22 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillAn analogy is when you notice some common elements between two different things and find it useful to compare the two in order to get a greater understanding of the common patterns and possible differences.
Is Snowflake crystals development roughly analogous to the biolological Evolution process ?
So to ask "is a analogous to b" is too vague because we do not know what common elements are being compared.
So the answer is "yes, they are analogous for some properties, and no, they are not analogous for other properties".
Are they both examples of complex outcomes from a process? Yes.
Are they both examples of infinitely variable complex outcomes with no discernible 'intended design' - yes.
The video referenced in the OP looks for differences between the two things, then claims 'there is no analogy' because there are difference. This is obviously either someone who doesn't understand what 'analogy' means, or more likely someone who is dishonest. jaywill, which do you think the writer of the article in the video is, ignorant or dishonest?
22 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThe typical Symphony has three or four contrasting movements. Usually something like fast, slow, fast or the reverse.
too slow for my taste. my life tempo is faster.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmxFAT581T4
Since the movement is only a section of the three movement symphony, the typical symphonic listerner (like myself) expects contrast. It was only the second of the three contrasting movements.
However, there is nothing wrong with liking generally a quicker tempo.
I like contrast.
22 May 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't think the video referenced is dishonest or ignorant. It may be biased towards its view - exactly the way you are in just about everything you write. And it may not have been exhaustive - exactly the way you are not exhaustive in every post that you write.
An analogy is when you notice some common elements between two different things and find it useful to compare the two in order to get a greater understanding of the common patterns and possible differences.
So to ask "is a analogous to b" is too vague because we do not know what common elements are being compared.
So the answer is "yes, they are analogo ...[text shortened]... which do you think the writer of the article in the video is, ignorant or dishonest?
He quoted portions of the article. It would be interesting to read the entire article. The quotation that there was NO analogy to snowflake formation and far greater complexity of living organisms, I understood to be related to the introduction of "new information". I understood him to mean the article limited "no comparison" mainly to that aspect.
As I am listening to the video again as I write here and am stopping it to double check, I think your charge is exaggerated as to "dishonesty" and "ignorance".
I hear nothing sneaky in the video. The appeals to "beauty" are kind of apart from science. But it is not outside our search for truth and the meaning of our own humanity.
I don't know about a doilly cloth making. So the assistant talking about that fabric designing I didn't follow too well.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
22 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillat 5mins after he has said the evolutionists use snowflakes as an example of how complexity can arise from something simple he says "but crystals are nothing like a living cell" and then goes on to talk about how different they are scientifically and therefore nothing alike. this totally misses the point of an analogy, so is he doing this because he is stupid or because he is being dishonest by missing the point on purpose and talking about how different the two things are to make the analogy seem stupid?
I don't think the video referenced is dishonest or ignorant. It may be biased towards its view - exactly the way you are in just about everything you write. And it may not have been exhaustive - exactly the way you are not exhaustive in every post that you write.
He quoted portions of the article. It would be interesting to read the enti ...[text shortened]... ing. So the assistant talking about that fabric designing I didn't follow too well.
i could say a goat is a bit like a lawn mower as an analogy, your christian tv guys could scoff and give a million reasons why a goat is not like a lawn mower and laugh "a goat is organic hahahah and lawn mower is man made hahahah" this would make them stupid.
22 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillThe writer of the article clearly said something blatantly false, that you refuse to see this suggests you don't know what an analogy is. I suggest you think about it a bit before responding.
I don't think the video referenced is dishonest or ignorant.
It may be biased towards its view - exactly the way you are in just about everything you write.
This has nothing to do with bias. Its simply about what the word 'analogy' means and whether the writer was using it correctly. He clearly wasn't. So the question is why wasn't he? The next question is why can't you admit that he wasn't using it correctly?
He quoted portions of the article.
I believe he read the entire article. It can be found here:
http://creation.com/treasures-of-snow
Please check for yourself whether he omitted important bits that might have explained why the writer said something that is obviously false.
22 May 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe Snowflake crystals development is an example of one of God's random generator programs that also prevents repeating the same formation again. You should be able to make a program that does this up to a point, but then your program will break down, if run long enough.
An analogy is when you notice some common elements between two different things and find it useful to compare the two in order to get a greater understanding of the common patterns and possible differences.
So to ask "is a analogous to b" is too vague because we do not know what common elements are being compared.
So the answer is "yes, they are analogo ...[text shortened]... which do you think the writer of the article in the video is, ignorant or dishonest?
22 May 12
Originally posted by twhitehead
The writer of the article clearly said something blatantly false, that you refuse to see this suggests you don't know what an analogy is. I suggest you think about it a bit before responding.
[b]It may be biased towards its view - exactly the way you are in just about everything you write.
This has nothing to do with bias. Its simply about ...[text shortened]... ant bits that might have explained why the writer said something that is obviously false.[/b]
The writer of the article clearly said something blatantly false, that you refuse to see this suggests you don't know what an analogy is. I suggest you think about it a bit before responding.
The writer is one Martin Tampier.
Here's the article as you have indicated:
http://creation.com/treasures-of-snow
Could you please cut and paste the portion which you say is "blantantly false" ?
22 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindswhy would the program break down?
The Snowflake crystals development is an example of one of God's random generator programs that also prevents repeating the same formation again. You should be able to make a program that does this up to a point, but then your program will break down, if run long enough.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd if that sentence is " blantantly false" what are the examples that you would submit that prove the blantant falsehood of that sentence ?There is therefore no analogy between snow crystals and the far, far greater complexity of living organisms.
Can you provide me with two analogies proving your point ?
There is therefore no analogy between snow crystals and the far, far greater complexity of living organisms.
Proved False by the following analogies: ...
22 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillSnow crystals are analogous to living organisms in that they are both real things, unlike your God.
And if that sentence is [b]" blantantly false" what are the examples that you would submit that prove the blantant falsehood of that sentence ?
Can you provide me with two analogies proving your point ?
There is therefore no analogy between snow crystals and the far, far greater complexity of living organisms.
Proved False by the following analogies: ...[/b]
Snow crystals are analogous to living organisms in that they can both be studied by science, unlike creationism.
Snow crystals are analogous to living organisms in that they are both examples of complex patterns arising via natural processes without a specific outcome.
In general an analogy can always be drawn between any two things thus the statement is false regardless of what two things he chose and regardless of whether you agree with my analogies.
Originally posted by twhitehead
Snow crystals are analogous to living organisms in that they are both real things, unlike your God.
Snow crystals are analogous to living organisms in that they can both be studied by science, unlike creationism.
Snow crystals are analogous to living organisms in that they are both examples of complex patterns arising via natural processes without a spe ...[text shortened]... se regardless of what two things he chose and regardless of whether you agree with my analogies.
Snow crystals are analogous to living organisms in that they are both real things, unlike your God.
Snow crystals are analogous to living organisms in that they can both be studied by science, unlike creationism.
Snow crystals are analogous to living organisms in that they are both examples of complex patterns arising via natural processes without a specific outcome.
In general an analogy can always be drawn between any two things thus the statement is false regardless of what two things he chose and regardless of whether you agree with my analogies.
If this is your main complaint about the weakness of the article then that's not very impressive. You are trying to make a major objection about a rather minor issue of English composition.
The sentence - "There is therefore no analogy between snow crystals and the far, far greater complexity of living organisms" ripped out of all context by you, only showcases your own desperate cleverness.
There is no reason to ignore the word THEREFORE in the sentence to see precisely what rational has proceeded the sentence.
Life forms, on the other hand, came into existence, evolutionists believe, through the addition of heat energy to some postulated primordial soup. Not only are these processes very different, but life requires the emergence of new information (a code) in order to take over the functions of organization and reproduction of a cell. THERE IS THEREFORE NO ANALOGY BETWEEN SNOW CRYSTALS AND THE FAR, FAR GREATER COMPLEXITY OF LIVING ORGANISM." [my emphasis]
It is reasonable to assume that mainly the author is discrediting the analogy as it relates to the origin of life. If I WANT to misunderstand him, of course I could also add some valid analogies between snowflakes and living organisms
Oh Yea ?
1. Snowflakes and living organisms can both be examined under a microscope.
2. Snowflakes and living organisms can both be written about in science journals.
3. Snowflakes and living organisms can both be drawn on a large necktie. (By the way your necktie is really ugly).
4. Snowflakes and living organisms can both fall on your house. (And by the way. Your house is ugly).
5. Snowflakes and living organism are both topics of discussion by thiests and atheists.
6. Snowflakes and living organisms can both be in a test tube.
7. Snowflakes and living organisms are English phrases or words that can be translated into Yiddish.
8. Snowflakes and living organisms can both be the subject matter of a song.
9. Snowflakes and living organisms can both be written up in a junior highschool term paper.
See? The article is dead wrong that there is can be NO comparison between snowflakes and living organisms. What a poor science article!
The stupid creationist didn't even know that -
10. Snowflakes and living organisms can be placed in the corner of an icebox.
11. Snowflakes and living organisms can both be found on the surface of a swimming pool.
12. Snowflakes and living organisms can both be observed as symmetrically shaped.
Your objection doesn't even pass the straight face test.
If you WANT to twist your case you could understand the man to be saying that NO POSSIBLE ANALOGY OF ANY KIND could EVER be made between snowflakes and living organisms, sure, you could push that. But I count is not terribly honest of you. And if that is your main objection to the article it certainly doesn't merit it being ignored by most reasonable people, I think.
Okay - a CRAB and a SNOWFLAKE are both rather symmetrical in shape and even a bit tasty on the tongue.
Evolution 1 Creation 0
Devastating rebuttal there !
By the way. The article also said that the formation of snow crystals was not direct evidence for Creation.