RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (21) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   
  Topic: DI EN&V, Open comments and archive< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,16:00   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,15:23)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,13:00)
Jared,

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?

I.D. boils down to, "we are not apes," to the same degree that Darwinism boils down to, "God does not exist."

I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout

  
Henry J



Posts: 4080
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,18:03   

Funny, I thought Homo Sapien was put in the ape family before evolution theory was established. Not only that, but the only reason for not putting humans and chimpanzees in the same genus was basically the ego of the ones doing the classifying.

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,18:27   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,11:48)
That second article was a real eye-opener, Mr. T.

Quote (David Klinghoffer @ June 21, 2012,05:28)
She and co-author Doug Axe tested in the lab an easier case of evolutionary transition, from one similar but functionally distinct bacterial protein to another -- "evolutionary cousins" of a humbler type. This very minor revolution would require seven coordinated mutations if not more, which in a population of bacteria would need something like 10^27 years.
 
Quote
To put that in some perspective, remember that the universe is only about 10^10 years old. It can't have happened.

The problem of accomplishing the revolution that transforms a chimp-like ancestor into a member of the genus Homo is, of course, worlds and worlds and worlds more difficult. Dr. Gauger cites Dennis Bramble and Daniel Lieberman, writing in Nature and describing the immensity of difference in anatomical features -- the unique gifts that make their first appearance in Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.

Remember we're not talking about what are arguably called spiritual endowments -- the ability to speak, write, do math, do art, appreciate lofty moral and aesthetic ideals, and the rest that science can't even describe much less account for in evolutionary terms. We're just talking about the anatomy.

Bramble and Lieberman count 16 such revolutionary changes and Gauger points out that the transition from our last presumed common ancestor with chimps is allotted only six million years by the standard timetable. This itself produces a defeater for any Darwinian narrative of human evolution:
 
Quote
Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and long generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.

Gauger concludes:
 
Quote
Our uniquely human attributes constitute a quantum leap, not just an innovation, a leap that cannot have arisen without guidance. We are not souped-up apes.


My, oh my, how fascinating.

I think it is really cute when Ann, Doug, and Casey get together and pretend to do science, don't you?

Let's start by fudging a number based on an asexual organism (but no HGT allowed!) and then apply it to a sexually reproducing organism! Wow, evilution is teh disproved!!1!

--------------
Im referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Im not an evolutionist, Im a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,18:42   

Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1040
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,19:02   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

Any chance you might share some of that evidence with us while we're still young?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
NormOlsen



Posts: 104
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,19:06   

Quote (Texas Teach @ June 21 2012,19:02)
 
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

Any chance you might share some of that evidence with us while we're still young?

Yes please do, and remember an anti-evolution argument is not de facto, a pro-ID argument.

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,19:21   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

So, Jared, no comment on what moves the BioLogos people?

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,19:26   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

I am thrilled that the ID side is arguing via evidence and logic.

Care to actually tell us some of this evidence?

How about a link to some of the evidence?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2138
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,00:49   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,16:42)
One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.



--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1036
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,06:17   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,16:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

Others have already asked but I'll ask too. Will you present at least some of the "many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life"? It should be easy if there are "many".

And hey, that's just regarding the origin of life, which leaves all the rest of the stuff that actually pertains to evolution and the theory of evolution. Maybe you will present some "valid" pro-ID arguments about all that too?

It's obvious that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Ogre, and others, have asked you relevant questions, but you ignore them and keep bringing up worldviews. Are you ever actually going to respond to the questions or are you going to continue to play games?

I can't help but notice the crap in your signature. Do you really think that Dawkins, or Moran, or any other non-IDiot is scared of IDiots? If so, you've got a lot to learn.

If you're genuinely concerned about who is scared, why don't you ask the powers that be at UD and all the other IDC sites that either don't allow any comments, or don't allow some or all dissenting comments, or ban people for no good reason, why they are so scared of facing challengers? And no, the lame and dishonest claim that all comments from non-IDiots are vulgar or some other allegedly horrible thing just won't cut it. Besides, UD welcomes joe g, and no one is more vulgar than he is, well, on second thought, many of the IDiots are just as vulgar whether they use four letter words or not. For example, the constant, sanctimonious, dishonest, vicious attacks by kairosfocus (gordon e mullings) on anyone who doesn't kiss his massively pompous ass are as 'vulgar' as anything I've ever seen.

What's really vulgar are all the lies, arrogance, bald assertions, illogical fairy tales, false accusations, libelous attacks on real scientists and science supporters, hypocrisy, deceptive quote mines, self-serving distortions of scientific hypotheses, theories, and findings, and the malicious denigration of anyone who disagrees with the IDC dogma, that are constantly spewed by the so-called "Christian", and self-proclaimed "moral", IDiots. And their cowardice, sneakiness, and censoring just adds more layers to their vulgarity.

Edited by The whole truth on June 22 2012,04:20

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
fusilier



Posts: 212
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,07:27   

Quote (Henry J @ June 21 2012,19:03)
Funny, I thought Homo Sapien was put in the ape family before evolution theory was established. Not only that, but the only reason for not putting humans and chimpanzees in the same genus was basically the ego of the ones doing the classifying.

Not Quite.  

"I ask you and the whole world for a generic differentia between man and ape which conforms to the principles of natural history. I certainly know of none... If I were to call man ape or vice versa, I should bring down all the theologians on my head. But perhaps I should still do it according to the rules of science."
-from a letter by Linnaeus to Johann Gmelin

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
Quack



Posts: 1774
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,09:10   

Quote
I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life,


Links, links!

 
Quote
Any chance you might share some of that evidence with us while we're still young?

How strange, just the same question popped into my mind the moment I read Dr. Jammer's claim. Except I am real old and can't expect enlightenment in this lifetime.

The evidence for ID must be one of the world's best kept secrets.

Whereas the cluelessness so characteristic of ID proponentsists is known to us all. It transpires from everything they write. Discourse-wise, they are like an elephant in a china store.

But as I have said so many times, faith beats facts.

Dr. Jammer, want to offer a surprise as we gather at Stonehenge to celebrate, say, Odin?

_
ETA name correction.

Edited by Quack on June 23 2012,10:57

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,09:29   

First, I'd like to remind commenters that Dr Jammer is not Jerad (who is very much reality based).

And Dr Jammer, please don't reduce the issue to a conflict of worldviews. It looks suspiciously like a way to avoid discussing evidence. Besides, it's rather boring. There is quite enough of that going on over at UD.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,09:37   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 22 2012,09:29)
First, I'd like to remind commenters that Dr Jammer is not Jerad (who is very much reality based).

And Dr Jammer, please don't reduce the issue to a conflict of worldviews. It looks suspiciously like a way to avoid discussing evidence. Besides, it's rather boring. There is quite enough of that going on over at UD.

Kattarina,

Now that's not fair.  If he can't talk about worldviews, he really doesn't have anything to talk about at all... does he?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
rossum



Posts: 181
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,09:44   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life,

Somehow I doubt it. Is the Designer alive? If yes, then there is no ID explanation for the origin of life currently available. If no, then you are proposing that something dead is capable of intelligence. While an advanced supercomputer may well be possible, that begs the question of the origin of the advanced supercomputer.

ID does not explain the origin of life. It assumes life, and uses that assumed life to explain other life.

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,12:44   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 22 2012,10:29)
First, I'd like to remind commenters that Dr Jammer is not Jerad (who is very much reality based).

And Dr Jammer, please don't reduce the issue to a conflict of worldviews. It looks suspiciously like a way to avoid discussing evidence. Besides, it's rather boring. There is quite enough of that going on over at UD.

UD commenter Jerad is certainly not Dr Jammer, who did go by Jared Jammer at some point.

--------------
Im referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Im not an evolutionist, Im a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,12:57   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,16:42)
After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life

1.  Looks designed to me.
2.  To me, it looks designed.
3.  In my opinion, it has the appearance of design.
4.  I'd say that looks like it was designed.

Did I miss any, Dr Jammer?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,13:12   

Quote (JohnW @ June 22 2012,12:57)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,16:42)
After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life

1. Looks designed to me.
2. To me, it looks designed.
3. In my opinion, it has the appearance of design.
4. I'd say that looks like it was designed.

Did I miss any, Dr Jammer?

5. No island-hopping for beneficial mutations.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,14:52   

Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,20:21)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

So, Jared, no comment on what moves the BioLogos people?

As I've stated previously, I'm non-religious, thus, I don't concern myself too much with the creeps at BioLogos. They're all Darwinists to me.

I have seen religious arguments made by theistic evolutionists for why they reject I.D. One is that it posits what they call a "tinkering" God, which they believe discredits/disrespects God's power, or some such nonsense. This is a favorite of Ken Miller.

Anyway, if you're concerned with what I.D. proponents think of the folks at BioLogos, there's no shortage of material at Uncommon Descent. Stephen B, nullasus, and company routinely rip them to shreds.

Thanks.

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,15:00   

Quote (Texas Teach @ June 21 2012,20:02)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

Any chance you might share some of that evidence with us while we're still young?

The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.

I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.

As of our current understanding, I.D. is the only evidential-based explanation for the origin of life. Anything else is (ir)religious assumptions masquerading as science; atheism is a cheap tuxedo.

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,15:01   

atheism in a cheap tuxedo*

Is there not an option to edit your posts? Wow. Just when I thought this place couldn't get any worse...

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,15:06   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,15:00)
I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.

What is that explanation?

How does that explanation help us describe the rest of the world and the things in it?

What is the evidence for that explanation?

BTW: There have been problems with... unscrupulous people editing their own posts.  Think of it like a permanent record.  Anything you say can and will be used against you.  Speak carefully.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
rossum



Posts: 181
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,16:14   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,15:00)
The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.

I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.

False. Or are you again asserting that the ID's Designer is not alive? You are starting with an Intelligent designer, so you are starting with unexplained complexity, intelligence, information etc. If you were proposing a theory of Unintelligent design, then you might have a chance of explaining the origin of these things. However, we already have a good theory of Unintelligent design...

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1238
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,16:46   

Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,16:00)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,15:23)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,13:00)
Jared,

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?

I.D. boils down to, "we are not apes," to the same degree that Darwinism boils down to, "God does not exist."

I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

Dr. Jammer is so good at playing dumb, he should receive an Oscar.

A simple, straightforward question, is the Biologos bunch atheists.

If so, then why do they pretend otherwise?

If not, Dr. Jammer is proven to be "mistaken" about "Darwinism = no God".

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, youre taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,17:44   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,09:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

So Jammer is saying that the thousands of Hindu biologists in India and Muslem Biologists in Indonesia, Shinto biologists in Japan and Christian Biologists in America are dogmatic while a handful of American Fundamentalists are driven by logic and evidence. FAIL

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,18:04   

Quote (MichaelJ @ June 22 2012,17:44)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,09:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

So Jammer is saying that the thousands of Hindu biologists in India and Muslem Biologists in Indonesia, Shinto biologists in Japan and Christian Biologists in America are dogmatic while a handful of American Fundamentalists are driven by logic and evidence. FAIL

Why yes, only open minds consider the particularist point of view based on revelation (to be serious) that has no evidence for it to be the best answer to the questions posed by life.

Only bigoted points of view fall for universalist, evidence-based answers.  Pathetic level of detail and all.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1493
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,18:13   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,15:00)
The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.

I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.

Please give us your definition of 'information' as it is found in life.

Please give a way to objectively measure this 'information'.

I'd hate to think you're just another clueless wonder tossing around IDiot buzzterms he can't explain in his own words.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,19:13   

Is Jammer JoeG, or Josep, Mullens or FL?

Seriously, Jammer's posts are quite stupid.

So, Jam baby, what is your explanation for information in non-living substances.

Take a granite outcrop near Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Any information in the granite?  Hmmm?

Inquiring minds want to know.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1036
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2012,23:30   

klinghoffer the coward

Reproduced so that you don't have to add clicks to ENV:

When You Can't Answer the Argument, Attack the Credentials of the Person Offering It
David Klinghoffer June 22, 2012 4:29 PM | Permalink

Some critics of Science and Human Origins charge that the authors have no business writing about the subject because they aren't paleoanthropologists. One anonymous critic posted on Amazon that because Ann Gauger, Doug Axe and Casey Luskin have degrees in the wrong fields, they can be safely ignored. What a relief that must be for Darwin defenders!

Quote
Three ID creationists, none of whom have a background EVEN REMOTELY related to physical anthropology, purport to write a book on "Science and Human Origins," published by their own execrable propaganda mill, the notoriously dishonest Disco 'Tute. Why should anybody not a drunk-the-koolaid devotee of fundamentalist wingnut pseudoscience care?

Of course, this critic started his discussion thread before the book was even released, so obviously he didn't read it. Oh well, we've come to expect these kinds of attacks on books and authors that challenge Darwinist orthodoxy. Still it's worth using this example -- outlandish though it is -- as an occasion to respond to the objection.
First, if the critic had read Science and Human Origins, he would have learned that there's a lot more in it than just physical anthropology. In fact, three or four of the book's five chapters arguably aren't about physical anthropology or paleoanthropology at all -- they're about molecular biology and genetics. And two of the three authors of those chapters -- Gauger and Axe -- are biologists with strong backgrounds in those subfields.

So as far as the subject matter of the book is concerned, they have scientific training in precisely the topics they're writing about.

For example, in Chapter 2, Doug Axe writes about the ability of the mutation-selection mechanism to produce, in humans, features that require multiple coordinated mutations. Since Axe has published peer-reviewed research on the evolution of multimutation features as well as experimental research showing that these features exist in nature, he's well suited to address the subject here. His chapter argues that it would be mathematically impossible for multimutation features to arise by mutation and selection in humans in the six million years since their most recent alleged common ancestor with apes.

Likewise, in Chapter 5, Ann Gauger addresses a specific subfield of biology called population genetics. Dr. Gauger has a strong background in molecular biology, genetics, cell biology, and developmental biology, having studied at MIT as an undergrad, the University of Washington for her PhD, and as a post-doc fellow at Harvard. As credentials go, those are not bad.

As for other parts of the book, Casey Luskin wrote Chapter 3, which is the chapter that by far deals the most with paleoanthropology. Luskin holds two degrees in earth sciences from UC San Diego, took many courses covering evolution -- including courses studying fossils relevant to human origins -- during undergraduate and graduate studies, and conducted geological research at Scripps Institution for Oceanography. While it's true that Luskin doesn't hold a formal degree in paleoanthropology, he's scientifically trained in closely related fields. A few years back he published a technical paper titled "Human Origins and Intelligent Design: Review and Analysis" in the ID journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design.

Luskin is an informed outsider and perfectly well suited to consider the evidence, bringing a fresh perspective and drawing a credible conclusion. Trained as an attorney, he does a fine job of spotting logical problems in the evolutionist's case for human/ape common ancestry. Casey's chapter on the fossil record is the longest in the book, with well over 100 citations to mainstream technical scientific articles and books related to human origins. Critics need to respond to his discussion of the evidence.

Will they? If past experience is a guide, there's reason to doubt it. Critics of intelligent design are more comfortable attacking people than they are answering arguments. So it goes with the community of Darwin boosters. Their ranks are heavy with bullies and their leaders are almost all cowards, who flee from a fair fight on the merit of the ideas that are up for debate.

--------------------------

All of it makes me feel like puking but the last paragraph especially. No comments are allowed on that article at ENV, as usual. Who's actually the coward? Who's actually fleeing from a fair fight?

What's really bothering klinghoffer is that people are allowed to post challenging, dissenting comments at Amazon and he can't stop them.


ETA: fixing some formatting glitches.

Edited by The whole truth on June 22 2012,21:45

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2012,07:42   

That's a funny thing for Klinghoffer to say. In 2005, all of the plaintiffs expert witnesses showed up or were ready when called; three out of five of the DI's expert witnesses for the defense withdrew from the case.

Who is it that runs away from a fair fight? Evidence says... DI Fellows!

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  616 replies since Jan. 20 2011,10:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (21) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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