PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Logical Falacies in Evolution
       Some problems with the evolution theory

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And more from Shallit:

***

Today, I want to focus on what I call the "dishonesty factor" of the book: claims that are misleading or just plain false. The philosopher Thomas Nagel has stated that "Meyer’s book seems to me to be written in good faith." Perhaps, after reading these examples, he might reconsider his assessment.

pp. 1-2: Meyer gives a very misleading account of the events surrounding the dubious publication of his shoddy article in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (footnotes omitted):

First, in August 2004, a technical journal housed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published the first peer-reviewed article explicitly advancing the theory of intelligent design in a mainstream scientific periodical. After the publication of the article, the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History erupted in internal controversy, as scientists angry with the editor -- an evolutionary biologist with two earned Ph.D.'s -- questioned his editorial judgment and demanded his censure. Soon the controversy spilled over into the scientific press as news stories about the article and editor's decision appeared in Science, Nature, The Scientist, and the Chronicle of Higher Education.

The media exposure fueled further embarrassment at the Smithsonian, resulting in a second wave of recriminations. The editor, Richard Sternberg, lost his office and his access to scientific samples and was later transferred to a hostile supervisor. After Sternberg's case was investigated by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, a government watchdog organization, and by the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform, a congressional committee, other questionable actions came to light. Both investigations bound that senior administrators at the museum had interrogated Sternberg's colleagues about Sternberg's religious and political beliefs and fomented a misinformation campaign designed to damage his scientific reputation and encourage his resignation. Sternberg did not resign his research appointment, but he was eventually demoted.


[I would consider that ooutright lying - the truth is easily accessible, and surely Meyer has access to it - he is pals with Sternberg!]

This account is misleading in almost every respect. For the true story, you can consult Ed Brayton's fine article in The Skeptic. Here are some facts that Meyer saw fit to omit:

1. Sternberg arguably engaged in misconduct in publishing the article. The council of the Biological Society of Washington, publishers of the journal, issued a statement saying that "the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history" and "Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process." As Brayton argues, "Sternberg’s decision to publish the paper without the normal peer-review process is a flagrant breach of professional ethics that brought disrepute to the Smithsonian."

2. Meyer's claims about retaliation against Sternberg are bogus. Before the controversy and before the article was published, Sternberg (who only held a courtesy appointment at the Smithsonian and was not employed by them) and others were informed about a reorganization of the department that would require a change of offices. Sternberg later was moved again because he requested the move. It is a falsehood to claim he lost his office as a result of retaliation.

3. There was no campaign against Sternberg. His misconduct in publishing the article was discussed - as it should have been - but ultimately no action was taken. No one was "interrogated".

Let's go on to see other misrepresentations in Signature in the Cell:

p. 5: Meyer overstates the impact of Dembski's work by calling it "groundbreaking". Falsely claims Dembski "established a scientific method for distinguishing the effects of intelligence from the effects of undirected natural processes. His work established rigorous indicators of intelligent design..."

This is in line with the usual tactic of creationists: credential inflation. Dembski's work has received a minuscule number of citations in the scientific literature, while truly important work typically receives hundreds or thousands of citations. So in what sense can Dembski's work fairly be considered "groundbreaking"?

Similar credential inflation can be found on pages 178-9, where Meyer says of one of Dembski's articles that it "broke important new ground in understanding pattern recognition." Yet the pattern recognition literature has somehow ignored this "important new ground".

p. 36: Victorian scientists viewed cells as " "homogeneous and structureless globules of protoplasm," amorphous sacs of chemical jelly, not intricate structures of manifesting the appearance of design."

This claim has been repeated again and again by creationists, but it is not true. Fergodsake, the nucleus was discovered in 1833. Here are more detailed rebuttals by Afarensis and Wesley Elsberry.

p. 120: [About the movie Expelled] "When the producers came to our offices to plan interviews, the told us they wanted to find a way to represent what DNA does visually, so that a genera audience could follow the scientific discussion they planned to incorporate into the film. They commissioned a visually stunning three-dimensional animation of DNA and the inner workings of the cell and retained a team of molecular biologists to work closely with the animators."

Somehow Meyer manages to leave out the inconvenient fact that their "visually stunning" animation of the "inner workings of the cell" was ripped off from XVIVO's Inner Life of the Cell.

I could cite even more examples, but this is enough to give the general idea. Whether it's about the technical details of information theory, or the more prosaic details of controversies, Meyer's accounts simply cannot be relied upon.
***

Why do these people feel that they can write lies and distortions and showcase their sloppy 'scholarship' and get away with it?

Why?

Because people like LEster will take it as gospel without question and will defend their liar-for-Jebus-du jour at all costs.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:12 PM on January 17, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good to see the argument heating up!
You should read Meyer's book yourself Derwood instead of relying on raving philisophically biased critics for your disinformation.
Of course, you would love Shallit's shoddy breakdown of Meyer's book but your predisposition is glaring when you make no attempt to read the book yourself first.

If you don't want to read the book, then don't bother to try to discredit it.

I'm loving it by the way - really full of great logical argumentation. That's why people like Shallit hate it! That's why people like you will hate it too. It should make you feel quite ill as well - and with good reason.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:50 AM on January 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, derwood! You should be reading more creationist propaganda and less credited scientists!

Shame on you!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:53 AM on January 18, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, derwood! You should be reading more creationist propaganda and less credited scientists!


No, what I was actually saying was - a little less evolutionionist propoganda and a little bit more of the truth won't hurt you.

Read the book, go on, I dare you.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:20 AM on January 18, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:50 AM on January 18, 2010 :
Good to see the argument heating up!
You should read Meyer's book yourself Derwood instead of relying on raving philisophically biased critics for your disinformation.


I've read pretty much all of Meyer's arguments at one time or another - it would appear that he just re-packaged them for the gullible.  


And it is cute that a guy hawking a book by someone who claimed to have studied evolution for 30 years who asked 'why are there still monkeys' would write about 'disinformation.'



Of course, you would love Shallit's shoddy breakdown of Meyer's book


What is shoddy about it?

Please explain what Shallit got wrong.

I suspect you cannot do this and just take Meyer the Old Earther at face value.



but your predisposition is glaring when you make no attempt to read the book yourself first.

Yes - my predispotion is that Meyer's latest book is no better, no more informative, no more honest than any of his earlier work.  I am not predisposed to waste money on a book from a member of a group whose books I HAVE read and found, like Shallit does, to be filled with distortions, dishonesty, and nonsense.


If you don't want to read the book, then don't bother to try to discredit it.


You want to try to discredit evolution despite knowing nothing about it.
Why can I not try to discredit a book that I have not read but the arguments made therein I am familiar with?


I'm loving it by the way - really full of great logical argumentation.

I doubt you have the ability to discern a logical argument when you see one.

How about Meyer's 'information' claims?  How about his LIES about Sternberg?

All that just peachy with you?



That's why people like Shallit hate it! That's why people like you will hate it too. It should make you feel quite ill as well - and with good reason.


It does - it makes me feel ill because undereducated but zealous religious fanatics will glom onto it as if it means anything.


I see you are back.  You've been so busy I guess you keep missing this - I was hoping you could at least try to address some of it:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:06 AM on January 10, 2010 :
Orion I've never heard that there is a problem with fossils being out of order.


Of course not –OOPs don’t really exist –BUT where they do, they are called “downwashed” (through the solid rock into lower strata) or “reworked” (moved into a higher strata).

You see why evolution is so unfalsifiable? You just need to invent new names for your OOPses!


Another one you ran away from - I know it is long, and probably too much for your limited attention span and all...

For Lester the science doctorate-earning creationist to address...


Quote from Lester10 at 12:18 AM on November 8, 2009 :
Derwood
It will never change, no matter what.  Never mind that there are a multitude of different versions of if floating about.  Never mind that there are many internal inconsistencies that prove that it cannot be 100% true and accurate.  Never mind that it contains absurdities and implausabilities that are handwaved away with 'God can do it all' ...


Have you ever read it? This is all the usual tripe that people who have never read it come up with.


Yes, I did read it.  Cover to cover.  And it was shortly after I did actually read it that I concluded that it was nonsense.
The usual tripe from bible worshippers is to claim that those who recognize the internal inconsistencies and nonsese just haven't read it.
In my exoperience, those who reject the bible are the ONLY ones who have read it in any detail.

We know that kind gives rise to kind and no land mammal ever changed into a whale.


No, you assert this to prop up your bible beliefs and reject any evidence to the contrary.


If there was any evidence available to convince us, that would be great.

The evidence is there, as a YEC cultist you are programmed to find any way possible to reject it.  We've all seen you in action on here doing just that.


Your wonderfully confused ‘scientific’ mind asserts that a land mammal’s ears randomly evolved; the ears then happened to suit the water as well as the fins and flippers and blubber and a blowhole, as it turns out, that it later acquired quite by accident. At what point did it decide to go swimming –before or after the blowhole arose by accident? Before or after the fins arose by accident? Did it have to kick its legs to begin with? And the oh so many other coordinated changes all occurred quite by accident? The best mistakes were slowly selected by natural selection and a whale was born. I’m sorry, that’s a fairy tale and I’m sad that you believe it, but unfortunately Santa is no longer part of my life and nor can the frog turn into a prince.(even over millions of years).

Santa is not a part of your life yet Yahweh, who demands foreskins of converts, who mooned Moses, who was one of many deities, who could conjure only a swarm of fleas that Pharoah's magicians couldn't match, who slaughtered untold millions of innocents for doing what he must have known they would do, who cursed us all to extinction, THAT disgusting thing is still part of your life, and belief in that mythical thug drives you to toss out caricatures and argument via personal incredulity to prop up said beliefs.

It is the best you can do, but you are really in no position to comment on my 'scientific mind', as we may recall that you, despite claiming to have a science-related doctorate, did not know what 'phenotype' means, among other things.



A whale is a coordinated engineering masterpiece and if you can’t see that, it’s a pity.


The argument from awe twisted up with the argument from ignorance - klassic Kreationist komedy...

The evidence is all in your imagination. You have to really want to believe it.


Living in so constant a state of denial will eventually take its toll.


Why two contradictory orders of creation?


To play around with the god rejecters of our day who throw aside a common designer and insist on randomness and no plan instead? It certainly shows how evolutionists are not put off by pictures that contradict evolution –they make up fresh new stories instead, stories that make the non-believers mouths drop open in astonishment.


So much nonsense, yet not even an attempt to address a major problem with taking Genesis literally.
That cognitive dissonance will catch up to you one day.

But since you are an expert on mutations - please tell us all - if this evolution really happened, how many mutations would have been required?


Well to be really kind, lets work on just one new protein per new structure and then work out the probability of all these things coming to pass shall we?

Well first, you will need to provide a rationale for why we actually need one new protein per new structure, then I would like to know just what counts as a 'new' structure
- what does a whale have that, say, a hippo does not have that is not simply a rearangment of 'old' parts?
Then I wouuld have to know why you want to discuss probability, how you would apply it to this scenario, etc.


for just saying that mutations can't do it is just  abaseless assertion.


Surely since you can’t even show me one macro beneficial mutation, you are indulging in baseless assertion?

I don't know what a 'macro beneficial mutation' is, since you are so averse to actually explaining what you mean.

There must have been a lot of gradual in-the-wrong direction intermediate creatures that never made it. Where are they? Where are the ones with the fins but not the fluke? Where are the ones with the fluke and legs but not the blubber? ...?
Where are the wicked humans killed in  the flood all at once?  Where are the fossil graveyards containing discontemporaneous bones all mixed up, like humans mixed in with triceratopsians, or modern birds (hey, they cannot fly for a year!) ?


You appear to be changing the subject here –


No, I am just showing how naive - and idiotic - your demands are.

where are these intermediate whales?


Where are all the biblical patriarchs?  Where is the ark?  Where are all the intermediates between the original bat kind and the extant 900+ species?

The clear examples of transitions should have legs mixed with fins, tail mixed with fluke, nose changing into blowhole, back legs disappearing?

Legs mixed with fins?  What does that mean, precisely?  You expect it to have a fin on one side and a limb on the other?
As we have seen with Archaeopteryx, your criteria are set in jello and are applied inconsistently and arbitrarily for the sole purpose of never having to acknowledge what those with actual education, knowledge, and experience in the appropriate fields accept.  You never did, for example, try to discuss Archaeopteryx's actual anatomy (e.g., the sternum) despite claiming an understanding of anatomy.  It is almost as if you just claimed such knowledge to make others think you had actually thought this stuff through, yet when you get caught demonstrating that your knowledge of these issues is not what you tried to make it out to be, well, you come across like a TROOO Christian Creationist - you just avoid discussing it.


We’re talking about evolution. Does not believing in my story make yours sound better to you?

Not at all.  But throwing back absurd demands sometimes shows how absurd your own demands actually are.

Why would you expect there to be a fossil of every possible intermediate - and more precisely, every possible intermediate that happens to meet your ever changing, idiosyncratic criteria?



What is the 'intermediate' betweeen this fellow: ….and this one: Or were they created seperately?


I have no idea.


And yet you feel free to declare that Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate, and that whales and land mammals cannot possibly be related.

Something seems inconsistent.  Is it because you have not yet come across a creationist propaganda book dealing with guenons?

you have to propose a MECHANISM by which this level of hyperevolution occurred to produce, for example, 900+ species of bat from the original bat kind in less than 2500 years


Can these bats interbreed or not? Are they the same kind? Could they at one stage interbreed? We need to know the answers to the questions to get anywhere on this.

Really?

So the ability to interbreed is your big criterion is it?

Tell me - with your vast knnowledge of reproductive physiology, what are the first few steps in fertilization in amniotes?

Hmmm?

Is it , maybe, the sperm binding to the zona pellucida?  
===
Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.

Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro.
On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. ===


There are many different groups of people as well and they used to be divided into different species

Who did this?


but they can interbreed so they all have the same origin. How about the bats?
I suppose you’ve noticed how rapidly different kinds of dogs are bred out –obviously it needed a bit of human interference or the intelligence factor but there is clearly a vast amount of variation present in the original ‘dog’ genome.

So where do you think all that variation comes from?  Was it all just always there?  If so, why did we never see a chihuahua giving birth on occasion to a mastiff?

Maybe the same is true of the bats, maybe they started with only two or maybe four –who knows –but they probably had a lot of built in variation and rapidly diversified.

Yeah, probably.  Anything beyond 'probably'?

If my take on evolution was premised on caricatures and child-like distortions as your's is, I would have trouble accepting it, too.


Well did the land mammal start swimming and adapt to its environment or not? Did it get in the water or adapt for the water first? How did these coordinated changes occur if the environment can’t be responded to? How do random mutations happen upon all the features required for swimming in one animal that lived on land and then went swimming. This is not child like, this is practical and not distorted at all. Please try to explain it to me so that I can cease to be childlike about it.


See what I mean?
No, Lester, such 'questions' are indeed child-like, especially coming from someone claiming advanced education on these very subjects.
The naivete just oozes from your every post, and you are too prideful and Dunning-Krugerized to get it.

Just because you can hand wave over it with “I know that it happened because I know’ does not mean that you know anything at all about how it could have/might have happened.

It is true that I personally do not have any idea what the steps were that lead to the production of whales.  But I need not know every step if I can see the evidence left behind showing that it happened.  
If I find an empty book of matches and an empty can of gasoline next to a burned down house, do I really need to know some arbitrary chain of events to conclude that the house was set on fire?
The morning after Halloween, my son had a fit because most of his candy was gone - his candy bag was on the floor, and there were torn up wrappers and half eaten candy bars strewn about, and there were slimy bite marks on nearly everything.  Did we really have to observe the dog biting into each and every candy bar to understand that the dog did it?
We can look at the record of unique shared mutations in the genomes of the creatures in question and see a record of mutational change.  Does that tell us exaclty what steps occurred getting a whale from a non-whale? Not at all, but it tells us that it did happen, and it is up to other researchers to try to fill in the voids with things like fossils (all of which you reject in favor of some uncorroborated tall tales, I know).


Which is why I suppose you folks keep using such tactics, for to be honest, youwould have to be like Dr. Todd Wood or Dr. Kurt Wise, both of whom admit that there is evidence for evolution but remain creationists because of their Faith, which overrides their common sense....


These are quite ridiculous people, excuse me for being rude, but if all the evidence for evolution was so clear, I’d be an evolutionist.


No, you wouldn't.  When I see a YEC making this claim, I know they are lying - they are lying to us, and to themselves.
Many years ago, YEC Helen Fryman declared that were she to see a 'smooth' gradation of genetic identity across phylogeny as indicated by evolution, she would find it 'troubling' for her YEC beliefs.  So, I presented her with a data matrix of some 35 mammalian species showing just what she asked for.  Did she admit that she found it troubling for YEC?  Of course not - she just claimed that the matrix did not cover ALL animals, and did not inlcude data from the entire genome of each animal, so she saw no reason to be troubled.  IOW, she just rejected the very evidence she claimed she would accept in order to protect her religious views, and I see no indication that you would do anything different.


You have made it clear that you accept the bible in part because it never changes and never will change.  Many weak-willed people NEED such stability and see the tentative nature of all science as a threat to their emotional and psychological security.  

These 'ridiculous' people as you call them are, unlike you, highly educated and trained individuals with graduate degrees from accredited well-known legitimate institutions - Wise received his PhD in paleontology from Harvard University, for example, and actually studied fossils.  He KNOWS that there is evidence for evolution, that there ARE transitonals.  He simply rejects the scientific, rational interpretation of them due to his Faith and has said so.
You?  
Aside from some vague allusions to having had a few science classes in your graduate education, you've not said what your area of specialization is.  What do YOU know that a Harvard-trainined paleontologist does not such that you can call him 'ridiculous'?



But it is so ridiculous and imaginary and non-
existant that I just can’t. Mr Todd Wood and Mr Kurt Wise are probably undercover evolutionists -they are certainly not practical people or they would not say such silly things. I’d love them to show me their evidence. I’ll bet it as good as yours.


I do enjoy seeing YECs attack each other with logical fallacies.  It shows how weak their position actually is.


Wrong. I do need evidence. And i have lots, besides the fossil record.
Like what?
Funny - we've been asking you to provide evidence FOR YECism, and the best you can come up with are supposed problems with evolution.  You simply reject evidence presented to you out of hand, or engage in nitpicky distrations and employ doctored quotes to prop up your cause.


Ahem… where is the other evidence…apart from a fossil record that supports creation?

The fossil record supports creation?  Is that an assertion?  
Right - I forgot how we find dinosaur fossils in the same strata as modern birds, and how we find human fossils in the same strata as saddle-wearing stegasaurs...

Molecular phylogenetics supports evolution quite nicely.  Comparative embryology.  Physiology.  Anatomy. Etc...


Nitpicky distractions huh???


Yes indeed.  Like how when I started a thread for you  to explain how 'genetics' does not support evolution - your claim -  the first - and only - thing you did was prattle on about whale fossils.
You seem quite incapable of discussing even issues YOU bring up beyond a few throw away assertions and strawmen.


It’s incomprehensible to me that you can be so easily led by imagination without the requisite evidence.
Projection at its laughable best.


You obviously haven’t looked very closely at what you believe, have you?

Yes - I've actually done original research on what I 'believe'. Have you actually looked at YOUR beliefs skeptically?  

To make sure men can treat women as property and own slaves?


You make it sound as if God condoned slavery and wife abuse –obviously you haven’t actually read the Bible.

Right....  And here you are doctoring my words.  I said nothing of wife abuse, I said treating them as property, and the owning of slaves is a given in the  bible.  Or haven't YOU read your precious fairy tales?

Exodus 21

2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.


4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.


7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


Slavery treated as an everyday thing, AND women as property, in just one chapter.

It is quite easy to find many verses in the bible both condoning slavery and treating women as property.  Surely, you know and have been programmed to gloss over this?


Lots of people can see you at your sad game, Timmy's boyfriend.


Who the hell is Timmy?


Yeah, exactly.


Dr. as in creationist  medical doctor....  How could he possibly not be an expert on all things related to evolution?


By studying it for the last 30 years as his major hobby ever since 2nd year medical school and by visiting all the major fossil museums in the world and interviewing all the experts on the various major fossil evidences for evolution. By listening to both sides take on the evidence.

Oh - a HOBBY! Well, of course.

I've commented before that it is almost more instructive to see what people like you do NOT respond to as to what you do - for your new hero to have studied evolution for 30 years - albeit as a hobby - and to write things like what you decided not to respond to:

" If jawless fish are the evolutionary predecessors of other fish, one would expect them to be extinct, according to the idea of survival of the fittest."

then he did not actually learn much in all that time.

You see, when I see someone write something as ignorant as that, and this someone has claimed to have studied evolution for decades (I see this quite a bit, actually), we can conclude a couple of things:


The person is just plain lying to prop up his faith.

The person really did study for decades, but only studied YEC propaganda.

Combinations of both of the above.

The saddest part is, such folk really impress people like Lester, who, if he is actually telling the truth about his doctorate, should be able to see how naive and plain silly such claims are.


we all know how honest creationists are when it comes to interviewing people.


Well the sad thing is that we all know how honest evolutionists can be when being interviewed by creationists. For instance when Carl Werner wanted to find living fossils in dinosaur-age rock, he started by asking “Have you found any fossils of modern animal or plant species at this dinosaur dig site?” Evolutionists don’t like that sort of question –they freeze up because they know what the implications are. So after a slow start he asked the question differently:
“At this site where you are working have you found any animals that survived the dinosaur extinction event –any modern appearing animals that are alive today?”
This they found less challenging and it loosened them up to tell the truth. Well then he found loads of ‘modern appearing’ plants and animals to add to his list because the question didn’t specifically challenge evolution but rather focused on dinosaur extinction.


And by 'modern appearing' - let me guess, the YEC medical doctor then wildly extrapolated that to mean ACTUAL modern living things, right?


As for seals and sea lions not being related, well you’re laughably wrong there too….


Well so you say, but Australian scientists have a display at Kangaroo island that shows that a dog or dog-like animal evolved into a sea lion while scientists at Howard university in Washington DC think that a bear evolved into a sea lion.


And here you are again with your museum displays as "evidence".

You know, at the creation museum, they show a Triceratops with a saddle on it.
I guess that means that some 'scientists' think that ceratopsians were domesticated.  Funny how no mention of any such creature is found anywherere, not even in scripture....

But you know - you inadvertendly made a fool of yourself yet again - apparently you are unaware that dogs and bears are actually very closely related...



I know you cannot decipher those sciencey- things, but if you look closely, you can see a group called the Caniformia (dog-like), and the OTUs have names like Ursus and Canis...

What is the evidence for this evolution?Is it possible that they evolved from neither? Could they both be wrong?

Sure.  Real science is tentative.  Real science, unlike YEC pseudoscience, does not start with the conclusion then try to force obeservations to fit the pre-determined outcome.  
But nitpicking over museum displays that on the one hand show a dog-like forerunner and on the other show a bear-like one only shows how little you truly understand.  Perhaps it is you, not Drs Wood and Wise, that is the 'ridiculous' person?

Dr Irina Koretsky from the Smithsonian who specializes in seal and sea lion evolution believes that eared seals come from bear-like animals but she has no idea which bear-like animal as they have no intermediates (ie. they are guessing).


Right, just guessing.  So, you got that from your YEC medical doctor's book, right (I can google, too)?  

Looking though Google books, Werner's book
comes across as no better than any of jailbird Kent fake-PhD Hovind's nonsese.

Lester's new hero's book is here.

p. 112:

"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells.  For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."

If Werner believes that, he is a class A moron.  Then, he is a YEC with an agenda to push, so we should not expect any sort of rational treatment of the material.


Dr Berta of San Diego State University (who specializes in aquatic mammal evolution) says that “the earliest animal that they’ve recognized has the name Pithanotaria. It’s very similar in terms of body size and morphology to the modern sea lions.” In code this means we have only found sea lions but no intermediates so we don’t actually know what animal they evolved from.

Thousands of sea lions have been found dated 0-24 MYA but no direct ancestors.

Seals, say Dr Berta, are allied to a completely group of carnivores, the skunks and the otters.


So, you've just admitted that neither you nor your YEC medical doctor hero understand what 'allied' means - hilarious!

When asked which Mustelid evolved into a seal, Dr Koretsky said “I don’t have any evidence or material yet.” (This means they think so but have no evidence.)


I'd say what we have here is just another example of a sleazy YEC propagandist butchering and manipulating honest people's words.

Why would a mustelid have evolved into a seal when that is not what is proposed or indicated by the evidence?



5000 fossil seals have been found but no direct ancestors. So did none of them fossilize? That’s amazing!!

At this point, I have little reason to believe that your YEC doctor hero is a reliable source.


Please explain how I am laughably wrong.  

On this or in general?

Well, let's see... There was the PhD in science who didn't know what phenotype mean, the guy who employs logical fallacies as evidence, the guy who wonders why there is no evidence for an evolutionary sequence that is not proposed, the guy who declares that museum displays are at odds because one shows a dog-like animal and the other a bear-like one,  the guy who seems to think that all transitionals should have both fossilized and been discovered yet who reserves the right to dismiss anything presented as a transitional if he can conjure up some structure that he can claim does not meet his idiosyncratic and vague definition for transitional, the guy who declares PhD level creationists who acknowledge that there are transitional fossils and evidence for revolution are 'ridiculous people' and likley closet evolutionists because they are honest and he is not, etc.

Shall I go on?






(Edited by derwood 1/18/2010 at 11:28 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:10 AM on January 18, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:20 AM on January 18, 2010 :
Yeah, derwood! You should be reading more creationist propaganda and less credited scientists!


No, what I was actually saying was - a little less evolutionionist propoganda and a little bit more of the truth won't hurt you.

Read the book, go on, I dare you.



I'll bet you thouhgt the same about Werner's book, didn't you?

Your cheerleading is tiresome.

Oh - here is a Christian biologist who is going to be doing a chapter by chapter review.  He's not too impressed so far:

-***

There's not much point in "reviewing" a prologue, so let's start instead with some impressions gleaned from reading the prologue and the first chapter while leafing through the rest of the book.

1. This is clearly a pop-science book and not a serious work of scholarship. That's not an insult, just an observation.

2. In discussions at Telic Thoughts over the last week and a half, I got the impression that the book is primarily about DNA and genomics. I was wrong. It's part memoir, part basic overview, part rehash of arguments based on "information." There seems to be little about genomes and their structure here. Again, that's not an insult or a critique. But don't be fooled by claims that this is a work of serious science or that the subtitle ("DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design") indicates a systematic examination of genomics.

3. The book includes excellent notes, an extensive bibliography and an exhaustive index. Very nice.

4. Perusing the index, I discovered something very curious. Mike Behe is mentioned exactly three times in the book, solely in discussions of Darwin's Black Box and irreducible complexity. Nowhere in the book does Meyer cite or mention The Edge of Evolution, where Behe tries to create evidence for intelligent design by calculating mutation rates in, you know, DNA. Hmmm. I'll bet that was an interesting meeting of the Fellows.

5. From the prologue, page 8:

This book attempts to make a comprehensive, interdisciplinary argument for a new view of the origin of life. It makes "one long argument" for the theory of intelligent design.
This looks like a mistake to me. The book is, at least in part, a breezy memoir. Does Meyer really want it compared to the Origin of Species?

6. Key passage from page 8:

Thus, Signature in the Cell does not just make an argument; it also tells a story, a mystery story and the story of my engagement with it. It tells about the mystery that has surrounded the discovery of the digital code in DNA and how that discovery has confounded repeated attempts to explain the origin of the first life on earth. Throughout the book I will call this mystery "the DNA enigma."
I wonder if Meyer understands – really understands – how badly his project will turn out if it's all about what we don't yet know. If this book is about building a case for intelligent design by repeatedly restating the fact that we don't yet understand the origin of the first life on earth, then this book is not an argument for intelligent design. It is more likely the death rattle of the movement of the same name.

7. A key question from the final sentences of the prologue:

Even if we grant Darwin's argument in the Origin, does it really follow that he refuted the design hypothesis?
Again, this is a mistake in my view. What is argued by Ayala and others (it is Ayala that Meyer is answering in the close of the prologue) is not that Darwin "refuted the design hypothesis." In other words, the claim is not that "design is wrong." The claim is that design is not a useful explanation. As I would put it, design isn't the answer, it's the question. That's what you get when you grant Darwin's argument. You don't "refute" design; you enfeeble it as an explanation for biological change.

***

But I'm sure he is just as much of an idiot as YEC Todd Wood, PhD., who acknowledged that there are transitionals and that there is evidence for evolution.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:22 AM on January 18, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
I've read pretty much all of Meyer's arguments at one time or another - it would appear that he just re-packaged them for the gullible.  


Or for those who find an interesting argument interesting. Seems to me you find it threatening to the spread of your evolution religion.

And it is cute that a guy hawking a book by someone who claimed to have studied evolution for 30 years who asked 'why are there still monkeys' would write about 'disinformation.'


Who said that about monkeys?

Yes - my predispotion is that Meyer's latest book is no better, no more informative, no more honest than any of his earlier work.


No, your predisposition is against anything to do with a creator –anything that stands against your holy grail.

You want to try to discredit evolution despite knowing nothing about it.


You mean ‘anything about it’ I assume.

Why can I not try to discredit a book that I have not read but the arguments made therein I am familiar with?


So it is in fact the creator argument and not this specific book that you find offensive.

How about Meyer's 'information' claims?  How about his LIES about Sternberg?


I enjoyed Meyer’s information expanations. He distinguished between Shannon information and purposeful information. He explained the difference in a logical thoroughly understandable manner. There is no doubt there is a big clear difference between the two which is very pertinent to the argument.

How about his LIES about Sternberg?


The only lies are the ones told by the evolutionists that tried to cover up their actions when they realized that it made them look exactly like they were against freedom of speech. They behaved like the secret police trying to vanquish spies in their midst. The whole thing is disgusting and it’s playing out all over the world, not just in the Smithsonian. Rabid evolutionists have become the new world communist party. They don’t like opposition and they hate the thought that anybody would like to think for themselves especially when they have all the answers. It’s politically correct to think the way you do Derwood –but its stupid and shortsighted as well.

it makes me feel ill because undereducated but zealous religious fanatics will glom onto it as if it means anything.


You unfortunately are projecting. From where I stand, your kind are the heavily brainwashed overzealous religious fanatics and you’re desperate for everyone to be forced to join you against their will and their human right to think for themselves.

Yes, I did read it.  Cover to cover.  And it was shortly after I did actually read it that I concluded that it was nonsense.


Strange. Most people that actually read the Bible see it as a story about the history of the planet and find it at least historically interesting.

In my exoperience, those who reject the bible are the ONLY ones who have read it in any detail.


…..or in your prejudiced opinion.

as a YEC cultist you are programmed to find any way possible to reject it.


As an evolutionist cultist and propogandist, it is you that is determined to reject reason.



A whale is a coordinated engineering masterpiece and if you can’t see that, it’s a pity.

The argument from awe twisted up with the argument from ignorance - klassic Kreationist komedy...


Well a whale is pretty AWEsome and my ignorant mind wouldn’t know which parts it needs to operate, much less which proteins, in which order and in what quantities they need to be produced to do the things a whale is capable of doing.
You however are so gullible that you imagine that random mistakes in the DNA happened to produce a whale over a LOOOONG period of time. Who’s the comedian?

And yet you feel free to declare that Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate, and that whales and land mammals cannot possibly be related.


If evolution is true, if evolution actually happened, then archaeopteryx might possibly be some kind of an intermediate and if evolution were possible, then whales and land mammals might possibly be related, by necessity – but since it is all theoretical and imaginary at this stage with not near enough evidence to declare it to be factual , I feel uninclined, based on what we know about genetics and the complexity of living organisms, to believe it.

So where do you think all that variation comes from?  Was it all just always there?  If so, why did we never see a chihuahua giving birth on occasion to a mastiff?


It was there in the beginning. The Chihuahua and the mastiff exist at the shallow ends of the dog gene pool as selection has thinned it out. There is insufficient genetic variation remaining in a Chihuahua to produce a mastiff and vica versa. They are heading for extinction, not evolution.


We can look at the record of unique shared mutations in the genomes of the creatures in question and see a record of mutational change.


No you don’t. You see a certain percentage of nucleotides lined up the same in different animals and then you conclude that they evolved one to another. That’s like me seeing three cars, each with wheels, seats and steering wheels. From that, I conclude that one evolved into the other never once imagining that they might all be designed using a similar plan and material parts.

Many years ago, YEC Helen Fryman declared that were she to see a 'smooth' gradation of genetic identity across phylogeny as indicated by evolution, she would find it 'troubling' for her YEC beliefs.  So, I presented her with a data matrix of some 35 mammalian species showing just what she asked for.  Did she admit that she found it troubling for YEC?  Of course not - she just claimed that the matrix did not cover ALL animals, and did not inlcude data from the entire genome of each animal, so she saw no reason to be troubled.  IOW, she just rejected the very evidence she claimed she would accept in order to protect her religious views, and I see no indication that you would do anything different.


Like the car example above, maybe she saw another possibility; something you didn’t see.

If I find an empty book of matches and an empty can of gasoline next to a burned down house, do I really need to know some arbitrary chain of events to conclude that the house was set on fire?


That’s not quite the same as finding a land mammal and a whale and concluding that over a vast period of time, the one kind of animal changed into the other kind of animal just because they’re mammals and we need to explain where whales came from. Bad example Derwood, but I suppose you tried.

Yahweh, who demands foreskins of converts……..blah blah blah


Your brainwashed poisoned mind is keeping you blind, Derwood. It’s a shame. Forget about Yahweh for a change and concentrate on design and purposeful intelligence. It is quite clear to anyone who reads your diatribes that it is Yahweh that you hate and you’re desperate to keep creation in check less it comes back to Yahweh. Are you sure that it is Yahweh that is so bad or is it something that Yahweh doesn’t like about your lifestyle that is aggravating you?



 




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:04 AM on January 19, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or for those who find an interesting argument interesting
Poitless tautology Lester.

Seems to me you find it threatening to the spread of your evolution religion.
As usual, a pathetic attempt at condescension. Evolution is not a religion.

No, your predisposition is against anything to do with a creator

Derwood may well have a predisposition against a creator. It has diddly squat to do with Evolution though as you have been told many many times. There being a creator does not refute evolution. (Personally I do not believe that there is/was a creator - still has nothing to do with evolution)
–anything that stands against your holy grail.
What the holy grail of evidence
You want to try to discredit evolution despite knowing nothing about it.
You mean ‘anything about it’ I assume.
Try reading that again, try to think what Derwood is likely to have meant, and then realise that you got that bit wrong.
So it is in fact the creator argument and not this specific book that you find offensive.
It seems pretty clear to me that Derwood is talking about the arguments that Meyer makes that he is familiar with, didn't you see that?
I enjoyed Meyer’s information expanations.
You mean the ones that were rubbished by a mathematician and expert in information theory?
The only lies are the ones told by the evolutionists that tried to cover up their actions when they realized that it made them look exactly like they were against freedom of speech. They behaved like the secret police trying to vanquish spies in their midst. The whole thing is disgusting and it’s playing out all over the world, not just in the Smithsonian. Rabid evolutionists have become the new world communist party. They don’t like opposition and they hate the thought that anybody would like to think for themselves especially when they have all the answers. It’s politically correct to think the way you do Derwood –but its stupid and shortsighted as well.
Tin Foil hat anyone?
You unfortunately are projecting. From where I stand, your kind are the heavily brainwashed overzealous religious fanatics and you’re desperate for everyone to be forced to join you against their will and their human right to think for themselves.
The scientific method is all about thinking for one's self. YEC is about demanding the blind belief in myths and fairytales as espoused by your cult leaders with no evidence whatsoever. talk about projection!
Strange. Most people that actually read the Bible see it as a story about the history of the planet and find it at least historically interesting.
Really? I'd love to see the statistics that you have on that Lester, particularly the details of the sample(s) used for those studies.
…..or in your prejudiced opinion.
No, in his experience
As an evolutionist cultist and propogandist, it is you that is determined to reject reason.
this is becoming childish Lester! "Nuh uhhhh, you are. Takes one to know one. Thrrbrbrbr"
Well a whale is pretty AWEsome and my ignorant mind wouldn’t know which parts it needs to operate, much less which proteins, in which order and in what quantities they need to be produced to do the things a whale is capable of doing.
OK, I find that quite easy to accept.
You however are so gullible that you imagine that random mistakes in the DNA happened to produce a whale over a LOOOONG period of time. Who’s the comedian?
Unrelated to the previous statement, yet placed in the same context. Lack of intelligence or dishonesty? The evidence is there Lester. Open your eyes andf our mind to the fact that you might be wrong That's the problem with you and your ilk. You absolutely refuse to accept that your beliefs may be flawed, and it prevents you from objectively viewing and assessing evidence. (Hey fellow readers, can anyone guess what Lester's response to this will be? Something along the lines of "Nuh uhhuhh You are" methinks )
If evolution is true, if evolution actually happened, then archaeopteryx might possibly be some kind of an intermediate and if evolution were possible, then whales and land mammals might possibly be related, by necessity
So you admit that it is a possible scenario? (What's the bets this one gets ignored?)
but since it is all theoretical and imaginary at this stage with not near enough evidence to declare it to be factual , I feel uninclined, based on what we know about genetics and the complexity of living organisms, to believe it.
define what "enough evidence" would be lester (I'm pretty sure you've been asked this one before but I could be wrong)
It was there in the beginning. The Chihuahua and the mastiff exist at the shallow ends of the dog gene pool as selection has thinned it out. There is insufficient genetic variation remaining in a Chihuahua to produce a mastiff and vica versa. They are heading for extinction, not evolution.
Do you have any scientific evidence for this or is it just "your" assertion?

No you don’t. You see a certain percentage of nucleotides lined up the same in different animals and then you conclude that they evolved one to another. That’s like me seeing three cars, each with wheels, seats and steering wheels. From that, I conclude that one evolved into the other never once imagining that they might all be designed using a similar plan and material parts.
I'm sorry but that is an idiotic example lester and you know it. Time and time again you have been told that comparing cars to life is invalid and yet again you think that it is a good idea to bring them into the argument. Is this a lack of intelligence or dishonesty?
Like the car example above, maybe she saw another possibility; something you didn’t see.

Totally irrelevant. She stated that if she saw "a 'smooth' gradation of genetic identity across phylogeny" then she would find it troubling. She was shown "a 'smooth' gradation of genetic identity across phylogeny" and she changed the goalposts of her previous statement. typical YEC dishonesty.
That’s not quite the same as finding a land mammal and a whale and concluding that over a vast period of time, the one kind of animal changed into the other kind of animal just because they’re mammals and we need to explain where whales came from. Bad example Derwood, but I suppose you tried.
And yet you are happy to use the "car example above". Dishonesty lester, isn't that a sin?
 It is quite clear to anyone who reads your diatribes that it is Yahweh that you hate
Not to me it isn't. it looks to me like Derwood believes that yahweh is a myth, i find it hard to believe that Derwood would hate something that doesn't exist.
and you’re desperate to keep creation in check less it comes back to Yahweh.
Eh?
Are you sure that it is Yahweh that is so bad or is it something that Yahweh doesn’t like about your lifestyle that is aggravating you?
I believe that derwood has a problem with those that believe in the myth not with the myth itself per se.


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 04:33 AM on January 19, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, 'Doctor', you're becoming unhinged.
Hero protection and hero worship and mindless devotrion to an ancient collection of fairy tales will do that.

But I digress..

Quote from Lester10 at 03:04 AM on January 19, 2010 :
Derwood
I've read pretty much all of Meyer's arguments at one time or another - it would appear that he just re-packaged them for the gullible.  


Or for those who find an interesting argument interesting. Seems to me you find it threatening to the spread of your evolution religion.


1. Evolution is not a religion by any standard.  I find that when religious nuts call evolution a religion they are trying to drag it down to their level of understanding.
2. Meyer's 'arguments' are, at best, arguments from ignorance (forgetting for now his documentable distortions and lies).  I find such arguments unfulfilling and intellectually dishonest.

And it is cute that a guy hawking a book by someone who claimed to have studied evolution for 30 years who asked 'why are there still monkeys' would write about 'disinformation.'


Who said that about monkeys?



Your hero medical doctor Carl Werner.  You DID read his amazing book, right?
But my mistake - he actually wrote this:

"If jawless fish are the evolutionary predecessors of other fish, one would expect them to be extinct, according to the idea of survival of the fittest."

Which is the same basic (and quite stupid) argument.

Yes - my predispotion is that Meyer's latest book is no better, no more informative, no more honest than any of his earlier work.


No, your predisposition is against anything to do with a creator –anything that stands against your holy grail.

Is Meyer's book a religious tome?
It is not advertised that way.  If it IS a religious book, then it is even more dishonest because it is no advertized that way.  Of course, none of the reviews I've seen mention any overt religiosity, so you must be thinking of something else.

No, I am predisposed to look down upon and reject fallacious, dishonest arguments, regardless of what they are for or against.
You?

You want to try to discredit evolution despite knowing nothing about it.


You mean ‘anything about it’ I assume.


Well, that too.  However, given your track record here, you do not seem to actually understand much about it, likely because you get your information about it from crappy books like Meyer's and Werrner's.

Why can I not try to discredit a book that I have not read but the arguments made therein I am familiar with?


So it is in fact the creator argument and not this specific book that you find offensive.

If Meyer is making a creator argument, then yes.  However, as should have been pretty obvious, I was referring to Meyer's claims, suich as his claims about DNA and the precambrian and all that.  Not to mention the lies about Sternberg.


How about Meyer's 'information' claims?  How about his LIES about Sternberg?


I enjoyed Meyer’s information expanations. He distinguished between Shannon information and purposeful information. He explained the difference in a logical thoroughly understandable manner. There is no doubt there is a big clear difference between the two which is very pertinent to the argument.

How do you measure 'purposeful information'?
Did he explain that?


How about his LIES about Sternberg?


The only lies are the ones told by the evolutionists that tried to cover up their actions ... It’s politically correct to think the way you do Derwood –but its stupid and shortsighted as well.


So I take it that you did not follow the link I provided, where all of thiose claims are debunked by using the actual evidence?

Of course not...

Suffice it to say that
1. Sternberg DESERVED any ostracization he received - he is apparently an arrogant egomaniacal prick who abuses museum specimens, keeps loaned material, etc.
2.  He suffered no actual discrimination at all - his claims about losing his office were total lies - he 'lost' his office because they were doing renovations!
etc., etc....

Here - read for yourself.

Also read the author's response to a hatchet job by Sternberg's pals here.

it makes me feel ill because undereducated but zealous religious fanatics will glom onto it as if it means anything.


You unfortunately are projecting.


Really?

I will put my education up against yours any day.  Unlike you, I have actually done original research ion the field.
So spare me your laughable attempts at condescension.

Yes, I did read it.  Cover to cover.  And it was shortly after I did actually read it that I concluded that it was nonsense.


Strange. Most people that actually read the Bible see it as a story about the history of the planet and find it at least historically interesting.


Interesting and worthy of unwavering devotion are two different things.  


In my exoperience, those who reject the bible are the ONLY ones who have read it in any detail.


…..or in your prejudiced opinion.


No, in my experience,  Can't you read?


as a YEC cultist you are programmed to find any way possible to reject it.


As an evolutionist cultist and propogandist, it is you that is determined to reject reason.


You would have to present 'reason' if this were true.  I've seen nothing from you but hero worship, blind devotion, disinformation peddling, and unwarranted arrogance.


A whale is a coordinated engineering masterpiece and if you can’t see that, it’s a pity.

The argument from awe twisted up with the argument from ignorance - klassic Kreationist komedy...


Well a whale is pretty AWEsome and my ignorant mind wouldn’t know which parts it needs to operate, much less which proteins, in which order and in what quantities they need to be produced to do the things a whale is capable of doing.

I know you're mind would have diffculty understanding these things.  It seems to have a hard time understanding the things you pontificate on as it is.  

I'm still waiting for you to explain why all evolutionary change would require new proteins.

You however are so gullible that you imagine that random mistakes in the DNA happened to produce a whale over a LOOOONG period of time.

I am not guillible, I simply see what the evidence indicates.  You ignore it or reject it because you cannot understand it and it conflicts with your silly religion.


Who’s the comedian?

I can tell a good joke, but the real question is who is the ignoramus?

And yet you feel free to declare that Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate, and that whales and land mammals cannot possibly be related.


If evolution is true, if evolution actually happened, then archaeopteryx might possibly be some kind of an intermediate and if evolution were possible, then whales and land mammals might possibly be related, by necessity –

"Necessity"?  More caricatures..

but since it is all theoretical and imaginary at this stage with not near enough evidence to declare it to be factual ,


In your quite obviously uneducated and ignorant opinion.


I feel uninclined, based on what we know about genetics and the complexity of living organisms, to believe it.


What DO 'we' know about genetics?

I've tried to get you to expand on your genetics related claims and you have NEVER even made an attempt.

From where I sit, all you are doing is making unsupported assertions and blowing smoke.

So where do you think all that variation comes from?  Was it all just always there?  If so, why did we never see a chihuahua giving birth on occasion to a mastiff?


It was there in the beginning.

THEN SHOW SOME EVIDENCE!!!!
What you are doing is Witnessing, and that only counts as evidence to pew warming robots.


The Chihuahua and the mastiff exist at the shallow ends of the dog gene pool as selection has thinned it out. There is insufficient genetic variation remaining in a Chihuahua to produce a mastiff and vica versa.

EVIDENCE?

They are heading for extinction, not evolution.

And along the way, a new lineage may emerge.  Which is what paleontology shows us.

Do you think it is OK that Yahweh has doomed us all to extinction for something we had no part in?
Does that seem fair?
Logical?
Rational?

Sane?

We can look at the record of unique shared mutations in the genomes of the creatures in question and see a record of mutational change.


No you don’t. You see a certain percentage of nucleotides lined up the same in different animals and then you conclude that they evolved one to another. That’s like me seeing three cars, each with wheels, seats and steering wheels. From that, I conclude that one evolved into the other never once imagining that they might all be designed using a similar plan and material parts.


Thank you for proving that you never read anything scientific presented on this forum.
I have provided documentation that the methods employed in reconstructing phylogenies have been TESTED on knowns and shown to be very accurate.

You rant is just ignorance-based desperation and Dunning-Krugerism.

Many years ago, YEC Helen Fryman declared that were she to see a 'smooth' gradation of genetic identity across phylogeny as indicated by evolution, she would find it 'troubling' for her YEC beliefs.  So, I presented her with a data matrix of some 35 mammalian species showing just what she asked for.  Did she admit that she found it troubling for YEC?  Of course not - she just claimed that the matrix did not cover ALL animals, and did not inlcude data from the entire genome of each animal, so she saw no reason to be troubled.  IOW, she just rejected the very evidence she claimed she would accept in order to protect her religious views, and I see no indication that you would do anything different.


Like the car example above, maybe she saw another possibility; something you didn’t see.


The car example is grade school level bullshit.


If I find an empty book of matches and an empty can of gasoline next to a burned down house, do I really need to know some arbitrary chain of events to conclude that the house was set on fire?


That’s not quite the same as finding a land mammal and a whale and concluding that over a vast period of time, the one kind of animal changed into the other kind of animal just because they’re mammals and we need to explain where whales came from. Bad example Derwood, but I suppose you tried.


Right - better to simply accept that even though whales are mammals that Jehovah simply made them that way ion a whim, even though he already made fish.
Brilliant.


Yahweh, who demands foreskins of converts……..blah blah blah


Your brainwashed poisoned mind is keeping you blind, Derwood. It’s a shame. Forget about Yahweh for a change and concentrate on design and purposeful intelligence.

The intelligence that your child-like and underinformed mind tells you IS Yahweh?


It is quite clear to anyone who reads your diatribes that it is Yahweh that you hate and you’re desperate to keep creation in check less it comes back to Yahweh. Are you sure that it is Yahweh that is so bad or is it something that Yahweh doesn’t like about your lifestyle that is aggravating you?



The only things that aggravate me is when people lie about their credentials, lie about evidence, misrepresent facts, ignore evidence, and refuse to acknowledge their own intelelctual shortcomings.

I could not care less about your religion except insofar as people like you use it as justification for all you do.


(Edited by derwood 1/19/2010 at 08:57 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:55 AM on January 19, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Or for those who find an interesting argument interesting
JimIrvine
Poitless tautology Lester.


Derwood finds a book he hasn’t read uninteresting. I find it interesting. I like interesting arguments. Meyer has an interesting argument, more than interesting actually, compelling . So what’s pointless about that? Admit it, you just don’t like me to disagree. It riles you.
Good.

As usual, a pathetic attempt at condescension. Evolution is not a religion.

It is a metaphysical belief system – you have to have faith that it happened - that it could have happened. The evidence isn’t there, but the faith is. It’s a pretty popular religion but given that it is shoved down every child’s throat willy nilly with no other possibilities allowed for, it’s no wonder it’s popular. It allows you to escape from Yahweh in an imaginary sense as well and that adds much to its popularity – keeps everybody doing their own thing just like back in the days of Noah. (The real Noah you know, the one who had three sons, the one son being Japheth, that white Anglosaxons are able to trace their ancestry back to.)
Derwood may well have a predisposition against a creator. It has diddly squat to do with Evolution though as you have been told many many times. There being a creator does not refute evolution.

There being the vaguest chance that evolution occurred, makes a creator very much less likely, which is why Derwood likes the theory so much. It’s all pretty subconscious but I’d like to wake him up.
Personally I do not believe that there is/was a creator - still has nothing to do with evolution

It has plenty to do with evolution. If evolution were to be true then abiogenesis would be far more feasible a proposition. It’s all imaginary but evolution makes abiogenesis sound possible.
Try reading that again, try to think what Derwood is likely to have meant

Oh yes, sorry of course. Derwood likes to overdo things, overstate his point, give no quarter so that is probably exactly what he meant to say. That’s why he’s so hard to take seriously.
It seems pretty clear to me that Derwood is talking about the arguments that Meyer makes that he is familiar with, didn't you see that?


He hasn’t read it remember, so probably he doesn’t know what he’s criticizing, just that he must criticize. It’s called a knee-jerk reaction.

You mean the ones that were rubbished by a mathematician and expert in information theory?


You mean by your dedicated religious experts. I’ll bet mathematicians and information experts down the middle and on our side both, were impressed. It’s like saying ‘the Mormon mathematician and the Mormon information expert didn’t like your book that showed that the book of Mormon had no base in reality.’ I’m sure they didn’t like it.
I’ll bet, like Derwood, they didn’t read it either, before they started writing their critiques.
The scientific method is all about thinking for one's self.


As long as you think inside the evolution box, sure. That’s not real thinking though.

YEC is about demanding the blind belief in myths and fairytales as espoused by your cult leaders with no evidence whatsoever. talk about projection!


Haha! You think I’m projecting. That’s funny. Evolution is so filled with fairytales, it’s a laugh a minute.

‘How the giraffe got its long neck.’ ‘How the land mammal turned into a whale, one little piece at a time.’ ‘ How the reptile turned into a bird by practicing jumping out of trees (or was it a cliff?).’ “How all the different dinosaurs arrived suddenly with no evidence of where they came from.” “How the multicellular invertebrates just popped up in the Cambrian so suddenly.”

You really need to examine your own stories more carefully before pointing fingers at a book that has historical and archaeological backup, where you have none whatsoever.

this is becoming childish Lester! "Nuh uhhhh, you are. Takes one to know one. Thrrbrbrbr"


Yes it is, isn’t it.

Well a whale is pretty AWEsome and my ignorant mind wouldn’t know which parts it needs to operate, much less which proteins, in which order and in what quantities they need to be produced to do the things a whale is capable of doing.
OK, I find that quite easy to accept.


Good for you. I’m not so easily persuaded. I don’t believe that selective mistakes can substitute for intelligent planning. There’s the myth, right there.

Lack of intelligence or dishonesty?


Neither. Your blindness, that’s all.

The evidence is there Lester.


No, it isn’t. The presuppositions are there decorated with imaginary details.

Open your eyes andf our mind to the fact that you might be wrong


How about you try that JimIrvine, just for an experiment.

Dishonesty lester, isn't that a sin?


I wouldn’t worry about it if I were you JimIrvine. If there’s no God, who would I be sinning against? It’s not really your domain, so mentioning such a thing is just your manipulation angle - Shame me into silence –huh, in your dreams!
















-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:41 AM on January 20, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood finds a book he hasn’t read uninteresting.
I think he finds those arguments he already knows uninteresting.
I find it interesting. I like interesting arguments.
You don't have the intelligence required to recognize one.
I wish you did.
If only there was some god to pray to...

Meyer has an interesting argument, more than interesting actually, compelling .
If you understood it, start a thread about this interesting arguments, in your own words.

If you didn't, then don't mention it.

It is a metaphysical belief system
Why?

It only deals with physical entities.

On the other hand, your position doesn't.

– you have to have faith that it happened - that it could have happened.
If you define it as "trust", yeah.
If you define it as "belief without reason", then no.

The smartest people in the world accept Evolution. How likely is that they have no reasons?

I'm not even saying you should trust them. Only pointing out that your claim makes no sense.

Besides the fact that we've shown you tons of reasons (that you will never like, of course).

The evidence isn’t there, but the faith is.
Why would we have faith in something so precise?
How do different people reach the exact same conclusions?

That's something YECs could only dream of.

It’s a pretty popular religion
Define "religion" and show us how it adjusts, or shut up.
but given that it is shoved down every child’s throat willy nilly with no other possibilities allowed for, it’s no wonder it’s popular.
Hahaha! More projection! xD
It allows you to escape from Yahweh in an imaginary sense as well and that adds much to its popularity – keeps everybody doing their own thing just like back in the days of Noah.
Do we want to escape from every god humans have made up, or just from Yahweh?
Or do we want to escape from Yahweh faster than from the rest of the pantheon?
(The real Noah you know, the one who had three sons, the one son being Japheth, that white Anglosaxons are able to trace their ancestry back to.)
They are able? Woah, i didn't know this!

Show us.

It’s all pretty subconscious but I’d like to wake him up.
Your subconscious might be all we know from you.
Personally I do not believe that there is/was a creator - still has nothing to do with evolution
It has plenty to do with evolution. If evolution were to be true then abiogenesis would be far more feasible a proposition.
True. Well, kinda obvious.

So, ok, the relation between a creator and Evolution is merely statistical.
If Evolution = true, then Creator = less likely.

Yeah, a statistical inverse correlation. You're right. But that's not much. Because some creator might have had his reasons to make it look like everything happened on its own.
You could actually design a god who would fit. One who works in mysterious ways, for instance.

It’s all imaginary but evolution makes abiogenesis sound possible.
Yeah. Like Astrophysics. It's all imaginary but makes Evolution sound possible.
Like the size of the Universe. It's all imaginary, but it makes Astrophysics sound possible.

You can say that about thousands of postulates and conclusions from many branches of Science. They all happen to support Evolution.

Even the creator seems to be involved in this conspiracy.

Derwood likes to overdo things, overstate his point, give no quarter so that is probably exactly what he meant to say. That’s why he’s so hard to take seriously.
Not hard to me.

Taking you seriously, on the other hand...

It seems pretty clear to me that Derwood is talking about the arguments that Meyer makes that he is familiar with, didn't you see that?
He hasn’t read it remember, so probably he doesn’t know what he’s criticizing, just that he must criticize.
That's easy to demonstrate.

Show us.

Show us some compelling argument that derwood hasn't already heard about.

Show us, Lester. Show us how you understood them. Show us how you can support them.

The scientific method is all about thinking for one's self.
As long as you think inside the evolution box, sure. That’s not real thinking though.
Oh... You think outside the box now...

Man, there are lots of geniuses in this planets. They tend to strongly disagree with your position.

Again, i'm not saying you should just trust them. But you can't say it's not real thinking. You barely think at all.

Do you give any credit to IQ measurements? Do you think it doesn't correlate with anything remotely similar to what should objectively be called "real thinking"?

How many people from Mensa do you think share your views?

If it turns out that nobody does, would you tell them that they don't do real thinking?

Mensa at Cambridge 2010 - Speakers announced,

15-Dec-09


Frank Ryan 2Frank will base his lecture on the topic of evolution; using his book "Darwin’s Blind Spot" as a guide. The book's description ‘while Charles Darwin's vision of evolution was brilliant, natural selection ignores a crucial force that helps to explain the diversity and wonder of life: symbioses' gives a taste of Frank's talk. In Darwin's Blind Spot, Frank Ryan shows how the blending of life forms through symbiosis has resulted in gigantic leaps in evolution; he will be speaking in depth on this concept at Cambridge.
Woah! Very interesting subject!

Oh, perhaps you won't find it interesting... There seems to be this disagreement between smart and educated people and... Well, you.

YEC is about demanding the blind belief in myths and fairytales as espoused by your cult leaders with no evidence whatsoever. talk about projection!
Haha! You think I’m projecting. That’s funny.
To me it's not. To me it's quite sad.
I think it shows nothing less than mental illness.

And we don't yell "projection!" at any creationist. While most creationist who try to defend creationism project a little, your level of projection darts off the charts.

Evolution is so filled with fairytales, it’s a laugh a minute.
Not to smart and educated people, generally speaking.

This fact should be curious to you.
Of course, to me it's not.

‘How the giraffe got its long neck.’ ‘How the land mammal turned into a whale, one little piece at a time.’ ‘ How the reptile turned into a bird by practicing jumping out of trees (or was it a cliff?).’ “How all the different dinosaurs arrived suddenly with no evidence of where they came from.”
You can say what you want, but we have evidence.

Of course, you can uneducatedly say "that's not evidence". You can tell them to the educated and smart to their faces. Since you're free as a bird. You're even free from having to defend your claims.

To me your freedom looks suspiciously like cowardice.

“How the multicellular invertebrates just popped up in the Cambrian so suddenly.”
It wasn't so suddenly, but let's say some creator did it.

Evolution is still true.

You still lose.

You really need to examine your own stories more carefully before pointing fingers at a book that has historical and archaeological backup, where you have none whatsoever.
Bla bla bla bla bla.

We show you, and you just say no.

Quite easy.



You can refute the greatest minds of our times just by saying "No!".


Someone said that discussing with creationists is like playing chess with a pigeon. They will mess the pieces, crap on the board, and go back to their flock claiming victory.

The evidence is there Lester.
No, it isn’t.



The presuppositions are there decorated with imaginary details.
You don't even know what homology is. You don't even know what phenotype is.
That's very gross. So you are not qualified to discuss the details.

Open your eyes andf our mind to the fact that you might be wrong
How about you try that JimIrvine, just for an experiment.
Yeah, Jim!

YOU!

Dishonesty lester, isn't that a sin?
I wouldn’t worry about it if I were you JimIrvine. If there’s no God, who would I be sinning against?
If there's no god, then nobody, of course.

He's talking about YOUR beliefs. He's talking about YOUR contradictions.

It’s not really your domain, so mentioning such a thing is just your manipulation angle -
Yes. But it's bound to fail. It would take traces of honesty in you for it to work.
Shame me into silence –huh, in your dreams!
Exactly. You're shameless.

It would be more like "shame you into honesty" than "into silence".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:46 AM on January 20, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:41 AM on January 20, 2010 :
Lester
Or for those who find an interesting argument interesting
JimIrvine
Poitless tautology Lester.


Derwood finds a book he hasn’t read uninteresting.

Right - because I've read Meyer's 'arguments' before.  I've seen the reviews from non-sycophants who have read it and they confirm its repetitiveness and unoriginality.



I find it interesting. I like interesting arguments. Meyer has an interesting argument, more than interesting actually, compelling .

Why is it compelling?

How about you lay out one argument in Meyer's book and we can discuss it.  Show us the EVIDENCE he presents, and his interpretation of it, and we can see if it holds up.  So be sure to pick an argument that you understand well enough to actually discuss.

Then again, you found Carl 'if jawed fish evolved from jawless fish, why are there still jawless fish' Werner's book 'compelling', didn't you?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 06:51 AM on January 20, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:41 AM on January 20, 2010 :

Oh yes, sorry of course. Derwood likes to overdo things, overstate his point, give no quarter so that is probably exactly what he meant to say.

You just cannot comprehend what you read very well, which is why you find Meyer compelling and clearly lied about your 'doctorate.'


That’s why he’s so hard to take seriously.

You know why it is so hard to take you seriously?  Because you NEVER can discuss the things YOU bring up with anything other than some prefabricated, most likley 'borrowed', cliches and plain old denial.  Because you use words that you do not understand the definitons of.  Because you find ANY ignorant nonsense, as long as it is written by a creationist, to be 'compelling' and beyond reproach, even after actual evidence is provided showing that your hero of the day is wrong.  Because you routinely project your own unsavory characteristics upon us, especially me.

I think you singled me out for your wrath because I got right to the point when refuting your claims, and I exposed you as the credential-embellishing charlatan that you are, and the truth hurts the ego of the Dunning-Krugerite YEC egomaniac.

(Edited by derwood 1/20/2010 at 08:19 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 06:58 AM on January 20, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:41 AM on January 20, 2010 :


The evidence is there Lester.


No, it isn’t. The presuppositions are there decorated with imaginary details.


So, please explain how YEC Kurt Wise, PhD. (paleontology - Harvard) and Todd Wood, PhD., were wrong when they acknowledged that there IS evidence for evolution, that there ARE transitional forms.  Please explain what YOU knnow that they do not.  Just calling htem names - as you did last time - will not do and only show desperation and ignorance.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:05 AM on January 20, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester can't present anything to back up his hallow statements because there isn't anything of substance that he can present that support his beliefs.  What does he have?  Only a book of myths written over 2000 years ago.

Oh, he claims to have a high regard for science.  It's only evolution that he finds difficult to accept.  But this is simply untrue, and a lie.  His Creationist beliefs prevent him from accepting major, and basic, scientific fundamental concepts found in astronomy, geology, physics and chemistry - let alone biology.

He can present nothing except make absurd statements, such as 'evolution is a religion', 'radiometric dating is flawed', 'the fossil record is explained by the Flood', 'there are no transitional fossils', 'mutations/evolution cannot cause an increase in information', etc, etc.  

And as Derwood points out, he likes to say that the book he is currently reading is compelling.  But what is it that he finds compelling that the author presents, he does not say.  Is it because he knows the arguments he presents cannot stand up to scrutiny?


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 07:51 AM on January 20, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hiya Lester!
Let's look at the stuff that you ignored first:
It seems pretty clear to me that Derwood is talking about the arguments that Meyer makes that he is familiar with, didn't you see that?
No Reply? I asked you a question and you just ignore it. How rude.
Strange. Most people that actually read the Bible see it as a story about the history of the planet and find it at least historically interesting.

Really? I'd love to see the statistics that you have on that Lester, particularly the details of the sample(s) used for those studies.
So, I take that you don't have any actual evidence for that assertion then?
No, in his experience
Should I assume that since you brought no argument on this point then you accept that your statement was in error?
If evolution is true, if evolution actually happened, then archaeopteryx might possibly be some kind of an intermediate and if evolution were possible, then whales and land mammals might possibly be related, by necessity

So you admit that it is a possible scenario? (What's the bets this one gets ignored?)
Predictions are great, aren't they Lester?
define what "enough evidence" would be lester (I'm pretty sure you've been asked this one before but I could be wrong)
Did you miss this question (again) lester?
It was there in the beginning. The Chihuahua and the mastiff exist at the shallow ends of the dog gene pool as selection has thinned it out. There is insufficient genetic variation remaining in a Chihuahua to produce a mastiff and vica versa. They are heading for extinction, not evolution.

Do you have any scientific evidence for this or is it just "your" assertion?
Did you miss this question lester?
I'm sorry but that is an idiotic example lester and you know it. Time and time again you have been told that comparing cars to life is invalid and yet again you think that it is a good idea to bring them into the argument. Is this a lack of intelligence or dishonesty?

You really should have the humility to put your hands up and accept that that was a stupid example. Go on lester, admit it.

Anyway, to respond to your last post (and by that i mean the most recent post that you submitted to this particular thread, just in case you misunderstood the meaning)


Derwood finds a book he hasn’t read uninteresting. I find it interesting. I like interesting arguments. Meyer has an interesting argument, more than interesting actually, compelling . So what’s pointless about that? Admit it, you just don’t like me to disagree. It riles you. Good.
You really need to improve your reading comprehension Lester. You made a statement:
"Or for those who find an interesting argument interesting" You describe an argument as interesting and then say that it is interesting. That was the tautology. I didn't think that I would actually have to spell that out, evidently I have somehow overestimated your abilities (incredible I know, my estimate was pretty low to start with)

It is a metaphysical belief system – you have to have faith that it happened - that it could have happened. The evidence isn’t there, but the faith is. It’s a pretty popular religion but given that it is shoved down every child’s throat willy nilly with no other possibilities allowed for, it’s no wonder it’s popular. It allows you to escape from Yahweh in an imaginary sense as well and that adds much to its popularity – keeps everybody doing their own thing just like back in the days of Noah.
Just a load of blah that really says nothing, amply dealt with in Wisps's post. Your assertions are worthless Lester and become more worthless with every post you make.
(The real Noah you know, the one who had three sons, the one son being Japheth, that white Anglosaxons are able to trace their ancestry back to.)
By what method? Can you show us Lester? Show us the evidence, point us to the study. (So that you know, this one is going to follow you around until you answer )
There being the vaguest chance that evolution occurred, makes a creator very much less likely, which is why Derwood likes the theory so much. It’s all pretty subconscious but I’d like to wake him up.
The fact that so many, highly intelligent people (vastly more intelligent and educated than you or me) recognise evolution as fact and that the theory od evolution explains that fact and can make predictions on certainly implies that there is more than the vaguest that evolution occurred. By your own statement, a creator is highly unlikely (see, I can twist words too Les)
It has plenty to do with evolution. If evolution were to be true then abiogenesis would be far more feasible a proposition. It’s all imaginary but evolution makes abiogenesis sound possible.
Stick with the topic Lester, the point is that The existence or non-existence of a creator has no effect on the theory of Evolution. If we were able to show evidence, today, that there was indeed a creator, the theory of evolution would not change. If we were able to show evidence, today, that there was no creator, guess what? ToE doesn't change.
Oh yes, sorry of course. Derwood likes to overdo things, overstate his point, give no quarter so that is probably exactly what he meant to say. That’s why he’s so hard to take seriously.
I could be wrong but it is more likely that Derwood has the opinion that you are completely ignorant when it comes to the ToE and associated science, based on the variety of errors that you have made in your posts that he has flagged up to you (not that you have ever had the humility to acknowledge those errors). I have no difficulty in taking Derwood seriously.
He hasn’t read it remember, so probably he doesn’t know what he’s criticizing, just that he must criticize. It’s called a knee-jerk reaction
Well, from reading the reviews of the book, even I can tell that the book is simply a rehash of the same "arguments" that have already been made in several other papers/books by the same author. Why on earth should he need to read the same arguments again in order to criticise?
You mean by your dedicated religious experts. I’ll bet mathematicians and information experts down the middle and on our side both, were impressed.
Down the middle? What does that mean? Who are these people and what is their opinion (I'm not interested in your "I bet" nonsense. It holds zero weight here. Produce evidence, name them and show us their credentials. (And someone who does a bit of book-keeping for the local church doesn't count as a mathematician) (I think this one is going to follow you too )
It’s like saying ‘the Mormon mathematician and the Mormon information expert didn’t like your book that showed that the book of Mormon had no base in reality.’
No, it's really not lester. You are being foolish here.
I’m sure they didn’t like it.
I’ll bet, like Derwood, they didn’t read it either, before they started writing their critiques.
Now, here you are, effectively critiqueing their critiques without reading them If you had, you would see that they did, in fact, read the book (it's really obvious, on you, go and read the links that derwood provided for you. They will show that those people did read the book. then come back and acknowledge that you were wrong.

As long as you think inside the evolution box, sure. That’s not real thinking though.
Define real thinking please.
Haha! You think I’m projecting. That’s funny. Evolution is so filled with fairytales, it’s a laugh a minute.

‘How the giraffe got its long neck.’ ‘How the land mammal turned into a whale, one little piece at a time.’ ‘ How the reptile turned into a bird by practicing jumping out of trees (or was it a cliff?).’ “How all the different dinosaurs arrived suddenly with no evidence of where they came from.” “How the multicellular invertebrates just popped up in the Cambrian so suddenly.”
Already dealt with.

You really need to examine your own stories more carefully before pointing fingers at a book that has historical and archaeological backup, where you have none whatsoever.
Not really, no. What historical and archaeological. You mean "The bible must be true because it is a historical account of what happened in the bible"
Good for you. I’m not so easily persuaded. I don’t believe that selective mistakes can substitute for intelligent planning. There’s the myth, right there.
Once again, your reading comprehension fails you Lester. OK, I'll try to explain it to you.
What i find easy to accept is that you do not have the intelligence to understand "which parts it needs to operate, much less which proteins, in which order and in what quantities they need to be produced to do the things a whale is capable of doing." Do you understand?
Neither. Your blindness, that’s all.
So are you saying that YECs such as yourself are willing to accept that your beliefs migyht be flawed and that I am blind to this?
No, it isn’t. The presuppositions are there decorated with imaginary details.
Yes it is. Lots and Lots of evidence lester.
How about you try that JimIrvine, just for an experiment.
I am perfectly happy to accept the fact that it is possible that i might be wrong. If evidince turns up tomorrow that disproves the ToE I will write a letter to you personally, Lester stating fully that I was wrong. I'll even come over and read it to you so that we can make sure that you understand (I know how your reading comprtehension is a little ... stunted)
I wouldn’t worry about it if I were you JimIrvine.
You misunderstand lester, I'm not in the least bit worried about it.
If there’s no God, who would I be sinning against?
What does it matter? To me, nothing, to you...
It’s not really your domain, so mentioning such a thing is just your manipulation angle
Not quite sure what you're getting at here, could you explain please?
Shame me into silence –huh, in your dreams!
Nope, really, really not in my dreams.




-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 08:56 AM on January 20, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good post, Jim. Very attentive.

Sometimes it's hard to pay due attention to Lester's posts (because nobody knows how much is "due").

JimIrvine
Let's look at the stuff that you ignored first:
Perhaps he didn't have time?

Creationists always complain about the time. But they always find time to say "Bold assumptions!", or "No, you!".

They ignore the important issues because of lack of time, and they spent their precious little on childish retorts.

Jim
JimIt seems pretty clear to me that Derwood is talking about the arguments that Meyer makes that he is familiar with, didn't you see that?
No Reply? I asked you a question and you just ignore it. How rude.
It was pretty clear to me too (i pointed out the same thing). Just as clear as the fact that Lester would shut up.
Jim
Lester
Strange. Most people that actually read the Bible see it as a story about the history of the planet and find it at least historically interesting.
Really? I'd love to see the statistics that you have on that Lester, particularly the details of the sample(s) used for those studies.
Haha! Yeah, me too.

But Lester is a free spirit. He's not bound to defend his claims. He can just toss them around.

Don't you envy him?

Jim
Jim
Lester
If evolution is true, if evolution actually happened, then archaeopteryx might possibly be some kind of an intermediate and if evolution were possible, then whales and land mammals might possibly be related, by necessity
So you admit that it is a possible scenario? (What's the bets this one gets ignored?)
Predictions are great, aren't they Lester?
Haha! Yes, they are!

Did you notice my prediction that TheDebater would be a creationist?

Jim
Jim
define what "enough evidence" would be lester (I'm pretty sure you've been asked this one before but I could be wrong)
Did you miss this question (again) lester?
Well, he has to split his time between saying "No", and "I'm afraid not", and "In fact that's not true." and "No, YOU are!", and "Sorry, i was wrong. I take that back and I stand corrected."

Wait... Something doesn't belong... It's hard to tell which one...

Jim
Jim
Lester
It was there in the beginning. The Chihuahua and the mastiff exist at the shallow ends of the dog gene pool as selection has thinned it out. There is insufficient genetic variation remaining in a Chihuahua to produce a mastiff and vica versa. They are heading for extinction, not evolution.
Do you have any scientific evidence for this or is it just "your" assertion?
Did you miss this question lester?
Don't you think this deserves a thread?

Lester wouldn't have much choice. He would be forced to show us the massive evidence i'm sure he has but doesn't want to share with us.

I'll start the thread... Done.

Jim
Jim
I'm sorry but that is an idiotic example lester and you know it. Time and time again you have been told that comparing cars to life is invalid and yet again you think that it is a good idea to bring them into the argument. Is this a lack of intelligence or dishonesty?
You really should have the humility to put your hands up and accept that that was a stupid example. Go on lester, admit it.
I'm with you, Jim.

Lester, admit it.

You know cars can't reproduce.

If living things couldn't reproduce, and i saw them as they now are, i would conclude that some intelligent agent was at work in their making.

That's not the case. That IS the case with cars. So i conclude that some smart being/s created cars.

You know it's a dumb analogy, Lester. Be honest.

Or does your adored freedom absolve you of being honest too?

At least i got my honesty from this strong feeling set in place by Evolution and Society.

If some god gave you your honesty, well that god is a failure.

Either that or your god loves us more than he loves you, so he grants us more honesty.

He moves in mysterious ways, you know?

Lester
Derwood finds a book he hasn’t read uninteresting. I find it interesting. I like interesting arguments. Meyer has an interesting argument, more than interesting actually, compelling . So what’s pointless about that? Admit it, you just don’t like me to disagree. It riles you. Good.
You really need to improve your reading comprehension Lester. You made a statement:
"Or for those who find an interesting argument interesting" You describe an argument as interesting and then say that it is interesting. That was the tautology. I didn't think that I would actually have to spell that out, evidently I have somehow overestimated your abilities (incredible I know, my estimate was pretty low to start with)
Perhaps he doesn't even know what "tautology" means, but responds pretending he does, just like he has done with homology, phenotype, and when he dismissed Dunning and Kruger for being evolutionist storytellers without even knowing who they were?

Jim
Lester
(The real Noah you know, the one who had three sons, the one son being Japheth, that white Anglosaxons are able to trace their ancestry back to.)
By what method? Can you show us Lester? Show us the evidence, point us to the study. (So that you know, this one is going to follow you around until you answer )
Well i think we got ourselves another thread!

Done.

Lester
As long as you think inside the evolution box, sure. That’s not real thinking though.
Define real thinking please.
Real thinking: Something the smartest people on Earth never do.

His definition seems to be something like that.

Jim
Lester
Neither. Your blindness, that’s all.
So are you saying that YECs such as yourself are willing to accept that your beliefs might be flawed and that I am blind to this?
Aw, Jim... You're just being cruel... Everybody knows Lester has reading comprehension problems... Why do you point it out again? Just because of his baseless arrogance?

Wait... Hum... That seems like a good enough reason.


(Edited by wisp 1/20/2010 at 6:38 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:35 PM on January 20, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cheers Wisp, gave me a good early morning chuckle. Nice one on starting those threads. I took the liberty of summarising and linking them here to make it easier for Lester to find them (I know that he doesn't have much time, so any assistance that we can give him to help him answer our questions...)

Those who actually read Bible:
White Anglosaxons
The Chihuahua and the Mastiff
It might also act as an easy location for others to copy the list of Threads that he dodges
Did you notice my prediction that TheDebater would be a creationist?
Actually I was thinking of exactly that as I wrote the bit about predictions.

Lester, I'm looking forward to your responses.
Have a nice day.



-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 02:16 AM on January 21, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If evolution is true, if evolution actually happened, then archaeopteryx might possibly be some kind of an intermediate and if evolution were possible, then whales and land mammals might possibly be related, by necessity
So you admit that it is a possible scenario?


Yes possible, if you look only at the evidence that might be seen to potentially support it. If you look at ALL the evidence however, the chances are you’ll be led to another conclusion altogether.


It was there in the beginning. The Chihuahua and the mastiff exist at the shallow ends of the dog gene pool as selection has thinned it out. There is insufficient genetic variation remaining in a Chihuahua to produce a mastiff and vica versa. They are heading for extinction, not evolution.

Do you have any scientific evidence for this or is it just "your" assertion?


All you have to do is ask anybody that does artificial breeding. It’s like accelerated and unnatural ‘natural selection’. You select for the things you want like short legs or black hair. By doing this over a good number of generations you eliminate the variation that used to be possible. Like human inbreeding, it leaves you with limited genetic variability and a bunch of associated mutations. The information for big no longer exists in the Chihuahua –it has been selected out. Nothing has been created, only certain traits have been selected for. In the wild, these mutant inbreeds would struggle to survive and adapt.

I'm sorry but that is an idiotic example lester and you know it. Time and time again you have been told that comparing cars to life is invalid and yet again you think that it is a good idea to bring them into the argument. Is this a lack of intelligence or dishonesty?


You miss my point. Similarities between two different organisms does not automatically imply relatedness, it may imply design by a common designer who uses similar design plans. Who are you to say it doesn’t?


(The real Noah you know, the one who had three sons, the one son being Japheth, that white Anglosaxons are able to trace their ancestry back to.)

By what method? Can you show us Lester?


By the method of tracing ancestries back to their earliest origins. Have you heard of geneology? Sure you have. That’s what you do.

The fact that so many, highly intelligent people (vastly more intelligent and educated than you or me) recognise evolution as fact


What about all those vastly educated and highly intelligent people that don’t agree? Why are they disagreeing? What is it that causes this sort of behaviour?
Should we ignore them all and just go with the consensus view? Should science just press on completely ignoring substantial opposition? Should science try to suppress the opposing viewpoint? Is that science or is it politics?

The existence or non-existence of a creator has no effect on the theory of Evolution.


It would have an effect - it might just explain where the code in DNA comes from in which case you don’t need to have natural selection produce it accidentally. It’d be a more likely story.

I could be wrong but it is more likely that Derwood has the opinion that you are completely ignorant when it comes to the ToE and associated science, based on the variety of errors that you have made in your posts that he has flagged up to you


OR… it could be that none of you are prepared to brook any opposition to your precious philosophical presuppositions. Now that seems more likely considering the constant barrage of abuse I am being exposed to on a daily basis.

I have no difficulty in taking Derwood seriously.


You wouldn’t. He’s not threatening your philosophical presuppositions. He’s on your side – surprise!!

I’ll bet mathematicians and information experts down the middle and on our side both, were impressed.
Down the middle? What does that mean?


The ones that have not made up their mind about the very specific argument he presents –the ones who haven’t heard the details and have yet to consider something other than the scientific dogma most of them have had presented to them as  unquestionable ‘fact’ thus far.

It’s like saying ‘the Mormon mathematician and the Mormon information expert didn’t like your book that showed that the book of Mormon had no base in reality.’

No, it's really not lester. You are being foolish here.


No, I’m afraid I’m not JimIrvine.

As long as you think inside the evolution box, sure. That’s not real thinking though.
Define real thinking please.


A balanced overview of all sides of an argument, not just the favoured dogma, allows for real thinking. How can you weigh up the evidence if so much of the evidence is ignored according to the prevailing bias?

Evolution is so filled with fairytales, it’s a laugh a minute.

‘How the giraffe got its long neck.’ ‘How the land mammal turned into a whale, one little piece at a time.’ ‘ How the reptile turned into a bird by practicing jumping out of trees (or was it a cliff?).’ “How all the different dinosaurs arrived suddenly with no evidence of where they came from.” “How the multicellular invertebrates just popped up in the Cambrian so suddenly.”
Already dealt with.


Oh great, I must have missed it! Show me.

You mean "The bible must be true because it is a historical account of what happened in the bible"


No, I mean that it is a reliable historical account of what has happened in the past on this planet, not the mythological past full of fuzzy evolution stories made up by men who have to imagine what happened because they weren’t there. Archaelogy supports that story on many counts and secular historians provide backup for its’ historical reliability as well.

So are you saying that YECs such as yourself are willing to accept that your beliefs migyht be flawed and that I am blind to this?


No, not at all. For somebody that tries to denigrate my comprehension skills, yours are worse, so I really think you should brush up on yours before you take issue with mine.

No, it isn’t. The presuppositions are there decorated with imaginary details.
Yes it is. Lots and Lots of evidence lester.


Lots and lots of fossils does not amount to lots and lots of evidence. There are huge gaps filled in with philosophy and imaginary tales. Then there are molecules and tall tales linking them. There are sedimentary rock layers and stories attached to them as well. You have to interpret the evidence according to your worldview. It doesn’t speak for itself. Personally I prefer the written history.

What i find easy to accept is that you do not have the intelligence to understand "which parts it needs to operate, much less which proteins, in which order and in what quantities they need to be produced to do the things a whale is capable of doing." Do you understand?


Haha cute. You’re just too clever for me, JimIrvine – like Wisp and Derwood, you’re just all such power house intellects compared to my relative stupidity;it’s incredible to me that you believe such fairy tales though – its sad.

I am perfectly happy to accept the fact that it is possible that i might be wrong. If evidince turns up tomorrow that disproves the ToE I will write a letter to you personally, Lester stating fully that I was wrong.


That evidince (sic) is overflowing in fossil museums and in the geological column JimIrvine. It’s already there but evolutionists just invent wonderful names and explanations for everything that’s in the wrong order - then they dare us to find anything that’s in the wrong order, as if they cared. It’s all very entertaining.













     








-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:55 AM on January 22, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:55 AM on January 22, 2010 :
If evolution is true, if evolution actually happened, then archaeopteryx might possibly be some kind of an intermediate and if evolution were possible, then whales and land mammals might possibly be related, by necessity
So you admit that it is a possible scenario?


Yes possible, if you look only at the evidence that might be seen to potentially support it. If you look at ALL the evidence however, the chances are you’ll be led to another conclusion altogether.


Then please present ALL the evidence.  In particular, we would like to see the evidence that does not support our conclusions.
Of course, if there is sufficient evidence to support our conclusions, it cannot be used to support an alternative, now can it?



It was there in the beginning. The Chihuahua and the mastiff exist at the shallow ends of the dog gene pool as selection has thinned it out. There is insufficient genetic variation remaining in a Chihuahua to produce a mastiff and vica versa. They are heading for extinction, not evolution.

Do you have any scientific evidence for this or is it just "your" assertion?


All you have to do is ask anybody that does artificial breeding. It’s like accelerated and unnatural ‘natural selection’. You select for the things you want like short legs or black hair. By doing this over a good number of generations you eliminate the variation that used to be possible.

So, you don't think breeding is a mixing or purification of traits, it is the emilination of them?


Like human inbreeding, it leaves you with limited genetic variability and a bunch of associated mutations.

As I implied before, that is not what inbreeding does.  I should have thought that a person with a science doctorate would at least understand the downside of inbreeding.
Would you like me to explain it for you?


The information for big no longer exists in the Chihuahua –it has been selected out. Nothing has been created, only certain traits have been selected for. In the wild, these mutant inbreeds would struggle to survive and adapt.

And where do you supopose the variation comes form?
It was magically always there?
Tell me - do you think that the alleles that are not selected for disappear?
Where do they go?

I'm sorry but that is an idiotic example lester and you know it. Time and time again you have been told that comparing cars to life is invalid and yet again you think that it is a good idea to bring them into the argument. Is this a lack of intelligence or dishonesty?


You miss my point. Similarities between two different organisms does not automatically imply relatedness, it may imply design by a common designer who uses similar design plans. Who are you to say it doesn’t?


Me.

Even similarities between inanimate objects does not necessarily imply a common designer (look at the Concorde and the Russian prototype for a supersonic transport), just as a common designer can produce objects that look nothing alike:




Ferdinand Porsche designed both the Carmen Ghia as well as the turret on that King Tiger tank.

If a human designer can make things with similarities AND differences, why do you limit yours to only similarities?

Not to mention the fact that I have explained to you more than once and presented support for my explanation that it is not mere similarities that indicate descent, but patterns of shared unique mutations.



(The real Noah you know, the one who had three sons, the one son being Japheth, that white Anglosaxons are able to trace their ancestry back to.)

By what method? Can you show us Lester?


By the method of tracing ancestries back to their earliest origins. Have you heard of geneology? Sure you have. That’s what you do.


So let's see it.

The fact that so many, highly intelligent people (vastly more intelligent and educated than you or me) recognise evolution as fact


What about all those vastly educated and highly intelligent people that don’t agree? Why are they disagreeing? What is it that causes this sort of behaviour?

Religious fanatacism, mostly.

Should we ignore them all and just go with the consensus view?

For the most part, yes.

Look at the people you have referred to on here - every one of them has been shown to be little more than a fraud peddling charlatan.  If it is shown that the 'scientists' that deny evolution actively engage in the promulgation of disinformation, poor scholarship, etc., why should a rational person accept their arguments?  


Should science just press on completely ignoring substantial opposition?


Substantial?

The last numbers I saw indicated that something like less than 1% of professional scientists 'doubt darwin.'  That is LESS than the percentage of historians that doubt the holocaust happened!  


Should science try to suppress the opposing viewpoint? Is that science or is it politics?


Science should oppose the dissemination of fraudulent religio-political disinformation masquerading as science, yes.  Because it is the scientists that have to deal with the mess that the denialists make.

The existence or non-existence of a creator has no effect on the theory of Evolution.


It would have an effect - it might just explain where the code in DNA comes from in which case you don’t need to have natural selection produce it accidentally. It’d be a more likely story.


What code are you referring to?

Not the genetic code, which you seem to think is something other than it really is.  Like how you thought phenotype only referred to outward appearance.


I could be wrong but it is more likely that Derwood has the opinion that you are completely ignorant when it comes to the ToE and associated science, based on the variety of errors that you have made in your posts that he has flagged up to you


OR… it could be that none of you are prepared to brook any opposition to your precious philosophical presuppositions.


Well, it could be that, but if one actually looks at what is really going on, that hypothesis has no merit.
Is it not YOU that simply dismisses the evidence presented?
Is it not YOU that tries to co-opt evidence for evolution as really being evidence for creation (the stuff you don't dismiss anyway)?
Is it not YOU that simply hides behind your belief that the bible is 100% true when faced with a situation that you cannot weasel out of?

Stop with the projection and just present the evidence you claim exists.

Now that seems more likely considering the constant barrage of abuse I am being exposed to on a daily basis.

'Abuse' that is the product of your own activity.  YOU are the one that makes proclamations and then never follows up on them.  YOu are the one that claims everyone else is just deluded/ignorant for not accepting the things you believe at face value.  YOU are the one that thinks that books written by creationists contain only 100% true and factual information, even when it is shown how completely ridiculous some of the nonsense written by your heroes is.

I have no difficulty in taking Derwood seriously.


You wouldn’t. He’s not threatening your philosophical presuppositions.

Ah, so NOW we see why you can't take me seriously.

I THREATEN your flimsy philosophical presuppositions.

An amazing, if unwitting, admission.


I’ll bet mathematicians and information experts down the middle and on our side both, were impressed.
Down the middle? What does that mean?


The ones that have not made up their mind about the very specific argument he presents –the ones who haven’t heard the details and have yet to consider something other than the scientific dogma most of them have had presented to them as  unquestionable ‘fact’ thus far.


Can you name some?

You know that Meyer is NOT a mathematician, right?  That he is NOT a bioogist?  That he is NOT an Information Theorist?

You know that, right?

It’s like saying ‘the Mormon mathematician and the Mormon information expert didn’t like your book that showed that the book of Mormon had no base in reality.’

No, it's really not lester. You are being foolish here.


No, I’m afraid I’m not JimIrvine.


On what basis can YOU determine who is correct?
Does Meyer NOT provide multiple definitons of information, depending on whihc argument he is trying to make?


As long as you think inside the evolution box, sure. That’s not real thinking though.
Define real thinking please.


A balanced overview of all sides of an argument, not just the favoured dogma, allows for real thinking.

And are you really trying to imply that YOU have done this?
If YOU really had looked at both sides of the evolution issue, how on earth can you think, for example, that Carl Werner understands evolution or presents it in an honest fashion?  

How can you weigh up the evidence if so much of the evidence is ignored according to the prevailing bias?


I don't know, how do YOU do it?

You keep mentioning some supposed evidence that we are ignoring or dismissing and you imply that you know all about it - WHAT IS IT?Why are you so reluctant to present this amazing evidence?



Evolution is so filled with fairytales, it’s a laugh a minute.

‘How the giraffe got its long neck.’ ‘How the land mammal turned into a whale, one little piece at a time.’ ‘ How the reptile turned into a bird by practicing jumping out of trees (or was it a cliff?).’ “How all the different dinosaurs arrived suddenly with no evidence of where they came from.” “How the multicellular invertebrates just popped up in the Cambrian so suddenly.”
Already dealt with.


Oh great, I must have missed it! Show me.


Most of what you wrote are just idiotic strawman caricatures - as someone who has loked at both sides of the evolution issue should know.

You mean "The bible must be true because it is a historical account of what happened in the bible"


No, I mean that it is a reliable historical account of what has happened in the past on this planet, not the mythological past full of fuzzy evolution stories made up by men who have to imagine what happened because they weren’t there. Archaelogy supports that story on many counts and secular historians provide backup for its’ historical reliability as well.


I would hope that at least some of the bible is historically accurate.  Most ancient holy books are to some degree.  However, what there is NO corroboaration for are the MIRACULOUS events contained therein.  And if there is no corroboration or evidence for THAT, why accept them as true?  Archaeology, by the way, shows that the historicity of the bible is, shall we say, somewhat embellished.  Take Jericho, for one.

So are you saying that YECs such as yourself are willing to accept that your beliefs migyht be flawed and that I am blind to this?


No, not at all. For somebody that tries to denigrate my comprehension skills, yours are worse, so I really think you should brush up on yours before you take issue with mine.


So, YECs do NOT even entertain the notion that they might be wrong?  Pretty arrogant and prideful, no?

No, it isn’t. The presuppositions are there decorated with imaginary details.
Yes it is. Lots and Lots of evidence lester.


Lots and lots of fossils does not amount to lots and lots of evidence.

They do if you understand 'both sides' of the issue.  Even YEC PhDs like Kurt Wise and Todd Wood acknowledge this, and they've ACTUALLY studied it.  What have YOU done?

There are huge gaps filled in with philosophy and imaginary tales.


What ARE these 'huge gaps'?  
And what do you suggest be done when we encounter gaps?

What about the 33 YEAR gap in Jesus' life?  Why was a KING - whose birth was foretold, who was born of a Virgin impregnanted by the one troo god - simply  IGNORED for most of his life?

Then there are molecules and tall tales linking them.


Tell me about these molecules and show us all how little you understand about them.


There are sedimentary rock layers and stories attached to them as well. You have to interpret the evidence according to your worldview. It doesn’t speak for itself. Personally I prefer the written history.


So what is the writtern history - a history written by superstitious, pretechnologiocal MEN, flawed men, fallible men - concerning the fossil record?

You take tall tales over evidence, we take evidence and interpret it, and you claim WE are making up stuff?



What i find easy to accept is that you do not have the intelligence to understand "which parts it needs to operate, much less which proteins, in which order and in what quantities they need to be produced to do the things a whale is capable of doing." Do you understand?


Haha cute. You’re just too clever for me, JimIrvine – like Wisp and Derwood, you’re just all such power house intellects compared to my relative stupidity;


It also seems to be true.

You are good at spewing YEC talking points and mantras, but you seem completely incompetent to actually DISCUSS anything beyond a few prefabricated soundbites - even things that YOU bring up.
You ignore substantice comments, you ignore evidence, you ignore explanations, only later to claim that we never presented anything or to reiterate the same claims that were rebutted in posts that you 'ignored'.

What else are we supposed to conclude?


I am perfectly happy to accept the fact that it is possible that i might be wrong. If evidince turns up tomorrow that disproves the ToE I will write a letter to you personally, Lester stating fully that I was wrong.


That evidince (sic) is overflowing in fossil museums and in the geological column JimIrvine. It’s already there but evolutionists just invent wonderful names and explanations for everything that’s in the wrong order - then they dare us to find anything that’s in the wrong order, as if they cared. It’s all very entertaining.


Tell us all about it, Lester.

WHAT is in the 'wrong' order, and how do YOU know it is out of order?

EXPLAIN to us this amazing evidence that is already in museums and such that supports a young earth and creation by Yahweh.

If you are referring to your laughable gaffe re: not knowing what the phylogeny of seals is, and claiming that because 2 different museums show displays with different starting points for the evolution of seals that therefore evolution must be wrong, I will gladly revisit the issue.

Is THAT you pro-YEC evidence?

That one was hilarious - I think I wil try to find that post to remind us all how ignorant yuou have been DEMONSTRATED to be.  That or, since it is most likely that you got that argument from some other creationist, how ignroant THAT YEC is, and how gullible YOU are for believing them without question.

(Edited by derwood 1/22/2010 at 11:24 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:58 AM on January 22, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Silly me - I expose your seal gaffe in the post above - the one that I originally re-posted in its own new thread because you ran off without addressing any of it.

Here are the relevant parts (upon re-reading that post, we see that Lester's hero Carl Werner, M.D. makes a number of completely stupid, idiotic claims for someone claiming to have studied evolution for 30 years, see below):


Dr. as in creationist  medical doctor....  How could he possibly not be an expert on all things related to evolution?


By studying it for the last 30 years as his major hobby ever since 2nd year medical school and by visiting all the major fossil museums in the world and interviewing all the experts on the various major fossil evidences for evolution. By listening to both sides take on the evidence.

Oh - a HOBBY! Well, of course.

I've commented before that it is almost more instructive to see what people like you do NOT respond to as to what you do - for your new hero to have studied evolution for 30 years - albeit as a hobby - and to write things like what you decided not to respond to:

" If jawless fish are the evolutionary predecessors of other fish, one would expect them to be extinct, according to the idea of survival of the fittest."

then he did not actually learn much in all that time.

You see, when I see someone write something as ignorant as that, and this someone has claimed to have studied evolution for decades (I see this quite a bit, actually), we can conclude a couple of things:


The person is just plain lying to prop up his faith.

The person really did study for decades, but only studied YEC propaganda.

Combinations of both of the above.

The saddest part is, such folk really impress people like Lester, who, if he is actually telling the truth about his doctorate, should be able to see how naive and plain silly such claims are.


we all know how honest creationists are when it comes to interviewing people.


Well the sad thing is that we all know how honest evolutionists can be when being interviewed by creationists. For instance when Carl Werner wanted to find living fossils in dinosaur-age rock, he started by asking “Have you found any fossils of modern animal or plant species at this dinosaur dig site?” Evolutionists don’t like that sort of question –they freeze up because they know what the implications are. So after a slow start he asked the question differently:
“At this site where you are working have you found any animals that survived the dinosaur extinction event –any modern appearing animals that are alive today?”
This they found less challenging and it loosened them up to tell the truth. Well then he found loads of ‘modern appearing’ plants and animals to add to his list because the question didn’t specifically challenge evolution but rather focused on dinosaur extinction.


And by 'modern appearing' - let me guess, the YEC medical doctor then wildly extrapolated that to mean ACTUAL modern living things, right?


As for seals and sea lions not being related, well you’re laughably wrong there too….


Well so you say, but Australian scientists have a display at Kangaroo island that shows that a dog or dog-like animal evolved into a sea lion while scientists at Howard university in Washington DC think that a bear evolved into a sea lion.


And here you are again with your museum displays as "evidence".

You know, at the creation museum, they show a Triceratops with a saddle on it.
I guess that means that some 'scientists' think that ceratopsians were domesticated.  Funny how no mention of any such creature is found anywherere, not even in scripture....

But you know - you inadvertendly made a fool of yourself yet again - apparently you are unaware that dogs and bears are actually very closely related...



I know you cannot decipher those sciencey- things, but if you look closely, you can see a group called the Caniformia (dog-like), and the OTUs have names like Ursus and Canis...

What is the evidence for this evolution?Is it possible that they evolved from neither? Could they both be wrong?

Sure.  Real science is tentative.  Real science, unlike YEC pseudoscience, does not start with the conclusion then try to force obeservations to fit the pre-determined outcome.  
But nitpicking over museum displays that on the one hand show a dog-like forerunner and on the other show a bear-like one only shows how little you truly understand.  Perhaps it is you, not Drs Wood and Wise, that is the 'ridiculous' person?

Dr Irina Koretsky from the Smithsonian who specializes in seal and sea lion evolution believes that eared seals come from bear-like animals but she has no idea which bear-like animal as they have no intermediates (ie. they are guessing).


Right, just guessing.  So, you got that from your YEC medical doctor's book, right (I can google, too)?  

Looking though Google books, Werner's book
comes across as no better than any of jailbird Kent fake-PhD Hovind's nonsese.

Lester's new hero's book is here.

p. 112:

"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells.  For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."

If Werner believes that, he is a class A moron.  Then, he is a YEC with an agenda to push, so we should not expect any sort of rational treatment of the material.


Dr Berta of San Diego State University (who specializes in aquatic mammal evolution) says that “the earliest animal that they’ve recognized has the name Pithanotaria. It’s very similar in terms of body size and morphology to the modern sea lions.” In code this means we have only found sea lions but no intermediates so we don’t actually know what animal they evolved from.

Thousands of sea lions have been found dated 0-24 MYA but no direct ancestors.

Seals, say Dr Berta, are allied to a completely group of carnivores, the skunks and the otters.


So, you've just admitted that neither you nor your YEC medical doctor hero understand what 'allied' means - hilarious!

When asked which Mustelid evolved into a seal, Dr Koretsky said “I don’t have any evidence or material yet.” (This means they think so but have no evidence.)


I'd say what we have here is just another example of a sleazy YEC propagandist butchering and manipulating honest people's words.

Why would a mustelid have evolved into a seal when that is not what is proposed or indicated by the evidence?



5000 fossil seals have been found but no direct ancestors. So did none of them fossilize? That’s amazing!!

At this point, I have little reason to believe that your YEC doctor hero is a reliable source.


Please explain how I am laughably wrong.  

On this or in general?

Well, let's see... There was the PhD in science who didn't know what phenotype mean, the guy who employs logical fallacies as evidence, the guy who wonders why there is no evidence for an evolutionary sequence that is not proposed, the guy who declares that museum displays are at odds because one shows a dog-like animal and the other a bear-like one,  the guy who seems to think that all transitionals should have both fossilized and been discovered yet who reserves the right to dismiss anything presented as a transitional if he can conjure up some structure that he can claim does not meet his idiosyncratic and vague definition for transitional, the guy who declares PhD level creationists who acknowledge that there are transitional fossils and evidence for revolution are 'ridiculous people' and likley closet evolutionists because they are honest and he is not, etc.

Shall I go on?

***

This also needs addressing:



The clear examples of transitions should have legs mixed with fins, tail mixed with fluke, nose changing into blowhole, back legs disappearing?

Legs mixed with fins?  What does that mean, precisely?  You expect it to have a fin on one side and a limb on the other?
As we have seen with Archaeopteryx, your criteria are set in jello and are applied inconsistently and arbitrarily for the sole purpose of never having to acknowledge what those with actual education, knowledge, and experience in the appropriate fields accept.  You never did, for example, try to discuss Archaeopteryx's actual anatomy (e.g., the sternum) despite claiming an understanding of anatomy.  

***

And lets not forget this:



But since you are an expert on mutations - please tell us all - if this evolution really happened, how many mutations would have been required?


Well to be really kind, lets work on just one new protein per new structure and then work out the probability of all these things coming to pass shall we?

Well first, you will need to provide a rationale for why we actually need one new protein per new structure, then I would like to know just what counts as a 'new' structure
- what does a whale have that, say, a hippo does not have that is not simply a rearangment of 'old' parts?
Then I wouuld have to know why you want to discuss probability, how you would apply it to this scenario, etc.


***

And I didn't even mention how I slam-dunked you re: the bible condoning slavery and treating women as property - which you DENIED!

Fun stuff...

(Edited by derwood 1/22/2010 at 11:24 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:21 AM on January 22, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
Jim
Lester
If evolution is true, if evolution actually happened, then archaeopteryx might possibly be some kind of an intermediate and if evolution were possible, then whales and land mammals might possibly be related, by necessity
So you admit that it is a possible scenario?
Yes possible, if you look only at the evidence that might be seen to potentially support it. If you look at ALL the evidence however, the chances are you’ll be led to another conclusion altogether.
Blah blah blah blah blah.

This is where you feel strong, Lester. When you don't have to discuss anything in particular.

Making vague accusations and discarding vast amounts of specific pieces of evidence in a single ignorant phrase.

Jim
Lester
It was there in the beginning. The Chihuahua and the mastiff exist at the shallow ends of the dog gene pool as selection has thinned it out. There is insufficient genetic variation remaining in a Chihuahua to produce a mastiff and vica versa. They are heading for extinction, not evolution.
Do you have any scientific evidence for this or is it just "your" assertion?
All you have to do is ask anybody that does artificial breeding.
Like me?

I have done it with my father.
Does that give me any authority?

If so, i use it to tell you that you're very wrong.

It’s like accelerated and unnatural ‘natural selection’.
Yeah. Pretty much.
You select for the things you want like short legs or black hair.
I don't see the need for the word "or".
By doing this over a good number of generations you eliminate the variation that used to be possible.
No.

A combination of "things" can be referred to as a "thing" itself.

If there were no long-haired short-legged dog, you can produce one. This combination of traits would be novel.

Like human inbreeding, it leaves you with limited genetic variability and a bunch of associated mutations.
Yeah, that's quite likely. Unless you can put selective pressure on a large population (like Natural Selection does all the time).

The information for big no longer exists in the Chihuahua –it has been selected out.
So you say.

Saying things is easy.

Kent Hovind said the same thing about dinosaurs. He said that triceratops are glorified chameleons that were subject to a highly pressurized atmosphere.



He said that all genes for "bigness" were lost ("we" don't know why).

Then he goes ahead and says that a friend of his produces giant pirañas in pressurized tanks (made of something very similar to glass, but probably some very resistant material created by creation scientists).

Those guys are capable of amazing things...

Regular scientists must be frauds. They conspire all the time.

Here we can see a clear evidence that regular scientists conspire:



They obviously remodeled the teeth, the eye cavities, and tossed the tongue bone away while nobody looked (and made it look like no tongue bone could have been found in that mouth).

They made it look like a herbivore!

Those bastards...

Nothing has been created, only certain traits have been selected for.
Fine by me.

Then the Theory of Evolution doesn't talk about the creation of anything.

In the wild, these mutant inbreeds would struggle to survive and adapt.
In the wild or in the park, reproduction is reproduction. The "struggle" is not essential. Just reproduction.

I'm sorry but that is an idiotic example lester and you know it. Time and time again you have been told that comparing cars to life is invalid and yet again you think that it is a good idea to bring them into the argument. Is this a lack of intelligence or dishonesty?
You miss my point.
Hahaha! Unlikely.

Your points are very easy to see.

We understand what you say better than you do.

Similarities between two different organisms does not automatically imply relatedness, it may imply design by a common designer who uses similar design plans. Who are you to say it doesn’t?
Smart and educated people.

Cars don't reproduce, so your analogy is no good. And no, i'm not missing your point.

(The real Noah you know, the one who had three sons, the one son being Japheth, that white Anglosaxons are able to trace their ancestry back to.)
By what method? Can you show us Lester?
By the method of tracing ancestries back to their earliest origins. Have you heard of geneology? Sure you have. That’s what you do.
Pray! Show us!!

You said they ARE able.

Show us your evidence that they ARE able.

That was your claim. Support it, please.

I'm going to quote your "response" in the corresponding thread.

The fact that so many, highly intelligent people (vastly more intelligent and educated than you or me) recognise evolution as fact
What about all those vastly educated and highly intelligent people that don’t agree?
Like whom?
Why are they disagreeing?
Because they're either not intelligent or they have an emotional investment?

What is it that causes this sort of behaviour?
Probably moronity (coupled with fanatism), and their intelligence exists in your head.
Should we ignore them all and just go with the consensus view?
Yes.
Should science just press on completely ignoring substantial opposition?
No.

But calling it that doesn't make it so.

Should science try to suppress the opposing viewpoint?
Try?

It depends on the opposing point. If it has no support, then there's no need to "try" to suppress anything.

Is that science or is it politics?
Science.

The existence or non-existence of a creator has no effect on the theory of Evolution.
It would have an effect - it might just explain where the code in DNA comes from in which case you don’t need to have natural selection produce it accidentally.
What code in the DNA?

Are you talking about this?

It looks man-made to me. No natural selection produced it accidentally.

It’d be a more likely story.
That some god made that chart?

I could be wrong but it is more likely that Derwood has the opinion that you are completely ignorant when it comes to the ToE and associated science, based on the variety of errors that you have made in your posts that he has flagged up to you
OR… it could be that none of you are prepared to brook any opposition to your precious philosophical presuppositions.
Blah blah blah blah blah.

Show us.

Instead of talking about books about people who talk about awesome evidence that refutes the very basis for our knowledge of biology, talk about the evidence.

Start a thread about this, or shut up.

Now that seems more likely considering the constant barrage of abuse I am being exposed to on a daily basis.
Start being honest, and you'll see a change.
I have no difficulty in taking Derwood seriously.
You wouldn’t. He’s not threatening your philosophical presuppositions. He’s on your side – surprise!!
I took timbrx and dijonaise (anyone remember dijonaise?) much, MUCH more seriously than i take you.

They are smarter than you, more consistent, they know more, and they were more honest.

At times they even made good points, and i always acknowledged it.

But at least you're better than gluteus.
That guy was almost subhuman...

This demonstrates that being in accord with my position isn't my parameter to take people seriously.

It’s like saying ‘the Mormon mathematician and the Mormon information expert didn’t like your book that showed that the book of Mormon had no base in reality.’
No, it's really not lester. You are being foolish here.
No, I’m afraid I’m not JimIrvine.
...

As long as you think inside the evolution box, sure. That’s not real thinking though.
Define real thinking please.
A balanced overview of all sides of an argument, not just the favoured dogma, allows for real thinking.
Oh... That allows for real thinking...

And what IS real thinking?

How can you weigh up the evidence if so much of the evidence is ignored according to the prevailing bias?
Blah blah blah blah blah blah?

In order to demonstrate bias you need to discuss evidence. You always run away from that.

Evolution is so filled with fairytales, it’s a laugh a minute.

‘How the giraffe got its long neck.’ ‘How the land mammal turned into a whale, one little piece at a time.’ ‘ How the reptile turned into a bird by practicing jumping out of trees (or was it a cliff?).’ “How all the different dinosaurs arrived suddenly with no evidence of where they came from.” “How the multicellular invertebrates just popped up in the Cambrian so suddenly.”
Already dealt with.
Oh great, I must have missed it! Show me.
Sure.

Here you go:
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/forum.cgi?forum=3

It's several pages long.

You mean "The bible must be true because it is a historical account of what happened in the bible"
No, I mean that it is a reliable historical account of what has happened in the past on this planet, not the mythological past full of fuzzy evolution stories made up by men who have to imagine what happened because they weren’t there.


Archaelogy supports that story on many counts and secular historians provide backup for its’ historical reliability as well.
Yeah, for the non-miraculous parts (well, some of them).

Why the Hell not?

But what about the miracles? Those are the most relevant part.

There were witnesses who didn't see Mary fucking, so she must have been a virgin.

Here are some witnessed stories about Buddha:


    [*]He came from a miraculous impregnation. He just entered his mother's womb. And his birth was attended by a "Star of Announcement," wise men and angels singing heavenly songs.
    [*]At his birth, he was pronounced ruler of the world and presented with "costly jewels and precious substances."
    [*]Was of royal lineage.
    [*]Taught in his teens.
    [*]He was tempted by Mara, the "Evil One," when fasting.
    [*]His status was established when he took a bath in a river.
    [*]Healed the sick
    [*]Followers were obliged to take vows of poverty and to renounce the world.
    [*]Was transfigured on a mount, when it was said that his face "shone as the brightness of the sun and moon."


So are you saying that YECs such as yourself are willing to accept that your beliefs migyht be flawed and that I am blind to this?
No, not at all.
Was that honesty???

Or was it some mistake...

For somebody that tries to denigrate my comprehension skills, yours are worse,
I comprehend that your phrase is very, VERY wrong.

The correct form would be like this:

You try to denigrate my comprehension skills, but yours are worse.

Or:

For somebody that tries to denigrate my comprehension skills, yours are quite bad.

"For somebody that X" can't be followed by a comparative. It makes no sense.

so I really think you should brush up on yours before you take issue with mine.
You just keep demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You know, the one described those guys you pretended to know. Remember?

Let me refresh your memory:
Quote from Lester10 at 09:22 AM on November 27, 2009 in the thread Information:
In my head I see Dunning and Kruger as two pompous self-inflated evolutionists inventing stories and then throwing a tantrum when people more pragmatic than themselves point out the absurdity of their fantasies, and lamenting the ridiculousness of the practical objections of those less ‘qualified’ than themselves.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:07 PM on January 22, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
So, you don't think breeding is a mixing or purification of traits, it is the emilination of them?


Selection of the traits you want with the consequent elimination of what you don’t want from the gene pool.


Like human inbreeding, it leaves you with limited genetic variability and a bunch of associated mutations.

As I implied before, that is not what inbreeding does.


So what do you say it does?

And where do you supopose the variation comes form?
It was magically always there?


As far as we know, yes, except for occasionally mutational variation which while generally degrading the genome may occasionally have some kind of survival value in certain environments.

Tell me - do you think that the alleles that are not selected for disappear?


Some of them certainly disappear.

If a human designer can make things with similarities AND differences, why do you limit yours to only similarities?


I don’t of course – look around you at all the differences. But neither do I limit similarities and differences to natural causes like you do.

Not to mention the fact that I have explained to you more than once and presented support for my explanation that it is not mere similarities that indicate descent, but patterns of shared unique mutations.


Like …..

By the method of tracing ancestries back to their earliest origins. Have you heard of geneology? Sure you have. That’s what you do.
So let's see it.


Sorry I’m not a geneologist. Why don’t you google it or consult a geneologist. All I know is that genealogical trees have been traced back to Japheth – I do believe you need to look at earliest anglo-saxon genealogies in Ireland. Nobody has managed to take it back to our simian relatives so far, so that remains a story.

Religious fanatacism, mostly.


The fanatics are the committed naturalists –committed to the ideology of common descent and natural causes. They’re the ones trying to shield their precious religion from criticism. The non-believers (in that ideology) say ‘design or no design?’ and the religious fanatics say ‘no design, not possible, shut up.’

Look at the people you have referred to on here - every one of them has been shown to be little more than a fraud peddling charlatan.


Fraud peddling evolutionist charlatans label intelligent design advocates as such, yes, but who are the real fraudsters? I’d say they’re the ones that refuse any criticism of their cherished naturalistic presuppositions.

If it is shown that the 'scientists' that deny evolution actively engage in the promulgation of disinformation, poor scholarship, etc., why should a rational person accept their arguments?  


Is that why Haeckels embryos remain in textbooks more than 100 years after being shown to be fraudulent? Is that why examples of simple variation are used to fraudulently promote the naturalistic concept of macroevolution? Is that why beneficial mutations are taken for granted while the only mutational examples that can ever be shown are those of degradation and/or negative consequence to the genome?
Is that why Darwins finches are trumpeted as proof positive for the FACT of evolution while the actual origin of the original finch is never discussed?

Evolution is the big fraud, evolutionists are the religious fanatical fraudsters desperate to shield their erroneous theory from critical examination in the classroom or anywhere else. Don’t bother to call it projection –I think you know exactly who you are and where you fit in the grand scheme. Perhaps it is time for you to examine your motives.

Should science just press on completely ignoring substantial opposition?
Substantial?

The last numbers I saw indicated that something like less than 1% of professional scientists 'doubt darwin.'


First of all, every professional scientist has, in the course of their training, been led to believe that evolution is a fact. The majority have nothing whatsoever to do with evolution per se. So their opinions on something they have never looked at in depth or with any degree of critical appraisal, are as irrelevant or as important as the opinion of the educated layman. The numbers of professional scientists that doubt Darwin are increasing all the time. Those are mostly the professional scientists that take the time to try to work out what is going on. And then you have these:

“A significant number (of scientists), like myself, openly reject evolutionary theory. However, most of the scientists who see evidence of design, keep their heads down and their mouths shut.” – Dr John Sanford -Geneticist

John Sanford was an atheistic evolutionist for most of his career – for all that time he did not know there was another side to the issue. He is like the majority of scientists now who say they ‘believe’ that evolution is true.

Science should oppose the dissemination of fraudulent religio-political disinformation masquerading as science, yes.  Because it is the scientists that have to deal with the mess that the denialists make.


You are living in denial using derogatory labels to keep evolution safe from a reality check.

What code are you referring to?

Not the genetic code, which you seem to think is something other than it really is.

What is it really, Wisp? – a code? Well how’s about that.

YOU are the one that thinks that books written by creationists contain only 100% true and factual information, even when it is shown how completely ridiculous some of the nonsense written by your heroes is.


You’ve never once demonstrated any such thing –all you’ve ever indulged in is empty rhetoric. And rhetoric is all evolution has to defend it.

I THREATEN your flimsy philosophical presuppositions.


Turn that around Wisp, 180 degrees should just about do it.

You keep mentioning some supposed evidence that we are ignoring or dismissing and you imply that you know all about it - WHAT IS IT?


It’s not the evidence that’s being ignored. It’s the alternate way of intepreting the evidence – the way that takes the narrow naturalistic glasses off. It’s the way that says that maybe something that looks designed, is designed. It’s that terrible lurking danger that you and your fellow deluded fanatics refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of.

‘How the giraffe got its long neck.’ ‘How the land mammal turned into a whale, one little piece at a time.’ ‘ How the reptile turned into a bird by practicing jumping out of trees (or was it a cliff?).’ “How all the different dinosaurs arrived suddenly with no evidence of where they came from.” “How the multicellular invertebrates just popped up in the Cambrian so suddenly.”

Most of what you wrote are just idiotic strawman caricatures - as someone who has loked at both sides of the evolution issue should know.


I am still waiting for a bit of real evidence for all the stories above. No hand waving please –they are not so easily disposed of.

However, what there is NO corroboaration for are the MIRACULOUS events contained therein.


So what, you’re waiting for God to repeat the resurrection for your scientific eyes? How about the creation? Should we ask God to do it again so that you can be sure that something that looks very much like design, is design? The miracles are all just as invisible to science as your evolutionary stories about birds and dinosaurs are.

So we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection as witnessed by thousands and written down by a number of witnesses within fifty years of the event; then we have the evolution of reptiles into birds as represented by dead bones, no witnesses and loads of tall stories of miraculous conversions hundreds of millions of years after the fact. I’ll have to scratch my head on that one.

It’s origins science versus empirical science, Wisp. Evolution is origins science –once off, not repeatable, not subject to empirical testing.


Lots and lots of fossils does not amount to lots and lots of evidence.

They do if you understand 'both sides' of the issue.  Even YEC PhDs like Kurt Wise and Todd Wood acknowledge this, and they've ACTUALLY studied it.


EVEN YEC PHD’s Kurt Wise and Todd Wood acknowledge this? Don’t you mean ONLY YEC’s Kurt Wise and Todd Wood –as in only these two that can’t see the contradiction of their ridiculous comments. Either they are YEC’s or they are people that see the evidence for evolution. Which is it? Or are they talking about microevolution, more aptly called variation, in which case we can all see that and nobody has ever denied small scale change. Even YEC’s see the alleged evidence for evolution, they just don’t happen to think that that is the correct interpretation of the evidence. They see that evidence, which is common to both sides, as evidence for creation. You’ve either misinterpreted Todd and Wood’s comments OR they are not YECs at all.

Oh and I forgot,the other possibility is that they believe that unicellular organisms have mutated wildly into every species alive today in around 6000 years. I doubt that that is what they are saying though.

What ARE these 'huge gaps'?


The ones between Cambrian invertebrates and unicellular organisms. The one between multicellular invertebrates and fish. The one between fish and land animals. The one between dinosaurs and birds. The one between land mammals and aquatic mammals. The one between apes and men.
To name a few of the more obvious ones
 
And what do you suggest be done when we encounter gaps?


Decide whether the 200 million fossils available for viewing in fossil museums all over the world are representative of what there is out there,  or whether it represents a poor fossil record that is likely to change significantly in future.

If we have 100 million invertebrate fossils and 500 000 fish fossils and no sign of what went between, does that indicate that we unfortunately missed all the millions of intermediates that should have existed OR that there aren’t any?

How many fossils do you think will it take to persuade you that invertebrates never evolved into fish?

Intelligent design is the theory of origins that takes the evidence into account.

Evolution is the theory that ignores the fossil evidence in favour of bedtime stories for evolutionary naturalists (aka 'the wilfully blind'.)

Tell me about these molecules and show us all how little you understand about them.


Different molecules in the same organisms produce different so-called phylogenetic trees –there’s a problem. Phylogenetic trees contradict morphological trees –there’s a problem. Could it be just another example of wishful thinking?

Along with all the other evidence for wishful thinking,I really think so.

















-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:29 AM on January 23, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
Derwood
So, you don't think breeding is a mixing or purification of traits, it is the emilination of them?
Selection of the traits you want with the consequent elimination of what you don’t want from the gene pool.
As i've told you before, you can produce a particular mixture of traits.

I don't think you'll have much trouble with this, since breeders are intelligent. So you could use it as evidence for intelligent design. =P

You could select dogs for their ability to digest vegetables, willingness to eat vegetables AND grinding teeth.

That would be a combo. Saying that you just eliminated traits is just a semantic problem, but it doesn't seem to be a good description of the process.

Like human inbreeding, it leaves you with limited genetic variability and a bunch of associated mutations.
As I implied before, that is not what inbreeding does.
So what do you say it does?
It can express traits that require homozygosity.

You try to select some, but others can pop up.

And where do you supopose the variation comes form?
It was magically always there?
As far as we know, yes,
Good! You didn't run away from that question!

Now go and defend that claim in the thread i started.
except for occasionally mutational variation which while generally degrading the genome may occasionally have some kind of survival value in certain environments.
Also known ad "Evolution". ;)

Tell me - do you think that the alleles that are not selected for disappear?
Some of them certainly disappear.
What about when you have more than four alleles for a certain locus?

If any species has more than 4 alleles for ANY locus, then what should we conclude? Did we debunk the ark? How can two animals have more than 4 alleles?

Were they tetraploids? Manyploids?

Not to mention the fact that I have explained to you more than once and presented support for my explanation that it is not mere similarities that indicate descent, but patterns of shared unique mutations.
Like …..
Like the one that took away our ability to produce our own vitamin C.

We share that mutation with other apes.

Also mitochondrial DNA sequencing.

Also viral insertions.





By the method of tracing ancestries back to their earliest origins. Have you heard of geneology? Sure you have. That’s what you do.
So let's see it.
Sorry I’m not a geneologist. Why don’t you google it or consult a geneologist.
That translates as "Sorry, i didn't know what i was talking about." in my dictionary.

All I know is that genealogical trees have been traced back to Japheth – I do believe you need to look at earliest anglo-saxon genealogies in Ireland.
Yeah, of course... You "know"... Just like you know what homology means, what phenotype is, and who Dunning and Kruger are. Right?

Nobody has managed to take it back to our simian relatives so far, so that remains a story.


Actually:




Checkmate!





Look at the people you have referred to on here - every one of them has been shown to be little more than a fraud peddling charlatan.
Fraud peddling evolutionist charlatans label intelligent design advocates as such, yes, but who are the real fraudsters?
Yeah, evolutionist story-tellers like Dunning and Kruger, right?

Quote from Lester10 at 09:22 AM on November 27, 2009 in the thread Information:
In my head I see Dunning and Kruger as two pompous self-inflated evolutionists inventing stories and then throwing a tantrum when people more pragmatic than themselves point out the absurdity of their fantasies, and lamenting the ridiculousness of the practical objections of those less ‘qualified’ than themselves.


In your head... Hahaha!



I’d say they’re the ones that refuse any criticism of their cherished naturalistic presuppositions.
"Natural" means EVERYTHING.

"Supernatural" doesn't mean ANYTHING.

If there are consistent mechanisms that we don't know about, we'll deem them "natural" when we find them.

Is that why Darwins finches are trumpeted as proof positive for the FACT of evolution
Proof?

Science doesn't deal with "proof".

How many times do i need to tell you?

while the actual origin of the original finch is never discussed?
Yes it is. You say they popped into existence by dint of a wish of some cosmic ruler who loves being praised.

We say they share their origin with the rest of the birds.

Even if you didn't discuss this, it's still evidence for Evolution.

Science doesn't care about creationists. The fact that you learned to be ok with a certain fact (while rejecting others) doesn't make it less of a piece of evidence.

You_don't_matter.

Evolution is the big fraud, evolutionists are the religious fanatical fraudsters desperate to shield their erroneous theory from critical examination in the classroom or anywhere else.
Classroom?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Just submit articles for peer review. Before that don't even dare mentioning the classroom.

What code are you referring to?

Not the genetic code, which you seem to think is something other than it really is.
What is it really, Wisp? – a code? Well how’s about that.
Huh?

You didn't quote me. That was derwood.

In any case, you mean this?


Yeah, that's a code. And it's clearly man-made.

I thought you people were able to induce that from a watch found in the woods.

You’ve never once demonstrated any such thing –all you’ve ever indulged in is empty rhetoric. And rhetoric is all evolution has to defend it.
I show you fact after fact, and you run every time.

And don't ask me which ones. Go and address your dodges.

I THREATEN your flimsy philosophical presuppositions.
Turn that around Wisp, 180 degrees should just about do it.
Hi. I'm wisp. The guy you quoted was derwood. ^_^

It’s not the evidence that’s being ignored. It’s the alternate way of intepreting the evidence – the way that takes the narrow naturalistic glasses off. (...) It’s that terrible lurking danger that you and your fellow deluded fanatics refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of.
Possibility of what?

That things can be explained through known mechanisms?

We're all about that.

That things just can't be explained?

That's anty-science.

And "Goddidit" isn't an explanation. It's the ultimate lack of an explanation. It's a glorified "I don't know, but let's not find out".

What ARE these 'huge gaps'?
The ones between Cambrian invertebrates and unicellular organisms.
I showed you, you remained silent, you lost.
The one between multicellular invertebrates and fish.
I showed you, you stood silent, you lost.
The one between fish and land animals.
We showed you, you just said "no" without supporting your denial. You lost.
The one between dinosaurs and birds. The one between land mammals and aquatic mammals.
We showed you. You just said "no".
The one between apes and men.
We're still apes.

I asked you to define "apes", and you played dumb.

You lost.

To name a few of the more obvious ones
You're shameless.

Intelligent design is the theory of origins that takes the evidence into account.
It takes all the evidence, and shrugs.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:02 PM on January 23, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You could select dogs for their ability to digest vegetables, willingness to eat vegetables AND grinding teeth.


Which means you’ve eliminated those that don’t digest vegetables well, aren’t willing to do so and don’t have grinding teeth.
In the end you have a production of traits that already existed in the gene pool –nothing new and original.
Of course you might pick up something new while you’re at it –a mutation feature –usually something bad but otherwise something that might be neutral in effect.

As I implied before, that is not what inbreeding does.
So what do you say it does?
It can express traits that require homozygosity.


Yes, mostly this would be a bad thing but occasionally, very occasionally, it might be something good. You see it in human inbreeding. Occasionally you might get a musical genius but that might come with a bunch of mutational features like thyroid problems and other genetic diseases. It’s seldom a good thing which is why we aren’t encouraged to marry into our immediate family.

And where do you supopose the variation comes form?
It was magically always there?
As far as we know, yes,
Good! You didn't run away from that question!

Now go and defend that claim in the thread i started.


How about we stick right here since that is not the only issue to be discussed and followed up on.
It seems that the traits must be magically always there ( – otherwise known as genetically encoded) since mutations don’t improve anything at the molecular level. Even “good” mutations involve the loss or degradation of something.


except for occasionally mutational variation which while generally degrading the genome may occasionally have some kind of survival value in certain environments.

Also known ad "Evolution". ;)


Or more correctly as Devolution


Tell me - do you think that the alleles that are not selected for disappear?
Some of them certainly disappear.
What about when you have more than four alleles for a certain locus?


Then a certain feature selected against might pop up again.

Not to mention the fact that I have explained to you more than once and presented support for my explanation that it is not mere similarities that indicate descent, but patterns of shared unique mutations.
Like the one that took away our ability to produce our own vitamin C.

We share that mutation with other apes.


I’d have to see more information in this regard before I’d take anyone’s word for it. Do we know that we ever had the ability to produce our own Vit C? How do we know that that ability was lost in the apes before our fabled divergence?

Also mitochondrial DNA sequencing.


Again there’s the problem of common ancestry or common creator. Nonetheless lets hear more of this argument for interest’s sake.

Also viral insertions.


Old and invalid argument. ERV’s are a functional part of human genome used to aid transcription in over 20% of human genome. Not junk and not random retrovirus insertion. Thus not symbolic of common ancestry.

By the method of tracing ancestries back to their earliest origins. Have you heard of geneology? Sure you have. That’s what you do.
That translates as "Sorry, i didn't know what i was talking about." in my dictionary.


In mine, it means I pick up lots of info along the way and don’t know what my source was for that so you’ll have to google it. The Bible has detailed genealogies by the way. I don’t suppose that means anything to you but that’s your bias.

Yeah, of course... You "know"... Just like you know what homology means, what phenotype is, and who Dunning and Kruger are.


The Dunning Kruger story was my own little story of what came into my mind when I heard the words Dunning and Kruger. It made ME think of two pompous self-inflated evolutionists not understanding the limitations of their own supposed intelligence. You’ve been misquoting me ever since. I thought you prided yourself on your honesty? I could have told you it was a performance though.

As for homology, I didn’t agree on your interpretation of the significance of homology –I still don’t.

Phenotype –don’t even remember what was said about that but I reckon you drag all of these out of the bush everytime you need to deviate attention from something else you’re having trouble with so what is it…..

"Natural" means EVERYTHING.


Natural might be everything you know about but that isn’t everything.

Supernatural" doesn't mean ANYTHING.


To you,yes.

Is that why Darwins finches are trumpeted as proof positive for the FACT of evolution
Proof?

Science doesn't deal with "proof".


Well exactly - which makes me wonder why overzealous evolutionists try things like ‘evolution is a fact!’ on the general public. Slight contradiction there but you can’t fault them for enthusiasm.

while the actual origin of the original finch is never discussed?
We say they share their origin with the rest of the birds.


While that is a possibility, it doesn’t mean that the rest of the birds evolved from reptiles. Since nobody was there and since your naturalistic presuppositions are just presuppositions, it may very well not be true. Perhaps a finch is a created kind of bird.

Even if you didn't discuss this, it's still evidence for Evolution.


It’s also evidence for creation since nobody saw reptiles evolve into birds and the transitional forms that are claimed for this transition are thin on the ground to non-existant. Archeopteryx certainly doesn’t help your case. That sort of transition must have taken a long time and involved thousands of obvious changes and you don’t have any of them so far yet there are hundreds of thousands of reptile fossils and more than 200 000 bird fossils in natural history museums. Why so many reptiles and birds and so much nothing inbetween? Who’s theorizing according to the evidence here and who exactly is taking a leap of faith about invisible things? You’re always telling me I must give you evidence but you never want to listen when I do.
There are lots of reptiles and lots of birds buried in the ground! There, that’s the evidence. The rest is in your mind, in your philosophy, in your dreams.

Science doesn't care about creationists.


If science had the capacity to care, it would certainly be cheering for the creationists. After all, the evidence supports their viewpoint far more accurately than it does the evolutionist’s flights of fantasy.

Just submit articles for peer review. Before that don't even dare mentioning the classroom.


There are loads of articles submitted for peer review by creationists and accepted. It’s just the topic of intelligent design that evolutionists are prejudiced against. You try and get your Mormon views published in the Jehovah’s Witness magazine. It’s not easy.

As for daring to mention the classroom. atheist evolutionary religion is being proselytised in the classroom as fact, that has got to stop. Younger up and coming scientists aren’t going to be easy to stop as they ease the old stalwarts of evolution out of their positions of power. There’s a shift coming but it’s going to take time. Too many people are waking up to the deception that is being perpetrated by evolution scientists in the name of truth.

The selective showing of evidence and interpretation in support of naturalism only, doesn't allow kids to think -it tells them what to think.

Yeah, that's a code. And it's clearly man-made.


Men write it out, intelligence works it out. Any old order won’t do. Chemical law does not determine the order.

I show you fact after fact, and you run every time.


Fact after fact? Are you joking? You show me the evidence and your interpretation of said evidence: for example the non-existent fossils of reptile-bird transitions and then you tell me it happened. I show you the numbers of reptiles and bird fossils that exist and the lack of convincing transitions and you tell me that what we can’t see is true nonetheless. And then you wonder why I don’t think it is a fact at all.

I showed you, you remained silent, you lost.
 

I showed you, you remained silent, you lost.


I showed you, you remained silent, you lost.


There, some more empty rhetoric. You needed an example, there it is.



 




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:09 AM on January 24, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't have much time to respond in detail  today, but two quick comments:
uote from Lester10 at 04:29 AM on January 23, 2010 :
Is that why Haeckels embryos remain in textbooks more than 100 years after being shown to be fraudulent?


Please provide a single example of Haeckel's drawings being used in a textbook as evidence for evolution.  

Just one will do.

EVEN YEC PHD’s Kurt Wise and Todd Wood acknowledge this? Don’t you mean ONLY YEC’s Kurt Wise and Todd Wood –as in only these two that can’t see the contradiction of their ridiculous comments. Either they are YEC’s or they are people that see the evidence for evolution. Which is it?


Or perhaps they are the only competent, honest ones of the bunch?  They have both stated that they are YECs because of their belief that the bible is to be taken literally.  In other words, for them it is bible first, all else second.  So they acknowledge the evidence, but don't accept it to mean what it does because to do so is in conflict with their beliefs.  Darrell E. Craig has written about this as well, he calls it 'presuppositional creationism' (he is  a YEC who also acknowledges the evidence supports evolution).

And I've asked several times - what is it that you know that these folks - and their 'ridiculous' claims - do not?  What ARE your credentials such that you just KNOW that they are being ridiculous?

Why should anyone accept the rants of an internet pseudogenius who appears to simply accept anything written by mantra spewing YECs at face value who claims that two Ivy League university educated creationists say 'ridiculous' things?


And one last thing - I simply do not believe Sanford, sorry.  He is Witnessing, and when fundibots witness, all bets are off.

You simply take him - and HIS ridiculous claims - at face value because he says what you are programmed to accept in the first place.
Where is hi sevidence?  He presents none - it is just witnessing.  

And it is so cute how you still avoid any substantive discussion and just do the things you accuse us of doing.  Cute in a pathetic sort of way.


(Edited by derwood 1/24/2010 at 12:27 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:49 AM on January 24, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
You could select dogs for their ability to digest vegetables, willingness to eat vegetables AND grinding teeth.
Which means you’ve eliminated those that don’t digest vegetables well, aren’t willing to do so and don’t have grinding teeth.
As i've already acknowledged, yes, you can say that.

It's not a smart thing to say because it's not a useful description of the process. Unless you're a creationist and it's useful for you to accommodate reality to suit your faith.

You can always describe any process as an interaction of particles.
For most of the human experience this is NOT useful (and neither is your whimsical description).

In the end you have a production of traits that already existed in the gene pool
Right.
–nothing new and original.
Wrong.

You produced a vegan dog. And that's a novelty.

You can only redefine reality to accommodate to your religious needs once again.

You can only say "it's still a dog" (as if we weren't still apes).

Of course you might pick up something new while you’re at it –a mutation feature –usually something bad but otherwise something that might be neutral in effect.
Or something good in certain environments, like you've already acknowledged. Which is what Evolution is all about.

You have already acknowledged every step of the way.

You can just deny the big picture (atoms to humans) or virtual things (information increase).

All the required (and real) steps have been demonstrated.

Don't deny this without clarifying.

Lester
wisp
Lester
derwood
As I implied before, that is not what inbreeding does.
So what do you say it does?
It can express traits that require homozygosity.
Yes, mostly this would be a bad thing but occasionally, very occasionally, it might be something good.
Exactly!

That's all it takes.

The good gets positively selected, the bad gets negatively selected.

Let's say you want a dog with a white spot. You have a dog and a bitch which carry that mutation, along with a mutation that makes them being born without a head.

You make them mate.

The headlessness will be easily (and automatically) culled out.

You see it in human inbreeding. Occasionally you might get a musical genius but that might come with a bunch of mutational features like thyroid problems and other genetic diseases.
Do you think that being a musical genius is due to some mutation?

Anyway, let's say you're right. Let's assume it was a mutation.

If the good trait outweighs the bad (which can only be noticed from the differential survival/reproduction rates)...

Actually it doesn't even have to be that way. Even if the good DOESN'T outweigh the bad, it's always good to have the good.

Having the good might allow him to have just one child, which is better than none. The bad outweighed the good, and he still made it. He reproduced.

His child might carry the good and the bad mutations. If the traits require homozygocity they will only be expressed if they mate with a relative.

If the good trait doesn't need homozygocity and the bad ones do, the good one could quickly spread.

It’s seldom a good thing which is why we aren’t encouraged to marry into our immediate family.
Yeah, but mating with second cousins can be good for a population, i think.

Even with first cousins, if you don't care about some deaths (Nature sure doesn't).

Without some inbreeding no trait gets fixed, good or bad.

And traits obviously do get fixed.

Lester
wisp
Lester
derwood
And where do you supopose the variation comes form?
It was magically always there?
As far as we know, yes,
Good! You didn't run away from that question!

Now go and defend that claim in the thread i started.
How about we stick right here since that is not the only issue to be discussed and followed up on.
Er... What do you mean?

You made a claim. Right?

If you're not willing to defend that claim, WHY MAKE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

If you won't defend it, take it back.

That's the honest thing to do.

It would be so nice if you could only make claims you're willing to defend...

It seems that the traits must be magically always there ( – otherwise known as genetically encoded) since mutations don’t improve anything at the molecular level.
"Improve"... "At the molecular level"...

Empty words, and nothing more.

What is exactly that can't happen?

"Improve" sounds too metaphysical.

Even “good” mutations involve the loss or degradation of something.
No.

We've given you demonstrations.

Gene duplication is a clear example.

You lose.

except for occasionally mutational variation which while generally degrading the genome may occasionally have some kind of survival value in certain environments.

Also known ad "Evolution". ;)
Or more correctly as Devolution
Changes in the genome that have a positive survival value in certain environments... It sounds exactly like Evolution.

Tell me - do you think that the alleles that are not selected for disappear?
Some of them certainly disappear.
What about when you have more than four alleles for a certain locus?
Then a certain feature selected against might pop up again.
You're not getting it...

If alleles can only disappear, and only two animals of each kind were aboard the ark, and those animals were diploid just like today, that means they shouldn't possibly have more than 4 alleles for ANY locus.

Finding any KIND that has more than 4 alleles in ANY locus should debunk the ark myth.

If you agree then i'll go and look for it.

If you don't, say why.

Lester
wisp
Lester
derwood
Not to mention the fact that I have explained to you more than once and presented support for my explanation that it is not mere similarities that indicate descent, but patterns of shared unique mutations.
Like …..
Like the one that took away our ability to produce our own vitamin C.

We share that mutation with other apes.
I’d have to see more information in this regard before I’d take anyone’s word for it.
Would it matter?

You never cared about evidence before.

Will you start now?

Do we know that we ever had the ability to produce our own Vit C?
Yes. We know. The genes are there, dormant.

We never got that ability back, but we evolved the ability to use and recycle very little amounts of vitamin C. But we always need to ingest some, or we get sick.

You would call it "devolution". There's a clear loss there. I'd guess that we lost it because we used to eat lots of fruit, so not being able to produce our own vitamin C wasn't a huge deal.

Too bad this case of devolution confirms the Theory of Evolution one more time, and debunks creationism yet again.

If you care about it i'll start a thread.

How do we know that that ability was lost in the apes before our fabled divergence?
You don't know anything.

We do.

It was lost before because we both miss it.

We miss it in the same way.

All Anthropoidea (Haplorrhini) (tarsiers, monkeys and apes) have this defect. The same mutation took it away, because it happened just once in our shared ancestry.

If we share some good trait you'll just say common design (which is quite dumb since traits are arranged in the form of a tree of life).

What about this? What about shared genetic defects?

Also mitochondrial DNA sequencing.
Again there’s the problem of common ancestry or common creator.
No, there's not. Mitochondrial DNA sequencing will ALWAYS arrange samples in a tree shape, confirming the ToE every time.
Nonetheless lets hear more of this argument for interest’s sake.
Start a thread to demonstrate your interest.

And don't run away when we show you.

Also viral insertions.
Old and invalid argument. ERV’s are a functional part of human genome used to aid transcription in over 20% of human genome. Not junk and not random retrovirus insertion. Thus not symbolic of common ancestry.
This is amazing...

Man, try to open your head a little bit. You say this dumb thing every time i mention viral insertions.

You're changing the subject.

I never said they weren't functional.

I tell you now: they aren't. But it doesn't matter. That's not the issue.

THIS is the issue (which you ignore every time):



This is a tree. This is what the Theory of Evolution predicts. This is what we find.

Common ancestry requires this, and we get this.

Common design doesn't require or predict this.

You lose.

By the method of tracing ancestries back to their earliest origins. Have you heard of geneology? Sure you have. That’s what you do.
That translates as "Sorry, i didn't know what i was talking about." in my dictionary.
In mine, it means I pick up lots of info along the way and don’t know what my source was for that so you’ll have to google it.
The word is "genealogy". You could include that in your lots of info.

It's your claim. If you won't defend it don't bother making it.

If you understood it, explain it. If you didn't, don't bother mentioning it.

The Bible has detailed genealogies by the way. I don’t suppose that means anything to you but that’s your bias.
It does. It's one more way to debunk the Bible (as if there was any need).

The Dunning Kruger story was my own little story of what came into my mind when I heard the words Dunning and Kruger. It made ME think of two pompous self-inflated evolutionists not understanding the limitations of their own supposed intelligence.
This isn't misquoting. It's plain quoting.

You got all that just from the names?

If you got any part of it right you could call yourself a psychic. Because you were completely clueless about who they are.

This is the quote:
Quote from Lester10 at 09:22 AM on November 27, 2009 in the thread Information:
In my head I see Dunning and Kruger as two pompous self-inflated evolutionists inventing stories and then throwing a tantrum when people more pragmatic than themselves point out the absurdity of their fantasies, and lamenting the ridiculousness of the practical objections of those less ‘qualified’ than themselves.

You’ve been misquoting me ever since.
What did i misquote?

Show me that i misquoted, and i'll take it back and apologize.
I thought you prided yourself on your honesty?
I don't think it's something to be proud about.

It's the very basic.

And you fail at the very basic in many ways.

For instance, talking about things you don't know about (like homology, phenotype and Dunning & Kruger).
I could have told you it was a performance though.
Of course. You can always lie.

As for homology, I didn’t agree on your interpretation of the significance of homology –I still don’t.
There's nothing to agree or disagree about. This isn't subject to debate.

From http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Homology

Homology

(Science: embryology, genetics) two anatomical structures or behavioural traits within different organisms which originated from a structure or trait of their common ancestral organism.

The structures or traits in their current forms may not necessarily perform the same functions in each organism, nor perform the functions it did in the common ancestor. They may even have become completely unused and therefore vestigial.


Disagreeing is just a confirmation that you don't know what you're talking about, as usual.

You lose. Again. You should be used to.

If you admit that you didn't know what you were talking about, i'll shut up about it.

You brought this up upon yourself for being stubborn. You could just have said "Oh, that's right, my mistake."
Instead of that simple act of intellectual honesty you act as a bad loser and refuse to admit that you were wrong.

And you call US arrogant.

Phenotype –don’t even remember what was said about that but I reckon you drag all of these out of the bush everytime you need to deviate attention from something else you’re having trouble with so what is it…
Like what?

What do i have trouble with?

Will you even respond to this? Or you're content with saying it without any need to support it?

Chase me. Start threads about things i dodge or run away from.

Go ahead.

I dare you.

"Natural" means EVERYTHING.
Natural might be everything you know about but that isn’t everything.
Show me.
Supernatural" doesn't mean ANYTHING.
To you,yes.
And to you it just means some vague idea about some big guy who needs praising.

What else?

Pray, tell.

Is that why Darwins finches are trumpeted as proof positive for the FACT of evolution
Proof?

Science doesn't deal with "proof".
Well exactly
Hahaha! You say it as if you understood. xD
- which makes me wonder why overzealous evolutionists try things like ‘evolution is a fact!’ on the general public.
Because it is a fact.

I've defined it lots of times already, and Evolution qualifies.

Pigheadedness isn't a refutation.

And what general public are you talking about?

I live in Argentina. Anyone here knows that Evolution is a fact, just like the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

And there's no conspiracy. Nobody cares enough to conspire about it.

And we don't just take the word of conspiring scientists either.

My girl's uncle is a geneticist, and his research is evolution in tomatoes.

The only ones "in doubt" here are Jehovah's Witnesses. A crazy bunch they are. They let their kids die instead of giving them a transfusion (because blood is sacred, which is just another sad example of how ancient superstitions hurt today's children of modern superstitious people).

Slight contradiction there but you can’t fault them for enthusiasm.
No contradiction. You don't need proof to get facts. You're just showing your ignorance.

You keep on talking about things you don't know about.

You're still shameless.

while the actual origin of the original finch is never discussed?
We say they share their origin with the rest of the birds.
While that is a possibility, it doesn’t mean that the rest of the birds evolved from reptiles. Since nobody was there and since your naturalistic presuppositions are just presuppositions, it may very well not be true. Perhaps blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Let the blahblah aside. Do you take your claim back then?

You said "
the actual origin of the original finch is never discussed". Now you contradict yourself.

Something tells me you just won't admit it.

Even if you didn't discuss this, it's still evidence for Evolution.
It’s also evidence for creation blah blah blah blah red herring blah blah blah blah
Let the blahblah aside. Do you take your complaint back then?

You said "
Is that why Darwins finches are trumpeted as proof positive for the FACT of evolution while the actual origin of the original finch is never discussed?".

*Nobody said it's a proof.
*Evolution IS a fact.
*You DO discuss the origin of the finch.
*Finches ARE evidence for Evolution (as you just admitted).

You just couldn't have been wronger.

Will you admit defeat in any of those points?

Something tells me you won't.

Go ahead. Show us your dodge.

Science doesn't care about creationists.
If science had the capacity to care, it would certainly be cheering for the creationists.
Oh, "certainly"...
After all, the evidence supports their viewpoint far more accurately than it does the evolutionist’s flights of fantasy.
After all our position (Evolution) doesn't conflict with any branch of Science, and yours conflicts with Cosmology, Chemistry, Thermodynamics, Embryology, Neurology, Medicine, Logic, et cetera.

Just submit articles for peer review. Before that don't even dare mentioning the classroom.
There are loads of articles submitted for peer review by creationists and accepted. It’s just the topic of intelligent design that evolutionists are prejudiced against.
And you thought this was worth mentioning?

Creationism is the subject. Not creationists.

You try and get your Mormon views published in the Jehovah’s Witness magazine. It’s not easy.
That's not peer reviewed nor scientific. So not worth mentioning.

Can you show me a rejected creationist article that was rejected?

Show us. With the editorial notes, please.

As for daring to mention the classroom. atheist evolutionary religion is being proselytised in the classroom as fact, that has got to stop.
No.

It's a fact.

Your pigheadedness doesn't matter.

Younger up and coming scientists aren’t going to be easy to stop as they ease the old stalwarts of evolution out of their positions of power.
I didn't get that phrase.

"
Younger up and coming". I don't know what that means.

Are you saying that Evolution will be overthrown?

Can you give us a deadline after which you will shut up in shame?

Because i bet my life on the fact that it won't (as porkchop asked).

Give me a deadline. If you lose you'll say "I was wrong". If i lose i'll kill myself. =D

Fair bet?

There’s a shift coming but it’s going to take time.
Tell us about it! How much time?
Too many people are waking up to the deception that is being perpetrated by evolution scientists in the name of truth.
So they tell you.

And you just buy it. No questions asked.

The selective showing of evidence and interpretation in support of naturalism only, doesn't allow kids to think -it tells them what to think.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah blah blah. You love to talk about generalities, and you run from specifics.

How much time?

Yeah, that's a code. And it's clearly man-made.
Men write it out, intelligence works it out.
Er... Are you suggesting that we don't have intelligence?

False dichotomy. Yes, men wrote it. Yes, intelligence made it. Ours.

Fact after fact? Are you joking?
No. I show you facts.

Like this one:



You show me the evidence and your interpretation of said evidence


Check the image above. I give you no interpretation. I just tell you that it's arranged in a tree-shape, and that's a fact.

I tell you that Evolution require this, and that's a fact.

I tell you that Evolution predicts this, and that's a fact.

I tell you that creationism doesn't require OR predict this, and that's a fact.

You lose.

for example the non-existent fossils of reptile-bird transitions and then you tell me it happened.
I show you fossils.

They existed, and that's a fact.

They died, and that's a fact.

They have traits of dinosaurs and birds, and that's a fact.

They are found where the ToE predicts, and that's a fact.

And so many other facts...

You just say "no".

I show you the numbers of reptiles and bird fossils that exist and the lack of convincing transitions and you tell me that what we can’t see is true nonetheless.
It IS true nonetheless.

No transitional would be convincing to you, and that's NOT a problem for us.

But i show you facts.

And then you wonder why I don’t think it is a fact at all.
I don't.

You're not very bright, and you have a strong emotional investment in your fantasy.

See? I don't wonder why.

Can you take it back? ^_^

I showed you, you remained silent, you lost.
 

I showed you, you remained silent, you lost.


I showed you, you remained silent, you lost.

There, some more empty rhetoric. You needed an example, there it is.
No empty rhetoric. I sowed you, you remained silent, you lost.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:22 PM on January 24, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dr.Lester:

"Even “good” mutations involve the loss or degradation of something. "


I will ignore for now that this is mere assertion premised on the vacuous and naive creationist notions of "information."


Hmmm...
According to Dr.Lester the YEC, a mutation is a change which always produces a loss of information, even if the end result is 'good.'

If this is so, then what has been lost was 'bad' information.  Seems like a net gain, to me.

But let us look at an analogy -

Dr.Lester buys this bitchin hot rod.  A few years later, he gets a hydraulic lift kit for it.

The hot rod now not only looks cool and runs like a top, but now it can hop around and the ends can go up and down.

What was the loss?

If there was a loss, is not the end result 'better'?

Let's say that instead of a lift kit, Doc replaqces his old engine with a better one.

Sure, you 'lost' the old engine, but the new one is bettger.

Is this still counted as a net loss?  

If so, why?  If not, why not?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:41 PM on January 24, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Non-Doctor Lester:

"In my head I see Dunning and Kruger as two pompous self-inflated evolutionists inventing stories and then throwing a tantrum when people more pragmatic than themselves point out the absurdity of their fantasies, and lamenting the ridiculousness of the practical objections of those less ‘qualified’ than themselves."


Then your head is an empty place.

Without even bothering to read the link I provided, without even doing a simple google search to see who they are or what their work entailed, Lester the creationist spews this ad hominem gibberish.

Even though I have explained it before, I will explain it again, since Lester the YEC does not seem to be able to understand anything presented to him less than 10 times:

Dunning and Kruger are Cornell psychologists.  They studied people's perceptions of their own abilities - theuir work had NOTHING to do with evolution, creationsm, acceptance of evolution, etc.

It was ALL about self-perception.

After performing several different studies on this, they concluded - as anyone who has encountered creationists on the internet will know - that people tend to hold inflated views of their performance and abilities, even when shown how poorly they really do.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:48 PM on January 24, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Lester the YEC:

"Phenotype –don’t even remember what was said about that but I reckon you drag all of these out of the bush everytime you need to deviate attention from something else you’re having trouble with so what is it…"

Let me help you out:


2. It shows that a 'new' protein or a 'new' gene need not be produced to alter physiology/phenotype


There is no new phenotype being produced here. That is required for macroevolution.


PHENOTYPE:

phenotype is any observable characteristic or trait of an organism: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, or behavior (Wiki)


PHENOTYPE:

: the observable properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment (Merriam-Webster.com)

I suggest you brush up on basic biology terminology.



That was also the thread wherein I refuted your cribbed claims regarding fitness costs of DDT resistance in flies and warfarin resistance in rats.

Yeah, and you abandones that thread, too.

As you usually do when your prefabricated YEC website soundbites are dismantled and shown to be false.





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:58 PM on January 24, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Non-Doctor Lester:……After performing several different studies on this, they concluded - as anyone who has encountered creationists on the internet will know - that people tend to hold inflated views of their performance and abilities, even when shown how poorly they really do.


Dr Lester to you please

Now Der, right from the beginning you have misinterpreted what I said – or else you did some speed reading and you’re clearly not good at that as you missed my point entirely.

Firstly, I didn’t need to google it as you supplied the details, which I did in fact read. I even remember the entire explanation of who Dunning and Kruger were but my take on it was that in order to remember the details I would picture these people (with inflated sense of own intelligence) in a way that made sense to me.

In my life all the people who are utterly sure of their own cleverness, the ones that hold inflated view of their own performance and abilities, are the dedicated fundamentalist evolutionists who hold to philosophical naturalism to the exclusion of all other considerations. On that basis, I explained to you that the image that I had conjured up in my (retarded) imagination was of two conceited evolutionists strutting around laying down their opinions as if they were themselves God Almighty, omnipotent and omniscient - just helping the riff raff see truth as they see it.

So you see Der, I don’t care what pops up in your mind when the Dunning Kruger effect is mentioned, that is what pops up in mine. In fact the one conceited evolutionist of my imaginary scenario now has a name on his T-shirt, his name is DER.(Short for Dunning and KrugER  J



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:42 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:42 AM on January 28, 2010 :
Non-Doctor Lester:……After performing several different studies on this, they concluded - as anyone who has encountered creationists on the internet will know - that people tend to hold inflated views of their performance and abilities, even when shown how poorly they really do.


Dr Lester to you please

Now Der, right from the beginning you have misinterpreted what I said – or else you did some speed reading and you’re clearly not good at that as you missed my point entirely.

Right, I mean how easy it is to misinterpret this:

"In my head I see Dunning and Kruger as two pompous self-inflated evolutionists inventing stories and then throwing a tantrum when people more pragmatic than themselves point out the absurdity of their fantasies, and lamenting the ridiculousness of the practical objections of those less ‘qualified’ than themselves."

Do explain what you REALLY meant...

Firstly, I didn’t need to google it as you supplied the details, which I did in fact read.


And yet you dismissed it all as they were 'darwinists', remember?

I even remember the entire explanation of who Dunning and Kruger were but my take on it was that in order to remember the details I would picture these people (with inflated sense of own intelligence) in a way that made sense to me.


Right...  That is NOW.  But recall what you said when I first mentioned them?  WHY do you think of them that way at all?
They are not in any way involved in this debate, they do not study evolution or creation.
Is this just your way of villifying them so as to ignore their findings?

In my life all the people who are utterly sure of their own cleverness, the ones that hold inflated view of their own performance and abilities, are the dedicated fundamentalist evolutionists who hold to philosophical naturalism to the exclusion of all other considerations.


Um...

I STRONGLY suggest taking stock of your own house, bucko.

YOU are the one that pontificates on ANY subject and declares absolute victory regardless of what is discussed.

You name it - geology, theology, biology, cosmology - Lester the YEC knows it ALL and anyone who may actually - ACTUALLY - have expertise in those specific areas who CORRECTS things that Lester the YEC declares is just being an 'elitist', is just "utterly sure of their own cleverness, the ones that hold inflated view of their own performance and abilities".

The part that you missed, Les old pal, is the part wherein the Dunning-Krugerite is actually WRONG about the things they pontificate on and cannot/will not acknowledge it in part because they lack the ability to do so!

So, when YOU advocate Dr.Carl Werner's writings because he has 'studied' evolution (as a hobby) for 30 years and visited lost of museums as beyond reproach, and YOU don't even know that the things he claims are utter nonsense, YOU are a prime example of a Dunning-Krugerite BECAUSE you do not realize it is wrong and cannot accept that it is!

I am VERY confident about the things that I actually possess in-depth knowledge in.  You may note that I do not pontificate on physics, geology, cosmology, etc. because I am humble enough to know my limitations.

But look at yourself.


On that basis, I explained to you that the image that I had conjured up in my (retarded) imagination was of two conceited evolutionists strutting around laying down their opinions as if they were themselves God Almighty, omnipotent and omniscient - just helping the riff raff see truth as they see it.


But WHY?

That makes no sense at all - especially inlight of you original dismissal of their study as you referred to them as 'darwinists', way back before I had presented the abstract to their paper.


So you see Der, I don’t care what pops up in your mind when the Dunning Kruger effect is mentioned, that is what pops up in mine. In fact the one conceited evolutionist of my imaginary scenario now has a name on his T-shirt, his name is DER.(Short for Dunning and KrugER  J



So, I am 'conceited' because I correct your gross errors and ignroance on things like anatomy and genetics?

Wow...

What a huge (and fragile) ego you have there....








-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:01 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Right, I mean how easy it is to misinterpret this:

"In my head I see Dunning and Kruger as two pompous self-inflated evolutionists inventing stories and then throwing a tantrum when people more pragmatic than themselves point out the absurdity of their fantasies, and lamenting the ridiculousness of the practical objections of those less ‘qualified’ than themselves."

Do explain what you REALLY meant...


Ok Derwood, I’m going to take you through this real slow and only because I can see how terribly mixed up you are.

"In my head" I see Dunning and Kruger as two pompous self-inflated evolutionists

That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;, I have images of things that bring certain other facts to mind. You can read about it in mind mapping books

And yet you dismissed it all as they were 'darwinists', remember?

No, Derwood, wrong again. The image in my head was of two Darwinists with overinflated sense of self evaluation. I never said anything about Dunning and Kruger actually being Darwinists, just that evolutionists were people that suffered from the Dunning-Kruger problem. What I had in my mind as a memory aid was only to help remember what the Dunning Kruger story was. Comprendez??
They are not in any way involved in this debate, they do not study evolution or creation.

Luckily I never said that they did.
In my life all the people who are utterly sure of their own cleverness, the ones that hold inflated view of their own performance and abilities, are the dedicated fundamentalist evolutionists who hold to philosophical naturalism to the exclusion of all other considerations
Um...

I STRONGLY suggest taking stock of your own house, bucko.

YOU are the one that pontificates on ANY subject and declares absolute victory regardless of what is discussed.


Um…. I suggest you search inward Derwood. You see I’m the one that used to believe that evolution just had to be true. I no longer do. That means I’ve been on both sides of the fence so it looks like, it really looks like, you are far more intractable than I am. You have only ever been on one side of the fence.

The evolutionist’s problem is that he confuses real science with his philosophy that all things must have a naturalistic explanation. By doing that he effectively says that all apparent design in nature is an illusion. He can’t possibly know that, but he has decided that it just must be true. By doing that he ignores all evidence to the contrary and ends up with a Dunning Kruger problem and is utterly incapable of seeing it.  






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:11 AM on January 29, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember
i reckon that's where you've been going wrong Les.
What I had in my mind as a memory aid was only to help remember what the Dunning Kruger story was.
I believe that you are lying Lester. You've been caught out and you are lying to try to weasel your way out of it.
You see I’m the one that used to believe that evolution just had to be true.

The thing is, you didn't understand it then and you don't understand it now. You've just got someone you consider to be influential guiding you, that person happens to be a YEC. I bet that you would flip to scientology or YSMism if someone came along with enogh charisma to dazzle you. You are a shhep, blindly following whatever faith your handlers guide towards.
The evolutionist’s problem is that he confuses real science with his philosophy that all things must have a naturalistic explanation.
Shows that you have no understanding of what science is
He can’t possibly know that, but he has decided that it just must be true. By doing that he ignores all evidence to the contrary
You regularly use the word evidence, but you never actually present any. Why?
By doing that he ignores all evidence to the contrary and ends up with a Dunning Kruger problem and is utterly incapable of seeing it.  
Showing your mis-understanding of what Dunning and Kruger were saying.


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 10:33 AM on January 29, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:11 AM on January 29, 2010 :
Right, I mean how easy it is to misinterpret this:

"In my head I see Dunning and Kruger as two pompous self-inflated evolutionists inventing stories and then throwing a tantrum when people more pragmatic than themselves point out the absurdity of their fantasies, and lamenting the ridiculousness of the practical objections of those less ‘qualified’ than themselves."

Do explain what you REALLY meant...


Ok Derwood, I’m going to take you through this real slow and only because I can see how terribly mixed up you are.

"In my head" I see Dunning and Kruger as two pompous self-inflated evolutionists

That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,


Well, I'm sure you have air in your head (which is what pneumo- means... hilarious), but I think you meant mnemotic.

I know that you are desperately trying to save face here, and in your favor, I cannot locate the original post in which you dismissed their study by claiming they were just darwinists trying to dismiss contrary views.  But this does not mean that you never said it (I will find it one day), and this whole 'in your head' thing is just a bluff as best I can tell.


And yet you dismissed it all as they were 'darwinists', remember?

No, Derwood, wrong again. The image in my head was of two Darwinists with overinflated sense of self evaluation. I never said anything about Dunning and Kruger actually being Darwinists,

Actually, you did, but it was some time ago.  
In my life all the people who are utterly sure of their own cleverness, the ones that hold inflated view of their own performance and abilities, are the dedicated fundamentalist evolutionists who hold to philosophical naturalism to the exclusion of all other considerations
Um...

I STRONGLY suggest taking stock of your own house, bucko.

YOU are the one that pontificates on ANY subject and declares absolute victory regardless of what is discussed.


Um…. I suggest you search inward Derwood.


I have, that is why I do NOT pontificate on matters that I know that I lack expertise in.  It is not ME who will write about geology and tell geologists that they are wrong.  it is not ME that will write about genetics and tell geneticists that they are wrong.  It is not ME that will write about anatomy and tell anatomists that they are wrong.

That is people like YOU.


You see I’m the one that used to believe that evolution just had to be true.

As I've said before -

1. I simply do not believe that to be so, I believe that you claim that for Witnessing purposes
2. even if it is true, it is fairly obvious that you NEVER understood evolution and you continue not to, for your reliance on frauds' and charlatan's writings containing blatantly incorrect and quite ridiculous things about evolution are presented by you as unassailable truths.

I no longer do. That means I’ve been on both sides of the fence so it looks like, it really looks like, you are far more intractable than I am. You have only ever been on one side of the fence.

Your witnessing is irrelevant.  If you ever were an 'evolutionist', you clearly were not a very bright one if you actually accepted and still accept the strawman nonsense that the authors that you have alluded to here as your heroes have presented.

It is true that I was never a biblical literalist, but it is also true that I was once a 'believer'.  And I simply cannot see any way that a rational, intelligent, un-damaged individual can go from accepting evolution and an old earth to biblical fundamentalism.  It defies logic.  Which is why YEC geologist Steve Austin witnesses - I mean LIES - about his 'conversion' to this day.

The evolutionist’s problem is that he confuses real science with his philosophy that all things must have a naturalistic explanation.


Well then one should wonder why yo've yet to actually discuss 'real science' andinstead rely exclusively on anecdotes that you've read in some YEC book.

You declare that all things must conform to Scripture - why are your assumptions any better than anyone else's, especially in light of the fact that many of the things described in Scripture are clearly myths and tall tales and simply made up?

By doing that he effectively says that all apparent design in nature is an illusion. He can’t possibly know that, but he has decided that it just must be true. By doing that he ignores all evidence to the contrary


When do you plan to present the contrary evidence?

Do you really think that claiming radiometric datingi9s not 100% accurate really means that the earth is only 6000 years old?

Do you really think that because there are no fish-to-amphibian transitionals with legs on one side and fins on the other than evolution must not be true?
Do you really believe that tested methodologies showing how DNA sequence data can produce accurate reconstruction of phylogenies are to be dismissed simplhy because the results go against Scripture?


and ends up with a Dunning Kruger problem and is utterly incapable of seeing it.  


Please do not try to co-opt phenomena that you do not quite understand in the first place.

AGAIN...

It is not the evolutionist with a background in, say, math that claims expertise in genetics and refuses to acknowledge error when a geneticist points it out to them
It is not the evolutionist with a background in, say, engineering that claims expertise in paleontology and claims victory even when a paleontologist corrects their erroneous claims.  
It is not the evolutionist with a declared doctorate in science that declares that museum displays depicting seal evolution are in conflict, therefore evolution is wrong, when the truth is that the person claiming that the displays are in conflict do not understand that both are correct, they just had different starting points.
It is not the evolutionist who declares that genetics disproves creation and then when challenged, can only complain about fossils and then declares victory in the end.

Is it?


One will notice that you took the time to offer this silly defense of your gaffe, yet continue to ignore substantive, SCIENTIFIC posts despite being reminded of them repeatedly.

One will also note that you write that we ignore 'real science' yet continue never to actualy produce any, unless you think bible-based assertions are this 'real science'....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:04 AM on January 29, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but I think you meant mnemotic.
More likely Mnemonic


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 11:15 AM on January 29, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JimIrvine at 11:15 AM on January 29, 2010 :
but I think you meant mnemotic.
More likely Mnemonic



That, too...  



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:38 PM on January 29, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JimIrvine What I had in my mind as a memory aid was only to help remember what the Dunning Kruger story was.
I believe that you are lying Lester. You've been caught out and you are lying to try to weasel your way out of it.


Well then your belief is incorrect, JimIrvine.

I bet that you would flip to scientology or YSMism if someone came along with enogh charisma to dazzle you. You are a shhep, blindly following whatever faith your handlers guide towards.


I think the same of you JimIrvine. Only in your case you’re following the politically correct, popular ideology whereas I am swimming against the current –it takes more effort than to just follow the popular party line -so who's the sheep? (or shhep whatever).

The evolutionist’s problem is that he confuses real science with his philosophy that all things must have a naturalistic explanation.
Shows that you have no understanding of what science is


In truth you don’t understand science JimIrvine otherwise you would know the difference between experimental science and origins science and you would understand what philosophical naturalism was and you would begin to understand that what you believe is an ideology and not science at all.

He can’t possibly know that, but he has decided that it just must be true. By doing that he ignores all evidence to the contrary
You regularly use the word evidence, but you never actually present any. Why?


All over this site I mention specific pieces of evidence in support of my view. So do all you avid evolutionists - but for the most part we have the same evidence and different interpretations of that evidence. So if I have no evidence, neither do you and that is the quandary you’re in. I think this accusation is growing old and worn and makes evolutionists look stupid, so please….




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:33 AM on January 30, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:33 AM on January 30, 2010 :

All over this site I mention specific pieces of evidence in support of my view. So do all you avid evolutionists - but for the most part we have the same evidence and different interpretations of that evidence. So if I have no evidence, neither do you and that is the quandary you’re in. I think this accusation is growing old and worn and makes evolutionists look stupid, so please….


Wrong, you mention vague recollections and anecdotes.  Links to purported  evidence is severely lacking.  Show us a family in India that you described as having a black to white range of children, or quit whining.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:33 AM on January 30, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood Well, I'm sure you have air in your head (which is what pneumo- means... hilarious), but I think you meant mnemotic.


Pneumo –just signifies air Derwood. It would have to be something like pneumocephalic to be air in the head – but anyway my apologies for my erroneous spelling. Since you are the master of mis-spelling, I would think you’d stay away from those sorts of shallow and pointless remarks.

I know that you are desperately trying to save face here, and in your favor, I cannot locate the original post in which you dismissed their study by claiming they were just darwinists trying to dismiss contrary views.  But this does not mean that you never said it (I will find it one day), and this whole 'in your head' thing is just a bluff as best I can tell.


Please find it Derwood. And then you can apologize.

No, Derwood, wrong again. The image in my head was of two Darwinists with overinflated sense of self evaluation. I never said anything about Dunning and Kruger actually being Darwinists,
Actually, you did, but it was some time ago.  


Yes and surprise, surprise, you can’t find it. I’m still waiting for my apology.

I have, that is why I do NOT pontificate on matters that I know that I lack expertise in.  It is not ME who will write about geology and tell geologists that they are wrong.  it is not ME that will write about genetics and tell geneticists that they are wrong.  It is not ME that will write about anatomy and tell anatomists that they are wrong.


So… what are you trying to say Derwood? If I’m not a geneticist, I am not allowed to open my mouth about genetics? Garbage. I have my experts and I’m telling you what they say. They are geneticists.

For everything you have to say about evolution, there are extremely well qualified experts that do not agree with you. Those are the people I quote so you can take your elitist ‘nobody dare disagree’ attitude out of the forum. Why don’t you just carry on brain washing your students with your ‘uncontroversial religion’ instead of wasting your time bothering to try and muzzle me with your manipulative comments.

That is people like YOU.


And you… showing that there is a controversy and we don’t agree.

You see I’m the one that used to believe that evolution just had to be true.
1. I simply do not believe that to be so, I believe that you claim that for Witnessing purposes


Neither do you believe that I have a doctorate so you’re wrong again (and convinced that you’re right nonetheless).

2. even if it is true, it is fairly obvious that you NEVER understood evolution and you continue not to, for your reliance on frauds' and charlatan's writings containing blatantly incorrect and quite ridiculous things about evolution are presented by you as unassailable truths.


I do understand evolution Derwood but the problem is that you don’t understand the philosophical underpinnings of what you believe to be science. I’ve tried to explain the problem to you but it seems you don’t want to understand. As for the frauds and charlatans –that includes, in your opinion, anyone who disagrees with you. Look how quickly Carl Werner became one of those hated frauds and charlatans –why? Because he doesn’t support your belief system and that offends you.

If you ever were an 'evolutionist', you clearly were not a very bright one if you actually accepted and still accept the strawman nonsense that the authors that you have alluded to here as your heroes have presented.


Wrong Derwood, I’ve throw out evolution’s strawmen. You still cling to them.

It is true that I was never a biblical literalist, but it is also true that I was once a 'believer'.  And I simply cannot see any way that a rational, intelligent, un-damaged individual can go from accepting evolution and an old earth to biblical fundamentalism.


It’s easy Derwood, you look at the evidence from the perspectives of both sides and then creation becomes the only rational intelligent choice. I’m sad for you that you dumped the truth for the myths.

Well then one should wonder why you’ve yet to actually discuss 'real science' andinstead rely exclusively on anecdotes that you've read in some YEC book.


This garbage is not understandable Derwood –your random declarations seem to be repetitions in your file of ‘accusations to be made repeatedly to creationists’ when feeling overwhelmed by facts that contradict your position.

You declare that all things must conform to Scripture - why are your assumptions any better than anyone else's, especially in light of the fact that many of the things described in Scripture are clearly myths and tall tales and simply made up?


I declare that scripture is true, literally. You declare naturalistic assumptions on origins to be true even though they are untestable.

We both have our evidence that exists in the present. I trust a book that has archaeological and historical backup. You trust men that start with a naturalistic philosophical assumption and then press on to make up their own myths and legends that have absolutely no archeological nor historical support. So who is better off here? Nobody comes to this debate unburdened with presuppositions.
You deceive yourself if you think you do.

When do you plan to present the contrary evidence?


I have loads of evidence Derwood and as I’ve said to Jim Irvine, so do we all. Anything I’ve ever mentioned, you deny and counter argue. That doesn’t mean my evidence doesn’t exist, it simply means that you don’t agree with my interpretation of the evidence. I could hollowly announce that you don’t have any evidence either but that would be pointless because I know the difference between evidence and its interpretation and you obviously have never considered the difference between evidence and its interpretation.
Take that out of your little book of idiotic charges now, it makes you look silly.

Do you really believe that tested methodologies showing how DNA sequence data can produce accurate reconstruction of phylogenies are to be dismissed simplhy because the results go against Scripture?


How do they produce accurate reconstructions of phylogeny when they frequently contradict themselves when two different molecules from the same organism are compared; and then go on to produce trees at odds with morphological trees as well? You also have the problem of deciding what similiarites represent since it could just as easily infer a common designer with a common recipe.You refuse to see the contradiction. It’s not that it’s not clearly visible.

There’s a great example of evidence that can be interpreted in two different ways so just because you don’t agree with my interpretation, it would be silly to say I have no evidence. Molecular phylogenies are part of my evidence.

One will notice that you took the time to offer this silly defense of your gaffe, yet continue to ignore substantive, SCIENTIFIC posts despite being reminded of them repeatedly.

One will also note that you write that we ignore 'real science' yet continue never to actualy produce any, unless you think bible-based assertions are this 'real science'....


You sound like a parrot Derwood. I wish you’d learn something new.    




 






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:43 PM on January 30, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see no evidence of a family in India.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:17 PM on January 30, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
I see no evidence of a family in India.


Well keep on searching then. It's not that hard really -you must surely know that black and white people can marry and then have different colored children. Those children do the same and you don't know what you're going to get. So as far as I'm concerned, you don't need to find a specific family in India to use logical thinking skills -nor do I need to connect you to India or Pakistan.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:54 AM on January 31, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:54 AM on January 31, 2010 :
Apoapsis
I see no evidence of a family in India.


Well keep on searching then. It's not that hard really -you must surely know that black and white people can marry and then have different colored children. Those children do the same and you don't know what you're going to get. So as far as I'm concerned, you don't need to find a specific family in India to use logical thinking skills -nor do I need to connect you to India or Pakistan.


I do know a couple of families with a black father and white mother.  Their children are a quite uniform average of the two.

The bankruptcy of your position is showing, where is the brown skinned pair with a wide range of children?

Quote from Lester10 at 02:50 AM on January 28, 2010 :
You only need two medium brown skinned people to produce the entire range of color available in the world population. If you go to India, some families consist of white skin to black skinned people across the whole range with the same set of parents.


You are making this up, there is no such family.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:56 AM on January 31, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:43 PM on January 30, 2010 :
Derwood Well, I'm sure you have air in your head (which is what pneumo- means... hilarious), but I think you meant mnemotic.


Pneumo –just signifies air Derwood.  It would have to be something like pneumocephalic to be air in the head – but anyway my apologies for my erroneous spelling.

Yes, I know what pneumo- means, which is why I made a joke at your expense.  However, YOU mentioned that you pictured something 'in your head', did you not.  I forgot, I suppose, the the creationist mind has a hard time linking concepts that they are not explicitly told by an authority figure of their choosing that the things are linked.

Since you are the master of mis-spelling, I would think you’d stay away from those sorts of shallow and pointless remarks.


I invite you to present some examples of a 'mi-spelling' of mine that is NOT a typo. A typo is not  a mis-spelling.  But you can't tell the difference.

I know that you are desperately trying to save face here, and in your favor, I cannot locate the original post in which you dismissed their study by claiming they were just darwinists trying to dismiss contrary views.  But this does not mean that you never said it (I will find it one day), and this whole 'in your head' thing is just a bluff as best I can tell.


Please find it Derwood. And then you can apologize.


When I find it, I will not need to apologize.  And considering your track record on having made claims that you later deny or ignore, you might want to be careful - all that sort of thing does not sit well with your foreskin-loving overlord.


No, Derwood, wrong again. The image in my head was of two Darwinists with overinflated sense of self evaluation. I never said anything about Dunning and Kruger actually being Darwinists,
Actually, you did, but it was some time ago.  


Yes and surprise, surprise, you can’t find it. I’m still waiting for my apology.

Why is it a surprise?  The search functions are unwieldly, but I did find this from me in December:

"Of course, we can now all see that you can google for information on Gitt, but decided not to even follow links provided re: Dunning-Kruger and you instead did what you always do - made uninformed, unwarranted leaps premised on your biased assumptions."

So it seems that at least as far back as December, you were making claims about them...  Still looking...

And from Wisp on December 1:

"Now you will pretend that you knew what you were talking about when you accused Dunning and Kruger of being evolutionist storytellers."

Because I can't remember exactly how you phrased it, I cannot find it with a simple search.  But when I do, I have a feeling you will feel the need to omit it from any replies...

I have, that is why I do NOT pontificate on matters that I know that I lack expertise in.  It is not ME who will write about geology and tell geologists that they are wrong.  it is not ME that will write about genetics and tell geneticists that they are wrong.  It is not ME that will write about anatomy and tell anatomists that they are wrong.


So… what are you trying to say Derwood?


I am trying to say that you should take a look at your own posts.



If I’m not a geneticist, I am not allowed to open my mouth about genetics? Garbage.

You can open your mouth on the topic but do not be surprised if someone corrects you, and do not hide behind your supposed 'experts' or accuse those correcting you of being 'elitist' and the like.


I have my experts and I’m telling you what they say. They are geneticists.

And how is it that YOU can tell whether or not what they say IS CORRECT?  What happens when someone shows you that your 'experts' ignored evidence, or misrepresented something?  Do you still take them at face value?  

Meyer is not a geneticist.  He IS, however, what I would consider a documented liar and charlatan - but I'll bet you still think his crap book is 100% true.

I'll bet you still think that Carl Werner is an 'expert' even though I showed how he employs moronic caricatures of evolution that a high schooler shoul dbe able to disavow.


For everything you have to say about evolution, there are extremely well qualified experts that do not agree with you.

Sure, they disagree.

But WHY?

Is there something with the evidence?  Or do they just disagree because of their religious predispositions?

Or are they talking well outside of their field of expertise and arguing via false authority (like Meyer and Werner)?

And aren't YOU supposed to have a doctorate of some sort with a science background?  Wjy on earth does someone with a doctorate have to rely so extensively on a handful of book-writing 'experts'?



Those are the people I quote so you can take your elitist ‘nobody dare disagree’ attitude out of the forum.


And your elitist 'nobody better disagree with MY 'experts', or I will call them elitist!' attitude?

What about your 'nobody better disagree with MY 'experts', because they KNOW THE TROOOOTH!' attitude?

Had you ever considered that your 'experts' opinions are not supported by evidence?



Why don’t you just carry on brain washing your students with your ‘uncontroversial religion’ instead of wasting your time bothering to try and muzzle me with your manipulative comments.


Your projection is noted.

How am I tryijng to muxxle you - I am, if anything, trying to get you not to talk about things that you don't understand.  Isn't that HELPING you?  So that you don't make yourself look like  a fool so often?

But hey, don't listen to me - listen to Jerry Bergman, Yec PhD:

The Problem of Expertise

A key to success is knowing what one can speak authoritatively about and knowing where one's limits of knowledge and expertise are. All of us have opinions which lie outside of our area of expertise. Most intelligent people are cognizant of this fact and therefore usually avoid pontificating on areas they know little about.


You see I’m the one that used to believe that evolution just had to be true.
1. I simply do not believe that to be so, I believe that you claim that for Witnessing purposes


Neither do you believe that I have a doctorate so you’re wrong again (and convinced that you’re right nonetheless).


Wow - how grade schoolish.

Well, I have caught you in a number of gaffes and simplistic errors that a person with a doctorate should not be making, you've what - caught me making typos now and then?


2. even if it is true, it is fairly obvious that you NEVER understood evolution and you continue not to, for your reliance on frauds' and charlatan's writings containing blatantly incorrect and quite ridiculous things about evolution are presented by you as unassailable truths.


I do understand evolution


No you do not. If you did, you would not demand to see things with half legs and half fins, you would not think that Werner's book is anything more than religioous propaganda filled with nonsense and elementary errors, etc.



Derwood but the problem is that you don’t understand the philosophical underpinnings of what you believe to be science.


Well please set me straight, Master.

You keep saying that we do not see ALL the evidence, and if we did, we would YECs.  

So why can you NEVER supply this evidence?

When I see someone make this 'philosophical underpinnings' argument, I knnow that they have nothing of merit to say.



I’ve tried to explain the problem to you but it seems you don’t want to understand.


You have?

When?

Oh, you mean when the whole 'same data, different interpretations' nonsense?

Sure, people with different presuppositions can interpret evidence differently, however, not all interpretations are valid or rational.

Looking at radiometric dating and understadning that it is not 100% accurate tells the 'naturalist' to use error bars and give ranges when discussing the use of such techniques, but it tells that YEC biblical literalist that the earth is really 6000 years old.

One of those 'interpretations' is rational, the other is shit.


As for the frauds and charlatans –that includes, in your opinion, anyone who disagrees with you.


No, it includes people who make documentably idiotic claims why proclaiming their authenticity due to their supposed expertise.


Look how quickly Carl Werner became one of those hated frauds and charlatans –why? Because he doesn’t support your belief system and that offends you.


No, I actually documented why I concluded what I did - you, being an elitist and all, just inore all that.  Remember - Werner, who 'studied' evolution for 30 years and went to a lot of museums, nonetheless claimed via loaded question that if jawed fish evolved from jawless fish, why are they still jawless fish?  Remember that?

YOU claim to understand evolution, yet you see no problem with that?


If you ever were an 'evolutionist', you clearly were not a very bright one if you actually accepted and still accept the strawman nonsense that the authors that you have alluded to here as your heroes have presented.


Wrong Derwood, I’ve throw out evolution’s strawmen. You still cling to them.


Such as?


It is true that I was never a biblical literalist, but it is also true that I was once a 'believer'.  And I simply cannot see any way that a rational, intelligent, un-damaged individual can go from accepting evolution and an old earth to biblical fundamentalism.


It’s easy Derwood, you look at the evidence from the perspectives of both sides and then creation becomes the only rational intelligent choice.


So you keep saying.  So you keep refusing to present.  
And considering the things your've written and the 'experts' you cling to and idolize, it is pretty clear that, in fact, you never did and still do not have a very good understanding of evolution.

Sorry.

I’m sad for you that you dumped the truth for the myths.

LOL!

Amazing how these people project so.

Well then one should wonder why you’ve yet to actually discuss 'real science' andinstead rely exclusively on anecdotes that you've read in some YEC book.


This garbage is not understandable Derwood –your random declarations seem to be repetitions in your file of ‘accusations to be made repeatedly to creationists’ when feeling overwhelmed by facts that contradict your position.



One will note what is conspicuously absent...

WHERE'S THE BEEF??

Enough with the vague allusions and empty proclamations - show us the damn 'evidence' you keep talking about!


You declare that all things must conform to Scripture - why are your assumptions any better than anyone else's, especially in light of the fact that many of the things described in Scripture are clearly myths and tall tales and simply made up?


I declare that scripture is true, literally. You declare naturalistic assumptions on origins to be true even though they are untestable.


Any EVIDENCE for that declaration?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:54 AM on January 31, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Rofl, you guys are quite sad... It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

You guys seem to barely comprehend half of what Lester says, and when you do, you just call him a liar (simply because YOU can't agree with him).  To be honest, you are some of the most biased people I have ever seen, and rest assured, it makes your point of views seem very insignificant indeed.

I find it hilarious you guys have pushed this so far after I left. ;)


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 2:09 PM on February 1, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. ;)


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:11 PM on February 1, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 8:09 PM on February 1, 2010 :
Rofl, you guys are quite sad... It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

You guys seem to barely comprehend half of what Lester says, and when you do, you just call him a liar (simply because YOU can't agree with him).  To be honest, you are some of the most biased people I have ever seen, and rest assured, it makes your point of views seem very insignificant indeed.

I find it hilarious you guys have pushed this so far after I left. ;)


This coming from the muppet that believes in Dragons. Is that all you signed back in to say? You have nothing substantive to say so you run in, throw out an insult and run away? No doubt thinking "I showed them pesky evo infidels mwahahahahaha".
Away and crawl back under your rock unless you plan on staying and actually adding to a discussion something more than the utter drivel that les spouts.



-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 2:18 PM on February 1, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
I know that you are desperately trying to save face here, and in your favor, I cannot locate the original post in which you dismissed their study by claiming they were just darwinists trying to dismiss contrary views.  But this does not mean that you never said it (I will find it one day), and this whole 'in your head' thing is just a bluff as best I can tell.
Derwood, you quoted Lester directly from my post, where i took good care linking to his original post.

Here it is:

http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=46248&page=4

He's just lying now.

When you want to find something specific google this:

"whatever you want to find" site:www.youdebate.com

That's how i do it.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:18 PM on February 1, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 2:09 PM on February 1, 2010 :


You guys seem to barely comprehend half of what Lester says


Cool, so, give an example.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:34 PM on February 1, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:43 PM on January 30, 2010 :
When do you plan to present the contrary evidence?


I have loads of evidence Derwood and as I’ve said to Jim Irvine, so do we all.


So present it.


Anything I’ve ever mentioned, you deny and counter argue. That doesn’t mean my evidence doesn’t exist, it simply means that you don’t agree with my interpretation of the evidence.

I've never seen you present any actual evidence.  I've seen you toss out easily refuted and repeatedly refuted YEC soundbites, but I've never seen you opresent any actual evidence.


I could hollowly announce that you don’t have any evidence either but that would be pointless because I know the difference between evidence and its interpretation

And yet you DO frequently claim that we have no evidence!

In fact, YOU declared that two YECs with legitimate PhDs were saying "ridiculous" things because they had the guts to admit that there IS evidence for evolution.

Why would their opinion that there IS evidence for evolution be "ridiculous" if YOU did not think that there is no such evidence?


and you obviously have never considered the difference between evidence and its interpretation.

Actually, I have and am well aware of such excuses.  I have written on this very forum more than once that I am aware fo this, and also that it is true that not all interpretatins are equally valid or rational.

My simplest example is radiometric dating. The 'evolutionist' looks at radiometric dating twechniques and realizes that they (in fact, NO method) are not fool-proof or 100% accurate, so ranges of dates are provided along with required corrections and such, while the YEC looks at the same informaitn, and upon realizing that such dates are not 100% accurate, then declare that ALL radiometric dating is worthless and there that YECism is correct.

One of those interpretations is valid and reasonable, the other is not.

Take that out of your little book of idiotic charges now, it makes you look silly.


I am waiting for you to present this evidence you claim to have - you see, it iis not the interpretations that you were ranting about, you declared that we did not have ALL the evidence.  Remember?

So, what is the EVIDENCE that we do not have and whose only viable interpretation is to support the biblical account of a 6000 year old earth made in 6 24-hour days?

Put up or shut up.

Do you really believe that tested methodologies showing how DNA sequence data can produce accurate reconstruction of phylogenies are to be dismissed simplhy because the results go against Scripture?


How do they produce accurate reconstructions of phylogeny when they frequently contradict themselves when two different molecules from the same organism are compared;


To what extent are the tree different, and is there a valid scientific reason why they might be different?


and then go on to produce trees at odds with morphological trees as well?


Again, HOW at odds?

As this is specifcally my area of graduate research, put forth your best example - but please, no quotes and no 'expert' worship.  If you think what you have is evidence that all phylogenetic reconstructions should be tossed out, it will have to be pretty good stuff.

I do wonder then how you can reconcile the fact that many different dates of creation ahve beern gleaned using the same source - Scripture?  Must be Scripture is crap...

You also have the problem of deciding what similiarites represent since it could just as easily infer a common designer with a common recipe.


I love it when creationists who claim knowledge iof this area write things like this.

It shows that, in fact, they understand very little.

While mere similarities could very well be interpreted as you indicate (at least superficially), it, unfortunately, is NOT mere similarities that are used in these reconstructions - as I have presented here and explained to you more than once (which gives some insight as to your learning abilities).


It is, for about the 19th time, the PATTERNS of shared, unique mutations that indicate common descent.  Just like the shared mutations that are used in paternity testing and geneology building.  Just like the data used to test the methods employed:

Science. 1991 Oct 25;254(5031):554-8.

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice.
Atchley WR, Fitch WM.


Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.


Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux


Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

***
Give us the YEC 'interpretation' of these methodological tests and explain why they cannot be used ot infer phylogenies at larger scales.

Be sciencey.


There’s a great example of evidence that can be interpreted in two different ways so just because you don’t agree with my interpretation, it would be silly to say I have no evidence. Molecular phylogenies are part of my evidence.


Wow...

No, not at all.

If your 'evidence' supportive of the truth of YECism is merely that sometimes analyses of evidence is not 100% congruent, then you are not presenting any evidence at all.

If we are to use that logic, I can point out contradictions in the interpretations of Scripture ot declare it false - we cna start by pointing out that there is a big chunk of believes called OLD Earth creationists that do not interpret the bible to indicate a 6,000 year old universe.

That others do is, by your logic, EVIDENCE that scripture is wrong.

But I am sure you won't see it that way.


In the end, if this "evidence" you were referring to - the 'evidence' that we apparently have not seen - is of the 'all molecular analyses do not produce 100% lock-step accuracy, therefoere evolution is wrong and a 6000 year old universe and biblical creation is right', then you have really got absolutely nothing.

One will notice that you took the time to offer this silly defense of your gaffe, yet continue to ignore substantive, SCIENTIFIC posts despite being reminded of them repeatedly.

One will also note that you write that we ignore 'real science' yet continue never to actualy produce any, unless you think bible-based assertions are this 'real science'....


You sound like a parrot Derwood. I wish you’d learn something new.    


You sound like someone with an inability to recognize their own double standards and shortcomings.


(Edited by derwood 2/1/2010 at 3:12 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:09 PM on February 1, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.