Satan And Science

[citizen28]

My point being that you can't read. My point being that science is a moving set of ideas. So if it never settles then it can not fully describe what you say it does. Are you ready to tell me that all theories of science are settled and will not change in the future?

I do not live in the past I study it. You just might try it some time.

A hundred years ago all of the scientist thought they had it all right. They were confident they were on the right track. The scientist today think they have it all right. They think that they are on the right track. Yet the theories which these two sets of scientist held to and hold to are very different. You yourself just talked down the theories of a hundred years ago. Since I will take the leap of faith that a hundred years from now science will advance as much or more than a hundred years ago then the things which science holds so dear will be in the dustbin of history. Being the far reaching person that I am I have decided to embrace the science of the future today. So I have little respect for today's theories.

You grossly exaggerate the extent to which adjustments are made in scientific knowledge. For example, even the discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity (easily the two most dramatic breakthroughs of the last century) didn't completely invalidate classical mechanics, but instead showed it was an approximation valid on the appropriate scale.

[Franktalk]

Are your calculations working under the assumption that the rate of genetic mutation has not changed? Not to get all "creation science" here, but using different assumptions creates differing conclusions.

Cosmic radiation is the cause of the decay of cells and hence mutation and aging. Outer influences, such as the nature of the atmosphere can determine how much radiation reaches the earth, such as the ozone layer.

These are good questions. Let me answer you in some detail. First of all I do not use any of the population genetics models since they are really a self fulfilling prophecy using circular reasoning. This may sound odd but we don't need complicated math to do simple calculations. There are but a few things we need to perform our work so the source of the data is critical because it will give us some confidence that the results are valid. So I use data from very good sources. Data that is as close to observed as possible. And of course not from any YEC source or religious source.

The key is how we look at mutations. Are they a random event or are they guided? If indeed they are random then they can be described by simple probability. Like rolling dice but with more possible combinations. For the sake of simplicity I do assume a uniformitarianism past. So I do hold to constant rates for mutations. The mutation rates are observed and not calculated by assuming evolution is correct. We can't use numbers that are loaded with assumptions. But we do have all of the numbers we need in raw form and observed or close to it.

Then there is the issue with natural selection. Just how do we spread out a mutation in a population to represent reality. I could have required that a mutation prove itself and require time for it to accumulate in the population. I did not do this, I assumed that any mutation that matched our target instantly spread in the population. So in essence super natural selection. But I did retain the mutations as random so that changes from one generation to the next requires equal probabilities of going forward or backward. But if forward then super selection would kick in. I doubt if I have given you enough information but these are the main thoughts in the projections.

[Franktalk]

You grossly exaggerate the extent to which adjustments are made in scientific knowledge. For example, even the discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity (easily the two most dramatic breakthroughs of the last century) didn't completely invalidate classical mechanics, but instead showed it was an approximation valid on the appropriate scale.

Let us say you just had a heart attack and the driver taking you to the hospital asks you if you wish to go to a modern hospital or one modeled after the medicine of 1910. Which hospital do you tell the driver you want to go to? But since you don't see much difference between today and a hundred years ago you should tell the driver it does not matter.

[Stargazer]

Eldwynn, is there a need for your condesending replies?

JMS

Actually, Edlwynn appears to be channelling 44Foxtrot.

[Stargazer]

You grossly exaggerate the extent to which adjustments are made in scientific knowledge. For example, even the discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity (easily the two most dramatic breakthroughs of the last century) didn't completely invalidate classical mechanics, but instead showed it was an approximation valid on the appropriate scale.

Wow, now there's a gross approximation if I ever saw one.

Yes, quantum mechanics and relativity make Newtonian physics an approximation rather than an outmoded concept, but that is just one area of knowledge. Hang your hat on that one, if you want, but it's not a very sturdy support.

• The Phlogiston Theory held sway from about 1670 until Lavoisier pronounced its death knell in 1789. It was completely and utterly discarded.
• Lavoisier's Caloric Theory basically replaced Phlogiston and resembled it in some respects, and was even useful for a time, but was eventually discarded as well.
• LaMarckism was regarded as a serious theory from around 1809 until the 1920's when it was completely discredited. It enjoyed a brief resurgence under Stalin in the USSR as Lysenkoism.
• The theory of the Luminiferous AEther was current from around the late 1600's until the Michelson-Morley experiment torpedoed it completely in 1887. Lorentz tried to rescue it somehow but by 1904 (just before Einstein's publication of Special Relativity) it had become clear that the AEther was just vapor. <snicker>
• The theory of Geophysical Physical Cooling as a way to explain the earth's surface features such as mountain ranges was by the 1950's and 60's totally discarded in favor of Plate Tectonics.
• The Aristotelian theory of "nature abhorring a vacuum" was accepted as a scientific truth for nearly two millenia (including by Galileo) until the late 1600's when it was completely discarded
• Etc etc.

Yes, there are evolutions in science, but there are a lot of revolutions, too.

[Stargazer]

These are good questions. Let me answer you in some detail.

<snip/>

I doubt if I have given you enough information but these are the main thoughts in the projections.

By the way, congratulations on both your recent baptism and your recent marriage!

[Ralph Man]

Are they your calculations Frank or someone like Gerald Schroeder's? It would be interesting to see where your assumptions go wrong, but if you're merely borrowing from someone where that's already been pointed out, then not so much.

[Nathair/|\]

Looks like I have to drag this out again. Some people here didn't see it last time.

Science vs. Intelligent Design

Moderator:We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator:Hey, what are you doing?(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design Advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design Advocate:Yeaaarrrrrrgggghhh! You broke my kneecap!

Scientist:Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design Advocate:Aaaaah! The pain!

Scientist:Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design Advocate:You jerk! You know you did it!

Scientist:I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design Advocate:That's a load of sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!(Scientist turns to audience.)

Scientist:And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form garbaget; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Nathair

[Franktalk]

Are they your calculations Frank or someone like Gerald Schroeder's? It would be interesting to see where your assumptions go wrong, but if you're merely borrowing from someone where that's already been pointed out, then not so much.

A good point. I don't like it when people just post somebody else's stuff without really knowing what they post. So in that light I want to tell you that I started with nothing and obtained raw data. Everything is mine. Mine I tell you. (a little humor)

But before that I need to discuss what evolution is and is not. First of all there is a mechanism of change that has at its base mutations in many forms. We can see direct evidence of this in bacteria where there are rapid populations and death rates that allow some mutations to prosper. So if a species can have billions of offspring in a short time and can support death rates of 99.99% one can and does see evolution in action. I also support the idea that natural selection happens. We can see evidence of this all over the place. In my discussions I have sidestepped the issue of ID and multiple mutations required for some systems to evolve, like some systems may require hundreds of mutations all at once in order to function. Although I support this idea I did not use it.

So I am a believer in evolution where the mechanism can work. But I take exception with people who then take the mechanism and apply it to small complex populations and species that can't support a high death rate. Now I feel this way because of our current understanding of the process. Someone may find some other mechanism in the future that is currently unknown. I doubt it but I allow for the possibility. Much of evolutionary thought is based on the following statement:

We are here so evolution must have happened.

A statement I reject.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Right now there are many theories of gravity. And they all compete for approval from the scientific collective. And with additional data some will rise and some will fall. None are fact. Gravity itself may have come into existence after the big bang cooled for some period. That according to theory. Has gravity always been the same, I doubt it.

None of this matters. What is really important are two theories and how they have come to effect mankind. One is the theory which says that the universe has always been here and God is not required. The other is the theory that life created itself by an accident and God was not required. Both of these are theories which are projections back in time where repeatable experiments are not possible and direct observation is not possible yet many say that these two theories are fact and they deny God. I reject both of them because of many reasons. These are the two which Satan really wants to make sure he causes the most people to fall from faith. And why does he want this, because he knows that when a certain number of believers is reached his time is over. He is really really motivated. Has Satan entered into these two theories? I think he has from the beginning. When Darwin was coming up with his theory he needed very long times so that his slow change theory would work. His friend Charles Lyell supplied that time in geology. Lyell was open about his hate for people of faith and he actively tried to take down the church. He actively promoted some leaders in the church who supported his naturalistic viewpoint. He hated the church but knew to destroy it he had to insert doubt into the members. Does this sound like something inspired by Satan?

The following letter is one of thousands from this time frame that shows the agenda of the naturalist to subvert the Word of God. The letter was written by Charles Lyell to George Poulett Scrope 14 June, 1830.

“I am sure you may get into Q.R. (Quarterly Review) what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the (church) party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [John] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by the mosaic systems.”

Lyell 1830

Pure science or agenda, to me it is pretty obvious."

No. Fact is fact. The explanation of that fact is a theory, and as such is subject to change.

When ever there is mass there is gravity. At the point of the Big Bang there was infinite gravity. The universe is still cooling down. At some point the stars will all burn out, and the universe will experience "Heat Death". As the protons themselves do dissolve, at about 100 Trillion Trillion years from now there will be no more universe. My personal belief is that that point the Gods will yet again say "Let the be light", and there will be.

They don't compete as such. The first one to be falsified is discarded, and so on down the line.

The constant universe theory has been falsified. We now use the Big Bang theory. Science does not take any position on God. Scientists are free to believe or not believe in God as they so desire.

We don't know how life originally started. The best theory so far is called Ambiogenesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Whatever caused that process to begin is the providence of God.

Again science takes no position on God. Scientists are free to believe or not believe as they choose. I'm a scientist and I choose to believe.

Science is the study of the natural world/universe. Science does not concern itself with the Devil. Scientist are free to believe in the Devil or not, as they so desire. What they can not do is put God or the Devil in their experiments. The supernatural has no place in the natural.

The theory of evolution has not been falsified. If you really want to falsify it. It is relatively easy to do. All you need is a shovel, and some means of accurately recording what you see. Now go dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed Precambrian layer of dirt.

Resources: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024

Again and finally science doesn't address God, the Devil or any supernatural being or object. The scientist(s) are as free as you are to believe or not believe as they, and you, so desire.

Edited May 22, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Franktalk]

Stargazer,

Yes the list is large of overturned theories. But I think we have to hold off on AEther. I think we have to do the experiment outside of a Gravity well. I just have hard time believing that space itself does not have a current. Also it is assumed that space is uniform in its axis for the experiment to work. But if space is not the same in one direction verses another then the experiment may not show it because the testing device is subject to the space. Time will tell.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Franktalk

[Franktalk]

I have been looking at a variety of articles on evolution over the years and I have always heard how evolution is a fact because there is just so much evidence to support this theory. In recent years I have read of mutation rates for humans and primates being measured and how the DNA for humans was mapped. I also heard that the DNA for chimps was compared with humans. So at this point it became obvious to me that all of the pieces needed to mathematically model a species to species change were now in our hands. I found it odd that I never ran across a mathematical model unless I was on a creationist website. But they never gave me the detail I was looking for. So armed with some numbers from trustworthy sources I ran some numbers and came up with some interesting results. Those results I will post soon.

The evolution I am looking at is species to species evolution brought about by random mutations.

But before we just jump in and run some numbers I will discuss another analysis that does not hold on to our emotions like evolution does. I would like to discuss the math and the assumptions and come away with some feeling for the results of this other analysis. In this analysis I looked at lightning strikes in the U.S. and used measured CG (cloud/ground) strikes to calculate the probability of human deaths due to being struck by lightning.

When we deal with large populations or events the use of statistics is justified because the large numbers evens out the individual choices of each person or event. So when we have hundreds of millions of people, and millions of lightning strikes, and millions of kill zones we should be able to calculate the probability of someone being killed by lightning. Then we can compare the calculated number of deaths with the actual deaths and see how well the math was able to determine these real world events.

We have to gather some basic data first and make some assumptions with that data. The first thing we need is just how big is a kill zone for a lightning strike. I did not come up with exactly what I was looking for, but the following source gave me a kill zone that I thought would be close. I had confidence in the area because I have witnessed lightning strikes and have seen the smaller fingers that come off the main bolt. And any of these can kill you as well. These fingers cover an area larger than this 30 yard kill zone.

http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/mind.../weird-science

"A single lightning strike can have a potential of a billion volts and deliver 100,000 amperes of current. If a bolt directly hits a marine animal swimming on the surface, it will undoubtedly hurt or kill the animal. Lightning strikes have killed or injured people on the surface more than 30 yards away from it."

Since we are talking land and not water for the most part I reduced the kill area to a 5 yard radius. It seems likely to me that the charge of the lightning may divert within 5 yards and actually strike a person. This is a best guess situation because no one could know if a bolt was diverted or not in any particular strike.

So a 5 yard radius for the bolt is 78.5 square yards for the zone.

Next I needed to know how many CG strikes occur in one year.

http://strc.comet.ucar.edu/announcem...tningPaper.pdf

"More than fifty people are killed, and over 300 people are injured, by CG lightning annually in the US (Curran et al 1997). It is unknown how many injuries and fatalities, related to lightning, go unreported. Lightning fatalities have decreased over the past 2 decades, while the number of reported injuries has been constant, though highly variable from year to year, as illustrated on Fig 3 (Curran et al 1997). CG lightning is the most frequent weather-related hazard. As indicated by the National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN), over 20 million CG strikes per year occur across the United States (Orville and Huffines 2001, Zajac and Rutledge 2001)."

Next I needed to know the population of the U.S. and what the area of the U.S. is in sq miles.

Population of US factmaster.com 300,000,000

sq miles of US mahalo.com 3.79 million

Converting to sq yards

sq yds in US 1.1739 X 10^13

Converting to kill area from kill radius

death range of a lightning strike 78.5 sq yds

number of kill zones 1.1739X10^13/78.5 = 1.4954X10^11

density of humans per zone 300,000,000/1.4954X10^11=.002006

density of strikes per zone / year 20,000,000/1.4954X10^11=1.337X10^-4

chance of person in strike zone .002006 X 1.337X10^-4 = 2.68X10^-7

strikes on person per year 2.68X10^-7 X 300X10^6 = 80.4 people

the actual strikes per year is more than 50 killed and 300 injured.

The math is close to what we see.

The math is simple yet models what we actually measure. I will use this same type of simple model for species to species evolution. Does anyone see errors in this?

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Here is what the real scientists say:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876

[Franktalk]

Since no one complained about the lightning model I will move along to the more emotionally charged subject of evolution. I will use the evolution of man from a common ancestor with apes. I will use chimp to describe that creature and will use chimp DNA since we do not have any DNA from a common ancestor.

The model above gives us some confidence in using probability in large populations with random events. Now when we switch over to evolution (chimp to man) we have to make some additional assumptions in order to perform the calculations. So in the above analysis we know how many people are in the United States, but we do not know the population of chimps back in time that experienced mutation pressure. But as I lay out the assumptions you will see that I have been more than fair in giving evolution huge advantages that we do not see in nature.

(I use the chimp because we know about chimp DNA but we do not know about a common ancestors DNA)

Assumptions

A generation is 20 years

Group population is one million

Once a mutation occurs that is in line with the human target then the entire population instantly has that same mutation.

Constant population and no death of target mutation until mutation is transferred to entire population.

Raw data

Size of human DNA 3X10^9 nucleotides

http://www.genome.gov/11006943

Mutation rate 1.8X10^-8 per nucleotide location

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12497628

Difference between chimp and Human DNA 4.0%

http://www.genome.gov/15515096

Calculations

Human DNA X % difference = # of nucleotides that are different

(3 X 10^9) X .04 = 120 X10^6

Number of possible combinations in 120 X10^6 nucleotides with 4 nucleotide combinations per site

4^(120 X10^6) = My calculator did not go that high. So I used 4^1000 which

Is 1.148 X 10^519 Much smaller number but my calculator could handle it. Using this smaller number makes the job of evolution much easier.

Per generation number of mutations

DNA size X mutation rate X population = mutations in population

(3 X10^9) X (1.8 X10^ -8 ) X (1 X 10^6) = 5.4 X10^7 mutations

Possible combinations / mutations per generation = # of generations required

(1.148 X10^519) / (5.4 X10^7) = 2.125 X10^511 generations

Years in generation X required generations = years required

20 X (2.125 X10^511) = 4.25 X10^512 years required to make man

Now the universe according to science is 14.5 X10^9 years old.

I will answer questions now.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Franktalk

[Franktalk]

Franktalk:

Here is what the real scientists say:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876

I don't care what they say. What do you say? And don't be a parrot.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

I say creationism is a farce. That evolution is a well established science. That if you really want to disprove evolution there is a much easier way to do it. It takes little skill. All you need is a shovel, a piece of paper, and a pencil. Now just go find a fully modern human skeleton in a layer of previously undisturbed Precambrian dirt. Document how you did it. Go for it.

[Stargazer]

Stargazer,

Yes the list is large of overturned theories. But I think we have to hold off on AEther. I think we have to do the experiment outside of a Gravity well. I just have hard time believing that space itself does not have a current. Also it is assumed that space is uniform in its axis for the experiment to work. But if space is not the same in one direction verses another then the experiment may not show it because the testing device is subject to the space. Time will tell.

I thought about the gravity well thing, too. It was interesting to find that one or both of the Voyager probes had been reported to have discrepancies in position and/or velocity. Small discrepancies, but significant in that all other things being equal they should be there rather than here. There was some speculation in the community that there might be some kind of previously-believed-to-be-understood physical principle which might not be quite as well understood after all. Those probes are definitely outside any significant gravity well, and I thought that maybe we might be on the verge of some new physics, which would be extremely exciting. So I paid some attention to what was going on. Unfortunately, it turned out that it wasn't new physics at all, but a previously-unaccounted-for effect of uneven heating of the probe's surfaces which caused a very minor but significant acceleration in an unexpected direction. Which turned out to explain the discrepancy.

Now, something interesting recently happened with the results of the Gravity Probe B mission, in that it confirmed Einstein's predictions of the geodetic and frame-dragging effects. I am not all-up on what this is about with respect to the aether-dragging disproved by Michelson-Morley. I am going to have let smarter people than I come up with the implications. If they can.

Edited to fix formatting

Edited May 23, 2011 by Stargazer

[pathfinder]

I don't care what they say. What do you say? And don't be a parrot.

I'm no scientist, but I'm 99% sure that amateur thought experiments and brief probability models on widely different topics are not how science is conducted.

[Stargazer]

Franktalk:

I say creationism is a farce. That evolution is a well established science. That if you really want to disprove evolution there is a much easier way to do it. It takes little skill. All you need is a shovel, a piece of paper, and a pencil. Now just go find a fully modern human skeleton in a layer of previously undisturbed Precambrian dirt. Document how you did it. Go for it.

Your understanding of creationism might be a farce. Or maybe not. But I don't get the impression Franktalk is trying to disprove evolution per se, but he is demonstrating using a mathematical method that random-chance mutation alone cannot possibly account for the evolution of the human species during the currently-understood age of the Universe. I may be putting words in his mouth, but as I understand it, saying that random chance alone cannot possibly account for us, and that to achieve the human species in the required time frame requires guidance from an external source. This in itself is not a disproof of evolution. It's a discounting of random chance.

But of course one is not allowed to say such things, because the delicate emotional stability of those who cannot abide the notion of God involved in it at all in any form whatsoever will be disturbed.

Of course, if you would prefer to exclude the action of any outside influence in evolution, and be all "my way or the highway" about random-chance evolution, then there's nothing much to discuss then, is there?

But why can't you answer the mathematical model that Franktalk presented? I can understand an inability to do so, and there's no shame in this, but to answer him by basically responding "Your mama wears Army boots" (i.e. suggesting he go and find a pre-Cambrian human skeleton to dig up) shows a lack of willingness to have an intelligent conversation.

Just sayin'.

[bookofmormontruth]

Here is what real Prophets say:

"Will the Lord give us the full and revealed account of the creation as long as we believe in the theories of evolution?" Bruce R. McConkie, “This Final Glorious Gospel Dispensation,” Ensign, Apr 1980, 21

“I remember when I was a college student there were great discussions on the question of organic evolution. I took classes in geology and biology and heard the whole story of Darwinism as it was then taught. I wondered about it. I thought much about it. But I did not let it throw me, for I read what the scriptures said about our origins and our relationship to God. Since then I have become acquainted with what to me is a far more important and wonderful kind of evolution. It is the evolution of men and women as the sons and daughters of God, and of our marvelous potential for growth as children of our Creator.” —President Gordon B. Hinckley, “God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear,”Ensign, Oct. 1984, 5.

Elder John A. Widtsoe observed: “Facts never change, but the inferences from them are changeable. … The careful man does not become so enamored of an hypothesis or a theory that he cannot distinguish it from a fact. … Theories of science can no more overthrow the facts of religion than the facts of science. … One cannot build a faith upon the theory of evolution, for this theory is of no higher order than any other inference, and is therefore in a state of constant change.” (In Search of Truth: Comments on the Gospel and Modern Thought, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1930, pp. 41, 46, 110.)

[Stargazer]

I'm no scientist, but I'm 99% sure that amateur thought experiments and brief probability models on widely different topics are not how science is conducted.

So, you're understanding of science is that you can only do it if you're a "professional"? That it requires membership in some kind of club? Interesting.

And just how much do you know about Franktalk's qualifications? Do you know whether or not he is a scientist?

I suppose that one also cannot intelligently discuss the Gospel of Jesus Christ without first having obtained a Doctor of Divinity degree. So you're right, we should just shut up and leave it to the pros.

[Stargazer]

Elder John A. Widtsoe observed: “Facts never change, but the inferences from them are changeable. … The careful man does not become so enamored of an hypothesis or a theory that he cannot distinguish it from a fact. … Theories of science can no more overthrow the facts of religion than the facts of science. … One cannot build a faith upon the theory of evolution, for this theory is of no higher order than any other inference, and is therefore in a state of constant change.” (In Search of Truth: Comments on the Gospel and Modern Thought, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1930, pp. 41, 46, 110.)

And I would like to point out for pathfinder's benefit that Elder Widtsoe was a genuine, card-carrying, Harvard-educated scientist with a doctorate from Goettingen University in Germany. So he was a "real" scientist.

[keith_brian]

I asked if you use them to extend your senses. The correct answer would be "yes". And not make a list of tools. If indeed you are trying to show how smart you are then I declare that you are the smartest person in the universe. So maybe now we can have a normal discussion.

By the logic of the theist, I thought that only God was the smartest person in the universe.

Did you just declare me God?

Wow. Thanks

[keith_brian]

Since you appear to be an expert on questions of evolution maybe you can help me. I did some calculations dealing with mutations and found that man needed more time to evolve than was available in the history of the universe. I will post my work if you are up to the task of finding my error. Are you game?

Submit it to an evolutionary biology journal. If you can get it past peer review, I will listen to what you have to say.

[keith_brian]

You grossly exaggerate the extent to which adjustments are made in scientific knowledge. For example, even the discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity (easily the two most dramatic breakthroughs of the last century) didn't completely invalidate classical mechanics, but instead showed it was an approximation valid on the appropriate scale.

I concur. I made this point not 10 posts earlier to him. He ignored me as well.