Debate still rages over Darwin

Again I'll ask my question. I don't want creationist's / ID'ers to post copy and pastes from articles referring to evolution. I'm asking for data (observational and experimentaional) concerning the validity of creation/ID. I already know none exists but I'm giving those who believe this an opportunity to prove me wrong.

Sheesh.

reply to post by Fundie


wow fundie .. well done ..yet another speech by a member of the dishonesty institute ... well an offshoot of it

so biological chemistry shows how genes just teleport around and jump across family didvides with no relevant history in the taxonomic/claddistic inheretance model ....

finding somthing like that and giving examples would certainly win you a nobel prize ...does he have one? no .... does he have any examples? ... no .... ermmm has he published his scientific data expressing these miraculous findings? .... no

is this any more honest or infact have any more purpose then any other of thier lets be vague and make unsubtanciated claims about everything but keep it so vague no one can actually point out what specific part of it is conclusivley wrong

at least Behe had the balls to give IC a decent deffintion and only after it was firmly pumelled did he slide its deffintion off the the vague end and allow it to sink into darkness where realities bright light will struggle to shine on it

it reads like one of Aerm's posts lots of words no meanings and no examples of evidence just generic fruit flys and ceolacanths vagueries and avoidance of accurate researchable facts


the ISCD is i agree facinating... in the same way asking a child if they did somthing naughty that you know full well they did and watching the behaviour of them a they repeatedly lie and say "no daddy wasnt me i was over there and it fell over all by its self, or maybe mommy did it it but i never touched it'

and funny because once again its not even trying to be evidence of ID it just doing the usual evolution .. a lies ... i tell ya yeah it is i dunt like it, its a lie becasue i have thi book at home wot does tell me so.... umm so that means god dun it and he loves me im his chosen one ... and lying int a sin casue im lying for jesus ... and he loves me so its ok to do it



you might need more then the snack and cup of fresh coffee i suggested Grif



[edit on 26/2/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


Thank you Noob. You have proven what an ignorant blinded person you are. If Did you even read it? Are you even aware of who the writer is?

If you had bothered to spend as much time objectively reading and researching, then you would have answered all your deriding statements.

It is obvious you are nothing more than a wannabe google searching psuedo-scientist. You have no more knowledge on the scientific process and all the taxonomy and genetics/bio/organic chemistry than even a first years under-grad student.

Unfortunately you will keep your head in the sand as a subjective fool usually does. Congratulations, you have just spurned true scientists work without as much as a by your leave.... what papers have you published? what doctorate and professorship have you attained? What Nobel peace prize have you gained?

You obviously know far better that those professors and doctors.

Your signature actually exemplifies your lack of wisdom and intellectual honesty.

I'm sorry Fundie but noob is right about the point. I read the "report" and it does nothing to solidify the ID theory. All nastiness aside it doesn't support the ID case one bit. All you need to do is provide solid research evidence...not pick and choose from evolutionary ideas. Seriously...how can you be credible when you quote work that you yourself claim is not true?

Let me edit my last sentence...I don't mean to imply "you" Fundie. I mean how can creationists claim any kind of credibility when they constantly quote, copy and paste from research done by experts in the theory of evolution?

You never see me quoting any kind of inconsistencies in the bible because I don't consider that a valid source of information. And I came to my beliefs about the world from being raised in a fundamentalist Pentecostal household. I'm extremely well versed in the scriptures....but that has nothing do do with providing proof of ID or creation. I want ID studies with data I can compare...not silly "reports" based on personal opinions.



[edit on 26-2-2009 by griffinrl]

reply to post by griffinrl


Err exactly where did I say it is a report to foster ID???

All my posts have been to question the reliability and validity of the science behind Darwinian Theory.

Can you please show me where I stated Im for ID, or the link I provided was for ID?

Again all my posts bring in to question the supposed solid science based foundation Darwinian theory... the links i posted are no different. To shoot the message and messenger down because it doesn't conform to an unsubstantiated claim that doesn't conform to your expectations in not right

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Fundie]

reply to post by Fundie


Then I apologize for assuming. I figure that your username may be an expression of your beliefs. If I'm wrong then I stand corrected. But as far as saying there is no solid basis for evolution is simply wrong. The evidence is quite overwhelming.

I have a large fossil collection. I always give my friends whose beliefs are religous based an opportunity to examine them. Touch them. Weigh them. Heck you can taste them if you like. And they will always deny what they have and hold in their own hands as factual. To me that borders on delusion. Just because an individual refuses to accept what is believed as fact doesn't make it a myth.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by griffinrl]

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by Fundie

 

....But as far as saying there is no solid basis for evolution is simply wrong. The evidence is quite overwhelming.

t is always a warning indicator when a scientific theory plays a greater role outside its field of application than within it. … Darwinian evolutionism functions to such an extent as the overarching worldview of modernity that even its subjection to scientific analysis is treated with deep misgivings. Everyone is more comfortable if its examination is reduced to the stylized opposition between evolution and creationism. That way, no one has to pay serious attention to the minor consideration that neither of them can be taken seriously as scientific theories. They cannot be disproved because the theories are designed to accommodate all contrary or missing evidence against them.… Even today it is virtually impossible for conscientious biologists to admit that the evidence for evolution is extraordinarily thin. We simply have little tangible proof that one species evolves into another.… the anti-theological significance of evolutionism as a worldview continues to outweigh its scientific value. By calling into question the Darwinian universe, we would at the same time be restoring the openness to the transcendent creator. It is in other words the fear of God that prevents the biological community from too openly discarding a theory they have long ceased to honor in practice.

Impact of Forty years of Chemistry on the evolutionary theory

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Fundie]

reply to post by Fundie


What is the source of this quote Fundie? Also I'm a believer in evolution itself. Not a particular branch such as Darwinian. It's the process that I believe is true. Not how one particular individual defines it.

Again this one statement doesn't make the theory of evolution null and void at all. This is only a statement that this organization made. Simple as that.

My belief that there is no "divine creator" is based on the extremely poor job of said creation. An all powerful creator would have done a much better job. We would be perfect and that's obviously not the case.

And again there is OVERWHELMING evidence supporting evolution as opposed to absolutely ZERO evidence supporting ID/creationism. I don't really think that's an arguable point.

Also I think that my posts are not being understood. I want proof/studies concerning ID/creationism to compare against the data that evolutionary studies and tests have provided. A VERY SIMPLE request.




[edit on 26-2-2009 by griffinrl]

Originally posted by Fundie

Thank you Noob. You have proven what an ignorant blinded person you are.

thanks ... with a great start like this think ill pull out my logical fallacy bingo card and see if i win

If Did you even read it?

yes and i understood it too

Are you even aware of who the writer is?

yes and i dont care, thats logical fallacy number 2 for you

wow we just all accept what he says without asking any question ... yeah right just like proffessor BGehe and DOCTOR hovind

guess what what he is saying doesnt pan out, the research doesnt agree, the data sets dont agree

if the data doesnt match what he is saying then what he is saying is wrong

should we believe everything Einstein says just becasue it was Einstein? in which case we should all imediatley become pantheists and ignore quantum theory as Einstein said that was wroing and imposible and the data went completely againt his words too

If you had bothered to spend as much time objectively reading and researching, then you would have answered all your deriding statements.

well as you obviously have then can you how me ecamples of genes that have jumped across family or order divides with no taxonomic and claddistic relations?

can you show me how they just seem to appear as if time traveling back along the family line as claimed?

extraordinary claims require extraordianry evidence .... neither you nor he presented any and he still hasnt

skip the dull nonsense

Congratulations, you have just spurned true scientists work without as much as a by your leave.... what papers have you published? what doctorate and professorship have you attained? What Nobel peace prize have you gained?

a nobel peace prize??

wouldnt the nobel prize for physics chemistry or physiology be a better suited award for efforts in science?

i suppose you could gain a nobel literature prize for a perticulalrily well written paper

SO to recap your entire post is a combinations of ad-homs and a reverse argument from authority to me

and then making an argument from authority for what Hurst said


un;less he is talking ONLY and i do mean ONLY about bacteria and protista then what he is saying is entirley wrong, if what he is saying is based purley and ONLY about protita and bacteria then he is correct and the lack of context given to the talk gives the impression that it reates to all species and forms of life

and horizontal genetic drift in protista and bacteria dont break evolution either,

so which is it? is he misrepresenting data sets to mean somthing they clearly dont? or is the dishonesty institues red headed step child framming it as somthing it isnt?

Horizontal gene transfer—the exchange of genes across mating barriers—is recognized as a major force in bacterial evolution1, 2. However, in eukaryotes it is prevalent only in certain phagotrophic protists and limited largely to the ancient acquisition of bacterial genes3, 4, 5. Although the human genome was initially reported6 to contain over 100 genes acquired during vertebrate evolution from bacteria, this claim was immediately and repeatedly rebutted7, 8. Moreover, horizontal transfer is unknown within the evolution of animals, plants and fungi

www.nature.com...

no teleporting genes that time travel as well, when it happens it happens for a reason a well known well documented reason that upports evolution and ONLY in some single celled protista and bacteria

wow how is it a driving mechanism of evolution in action ome how invalidates evolution?

reply to post by griffinrl


Did you read the full article?

Question then... how much evidence is needed to put a theory in question?

Scientists state categorically that evidence for evolutionary theory is extraordinarily thin. I present to you evidence of those statements by reputable and valid source. Yet you still stick to overwhelming evidence. Theres nothing else I can say.

What I will re-iterate the above quote is saying; BOTH evolutionary and ID
"can (not) be taken seriously as scientific theories. They cannot be disproved because the theories are designed to accommodate all contrary or missing evidence against them...'

reply to post by Fundie


I'm sorry Fundie but I don't take one statement from this group as absolute. That logic doesn't float and I know you can understand that point. If that logic was followed nobody would ever look for a second opinion. Refer to the statements above by noob concerning Einstein for example.

And honestly you can't group evolution and ID as even being close to the same category. I think you're much more intelligent than that. If there was some sort of "divine creator" then he/she moved on to something else after this dismal failure



[edit on 26-2-2009 by griffinrl]

Originally posted by Fundie

or the link I provided was for ID?

the WHOLE website is a pro ID spin of the dishonesty institute

'retraining the scientific imagination to see purpose in nature' not much of give away

lets browse a number of the articles

ID, Special Creation, Setterfield cosmology possibly confirmed

Peter Borger: Shared mutations: Common descent or common mechanism? - thi looks interesting common descent or god dun it the ID way ..

How has Darwinism persisted?

Peter Borger: Genetic Redundancy: The Ultimate Evidence of the Design of Life

The Characterization of Intelligent Causation

Reducing Entropy Production Distinguishes Intelligent Design

ok im bored of copying every second link ... hey look Demski runs it and wow Behe is yet again a fellow of it ...

And just for the record I'm neither an apologist for noob nor his enemy as I'm not an enemy of those who believe in ID/creation. But noob does a good job of pointing out the fact the "report" is biased towards ID. I'm always ready for correction and I don't let my emotions dictate my responses on this forum.

But one point I can honestly put forward due to personal and intimate experience is the fact that due to being raised in a fundamentalist household it definately opened my eyes to ignorance once I began to question the "facts" that I was spoonfed. If I had not taken a second look at these so called absolutes I would still be wallowing in ignorance.

reply to post by noobfun


Go here and debate Professor John A. Davison. With your obvious immense scientific knowledge, credentials and experience, you will undoubtedly win!

What you have done Noob is make massive leaps of inference of how and what the articles will be about due to its title... weird, such an obviously intelligent person as you noob wouldn't jump to 'judge the book by the cover' routine.

Your example clearly proves that if it doesnt fit (or even have a name that fits) with your huge intellectual understanding, then its automatically debunked. Well done, science with rose-coloured glasses in action exemplified.

reply to post by griffinrl


errr... the report is NOT biased in one iota to ID! ... did you even read it? it seems you are so easily influence by what noob says.... thats at least the second time you have done that in a short amount of time!

Interesting. Noob must have multiple PhD's and professorships to constantly out trump other scientists and dare i say it common sense.

reply to post by Fundie


I love it so!

lol

Javison is the the archetypal emeritus.

Fundie, all you are offering so far is argument from authority. It might work in some arenas, but not science, dear.

griff, if you interested in Javison and his ramblings, he had a free reign to discuss his 'PEH' on Alan Fox's blog - it's a funny, but slightly disturbing, read. I'll let you draw your own conclusions, lol

alanfox.blogspot.com...

[edit on 26-2-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by Fundie


I read as much of it as I needed to Fundie. I'm also on Davidson's website and notice that he also picks and chooses his "facts" with quite a bit of "I believe..." stuck in there. And even though you deny that you're a creationist I don't think you're being exactly honest here. And when noob makes valid points you can damn well believe I'll agree just as I'd do with you if you provided the same.

It's not yours to pick and choose who or what I agree with and by trying to use that as a basis for your argument plainly speaks volumes.

reply to post by Fundie


Well, I bit on it....Prof. Davison's diatribe only stood out because of his last sentence: "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution is undemonstrable." (He sure likes the alliteration....)

The 'esteemed' Prof. seems to think that animals are going to evolve and new species appear magically in an 'observable' way within his adult lifetime. The evolutionary process requires a very long time.

And, as to Darwin....didn't his works focus mostly on natural selection? Something that shows how different offshoots of the same species can adapt depending on environmental pressure. THIS, we can observe.

I haven't yet seen anyone on this thread talk about mutations, and that process in evolution.

reply to post by weedwhacker


We can always write to Dr. Dino for more facts. Does anyone here have his prison address?

Originally posted by Fundie

What you have done Noob is make massive leaps of inference of how and what the articles will be about due to its title... weird, such an obviously intelligent person as you noob wouldn't jump to 'judge the book by the cover' routine.

no i think it may have more to do with the fact that the contant equivocation that horizontal gene transfer is against the evolutionary model

which it frankly isnt, even the sources cited state that quite emfatically

the sources he does give for it in eukayrotes clearly state that it is between related species, contruary to the talk


so if horizontal gene transferance only happens in related eukaryotes, and in bacteria and protita it is a common mechanism for thier evolution ..... any article stateing it happens in unrelated eukaryotes and it happening in bacteria and protista is againt the evolutionary model ... is wrong

1 and 1 = 3 is incorrect it doesnt matter who says it how they say it how loudly they say it

again as i said above, if the data doesnt match what your stating they say you are wrong ... simple as

Your example clearly proves that if it doesnt fit (or even have a name that fits) with your huge intellectual understanding, then its automatically debunked. Well done, science with rose-coloured glasses in action exemplified.

hahahah pull the other one it plays jingle bells and pretty lights flash

are you reffering to my lol'ing at your source and your it not pro ID?


let see all its articles are Pro ID pro designer discussions, the 2 main fellow on it are from the dishonesty institute .....

its not autromatically debunked becasue its on there or becasue they say it, if its wrong its wrong if its right its right

but when you pull anti-evo articles from a pro ID site and claim the source isnt pro ID .... ... that says more about you then it does about me ... sorry my glasses arnt rose tinted and i left my shades in my bottom desk draw its not the weather for them yet