal means are not <I>necessary</I> to create life. That's a big issue, but we pretty much figured it out when we discovered the biochemical basis of life, not just in DNA but in the general study of how proteins, enzymes and the other chemicals in typical cells interact.<BR/><BR/>More importantly, we will soon have a growing "ecosystem" of interacting life forms we know were intelligently designed. We can then compare and contrast existing terrestrial life-forms. If, for instance, we can create interesting ecosystems using very different techniques — especially <I>better</I> techniques — than found in existing life-forms, that would argue for a non-intelligent origin of terrestrial life.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-27803316688181853222008-02-19T11:10:00.000-07:002008-02-19T11:10:00.000-07:00I honestly had no idea that we were potenitally so...I honestly had no idea that we were potenitally so close to developing artificial life. I can only imagine the implications that this could have on the medical community.<BR/><BR/> I still have some misgivings on item <BR/><BR/>"Researchers involved feel that the creation of true synthetic biochemical life is very close, relatively cheap, and will be easier than getting a man on the Moon was.[1]"<BR/><BR/> Maybe I am reading into this a little too much, but if creating life is being compared to getting a man to the moon... I wonder how artificial (or natural life) could be accomplished without a team of scientists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-31705986919530648572008-02-19T09:39:00.000-07:002008-02-19T09:39:00.000-07:00We may also be closer than you think. According to...We may also be closer than you think. According to <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>The goal of wet artificial life and synthetic biology, the first artificial biochemical life would look and act like oversimplified bacteria. Researchers involved feel that <B>the creation of true synthetic biochemical life is very close, relatively cheap, and will be easier than getting a man on the Moon was.</B>[1]<BR/><BR/>On Oct 6, 2007, Craig Venter announced that he is "on the verge" of creating the first ever artificial life form. In an interview with UK's The Guardian newspaper, Venter reported that he has built a synthetic chromosome using chemicals made in a laboratory. The Canadian bioethics group, ETC, has already, only one day later, come out with a statement concerning the development. Their representative, Pat Mooney, in a communication with The Guardian, averred that Venter's "creation" was "a chassis on which you could build almost anything." The new single-cell organism, dubbed "Synthia" by ETC, is reported to have 381 genes, the minimum necessary to sustain life. A Venter spokesperson has declined to confirm any breakthrough at the time of this writing.<BR/><BR/>On January 24, 2008, a United States team reported in Science magazine how it built the entire DNA code of a common bacterium in the laboratory using blocks of genetic material. Dr Hamilton O. Smith, who was part of the Science study, said the team regarded its lab-made genome - a laboratory copy of the DNA used by the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium - as a step towards synthetic, rather than artificial, life. Mycoplasma genitalium is a small parasitic bacterium which lives on the ciliated epithelial cells of the primate genital and respiratory tracts. M. genitalium is the smallest known free-living bacterium. Dr. Smith told BBC News: "We like to distinguish synthetic life from artificial life. With synthetic life, we're re-designing the cell chromosomes; we're not creating a whole new artificial life system."[2]</I><BR/><BR/>[1] <A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/01.html" REL="nofollow">NOVA: Artificial life</A><BR/>[2] <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7203186.stm" REL="nofollow">Synthetic life 'advance' reported</A>Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-19528419364867275592008-02-19T09:33:00.000-07:002008-02-19T09:33:00.000-07:00I understand that there are arguments against the ...<I>I understand that there are arguments against the 2nd law of thermodynamics...</I><BR/><BR/>No. There are no good scientific arguments against the 2LOT. Of course, it's vitally important to understand precisely what the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics" REL="nofollow">Laws of Thermodynamics</A> actually say... and, more importantly, what they <I>don't</I> say. Thermodynamics is a subtle and complicated field of scientific inquiry.<BR/><BR/><I>How can we expect something to have happened spontaneously (even over many multiples of generations) if after 150 years we have been able to duplicate something that should (on the surface) be pretty basic?</I><BR/><BR/>The genesis of life is basic, but there's no reason to believe that just because it's basic means that it's at all <I>easy</I>, either to understand or to replicate.<BR/><BR/>In any event, 150 years is not a very long time, even by the standards of human tenancy or modern civilization. Remember that while <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History" REL="nofollow">DNA was discovered in 1869</A>, its structure was elucidated only in 1953. Give it a <I>little</I> time.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-18839983538747300382008-02-19T08:39:00.000-07:002008-02-19T08:39:00.000-07:00Barefoot I have struggled with this question for m...Barefoot I have struggled with this question for many years. I understand that there are arguments against the 2nd law of thermodynamics... but has man (using his vast knowledge) been able to create life?<BR/><BR/> In the the 150ish odd years since Darwin, scientist have repeatedly tried to "create" life using the conditions of the pre-historic earth. Why haven't they been successful? I understand that we have created and modified life once we have a seed (i.e test-tube babies.. and or genetic cloning), but we have yet created the most basic life-form from scratch.<BR/><BR/> What is most confusing to me is that during this time we have developed many of the theories that you describe... sent a man to the moon... developed nuclear power... mapped the human genome... but still no life.<BR/><BR/> How can we expect something to have happened spontaneously (even over many multiples of generations) if after 150 years we have been able to duplicate something that should (on the surface) be pretty basic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-53475146880428844002008-02-19T06:49:00.000-07:002008-02-19T06:49:00.000-07:00Please note that having a comment published or rej...Please note that having a comment published or rejected is a matter of editorial discretion, not free speech. Free speech is adequately provided for by the capability of publishing on one's own blog, an option which Rob <A HREF="http://robsingleton.net/" REL="nofollow">has availed</A> <A HREF="http://pastorrobsrants.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">himself of</A>.<BR/><BR/>I don't mind publishing competing views, but I become quickly bored with abuse and snotty insinuations, and I have no obligation to publish lies, intellectual dishonesty and egregious bullshit.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-74192682921438139412008-02-19T04:59:00.000-07:002008-02-19T04:59:00.000-07:00Rob's response appears here. I've grown bored with...Rob's response <A HREF="http://pastorrobsrants.blogspot.com/2008/02/do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do.html" REL="nofollow">appears here</A>. I've grown bored with his stupidity, mendacity and dishonesty.<BR/><BR/>It's a free country, and Rob is free to speak as he pleases on his own blog, just as I'm free to ignore him.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-59834977672649030572008-02-18T20:30:00.000-07:002008-02-18T20:30:00.000-07:00Rob:Besides being intellectually dishonest (if you...Rob:<BR/><BR/>Besides being intellectually dishonest (if you have a substantive point, just make it; there's no need to complain about oppression before you've actually been oppressed) the substantive portion of your latest comment is very confusing.<BR/><BR/>You've managed to throw evolution, intelligent design, abiogenesis, the suitability of the earth for life, and (incomprehensibly) Multiverse speculation into one incomprehensible mish-mash.<BR/><BR/>Pick a topic, <I>one</I> topic, and make argument of whatever length you deem sufficient.<BR/><BR/>(And if you have a problem with my arithmetic, please show your work. You're correct though; my arithmetic is off.<BR/><BR/>1e11 * 2e11 = 2e22 (number of stars in this observable universe)<BR/><BR/>2e22 / 1.7e8 = 1.2e14 (odds of a <A HREF="http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/PGlossary/PerfectBridgeHand.html" REL="nofollow">perfect Bridge Hand</A>).<BR/><BR/>1.2e14 / 13! = 1.2e14 / 6.2e9 = 19,000 (number of perfect hands dealt in strict order)Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-74489972049433307672008-02-18T20:15:00.000-07:002008-02-18T20:15:00.000-07:00Jake & Elwood Blues: You're free to post whatever ...<B>Jake & Elwood Blues</B>: You're free to post whatever you position you like. Please make sure that you stay within shouting distance of the facts, and avoid the most egregious of the rhetorical fallacies, such as Poisoning the Well.<BR/><BR/>Most people get a couple of abusive comments published here. I can tolerate a little abuse, but repetitive abuse becomes tedious.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-53151643246656748242008-02-18T20:10:00.000-07:002008-02-18T20:10:00.000-07:00At this point let me share with you all (the reade...<I>At this point let me share with you all (the readers) a curious reaction I witness time and time again when more than adequately qualified individuals break from the (your) party line...</I><BR/><BR/>This is called the fallacy of poisoning the well.<BR/><BR/>Yet again you abuse my hospitality and the platform I have offered you for your remarks with intellectual dishonesty.<BR/><BR/>This is your last warning. If you want to discuss the substantive issues, and you're capable of showing the respect in my venue that I've shown in yours, you're welcome to do so.<BR/><BR/>However, if you continue to act like a spoiled, illiterate child, I see no reason to continue to publish your remarks.<BR/><BR/>Do I make myself clear?Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-15272458846049324512008-02-18T19:27:00.000-07:002008-02-18T19:27:00.000-07:00Let me start this off by saying I am not trying to...Let me start this off by saying I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone, I am not making a frontal attack, I do not have a hidden agenda, and I am not taking sides, well maybe a little skewed towards Rob. I considered long and hard on whether or not I wanted to jump "into the fray" here and post a response especially since I am, for the most part, only a “recreational” blogger. We may disagree on most, if not all, points made based on religion, but I believe we have similar opinions in other matters, probably closer than you would think at first blush. If you want to post a reply please visit my blog http://famulusdeus.blogspot.com/ or http://pastorrobsrants.blogspot.com/<BR/> Please keep it clean, these are family friendly blogs. : )Matthew Lanlgeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09007190011396863692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-24095358131776606832008-02-18T17:53:00.000-07:002008-02-18T17:53:00.000-07:00Pastor Rob here to enlighten you all once again.BT...Pastor Rob here to enlighten you all once again.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I have a new blog just for such festooning and philosophizing. It's at www.pastorrobsrants.blogspot.com <BR/><BR/>This way I can keep the two groups straight.<BR/><BR/>Well, I've got a few minutes here, but once again, you'll find some of your arguments in "post form" over at the other blog, then you can see my responses and so forth...<BR/><BR/>First of all, I'll address real questions, but where anonymous and slut (gotta love that name) offer nothing but gibberish and name calling, I'll leave them to the school yard of 3rd grade.<BR/><BR/>So let me hit just one area here that Larry attempted to brush aside a little too quickly. So quick, in fact, I sensed something wrong there.<BR/><BR/>At this point, before reading further, some of you might want to throw in a few expletives about those @#$#$%$@*& Christians!<BR/><BR/>Feel better?<BR/><BR/>Let's continue then.<BR/><BR/>Larry says: "It's important to understand that before we even begin to discuss the scientific theories that fall under the rubric of "evolution" that the design hypothesis has immense, probably fatal flaws, flaws that were apparent in the 18th century."<BR/><BR/>He then goes on to talk about how there are a number of design flaws that would indicate the designer was, well, less then stellar at His task.<BR/><BR/>Forgetting for a moment all the perfectly good things in nature we humans screw up, I want to make sure we bring the point back in focus. The point was that intricate design points to a designer -- not that "only perfect design points to a designer." If that were the criteria then we'd have to assume all American made cars are a result of evolution over millions of years since they all seem to have a million and one flaws. But that isn't the question. The question is, at what point is there too much intricacy for chance or natural selection and even a trillion years to be a legitimate possibility?'<BR/><BR/>For some of your very well known (former) atheistic colleagues, that point has already been reached. <BR/><BR/>Astronomer Fred Hoyle had his atheism shaken by the Anthropic Principle and the complexity he saw in life.<BR/><BR/>Hoyle concluded, and I quote, "a commonsense interpretation of the facts suggest that a super intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."<BR/><BR/>While Hoyle was vague about who this super intellect is, he recognized that the fine tuning of the universe requires intelligence.<BR/><BR/>Time out.<BR/><BR/>At this point let me share with you all (the readers) a curious reaction I witness time and time again when more than adequately qualified individuals break from the (your) party line.<BR/><BR/>They immediately get labeled as discredited, loony, secret agents for the religious right (or something to that affect). It jsut amazes me that your own heroes of old need only step over the line (to the light side) one time and they are immediately thrown to the wolves. <BR/><BR/>It's a little bit like what I see people doing to Hilary Clinton now that Obama has the lead. Yesterday she was the democratic poster child. Today many seem ready to throw her body in the volcano and sacrifice her to the atheistic, um, well, throw her in the volcano.<BR/><BR/>I don't want to go down that rabbit trail too much other than to say that emotions seem to play an enormously disproportionate role here.<BR/><BR/>Just my observation.<BR/><BR/>Back to the festooning.<BR/><BR/>Other atheists admit design but then claim there is no designer. They say it all happened by chance (Larry prefers the term, 'natural selection' i.e. 'chance') But how can you seriously suggest this when there is virtually zero probability that all the 100-plus constants (that have to be there for life on planet earth) would be there absence intelligence?<BR/><BR/>Larry seemed to lean on the numbers angle. So, I assume you are talking about the multiple universe theory here. Am I right?<BR/><BR/>Or at least something like it.<BR/><BR/>That theory would assert that there are an infinite number of universes out there and we just happen to live in the one with all the right conditions.<BR/><BR/>I've heard this many times, but find it to be an incredible leap of faith on par with Steve Martin in his movie, "Leap of Faith."<BR/><BR/>Essentially, atheists holding to this are saying "given an infinite number of universes, every set of conditions will occur, including the life supporting conditions of our universe.<BR/><BR/>Larry makes it clear that he stands with those who adhere to this when he says, "It is probably true that, to some extent, the habitability of the Earth is a matter of chance. Solar systems do not evolve as do life forms and are not subject to natural selection. However, there are about 200 billion stars in just our own galaxy, and there are about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, for a total of 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Just by comparison, if you dealt that many random hands of bridge, you would receive about 10,000,000,000 perfect hands, with 10 of them dealt in perfect order. It's extremely likely that some planet is ideally situated for the development of life, and of course it is precisely on that planet where life would occur."<BR/><BR/>"Extremely likely"?<BR/><BR/>"10,000,000,000 perfect hands"?<BR/><BR/>I address the "likelihood" of this on my blog..,<BR/><BR/>Let me finish this Guinness Book of World Records length comment first.<BR/><BR/>There are many problems with the multiple universe explanation. First and foremost is that there is absolutely not even one shred of proof for it. The evidence shows the exact opposite. It's another 'theory' Larry attempts to set forth in a factual manner.<BR/><BR/>It's perfectly fine for him to believe it and accept it on faith, but ludicrous to set it forth based on it being "extremely likely." For something to be 'extremely likely" there ought to be at least a modicum of evidence for it. <BR/><BR/>I'll continue. What the 'evidence' does show is that all of finite reality came into existence with the 'Big Bang. Finite reality is exactly what we call the universe. If other 'finite reality' exists, they are beyond our scientific ability to detect. No one has ever observed any evidences that any such universes exist. Larry takes it on faith based on 10,000,000 perfect hands of bridge (<-- by the way, I checked into that a little more thoroughly and, let's just say, you might want to run those numbers again).<BR/><BR/>In short, the multiple universe is nothing more than a metaphysical concoction-- a fairytale built on blind faith--as detached from reality as Stephen Hawking's "imaginary time."<BR/><BR/>For more, go to, www.pastorrobsrants.blogspot.comRob Singletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17581677568060764341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-73916054766543051782008-02-18T11:42:00.000-07:002008-02-18T11:42:00.000-07:00I have to agree with Slut here regarding your pati...I have to agree with Slut here regarding your patience, Larry. One thing I've learned is that debate isn't necessarily about the participants; it's about the audience. I couldn't agree with you more regarding your points, and I'm sure your silent readers cannot either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-65094917324712329062008-02-17T07:09:00.000-07:002008-02-17T07:09:00.000-07:00To other commenters: This is not an evolution blog...To other commenters: This is not an evolution blog. It is neither a platform for pseudoscience spam nor a venue for me to demolish pseudoscientific bullshit.<BR/><BR/>If you want to discuss alternative theories of biology, go discuss them with a <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/" REL="nofollow">biologist</A>.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-43364822817697426602008-02-17T07:07:00.000-07:002008-02-17T07:07:00.000-07:00Rob: You are welcome to return when you can argue ...Rob: You are welcome to return when you can argue with honesty and ordinary good faith.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-1771597202993439832008-02-16T22:21:00.000-07:002008-02-16T22:21:00.000-07:00Well it's late--just got back, caught up on LOST a...Well it's late--just got back, caught up on LOST and read some comment bantering here on your blog.<BR/><BR/>Sorry you took my "opening as a frontal attack." I was just trying to get in the spirit of things. Which seemed to be 'Christian bashing' but alas, I can't very well hop on that band wagon.<BR/><BR/>I do observe a trend of sorts here. It seems to me a bit of a herd mentality exists. Not surprising since it is your blog and typically draws your kind of readers, but I usually disengage when I discover the familiar pattern of name calling and group think rather than plain old friendly debate -- although sarcasm is acceptable when it's well done. <BR/><BR/>When it's well done.<BR/><BR/>Examples of frustration setting in and name calling:<BR/><BR/>Robert wrote: "I think that at some point we will have to give up on them, declaring them afflicted with an incurable brain defect."<BR/><BR/>Nice, Robert. I can actually count past 10, but thanks.<BR/><BR/>anonymous: "not the knee-jerk, faith-based kind that says "i don't understand it so it had to be God."<BR/><BR/>Slut said: Well, never mind... :)<BR/><BR/>Barefoot (aka, Larry) said: "Rob,<BR/><BR/>You really are... woefully uninformed... AND, "repeating a lie"<BR/><BR/>What about when you say, "Do you mean complete fossils? Complete fossils are rare. There are many partial fossil remains of various species of Australopithecus."<BR/><BR/>Complete fossils of Australopithecus are not rare, Larry, they don't exist. Rare implies a few. None implies, zero.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, I didn't call it a lie, I simply think you are putting forward half the story.<BR/><BR/>Evidence for a "missing link" isn't a small problem, it's huge. And you'd think if all the charts were correct there would be at least a couple thousand partial missing links. And by partial I mean more than a tooth or jaw bone.<BR/><BR/>[insert derogatory comment about Pastor Rob now. -- How about, "Newsflash! We just found your missing link, Rob. It's you!"}<BR/><BR/>At least that would have been funny :) .<BR/><BR/>AND, "I think you are unclear as to what the word theory means in the sciences. Gravity is just as much "just a theory" as evolution. Facts and theories in more detail."<BR/><BR/>Gravity may be invisible but it's still observable today. Macro evolution cannot be scientifically verified because it cannot be scientifically observed. Unless you're older than you let on :) )<BR/><BR/>I also went to each and every link you provided and note that, while the reading is interesting, the positions are one sided. In other words, these are people who have already decided to reject creation/ID flat out and move forward viewing everything from their presupposed lens. <BR/><BR/>You never got back to me on the two books. Lets make it one. How about "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist." I would honestly love to hear your opinion on it.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you say, "It's also worth noting that even if evolution were completely and decisively disproven, it would not add one iota of support for the Christian God."<BR/><BR/>To this, I must agree. But I've already said faith has to come into the equation at some point. Hebrews tells us that "without faith it is impossible to please God."<BR/><BR/>I really do want you and your readers to know there is a God and that He loves you and sent His Son to die for your sins (and mine -- and they are many) but realize your anger and hostility come from feeling like I'm cramming it down your throat. For that I apologize.<BR/>Love forced is no love at all.<BR/><BR/>I'll lay low for a while. I see I stir up a lot of harsh feeling here. And I don't want you to have to keep trying to be nice.<BR/><BR/>Take care, Barefoot!<BR/><BR/>Pastor RobRob Singletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17581677568060764341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-52613133765543332112008-02-16T21:51:00.000-07:002008-02-16T21:51:00.000-07:00Great job, Larry.Great job, Larry.godmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12883518524499761700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-59880004611392779612008-02-16T18:24:00.000-07:002008-02-16T18:24:00.000-07:00Larry, I have never seen you so patient!I was not ...<I>Larry, I have never seen you so patient!</I><BR/><BR/>I was not the... easiest... comment I've ever written. It's interesting that Rob would open with a direct frontal attack like that.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com