cool book

You had better not read Berlinski's book. It would spin off about 50 more references to read.

Is the origin of the universe supernatural? Is evolution?

Maybe so. Best avoid those topics.

What fabricated misrepresentations are next on your list?

I and Berlinski have asked questions about amazing mysteries, which outrage people who acknowledge no mysteries.

I guess there is nothing left for science to discover; you know it all already.

Of course he does. The fact that he bothers to deny it makes it perfectly clear that he isn't intelligent. It's extremely comic, but that's one joke that John Larkin won't have got.

It isn't the kind of propaganda you fall for, and now reminds you that you are a gullible twit rather too often for your comfort.

Really? The fact that you can't recognise it as pseudo science isn't exactly strong evidence that it isn't.

Ignorant idiots think that the fact that we don't knowing every last detail gives them license to ignore what we do know, which is quite a lot, and quite a lot more than you realise.

Don't waste your time. Ignore it for the specious rubbish that it is.

No, not bullshit - he's referring to abiogenesis. Which we all, including John, know is real. Making clear that the accidental designer is evolution.

Perfectly correctly. The world is full of bad propaganda for idiot causes, and people need to learn to read critically, and throw out rubbish without wasting too much time on the process. Sturgeon's Law is that 90% of everything is rubbish, and you can save a lot of time by learning how to detect the rubbish fast.

Your loss is that you've wasted a lot of time reading it, and a sliver of your more-or-less non-existent credibility on touting it. It's a more substantial loss.

John Larkin thinks that his Darwinian-selection approach to finding better circuits by tweaking existing ones constitutes design, so it probably is true - for his "designs". Most of us can do better.

Crick did have a sense of humour. He once did pose this as a possible answer to a problem that was later went away when the role of RNA enzymes became better understood.

"Crick was a firm critic of Young Earth creationism. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom.""

I have no brief in this debate, but do have a few comments:

1. What are you trying to accomplish? If the intent is to convince people of something, I would submit that repeatedly calling them a drooling idiot may not be the optimum strategy. It tends to harden hearts.
2. Refusing to read something because you just know sight unseen that it must be wrong seems at best a bit circular. It's much more effective to at least skim it and return with a chapter and verse rebuttal of a few main points (and not of every error).
3. In debates, the objective is not to convince your opponent that you are right; this may or may not even be possible. The objective is to convince the audience, who will in turn outvote your opponent.

Joe Gwinn

Bill Sloman wrote: ===============

Cos right now you believe every pile of verbal diarrhoea you read on the net and every barking mad lefty idea in the MSM.

You are the BIGGEST troll & ranting idiot on the NG.

Demented is * nice * word for what you really are you.

...... Phil

No, I'm referring to the concept that systematic searches find local minina, and that Darwinian evolution similarly makes small changes. Big jumps need other methods.

He doesn't understand them any better than you do, imagines that everybody else is equally crippled, and doesn't realise that better informed people do have much more complete answers.

We haven't got it all sorted out, but we are lot closer to it than you seem to imagine.

You are a gullible twit.

Only to spending money on bad ones. I got more than a thousand dollars for my science fiction collection when we down-sized in the Netherlands. The serious books that we did keep (and now fill one - long - wall of this room) cost a lot more, and would probably be worth more if we sold them to second-hand-book dealer.

Joe Gwinn wrote: ===============

Plus getting to chose who you are willing to debate, ie someone worth the trouble.

What we have here is more like a *street fight* - with some being unarmed, some having knuckle gusters and a few carrying knives.

And no police to worry about at all.

...... Phil

Everything I've learned about evolution suggests that it would indeed require the intervention of a God -- not to start it, but to stop it.

As for abiogenesis, who knows... it's an open question until somebody reproduces it under glass, or at least comes up with a believable model. The only sure bet is that the answer will be found in a laboratory and not in a church.

-- john, KE5FX

That's because you don't know enough about the currently popular theories.

We don't know, and probably won't know until we can work out how to create one ourselves.

Wrong question - the first cells were fairly clearly RNA-based. You have been told this repeatedly, but haven't bothered to correct your error

As if you'd pay any attention if we did.

True. "Pride and Prejudice" is totally off-putting.

"A Room with a View" sounds like a hotel ad.

(The phrase, I believe, is that you have no /beef/ in the debate. I know what you mean, of course - that was just for your information.)

That's a valid point. If you have a better strategy to convincing John Larkin that the book he has found is rubbish and will only make his misunderstandings worse, I would be interested.

One of the great things about humans is our ability to learn from other people's experiences. There is no need to read the book - it was written by a creationist (sorry, "intelligent design supporter") with a well-established reputation for pointless discussions, straw man arguments, nonsense calculations and rehashed old misunderstandings. I have also seen him on a video. There is no need to waste time looking at his book. There is certainly no benefit in wasting good money on it.

This group is not great for debates, as most people have already figured out where they stand on any topic that comes up.

It is entertainment, really, with the occasional chance for learning something new. I know I sometimes learn things from other people's posts.

It's one of the skills I had to acquire to get a Ph.D., so tit happened before 1970.

You still haven't mastered it, which leaves you free to think that I haven't.

I can detect rubbish without too much effort. You can't and delude yourself that I can't either.

I don't believe most of yours. The mainstream media isn't wrong anything like as often as you like to think - and the nonsense that you, Cursitor Doom and John Doe do take seriously is merely addictive rubbish that unscrupulous journalists dish up to people who will pay for that kind of pablum

John Doe leads that particular pack and Cursior Doom isn't far behind. As I've said, you aren't great at critical thinking.

It's the one you like, almost as much as you like autistic. You don't have clue quite how wrong you are,

And don't happen in evolutionary histories. The historical record isn't complete, but when people latch onto some ostensibly large step, new discoveries tend to start filling in the gaps.

Most people don't pay much attention to bad ideas. Gullible twits like you are more vulnerable.

There are other constraints that you clearly know nothing about.

Generous of you.