Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,03:07    Quote (stevestory @ May 31 2006,07:24) For the most part, creationists fall into two camps. Slightly daffy Old Earth Creationists (Dembski, Behe) and batshit crazy Young Earth Creationists (Salvador, AFDave). An exception to the rule is Paul Nelson, a YEC who can actually string two coherent sentences together (one of them may be a lie, but that's beside the point). I don't care how Salvador and AFDave justify their beliefs, they're idiots. But Paul Nelson is not as dumb as they are. I'd like to know how he justifies being a YEC despite all the evidence. I haven't had much luck finding where he defends this. Can anyone point me to where he explains how he can be a YEC? I would disagree with what you said. You stated that  " For the most part, creationists fall into two camps"? Do you think that is a truthful statement? I would say no. You act like it's a conspiracy against the Darwin faction and that isn't the case.  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. I would even say from what we know the Genome might hold some of those answers.  Believe it or not the "Flat Earth Theory" is based on the best scientific technology available of THAT day and that was direct observation.   Sorry to disappoint you in your post but I don't buy it. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:08    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,01:07) Quote (stevestory @ May 31 2006,07:24) For the most part, creationists fall into two camps. Slightly daffy Old Earth Creationists (Dembski, Behe) and batshit crazy Young Earth Creationists (Salvador, AFDave). An exception to the rule is Paul Nelson, a YEC who can actually string two coherent sentences together (one of them may be a lie, but that's beside the point). I don't care how Salvador and AFDave justify their beliefs, they're idiots. But Paul Nelson is not as dumb as they are. I'd like to know how he justifies being a YEC despite all the evidence. I haven't had much luck finding where he defends this. Can anyone point me to where he explains how he can be a YEC? I would disagree with what you said. You stated that  " For the most part, creationists fall into two camps"? Do you think that is a truthful statement? I would say no. You act like it's a conspiracy against the Darwin faction and that isn't the case.  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. I would even say from what we know the Genome might hold some of those answers.  Believe it or not the "Flat Earth Theory" is based on the best scientific technology available of THAT day and that was direct observation.   Sorry to disappoint you in your post but I don't buy it. Hi DaEvans. Are you familiar with the theories of Nathan Poe?. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:08    Also your all forgetting about "Professor John A. Davison's work", he is definitely not in either "camps". furthermore the unlikelihood that Darwinian evolution can explain the appearance of the formation of NEW information in the cell.  We need a more scientifically fulfilling mechanism, one that takes in account advances in paleontology, genome analysis, genetics and embryology. The present model simply doesn't meet that standard however a "preexisting genomic mechanism" could. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:09    Hi Have you heard from Alan Fox lately? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:13    Are you referring to http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=Nathan+Poe -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:17    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:08) Also your all forgetting about "Professor John A. Davison's work", he is definitely not in either "camps". furthermore the unlikelihood that Darwinian evolution can explain the appearance of the formation of NEW information in the cell.  We need a more scientifically fulfilling mechanism, one that takes in account advances in paleontology, genome analysis, genetics and embryology. The present model simply doesn't meet that standard however a "preexisting genomic mechanism" could. You seem like you might have some scientific background.  There are a lot of scientists in a variety of disciplines on this site. It might be helpful to understand what your specific background is, so that information about various subjects can be tailored to your level of familiarity. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:18    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:13) Are you referring to http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=Nathan+Poe yep. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:30    Hello, sorry I didn't see post. Biology. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:35    Alan Fox would be Professor Davison. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:37    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:30) Hello, sorry I didn't see post. Biology. Okay.  Could you be a little more specific as to what focus areas within biology and at what level you studied them? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:43    I am a med student. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:43    We have to realize what is at stake here: Isn’t it as simple as (IIRC) Kurt Wise says, "The Bible says it, that settles it"? The Gordian knot: The Bible is the Word of God. Jesus saved us from our sins by dying on the cross. He arose from the dead and became Christ. The Gospels are evidence, are they not? His resurrection is evidence we shall be resurrected. That is all evidence that there is an afterlife in Heaven for the faithful. Who wants to sacrifice all that on the altar of science? No hope, just a more or less miserable fourscore years here, and that’s’ that. No harp, no reunion with our loved ones, they’re all gone forever, as we ourselves will be when our time is up. Why should we be good, why not rape, steal and murder? Fuck morals, be a beast. Evolution doesn’t stand much of chance against that. Its’ like you have a $100 million lotto coupon in your pocket and the moment you say RM&NS did it, the ticket is gone. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,05:46    Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it? -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:15    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,00:46) Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it? You mentioned John Davison; that's almost the same thing. John is one true christian, don't you know!

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:27    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:46) Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it? You have to understand that there is a pattern, or trajectory, to the life of an anti-evolutionist here at this site. It goes something like this: Step 1. Hi!  I am just trying to understand evolution!  Can you help me? Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]?  I am confused about how evolution explains that. Step 3.  The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2.  They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is. Step 4.  The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3. Step 5.  The real working scientists become increasingly frustrated with the resistance to learning exhibited in #4 by a person who has only read one of the eleventy dozen books by Dembski, Meyers, Wells, et al and think they now qualified to overturn the last 150 years of scholarship. Step 6.  These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance.  Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery. Step 7.  LOLCats! Step 8.  The anti-evolutionist says "You guys are mean!", throws out some version of Pascal's Wager, and flounces out. So far, my friend, you have successfully gotten through Step 1 and 2.  And I am trying to help you through Step 3, but you are being rather vague. So, in answer to your question, you didn't mention God.......yet.  And maybe you won't.   But you would be the first. Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 21 2010,18:19 -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:32    boy, that's a cop out. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:34    I just saw your reply carlsonjok I will reply on Monday I have to get some sleep. Thanks -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:38    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,06:32) boy, that's a cop out. You'll need to learn how to use the quote button in the upper right hand corner of the comment you are responding to. Because I have no idea who you are responding to, me or Alan. EDIT:  The rest of my comment was purged because I though our new friend was responding to me. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:43    carlsonjok, To accept ANY theory of such import without examining it and accepting its faults and inexactitude is irresponsible. I will continue this with you on Monday. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:44    Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2010,06:38) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,06:32) boy, that's a cop out. You'll need to learn how to use the quote button in the upper right hand corner of the comment you are responding to. Because I have no idea who you are responding to, me or Alan. EDIT:  The rest of my comment was purged because I though our new friend was responding to me. Sorry my first day posting. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:47    Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 21 2010,06:15) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,00:46) Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it? You mentioned John Davison; that's almost the same thing. John is one true christian, don't you know! boy, that's a cop out. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:49    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. And no reputable scientist would assert that. So it's a strawman. Good luck with med school. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:51    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,06:43) carlsonjok, To accept ANY theory of such import without examining it and accepting its faults and inexactitude is irresponsible. I will continue this with you on Monday. Actually, I am just your humble tour guide to navigate you through the building. The restrooms are over there -----> There will be real scientists to explain the exhibits to you.  Don't forget to visit the gift shop on the way out.  BTW, when you see words underlined. That is a hyperlink. Follow it. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:54    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. And no reputable scientist would assert that. So it's a strawman. Good luck with med school. I read your post. You comments have so much straw you could play the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:55    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. And no reputable scientist would assert that. So it's a strawman. Good luck with med school. Giving up so early, Albie? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:55    Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2010,06:51) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,06:43) carlsonjok, To accept ANY theory of such import without examining it and accepting its faults and inexactitude is irresponsible. I will continue this with you on Monday. Actually, I am just your humble tour guide to navigate you through the building. The restrooms are over there -----> There will be real scientists to explain the exhibits to you.  Don't forget to visit the gift shop on the way out.  BTW, when you see words underlined. That is a hyperlink. Follow it. Thanks for being such a gracious host. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:58    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,06:54) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. And no reputable scientist would assert that. So it's a strawman. Good luck with med school. I read your post. You comments have so much straw you could play the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. Ooo, bad form. You have skipped ahead to Step 4 and we haven't even started step 3.   Gonna have to walk you back 10 yards for illegal procedure. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,06:59    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,06:54) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. And no reputable scientist would assert that. So it's a strawman. Good luck with med school. I read your post. You comments have so much straw you could play the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. Right. So support your assertion that one side claims that "evolution is a complete picture" or that "evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained". Evidence, please. thanks -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:00    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. And no reputable scientist would assert that. So it's a strawman. Good luck with med school. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26858.php "And no reputable scientist would assert that." p -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:02    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,07:00) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. And no reputable scientist would assert that. So it's a strawman. Good luck with med school. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26858.php "And no reputable scientist would assert that." p That's odd. I didn't find any statement in that link about evolutionary theory being complete. How surprising. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:09    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,07:02) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,07:00) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49)   Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. And no reputable scientist would assert that. So it's a strawman. Good luck with med school. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26858.php "And no reputable scientist would assert that." p That's odd. I didn't find any statement in that link about evolutionary theory being complete. How surprising. Aww, come on guys!  You're not even trying here. Daevans skips step 3 and charges into 4. Then Albie skips 5 and rushes into 6. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:12    Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2010,07:09) Aww, come on guys!  You're not even trying here. Daevans skips step 3 and charges into 4. Then Albie skips 5 and rushes into 6. Well, you shouldn't have posted that timeline. It just gives people bad ideas. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:17    Looks like a new chewing toy has arrived. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:18    Quote (olegt @ Feb. 21 2010,07:17) Looks like a new chewing toy has arrived. And already departed. So I'm skipping to step 7! -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:52    Quote (olegt @ Feb. 21 2010,05:17) Looks like a new chewing toy has arrived. I'm gonna have to go with an old chew toy has returned looking half a century younger and at the beginning of a long series of let-downs rather than the end of one. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,08:11    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,11:08) Also your all forgetting about "Professor John A. Davison's work", he is definitely not in either "camps". furthermore the unlikelihood that Darwinian evolution can explain the appearance of the formation of NEW information in the cell.  We need a more scientifically fulfilling mechanism, one that takes in account advances in paleontology, genome analysis, genetics and embryology. The present model simply doesn't meet that standard however a "preexisting genomic mechanism" could. So, you're a med student. Then you might've heard about something called antibodies. Our immune system can produce antibodies against almost everything that invades the body although our genome doesn't code for every possible antibody. Instead, during the maturation of B cells (the antibody producing cells) in each B cell precursor the antibody-coding gene is randomly assembled from some gene segments. There're about 10000 possible combinations, plus variations in the binding regions between segments. Whichever B cell binds however weakly to a specific invader (= an antigen) gets a signal through that binding to start proliferating. The progeny inherits of course the newly assembled antibody gene but in addition a gene that's also activated in the proliferating B cell introduces random mutations in the antibody gene so that each progeny cell gets a slightly modified version. This new version can bind better or worse to the antigen than the original version. The better the binding the stronger the survival signal for the daughter cell - so, if the binding is more efficient in one cell than the other, the cell with the better antibody will produce more offspring than the other. With each proliferation cycle this step is repeated until in the end only B cells survive* that produce high-affinity antibodies against the antigen. At which point did the intelligent antibody designer inject the information about how to produce high-affinity antibodies against this antigen? Since this information isn't contained in the genome it must be new information that according to you can't come about by mutation and selection. So, where did it come from in your opinion? * Or more specific, B cells with high-affinity antibodies outcompete the rest. -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,08:17    Just to make it clear, what I had in mind was Paul Nelson. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,08:33    Daevans, I hope you have an ample supply of KY handy (Oh boy!...this is goona be great!...sitting back with a large popcorn....) -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,10:40    DAEvans:   Quote You act like it's a conspiracy against the Darwin faction and that isn't the case. Two words: cdesign proponentsists. ETA: corrected spelling. Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 23 2010,13:54 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,11:17    Quote (Steverino @ Feb. 21 2010,08:33) (Oh boy!...this is goona be great!...sitting back with a large popcorn....) I think this is another hit-n-run troll from Dr Dr D's spring class barrel o' monkeys. Dale got the 10 post minimum, but I don't think he made it to the required 3000 words. So perhaps he'll be back. Just in case Dr. Dr. D. ever checks the URLs that his monkeys turn in, perhaps he can answer a question I've had ever since I first clapped eyes on one of his syllabi. Is that epigram at the top ("What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not.") supposed to be deep, ironic, or WTF? thanks -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,11:38    Quote Dale got the 10 post minimum, but I don't think he made it to the required 3000 words. So perhaps he'll be back. Based on the honesty and integrity traditions established by the actions of Paul Nelson, WAD and "Dr." Kent Hovind, I'm guessing that our Newest Christian Clown will be counting what we typed as part of "his" 3,000 words. -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,12:01    As soon as I read something as moronic as this Quote unlikelihood that Darwinian evolution can explain the appearance of the formation of NEW information in the cell. I jump directly to stage 6.

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,12:22    Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2010,04:27) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:46) Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it? You have to understand that there is a pattern, or trajectory, to the life of an anti-evolutionist here at this site. It goes something like this: Step 1. Hi!  I am just trying to understand evolution!  Can you help me? ...... I nominate this for a double post of the moment award with clusters!!!11!!eleven -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,12:25    AtBC posse: "King to bishop six, check." Cryptocreo: (flaps wings, craps on K4, flies away to collect Dembski-credits) -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,14:16    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,11:17) Quote (Steverino @ Feb. 21 2010,08:33) (Oh boy!...this is goona be great!...sitting back with a large popcorn....) I think this is another hit-n-run troll from Dr Dr D's spring class barrel o' monkeys. Dale got the 10 post minimum, but I don't think he made it to the required 3000 words. So perhaps he'll be back. Just in case Dr. Dr. D. ever checks the URLs that his monkeys turn in, perhaps he can answer a question I've had ever since I first clapped eyes on one of his syllabi. Is that epigram at the top ("What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not.") supposed to be deep, ironic, or WTF? thanks Darn!....It's been a while since I have seen you guys disembowel a CreoTard or IDiot. It's like driving by a really nasty car crash...you know you shouldn't look....but, you just can't help yourself. -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,14:28    These creatobots seem to be leaving very quickly. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,14:38    Seriously, could I get points towards a ThD by dropping into a science discussion group, type "Jon Davison" and bugger off? Sorry, Professor Jon Davison. I've always wanted to be Rev Bill.  Or maybe just The Rev.  I could marry people in bars and that would be cool.  "I now pronounce you trouble and strife."   Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,15:04    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:00)   Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49)     Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. And no reputable scientist would assert that. So it's a strawman. Good luck with med school. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26858.php "And no reputable scientist would assert that." p You are a malpractice lawyer's wet-dream. How can your ability to read be so pathetic that you really think that the linked news item from 2005 asserted that "everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained?" Read this from the news item: (Sound out the words if needed) Quote Batzer explained that the exact purpose or function of these elements is still debated, but understanding their basic behavior and history could be crucial to finding answers in the future. Now compare with, "everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained." I am worried for your future patients. Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 21 2010,13:05 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

ERV Posts: 329 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,21:09    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. I would even say from what we know the Genome might hold some of those answers. Like What? Feel free to Be as Technical as you like, 'medical Student'. Do you think Alu elements are Evidences for Creation? Are you a moron?

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,21:19    Ooo, ERV's here. This should be good.   As in Olympic women's hockey, Canada vs. Slovakia 'good'. (fnxtr butters popcorn, sits back to watch) -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

ERV Posts: 329 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,21:31    I felt a disturbance in The Force... as if a million mobile elements cried out in horror...

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,21:36    fuck carlson that is spectacular. and you broke it already. mebbe -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,22:19    dembski's class comes here? Where's the dembski wall of shame thread? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,04:00    Quote (ERV @ Feb. 22 2010,02:09) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. I would even say from what we know the Genome might hold some of those answers. Like What? Feel free to Be as Technical as you like, 'medical Student'. Do you think Alu elements are Evidences for Creation? Are you a moron? LOL "Be as technical as you like". Tee hee hee. Oh I'll take Ł100 on no technical ability beyond "cut and paste" or maybe "slight reword of cut and paste". Ah, my cynicism, it's acting up again. Maybe this new chum really is the one with the oft touted-never seen "Fallacy Free Creationist Argument". After all, asking about increasing genomic information is really rare. I've never heard that one before. No, really. I'll also bet that a consistent definition of "information" from our new chum will take some time to come forth. I'll bet that even when it does emerge the standard equivocation with woolly terms like "meaning" accompany it. I am also tickled pink by the sanctimonious instruction that a theory of such import needs examining because otherwise accepting it with all its faults and inexactitude is irresponsible. Wow. This is such a novel concept. I'll run off and tell all my colleagues about it immediately. No other scientist I've ever talked to has ever thought of examining current theories with a sceptical eye and some intellectual rigour. This will revolutionise the world! I predict we scientists will get right on this. Louis ETA Because this cannot be used enough: -------------- Bye.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,07:18    ahhhh, now it makes sense to me. ashamed of his 5000th post, Louis has created a sock with which to troll the ATBC board. should be fun!  at least his sock has TWO eyebrows! -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Gunthernacus Posts: 235 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,07:48    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 22 2010,08:18) ahhhh, now it makes sense to me. ashamed of his 5000th post, Louis has created a sock with which to troll the ATBC board. should be fun!  at least his sock has TWO eyebrows! I have to agree on sock - his avatar is one of the captains of the TARDis. -------------- Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,07:58    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 22 2010,12:18) ahhhh, now it makes sense to me. ashamed of his 5000th post, Louis has created a sock with which to troll the ATBC board. should be fun!  at least his sock has TWO eyebrows! Sock? I don't have a) that much time or b) the inclination. I can make crappy arguments under my own name thanks! Louis ETA P.S. Also, "Evans" is a Welsh surname. No. Just no. I'd at least pretend to be American if I was going to bother. Spelling things wrong would amuse me for starters. -------------- Bye.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,09:54    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 22 2010,07:58) Spelling things wrong would amuse me for starters. Like this? Spelling things wroung would amouse me for starters. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,11:36    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 22 2010,14:54) Quote (Louis @ Feb. 22 2010,07:58) Spelling things wrong would amuse me for starters. Like this? Spelling things wroung would amouse me for starters. Ouh absouloutely. Lououis -------------- Bye.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,11:41    My money's on "DNA is like computer code". -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,12:25    Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 22 2010,09:41) My money's on "DNA is like computer code". So---- There must be a programer!!!!1!!!1!!!!!111!!!!!!one -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,12:40    I love the gradual creationist retreat "God did it"   to "designer did it" to "evolution can't do that" to "okay evolution can do that, but..." to "evolution was fine tuned" to "initial environment was fine tuned" .. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,12:40    There is no way that DrDrD would give credit for such weak performances. Why, that would be pandering to students. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,12:56    Weak? Looked better than average to me. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,15:19    Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 22 2010,10:40) Why, that would be pandering to students. Pander.  Is that British for Panda? -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,20:10    How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:29    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2010,06:49) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,03:07)  I don't believe evolution is a complete picture or that everything about evolutionary theory has been satisfactorily explained. And no reputable scientist would assert that. So it's a strawman. Good luck with med school. Your Straw man comments are most revealing; Wallace (1856)-"Naturalists are too apt to imagine, when they cannot discover, a use for everything in nature: they are not even content to let "beauty" be a sufficient use, but hunt after some purpose to which even that can be applied by the animal itself, as if one of the noblest and most refining parts of man's nature, the love of beauty for its own sake, would not be perceptible also in the works of a Supreme Creator. The separate species of which the organic world consists being parts of a whole, we must suppose some dependence of each upon all; some general design which has determined the details, quite independently of individual necessities. We look upon the anomalies, the eccentricities, the exaggerated or diminished development of certain parts, as indications of a general system of nature, by a careful study of which we may learn much that is at present hidden from us..." -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:32    Way to stay focussed, there, D. Very cogent arguments. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:40    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 22 2010,21:29) Your Straw man comments are most revealing; Wallace (1856)-"Naturalists ...blah,blah,blahst...Supreme Creator... blah, blah blahations of a general system of nature, by a careful study of which we may learn much that is at present hidden from us..." WTF? Total non-sequiter, as far as I can discern.  Enlighten me, please. -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:44    He's building up to his theo-blurt. There will be bible references too, if we're "lucky". -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:46    Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2010,04:27) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:46) Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it? You have to understand that there is a pattern, or trajectory, to the life of an anti-evolutionist here at this site. It goes something like this: Step 1. Hi!  I am just trying to understand evolution!  Can you help me? Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]?  I am confused about how evolution explains that. Step 3.  The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2.  They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is. Step 4.  The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3. Step 5.  The real working scientists become increasingly frustrated with the resistance to learning exhibited in #4 by a person who has only read one of the eleventy dozen books by Dembski, Meyers, Wells, et al and think they now qualified to overturn the last 150 years of scholarship. Step 6.  These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance.  Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery. Step 7.  LOLCats! Step 8.  The anti-evolutionist says "You guys are mean!", throws out some version of Pascal's Wager, and flounces out. So far, my friend, you have successfully gotten through Step 1 and 2.  And I am trying to help you through Step 3, but you are being rather vague. So, in answer to your question, you didn't mention God.......yet.  And maybe you won't.   But you would be the first. Carlson, where does a Wallace quote fit in there? DAEvans, are you just padding your word count? Why are you going on about your conception of people rather than your ideas about science?  I'm quite sure that if you ask honest questions you will get honest answers around here. It's actually not a bad opportunity to learn or teach because there are a lot of bright and informed people who visit often enough that you could bounce ideas around pretty quickly with a wide variety of people. Faith isn't usually much of an idea for debate though. If you want to talk about whether faith and science are incompatible, there is an excellent thread from a couple of years back (now but I bumped it last fall so it might not be too far back) started by a guy named louis titled, "No reason for a rift between faith and science? A chance for skeptic to prove his claims." If memory serves. It is amazing in terns of the content. Maybe you want to resurrect it? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:47    Trying to cut-and-paste his way to the 3000 word mark, I'm guessing. -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:48    Ha. I beat you to it. :) ^^^ -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,23:55    Quote (BWE @ Feb. 22 2010,21:48) Ha. I beat you to it. :) ^^^ Gotta be quick around here. Snooze, u lose. Those of us in the west coast time zone often get the last word, after everybody else has gone beddy-bye, and before the eurofolk have inhaled that first cup. -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:16    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 22 2010,21:29) Your Straw man comments are most revealing; Wallace (1856)-"Naturalists are too apt to imagine, when they cannot discover, a use for everything in nature: they are not even content to let "beauty" be a sufficient use, but hunt after some purpose to which even that can be applied by the animal itself, as if one of the noblest and most refining parts of man's nature, the love of beauty for its own sake, would not be perceptible also in the works of a Supreme Creator. The separate species of which the organic world consists being parts of a whole, we must suppose some dependence of each upon all; some general design which has determined the details, quite independently of individual necessities. We look upon the anomalies, the eccentricities, the exaggerated or diminished development of certain parts, as indications of a general system of nature, by a careful study of which we may learn much that is at present hidden from us..." That is all you got? All fucking day, and that is it??? I don't think that anyone with a pea brain and a decent education would insist that every quirk and twist of morphology must have had a direct positive selection. In fact, there cannot be such a person. There are hundreds of articles on the effect of negative selection. There are hundreds of papers on neutral, or genetic drift- genome changes not selected for anything, anyway. Wallace would probably have freaked-out at abstract expressionism as an exhibit of "the love of beauty for its own sake, ... perceptible also in the works of a Supreme Creator." But, from a theistic evolutionary perspective, that very random yet controlled patterning is near the core of faith in God. And what would not contradict Wallace is that various expressions of the Mandelbrot set are considered beauty. That is some random variation filtered by selection, Baby! Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 22 2010,22:19 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:38    Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 21 2010,06:27) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 21 2010,05:46) Did I mention God? Could you please point that out to me I think I missed it? You have to understand that there is a pattern, or trajectory, to the life of an anti-evolutionist here at this site. It goes something like this: Step 1. Hi!  I am just trying to understand evolution!  Can you help me? Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]?  I am confused about how evolution explains that. Step 3.  The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2.  They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is. Step 4.  The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3. Step 5.  The real working scientists become increasingly frustrated with the resistance to learning exhibited in #4 by a person who has only read one of the eleventy dozen books by Dembski, Meyers, Wells, et al and think they now qualified to overturn the last 150 years of scholarship. Step 6.  These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance.  Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery. Step 7.  LOLCats! Step 8.  The anti-evolutionist says "You guys are mean!", throws out some version of Pascal's Wager, and flounces out. So far, my friend, you have successfully gotten through Step 1 and 2.  And I am trying to help you through Step 3, but you are being rather vague. So, in answer to your question, you didn't mention God.......yet.  And maybe you won't.   But you would be the first. http://homebuyersadvocate.files.wordpress.com/2008....4&h=374 I thought this pic best described most of the people who responded in this forum. So I edited your nonsense and put down what you really meant. We saw what you wrote but what you really meant. Step 1. Hi!  I am just trying to understand evolution!  Can you help me? (I never asked that I made a statement that I knew what it was) Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]?  I am confused about how evolution explains that. ( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism) Step 3.  The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2.  They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is ( I really doubt if their are ANY working scientist here  from the adolescent attacks,  the rest you wrote is just crap. What is even more remarkable is that man being the result of undirected causes believes himself capable of defining a reality that is unpredictable if undirected. Why you want to remain ignorant is of coarse your own business not mine). Step 4.  The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3. ( As Professor Davison point out scientist don't debate. I would say you miss understand my attention... again. I know Darwinian evolution is a ideology I don't need to question it's validity any longer,  your attacks have delivered all the evidence I could ever wish for. The Darwinist attempts to deny that intelligent causes do not exist when all one needs do is imagine the progress and advancements of civilization without intelligence. The view of the metaphysical naturalist that wholly undirected natural causes govern the universe is patently false. Believing so is based on superstition and misguided faith. Darwinist depend on a "dumb public" for support and of coarse forums like this were numerous people can ambush anyone who question Darwin) Step 5.  The real working scientists become increasingly frustrated with the resistance to learning exhibited in #4 by a person who has only read one of the eleventy dozen books by Dembski, Meyers, Wells, et al and think they now qualified to overturn the last 150 years of scholarship. ( First let's be honest  you don't speak for working scientist you speak for your own personal experience. You get upset with other scientist who question your "Ideology" which doesn't even qualify for a theory. But you don't question your public school education because if you did you would have to question your atheistic faith, do you think your doing something "new". The same thing happened in the 60's with another religious movement which taught the same rebellious doctrine.) ( I would further state  Intelligent Design, like evolution, is a fact and a scientific theory, whether or not it has yet produced any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena. Let's not forget that when Darwin first theorized evolution, he had no method for inheritance and no rigorous predictive capacity.) Step 6.  These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance.  Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery. ( Share what knowledge? Your unfounded believe in Atheism. You see I hear people like you claim their is no debate yet here we are. On another level Scientist do disagree on this. Why are their so many Design institutes coming out?.What we see is  that mankind is anywhere near as close to explaining and defining origins let alone the workings of the universe , but what we do need is better and more in depth methods of observation.Darwin is definitely being exposed and will suffer more blows to it's shaky foundation. If that angers the atheist in these forums so what. Science is about being popular it's about searching for real answers all which have taken a back seat to a ideology which is now beginning to suffer major set backs. Step 7.  LOLCats! (I don't need "LOL" I have the beauty of real science and the truth Darwin is a failed model.Who can ask for more??) -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:48    Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 22 2010,23:47) Trying to cut-and-paste his way to the 3000 word mark, I'm guessing. Well, with his last post, he's a bit closer.  Always amusing how creotards think they know how "Darwinism" works - of course, since they made up that word, they can say anything the like about it.  Now, if he had started claiming that he understands how Darwinian evolution works, he might be closer to reality. I also laugh at the "unfounded believe [sic] in Atheism" - I got my lack of belief in a deity after researching multiple religions, looking at philosophy, theology (what a waste), archaeology, history, higher criticism (of the bible), biology, paleontology, physics...a whole lot of stuff, using skepticism and critical thinking and a commitment to believing in things for which there is evidence (no matter what I might want to believe, or what I "felt" about my discoveries). But since I'm trying to get a couple of students ready for graduation, I'll just sit back and let the rest of you play with the chew toy.  Got no popcorn, so maybe I'll have a bacon narwhal. edited the quote to what he wrote.  I'll also wait for the scientists here to come by.  Obviously, he knows none if he thinks scientists don't use insults or act like human beings. -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:50    Wow, fucktard just scored a perfect 7!!11!111111!!!!!!! And you guys didn't think he could do a double head-insert-in-ass-backflip. Oh you of little faith. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:51    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2010,20:10) How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with. I am sorry. what truth? What is it that you are trying to sell? it is my observation that most people take for granted that they know what evolution by natural selection means. It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:51    Ah, we've reached step 4.  All pretenses dropped.  Unsupported assertions spewed with abandon. Atheism is religion.  Evolution is false and evil.  Mockery ensues (step 6). Anything else? -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,00:59    Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 23 2010,00:50) Wow, fucktard just scored a perfect 7!!11!111111!!!!!!! And you guys didn't think he could do a double head-insert-in-ass-backflip. Oh you of little faith. Oh, those are your subconscious thoughts. I shouldn't listen to them too hard if I were you. If your dog tells you to kill someone, unless it's your own suicide I would stay away from voices in your head. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,01:03    Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 23 2010,00:51) Ah, we've reached step 4.  All pretenses dropped.  Unsupported assertions spewed with abandon. Atheism is religion.  Evolution is false and evil.  Mockery ensues (step 6). Anything else? yes step 4, your pretenses are quite delightful. There's no point in being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,01:22    Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 23 2010,00:48) Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 22 2010,23:47) Trying to cut-and-paste his way to the 3000 word mark, I'm guessing. Well, with his last post, he's a bit closer.  Always amusing how creotards think they know how "Darwinism" works - of course, since they made up that word, they can say anything the like about it.  Now, if he had started claiming that he understands how Darwinian evolution works, he might be closer to reality. I also laugh at the "unfounded believe [sic] in Atheism" - I got my lack of belief in a deity after researching multiple religions, looking at philosophy, theology (what a waste), archaeology, history, higher criticism (of the bible), biology, paleontology, physics...a whole lot of stuff, using skepticism and critical thinking and a commitment to believing in things for which there is evidence (no matter what I might want to believe, or what I "felt" about my discoveries). But since I'm trying to get a couple of students ready for graduation, I'll just sit back and let the rest of you play with the chew toy.  Got no popcorn, so maybe I'll have a bacon narwhal. edited the quote to what he wrote.  I'll also wait for the scientists here to come by.  Obviously, he knows none if he thinks scientists don't use insults or act like human beings. Never guess, unless you have to; there's enough uncertainty in the universe as it is. I stand by the great words of Professor Davison-Atheists in science should not only be antagonized; they should be thoroughly despised, ridiculed and exposed. Unless, of course, you happen to be one yourself! -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,01:23    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,01:22) Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 23 2010,00:48) Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 22 2010,23:47) Trying to cut-and-paste his way to the 3000 word mark, I'm guessing. Well, with his last post, he's a bit closer.  Always amusing how creotards think they know how "Darwinism" works - of course, since they made up that word, they can say anything the like about it.  Now, if he had started claiming that he understands how Darwinian evolution works, he might be closer to reality. I also laugh at the "unfounded believe [sic] in Atheism" - I got my lack of belief in a deity after researching multiple religions, looking at philosophy, theology (what a waste), archaeology, history, higher criticism (of the bible), biology, paleontology, physics...a whole lot of stuff, using skepticism and critical thinking and a commitment to believing in things for which there is evidence (no matter what I might want to believe, or what I "felt" about my discoveries). But since I'm trying to get a couple of students ready for graduation, I'll just sit back and let the rest of you play with the chew toy.  Got no popcorn, so maybe I'll have a bacon narwhal. edited the quote to what he wrote.  I'll also wait for the scientists here to come by.  Obviously, he knows none if he thinks scientists don't use insults or act like human beings. Never guess, unless you have to; there's enough uncertainty in the universe as it is. I stand by the great words of Professor Davison-Atheists in science should not only be antagonized; they should be thoroughly despised, ridiculed and exposed. Unless, of course, you happen to be one yourself! well I guess no one want to play anymore. Goodnight. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,02:36    I don't feel like playing, you seem to have realized that there isn't anything to be learned here that you didn't already know. Dembski's place would suit you better. I believe Dembski would be proud of you, you seem to have all the qualities required to be a contributor and moderator there. I suppose I do not need point you to AiG, CMI and all the other excellent anti-atheistic forums out there, they most certainly will provide much better answers that you may get here. Evolution fairytale is another place I think might suit your taste. But by all means, do come back here whenever you think you have learned something we haven't heard before. Don't expect to learn anything here that you didn't learn in kindergarten. BTW, there is something called books. In lack of education and schooling, that's what I've been using the past 65 years and I am not finished yet. Just in case you'd want to learn something you don't want to know. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,03:03    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38) Why are their so many Design institutes coming out? ROFL. Yes indeed. But can you actually name them? If not, retract your claim. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,03:18    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 22 2010,22:51) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2010,20:10) How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with. I am sorry. what truth? What is it that you are trying to sell? it is my observation that most people take for granted that they know what evolution by natural selection means. It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity. BTW, Totally agree with this point^ Not this quite as much: Quote ( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism) As a strangely coincidental matter of fact, I just powsted a monstrous post on that exact subject in the thread just below this one. I think it would be neat if you offered commentary on it. But regardless, I'm your man regarding the learning alternate viewpoints. Please teach me. I assist the world's greatest middle school science teacher  with an integrated 3 year curricculum and I'm always looking for new stuff. If you have it, I'll learn it and you might even get your ideas into a middle school curriculum. I live in Portland, OR so religion in science class in terms of theories about the physical world isn't much of a problem as long as they teach science honestly. And they do. We have mostly educated people around here so religion is vanishingly thin. Part of our integrated curriculum on physical science year as a matter of fact coincides with ancient civilizations year and we do a science of ancient civilizations unit where the teachers split 4 classrooms up into 5 groups and they have to learn about the civilization. Up to a quarter of the kids don't know the difference between Hinu, Islam and christianity. They have simply never considered the question. So please, I am your eager pupil. I await information. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,03:31    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,01:03) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38) Why are their so many Design institutes coming out? ROFL. Yes indeed. But can you actually name them? If not, retract your claim. The Rhode Island school is a front. Don't trust them. :) -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,04:55    Quote (Quack @ Feb. 23 2010,02:36) I don't feel like playing, you seem to have realized that there isn't anything to be learned here that you didn't already know. Dembski's place would suit you better. I believe Dembski would be proud of you, you seem to have all the qualities required to be a contributor and moderator there. I suppose I do not need point you to AiG, CMI and all the other excellent anti-atheistic forums out there, they most certainly will provide much better answers that you may get here. Evolution fairytale is another place I think might suit your taste. But by all means, do come back here whenever you think you have learned something we haven't heard before. Don't expect to learn anything here that you didn't learn in kindergarten. BTW, there is something called books. In lack of education and schooling, that's what I've been using the past 65 years and I am not finished yet. Just in case you'd want to learn something you don't want to know. What Darwin followers will never admit. Is that everything we really know about the origin  of life and subsequent history of life pleads in favor of a determined, internally directed and planned scenario just as Robert Broom, a amazingly gifted scientist, believed. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:04    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,04:55) What Darwin followers will never admit. It's really about what you have evidence for, not what people will "admit".   Quote Is that everything we really know about the origin  of life and subsequent history of life pleads in favor of a determined, internally directed and planned scenario Citation please.   Quote just as Robert Broom, a amazingly gifted scientist, believed. Argument from authority? To be expected I suppose. Quote subsequent history of life Please explain cancer, HIV etc in the light of a planned scenario. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:05    Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,03:18) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 22 2010,22:51) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2010,20:10) How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with. I am sorry. what truth? What is it that you are trying to sell? it is my observation that most people take for granted that they know what evolution by natural selection means. It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity. BTW, Totally agree with this point^ Not this quite as much: Quote ( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism) As a strangely coincidental matter of fact, I just powsted a monstrous post on that exact subject in the thread just below this one. I think it would be neat if you offered commentary on it. But regardless, I'm your man regarding the learning alternate viewpoints. Please teach me. I assist the world's greatest middle school science teacher  with an integrated 3 year curricculum and I'm always looking for new stuff. If you have it, I'll learn it and you might even get your ideas into a middle school curriculum. I live in Portland, OR so religion in science class in terms of theories about the physical world isn't much of a problem as long as they teach science honestly. And they do. We have mostly educated people around here so religion is vanishingly thin. Part of our integrated curriculum on physical science year as a matter of fact coincides with ancient civilizations year and we do a science of ancient civilizations unit where the teachers split 4 classrooms up into 5 groups and they have to learn about the civilization. Up to a quarter of the kids don't know the difference between Hinu, Islam and christianity. They have simply never considered the question. So please, I am your eager pupil. I await information. BWE if you are indeed interested I suggest you read up on several authors all anti-Darwinians, leaders in their various fields, and scholars like Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Bateson, St George Jackson Mivart, Robert Broom, and Otto Schindewolf . -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:05    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,03:03) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38) Why are their so many Design institutes coming out? ROFL. Yes indeed. But can you actually name them? If not, retract your claim. Did you miss this? Providing evidence for your claims is the first step to breaking out of the prison you've allowed yourself to get comfortable in. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:06    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:05) BWE if you are indeed interested I suggest you read up on several authors all anti-Darwinians, leaders in their various fields, and scholars like Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Bateson, St George Jackson Mivart, Robert Broom, and Otto Schindewolf . What "pro-Darwinian" literature have you read Daniel? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:07    Or should I say JAD? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:11    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,05:04) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,04:55) What Darwin followers will never admit. It's really about what you have evidence for, not what people will "admit".     Quote Is that everything we really know about the origin  of life and subsequent history of life pleads in favor of a determined, internally directed and planned scenario Citation please.     Quote just as Robert Broom, a amazingly gifted scientist, believed. Argument from authority? To be expected I suppose. Quote subsequent history of life Please explain cancer, HIV etc in the light of a planned scenario. One of the best Ant-Darwinian's today is Professor John A. Davison. His work is by far the best to date.From what we know we can eliminate  both the Lamarckian and Darwinian models,I am sorry boys they both failed. But there is hope.  Professor Davison's has postulate the only conceivable explanation summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). The only real issue has always been the MECHANISM for phylogeny. The PEH along with the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) provide that mechanism which is now for all time next to the works of the great biologists whose common and largely independent findings permit of no other satisfactory explanation for the great mystery of organic evolution. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:15    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,03:05) Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,03:18) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 22 2010,22:51)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2010,20:10) How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with. I am sorry. what truth? What is it that you are trying to sell? it is my observation that most people take for granted that they know what evolution by natural selection means. It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity. BTW, Totally agree with this point^ Not this quite as much:   Quote ( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism) As a strangely coincidental matter of fact, I just powsted a monstrous post on that exact subject in the thread just below this one. I think it would be neat if you offered commentary on it. But regardless, I'm your man regarding the learning alternate viewpoints. Please teach me. I assist the world's greatest middle school science teacher  with an integrated 3 year curricculum and I'm always looking for new stuff. If you have it, I'll learn it and you might even get your ideas into a middle school curriculum. I live in Portland, OR so religion in science class in terms of theories about the physical world isn't much of a problem as long as they teach science honestly. And they do. We have mostly educated people around here so religion is vanishingly thin. Part of our integrated curriculum on physical science year as a matter of fact coincides with ancient civilizations year and we do a science of ancient civilizations unit where the teachers split 4 classrooms up into 5 groups and they have to learn about the civilization. Up to a quarter of the kids don't know the difference between Hinu, Islam and christianity. They have simply never considered the question. So please, I am your eager pupil. I await information. BWE if you are indeed interested I suggest you read up on several authors all anti-Darwinians, leaders in their various fields, and scholars like Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Bateson, St George Jackson Mivart, Robert Broom, and Otto Schindewolf . ???  :( Oh. Well. My reading list is already backlogged some. Maybe you could simply give me a little bit of evidence that I could work into something? Critical thinking is an important skill and it's always good to give kids a few bits of data which conflict and see what they do with them. Can you offer me maybe a general outline of a model which we can use but which conflicts with evolutionary theory? I was hoping you could explain it. I have high hopes since you're a med student. It sounds like maybe you've had more formal science training then I have and I love to learn from people who look at systems in non-traditional ways. Cool avater BTW. Does alan fox still post at that blog? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:17    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,05:07) Or should I say JAD? Thank You. I think that would be a privileged to be called that. But let's expose the real fantasy hear "Darwins" Like St George Jackson Mivart  who was one of the first (1871) to expose the myth of natural selection when he asked the simple question - How can natural selection be involved in a structure which has not yet appeared? Or natural selection nor allelic mutation ever had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny. Both have been determined entirely internally with no role for the environment except that of allowing those transformations to take place. Only in a total dumbed down educational system could such a fantasy be even possible. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:24    jon, I like the cut of your jib but you are just here to whine. Can you at least take a time out at being mad at other people because they don't want to hear your ideas any more? Try to be decent for a day or 2 and see haw it is. Y'now, baby steps, right? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:26    Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,05:15) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,03:05) Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,03:18)   Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 22 2010,22:51)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2010,20:10) How about it, DAEvans? Are you here to collect points in a course? That wouldn't make the "seeker after truth" claim false, exactly, but it would certainly argue that it isn't the only thing you are concerned with. I am sorry. what truth? What is it that you are trying to sell? it is my observation that most people take for granted that they know what evolution by natural selection means. It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity. BTW, Totally agree with this point^ Not this quite as much:   Quote ( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism) As a strangely coincidental matter of fact, I just powsted a monstrous post on that exact subject in the thread just below this one. I think it would be neat if you offered commentary on it. But regardless, I'm your man regarding the learning alternate viewpoints. Please teach me. I assist the world's greatest middle school science teacher  with an integrated 3 year curricculum and I'm always looking for new stuff. If you have it, I'll learn it and you might even get your ideas into a middle school curriculum. I live in Portland, OR so religion in science class in terms of theories about the physical world isn't much of a problem as long as they teach science honestly. And they do. We have mostly educated people around here so religion is vanishingly thin. Part of our integrated curriculum on physical science year as a matter of fact coincides with ancient civilizations year and we do a science of ancient civilizations unit where the teachers split 4 classrooms up into 5 groups and they have to learn about the civilization. Up to a quarter of the kids don't know the difference between Hinu, Islam and christianity. They have simply never considered the question. So please, I am your eager pupil. I await information. BWE if you are indeed interested I suggest you read up on several authors all anti-Darwinians, leaders in their various fields, and scholars like Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Bateson, St George Jackson Mivart, Robert Broom, and Otto Schindewolf . ???  :( Oh. Well. My reading list is already backlogged some. Maybe you could simply give me a little bit of evidence that I could work into something? Critical thinking is an important skill and it's always good to give kids a few bits of data which conflict and see what they do with them. Can you offer me maybe a general outline of a model which we can use but which conflicts with evolutionary theory? I was hoping you could explain it. I have high hopes since you're a med student. It sounds like maybe you've had more formal science training then I have and I love to learn from people who look at systems in non-traditional ways. Cool avater BTW. Does alan fox still post at that blog? The evidence for internal factors affecting evolution cannot be denied as both Berg and Grasse independently claimed. Professor Davison spells it out much better than I, but basically all we see today is extinction without a single replacement. he insists that Ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny. The death of the individual is the model for the extinction of the species. In his papers he also recognizes that all living organism that will ever become anything substantially different from what it is right now.There is no question evolution within the taxonominc level of family can be accounted for by the restructuring of existing chromosomal information to explain that process. You may see his paper on jadavidson.wordpress.com -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:34    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:11) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,05:04)   Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,04:55) What Darwin followers will never admit. It's really about what you have evidence for, not what people will "admit".       Quote Is that everything we really know about the origin  of life and subsequent history of life pleads in favor of a determined, internally directed and planned scenario Citation please.       Quote just as Robert Broom, a amazingly gifted scientist, believed. Argument from authority? To be expected I suppose.   Quote subsequent history of life Please explain cancer, HIV etc in the light of a planned scenario. One of the best Ant-Darwinian's today is Professor John A. Davison. His work is by far the best to date.From what we know we can eliminate  both the Lamarckian and Darwinian models,I am sorry boys they both failed. But there is hope.  Professor Davison's has postulate the only conceivable explanation summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). The only real issue has always been the MECHANISM for phylogeny. The PEH along with the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) provide that mechanism which is now for all time next to the works of the great biologists whose common and largely independent findings permit of no other satisfactory explanation for the great mystery of organic evolution. No, I'm afraid you did not explain HIV, cancer in light of your claim that life is a "determined, internally directed and planned scenario". Please, try again, and try to focus on the question asked, not the question you want to be asked. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:34    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,05:06) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:05) BWE if you are indeed interested I suggest you read up on several authors all anti-Darwinians, leaders in their various fields, and scholars like Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Bateson, St George Jackson Mivart, Robert Broom, and Otto Schindewolf . What "pro-Darwinian" literature have you read Daniel? We can argue the effects of Darwinian ideology as the foundational support for secular reasoning in the abortion controversies and geriatric concerns. The emphasis on youth oriented dictates from WHO and the UN Human Rights Commission and Global Initiatives have its principles in Darwinian sciences such as, linguistics, behavioral ism and social sciences. -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:35    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:31) Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,05:24) jon, I like the cut of your jib but you are just here to whine. Can you at least take a time out at being mad at other people because they don't want to hear your ideas any more? Try to be decent for a day or 2 and see haw it is. Y'now, baby steps, right? That is wonderful. I guess anyone who denies your failed hypothesis will be accused of being Professor Davison. The problem is staring you right in your eyes. The inability to accept the evidence. Hate it as much as you like but creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past and, like ontogeny, was always emergent and autoregulated with little reference to the environment. No, but people who make the same claims, in the same phrasings as JAD will reasonably be "accused" of actually being JAD. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:39    Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38) I thought this pic best described most of the people who responded in this forum. So I edited your nonsense and put down what you really meant. It is really meant as more of a guide rather than a literal life span of an anti-evolutionist.  You might say there is some random variation at work. However, I would suggest your quick transition to peevishness is a negative variation.  But let me address  several of your points.       Quote We saw what you wrote but what you really meant. We?  Let's put our cards on the table here, shall we?  Are you or are you not affiliated with the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.  You don't have to reveal anything other than that.  Just a simple yes or no.       Quote Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]?  I am confused about how evolution explains that. ( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism) I am going to make a statement. I don't think you have the first clue about all the evidence supporting evolution. I think, at best, you have read something like "Signature in the Cell" or "Explore Evolution" and have accepted them as true.  Those books are filled with falsehoods and misrepresentations.  The participants here could help expose those for you if you were interested.  Which, you don't appear to be. Given that you haven't actually asked a single question regarding science and, thus haven't, allowed the scientists here to share their knowledge, it seems pretty clear that you aren't interested in learning anything.  Further, given that you haven't even attempted to make anything of a scientific argument, you aren't here to test your beliefs either.  You appear to be here only to confront. So, why are you here?       Quote Step 3.  The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2.  They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is ( I really doubt if their are ANY working scientist here  from the adolescent attacks,  the rest you wrote is just crap. Actually, there are a number of working scientists and you have actually responded to them.  Albatrossity2, Dr. GH, olegt, and Wesley Elsberry to name just four.  But, you haven't given them the opportunity to respond or share any scientific information.       Quote Step 4.  The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3. ( As Professor Davison point out scientist don't debate. No, they educate. And you have given them no opportunity to do that by either asking an honest question or by advancing an idea for them to comment on.       Quote I would say you miss understand my attention... again. Then explain exactly why you are here.       Quote I know Darwinian evolution is a ideology I don't need to question it's validity any longer,  your attacks have delivered all the evidence I could ever wish for. Yesterday, you said "To accept ANY theory of such import without examining it and accepting its faults and inexactitude is irresponsible.".  I would counter by saying that to reject any theory without examining it's supporting evidence is irresponsible.  And you have yet to share anything to indicate that your examination of evolution has extended beyond reading one of the various anti-evolution novels.   Interestingly, Dr. GH has collected much of these books.  We were going to do something on the Explore Evolution thread where someone would pick a random page and several of the participants here would read the page and point out all the falsehoods on that page.  You game?  What book you got? Here is where I get a little confused, daevans. You say:       Quote ( First let's be honest  you don't speak for working scientist you speak for your own personal experience. You get upset with other scientist who question your "Ideology" which doesn't even qualify for a theory. then you say later:       Quote ( I would further state  Intelligent Design, like evolution, is a fact and a scientific theory, whether or not it has yet produced any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena. I have two points of confusion. First, is evolution a theory or not.  In the first sentence, you say not. In the second sentence, you say it is.  Second, there are no "any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena," why exactly are you so sure it is true?       Quote But you don't question your public school education because if you did you would have to question your atheistic faith, do you think your doing something "new". I am not an atheist and there are a number of other people here, like Wes, who are theists.       Quote Step 6.  These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance.  Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery. ( Share what knowledge? Your unfounded believe in Atheism. To reiterate the point, not everyone here is an atheist.       Quote You see I hear people like you claim their is no debate yet here we are. Umm.......       Quote Step 7.  LOLCats! (I don't need "LOL" I have the beauty of real science and the truth Darwin is a failed model.Who can ask for more??) -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:40    I know this guy people call BWE at a couple of forums. He's so fucking-shit hot amazing that he can make a complex argument and then if he's wrong, he just figues it out and moves onto the next thing.This BWE character is a phenomenon of nature too. You know... (down there VV ) And it has a little tattoo right on the tip. No I'm just kidding. There's no tattoo. That would be pretty whack. You'd need a nutjob like davison to find some3thing that stupoid and unexpected. I know you aren't Jon because Jon is totally off the deep end at this point. Since he doesn't come here though I can go ahead and let you know before you get too involved with his thinking to go back into realty... He's totally loony. Bonkers. Over the rainbow and even cuckoo. He can't really even string together coherent sentences any more and every once in a while I swear I hear sobbing through the Ethernet, wracked and horrible sobbing. It always seems to choke out the words, "I love it so." It's actually tragic But, let it serve as a warning now before it's too late. :) -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:43    Jad or Vmartin? I love it so. Our new friend is likely an old friend. Awwwwwwwww how sweet. Like herpes, they come back. Louis -------------- Bye.

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:45    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,05:34) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:11)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,05:04)   Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,04:55) What Darwin followers will never admit. It's really about what you have evidence for, not what people will "admit".       Quote Is that everything we really know about the origin  of life and subsequent history of life pleads in favor of a determined, internally directed and planned scenario Citation please.       Quote just as Robert Broom, a amazingly gifted scientist, believed. Argument from authority? To be expected I suppose.     Quote subsequent history of life Please explain cancer, HIV etc in the light of a planned scenario. One of the best Ant-Darwinian's today is Professor John A. Davison. His work is by far the best to date.From what we know we can eliminate  both the Lamarckian and Darwinian models,I am sorry boys they both failed. But there is hope.  Professor Davison's has postulate the only conceivable explanation summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). The only real issue has always been the MECHANISM for phylogeny. The PEH along with the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) provide that mechanism which is now for all time next to the works of the great biologists whose common and largely independent findings permit of no other satisfactory explanation for the great mystery of organic evolution. No, I'm afraid you did not explain HIV, cancer in light of your claim that life is a "determined, internally directed and planned scenario". Please, try again, and try to focus on the question asked, not the question you want to be asked. That would be a very good question to ask Professor Davison on his blog. "The period of great fecundity is over: present biological evolution appears as a weakened process, declining or near its end. Aren't we witnessing the remains of an immense phenomenon close to extinction? Aren't the small variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last oscillations of the evolutionary movement? Yes -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker

Daevans Posts: 31 Joined: Feb. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2010,05:46    Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 23 2010,05:39) Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38) I thought this pic best described most of the people who responded in this forum. So I edited your nonsense and put down what you really meant. It is really meant as more of a guide rather than a literal life span of an anti-evolutionist.  You might say there is some random variation at work. However, I would suggest your quick transition to peevishness is a negative variation.  But let me address  several of your points.       Quote We saw what you wrote but what you really meant. We?  Let's put our cards on the table here, shall we?  Are you or are you not affiliated with the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.  You don't have to reveal anything other than that.  Just a simple yes or no.       Quote Step 2. What about this [insert anti-evolution argument thinly disguised as a question]?  I am confused about how evolution explains that. ( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism) I am going to make a statement. I don't think you have the first clue about all the evidence supporting evolution. I think, at best, you have read something like "Signature in the Cell" or "Explore Evolution" and have accepted them as true.  Those books are filled with falsehoods and misrepresentations.  The participants here could help expose those for you if you were interested.  Which, you don't appear to be. Given that you haven't actually asked a single question regarding science and, thus haven't, allowed the scientists here to share their knowledge, it seems pretty clear that you aren't interested in learning anything.  Further, given that you haven't even attempted to make anything of a scientific argument, you aren't here to test your beliefs either.  You appear to be here only to confront. So, why are you here?       Quote Step 3.  The actual working scientists here explain in detail the evidence disputing the argument in #2.  They try to tailor the message to the person's knowledge level, but the anti-evolutionist is circumspect about what their level of scientific study and understanding is ( I really doubt if their are ANY working scientist here  from the adolescent attacks,  the rest you wrote is just crap. Actually, there are a number of working scientists and you have actually responded to them.  Albatrossity2, Dr. GH, olegt, and Wesley Elsberry to name just four.  But, you haven't given them the opportunity to respond or share any scientific information.       Quote Step 4.  The anti-evolutionist drops the pretense of being curious and begin debating the point using the exact arguments found in one of the innumerable anti-evolution potboilers even though it is clear they don't have even the slightest understanding of the information that was painstakingly laid out for them in #3. ( As Professor Davison point out scientist don't debate. No, they educate. And you have given them no opportunity to do that by either asking an honest question or by advancing an idea for them to comment on.       Quote I would say you miss understand my attention... again. Then explain exactly why you are here.       Quote I know Darwinian evolution is a ideology I don't need to question it's validity any longer,  your attacks have delivered all the evidence I could ever wish for. Yesterday, you said "To accept ANY theory of such import without examining it and accepting its faults and inexactitude is irresponsible.".  I would counter by saying that to reject any theory without examining it's supporting evidence is irresponsible.  And you have yet to share anything to indicate that your examination of evolution has extended beyond reading one of the various anti-evolution novels.   Interestingly, Dr. GH has collected much of these books.  We were going to do something on the Explore Evolution thread where someone would pick a random page and several of the participants here would read the page and point out all the falsehoods on that page.  You game?  What book you got? Here is where I get a little confused, daevans. You say:       Quote ( First let's be honest  you don't speak for working scientist you speak for your own personal experience. You get upset with other scientist who question your "Ideology" which doesn't even qualify for a theory. then you say later:       Quote ( I would further state  Intelligent Design, like evolution, is a fact and a scientific theory, whether or not it has yet produced any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena. I have two points of confusion. First, is evolution a theory or not.  In the first sentence, you say not. In the second sentence, you say it is.  Second, there are no "any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena," why exactly are you so sure it is true?       Quote But you don't question your public school education because if you did you would have to question your atheistic faith, do you think your doing something "new". I am not an atheist and there are a number of other people here, like Wes, who are theists.       Quote Step 6.  These scientists become less willing to share their time and the knowledge that took them a lifetime of painstaking study to acquire with someone who exhibits such willful ignorance.  Some get angry out of the frustration. Others give up and engage in mockery. ( Share what knowledge? Your unfounded believe in Atheism. To reiterate the point, not everyone here is an atheist.       Quote You see I hear people like you claim their is no debate yet here we are. Umm.......       Quote Step 7.  LOLCats! (I don't need "LOL" I have the beauty of real science and the truth Darwin is a failed model.Who can ask for more??) A picture is worth a thousand words. http://lh3.ggpht.com/_zZL5um....139.JPG -------------- "You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views." — Tom Baker