Математика и дарвинизм

[eisman]

не возможно переити от лапы к крылу путем еволуции

Это к крылу птицы сложно. А к крылу летучей мыши или к лапе белки летяги, к примеру, уже проще...
Но речь не об этом. Объясняет то она может и гораздо лучше. Сержанты россейской армии тоже неплохо объясняют. Но это обяснения из другой оперы.
Факт сотворения креационисты принимают за аксиому - иначе никак. А на это они честно говоря права не имеют. На это имеет право только создатель - т.к. он вероятно наблюдал процесс. Иногда для понта они доказывают сие в виде тезиса "порочным кругом": есть -> значит сотворено (а сотворено оно почему? -> нууу... - по факту наличия, он ж есть).

Вы как человек читавший книгу ответьте на мой вопрос №1. It's not a joke
Where has creation ever been observed?
Хотя бы себе. Тока честно

[imported_admin]

не возможно переити от лапы к крылу путем еволуции

Это к крылу птицы сложно. А к крылу летучей мыши или к лапе белки летяги, к примеру, уже проще

еще проще перейти от летучей рыбы, у нее и лап никогда не было

[химик]

не возможно переити от лапы к крылу путем еволуции

Это к крылу птицы сложно. А к крылу летучей мыши или к лапе белки летяги, к примеру, уже проще

еще проще перейти от летучей рыбы, у нее и лап никогда не было

Согласно Дарвину рыбы с птицами связаны только как звенья пичевои цепочки ...
Кстати если есть серьезные возражение против фактов которые приведены на том саите (я кстати его выбрал исключительно за то что там написано популарным языком без закидонов и должно быть понятно каждому)

[imported_admin]

еще проще перейти от летучей рыбы, у нее и лап никогда не было

Согласно Дарвину рыбы с птицами связаны только как звенья пичевои цепочки ...
[/quote]

Дарвин мог ошибаться в частностях, здесь был приведен пример подтверждающий возможность перехода без "плохой ноги"

Кстати если есть серьезные возражение против фактов которые приведены на том саите (я кстати его выбрал исключительно за то что там написано популарным языком без закидонов и должно быть понятно каждому)

Helium Escape: http://www.tim-thompson.com/resp3.html

Whole article: http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html#3

[imported_admin]

[quote="admin"]

Кстати если есть серьезные возражение против фактов которые приведены на том саите (я кстати его выбрал исключительно за то что там написано популарным языком без закидонов и должно быть понятно каждому)

Whole article: http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html#3

хорошая ссылка: http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html

ответы на почти все утверждения статьи начинаются словами:

Response: "Directly false."
- приведены краткие опровержения и подробные полные

еще одно опровержение:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...th/index.shtml

See also:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

[химик]

админ они делают "догадку" что может быть ионое утекание гелия достаточно велико для того что бы обяснить феномен низкого содержание гелия в атмосфере - цифр не приводят - чисто теоретическая статья которая ни чего не доказывает но показывает что для некоторых не обяснимых аспектов может быть наидено другое обяснение... просто не забываи про бритву Оккама

[imported_admin]

админ они делают "догадку" что может быть ионое утекание гелия достаточно велико для того что бы обяснить феномен низкого содержание гелия в атмосфере - цифр не приводят - чисто теоретическая статья которая ни чего не доказывает но показывает что для некоторых не обяснимых аспектов может быть наидено другое обяснение... просто не забываи про бритву Оккама

там сотни страниц - они опровергают _все_ его утверждения. Мноие из его утверждений - явная подтасовка фактов ( Fraud )

тут есть опровержение почти всех доводов: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ts/index.shtml

существуют миллионы фактов подтверждающих существующие теории.


Dr. Hovind: It only takes one proof of a young earth to decide between CREATION and EVOLUTION.

This magic bullet mentality, the tendency to rely on a single, isolated argument to win all the chips, has gotten creationists into more trouble than possibly anything else. Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not bestow a little, gold ribbon upon each of us to certify the accuracy of our proofs! Indeed, nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt; there is no way of knowing, with 100% certainty, that one's proof is foolproof. One can always dream up possible scenarios that will contradict even the best scientific models. (The better the model, the more farfetched the loopholes are.) If you crave the certainty of a real "proof," the final word as it were, then you had better stick to mathematics or logic! Those are the only arenas where "proof," in its absolute sense, plays any serious role.

Scientific hypotheses are rated according to their credibility; as more and more data support (or fail to refute) a scientific hypothesis the greater our confidence in it. If that hypothesis fits into a common pattern, successfully interlocking with established theories, then it gets another big plus. If that hypothesis has no credible competition, despite much work in the area, then our confidence in it begins to soar. If that hypothesis also supplies us with numerous insights into nature, which are confirmed by further observation or testing, then it might attain the status of a "scientific theory." (Note that a scientific theory ranks very high in credibility, has been tested repeatedly, and serves as a successful framework for integrating and explaining a class of diverse, natural phenomena; it must not be confused with the layman's use of "theory" which refers to half-baked speculation or guesswork. Consequently, the complaint that evolution is merely a (scientific) theory is a little like saying that an athlete is merely a gold-medal winner!)

If there is one thread running through the scientific world, it is an emphasis on the total picture. Great care is taken to survey all the relevant literature and to arrive at a balanced judgment of the known facts. Scientists are trained to overcome a one-shot, "cowboy" mentality. When great scientific ideas do fall, on rare occasions, they do so of many grievous wounds followed by the rethinking of the total picture. The idea, seemingly worshiped in creationist circles, that you can disprove a theory by whipping out some cute, isolated "proof," which settles everything at once and for all, is not scientific. Even if such a "proof" were technically correct, it would likely shoot down only a weak model of the theory. Deep truths are seldom grasped whole; early models are often flawed in some of their particulars. Furthermore, isolated data, even if correct, are often misleading. Consequently, scientists must evaluate the total picture and avoid being fixated on specific points.

Facts successfully explained do carry weight and cannot be ignored; facts that don't fit are not necessarily fatal to the central ideas behind a hypothesis. Good scientific judgment is the art of weighing all these variables to properly evaluate the big picture. Contrary data and isolated arguments are important in that they carry the potential for bringing down a theory or hypothesis. That grand potential is seldom realized in the light of further investigation.

The one thread running through "scientific" creationism is a fixation on particular arguments or "proofs" to the exclusion of all else. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the scientific process by people who should know better. Dr. Hovind, for example, is blissfully ignorant of the relevant literature surrounding his "proofs." Consequently, his audience is given no hint of what the "competition" has to say. Nor does he discuss the weaknesses in his arguments. (By comparison, Darwin was always mindful to point out potential problems and acknowledge the strongest opposing arguments.) In short, Dr. Hovind has made no attempt to grapple with the BIG PICTURE. As a result, his arguments carry no scientific weight.

Not even one of Dr. Hovind's 30 isolated "proofs" holds any water. Meanwhile, an avalanche of burgeoning data continue to increase our confidence in an ancient Earth and cosmos. I will demonstrate the former by examining every single "proof" of a young Earth listed in Dr. Hovind's Seminar Notebook. I will demonstrate the latter by supplying two or three examples which have no reasonable interpretation save that Earth is old.

[imported_admin]

админ они делают "догадку" что может быть ионое утекание гелия достаточно велико для того что бы обяснить феномен низкого содержание гелия в атмосфере - цифр не приводят - чисто теоретическая статья которая ни чего не доказывает но показывает что для некоторых не обяснимых аспектов может быть наидено другое обяснение... просто не забываи про бритву Оккама

тут ссылки на "Real Scientists" publications и даже есть немного цифр.

Young-earth "proof" #14: The amount of helium in the atmosphere divided by its formation rate on Earth gives only 175,000 years.

14. The age of 175,000 years is a little steep for creationist purposes, so Dr. Hovind informs us that "God must have started the earth with some." Heaven forbid that the earth should be older than about 7000 years!

Helium-4 is the product of radioactive alpha decay whereas Helium-3 is primordial. The rates of their "production" are simply the rates of their escape from within the earth to the atmosphere.

A fair amount of helium is lost from the earth's atmosphere by simply being heated up in the elevated temperature of the exosphere (Dalrymple, 1984, p.112). The exosphere is the outermost layer of our atmosphere, beginning after the ionosphere at about 300 miles above the earth. When a lightweight helium atom is heated up, especially Helium-3, which is even lighter than Helium-4, it can easily pick up enough speed to escape Earth's gravity altogether and head off into outer space. Heating gas is a little like swatting rubber balls with a paddle; the lighter balls travel a lot faster after being swatted. In this manner about half of the Helium-3 produced is lost to outer space. The amount of the heavier Helium-4 lost by this method appears to be far short of the amount produced. Hence, the point of Morris' argument which is based on calculations by Cook. However, there are other mechanisms of helium escape which Morris and Cook have overlooked. Creationist Larry Vardiman (ICR Impact series, No.143, May 1985) at least recognizes some of these other factors. However, he has not fully addressed the matter, let alone proven that the earth is young.

The most probable mechanism for helium loss is photoionization of helium by the polar wind and its escape along open lines of the Earth's magnetic field. Banks and Holzer [1969] have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 10^6 ions/cm^2 sec of Helium-4, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 ±1.5) x 10^6 atoms/cm^2 sec. Calculations for Helium-3 lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magneticfield intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern [1972] estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss.

(Dalrymple, 1984, p.112)

Dr. Dalrymple goes on to explain that even though our understanding of the helium balance in the atmosphere is incomplete, the situation being very complicated because of various hardtocalculate factors, we do know one thing. "...it is clear that helium can and does escape from the atmosphere in amounts sufficient to balance production." (1984, p.113)


Thus, the helium balance calculations provided by creationist Melvin Cook (which are used by Henry Morris) cannot provide a reliable minimum estimate of the earth's age.
Their argument is a fatal oversimplification of a complex problem.

[imported_admin]

админ они делают "догадку"

вот - не только догадка:

Young-earth "proof" #13: If we divide the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate we get only a few thousand years of accumulation. Therefore, the earth is young.

13. In the case of aluminum we "get" only 100 years! In the case of sodium we "get" 260 million years. Where Dr. Hovind gets his "few thousand years," as though there were some kind of general agreement, is anyone's guess.

The table that one sees in a couple of Henry Morris' books was copied from a chapter by Goldberg (1965) that appears in Riley and Skirrow (1965).

Goldberg's [1965] Table I is a list of the abundances and residence times of the elements in sea water; it is these residence times that Morris [1974, 1977] and Morris and Parker [1982] give as indicated ages of the Earth. The residence time of an element, however is the average time that any small amount of an element remains in seawater before it is removed, not, as stated by Morris [1974], the time "to accumulate in ocean from river inflow," and has nothing to do with the ages of either the Earth or the ocean. Morris [1974, 1974a, 1977] and Morris and Parker [1982] have totally misrepresented the data listed in Goldberg's [1965] table.

(Dalrymple, 1984, 116)

Dalrymple concludes with:

The influx of chemicals to the ocean is an invalid and worthless method of determining the age of the Earth. Morris [1974, 1977] and Morris and Parker [1982] have misrepresented fundamental geochemical data and ignored virtually everything that is known about the geochemistry of seawater.

(Dalrymple, 1984, p.116)


It's all in a day's work for your typical creationist author! They are quite good at ignoring unfavorable facts. Never mind that the elements are in approximate equilibrium with the ocean; never mind that residence times are not the times for elements to accumulate from river inflow. Never mind that plankton concentrates these elements sometimes a thousand fold or more in their skeletons, and, when they die, they remove these elements from the sea waters (Glenn Morton). Press that banner high and march on! And that's exactly what a new generation of creationists are doing with this intellectually dishonest argument.

[Karlsson]

Жизнь возникла миллиарды лет назад, как следствие многочисленных спонтанных реакций. Почему же элементы которые входят в химию наших организмов относительно редки на Земле. Почему жизнь не возникла спонтанно на основе более часто встречающихя элементов либо одновременно, либо эксклюзивно. За ранее оговариваюсь, с Богом у меня не большое разногласие по поводу кто кого создал первым.