Re: OT: From Dr Michio Kaku

On Nov 9, 10:11 pm, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9 Nov, 20:18, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Nov 9, 7:59 pm, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But he did believe in God, that was the hypothesis " creationists
claim to have an alternate science".

Where does "God" figure in Newton's theories?

Shallow boy!

You didn't answer my question:

I wasn't answering your question. I was responding to "kermits"
Statement

Much sound advice here for the creationists who walk among us and
claim to have an alternate science.

But I will answer your question.

Where does "God" figure in Newton's theories?

When you tell me,

Where does "evolution" figure into Newtons theories?

"An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture",

" 3 April, AD 33".

Many scientists believe in God. That does not mean that belief in God
is a scientific conclusion.

Nice for someone on TO to admit the "FACT"!

It's only the creationists who make that claim.

Are you skitzo? You said "Many scientists believe in God".
I said it was nice of you to admit that fact!

Nobody has ever denied that fact other than creationists who insist
that one cannot believe in God and accept the findings of science.

Your education evidently does not extend to reading for comprehension.


Why not explain that FACT to them?

What, tell them what they already know?


As it is the creationists who insist that one cannot believe on God
and accept the findings of science, it is evident that they *don't*
know that.


Or perhaps you can provide an example of *any* creationist "theory"
which
1) Fits the data
2) Makes specific, testable predictions and
3) Is mathematically sound.

Sure, creation!

What predictions does "creation" make?

It predicts that man will

"destroy his enviroment", "will cry peace", "will a endure world
wars". "Will argue about religion".
............. lots more.

Look at the dates provided.

Which dates? There have been predictions of the imminent end of the
world based on the interpretation of scriptures since the year dot,
and none of them have proved to be accurate.

Who was "ruinin" the earth in the first century?

The Romans. Through poor agricultural practices they turned the south
shore of the Mediterranean into a desert. They also hunted many
species, such as the European lion, to extinction.

Which is all irrelevant in any case. There have been numerous
predictions of the end of the world based on scripture, and none has
proved accurate.


A prediction is a description of a model of how a system will behave,
not something pulled out of the air.

There are many predictions. And this system is behaving exactly as
predicted.

What utter nonsense! It has been predicted by interpreting the bible
and other religious texts that the world will end hundreds of times
over the past couple of millennia.
http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm

Last time I looked it was still here. The current predictions of
catastrophe based on scientific findings have a rather better chance
of being correct.


How is "creation" described mathematically?

Show me an example, "how is evolution described mathematically"?

Read about the pioneering work in statistics of Fisher and other
evolutionary biologists. There's a huge scientific literature on the
subject.

So when someone starts his own religion he is called a "tax fraud",
but when someone (with a large family) tells the goverment that they
should "subsidise" large families he is a mathematician?

What on earth has that to do with your question?
You asked for an example of how evolution is described mathematically.
I provided such an example.


O.K, sure!

Now answer the question: How is "creation" described mathematically?

All you have done is describe a system in motion.

I could (stick a russian flag on this discovery) and claim it as my
own. Sadly it does not work that way.

Fisher does not describe evolution mathematically.


Well, generations of biologists think that he does, and generations of
mathematicians use the methods he developed in other fields. What do
you know that all those scientists don't?

Which doesn't answer the question:
How is "creation" described mathematically?

Of course, I know that you will continue to evade the question, but as
one of the reasons why I post here is to expose the dishonesty and
intellectual vacuum of creationism, that's fine with me.



Why not produce a creationist "alternative" which can be falsified and
prove me wrong?
That means a potential phenomenon which cannot be "explained" by "God
did it".

You are asking me to show you evidence that "god did it" and at the
same time, asking me to explain a phenomenon which "cannot" be
"explained" by "God".

Do you tie up all your critics in such a way?

No, I'm explaining to you the nature of falsification in science. To
falsify a theory, you need to propose a potential observation or
measurement which could NOT be explained by the theory. For example,
evolutionary theory predicts that if a population of organisms is
subjected to environmental stress over many generations, there will be
a change in the genetic makeup of that population, and the genes which
provide resistance to the stress become more prevalent. One can carry
out an experiment on populations of bacterial cultures and track the
genetic changes in fine detail. If such changes did NOT occur, it
would be impossible to explain the outcome within the framework of
evolutionary theory.

Sure you can provide 2 examples.
Using Fishers mathematics. You can explain.


1) A bacterium, that has grown resistance to bleach. ( I do not mean a
bacterium *ALREADY* resistant to bleach)?
Why do I need to use Fisher's mathematical methods in every single
example? There is no need in this case.

Bacterial populations can develop resistance to toxins. This is
because there are genes present in the population which provide
resistance to the toxins, and the individuals carrying these genes are
more likely to reproduce in an environment in which such toxins are
present. This means that there is a change in the genetic make-up of
the population. This is what biologists call "evolution".

I mean since antibiotics have been around about the same amount of
time as bleech, and yet "bleech" is much more widely used, how come
there is resistance to antibiotics and yet not to bleech?

Bleach is a far more powerful destructive agent than antibiotics.
That's why it's not a good idea to drink a gallon of bleach if you
have a bacterial infection. It will kill all the bacteria, but it will
kill you as well which is a rather drastic way of trying to treat a
sore throat. If you kill all of a population, the population won't
evolve.

Antibiotics are present in the environment - they were after all
developed from naturally occurring fungi - which is why there are low
levels of antibiotic resistance present in many bacteria.


2) You can explain where on earth radioresistant bacteria are exposed
to the radiation levels they are amune to?


You find them in places where there are high levels of radioactivity.
Where else would you find them?
By the way, there are plenty of natural sources of radioactivity, and
some organisms are more resistant to the effects of radiation than
others. That's the variation on which natural selection acts.

And explain it mathematically!

Why should I need to? It's perfectly straightforward if you don't
close your mind.

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why is it that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not an example of evolution ?
    ... > evidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. ... > Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Is spacetime curvature the source of inertia?
    ... The mathematician wants to deal with the former. ... loss to associate the term resistance with an apple in freefall. ... but not one bit simpler ".-- Albert Einstein ... term in the field equations of physics that is allowed ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is spacetime curvature the source of inertia?
    ... The mathematician wants to deal with the former. ... loss to associate the term resistance with an apple in freefall. ... but not one bit simpler ".-- Albert Einstein ... term in the field equations of physics that is allowed ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Antibiotics In Agriculture
    ... Everybody knows that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a bad ... thing, at least for humans and animals, if not for bacteria. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • New study on the evolutionary genetic paths to bacterial antibiotic resistance
    ... Researchers use whole-genome sequencing to keep tabs on the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. ... Using whole-genome sequencing to track the evolution of bacteria as they are exposed to ever-increasing levels of antibiotics, researchers have identified some consistent-and potentially practicable-genetic mutations, pointing to new possibilities for conquering resistant bugs, according to a study published in today's Nature Genetics. ...
    (talk.origins)