lief@hpfcla.UUCP (08/13/85)
> [Bill Jefferys] >Let me give you an example. Henry Morris wants to explain the entire >geologic column, including the Grand Canyon, by the Noachian Deluge. >He waves his hands, calls the rain out of nowhere, makes the water >disappear into nowhere, and presto! The geologic column. No calculations. >No hydrodynamics, no hydrology, no physics, just a bunch of words. WHERE, >IN ALL THE CREATIONIST LITERATURE, IS THERE EVEN AN ATTEMPT TO DEAL >WITH THIS FUNDAMENTAL CREATIONIST ASSERTION USING THE TOOLS OF PHYSICS? >Answer: Nowhere will you find it. That's why one can't credit this >idea with being scientific. Right now I am in the process of reading "The Genesis Flood" by Morris. To assert that he "waves his hands, calls the rain out of nowhere, makes the water disappear into nowhere, and presto! The geologic column"... I would assume that you have read it. The only thing is, I don't find that to be the case at all. If by handwaving you mean he calls into play the power of God, then I can understand where you are coming from, even if I don't agree with you. By the way, could you give me the calculations and physics involved in explaining to me why the bumble-bee can fly? Or why man uses less than 1/6 th of his brain? Or perhaps share with us the chemical formula and the synthetic equations needed to produce life from non life? Perhaps give us the calculations that tell us why this planet has an atmosphere of Nitrogen and Oxygen and the others don't. How about using the "TOOLS OF PHYSICS" to tell me why I am writing this? I predict that you will give me nothing more than handwaving! Lief Sorensen HP Fort Collins, CO Uucp ...!hpfcla!lief
long@oliveb.UUCP (Dave Long) (08/24/85)
In article <14600042@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP writes: > in explaining to me why the bumble-bee can fly? Or why man uses less than > 1/6 th of his brain? Or perhaps share with us the chemical formula and > the synthetic equations needed to produce life from non life? Perhaps > give us the calculations that tell us why this planet has an atmosphere > of Nitrogen and Oxygen and the others don't. How about using the "TOOLS > OF PHYSICS" to tell me why I am writing this? Would you mind showing me that man uses 1/6th of his brain? (Which is *not* a Physics question) Perhaps you can also tell me why "TOOLS OF PHYS- ICS" are in any way connected with why you wrote that? Also, I'm sure that there are some people out there who can show how this planet wound up with a N & O atmosphere. Try going to a local university and asking around. As for the bumblebee: If a solution for its flight does not exist or *did* not exist, it may exist *now*, or may be found sometime in the future. Just because the "bumblebees cannot fly" statement was made at one time does not mean that the basic question of bumblebee flight is unsolvable. I would like you to explain why nobody will ever explain why bumblebees fly. Handwaving? No, I'm just ducking the issues.... :-) Dave Long -- {hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/24/85)
> > > [Bill Jefferys] > >Let me give you an example. Henry Morris wants to explain the entire > >geologic column, including the Grand Canyon, by the Noachian Deluge. > >He waves his hands, calls the rain out of nowhere, makes the water > >disappear into nowhere, and presto! The geologic column. No calculations. > >No hydrodynamics, no hydrology, no physics, just a bunch of words. WHERE, > >IN ALL THE CREATIONIST LITERATURE, IS THERE EVEN AN ATTEMPT TO DEAL > >WITH THIS FUNDAMENTAL CREATIONIST ASSERTION USING THE TOOLS OF PHYSICS? > >Answer: Nowhere will you find it. That's why one can't credit this > >idea with being scientific. > > Right now I am in the process of reading "The Genesis Flood" by Morris. > To assert that he "waves his hands, calls the rain out of nowhere, makes the > water disappear into nowhere, and presto! The geologic column"... I would > assume that you have read it. The only thing is, I don't find that to be > the case at all. If by handwaving you mean he calls into play the power of > God, then I can understand where you are coming from, even if I don't agree > with you. Yes, saying "God did it" is exactly the kind of handwaving I am talking about. Since by definition, God can do anything, this is no explanation in the scientific sense. If it is claimed to be scientific (as Morris does) then it is pseudoscience. If you believe it as a matter of faith, and do not claim it to be scientific, then it is personal belief or religion, and I cannot quarrel with that. I am glad that your reading of Morris coincides with mine. > By the way, could you give me the calculations and physics involved > in explaining to me why the bumble-bee can fly? Or why man uses less than > 1/6 th of his brain? Or perhaps share with us the chemical formula and > the synthetic equations needed to produce life from non life? Perhaps > give us the calculations that tell us why this planet has an atmosphere > of Nitrogen and Oxygen and the others don't. How about using the "TOOLS > OF PHYSICS" to tell me why I am writing this? > > I predict that you will give me nothing more than handwaving! > Please do not change the subject. If you are sincerely interested in these questions, and are not just using a dishonest debating trick, please submit a separate article. I will be glad to give you references. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/27/85)
In article <14600042@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP writes: > > The only thing is, I don't find that to be >the case at all. If by handwaving you mean he calls into play the power of >God, then I can understand where you are coming from, even if I don't agree >with you. > Well, as far as *science* is concerned that *is* handwaving, since by definition God can do anything, you can explain everything that way. In order to make Creationism a *science*, he must demonstrate at least a partial, demonstrable mechanism for producing the observed geologic column from a flood. This is vital because the bulk of sedimentary rocks show sedimentation structures totally inconsistant with flood physics. > By the way, could you give me the calculations and physics involved >in explaining to me why the bumble-bee can fly? Or why man uses less than >1/6 th of his brain? Or perhaps share with us the chemical formula and >the synthetic equations needed to produce life from non life? Perhaps >give us the calculations that tell us why this planet has an atmosphere >of Nitrogen and Oxygen and the others don't. How about using the "TOOLS >OF PHYSICS" to tell me why I am writing this? > On some of these we do not have the answer *now*, but then science never claims to have *all* the answers. The Bumblebee miscalculation has been long since overturned. There was a good article on insect flight in Scientific American recently that addressed the issue(in fact I believe there were two in the last couple of years). I am very skeptical of the 1/6 figure, but there *is* a lot of redundancy in the design of the brain(ever hear of fault-tolerant computing? - a very important trait for a complex organism like a human). The Nitrogen/Oxygen question is also easily answered, it is called photosynthesis, that is it is the plants that have converted all the Carbon Dioxide into other stuff and given us our oxidizing atmosphere. The details of this have been quite thoroughly calculated and the existing amount of green plant on Earth is quite sufficient to accomplish this. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/29/85)
Oh boy, now he's making a fool of himself: > By the way, could you give me the calculations and physics involved > in explaining to me why the bumble-bee can fly? No mystery. The "fact" that a bumblebee can't fly was a joke by a bunch of physicists who proved that if the bumblebee was a glider it couldn't fly. > Or why man uses less than 1/6 th of his brain? He doesn't. That's another case of some non-scientist grabbing hold of partially completed research & using it. The actual result was that only about 1/6 of any complex brain (human, dolphin, etc) had any direct motor function. Our brains do more than handle reflexes, you know. > Or perhaps share with us the chemical formula and > the synthetic equations needed to produce life from non life? Define life and non-life. We can create many life structures in the lab, things like amino acids, cell membranes, etc... just what are you looking for. > Perhaps > give us the calculations that tell us why this planet has an atmosphere > of Nitrogen and Oxygen and the others don't. Well, to begin with this is a red herring, since it assumes we have the same physical structure as other planets. Which we don't. The interior of the earth differs considerably from even that of Venus and Mars. But... Easy: life. Originally the athmosphere had very little free oxygen, and most organisms were anaerobic. All sorts of bizarre energy chains were used. Some of these have been found (for example the suphur-metabolising organism near fumaroles on the ocean floor). Then a new, efficient, chain that freed oxygen developed and the organisms that used it reproduced explosively by the standards of the time. Within a short time, geologically, the oxygen content of the air was high enough to kill most anaerobic life. Only a few species of anaerobic life remain, in a few places that little free oxygen is found. > How about using the "TOOLS OF PHYSICS" to tell me why I am writing this? I can't. I'm sure someone could use the tools of psychology to do so though. -- Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076