RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: Intellectual Honesty, Robert Shapiro "Origins"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2005,10:22   

Quote
Guess you missed those 55% who believe God created man in his present form and the 65% who think both views should be taughtin public schools.

Evolutionist filtering and claimed superiority and selective reading as usual...why am Inot surprised by your hubris and intellectual dihonesty... because I've seen it in action for 30 years.


My intellectual dishonest?  You've just got done moving the goal posts out of the stadium and I'm the one who is intellectually dishonest?  You made a claim that 1-2% of people who accept evolution are also theists.  I presented you with a poll that shows that your claim is wrong.  You came back with another poll that strengthened my position on the matter at hand.  So, the ball is still in your court.  Will you retract your erroneous statements or won't you?  You have been shown to be wrong and your refusal to accept that and your refusal to retract your statement shows intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree.  Until you can admit your error, how can we have an honest discussion?  Admit your error and we can deal with the other issues.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2005,03:10   

Quote
figurines made from 5% bone and 95% plaster of paris.


Oh, and here I point out another example of either your ignorance or dishonesty.

Plasters

Quote
Oh and those are all extinct apes, tree climbers, knuckle walkers


And yet another example...

Not all knuckle draggers or full humans

Ready to retract your statements yet?  Intellectual honesty requires it.  I've already retracted an error I made, do you have the intestinal fortitude to suck it up and retract your errors?

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2005,05:21   

My big question in all this is why it is only evolution and anything assiated with it that is a scientific fraud?  Why do all other fields get a free pass?  If that is not a true indication of a religous rather than a scientific agends, I don't know what is.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2005,06:16   

Once again,

The issue actually is resolved without even delving into the fossil record, genetic code, irreducible complexity, intelligent design all of which has enormous intellectual appeal if you do not come from a naturalist, humanist, God is a psychological distortion of the human brain perspective.

Once the American people focus on the undeniable fact that there are two choices only: either God created the universe and all that is extant de novo or the universe arose from a quantum mechanical quiff popping of an all encompassing wave function (See Fred Wolff) and from there came the big bang and a universe of hydrogen gas which over billions of years by unknowable evolutionary chaotic processes resulted in the first living replicator of some undefined sort which then evolved over additional billions of years into the HUMAN BRAIN the most complex and orderly six pounds of matter in the universe.

See almost all of us had that little experiment where you have little bottles of that colorless, orderless flamible gas and they can focus right in on the highly scientific evolutionary theory of how that simplest of all atoms and the laws of nature conjured up those 6 trillion neurons. What with allowance for the unknown process, laws, demonstrable resultants or anything other than mathmatical formulas and imaginings ... maybe they'll conclude that it's somewhat unusual to start from such a preposterious set of premises, absent of any connective or demonstratively supportive evidence and by the Eureka method declare it a proven fact beyond disputation.

So I intend to support all efforts to bring this highly simplified , tightly focused analysis or examination of claims right to the front door of the American people of all walks. How will the newspeak of biology, palentology, geology and string theory play in that approach... when you can't resort to big words, authoritive assertions and strained rhetoric .... its going to be very interesting.

Even Harvardites can't bail this boat out.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2005,06:33   

Interesting that you mention only the American people.  Doesn't the rest of the world count?

And I find it fascinating that the only real anti-evolutionists are a minor Christian cult in the United States - the rest of the world by and large ignores such inscientific ideas.  

Something to do with American education, or lack of it, maybe?  CP Snow would be having a field day were he still alive!

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2005,11:44   

Evopeach,

Forgotten about your claims that I've shown to be false?  Thought you could get by by just ignoring them?  Thought I wouldn't notice?  Where is your intellectual integrity?  When will you retract your erroneous statements?  Don't have the intestinal fortitude to admit your mistakes?  It's usually a sign of religious attitude when one can not admit mistakes.  When the data goes against science, science adjusts to fit the data.  When it goes against you, you act like nothing has happened, like a typical fundie.  Buck the trend.  Show us that fundies can admit mistakes.  C'mon, what are you waiting for?  Do you think that if you don't admit it that no one will see how you made up your figures?  How I've been bringing data to back up what I say, while your assertions have gone unsupported by anything, except your word (and the one time when you did bring data which only supported my position)?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,04:34   

If it impedes your ability to continue rational thought then I agree that on a national poll my 2% under the general definition of "Theistic Evolution" they hold the number is larger.

But I stick to the numbers if you are talking about the so called evolutionary scientists, posters on such as this forum, writers in the field, debaters, office holders, etc. that is what has driven the education and public funding effort for 50 years or more and that I stick to 2%.

You have a terrible blind spot when its comes to reviewing material submitted. The poll showed the overwhelming sentiment by people that the ID and IC etc. should be taught , that its good to have some debate and open controvesy, that  kids and adults do have brains and can sort it out and that ther is merit in the ID and IC schema. My quotes about open dissenters from mutationa nd natural selection were a small sample of some very respected people (Grassee was French I believe)..... more upon demand once you grasp the names given.

Oh no not for you... science is not run by polls... you can't have it both ways and remain honest.

As for my approach that one need only consider the logical premises of evolution in toto ... dead silence or another denial I suppose.

Simplicity at the detail level will prove rather effective I think.

Example: Behe was quite effective with the mousetrap thing... your origin people moronically missed the point in their rebuttal that reuse and portability are vital assets of the trap and if you remove the base and glue it or nail it to the floor that minor feature is lost. Laughable!!

Or take the 100 yr old standard flyswatter; a length of wire twisted into a 30 inch handle with a 4x5 wire or plastic mesh stuck on the end. Now lets see how one could kill flys without the handle and only the mat... pretty tricky. Or maybe try to spear them with the wire absent the mesh.

Could one start with a one inch handle and gradually grow it to 30 inches... oh yeah super smart.

Maybe you start with a 1 sq in mesh and grow it to 4x5... flys are very safe I'd say.

Is a back scratcher an intermediate form?

Now about that hydrogen to brain trick???

  
MDPotter



Posts: 12
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,05:08   

Hydrogen to human brain: approximately 13.5 billion years.
Same brain relegated to mindlessly repeating demonstrably fallacious dogma due to superstition, incredulity and an overwhelming psychological need for the universe to be built 'just for me': only a few years, it appears.

  
Henry J



Posts: 3999
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,05:49   

How come the "mark forum as read" and "mark board as read" buttons aren't working for me anymore? The "unread" indicators are getting left on.

Henry

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,08:06   

Quote
If it impedes your ability to continue rational thought then I agree that on a national poll my 2% under the general definition of "Theistic Evolution" they hold the number is larger.

But I stick to the numbers if you are talking about the so called evolutionary scientists, posters on such as this forum, writers in the field, debaters, office holders, etc. that is what has driven the education and public funding effort for 50 years or more and that I stick to 2%.


And you still have not submitted ANY justification for that 2% figure.  Once again, it seems that I have to do YOUR homework for you.

Theistic evolution poll

Now, before you get bent out of shape by the fact that I got it off of the NCSE site, this article came from the Washington Times.  Yep, the Times, which happens to be a very conservative paper.  In this conservative paper, we find 40% as the number.  You still haven't gotten your 2% figure.

Why do you stick to that figure so tenaciously?  Oh yeah, it's because your argument about why evolution is wrong is based on you being able to dismiss it as atheistic, and you can't do that if 40% of biologists believe in god.  Right?

Quote
You have a terrible blind spot when its comes to reviewing material submitted. The poll showed the overwhelming sentiment by people that the ID and IC etc. should be taught , that its good to have some debate and open controvesy, that  kids and adults do have brains and can sort it out and that ther is merit in the ID and IC schema.


Not at all.  It's not a blind spot, it's called sticking to the topic at hand.  You attempted to move the goal posts, I didn't let you.  If you are separately trying to argue that ID should be taught in schools because of a public opinion poll, then you've got problems.  Science is not decided by majority vote, it's decided by evidence and fact.  Evolution has it, ID does not.

Quote
Oh no not for you... science is not run by polls... you can't have it both ways and remain honest.


To try to equivocate the two notions of whether theistic evolutionists exist and whether ID should be taught in schools to what polls say, as you have done, is inane.  Plus, since you can't even admit that you are wrong about all the things that I've shown you to be wrong about, I think you have little room to impugn my honesty.

Quote
As for my approach that one need only consider the logical premises of evolution in toto ... dead silence or another denial I suppose.


No, it's called I have trouble holding a conversation with someone who can't admit to basic facts.  There is nothing wrong the premises of evolution.  There may be problems with your straw man characterizations, but that's why you have made your straw men to begin with.  It's much easier to knock down fallacious arguments than actually deal with the facts.  So, perhaps you can provide some evidence for ID?  Perhaps you can give us a scientific theory of ID?  We all know there isn't one, and even Paul Nelson admits as much.  Do you have enough intellectual honesty to also admit it?

Quote
Example: Behe was quite effective with the mousetrap thing... your origin people moronically missed the point in their rebuttal that reuse and portability are vital assets of the trap and if you remove the base and glue it or nail it to the floor that minor feature is lost. Laughable!!


What's laughable is your insistence that the intermediate forms of a evolving object have the exact same characteristics and features of the final product.  None of Behe's examples hold any water.  I point you to blood clots as one example.

Quote
Once the American people focus on the undeniable fact that there are two choices only: either God created the universe and all that is extant de novo or the universe arose from a quantum mechanical


You still have yet to prove that A) there are only 2 choices (being God or evolution) and B) that evolution and god are inherently at odds.

You also have yet to show any support for your assertion of 2%.  Your sophistry should be embarrassing to you.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,10:00   

First you don't stop me from anything, you are a nobody back bencher in this debate and your assersions of winning this or that are laughable.... of course anything to save face with the hoard you would punish you severly if you demonstrated an ounce of intellectual integrity.. same old party line (infinitely flexible).

The 2% I speak of is the percentage of those who ascribe to the Biblical God of Abraham Issac and Jacob, the creation account therein though not literally in every case, those evolutionary scientists who hold to the God not some god. That is why anyone with a brain larger than a turnip would understand why I insist on definition of terms. See theistic implies a foundational acceptance of a diety , but what diety with what authority, power, interest, ability. These people you quote are talking about any one of 100 imaginary self made gods whose attributes just happen to fit their evolutionary beliefs...a compartmentalized sort of semi-god not the God of the Bible, one who doesn't interfere with anything or anyone.. just a nice warm fuzzy feeling sort of diety.

I don't give a darn whether you understand the merits of the Bible as history, poetry, philosophy, reality or even scientific matters in laymans terms because your groups opinion is based on non-examination, self will, ignorance and eogoism. Mine is based on twenty-five years of scholarship, knowing a few Harvard Phds in linquistics, semitics, hebrew, latin, old testament archeology reading the papers & books, listening to their lectures (yes sermons), actually having several of them into my home. Would you care to match intellectual credentials with some of them in their academic pursuits.. ha!!

Your hatred of such people does not impact the reality of say several million hours of scholarship regarding the truths of the scriptures and these people and their fellow believers are not mentally ill or ignorant thay are the equal of anyone in this forum intellectually and a heck of a lot broader in their reading and studies.

And yes your fossils are knuckle walkers.... see I understand that if you are to survive as a bone polisher and get published, get grants write books give lectures and make money you have to FIND SOMETHING BIG.

Eckhardt: Amid the bewildering array of humanioid fossils, is there one whose morphology marks it as man's humanoid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered, the answer appears to be no." Scientific American 226 (1):94

Further ibid Neither is there any compeling evidence for any humanoid species in the interval unless such is defined by any ape having small teeth and a small face."

Gould:Nat. Hist. 85:30 "What has become of our ladder if we have three coexisting lineages of huminoid  A. africanis, robust australopithecines, and H. Habilis none of which are derived from theother. None show any evolutionary change during their tenure , none brainer nor more erect as they approach the present day".

I really don't have time to correct the thousands of misconceptions, disagreements, fabrications and illusions of your team... just know this.. your own experts are constantly in such disarray , betraying each others conclusions, having disparate views etc. that it requires little to conclude that the entire scene is a hypothetical self biased delusional science at best.

So keep pounding your chest to impress your silly cohorts.. but don't even intertain the thought that you have somehow shown somthing other than the typical hypnotic trance talk of the true believers.. you haven't dared an original thought in this century and I hold you in derision.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,10:54   

Quote (evopeach @ Aug. 30 2005,09:34)
The poll showed the overwhelming sentiment by people that the ID and IC etc. should be taught , that its good to have some debate and open controvesy, that  kids and adults do have brains and can sort it out and that ther is merit in the ID and IC schema.

I agree absolutely that ID and Creatioism should be taught, but in their proper place - Religous education classes.  They do NOT belong in science classes because they are not scientific disciplines.  They are as scientific as numerology, alchemy, astrology etc.

This has nothing to do with the Bible, or God, it is merely that science is science and they are not.  And scientifically, there is no dispute about evolution, merely about its mechanism.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2005,14:51   

Quote
The 2% I speak of is the percentage of those who ascribe to the Biblical God of Abraham Issac and Jacob, the creation account therein though not literally in every case, those evolutionary scientists who hold to the God not some god.

Attempting to move the goal posts again?  It doesn't matter. the 2% you speak of is MADE UP.  You never quoted any kind of source for your number, so it is unsupported assertion and nothing more.  You are begging the question (logical fallacy in case you didn't know.)

Besides, what does it matter if theistic evolutionists are Christians or not?  Evolution does not necessitate atheism.  One is perfectly capable of believing that God, unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or anything else guides evolution, because science does not pronounce on questions religious.  Science does say "random" mutations because that's the best that science can say, without moving into the religious realm.  You seem to think "random" equals atheism, when what that term really does is allow anyone who accepts evolution to hold whatever beliefs they see fit.

Now, do some beliefs run counter to evolution (and science in general?)  Yes, you bet they do.  But, in every case, it is because those beliefs make empirical claims about the real world.  When those claims are found to be false (like a universe that is 10,000 yrs. old or younger) is it science's fault?  No, of course not.  Science deals with fact and data, and the real world does not change according to a religion's dictum.

Quote
Your hatred of such people....

I hate these people?  Wow, that's news to me.  I'm glad you filled me in on that one.  (In case you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm.)

Quote
...your own experts are constantly in such disarray , betraying each others conclusions, having disparate views etc....

I am shocked, SHOCKED to find out that scientists disagree with each other.  Wow, I thought all scientists agreed with every other scientist on all things at all times.  The reality of the situation is that there are tons of disagreements in science, including in evolution.  That's how science works.  People come up with hypotheses, others argue, experiments are performed, eventually people come to a concensus based on data and evidence.  The method of doing this is called the Scientific Method, perhaps you've heard of it.  Nothing in the scientific method rules out God.  If you can come up with an experiment to test for God's existence, then feel free to do it.  In fact, people have tried similar things with prayer studies.  You are clearly barking up the wrong tree here.

Quote
of course anything to save face with the hoard you would punish you severly if you demonstrated an ounce of intellectual integrity

Yeah, you know we have weekly meetings to punish all those who don't toe the line or don't "beat their chests" hard enough.  I bet you would be good at doling out the punishment, you should attend sometime.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,00:11   

Quote
Gould:Nat. Hist. 85:30 "What has become of our ladder if we have three coexisting lineages of huminoid  A. africanis, robust australopithecines, and H. Habilis none of which are derived from theother. None show any evolutionary change during their tenure , none brainer nor more erect as they approach the present day".


So, now you are quote mining?  I'm really feeling the intellectual honesty now.

Gould quote explained and in context

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,05:15   

Hello Mr Know it all ... you are the intellectual joke of the last decade ..I have seen much better than you in these climes.

As to quote mining.. if you can prove the statements and quotes are incorrectly attributed, false, not to the point or otherwise go for it. Unfortunately for you I have read most of these articles either before or after the fact and they are 100% legitimate and supposedly authoritive.. peer reviewed and all that .. you know.

If you wish to discredit these pillars of evolutionary thought please do so .. I always welcome additional cannibal activity among the hordes.. its so commonplace you know.

But the old switch aroo tactic is one that I attribute to 1st graders trying to use logic.


Take a look at New Orleans and environs if you don't think water can change a landscape ... that was as in one day... and yes I think a global flood is well evidenced in history, tradition, geology and quite explanatory.

By the way I can give you chapter and verse of a well documented case of a black ape who learned to walk biped extraordinarily well.. much better than the supposed hominoids and ape-like so called human ancestors ever are credited with. Many apes are biped in some degree.. just not very good at it.

By the way what's the latest opinion.. are we closer to chimps or orangs... pretty important thing to decide.. isn't it a shame that depending on the analysis used you get equal support for either, clearly impossible.

Now about that hydrogen gas to human brain.. oh yeah we don't want to talk about that.. right?

See hydrogen gas ... black magic... wand waving... chaos,,, then poof the human brain... and then the fairy god mother said what wish do you evos want today.

You really have to be mentally incapacitated to swallow this evo stuff.

If this is science lets include voo doo in your mix.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,05:46   

I just focused on your atatement that evolution had nothing to do with SLOT.

I guess that qualifies as the most scientifically illerate statement I have read in about fifty years.

Truly, I don't think it is possible to converse with a person who doesn't recognize the universal role of slot in every process yet observed in the universe., let alone biology, chemistry, physics all of which are foundational to any theory of so called evolution.

It is just sad to think anyone that scientifically illiterate could actually be posting in a public forum. How embarrassing!!

And you want me to establish the facts of thermodynamics for you so you can decide if the're real and applicable to such things as chemical reactions.. which seem in most peoples minds to have something to do with evolutionary biology.

I guffaw at the pitiful understanding of SLOT evidenced by evos... can't even define systems properly, snowflakes and salt crystals and ram pumps... yessiree real experts.

Come back when you have even a scintilla of scientific credibility... now run along junior and wash some bones.

Is there anyone up to a sensible literate discussion in the evo camp.. please no more sophmoric wantabees!

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,05:57   

Quote
As to quote mining.. if you can prove the statements and quotes are incorrectly attributed, false, not to the point or otherwise go for it.

Already done.  You obviously didn't read it.

Quote
But the old switch aroo tactic is one that I attribute to 1st graders trying to use logic.

You are the one moving goal posts, not me.  Or, did you forget about your unsupported assertions?

Quote
See hydrogen gas ... black magic... wand waving... chaos,,, then poof the human brain... and then the fairy god mother said what wish do you evos want today.

Coming from the person whose idea is that "goddidit" is a perfectly reasonable explanation?

You'll notice that I asked you to explain why you think SLOT has to do with evolution.  Simply because you respond with dirision does not mean that you have met your burden of proof.  Will this be another set of assertions that go completely unsupported?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,08:52   

Actually I don't think God did it by some billions of years process; he created it period. Thats what we mean by a God ... capable of effectng results we can't, using capabilites we do not have and are not currently in operation.

To say that acts of intellectually based conceptual thought hybridized onto matter to make it behave in ways it would never do on its own is a not a form of  creation is to deny the precise activities of science. Of course every scientific act by scientists does precisely that, it takes the intellectually based plans,schema, flowsheets, equations, expereiences and knowhow and from outside the matter itself hybridizes all of the above onto the matter to achieve the results.

So when you deny the possibility that such can be done in an original act by God you deny your very own abilities and planned actions to create.

Not a very logical position to hold is it?

Again if you are so illiterate as to dismiss SLOT from biology or any area of science as the controlling law over all processes chemical or physical then I have no interest in discussing things technical with you.

The mere fact that all life eventually becomes lifeless, completely disordered, completely at equilibrium is the precise prediction and result of the operation of  SLOT. The inefficiency of every process, the waste heat and material produced by every reaction, the less than perfect replication of the cell, the shrinking of the telemere, the weakening of the heart and other organs are all the result of the goverance of the second law which insists on slightly less or much less order in the entirety of any system or process including the effects on the surroundings as time progresses.

Thus we have life sustained by directed and transduced energy flows from the sun, biomass,etc. maintaining life in a constrained open system state far from equilibrium internally and yet inextricably drifting along the arrow of time toward equilibrium, disorder and death with all the universe always forever.

Every reaction in life support and activity is constrained in direction, rate, result and such by SLOT or equivalently the free energy consideration.

Evolution is in principle only possible by these chemical  reactions and their so called modifications over time coupled with the physical processes and reactions also controlled by SLOT.

Please tell me there is someone in this forum with the intellect to get past agruing the reality of one of the most fundamental and well proven laws of nature.

Please don't tell me this illteracy is representative of your communites understanding of all things scientific and the governing laws.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,10:48   

Quote
So when you deny the possibility that such can be done in an original act by God you deny your very own abilities and planned actions to create.

Who is denying it?  I explicitly said that it was a possibility that God created all.  What part of that did you not understand?  The only problem with that statement is that it just isn't scientific because you can neither prove nor disprove it, thus rendering it useless to us in a scientific sense.

Quote
Not a very logical position to hold is it?

It is not illogical to look at the data and figure out how the natural world works, regardless of the presence or absence of the supernatural.  What's illogical is for you to deny the very mechanisms of science, considering you use them every single day.  Do you eat cardboard for lunch every day?  Why not?

Quote
...the operation of  SLOT.

SLOT does not "operate" on anything.

Evolutionary mechanisms can't violate F=ma either, would you say that, "Evolution is in principle only possible by these chemical  reactions and their so called modifications over time coupled with the physical processes and reactions also controlled by F=ma?"

Finally, have you found a source for your 2% figure yet?  No?  Of course not.  When are you going to admit that YOU MADE IT UP?  You lost intellectual honest points by making it up in the first place, but you are only making it worse by refusing to fess up, and EVERYONE can see it.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,21:13   

Quote (evopeach @ Aug. 24 2005,15:09)
Baloney,

That is your assertion from a survey that doesn't even mention the term.

Try any one of 100 H.S. Biology texts or even 1st yr College texts from 1940 through today.

1) Embronic recapitualtion ( totally a lie and misrepresentation for two decades after being shown false)

2) Miller Fox demonstrating the efficacy of chemical predestination and abiogenesis in pre-biotic conditions. ( a total fabrication failing to mention lack of optical purity, racemate results always, zero separation of L&D forms of amino acids critical to molecules of life or that even if such were the result its a dead end for several reasons not the least of which is the next step chemically has the rather unfortunate problem of directionally impossible free energy comsiderations. These are never, never mentioned though known absolutely by every organic chemist in the world.

3) Total misrepresentation of the fossil record results which is totally unsupportive of the theory .... a scam made possible by plaster of paris and dashed lines on charts , nothing more. Consider the several major fossil frauds in the last century.. undeniable dishonesty.

4) Purposefully blurring the differences between a priori and as posteriori probability arguments time and again with the stiupid and irrelevant (perfect bridge/poker hand demonstration of unlikely events and other such baloney)

5) Misstating the definitions of open, closed, isolated and constrained systems in thermodynamic discussions... trotting out the old snowflake, salt crystal and other rediculous and irrelevent processes to illustrate local violations of SLOT... knowing better all the while.

6) Denying in the face of crystal clear evidence real codes and  systematics in the genome of living organisms as in the genetic code and the operations of the cell. Utter fraud and misrepresentation.

7) Dismissing abiogenesis and the fossil record as irrelevent and unimportant to the evolutionary paradigm.


8) All origin of proposals and experiments have ended in utter failure for 100 years  but are presented in texts, documentaries and all public forums as success is just around the corner.

The public record is clear and unambiguous and undeniable by an honest observer

Quote
Try any one of 100 H.S. Biology texts or even 1st yr College texts from 1940 through today.


I'm bored, so I feel like taking you up on this.  I have here in my lap a copy of Biology 5th Edition by Campbell, Reece, Mitchell, et al.  It is generally considered to be a major scientific textbook for basic undergraduate courses, right in line with your suggestion of checking 1st year science texts.

Quote
1) Embronic recapitualtion ( totally a lie and misrepresentation for two decades after being shown false)


Well, for starters, I cannot find "embryonic recapitulation," which is what I presume you meant to write, in the index.  However, I assume that you are referring to Haekel and the now discredited idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.  Well, in this text, we do find:  "Inspired by the Darwinian principle of descent with modification, many embryologists in the late nineteenth century proposed the extreme view that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."  .... "The theory of recapitulation is an overstatement.  Although vertebrates share many features of embryonic development, it is not as though a mammal first goes through a fish stage, then an amphibian stage, and so on.  Ontogeny can provide clues to phylogeny, but it is important to remember that all stages of development may become modified over the course of evolution."

I think that this should clearly show that one undergrad biology textbook, one which is generally widely known and respected, does not misrepresent Haekel's ideas on ontogeny.  And, by the way, the don't have his drawings, they have a pictures of a chick embryo and a human embryo.

Quote
2) Miller Fox demonstrating the efficacy of chemical predestination and abiogenesis in pre-biotic conditions. ( a total fabrication failing to mention lack of optical purity, racemate results always, zero separation of L&D forms of amino acids critical to molecules of life or that even if such were the result its a dead end for several reasons not the least of which is the next step chemically has the rather unfortunate problem of directionally impossible free energy comsiderations. These are never, never mentioned though known absolutely by every organic chemist in the world.


Perhaps you are reffering to the Millery Urey experiments?  Usually the limits of the Miller experiments are mentioned right in the text.  I mean, ####, they want their readers to be knowledgeable. Referring to Dr. Miller's choice of atmosphere, Biology says: "This atmosphere was probably more strongly reducing than the actual atmosphere of Earth."  So they are making clear the limits of the experiment.  Furthermore, the book goes on to discuss protenoids and protobionts, including microspheres, which are abiotically produced, but not quite alive.  Sort of like empty cells.  It then goes on further to describe RNA synthesis, replication, and ribozymes, RNA chains that can act as enzymes.

Quote
3) Total misrepresentation of the fossil record results which is totally unsupportive of the theory .... a scam made possible by plaster of paris and dashed lines on charts , nothing more. Consider the several major fossil frauds in the last century.. undeniable dishonesty.


The Smithsonian Institute has a Natural History Museum on the Mall in Washington, DC.  It is a beautifl museum, home to one of the largest collection of Dinosaur fossils in the world.  They also have research facilities in the back, outside the public view.  Now, if this is a part of some giant conspiracy to misrepresent the fossil record, then I really have to meet their head of operations so I can take notes for any future coups or conspiracies that I, a just graduated Poli Sci major, may become involved in.  Somehow, though, I don't think that the SI is going to be very useful for that sort of thing.

Quote

5) Misstating the definitions of open, closed, isolated and constrained systems in thermodynamic discussions... trotting out the old snowflake, salt crystal and other rediculous and irrelevent processes to illustrate local violations of SLOT... knowing better all the while.


Are you sure that you understand the second law of thermodynamics?  By the way, I remember my chem teacher back in high school going over the laws of thermodynamics and explaining how entropy explains aging quite well,and also how it explained why we need to eat.  He started out by telling us that life, being ordered, would be destroyed by entropy, unless it had an outside source of energy.  When we asked what he meant, he pointed to a student's lunch box and asked if the student was planning to eat lunch later that day.  The student responded that he most certainly did.  The teacher then asked what would happen if he did not.  This, the teacher was saying, is what entropy, which was the original lesson point,  was about.  Ordered, non-random systems such as ours require energy to be expended to maintain order.  Even gaining outside energy, by eating, cannot stave off entropy forever, and eventually various body systems will break down, and people die.  The laws of thermodynamics are not in contradiction of evolution or vice versa.  In fact, the need for food or other forms of energy as required under the second law of thermodynamics is a major driving force in evolution.

Quote
6) Denying in the face of crystal clear evidence real codes and  systematics in the genome of living organisms as in the genetic code and the operations of the cell. Utter fraud and misrepresentation.


Well, my book shows several charts and diagrams of the real codes used in the cells.  There's a complete list of all possible permutations of codons, and their corresponding amino acid.  What is being denied?  There are codes and systematics in the genetic code of an organism.  This is very basic.

Quote
7) Dismissing abiogenesis and the fossil record as irrelevent and unimportant to the evolutionary paradigm.


Didn't you, sir, just dismiss the Miller experiments regarding abiogenesis as irrelevent, and the fossil record as being full of frauds?

Quote
8) All origin of proposals and experiments have ended in utter failure for 100 years  but are presented in texts, documentaries and all public forums as success is just around the corner.


You know, believe it or not, biologists perform experiments to actually gather information to further our understanding of the world, not to get involved in metaphysical questions on the nature of man.

I'm really not sure what your complaints are.  A better method might be to simply state a hypothesis.  State how you might go about testing this hypothesis, and what results would confirm this hypothesis.  Just complaining about how science is being taught and putting up straw men about objectionable content in books which I've just shown is not there doesn't really accomplish anything.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,05:32   

Your response is precisely the intellectual dishonesty I am speaking to. Do you really think that you can persuasively deny the teaching and promotion of ER for several decades to our student population and the public at large by referencing a 2000 vintage book? Typical, when shown to be totally dishonest and fraudulent in your work you retreat and rewrite history as though it never happened; whether fossil fraud or any subject.

I thought you people had quit trying to promote those Fox soap bubbles as precursors.. totally dismissed by serious people. There is not one viable characteristic of precursor cell structure or activity in any of those pipe dreams. My grandson has a soap bubble pipe that generates the same degree of characteristic including , "budding" but I have not considered him for a Nobel prize.

Yes, we have some grasp of thermo with real credit hours from the engineering perspective and the physics/stat mech formulation and some process engineering experience.

Funny you should mention your school expereince.. it is of interest to note that man is th eonly creature that eats carrots and fish et al and converts those calories into conceptual thought and consciousness through a series of quite intricate processes. Yes somewhere there is the addition of logos, codes, storage and retrieval of information and the inexplicable concept of consciousness and conceptual thought... oh yeah it all came about simply by chance rearrangement of carbon, hydrogen,phosphorus, etc. Purely chemistry... inorganics differ from organics and life simply by arangement.

How any sane person can hold such opinions is beyond me.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,05:40   

Evopeach, I see you forgot, once again, to back up your claim of 2%.  Please get around to that  promptly.  I'd hate for people to think that you have no credibility or honesty simply because you make up stats and then can't back them up.

Quote
Your response is precisely the intellectual dishonesty I am speaking to. Do you really think that you can persuasively deny the teaching and promotion of ER for several decades to our student population and the public at large by referencing a 2000 vintage book?

Um, Hyperion used your suggestion of looking in a textbook.  You can't complain when someone takes you at your word and then shows you to be wrong.

Quote
...it is of interest to note that man is th eonly creature that eats carrots and fish et al and converts those calories into conceptual thought and consciousness through a series of quite intricate processes.

Incorrect.  Animals are also capable of this.  Apes hold wakes for dead members of their families.  Monkeys conform to group dynamics.  Other animals show emotions.  If you are going to make this statement, you will have to back it up, because most people can look at their dog and see consciousness.  Of course, you won't back it up because you have yet to back anything up.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,05:41   

By the way by reading this thread and those on other forums I can direct you to you would discover your camp distinctly saying the genetic code is not a code, there is no informational aspect to the cells replicative operations in DNA or otherwise its just chemistry. But such is typical ..four evolutionists and five opinions none of which is internally consistant or sensible.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,06:49   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 01 2005,10:32)
Your response is precisely the intellectual dishonesty I am speaking to. Do you really think that you can persuasively deny the teaching and promotion of ER for several decades to our student population and the public at large by referencing a 2000 vintage book? Typical, when shown to be totally dishonest and fraudulent in your work you retreat and rewrite history as though it never happened; whether fossil fraud or any subject.

I thought you people had quit trying to promote those Fox soap bubbles as precursors.. totally dismissed by serious people. There is not one viable characteristic of precursor cell structure or activity in any of those pipe dreams. My grandson has a soap bubble pipe that generates the same degree of characteristic including , "budding" but I have not considered him for a Nobel prize.

Yes, we have some grasp of thermo with real credit hours from the engineering perspective and the physics/stat mech formulation and some process engineering experience.

Funny you should mention your school expereince.. it is of interest to note that man is th eonly creature that eats carrots and fish et al and converts those calories into conceptual thought and consciousness through a series of quite intricate processes. Yes somewhere there is the addition of logos, codes, storage and retrieval of information and the inexplicable concept of consciousness and conceptual thought... oh yeah it all came about simply by chance rearrangement of carbon, hydrogen,phosphorus, etc. Purely chemistry... inorganics differ from organics and life simply by arangement.

How any sane person can hold such opinions is beyond me.

Quote
Your response is precisely the intellectual dishonesty I am speaking to. Do you really think that you can persuasively deny the teaching and promotion of ER for several decades to our student population and the public at large by referencing a 2000 vintage book?


Well, you said in your previous post to which I was responding:

Quote
Try any one of 100 H.S. Biology texts or even 1st yr College texts from 1940 through today.


Since "today" is 2005, I presumed that a 2000 textbook would be acceptable.  I apologize for adhering to your request.  Please do not accuse me of dishonesty, the only reason why I replied to you was specifically because I happened to have such a book next to me, and I figured that I'd look up your assertions about textbooks.

Quote
I thought you people had quit trying to promote those Fox soap bubbles as precursors.. totally dismissed by serious people. There is not one viable characteristic of precursor cell structure or activity in any of those pipe dreams. My grandson has a soap bubble pipe that generates the same degree of characteristic including , "budding" but I have not considered him for a Nobel prize.


Oh, see, there are precursor structures in these "bubbles."  Liposomes have a lipid bilayer similar to modern cells, and several other "bubbles," as you put them, can store energy crudely as a voltage potential and then discharge it...incidentally, your neurons are doing the same thing right now.  Regardless, this is not evolution.  This is not presented as incontrovertible fact, but it would be silly of a biology textbook not to mention that some scientists have created abiotic forms which have some, but not all, of the characteristics of cells.

Quote

Yes, we have some grasp of thermo with real credit hours from the engineering perspective and the physics/stat mech formulation and some process engineering experience.


Cool, then you should understand the second law of thermodynamics, and you should understand that it is not violated by life.

Quote
Funny you should mention your school expereince.. it is of interest to note that man is th eonly creature that eats carrots and fish et al and converts those calories into conceptual thought and consciousness through a series of quite intricate processes.


Not that interesting, and we're not alone.  Oh, we may be more intelligent than some other animals, but many others convert calories into some level of thought.  Ever watch a pack of wolves hunt?  There's a level of communication, thought, and teamwork there that makes a McNabb to T.O. pass look like nothing.

Quote
Yes somewhere there is the addition of logos, codes, storage and retrieval of information and the inexplicable concept of consciousness and conceptual thought


Not inexplicable.  You just lack the basic neurological education to comprehend it.

Quote
oh yeah it all came about simply by chance rearrangement of carbon, hydrogen,phosphorus, etc. Purely chemistry... inorganics differ from organics and life simply by arangement.


Well, not really by chance or by design, more like a very likely outcome given the nature of carbon's covalent bonding.

Quote
How any sane person can hold such opinions is beyond me.


Then what is your "opinion?"

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,08:13   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 01 2005,10:41)
By the way by reading this thread and those on other forums I can direct you to you would discover your camp distinctly saying the genetic code is not a code, there is no informational aspect to the cells replicative operations in DNA or otherwise its just chemistry. But such is typical ..four evolutionists and five opinions none of which is internally consistant or sensible.

Um, then bring it.  I've been asking you to back things up since the beginning.  Now, you are threatening to back up your claims?  Ooooo, I'm shaking.  You should have been backing your stuff up from the beginning.  So, let's see what you've got.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,09:35   

GCT,

Ok now that you have hung yourself out to dry with your cynical stupidity here's a result from your peer reviewed Nature of their survey among 500+ scientists.

The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5% (the moron crowd)

Surely whether 5 or 7% among scientists and life scientists even believe in God as a metaphysical being,....not even the Judeo Christian God of the bible one could reason that no more than a fraction of that percentage would associate God's creative and guiding activity with their evolutionary views thus 2% is more than generous.

I wonder if you can tell which is closer to this  poll result my 2% or your 37%. Hint: subtraction is involved.

Your sincere apology is accepted.


Example of the reason anyone with a brain holds your theory in contempt:  http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-10.html

No matter how contradictory the evidence is to tightly grasped theories, no matter how destructive to pryor claims there is no finding that cannot be accomodated by the plasticity of this so called theory. Just another demonstration of the impossibility of falsifying evolution.


By the way you have amplified the crystal clear picture of your complete scientific illiteracy ( by the way "not illogical" is a third grade grammatical error, so you might watch that sort of display) as in SLOT not being connected to evolution and then admitting your error in the next post.

See F does not equal MA as in your stupid remarks. F is proportional to MA and the formula requires the addition of a constant which varies with the system of units, usually written F=ma/gsubc  and in the engineering system the constant of proportionality is 32.2 lb mass ft/lb force sec**2

You should really ask someone to check your posts for scientific literacy before hitting the submit button... it might let you continue to pretend to be knowledgeable.

Now once again is there someone a little more challenging to joist with.. don't tell me these luddites are your first team.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,12:20   

I haven't been following this discussion, mainly because I see no danger that EvoPooch is going to convince anyone of anything, but browsing through - against my better judgment - I ran across this
Quote
By the way what's the latest opinion.. are we closer to chimps or orangs... pretty important thing to decide.. isn't it a shame that depending on the analysis used you get equal support for either, clearly impossible.

Please supply one reference to any  scientist who claims -or any analysis that indicates- that we are closer  (I assume you mean more closely related) to orangs than to chimps. Failure to do so will be interpreted as a tacit admission that you know you're pulling this stuff from your ass and inserting it, ironically, into a thread you started on "intellectual honesty".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,12:28   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 01 2005,14:35)
GCT,

Ok now that you have hung yourself out to dry with your cynical stupidity here's a result from your peer reviewed Nature of their survey among 500+ scientists.

The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5% (the moron crowd)

Surely whether 5 or 7% among scientists and life scientists even believe in God as a metaphysical being,....not even the Judeo Christian God of the bible one could reason that no more than a fraction of that percentage would associate God's creative and guiding activity with their evolutionary views thus 2% is more than generous.

I wonder if you can tell which is closer to this  poll result my 2% or your 37%. Hint: subtraction is involved.

Your sincere apology is accepted.


Example of the reason anyone with a brain holds your theory in contempt:  http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-10.html

No matter how contradictory the evidence is to tightly grasped theories, no matter how destructive to pryor claims there is no finding that cannot be accomodated by the plasticity of this so called theory. Just another demonstration of the impossibility of falsifying evolution.


By the way you have amplified the crystal clear picture of your complete scientific illiteracy ( by the way "not illogical" is a third grade grammatical error, so you might watch that sort of display) as in SLOT not being connected to evolution and then admitting your error in the next post.

See F does not equal MA as in your stupid remarks. F is proportional to MA and the formula requires the addition of a constant which varies with the system of units, usually written F=ma/gsubc  and in the engineering system the constant of proportionality is 32.2 lb mass ft/lb force sec**2

You should really ask someone to check your posts for scientific literacy before hitting the submit button... it might let you continue to pretend to be knowledgeable.

Now once again is there someone a little more challenging to joist with.. don't tell me these luddites are your first team.

Quote
No matter how contradictory the evidence is to tightly grasped theories, no matter how destructive to pryor claims there is no finding that cannot be accomodated by the plasticity of this so called theory. Just another demonstration of the impossibility of falsifying evolution.


What evidence?  You make a claim regarding textbooks, and I go looking through my textbook and cannot find it.  Then you make a claim regarding the religious beliefs of scientists, and claim that this is somehow evidence against evolution?  I bet that the percentage who believe in Vishnu, or Ahura Mazda, or follow the sayings of Lao Tzu, Confucius, or Buddha, is also incredibly small.  Is the fact that only a small percentage of scientists accept that the world is caught in a struggle between the forces of Ahura Mazda and Ahriman evidence against evolution?  No, all it proves is that there aren't too many Zoroastrian scientists.  The religious beliefs of scientists are irrelevent to the validity of scientific theories.

Furthermore, such an overgeneralized ad hominem attack is really pointless anyways, since I happen to be a fairly religious person who does believe in G_d, and yet I really don't have a problem with evolution.  Oh, and PLEASE do not refer to a "Judeo-Christian" religion.  If you have not figured out by now that there are serious differences between Judaism and Christianity, then you may wish to study theology more carefully as well.

Quote
See F does not equal MA as in your stupid remarks. F is proportional to MA and the formula requires the addition of a constant which varies with the system of units, usually written F=ma/gsubc  and in the engineering system the constant of proportionality is 32.2 lb mass ft/lb force sec**2


The constant is only necessary when using units other than Newtons for F, Kilograms for M, and Meters/Second^2 for A.  When using metric units, no conversion constant is necessary.  Oh, but you are mildly correct on one point:  It's not F=MA, it's &#8721;F=MA.  The &#8721; sign, or sigma, indicates that the equation applies to the summation of all forces acting on a system.

Incidentally, I'm surprised to see you using Newton's Laws.  Didn't you know that Newtonism is a theory in crisis?  I mean, if we buy your argument that a few criticisms of a theory renders it inoperable, then what about Newtonism?  Didn't Einstein show it to be faulty?  Shouldn't you be arguing against using Newton's theories?  After all, if scientists are still using Newton's theories after they have been proven wrong again and again, doesn't that make Newtonism "just scientific dogma?"

Quote
You should really ask someone to check your posts for scientific literacy before hitting the submit button


Irony is the greatest of all comedy

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,12:42   

Evopeach,

Number one, why did it take you so long to post your poll?  Were you sitting on it the whole time?  Is that intellectually honest?  Also, you are still making up numbers, but you finally found a poll that sort of backs up your claim.  Of course, this was a targeted poll on a specific group, not all scientists (yes, I'm questioning the methodology.)  Try this poll on for size, with it's larger sampling group, larger pool with which to pull from, and more recent date...

Contrary Poll

I've got three or four polls now with more widespread methodologies and you are still going to stick to your 2% figure (which you should admit you made up) aren't you?  In short, my poll is better than your poll, but that's not even the point.  Even if your 2% is closer to the actual number, at least I went off of actual evidence, which you did not do.  This thread was supposed to be about intellectual honesty, and whether your number is closer or not, the fact that you made it up and held to it with no justification shows you lack intellectual integrity.

Second, I looked at your nature article.  So what?  Perhaps you should explain what you find so scandalous in it?

Grammar lesson:  If you say, "A is illogical" and I say, "No, A is not illogical" I have not violated any grammar rules.  Do I make spelling and grammar mistakes?  Yes, I do.  Of course, with your sentence structure and spelling, I don't think you have room to criticize my mistakes.  Again, another example of your lack of integrity.

I never said SLOT was connected to evolution, in fact I still challenge that.  Evolution can not violate SLOT, nor can anything else.  Evolution also can not violate F=ma, which BTW happens to be the generic form of the equation and whether it is right or not, it demonstrates my point.  The fact that you have avoided the argument in favor of attacking my intelligence (ad hominem) shows, once again, your lack of integrity.

You do have one thing right.  I'm not the A team here, as I'm not even an evolutionary biologist.  You shouldn't really be asking for them though, because you can't handle me.  The thread has been about intellectual integrity and you have shown time and again that you lack it.  The funny part is that you think you've been clever in nit picking on this and that when all you've really been doing is showing your own lack of integrity.  In short, you couldn't handle the A team since you can't get past me with anything coherent.

Oh, and one last thing.  I thought you were going to direct me to somewhere that proves "my team" doesn't know anything about genetic codes, etc.  Was that more bloviation or can you actually back something up for once?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,05:10   

I don't expect you to really appreciate suffering complete humiliation in public but it really was enjoyable letting you bloviate about polls and your superiority  for a while just so I could ram the Nature poll of some 650 evolutionary scientists up your b--- and watch you wallow in pain.

F=MA is not the generic form itd F=ma/gsubc to make sure the difference between equality and proportionality are properly understood. Did that concept not come across in third grade for you?

And you're right you surely could not be the A.B.C.D  ad finitum team because none of them are so iliterate as to suspend SLOT as the controlling mechanism in chemical and physical processes in evolutionary theory.

SLOT does apply to evolution as to every process in the universe so far as has ever been theorized or observed.

See these two examples of your complete incompetence in these matters render it meaningless to joist with you further.

You can easily enough check the posts at evcforum.net or this thread to see the position that the genetic code is not really a code , there is no real information content in the human cell and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I haven't the time to do your homework for you.

I have no doubt you think SLOT is inoperative reguarding the physical mechanisms of Evolution.... you probably think gravity is a temporary law, FLOT is ripe for violation and the third law is superfluous because no one lives in a place where the temperature aproaches absolute zero.

The only closed system I see is the mindset of the evo community railing at people for daring to challenge their hynotically induced thought processes.

I'm sure you will anyday now be sending me peer reviewed papers showing naturally separated levo form optically pure amino acids spontaneoulsly forming polypeptides and proteins from simple diamers powered by sunlight on the side of a volcano or maybe R. Dawkins hot tub. Whats a little thermodynamic barrier like free energy  (alternately entropy) when you have raw sunlight in prebiotic conditions (no photosynthesis or any imaginable rectification /conversion mechanism).

Oops forgot we don't consider SLOT in evolution.

  
  228 replies since July 25 2005,16:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (8) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]