Re: California: Board OKs Darwin challenge - Alex BranningResponds

Raymond Griffith wrote:



On 3/25/06 6:04 PM, in article kRTy+uQgxcJEFwHW@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Ernest
Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:


In message <1143325715.883721.284010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
alex.branning@xxxxxxxxx writes

I fail to see how running a web site with a catchy title (perhaps too
catchy) that questions the science behind evolution makes me a
creationist.


Perhaps you should put the web site back up and let us see for
ourselves. Having page "How the laws of chemistry disprove evolution"
and "How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of Evolution", and
the links selected in those pages, would seem to provide a prima facie
case that you're a creationist.


Paste "How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of Evolution" into a
google search. I came up with the cached page:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:BhSxgUZG-UIJ:www.evolutionisimpossible.c
om/math.html+How+the+Laws+of+Mathematics+Disprove+the+Theory+of+Evolution&hl
=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=safari

From the page:
"If you were to thoroughly shuffle ten flash cards numbered one-to-ten and
laid them out, the odds of them lining up in order is one in 3,628,800. The
probability rapidly decreases the more variables you add ­ if you were to
have one hundred cards numbered in order and performed the same experiment
the odds would be one in 10^158!

Astronomers tell us there are no more than 10^87 particles in the universe.
Assuming the universe is no more than thirty billion years old (10^18
seconds) and each particle can participate in a thousand billion (10^12)
different reactions every second, the maximum number of reactions occurring
would be 10^117. Using this equation we understand the probability of an
event that requires more than 10^117 events is zero ­ or impossible.

The cells that life builds upon are infinitely more complex[1] than a
specimen with one hundred parts ­ thus we can logically conclude that life
originating from chance is impossible. Marcel Golay[2] estimated that the
chance of replicating the simplest protein molecule is one in 10^450. Frank
Salisbury[3] put the probability of a standard DNA strand to be one in
10^600."


It is, of course, the old and very tired argument that what we see today is
exactly what was intended to happen. If you were to get an honest answer
from Alex Branning, he would wind up admitting that he does indeed think
that the universe was intended to produce *him*, that his existence was no
accident or afterthought. After all, God had him in mind from eternity past.

The very nasty theology that this produces is something Alex doesn't think
about. He is no more a theologian than he is a scientist. But this
anthropomorphic conviction that the universe was designed around humanity
(extended to the egocentrism of fundamentalists who include the specific
individual and the circumstances in the plans) is a common mode of thought
among Christians. After all, Genesis records that the world was made for
man. Alex certainly believes this (he may correct me if he does not, of
course!).

Alex uses probability in ways that it was never intended, and makes certain
unstated assumptions that do not hold up under investigation.

But this mode of thinking explains why people like Alex are so ready to lie
about their intentions and motivations. He is not personally responsible for
lying, or for any of his behavior! After all, if God planned everything so
that Alex would be here to do battle with the enemy, every action Alex does
is controlled by God. And if God commands him to say something, then it
can't really be a lie, can it? Even if it is.

His supporting works for the article include:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity.html
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=155
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp
http://www.creationevolution.net/irreducible_complexity.htm

So Alex didn't have a site with just a catchy title. Alex is a lying little
weasel who will probably begin to regret thinking that he could cover his
tracks merely by taking down the site. But the Scriptures he thinks he
believes could have told him that every falsehood will be revealed in the
light of day. His turn!

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith


Didn't you notice that the post that outed you, also mentioned that some
of the web site was still available in Google's cache?

The evolutionisimpossible.com web site includes the following text

"Scientifically speaking, if something hasn't occurred in the past,
been witnessed in the present or re-created in a lab it is impossible.
Evolution depends on the mechanism of beneficial mutations that add to
the genetic makeup of the organism, specimen or plant -; all the while
ignoring the fact that genetic additions have never been witnessed,
observed or re-created"

The second sentence is untrue. (Perhaps you'll try telling us that
speciation hasn't been observed either.) The first is at best badly
phrased, at worse nonsense - taken literally it would be claiming that
bridge hands are impossible. (There are about 10^67 possible bridge
hands, so newly dealt bridge hands, if not pre-prepared are almost
always novel. It would also seem to be claiming that high critical
temperature copper oxide superconductors were impossible before they
were discovered - or that constitutional creationist lesson plans are
impossible.




This is a link from his webpage.

<http://www.evolutionisimpossible.com/math.html>

josephus

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: California: Board OKs Darwin challenge - Alex BranningResponds
    ... Having page "How the laws of chemistry disprove evolution" ... God had him in mind from eternity past. ... The very nasty theology that this produces is something Alex doesn't think ... of the web site was still available in Google's cache? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: California: Board OKs Darwin challenge - Alex Branning Responds
    ... Ernest Major wrote: ... evolution is even a slightly viable perspective. ... purpose, we want to reach humanistic naturalists and other evolution ... I didn't really expect the web site to reappear when I challenged him to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: California: Board OKs Darwin challenge
    ... The newsgroup "Talk Origins" is a fairly busy group ... I would have also suggested the web site ... Talk Origins is a respected resource for the understanding ... of evolution - cited on the AAAS / Science Magazine pages and ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lawsuit against "Understanding Evolution" site
    ... > University's evolution Web site challenged ... > California couple who say the site improperly strays into religion. ... > An attorney representing the Berkeley scientists said the case makes a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lawsuit against "Understanding Evolution" site
    ... >> University's evolution Web site challenged ... >> California couple who say the site improperly strays into religion. ... >> An attorney representing the Berkeley scientists said the case makes a ...
    (talk.origins)