Well, now the nameless one says his question was about cytochrome-c test for evolution.

     Interestingly, I can't find that question. Of course my browser is acting up at the moment and cutting blog posts with a lot of comments. So, I decided to check google and see if it had anything to say about a cytochrome-c test for evolution. First off, I am suspicious of the 10^93 number. Oh, I am sure that Hubert Yockey has computed what he believes to be a real probability. But then, I believe the creationists are sincere when they trot out their "probabilities" too.
     The big problem that I have with the claimed tests in general is that they are of a "confirm or inconclusive" form. If the data they take as confirmation were not there, it would not be disconfirmation. The same appears (to me) to apply to this test. If cytochrome-c were not found or were vastly different between chimpanzees and us, I don't see how that would constitute negative data. I believe large-scale evolution is plausible (though I don't think testable) and I don't see how that would have changed if that outcome had been different.
     Something is a little more problematic for this particular test. Talkorigins reports that the cytochrome-c sequences in chimpanzees and humans are identical. Now, for the given probability to be meaningful, there can't be any selective pressures on those sequences. If there are selective pressures, then small-scale evolution (which is really a direct observation) will tend to lock them in and so the chances would not be so long. But if there aren't any such selective pressures, the sequences should have become different through mutation. We are talking millions of years and an imperfect replication process.
     This test looks like an anomoly even if large-scale evolution is true. I don't see it being taken seriously unless people are blind to problems in the testing. Under the large-scale evolution hypothesis, human-chimpanzee similarities in cytochrome-c should indeed be greater than human-yeast similarities. But an identical form should mean either that there was not a branching off point millions of years ago, or that a selective pressure favors that particular form (in which case, the stated probability is not valid.)

Were scientists biased in favor of large-scale evolution 150 years ago?

     I was asked roughly this question by someone I don't think was interested in an answer so much as trying to get ammunition for his claim of "conspiracy theory." He shall be nameless here. The fact is that I am not sure. I do know this. Scientists had reached a point (and rightly so) where "godidit" was unsatisfying as an explanation. But they are human and humans don't like to say "I don't know." So was opportunity for such a bias, particularly since no acceptable alternatives existed. Even I refuse to accept "godidit" as an answer. If I am amazed at the intricate design work on a building, I am interested in knowing how it was accomplished. A source of "Acme Construction" does not answer my questions.
     Closer to the heart of the idea, I don't see that we can conduct an actual test. The only "thought experiments" I can come up with involve taking direct observations over millions or billions of years. The direct observations would be necessary so that a missing animal would really be negative data. The only approximation we have are fossil digs and missings fossils are excused by the rarity of fossilization.
     I have seen much of the positive data and the idea is certainly plausible. But I am a stickler. A scientific theory must be subject to falsification attempts. In any of the "tests," absence of positive data, would not be considered negative data. Consider, the recent discovery of the centromere/telomere patterning on human chromosome 2 is supportive and serves as a plausible explanation why we have one fewer chromosome pair than other primates. But, suppose there were no such find on any chromosome pair; would that be negative data? Of course not. If it would, then the many variations in chromosome counts of animals would also be negative data, and, indeed, catastrophic to the hypothesis. If there were no such find, an easy explanation would be that mutations had washed out the patterns. Alternatively, one might suggest that any relevant genes had been transferred to other chromosomes and that the resulting unneeded pair had, through successive generations, not been transmitted.

Judging a prophecy.

     There are many people who claim "fulfilled prophecies" to the credit of their religions. There needs to be a way to judge a prophecy. I offer some criteria.

1> It must be possible to confirm that the prophecy was written before the event.
2> The prophecy must not be vague or cover a wide range of possible events.
3> The prophecy must not be indefinitely postponeable. There must be a point (assuming the prophecy does not come to pass) when we can declare that it has failed.
4> The prophecy must be independently verifiable. No source that has as part of its agenda showing the prophet valid is useful.
5> The prophecy must not have been fulfilled by people who knew about the prophecy and had an interest in fulfilling it.
6> The prophecy must have been understood as a prophecy before fulfillment.
7> The prophecy must not be something that would be expected anyway. (E.g. it will rain this year.)

I am convinced that Ray does not believe what he is selling.

     He recently made a post saying "we cannot lose." Now, Ray's not that stupid. I am aware that there are people that disagree with me on this point. If Ray believed there might be a god (and even I acknowledge the possibility) then he would recognize that if there is a god and he is opposed to christianity, he (Ray) loses. An actual christian might have faith that he will not lose. But he would have to see how he can.
     It gets more interesting. If christianity is true (which I don't believe) Ray still loses. Think about it. Who are the people who say "look at the works we performed in your name"? They can't be atheists, skeptics, or adherents of other religions. Such people have done no works in his name. It's not likely to be former christians. It would be people, like Ray, who openly proclaimed Jesus, but knew they had other things in mind.
     In other news, some dogs were found barking.

If I know it's pointless, I won't do it.

     No, I will not cry out to Jesus, all the while knowing it's "too little, too late." If it matters not anyway, then I should hope that in such a situation that I would engage in the last great act of defiance and correctly call the christian god a ruthless tyrant. If he is going to send me to hell anyway, I will not give him the satisfaction of pleading for mercy. Mind -- I think the claim is hogwash anyway. But if there is an evil god such as the one described in the bible, my knee will not bend, save by an external force.

"You just don't understand."

     Have you ever noticed that many religious believers -- when faced with something other than unquestioning belief -- will tell you that you "don't understand" what they are saying? They act as if they are making a claim as obvious as DVODVOQVESVNTQVATTVOR. They will not accept a skeptic's judgement of "not established," let alone an outright disbelief. Critical thinking is something they shun.
     Well, here's news for such people. Disagreeing with you does not imply a lack of understanding. Neither does agreeing with you mean someone does understand. If you trot this saying out as soon as someone questions you, your belief is not rational. It is not based on anything observable. It doesn't matter if you later turn out to be right. Hey, it could happen. Jesus could come down out of the clouds tomorrow. My wager, however, would be that he won't. I understand what you are saying. But I am not buying what you are selling.

In what do you put your trust?

     In what do you put your trust? What do you trust to meet your needs? Do you trust things of this world to put a roof over your head, clothes on your back, and food in your belly? Or do you trust in some god? I, obviously, trust in things of this world. I can see them; and they do keep a roof over my head, clothes on my back, and food in my belly. If you keep possesions, if you set aside funds for a rainy day, you are not serving Jesus. So, why pretend?