Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05)

  • Thread starter Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
  • Start date



A

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Guest
"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Without chance events (ie chance mutations, random assortment, random
> >>>chromosomal breakage, random transposition, random selection, random
> >>>propagation, random environment), there can be no evolution per
> >>>evolutionary theory as put forth by Charles Darwin.
> >>
> >>This is a word game just like most of Chung's posts.

> >
> > This is not a game for me.

>
> The evidence of your actions give the lie to that.


It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully just as it has been
your choice to do otherwise.

> >>"Chance" as
> >>Chungishly defined means unguided, illogical, without order.

> >
> > Chance as used in what I have written is chance as commonly defined.

>
> Sure. In precis, it's what I said.


In truth, it was not what you had written.

> > From the online Webster dictionary (www.m-w.com)
> >
> > Main Entry: chance
> > Pronunciation: 'chan(t)s
> > Function: noun
> > Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin
> > cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere
> > to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
> > 1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human
> > intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless
> > determiner of unaccountable happenings : LUCK c : the fortuitous or
> > incalculable element in existence : CONTINGENCY
> > 2 : a situation favoring some purpose : OPPORTUNITY <needed a chance to
> > relax>
> > 3 : a fielding opportunity in baseball
> > 4 a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation;
> > also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome <a small chance of
> > success> b plural : the more likely indications <chances are he's
> > already gone>
> > 5 a : RISK <not taking any chances> b : a raffle ticket
> > - chance adjective
> > - by chance : in the haphazard course of events <they met by chance>
> >
> >
> >>The fact is
> >>that evolution proceeds according to very specific causes and effects.
> >>They may *appear* random - may *seem* to be random - but every change
> >>has a cause. If it's a stray cosmic ray or a certain Mendeleevian
> >>confluence of conditions, all the changes that happen in the genetic
> >>trail of life over these millions of years have causes. Because we can't
> >>explain them all doesn't mean they aren't clearly caused. To quote
> >>blowhole Chung, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

> >
> >
> > "Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection,
> > starts from the premise that an organism's traits can vary in a
> > **nondeterministic** way from parent to offspring, a process Darwin
> > called 'individuation'. Darwin did not make any specific claims as to
> > how variation betwen individuals is generated, but modern genetics has
> > characterized several mechanisms that can generate such variation, e.g.,
> > random mutations of the genetic material (DNA) can arise from errors
> > during the replication of the DNA as well as from damage to the DNA
> > generated during the transcription of genes or caused by chemicals and
> > physical agents (e.g. X rays); and in sexual populations genetic
> > recombination mixes the DNA of two parents into that of offspring so
> > that the latter are guaranteed to differ genetically from each other and
> > from their parents."
> >
> > Source:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> > with **emphasis** added.
> >
> > Definition of nondeterministic...
> > nondeterministic: Permitting more than one choice of next move at some
> > step in a computation.
> > Source:
> > http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/nondeterministic.html

>
> Yes, and...?


See below.

> The simple fact of the matter is that it all still says
> that since we can't explain each event, they are *apparently*
> nondeterministic.


Actually, the theory of evolution "starts from the premise that an
organism's traits can vary in a **nondeterministic** way from parent to
offspring." This premise is absolutely wrong according to the LORD as
written in Proverbs 16:33 which states:

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its **every** decision comes from the
LORD."

**emphasis** added.

Therefore, the theory of evolution is absolutely invalid. This is the
absolute truth.

> The fact that variation occurs is the point, not
> whether our language can precisely express a very complex idea with a
> single word.


See above.

> >>Darwin's ideas have been expanded and enlarged by responsible scientists
> >>since his first publications. Fossils discovered, connections uncovered.

> >
> > No matter the expansion or enlargement, the fundamental premise of the
> > theory that traits can vary in a nondeterministic way from parent to
> > offspring is wrong and so the entire house of cards falls.

>
> Still playing word games.


No.

> The continuing fact is that changes do occur
> between parents and offspring in *unpredictable* ways. We can't see what
> the alterations are or will be, so they aren't *determinable* in
> advance. I note you reject the examples given that could trigger changes.


See above.

> Using a mathematical definition for "nondeterministic" evades
> acknowledging the reality of ongoing change.


Precision is not evasion.

> It's all a matter of
> dealing with a word at at time rather than the content of the definition
> or explanation. The fact is that changes do occur. The fact is that we
> can't generally specifically anticipate them, and so they are not always
> foreseeable or predictable. They are occasionally predictable when we
> can see the environmental pressures moving changes.


See above.

> >>But since Chung believes that nothing - not the movement of any given
> >>atom - happens without the specific orders of God, it's simply
> >>inconceivable for him to believe that any other mechanism is at work. A
> >>stunted and crippled viewpoint, but all his.

>
> And this is the unprovable position that all of Chung's ravings hinge on.


Theories wait to be disproved by the truth. In the case of the theory
of evolution, this has now been done with the truth as revealed above.

> > It remains to GOD's infinite glory that in the truth and for the truth I
> > still stand. Truth remains invincible.

>
> It remains your diseased mind trying to foist off these wacko OCD
> urgencies. Truth remains distant from you.
>
> Pastorio


"The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to
the discerning." (Proverbs 14:6)

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the LORD has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
 
A

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Guest
"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Without chance events (ie chance mutations, random assortment, random
> >>>>>chromosomal breakage, random transposition, random selection, random
> >>>>>propagation, random environment), there can be no evolution per
> >>>>>evolutionary theory as put forth by Charles Darwin.
> >>>>
> >>>>This is a word game just like most of Chung's posts.
> >>>
> >>>This is not a game for me.
> >>
> >>The evidence of your actions give the lie to that.

> >
> > It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully just as it has been
> > your choice to do otherwise.

>
> <LOL>


Those without the LORD can only despair.

> Chung calls the pot black...


In truth, name calling is not my style.

> >>>>"Chance" as
> >>>>Chungishly defined means unguided, illogical, without order.
> >>>
> >>>Chance as used in what I have written is chance as commonly defined.
> >>
> >>Sure. In precis, it's what I said.

> >
> > In truth, it was not what you had written.

>
> Unfortunate that English isn't your first language.


In truth, there is no such thing as either unfortunate or fortunate.

> Obvious from your
> inability to use it and understand it correctly.


If that were true, there would be no explanation for your struggles
except the work of LORD Almighty GOD.

> >>>From the online Webster dictionary (www.m-w.com)
> >>>
> >>>Main Entry: chance
> >>>Pronunciation: 'chan(t)s
> >>>Function: noun
> >>>Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin
> >>>cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere
> >>>to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
> >>>1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human
> >>>intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless
> >>>determiner of unaccountable happenings : LUCK c : the fortuitous or
> >>>incalculable element in existence : CONTINGENCY
> >>>2 : a situation favoring some purpose : OPPORTUNITY <needed a chance to
> >>>relax>
> >>>3 : a fielding opportunity in baseball
> >>>4 a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation;
> >>>also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome <a small chance of
> >>>success> b plural : the more likely indications <chances are he's
> >>>already gone>
> >>>5 a : RISK <not taking any chances> b : a raffle ticket
> >>>- chance adjective
> >>>- by chance : in the haphazard course of events <they met by chance>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The fact is
> >>>>that evolution proceeds according to very specific causes and effects.
> >>>>They may *appear* random - may *seem* to be random - but every change
> >>>>has a cause. If it's a stray cosmic ray or a certain Mendeleevian
> >>>>confluence of conditions, all the changes that happen in the genetic
> >>>>trail of life over these millions of years have causes. Because we can't
> >>>>explain them all doesn't mean they aren't clearly caused. To quote
> >>>>blowhole Chung, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection,
> >>>starts from the premise that an organism's traits can vary in a
> >>>**nondeterministic** way from parent to offspring, a process Darwin
> >>>called 'individuation'.

>
> I note your highlighted word.


It took you long enough.

> It's the word chosen by some anonymous
> writer for Wikipedia.


Actually, the highlighting is by me.

> But do note that the next sentence clarifies the
> meaning of the process and some of the mechanisms that could be at work.


Nondeterministic is not a process.

> Obviously, it's not nondeterministic, it only appears to be.


Nondeterministic is precisely defined below.

> But that's
> a matter of appearance, not reality.


Not for those who are able to discern the truth.

> You seem unable to distinguish or
> "discern" the two properly.


You often remind me of the blind man who would comment on the vision of
the seeing. Just as it is too easy for the seeing to discredit such a
blind man, it has been easy for me to discredit you to GOD's glory.
Such is the fate of the faithless who will be forever without GOD. In
truth, the faithless will never stand.

> >>>Darwin did not make any specific claims as to
> >>>how variation betwen individuals is generated, but modern genetics has
> >>>characterized several mechanisms that can generate such variation, e.g.,
> >>>random mutations of the genetic material (DNA) can arise from errors
> >>>during the replication of the DNA as well as from damage to the DNA
> >>>generated during the transcription of genes or caused by chemicals and
> >>>physical agents (e.g. X rays); and in sexual populations genetic
> >>>recombination mixes the DNA of two parents into that of offspring so
> >>>that the latter are guaranteed to differ genetically from each other and
> >>>from their parents."
> >>>
> >>>Source:
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> >>>with **emphasis** added.
> >>>
> >>>Definition of nondeterministic...
> >>>nondeterministic: Permitting more than one choice of next move at some
> >>>step in a computation.
> >>>Source:
> >>>http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/nondeterministic.html

>
> "From Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook, page 24-19,
> Copyright © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. Appearing in the Dictionary of
> Computer Science, Engineering and Technology, Copyright © 2000 CRC Press
> LLC."
>
> It's a different usage than would be the case in biology.


In your opinion as a cook. You may be a credit to the culinary arts but
here you are out of your element. Would suggest you turn back and
before the LORD utterly annihilates you through His faithful servant.

> >>Yes, and...?

> >
> > See below.

>
> Below where you use a quotation from the bible as "evidence" in a
> discussion about science? And I also note that there are many
> definitions of "nondeterministic" for different applications. It's a
> very specific word in philosophical, mathematical, robotic and other
> tight-subject worlds.
>
> Try this: "Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every
> event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by
> an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. No mysterious miracles or wholly
> random events occur. If there has been even one indeterministic event
> since the beginning of time, then determinism is false."
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterminism>


The theory of evolution was not a philosophical proposition so the
mathematically precise definition of **nondeterministic** will remain
the appropriate one to use.

> So clearly, the attempt to explain the mechanism behind the facts of
> evolving life was flawed.


More seriously, the theory itself is founded on the untrue premise that
traits are passed on from parent to offspring in a **nondeterministic**
fashion.

> But the fact of the evolution remains despite
> an incomplete understanding that Darwin had of the processes.


Without the truth, there can be no facts. Indeed, science at its
very core is the search for the truth. For this reason, no theory is
ever called a fact by a scientist.

You remind me of a cook pretending to be a scientist... this should
not be surprising for folks who are in the know because you ARE a cook
pretending to be a scientist. What do you hope to gain from painting
yourself as the absolute eternal fool for all to see?

There is no one who can make you look like a bigger fool than what
you have done to yourself except the LORD. And, indeed this is the
LORD's doing to drive you to what you have done. Your being made the
biggest fool in the entire universe for all to see for the rest of
eternity thanks to the Google archives is actually irrefutable proof of
the LORD Almighty GOD's existence, His omniscience, and omnipotence.

May GOD have mercy on your poor miserable soul, dear Bob whom I love,
in His Son Jesus' most precious and holy name for you truly do not have
a clue about what you are doing. Amen.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the LORD has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
 
A

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Guest
"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Without chance events (ie chance mutations, random assortment, random
> >>>>>chromosomal breakage, random transposition, random selection, random
> >>>>>propagation, random environment), there can be no evolution per
> >>>>>evolutionary theory as put forth by Charles Darwin.
> >>>>
> >>>>This is a word game just like most of Chung's posts.
> >>>
> >>>This is not a game for me.
> >>
> >>The evidence of your actions give the lie to that.

> >
> > It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully just as it has been
> > your choice to do otherwise.

>
> <LOL>


Those without the LORD can only despair.

> Chung calls the pot black...


In truth, name calling is not my style.

> >>>>"Chance" as
> >>>>Chungishly defined means unguided, illogical, without order.
> >>>
> >>>Chance as used in what I have written is chance as commonly defined.
> >>
> >>Sure. In precis, it's what I said.

> >
> > In truth, it was not what you had written.

>
> Unfortunate that English isn't your first language.


In truth, there is no such thing as either unfortunate or fortunate.

> Obvious from your
> inability to use it and understand it correctly.


If that were true, there would be no explanation for your struggles
except the work of LORD Almighty GOD.

> >>>From the online Webster dictionary (www.m-w.com)
> >>>
> >>>Main Entry: chance
> >>>Pronunciation: 'chan(t)s
> >>>Function: noun
> >>>Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin
> >>>cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere
> >>>to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
> >>>1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human
> >>>intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless
> >>>determiner of unaccountable happenings : LUCK c : the fortuitous or
> >>>incalculable element in existence : CONTINGENCY
> >>>2 : a situation favoring some purpose : OPPORTUNITY <needed a chance to
> >>>relax>
> >>>3 : a fielding opportunity in baseball
> >>>4 a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation;
> >>>also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome <a small chance of
> >>>success> b plural : the more likely indications <chances are he's
> >>>already gone>
> >>>5 a : RISK <not taking any chances> b : a raffle ticket
> >>>- chance adjective
> >>>- by chance : in the haphazard course of events <they met by chance>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The fact is
> >>>>that evolution proceeds according to very specific causes and effects.
> >>>>They may *appear* random - may *seem* to be random - but every change
> >>>>has a cause. If it's a stray cosmic ray or a certain Mendeleevian
> >>>>confluence of conditions, all the changes that happen in the genetic
> >>>>trail of life over these millions of years have causes. Because we can't
> >>>>explain them all doesn't mean they aren't clearly caused. To quote
> >>>>blowhole Chung, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection,
> >>>starts from the premise that an organism's traits can vary in a
> >>>**nondeterministic** way from parent to offspring, a process Darwin
> >>>called 'individuation'.

>
> I note your highlighted word.


It took you long enough.

> It's the word chosen by some anonymous
> writer for Wikipedia.


Actually, the highlighting is by me.

> But do note that the next sentence clarifies the
> meaning of the process and some of the mechanisms that could be at work.


Nondeterministic is not a process.

> Obviously, it's not nondeterministic, it only appears to be.


Nondeterministic is precisely defined below.

> But that's
> a matter of appearance, not reality.


Not for those who are able to discern the truth.

> You seem unable to distinguish or
> "discern" the two properly.


You often remind me of the blind man who would comment on the vision of
the seeing. Just as it is too easy for the seeing to discredit such a
blind man, it has been easy for me to discredit you to GOD's glory.
Such is the fate of the faithless who will be forever without GOD. In
truth, the faithless will never stand.

> >>>Darwin did not make any specific claims as to
> >>>how variation betwen individuals is generated, but modern genetics has
> >>>characterized several mechanisms that can generate such variation, e.g.,
> >>>random mutations of the genetic material (DNA) can arise from errors
> >>>during the replication of the DNA as well as from damage to the DNA
> >>>generated during the transcription of genes or caused by chemicals and
> >>>physical agents (e.g. X rays); and in sexual populations genetic
> >>>recombination mixes the DNA of two parents into that of offspring so
> >>>that the latter are guaranteed to differ genetically from each other and
> >>>from their parents."
> >>>
> >>>Source:
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> >>>with **emphasis** added.
> >>>
> >>>Definition of nondeterministic...
> >>>nondeterministic: Permitting more than one choice of next move at some
> >>>step in a computation.
> >>>Source:
> >>>http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/nondeterministic.html

>
> "From Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook, page 24-19,
> Copyright © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. Appearing in the Dictionary of
> Computer Science, Engineering and Technology, Copyright © 2000 CRC Press
> LLC."
>
> It's a different usage than would be the case in biology.


In your opinion as a cook. You may be a credit to the culinary arts but
here you are out of your element. Would suggest you turn back and
before the LORD utterly annihilates you through His faithful servant.

> >>Yes, and...?

> >
> > See below.

>
> Below where you use a quotation from the bible as "evidence" in a
> discussion about science? And I also note that there are many
> definitions of "nondeterministic" for different applications. It's a
> very specific word in philosophical, mathematical, robotic and other
> tight-subject worlds.
>
> Try this: "Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every
> event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by
> an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. No mysterious miracles or wholly
> random events occur. If there has been even one indeterministic event
> since the beginning of time, then determinism is false."
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterminism>


The theory of evolution was not a philosophical proposition so the
mathematically precise definition of **nondeterministic** will remain
the appropriate one to use.

> So clearly, the attempt to explain the mechanism behind the facts of
> evolving life was flawed.


More seriously, the theory itself is founded on the untrue premise that
traits are passed on from parent to offspring in a **nondeterministic**
fashion.

> But the fact of the evolution remains despite
> an incomplete understanding that Darwin had of the processes.


Without the truth, there can be no facts. Indeed, science at its
very core is the search for the truth. For this reason, no theory is
ever called a fact by a scientist.

You remind me of a cook pretending to be a scientist... this should
not be surprising for folks who are in the know because you ARE a cook
pretending to be a scientist. What do you hope to gain from painting
yourself as the absolute eternal fool for all to see?

There is no one who can make you look like a bigger fool than what
you have done to yourself except the LORD. And, indeed this is the
LORD's doing to drive you to what you have done. Your being made the
biggest fool in the entire universe for all to see for the rest of
eternity thanks to the Google archives is actually irrefutable proof of
the LORD Almighty GOD's existence, His omniscience, and omnipotence.

May GOD have mercy on your poor miserable soul, dear Bob whom I love,
in His Son Jesus' most precious and holy name for you truly do not have
a clue about what you are doing. Amen.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the LORD has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
 
O

Orbe

Guest
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

<snip>
> In your opinion as a cook. You may be a credit to the culinary arts but
> here you are out of your element. Would suggest you turn back and
> before the LORD utterly annihilates you through His faithful servant.


Now how does that song go...Onward Christian lawyers much off to court....
<Snip>
 
O

Orbe

Guest
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

<snip>
> In your opinion as a cook. You may be a credit to the culinary arts but
> here you are out of your element. Would suggest you turn back and
> before the LORD utterly annihilates you through His faithful servant.


Now how does that song go...Onward Christian lawyers much off to court....
<Snip>
 
U

Uncle Vic

Guest
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
([email protected]) made the light shine upon us with this:

> Without the truth, there can be no facts. Indeed, science at its
> very core is the search for the truth. For this reason, no theory is
> ever called a fact by a scientist.


Do you deny the existence of gravity? The theory of gravity is what is
used to explain the *fact* of gravity. Do you deny the existence of
music? The theory of music is what is used to explain the *fact* of
music. Exactly in the same way the theory of evolution is being used to
explain the *fact* of evolution. Do you get it yet?

We're so, so sorry the theory of evolution (which explains the process of
evolution, for which there is mountains of evidence), debunks your
ancient goat-herder religion, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
It's not our fault. The process of evolution has always been there, it
just took a few people with the ability to think rationally and within
the confines of reality, to discover it.

>
> You remind me of a cook pretending to be a scientist... this should
> not be surprising for folks who are in the know because you ARE a cook
> pretending to be a scientist. What do you hope to gain from painting
> yourself as the absolute eternal fool for all to see?


You know, Chunky, the argumentum ad-hominem does very little to
strengthen your argument. Why do you want to weaken an argument that is
already indescribably weak?

<snip inane bibble-babble>


--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
sig under construction
 
A

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Guest
Uncle Vic wrote:
>
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> ([email protected]) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> > Without the truth, there can be no facts. Indeed, science at its
> > very core is the search for the truth. For this reason, no theory is
> > ever called a fact by a scientist.

>
> Do you deny the existence of gravity?


No.

> The theory of gravity is what is
> used to explain the *fact* of gravity.


Theories are used to make predictions and not to explain anything.

> Do you deny the existence of
> music?


No.

> The theory of music is what is used to explain the *fact* of
> music.


Actually, music theory is used to predict what sounds will likely be
perceived as musical:

"This is a pity, because music theory is not a restrictive force. It
is simply a body of knowledge that has been developed over the
centuries, by people experimenting with satisfying musical sounds, and
trying to understand why some sounds work better than others."

Source:

http://www.chordwizard.com/theory.html

> Exactly in the same way the theory of evolution is being used to
> explain the *fact* of evolution.


Incorrect. The theory of evolution has been used to predict the
creation of new species. Since 1859, when the theory was advanced,
folks have been waiting to witness the predicted creation of new
species. Needless to say, they have been disappointed... and so they
continue to wait... and wait... and wait...

> Do you get it yet?


Yes. Have you?

> We're so, so sorry the theory of evolution (which explains the process of
> evolution, for which there is mountains of evidence), debunks your
> ancient goat-herder religion, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.


Please be sure to let the world know when you witness the creation of a
new species as predicted by the theory of evolution. Folks have been
waiting since 1859.

> It's not our fault.


Unless they've been holding their breath.

> The process of evolution has always been there, it
> just took a few people with the ability to think rationally and within
> the confines of reality, to discover it.


Evolution remains a theory and not a process.

> > You remind me of a cook pretending to be a scientist... this should
> > not be surprising for folks who are in the know because you ARE a cook
> > pretending to be a scientist. What do you hope to gain from painting
> > yourself as the absolute eternal fool for all to see?

>
> You know, Chunky, the argumentum ad-hominem does very little to
> strengthen your argument.


Questions are not arguments.

> Why do you want to weaken an argument that is
> already indescribably weak?


Truth can not be weakened.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for
how the LORD has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
 
U

Uncle Vic

Guest
on 02 Dec 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
([email protected]) made the light shine upon us with this:

> Incorrect. The theory of evolution has been used to predict the
> creation of new species.


Bzzzt!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

It has been used to predict the findings on things which have already
evolved. You are talking about predicting the future, which is
impossible.



--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
Today's example of Christian Love:
"This is the anger and low class I was speaking of. It's funny how angry
and without moral atheist are wile pretending to have a humanist type
side... It's a facade... Madaline Murry Ohare atleast (sic) admitted to
being a hatefilled (sic) *****! -- Douglas
 
U

Uncle Vic

Guest
on 02 Dec 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
([email protected]) made the light shine upon us with this:

> Incorrect. The theory of evolution has been used to predict the
> creation of new species.


Bzzzt!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

It has been used to predict the findings on things which have already
evolved. You are talking about predicting the future, which is
impossible.



--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
Today's example of Christian Love:
"This is the anger and low class I was speaking of. It's funny how angry
and without moral atheist are wile pretending to have a humanist type
side... It's a facade... Madaline Murry Ohare atleast (sic) admitted to
being a hatefilled (sic) *****! -- Douglas
 
V

Vicki Beausoleil

Guest
"Tony P." wrote:
snip Chung's tripe
>
> You wiley little devil. You keep getting past my killfile.


[email protected]

He's already been warned about trolling behaviour.

Vicki