Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Independent Evolution of Complex Designs in Molluscs: Why the Explanations are in Need of Explaining

To the modern student Aristotle’s physics and cosmology are likely to seem bizarre. His final causes, geocentrism, and sublunar and superlunar realms seem to have no correspondence with reality. But Aristotelianism makes more sense when one understands the historical context of ancient Greek thought. In fact Aristotle’s physics and cosmology describe and explain what we observe in nature. This is attested to by the fact that it was well accepted and influential for a millenium and a half. Eventually, however, as scientific understanding progressed, the Aristotelian explanations became increasingly strained. Aristotelianism became more of a tautology, as whatever was observed was described according to the ancient system. Fire, for example, had the quality of dryness and heat. But is this not simply a tautology? As Descartes put it: “If you find it strange that … I do not use the qualities called ‘heat,’ ‘cold,’ ‘moistness,’ and ‘dryness,’ as do the philosophers, I shall say to you that these qualities appear to me to be themselves in need of explanation.” Aristotelianism failed to explain the physical action causing the effects. Today Darwin’s theory of evolution follows a similar denouement. To modern scientists it seems strange, but Darwin had good reasons for his theories of common descent and evolution. In the final acts, however, evolution is more of a tautology. Like Aristotelianism, evolution is a superfluous explanatory device rather than a value added. The difference is that evolution is running its course over a couple of centuries, rather than a couple of millenia.

Mollusca: A case study

Molluscs are mostly slugs and snails, but they also include larger, more advanced creatures, including the giant squid whose over-sized nerve cells have helped make it possible to study the physics and electrical properties of neurons.

The squids, along with others such as the octopus and cuttlefish make up the brainy side of the phylum and one would think (at least an evolutionist would think) that their more sophisticated central nervous systems would fall into the usual common descent pattern.

New research, however, suggests otherwise. It is a plot line that has played out over and over. Evolutionists arrange the species according to common descent, but when we look under the hood the species don’t cooperate. Contradictory differences in the supposedly closely-related cousins, and contradictory similarities in the supposedly distantly-related neighbors, betray evolutionary expectations.

In this case we now must believe that these advanced central nervous systems evolved independently, not once, but several times. Here is how one report summarized the new findings:

The findings, which rely on advanced statistical analyses, fundamentally rearrange branches on the mollusc family tree. In the traditional tree, snails and slugs (gastropods) are most closely related to octopuses, squid, cuttlefish and nautiluses (cephalopods), which appears to make sense in terms of their nervous systems: both groups have highly centralised nervous systems compared with other molluscs and invertebrates. Snails and slugs have clusters of ganglia – bundles of nerve cells – which, in many species, are fused into a single organ; cephalopods have highly developed central nervous systems that enable them to navigate a maze, use tools, mimic other species, learn from each other and solve complex problems.

But in Kocot's new family tree, snails and slugs sit next to clams, oysters, mussels and scallops (bivalves), which have much simpler nervous systems. The new genetic tree also places cephalopods on one of the earliest branches, meaning they evolved before snails, slugs, clams or oysters.

All this means that gastropods and cephalopods are not as closely related as once thought, so they must have evolved their centralised nervous systems independently, at different times.

That's a remarkable evolutionary feat. "Traditionally, most neuroscientists and biologists think complex structures usually evolve only once," says Kocot's colleague Leonid Moroz of the University of Florida in Gainseville.

"We found that the evolution of the complex brain does not happen in a linear progression. Parallel evolution can achieve similar levels of complexity in different groups. I calculated it happened at least four times."

Once again evolutionary expectations are at odds with reality, and once again the uncooperative empirical data are force fit to the theory. As with Aristotelianism, evolution does not add scientific knowledge. It does not tell us what to look for, and where to look for it. Quite the opposite, it is consistently turning up wrong. And yet the theory simply morphs to encompass the new, uncooperative results. No matter what is found, evolution is assumed to have created it. As one evolution remarked, concerning these new results, “This is more evidence that you can get complexity emerging multiple times.”

If you find it strange that I do not use the explanations of evolution, I shall say to you that these explanations appear to me to be themselves in need of explanation.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

214 comments:

  1. This again? Science makes a new discovery - ToE, behaving like all scientific theories should and do, encompasses the new data - Cornelius touts this as a falsification!

    It is no such thing. Science - in every field - is always adjusting and refining itself based on the steady stream of new evidence pouring in. This is not new, nor is it problematic. It is exactly how science should be.

    By the way, why do you accept these new findings of Kevin Kocot et al. as correct? Kocot is acting on exactly the same assumptions of MN as all the other scientists. So why are you so confident HE has got it right if the theory they ALL use is flawed?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The same thing happened to the Ptolemaic system, as technology brought more and more of the universe into view. The numbers required by the geocentric model became unwieldy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The same thing happened to the Ptolemaic system"

    ***************

    You mean an ad hoc system requiring continuous divine maintenance was replaced by physical laws and mechanics?

    ReplyDelete
  4. CH: Once again evolutionary expectations are at odds with reality, and once again the uncooperative empirical data are force fit to the theory.

    How is this discovery "at odds" with the explanation that the knowledge of how to build each species, as found in the genome, was created by variation and natural selection? Please be specific.

    CH: If you find it strange that I do not use the explanations of evolution, I shall say to you that these explanations appear to me to be themselves in need of explanation.

    I find it disingenuous that you evaluating predictions and expectations of evolution independent from it's underlying explanation, which has already been provided.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So Cornelius, as a scientist you must know that science can only use the best available theory. That is the way it has always worked. It may not be true. Scientific theories, as opposed to evolution, can always be supplanted by a better theory. You constantly criticize evolution. However, until you offer a better theory you must acknowledge that evolution is the best choice for scientists to use, and teach. What do you have to offer that is better?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peter:

    "You constantly criticize evolution."
    ====

    Wrong, what he criticizes are Evolutionists themselves and the crackpot proofs they offer in support of the TOE. As time pants on to the end the discussions of the traditional proofs exhaust themselves of any rational, logical explanations and they are left with escaping off into worlds of parallel universes and unrealities which no doubt are influenced by some long dead eastern religious thought which has been resurrected and given new life with a few modern tweekings here and there. Scottonianisms even used by others here seem to be the drug flavour of late.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eocene,

    Again, It's unclear how we can have a reasonable discussion regarding what is or is not science without discussing subjects such as epistemology, various philosophies of science, whether it's even possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework, etc.

    Eocene: ...which no doubt are influenced by some long dead eastern religious thought which has been resurrected and given new life with a few modern tweekings here and there.

    The title of my blog, Veils of Maya, is a reference to a chapter from the book The Evolving Self, by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, with the same name. This chapter does not suggest that the external world is an illusion, but discusses several "Veils of maya" (illusion in Sanskrit) that can influence how we perceive the world. Specifically….

    - What kind of information do you trust the most
    - How we are influenced by our genome, such as who and what we find attractive in others, what energy we expend to eat, maintain social expectations, etc.
    - How we are influenced by culture, such as our families, city, country, etc.
    - How we are influenced by our reactions to situations, such as good fortune, challenges in our daily lives, what we value, the energy we expend to maintain a particular perception of ourselves, etc.

    To quote a book review by scott London…

    In The Evolving Self, Csikszentmihalyi looks beyond happiness to consider what we need to grow as individuals and as a society. His thesis is that "the good life" can only be achieved by becoming fully conscious. "To know ourselves is the greatest achievement of our species," he writes. "And to understand ourselves — what we are made of, what motives drive us, and what goals we dream of — involves, first of all, an understanding of our evolutionary past. Only on that foundation can we build a stable, meaningful future."

    Rather than spending all of energy on keeping things the same, we should be spending this same energy directing the process of change. You can't stop the river from flowing, but you can help direct it's path for the better. But, again, this requires creating the knowledge of how how the river flows, the best places to direct it, etc.

    In contrast, creationism ironically suggests that knowledge is not created. There is nothing fundamentally important which does not already exist in some holy book. All science can do is generalize observations to create theories. Things are the way they are because that's just the way the designer must have wanted it to be.

    While I would consider myself to be a secular Buddhist, I do not subscribe to aspects that are typically associated with religion, such as the claim that the Buddha was born of a lotus flower or reincarnation. Instead, I see it as a maturing science of the mind; in the same sense as we no longer have Christian physics or Muslim algebra.

    I'd also note that non-secular Buddhism is not a "long dead" religion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mister Scott:

    " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
    ====

    Translation:

    "You can't win, Darth..... If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine." -- Obi-Wan --

    ReplyDelete
  9. Eocene:

    " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "

    Translation:

    "LA LA LAAAA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! LA LA LAAAA!"

    ReplyDelete
  10. Eocene,

    You dismiss my arguments as illogical, irrational, crackpot claims that everything is Maya.

    I debunk this claim with the details behind my blog title (and precious nick at UD) which clearely suggest the opposite.

    In fact, that it's impossible to extrapolate observations without first putting then into some sort of explanatory framework has been known as early as 4th century BCE.

    And what is your response? You obliquely repeat this claim with a quote from Star Wars.

    Again, if my comments or arguments tread int "yellow submarine land", what ever that means, then you should have no problem pointing out exactly where and why.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here is another evaluation of this article from crev.info:

    Four miracles: Getting one central nervous system by an unguided process would seem unlikely enough, but now, without a twinge of shame, Ferris Jabr at New Scientist tells us it happened four times!

    Jabr relayed, without any cross examination, the new idea of an evolutionary biologist at Auburn University, summarizing it thus: “The new findings expand a growing body of evidence that in very different groups of animals – molluscs and mammals, for instance – central nervous systems evolved not once, but several times, in parallel.” (While at it, the evolutionist rearranged the mollusc family tree.)

    Because the new family tree shows that gastropods and cephalopods are not as related as once thought, it can only mean one thing:
    “they must have evolved their centralised nervous systems independently, at different times.”

    If this was a crackpot view from one university it might be forgiven, but a neurobiologist at Georgia State chimed in, “This is more evidence that you can get complexity emerging multiple times.”

    This is an example of making interpretations wearing Darwinian glasses. Or as the writer of this site likes to say, it is a good example of interpretations of scientists who are drunk on Darwine and can't think straight.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Venture Free Macgee:

    " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "

    Translation:

    "LA LA LAAAA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! LA LA LAAAA!"
    ====

    Kool, then it's not just me who doesn't speak and understand Ferengi!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. tjguy said...

    This is an example of making interpretations wearing Darwinian glasses. Or as the writer of this site likes to say, it is a good example of interpretations of scientists who are drunk on Darwine and can't think straight.


    Those "Darwinian glasses" are the end result of 150+ years of rigorous vetting, testing, refinement, and verification. That's how science progresses. It builds on the foundation of previously established work. Every new paper is not required to duplicate and re-verify all the knowledge that has been acquired before.

    If you have a better system for amassing scientific knowledge than the one we use now, please present it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Scott: Again, if my comments or arguments tread int "yellow submarine land", what ever that means, then you should have no problem pointing out exactly where and why.

    Eocene: Kool, then it's not just me who doesn't speak and understand Ferengi!!!

    As I expected, no such details were provided. Rather, yet another oblique quip that repeats your original claim.

    Since Cornelius has yet to respond, why don't you tell us how it's possible to extrapolate observations without first placing them in an explanatory framework?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Zachriel, Derrick, and others,

    So much for the objective nested hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. TIGuy: Four miracles: Getting one central nervous system by an unguided process would seem unlikely enough, but now, without a twinge of shame, Ferris Jabr at New Scientist tells us it happened four times!

    TIGuy,

    Again, the problem is probability arguments are inadequate to justify scientific conclusions. This is because they are based on induction.

    Even if they were, what known evolved or created biospheres do we have access to which we can compare our own? How do we know how probable it is that a nervous system would evolve multiple times? Again, how can you *justify* the claim that evolution didn't occur based on probability?

    As such, this merely appears to be more handwaving with the unwarranted expectation that predictions of evolutionary theory are prophecy and ignoring the underlying explanation in the first place.

    That's just what God must have wanted is a bad explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "As with Aristotelianism, evolution does not add scientific knowledge. It does not tell us what to look for, and where to look for it."
    *******
    That's odd. these folks knew what they were looking for. Now they have more stuff to look for.

    In the 200 years since Paley, what has ID inspired us to look for? How do you look for evidence of a design intervention?

    ReplyDelete
  18. bornagain77, the hit and run linking queen, actually thinks that science cares about what he believes. The rest of you godbots obviously think the same thing. You're all wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't who is right or wrong anymore but "godbot" made me laugh!

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I've got to stop it with the sarcasm. It doesn't work on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Cornelius Hunter:

    "If you find it strange that I do not use the explanations of evolution, I shall say to you that these explanations appear to me to be themselves in need of explanation."
    =====

    Here's an article from just a couple days ago where incense burning on the alter before the image of the Emperor is all that is necessary for proof. The journalist scribe never once questions the statements, just joyfully goes along with the flow in a sort of unspoken love affair with Darwinism.

    New species of genuflecting plant buries its own seeds

    Here are some of the better unsupported gems.

    "Dr Struwe told the BBC that the the plant could have evolved its remarkable seed-planting ability for several reasons."
    =====

    Really, evolution evolves remarkable strategies for several REASONS ??? I didn't know they were capable of reasoning
    ! I also thought adaptational variation was independent of need ???

    "Dr Struwe explained that other plants have evolved this same ability in order to survive on cliff walls - to deposit their seeds safely into cracks - or to avoid seed predators."
    ====

    So the other plants actually thought and reasoned other particular stategies to further their heritage on a cliff wall ??? Again, I thought evolutionary variation was independent of need ???

    When did evolution gain consciousness, self-awareness and the ability to think and reason using purposed goal driven strategies to force anazing success stories into being ???

    YAWN!!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ritchie:

    "First you said Joyce 'admitted' what he did was Intelligent Design, then you say he didn't."
    =====

    Astonishing. Well let's recap and number the collection of LIES you've purposely floated to deflect off topic. These lies actually prove you never read the papers cited from the Script Research Institute's own website linked above. In otherwords, you have no clue as to what the experiment actually was about other than the erotic evolutionary fable fabricated by the journalist animating and giving life to Gerald's wet dream RNA-World mythology.
    -----

    LIE #1:
    "Joyce et al may have recreated the conditions, but they did not guide the actual evolution of the bacteria, did they? All they did way simply set up an experiment, just as Lenski did with his bacteria - TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE BACTERIA UNDER CONTROLLED CIRCUMSTANCES!!"
    ====

    THERE NEVER WERE ANY LIVE BACTERIA ANYWHERE. THERE'S NO COMPARISON TO LENSKI'S EXPERIMENT.

    LIE #2:
    "Seriously, leaving self-replicating organisms in a dish and waiting as some outcompete others is not ID."
    ====

    THERE WERE NO SELF-REPLICATING ORGANISMS. THERE WAS NO CONSCIOUS SELF-AWARENESS of LIFE HERE.

    LIE #3:
    "Leaving enzymes in a dish to do their own thing, taking a random sample and repeating is NOT ID. And this is, in fact, what Joyce did."

    THEY DIDN'T DO THEIR OWN THING AS GERALD JOYCE and GANG MANIPLUATED AND FORCED THESE LIFELESS MOLECULES TO DO AS JOYCE PLEASED; NOT THE LIFELESS MOLECULES.

    Here's what they actually did, right from they own fudging the truth mouths:

    "The improved enzyme(the one that was laboriously engineered in a Lab) fulfilled the 'PRIMARY GOAL' of being able to undergo perpetual ..."

    "The 'ULTIMATE GOAL' was to take one of the RNA enzymes already 'DEVELOPED IN THE LAB' that could perform the basic chemistry of replication . . "

    And rather than an intelligently designed experiment set up to let lifeless molecules do their thing without interference from an intelligence, here are Gerald Joyce's own words of what took place with the "500 cycles of forced adaptation" -

    "This is what it looks like when a computer controls conditions that push molecules to adapt in order to thrive--survival of the fittest on the smallest scale possible."

    and

    "The scientists provided progressively lower concentrations of the fuel at set intervals, as a way 'DIRECT' the evolution of the RNA enzymes."

    and

    "Each time the size of the population of molecules reached a 'PREDETERMINED LEVEL', the COMPUTER(created by an intelligence) ISOLATED 1/10 th of the population--which now contained higher numbers of successfully adapted RNA enzymes—and mixed it with a new supply of chemical fuel."

    and

    "We starved these enzymes, pushing(forcing) them to become better and faster at forming a bond so they could reproduce themselves," Joyce says
    =====

    The biggest problem here is that your defense of Gerald Joyce is not in the actual intelligently manipulating every single move of the experiment to fit Gerald Joyce's GOAL-PURPOSE&INTENT driven experiment which was forced all along arrive at Gerald Joyce's needs, but you actually defend the storyline scenario which has nothing to do with handsoff observational reality.

    This isn't an example of Crick's & Watson's researching of the brilliant observable efficient running mechanisms of DNA and inventing a 'MODEL' (Double Helix) to illustrate a reality to Joe/Jane Q-Public. This is the world of Gerald Joyce's personal science fiction being debated where nothing was observed doing it's own thing as you originally lied about.

    Gerald Joyce and Gang were hardly innocent bystanders or casual observers, they were actually high level managers right to the very end.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Eocenette said...

    "Dr Struwe told the BBC that the the plant could have evolved its remarkable seed-planting ability for several reasons."
    =====

    Really, evolution evolves remarkable strategies for several REASONS ??? I didn't know they were capable of reasoning! I also thought adaptational variation was independent of need ???

    When did evolution gain consciousness, self-awareness and the ability to think and reason using purposed goal driven strategies to force anazing success stories into being ???


    OK, it's official. You're a bigger idiot than Tedford. A phenomenon having a reason and declaring the phenomenon was the result of its own conscious reasoning are two completely different things you effeminate moron.

    If a forest ranger says "there are many reasons the forest fire could have started - lightning strike, embers carried in from a campfire, careless cigarette toss - do you think that means the fire made a conscious reasoned decision to start itself?

    Those hormone treatments have addled both of your already pathetic brain cells. I hope you get your operation soon.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ah, what's the matter Thordy ??? No more original material ??? No Fundies to feed on for breakfast ???

    Another huge LOLOLOL!!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ritchie:

    "I typed 'bacteria' and that was a mistake."
    =====

    Incredible the way you excuse your own blantant lies of having never actually read the paper.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "If that's want to want to hear so you can beat off to it then be my guest."
    =====

    Puleeeeaze, save this kind of perversion for your "Significant 'Civil Unioned' Other".
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "But you are being incredibly belligerent to call this a 'lie'. It was not a deliberate act of deception. I have planily stated they were lifeless, created enzymes many, many times."
    =====

    A HUGE LOLOLOL
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "My point was that putting SELF-REPLICATORS in a dish and seeing what they will do is not intelligent design. And this is true."
    ======

    And the true factual evidence is???? There were no self-replicators. These things are incapable of doing anything in nature. They(the artificially created unnatural molecules) ONLY accomplish Joyce's purposely intended goal of replication with Joyce and Company's own cheating manipulative intelligent designing fingerprints from start to finish.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Spinning this off on a tangent that I'm an evil, demonic LIAR smacks rather of desperately clutching at straws."
    =====

    Evil ??? Demonic ??? Dream or imagine much ??? LIAR, absolutely. Although the motivational reasoning behind the blind arguments are associated with that original LIE as referenced at Romans 1:25.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Joyce et al. did not personally manipulate each enzyme's every replication like some marionette puppeteer."
    =====

    Hey Marion, you're the only puppet here. I'm sure you and Joyce will be very happy together.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Yup. The computer controlled the environment which the enzymes were in. So what? That's not ID. That's evolution within a controlled environment."
    =====

    Of course you are correct. Science has proven computers evolved in a junk yard of plastics, metals, glass, magnets, voltage and various chemical soil contaminants where one day an accidental explosion took place and out popped a computer with loads of informational software infecting it.
    -----

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ritchie:

    "It's still not ID. This is just introducing a selection pressure. Nothing ID about that."

    and

    "Once again, yes. And once again, so what? This still isn't ID."

    and

    "Yup. See 'selection pressure'."
    =====

    Yes of course Joyce's manipulating guiding fingerprints should not be considered Intelligent Design, since we all know there is nothing intelligent about Joyce or his little band of tinkering Elves. Great point Ritchie!!!

    The ONLY thing you've defended here is the FABLE fabricated by Joyce after the fact and that of the information manipulating biased journalists who spin this literary failure with loads of "Personification Fallacies" DESIGNED to Illustrate a worldview and nothing more. Words/Terms which have no business describing what lifeless unintelligent particles do or don't do. Things like the molecules producing "progeny", "offspring", "breeding", "outcompeting", "creating newer species" (Species ???) etc, etc, etc and never once attributing nor acknowledging any of his cheating intelligence inside the actual fable, other than honorary mention in the introductory credits.

    Definition of competition:

    1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Environmental Science) Ecology the struggle between individuals of the same or different species for food, space, light, etc., when these are inadequate to supply the needs of all

    2. The simultaneous demand by two or more organisms for limited environmental resources, such as nutrients, living space, or light.

    These weren't living organisms, they were lifeless artificially designed particles created and designed by an Intelligence and these particles were incapable of consciously competing for anything. Molecules by the TOE dogma's own definition DO NOT in ANY WAY EVOLVE!!! Just ask Pedant.

    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Both Joyce's enzymes and Lenski's bacteria just sat it a dish being 'fed' (don't take that literally in Jocye's case!!) and replicating."
    =====

    There is no comparison between Lenski's bacteria and Joyce's lifeless molecules. Joyce's molecules were NOT left to their own devices to do whatever. The man's lying cheating I.D. hijacking fingerprints manipulated from start to finish. The man simply told an imaginative STORY at the very end of the game influenced by his own biased mythological RNA-FABLED worldview. He himself explains and defines his method here:

    " . . . a method of 'FORCED ADAPTATION' known as in vitro evolution."

    And yet ??? It still wasn't Evolution to begin with!!!

    It is clearly a myth and one you find a perfect fit in justifying a lifestyle choice.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Eocene -

    "Incredible the way you excuse your own blantant lies of having never actually read the paper."

    Thump thump thump.

    "Puleeeeaze, save this kind of perversion for your "Significant 'Civil Unioned' Other"."

    Thump thump thump.

    "A HUGE LOLOLOL"

    Thump thump thump.

    "And the true factual evidence is???? There were no self-replicators."

    Eocene, you're missing the point by a country mile.

    Joyce's enzymes were self-replicators. They were programmed to be.

    Does the fact that these enzymes were created imply ID? No. The whole point of the experiment was to see how the enzymes changed from the moment the experiment began to the moment it ended, and identify the forces that caused that change. The enzymes, when the experiment began, were their own agents. That's not to say they were alive, or conscious, or self-aware, it just means they were left to their own means. It is as if they were merely tiny robots who had been given a single command: replicate yourself!

    What did they start with? enzymes which had been created to self-replicate. What did they end up with? "Super molecules... molecules that could grow faster and faster on a continually dwindling source of chemical fuel."

    Joyce had not programmed these enzymes to reproduce fast and on a dwindling source of fuel. The enzymes had adapted to environmental pressures - selection pressures. That is the point. Selection pressures had demonstrably driven the enzymes to adapt. Not consciously, obviously. It's just that the ones better able to replicate were... well, better able to replicate. This, in a nut-shell, is evolution.

    Let's just remember it was you who mentioned this experiment - as a demonstration of ID! The only way you could possibly equate this with ID is if your idea of ID is that God set in place the very first spark on the road to life - the very first self-replicator, and then DID NOT INTERVENE DIRECTLY IN ANY WAY with the development of that organism into the millions of forms of life we see today. Just to be clear, is that your opinion of the ID position?

    "Evil ??? Demonic ??? Dream or imagine much ??? LIAR, absolutely. Although the motivational reasoning behind the blind arguments are associated with that original LIE as referenced at Romans 1:25."

    And you know my motives, how exactly?

    "Hey Marion, you're the only puppet here. I'm sure you and Joyce will be very happy together."

    Thump thump thump

    "Of course you are correct. Science has proven computers evolved in a junk yard of plastics, metals, glass, magnets, voltage and various chemical soil contaminants where one day an accidental explosion took place and out popped a computer with loads of informational software infecting it."

    No-one is claiming that. Of course computers are designed and created. But so what? What is the relevance of that to this experiment? I would use designed, created equipment to measure how fast my apples are falling to the ground. That doesn't mean gravity is a non-natural force.

    "Yes of course Joyce's manipulating guiding fingerprints should not be considered Intelligent Design, since we all know there is nothing intelligent about Joyce or his little band of tinkering Elves. Great point Ritchie!!!"

    Thump thump thump.

    You know, you really wouldn't look out of place in a gorilla enclosure at the zoo.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Eocene (cont)

    "These weren't living organisms, they were lifeless artificially designed particles created and designed by an Intelligence..."

    That doesn't matter in the slightest.

    "...and these particles were incapable of consciously competing for anything."

    How do you work that out? If you program 10 robots to 'pick up an apple', but have them in a room with only 5 apples, then of course there will be competition. At least half the robots will fail at their task.

    "There is no comparison between Lenski's bacteria and Joyce's lifeless molecules. Joyce's molecules were NOT left to their own devices to do whatever. The man's lying cheating I.D. hijacking fingerprints manipulated from start to finish."

    You're totally wrong. The only difference between Lenski's experiment and Joyce's was that Lenski used E.Coli bacteria and Joyce used artificial enzymes. That's it. And that difference counts for absolutely squat all in terms of the forces which shape the development of their subjects.

    "The man simply told an imaginative STORY at the very end of the game influenced by his own biased mythological RNA-FABLED worldview."

    Do you HONESTLY think scientists can just make-up whatever hoo-ha they like? Really?

    Again, in science there is a process called peer review. It is in the reviewer's interests to rip the experiment they are studying to shreds. It's their job, and it is their every interest to make a good one of it. Scientists do not give each other easy rides, because if someone points out a mistake that someone made AND someone else peer reviewed without picking up on, everyone looks a fool. And yet you think you - YOU! - can spot glaring errors that everyone else, including the experts whose very job is it to pick up on such things have missed/are hoping no-one will notice...!?

    If you were a rational person with a shred of humility in your body, that alone would give your pause that you might not have added this up right.

    "It is clearly a myth and one you find a perfect fit in justifying a lifestyle choice."

    Seriously, what lifestyle choice? Is this yet another in your long list of gay jibes? Do you STILL think calling your opponent gay makes you look mature, clever and informed? Really? Really really? Are you sure you aren't actually 14 after all?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ritchie:

    "Does the fact that these enzymes were created imply ID? No!"
    =====

    Perfect!!! Now show us an documented example of where Gerald Joyce lucked out and those perfect and specifically engineered enzyme molecules were simply morphed using nothing more than undirected purposeless physics and chemical cocktails blended with no goal in mind. Make sure it follows the scientific method, as any of a number of people may want to follow the same procedure and arrive at the same EXACT conclusions of Gerald Joyce and the 7 Dwarfs.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "That's not to say they were alive, or conscious, or self-aware, it just means they were left to their own means. It is as if they were merely tiny robots who had been given a single command: replicate yourself!"
    =====

    WRONG. They were NEVER left to their own devices as Joyce calls his own experiment "FORCED ADAPTATION" with an Intelligently Design Computer Program selecting out those with desirable qualities. That had ZERO to do with NATURAL SELECTION. Joyce and company played the part of TinkerBell.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "This, in a nut-shell, is evolution."
    =====

    This is another flat ot LIE, since the official NeoDarwinian Dogma definition has evolution taking place after conscious life begins. Lifeless Molecules DO NOT Evolve.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Let's just remember it was you who mentioned this experiment - as a demonstration of ID!"
    =====

    Of course. Nobody is arguing against what Joyce's experiment actually illustrated, even IF RNA-World were a truth. It takes a manipulative designer to step by step intervene, manipulate and rig an experiment to arrive at purposely intended outcomes. The argument is against what took place afterwards with the lies promoted forth in the fabrication of this being proof of the RNA-World Fable and then shouting from the rooftops, "Evolution has now been proven a fact, it's not just a theory anymore."

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ritchie:

    "Thump thump thump."

    "Thump thump thump."


    "Thump thump thump."

    "Thump thump thump."

    "Thump thump thump."
    =====

    Meanwhile, back at the 'Mustang Ranch', Ritchie and . . . . "
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "That doesn't matter in the slightest."
    =====

    Translation:
    "It seems to me that I am still right"
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "How do you work that out? If you program 10 robots to 'pick up an apple', but have them in a room with only 5 apples, then of course there will be competition. At least half the robots will fail at their task."
    =====

    Translation:
    "It still seems to me that I am right"
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "You're totally wrong. The only difference between Lenski's experiment and Joyce's was that Lenski used E.Coli bacteria and Joyce used artificial enzymes. That's it. And that difference counts for absolutely squat all in terms of the forces which shape the development of their subjects."
    =====

    Translation:
    "It still seems to me that I am right"
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Do you HONESTLY think scientists can just make-up whatever hoo-ha they like? Really?"
    =====

    Considering the mess our natural world is presently in, the answer is an obvious YES!
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Again, in science there is a process called peer review."
    =====

    Here's the problem. Who on Earth qualify as the 'Panel of Peers' ??? What are their qualifications ??? Does qualifying to be on the Panel demand you have the politically correct ideology and worldview ??? Are they chosen because they have a great historical reputation for defending the mandated as a fact evolutionary dogma ???
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "If you were a rational person with a shred of humility in your body, that alone would give your pause that you might not have added this up right."
    =====

    WOW! Massive amounts of the usual Double Standards and 'Pot Calling Kettle Black'.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Seriously, what lifestyle choice?"
    =====

    This is exactly the VERY argument. It is about lifestyle choices no matter what the freewilled choice is or how it effects others around you. The absolute right of self-determination to be pursued as one sees fit. See Genesis chp 3. Also Romans 1:25. The subject really never has been about evolution vrs creation as it is about the right to determine what is good and what is bad. Evolution was invented to challenge other religious worldviews. The desparation of hijacking I.D. concepts and labling them as directed evolution illustrates the frantic nature of defenders behind this faith.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Erik to Olof:

    "Hej Olof, who is that raving and ranting maniac on the street corner?"

    Olof:

    "Oh, him. He's an insane American, who moved here a couple of years ago. It's one of those end-timers, always on about the end of the world, Armageddon, and that we must repent before it's too late. You know the type. Mostly harmless, although he does tend to harass handsome young men more than others."

    Erik:

    "Thank goodness for the internet."

    ReplyDelete
  33. Troylent Green:

    "Thank goodness for the internet."
    =====

    Speaking of Global Warming cures and Lizard's growing fur coats, have you seen the latest Scientific Secularist fix-it-pill idea for turning around the global climate change ???

    Let's Pump More Man Made Chemicals Into Our Earth's Atmosphere To Replicate What Volcanoes Do To Us!!!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Scott said, "How is this discovery "at odds" with the explanation that the knowledge of how to build each species, as found in the genome, was created by variation and natural selection? Please be specific."

    --

    You're asking for specifics, yet don't provide them yourself? Variation and natural selection are terms that are spouted off at 30,000 feet without much detail. Evolutionists often respond with, "we don't need to know EVERY detail". Funny, that's what you demand of alternatives to evolution. Evolutionists get touchy when asked for details. Can you imagine the CERN scientists throwing a tantrum when asked for details? Meanwhile evolutionists get that warm fuzzy feeling when Richard Dawkins gets out his BOX EYE with four parts explains the evolution of the eye.

    Scott, come down from 30,000 feet and provide the details please.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Tedford the idiot said...

    You're asking for specifics, yet don't provide them yourself? Variation and natural selection are terms that are spouted off at 30,000 feet without much detail. Evolutionists often respond with, "we don't need to know EVERY detail". Funny, that's what you demand of alternatives to evolution. Evolutionists get touchy when asked for details. Can you imagine the CERN scientists throwing a tantrum when asked for details? Meanwhile evolutionists get that warm fuzzy feeling when Richard Dawkins gets out his BOX EYE with four parts explains the evolution of the eye.

    Scott, come down from 30,000 feet and provide the details please.


    What details do you want Tedford? Science has details about thousands of evolutionary processes. For example, here's some details on the evolutionary pathway for the YAP (Yes-associate protein) family of genes which control organ size in animals.

    The Evolutionary history of YAP and the Hippo/YAP pathway

    Now where are your details, any details, of how Intelligent Design Creation was done?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Eocene -

    "Perfect!!! Now show us an documented example of where Gerald Joyce lucked out and those perfect and specifically engineered enzyme molecules were simply morphed using nothing more than undirected purposeless physics and chemical cocktails blended with no goal in mind"

    I never claimed that's what happened! If you program a robot to perform an action, you are not performing that action yourself, are you?

    Likewise it was the enzymes which Joyce had created which did the replication. Not Joyce himself. Joyce did not directly, personally intervene in the replication of the enzymes.

    "WRONG. They were NEVER left to their own devices as Joyce calls his own experiment "FORCED ADAPTATION" with an Intelligently Design Computer Program selecting out those with desirable qualities. That had ZERO to do with NATURAL SELECTION. Joyce and company played the part of TinkerBell."

    No, the computer is adding a SELECTION PRESSURE.

    "This is another flat ot LIE, since the official NeoDarwinian Dogma definition has evolution taking place after conscious life begins. Lifeless Molecules DO NOT Evolve."

    Not technically true. All evolution needs to kick in is the first self-replicator. Exactly what this was and whether it was alive is actually immaterial and, to be fair, not a clearly defined distinction anyway.

    ME: "If you program 10 robots to 'pick up an apple', but have them in a room with only 5 apples, then of course there will be competition. At least half the robots will fail at their task."

    YOU: Translation: "It still seems to me that I am right"

    You're hand-waving away what seems to me to be a perfectly valid point. In Joyce's lab, the enzymes were all programed to reproduce, but with tightly controlled levels of the microfluid being introduced, the materials necessary to actually DO so were limited. So some would lose out. Some would be better at their objective than others. Competition.

    "ME: Do you HONESTLY think scientists can just make-up whatever hoo-ha they like? Really?

    YOU: Considering the mess our natural world is presently in, the answer is an obvious YES!"

    If something doesn't really work then it poses no great threat. There's no need to be scared of guns in a world where guns don't really work.

    Science is a powerful tool, and indeed it can be devastating in irresponsible hands. But its power lies precisely in the fact that it does work! Your apparent logic that 'It can be devastating when misused, therefore it doesn't work' is profoundly poorly thought-through.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Eocene (cont)

    "Here's the problem. Who on Earth qualify as the 'Panel of Peers' ??? What are their qualifications ???"

    They are assorted figures who are highly qualified in the fields relevant to the paper.

    "Are they chosen because they have a great historical reputation for defending the mandated as a fact evolutionary dogma?"

    Without evidence, refuting ToE marks someone as having no grasp of biology whatsoever. That said, nothing in science is sacred. ToE is not simply above criticism. You just have to do it SCIENTIFICALLY. If you do it unscientifically, then it marks you out as being a non-scientist.

    "WOW! Massive amounts of the usual Double Standards and 'Pot Calling Kettle Black'."

    Umm, how exactly? I'm not the one putting my own personal opinion above those of the experts. You are!

    "This is exactly the VERY argument. It is about lifestyle choices no matter what the freewilled choice is or how it effects others around you."

    Being gay isn't a lifestyle choice. It isn't a choice at all.

    "The absolute right of self-determination to be pursued as one sees fit. See Genesis chp 3. Also Romans 1:25. The subject really never has been about evolution vrs creation as it is about the right to determine what is good and what is bad. Evolution was invented to challenge other religious worldviews."

    Totally untrue.

    ToE is a perfectly scientific theory like any other. It outlines the natural processes by which life develops, just as the theory of gravity describes the natural forces by which objects with mass interact.

    It just happens to be your RELIGIOUS BELIEF (ie, one on no evidence at all) that God made life on Earth as it is (more or less) and therefore ToE MUST be WRONG!! What's more, since it poses a challenge to YOUR religious beliefs, ToE therefore is the gateway to atheism and all the terrifying spectres that conjours up in your mind.

    The one possibility that you will never, ever give even a moment's serious consideration (because religious people are brain-washed not to) is that it is your religious beliefs which are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ritchie:

    "I never claimed that's what happened!"
    =====

    Aaaand, if that never took place, then the alternative is they were Intelligently Designed for the goal directed purpose of replicating when given the proper chemcial fuel catalyst for doing so. Very Good Ritchie!
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "No, the computer is adding a SELECTION PRESSURE."
    =====

    And the computerized selection pressure(a metaphor inserted for the purpose of excusing oneself from having to explain anything in detail) was provided by the intelligence which created it to do so in the first place. In other words, the computer was programmed to carry out the wishes, goals and intended purpose of a designer. Perfect!
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "All evolution needs to kick in is the first self-replicator."
    =====

    No, it's called consciousness and self-awareness of a living organism. Chemicals catalyzing in a chain reaction of patterns sticking togather is not life.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Exactly what this was and whether it was alive is actually immaterial and, to be fair, not a clearly defined distinction anyway."
    =====

    In other words if you don't know the answer, it is therefore immaterial. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "You're hand-waving away what seems to me to be a perfectly valid point. In Joyce's lab, the enzymes were all programed to reproduce, but with tightly controlled levels of the microfluid being introduced, the materials necessary to actually DO so were limited. So some would lose out. Some would be better at their objective than others. Competition."
    =====

    YAWN! Here it is again for the folks actually interested in what actually took place as opposed to the fable read back to us.

    Stephen Meyer Responds to Stephen Fletcher's Attack Letter in the Times Literary Supplement

    ----

    Ritchie:

    "Science is a powerful tool, and indeed it can be devastating in irresponsible hands."
    =====

    Yeah, sure. Science is a powerful tool. It's strictly a power and wealth creation driven animal. It should be a good tool, but more often than not it has been misused and abused by the error prone humans subject to the same imperfections that all humans have. Therefore it will most likely always be misused. Keep watching the world news

    ReplyDelete
  39. eocene barfed:

    "Yeah, sure. Science is a powerful tool. It's strictly a power and wealth creation driven animal."

    Then why are you taking advantage of, and enjoying the benefits of, so many things that science has figured out and made available?

    ReplyDelete
  40. FYI- Definition of "Science" (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

    --

    Saying "science says" or "science has figured out" is not a good use of the word... people are the ones that say and figure things out. Pencils only write as good as the people holding them.

    Science is a human enterprise and therefore involves all the good and bad that humans do. Darwinism is a mind sucking vortex. Evolutionists wooly thinking, smokescreens, denials, bullying, and tautologies represent the worst of human enterprises.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Eocene -

    "Aaaand, if that never took place, then the alternative is they were Intelligently Designed"

    No. The enzymes were created PRIOR to the experiment. From the moment the experiment began the enzymes were replicating all by themselves.

    "And the computerized selection pressure(a metaphor inserted for the purpose of excusing oneself from having to explain anything in detail) was provided by the intelligence which created it to do so in the first place. In other words, the computer was programmed to carry out the wishes, goals and intended purpose of a designer."

    When I drop the apples in my experiment, the sensor I set up to record the speed of the apple's fall is a 'computer was programmed to carry out the wishes, goals and intended purpose of a designer'. That doesn't mean I control gravity.

    "No, it's called consciousness and self-awareness of a living organism. Chemicals catalyzing in a chain reaction of patterns sticking togather is not life."

    It is not necessary that the self-replicating agents by conscious or self-aware for evolution to take place. As this experiment deftly demonstrates.

    "In other words if you don't know the answer, it is therefore immaterial."

    No, it's immaterial because it doesn't matter.

    "Yeah, sure. Science is a powerful tool. It's strictly a power and wealth creation driven animal. It should be a good tool, but more often than not it has been misused and abused by the error prone humans subject to the same imperfections that all humans have."

    Again, how can you misuse a tool that doesn't work? Science is powerful precisely because it DOES work. But you seem to be arguing "Science can be misued. Therefore it doesn't work." Can't you see this makes no sense?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Neal, playing word games won't get you anywhere, and my question still stands:

    "Then why are you taking advantage of, and enjoying the benefits of, so many things that science has figured out and made available?"

    Nic, eocene, you, and other IDiots constantly bash scientists, evolutionists, materialists, "Darwinists", naturalists, atheists, agnostics, etc., but none of you hesitate for a second to take advantage of and enjoy the scientific discoveries and products that have been figured out and made possible and available by any those people.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ritchie:

    "Being gay isn't a lifestyle choice. It isn't a choice at all."
    =====

    It is indeed a choice, but recent science over the past 4 decades has exposed what the abuse and misuse of science itself has caused. Indeed it also most likely that it isn't a choice for some who've been exposed to chemicals which manipulate specific developmental information at the Fetal stage of new life growth, which screw up the wiring and genetic programming and actually create an unstoppable homosexual behavior in numerous living creatures. The researchers who for the past 4 defcades who have warned the Scientific Community against this scientific catastrophy have been demonized and vilified by the touchy feely Politically Correct gang who make this a political hot potato subject to talk about.

    I've brought this up before and not one of the local Kool-Aid "Science IS Infallible" sucking pimps here will even take a few minutes to read the material or watch the documentaries I've provided. The Researchers behind the the warnings of Bisphenol-A, Nonylphenols, etc, etc, etc which are destroying the fetal development of all life from birds, to fish, to amphibians, to Humans etc from being able to reproduce are not even creationists. In fact they are evolutionists. Some species in nature are actually going extinct as a result of this power wealth hungry abusive science and this isn't a localized phenomena, it GLOBAL. Here they are again.

    Our Stolen Future

    The Disappearing Male

    The terms created by the Researchers who observe what is happening in nature have coined new terms like Gay Seagulls. Gay Fish. Yet what happened in the year 2009 ??? Multiple Groups out there were championing how normal and natural Homosexuality is because it can be found everywhere in nature. Yet this was the very thing warned about back in the 1980s when Theo Colborn and others shouted the alarm bells. Instead of listening to them, the Science Community denomized them as heretics.

    Here's a prime example of a local pimp with personal issues of it's own on championing honosexuality as a natural wonder of nature when it has NEVER historically been so before.

    Zachriel (May 23, 2010):
    "The human body is not designed for hypodermic needles, at all. Or riding motorcyles, with or without a helmet. However, promiscuity and homosexuality occur throughout human culture, and even in other species."

    Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate

    Indeed, for some it may not be a choice, but nothing more than unfortunate screwed up genetic programming brought about by the misuse and abuse of science by men and women driven by nothing more than selfishness and greed. To date, the Industries at fault refuse to acknowledge anything.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Continued....

    "
    Ironically, it was a Lab experiment dealing with breast cancer cells in a plastic petri dish which were growing and multiplying when they shouldn't have, that got other outside researchers investigating what was causing this. Only the presence of estrogen should have caused this to happen, but to their knowledge the experiment was controlled. The cells were in contact with plastic leached nonylphenol molecules which were masking themselves as a sort of artificial estrogen hormone which encouraged the growth of these breast cancer cells. It coloured and contaiminated the research. If that's the case, then one has to wonder what other Lab experiments in any field of research have been tainted by chemical trace elements excreting from the pores of these plastic dishes because the Laboratories wanted to save money by purchasing cheap container research tools. How many other experimental data out there could be debunked as far as less than true factual or accurate results ???

    There are just billions of variables to consider here aren't there.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Not Even Close:

    "Nic, eocene, you, and other IDiots constantly bash scientists, . . "
    =====

    Absolutely false. Science is NOT the target as is continually and cowardly propaganded by your further part of the list below. It's the bastardizing if science, the misuse and abuse of science where the problem lies.

    " . . evolutionists, materialists, "Darwinists", naturalists, atheists, agnostics, etc."
    -----

    Not Even Close:

    "but none of you hesitate for a second to take advantage of and enjoy the scientific discoveries and products that have been figured out and made possible and available by any those people."
    =====

    This is lame and exactly what I am talking about. An Atheist/Evolutionist is the one who makes general references and claims to science as their infallible god who is the ever wonderful self correcting organism, which historically has been proven untrue. Our Society and natural world continues to decline, not improve. Materialist luxuries and the love and the obsessive pursuit of them ARE the problem. It's the lack of spirituality and discipline that has brought the planet's health to it's knees.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "Again, how can you misuse a tool that doesn't work? Science is powerful precisely because it DOES work. But you seem to be arguing "Science can be misued. Therefore it doesn't work." Can't you see this makes no sense?"
    =====

    Wow, you and "No Truth" need some reality checks. It's the imperfect people who run science that are the problem.

    Okay, more Reality Check HEADLINES:

    India vs. Monsanto: seeds of discord

    "Gasland"

    In fact, while watching the above link to the PBS website about Josh Fox's 24 minute interview about the film "Gasland", you should also go to Josh's website and watch the actual almost 2 hour documentary "The Gasland".

    Facebook tracks you even after logging out

    and

    Logging out of Facebook is not enough

    Yes Sir, the headlines just keep rolling out every day on the wonderful virtues of how science is being run by the loving gentle caring hands of honest pure as the driven snow human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ritchie:

    "No. The enzymes were created PRIOR to the experiment. From the moment the experiment began the enzymes were replicating all by themselves."
    =====

    Yes, those enzymes were admittedly Intelligently designed well before the experiment. Clear case of forest through the trees religious blindness here.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "All evolution needs to kick in is the first self-replicator."
    "It is not necessary that the self-replicating agents by conscious or self-aware for evolution to take place."
    =====

    That's a flat out lie. Evolution is by atheistic definition insistance is ONLY kicking in once life appears, not evolving lifeless molecues of an Abiogenesis fairytale. Hey ask Pedant and any other fellow believers.

    Also, life itself is not defined by lifeless material substrates reacting to a catalyst in some crystaline replication event. Life is about the coded information etched into molecules with super sophisticated instructions for the ability to manipulate intelligently various materials for replication/reproduction.

    Joyce, Venter and any number of Media Attention grabbing wannabes will never be able to produce anything remotely life like without the usual hijacking of already existing life and labling it their own. As far as information, the best thing thus far they can come up with is plagerizing the information off already living systems. Scientists have barely scratched the surface on actually understanding the coded information within DNA. Supposedly the entire genetic information of an entire library of 1000 , 600 page Enclyclopedia Britannicas exist out there somewhere. Yet thus far we've yet to see any technically translated first edition of just the first paragraph of the first chapter of the very first volume.

    Remember Dawkins' Primitive Amoeba example of that very library ???

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ritchie:

    "It just happens to be your RELIGIOUS BELIEF that God made life on Earth as it is and therefore ToE MUST be WRONG!! What's more, since it poses a challenge to YOUR religious beliefs, ToE therefore is the gateway to atheism and all the terrifying spectres that conjours up in your mind.

    The one possibility that you will never, ever give even a moment's serious consideration (because religious people are brain-washed not to) is that it is your religious beliefs which are wrong."
    ========

    WOW! Again massive amounts of double standards and Pot Calling Kettle Black!

    Let's see. Intelligent Designer Gerald Joyce's Faith-Based belief in RNA-World is still unproven, but he keeps trying with all his intelligence anyway. Joyce uses his intelligence to maneuver, manipulate and actually forced adaptation of material substrate to accomplish Joyce's own goal directed purposed outcome. Then IRONICALLY, Joyce(the Designer) has the testosterone to brazenly say these arrogant words in numerous articles that I haven't mentioned before. Here commenting about acknowledged disagreements within science as to how life came about, Joyce comments on what scientists can do.

    Gerald 'Designer' Joyce:
    " . . but they can do the next best thing. They can make their own RNA and see if they can BREATHE life into it."

    Gerald 'Designer' Joyce:
    " . . but at some point in the past life may have been somehow BREATHED into RNA. ..."

    BTW, I love the life from life reference!
    ---------

    Now since you bring up religion and faith into this and blinding my understanding of the matter, let's look at what the Bible actually says about life's beginning and compare it to Gerald the IDer Joyce's experiment.

    Genesis 2:7

    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    (7) "Then the Lord God formed man from the [a]dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath or spirit of life, and man became a living being."


    Footnotes:

    [a]'dust' Genesis 2:7 The same essential chemical elements are found in man and animal life that are in the soil. This scientific fact was not known to man until recent times, but God was displaying it here.

    The breathe of life is no doubt the spark of life of electrical activity kept alive by breathing, Yet more is involved. Detailed Blueprinted Instructions for life of each individual were etched into those chemical material elements as King David made reference to himself.

    Psalm 139:16

    Darby Translation (DARBY)

    (16) "Thine eyes did see my unformed substance, and in thy book all [my members] were written; [during many] days were they fashioned, when [as yet] there was none of them."

    Even the very nature of Genomic Imprinting or epigenetics was mentioned and understood long before mythical stories of 'memes'. Notice how one's bad decision choices can be passed onto descendants.

    Lamentations 5:7

    Good News Translation (GNT)

    (7) "Our ancestors sinned, but now they are gone, and we are suffering for their sins."

    Even environmental factors can have physical consequences passed on. This was understood by a common Jewish expression used quite often.

    Jeremiah 31:29

    Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

    (29) "In those days they do not say any more: Fathers have eaten unripe fruit, And the sons' teeth are blunted."

    So basically the Biblical account speaks of an Intelligent Designer being required to manipulate, rig and direct various chemcial elements found on Earth and form and direct these for his purpose driven goal of human creation and finally breathed life into this new creature ???

    These things were written down long before modern day scientiifc Geniuses insisted that all understanding and knowledge come through them. Who's allowing what religion to get in their way Ritchie ???

    ReplyDelete
  48. velikovskys:

    "Wow,Eocene ,the full Monty"
    =====

    Hmmmm, "Water off the Duck's Back" ???

    Don't forget to at the very least read the linked info and watch those documentaries which most here have historically refuse to do, even though it has ZERO to do with Creation or I.D.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Eocene -

    Well that's a lot.

    First you say being gay IS a choice, then you go on to imply it's the result of, what, human chemical pollution? So it ISN'T a choice then? Is it or isn't it? Your argument here is very muddled up.

    Next, I completely accept observations of gay behaviour in animals. In fact, gay behaviour is not at all rare or remarkable in the natural world. Yet the simple and obvious implication you somehow miss is that homosexuality is a perfectly natural state.

    As for 'the researchers behind the the warnings of Bisphenol-A, Nonylphenols, etc.' I am perfectly willing to accept what they say. Yet I am rather mystified that YOU do. These are, after all, scientists. Biologists. Evolutionists. Surely all their conclusions are distorted by religious bias? Surely they spout lies? Surely they are twisted by moral corruption? How can you be comfortable slating evolutionists to the ground saying all their science is inherently flawed, and yet accept SOME conclusions on their say-so alone? Again, you position is muddled. You are just accepting the conclusions you WANT to accept and blowing the rest off as fundamentally flawed. If you took your own condemnations of evolutionists seriously then you would not allow yourself to accept ANY of their conclusions.

    "It's the imperfect people who run science that are the problem. Okay, more Reality Check HEADLINES:India vs. Monsanto: seeds of discord
    Gasland"

    Both these stories show companies and industries causing environmental damage by exploiting natural resources. The scientists are not the bad guys here. If anything, they are the people out identifying and assessing the environmental damage in the first place. You are actually on the side of the 'evolutionists' even if you don't realise it.

    Again you need to sit down and iron out your logic. You need to identify exactly who and what you are against. If it is the big, polluting, eco-destroying, greedy, capitalistic industries, then that's fair enough. But these people don't represent science or scientists. And their actions have nothing to do with the theory of evolution (except in that they are ruining the environment). There is absolutely no logical link between their actions being bad and the theory of evolution being incorrect. There is just no connection there at all.

    "Yes Sir, the headlines just keep rolling out every day on the wonderful virtues of how science is being run by the loving gentle caring hands of honest pure as the driven snow human beings."

    Yet again with another logical knot. If you are saying science is misused, then I agree with you. Often, it is. But that doesn't mean it doesn't WORK. Again, saying 'Science is misused, therefore it is factually incorrect' is a completely fallacious statement. There is no link there.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Eocene (cont)

    "Yes, those enzymes were admittedly Intelligently designed well before the experiment."

    So by the time the experiment started, Joyce's direct involvement was over. The direct intervention of an outside intelligent agent did not take place DURING the experiment. So how could the experiment demonstrate such a force?

    "That's a flat out lie. Evolution is by atheistic definition insistance is ONLY kicking in once life appears"

    Not at all. It's generally thought to be so (and commonly said to be so) simply because all self-replicators found in nature tend to be alive. But going way back to the very first self-replicators, they may well have failed our scientific definition of 'alive'.

    "...but they can do the next best thing. They can make their own RNA and see if they can BREATHE life into it... but at some point in the past life may have been somehow BREATHED into RNA."

    Eocene, this is a total facepalm! Joyce is quite obviously being poetic. 'Breathing life' into something is a perfectly common phrase, originating, more than likely, from the very Biblical passages you quote! Joyce is not saying it is an absolute fact that the first living thing had the first spark of life LITERALLY BREATHED into it by some outside agent capable of doing so. You are just reading far too much into this so that you can superficially make it sound like a scientific discovery predicted in the Bible.

    "Who's allowing what religion to get in their way Ritchie ??"

    Quite clearly you are.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Eocene,

    Hmmmm, "Water off the Duck's Back" ???


    Pretty much, you seem a little agitated today. Is everything OK? Except for Facebook,science,monsanto,richie, kool aid sucking pimps, gay penguins,evolutionists, materialists, "Darwinists", naturalists, atheists, agnostics, etc . I,for one,would welcome our new gay penguin overlords

    ReplyDelete
  52. velikovskys:

    "Except for Facebook,science,monsanto,richie, kool aid sucking pimps, gay penguins,evolutionists, materialists, "Darwinists", naturalists, atheists, agnostics, etc . I,for one,would welcome our new gay penguin overlords"
    ======

    I rest my case!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Ritchie:

    "First you say being gay IS a choice, then you go on to imply it's the result of, what, human chemical pollution? So it ISN'T a choice then? Is it or isn't it? Your argument here is very muddled up."
    =====

    Man, you are one twisted piece of work when it comes to making it up as you go along. You didn't even read what I wrote. It's both depending on the circumstances. In these later times we have many who have been married the heterosexual way with grown raised kids and grandkids and suddenly they had a perverted midlife crisis and chose to identify themselves amongst the Gay set. No other time in history has this happened. However, the second programming screwup is far more common these days and they don't necessarily pursue Gay lifestyle and that is also their choice.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Next, I completely accept observations of gay behaviour in animals. In fact, gay behaviour is not at all rare or remarkable in the natural world. Yet the simple and obvious implication you somehow miss is that homosexuality is a perfectly natural state."
    =====

    Of course you do. So does almost every single atheist out there. Not one has the courage to stand up against what is causing the perverted problem and protest against it's infectious causes. What a beautiful testimonial and confession.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "I am rather mystified that YOU do. These are, after all, scientists. Biologists. Evolutionists. Surely all their conclusions are distorted by religious bias? Surely they spout lies? Surely they are twisted by moral corruption? How can you be comfortable slating evolutionists to the ground saying all their science is inherently flawed, and yet accept SOME conclusions on their say-so alone? Again, you position is muddled."
    =====

    No, this is simply your comfort zone take on the matter and nothing more. Good one, Reverend!
    -----

    Ritchie:

    You are just accepting the conclusions you WANT to accept and blowing the rest off as fundamentally flawed. If you took your own condemnations of evolutionists seriously then you would not allow yourself to accept ANY of their conclusions."
    =====

    Wrong! When they can actually get down and do the hard science using real in this world evidence as opposed to pimping a storytelling fable and insisting the myth is fact, there's a whole big difference. What it proves is that they are actually quite capable of discerning between actual facts and myths, but their religiosity for evolution loses out to myth every time. But they do never the less understand and so do you. You simply hate the spotlight focused on that.
    -----

    continued below . .

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ritchie:

    "Both these stories show companies and industries causing environmental damage by exploiting natural resources. The scientists are not the bad guys here. If anything, they are the people out identifying and assessing the environmental damage in the first place. You are actually on the side of the 'evolutionists' even if you don't realise it."
    =====

    What parallel universe are you typing from Ritchie ??? I'm not refering to the scientists who raise alarm bells, I'm condemning the ones who far out number them in making our planet a cesspit. What is astonishing is that you didn't really look at the case of where Josh Fox who championed the cause against "Fracking" with his film documentary "Gasland", isn't even remotely a scientist. He's simply a common observer who actually has a clue. It doesn't take a Phd to acquire a clue. So what were all the other scientists doing while all this has been going on ??? Oh that's right, they(Chemists, Physicists, Geologists, etc) were all employed by the Industrial Pimps who whore them for producing their wares.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "There is absolutely no logical link between their actions being bad and the theory of evolution being incorrect. There is just no connection there at all."
    ======

    WRONG!!! The evolutionary religious dogma was invented to counter other religions. The influence of evolutionary thinking, ideology and philosophy has destroyed most common sense of morality and definitions of what is right and what is to be considered bad. The result has been a hardening of the collective consciences, or as Romans 2:14-15 says, their improperly untrained conscience either accuses them or EXCUSES them and it's the later that has infected all other sciences for which evolutionary philosophy seeks to condemn morality to the prefered animalistic , "If it feels good do it" attitude. Clearly this attitude pervades our entire world of humankind presently and your religious worldview refuses to allow you to see this.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ritchie:

    "Eocene, this is a total facepalm! Joyce is quite obviously being poetic. 'Breathing life' into something is a perfectly common phrase, originating, more than likely, from the very Biblical passages you quote! Joyce is not saying it is an absolute fact that the first living thing had the first spark of life LITERALLY BREATHED into it by some outside agent capable of doing so. You are just reading far too much into this so that you can superficially make it sound like a scientific discovery predicted in the Bible."

    ROFL!!!

    Clearly the stench of your own religiosity is ascending far up above the stratosphere eating away at the ozone. You need to stop. It's causing climate change!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ritchie:

    "Yet again with another logical knot. If you are saying science is misused, then I agree with you. Often, it is. But that doesn't mean it doesn't WORK. Again, saying 'Science is misused, therefore it is factually incorrect' is a completely fallacious statement. There is no link there."
    =====

    Do you actually EVER watch the world global News of what is going on ??? Clearly the bad science is winning out and the good science isn't even placing. What part of a fixed Race don't you get ???
    -----

    "One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people."

    "He said, "My son, the battle is between two "wolves" inside us all. One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."

    "The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

    ReplyDelete
  57. eocene puked:

    "Materialist luxuries and the love and the obsessive pursuit of them ARE the problem."

    Of course YOU don't take advantage of and enjoy any material "luxuries", do you? Pfft.

    "In these later times we have many who have been married the heterosexual way with grown raised kids and grandkids and suddenly they had a perverted midlife crisis and chose to identify themselves amongst the Gay set. No other time in history has this happened."

    Oh, so you were there, in the life and mind of every human and animal that has ever lived, and you know for a fact that none ever had gay tendencies, or acted upon them, until about 40 years ago?

    You are really screwed up. Your maniacal, delusional, hypocritical rants are indicative of serious mental illness. Seek help.

    By the way, if the bible story about adam and eve and cain and abel is true, then you and every other human since them is a product of incest. Is incest okay with you?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Eocene:
    velikovskys:

    "Except for Facebook,science,monsanto,richie, kool aid sucking pimps, gay penguins,evolutionists, materialists, "Darwinists", naturalists, atheists, agnostics, etc . I,for one,would welcome our new gay penguin overlords"
    ======

    I rest my case!


    " Lighten up,Francis"

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ritchie:
    "There's a little process called "Peer Review."

    Eocene:
    "Here's the problem. Who on Earth qualify as the 'Panel of Peers' ??? What are their qualifications ???"

    Ritchie:
    "They are assorted figures who are highly qualified in the fields relevant to the paper."
    ======

    So what happened to the so-called infallible process of Peer Review when it comes to companies like Monsanto ??? How about Dupont ??? What about all those Oil Companies across the globe involved with the scientifically invented process called Fracking which not only has destroyed countless billions of hectors of land and peoples lives, but according to the United States Geological Survey website has caused increases in earthquakes ??? Did the Panel of Peers fail these cases ??? Did they have the wrong panel for those fields ??? Surely they had biologists on boards, didn't they ???
    =====

    Not Even Close:

    "You are really screwed up. Your maniacal, delusional, hypocritical rants are indicative of serious mental illness. Seek help."
    =====

    Anyone who's ever taken a virtual trip over to your illiteracy failure of a blog and found it necessary to come away and take a hot shower afterwards to clean off the gunk would immediately see the hypocracy with this above statement.

    ReplyDelete
  60. velikovskys:

    "Lighten up,Francis"
    =====

    I don't think so Tim!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Eocene:
    What about all those Oil Companies across the globe involved with the scientifically invented process called Fracking which not only has destroyed countless billions of hectors of land and peoples lives, but according to the United States Geological Survey website has caused increases in earthquakes

    I have relatives who live in eastern Pennsyvania which is ground zero for fracking. The worry there is contamination of the ground water by the fracking process. There are plenty of scientists studying the potential disastrous consequences, as well as those on the other side.

    A consequence of the failure of peer review? This makes no sense. At all.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Eocene
    velikovskys:

    "Lighten up,Francis"
    =====

    I don't think so Tim!


    Eocene, you are a madman

    ReplyDelete
  63. velikovskys:

    "I have relatives who live in eastern Pennsyvania which is ground zero for fracking. The worry there is contamination of the ground water by the fracking process."
    =====

    Watch the two hour documentary film by Josh Fox, "The Gasland", and you'll soon realize it's even worse than you could ever possibly imagine. What's more, not only is there no real world answers to be found for cleaning up and restoring those ecosystems, but there doesn't appear to be any way of stopping these profiteering animals from further drilling and causing environmental damage.
    -----

    velikovskys:

    "There are plenty of scientists studying the potential disastrous consequences, as well as those on the other side."
    =====

    Really ??? That's interesting. I have NOT seen any other documentaries other than the amateur one by Josh Fox. Where are all those other more professional scientifically done documentaries and research papers by scientists long before these Industrial pimps were allowed to bore that very first well hole ??? Oh wait a minute. That's right. They don't exist. It's funny that even in the documentary film of Erin Brockovich who was nothing more than a Law Clerk with no formal Law education or training, it was she who exposed the lies, frauds and coverups of the corporate entiy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) of California, who also dumped chemicals into the ground water, poisoned people and lied about it. If I recall, she was also NOT a Phd Scientists.

    So where were those Peer Reviewing Scientists for the residents of Hinkley, CA ??? Who and where were those scam exposing scientists in the PG&E case ??? Oh that's right, there were none. The only scientists involved were those involved in paper shredding and cover up.

    And as far as researching the environmental damage ??? It doesn't take a Phd to expose or even remotely recognize the potential environmental damage when the trek Josh Fox took around the United States and the countless interviews with families and film clips of burning tap water right out of the faucet or along springs, creeks and rivers clearly illustrate to even a dunce that something is not right here.

    I'm curious, what hidden secrets that only the collective genius of Phd scientists could possibly reveal that every common citizen already is informed about are there left to research and discover ???
    ------

    ReplyDelete
  64. velikovskys:

    "A consequence of the failure of peer review? This makes no sense. At all."
    ======

    Really ??? So what happened to all the failsafe checks and balances of which the magic of peer review is supposed to prevent these future catastrophies ??? Are you saying they had no clue what those multiple chemicals would do when introduced into the deep ground water by the billions of gallons ??? Are they that ignorant ???

    What about the innumerable pure as the driven snow scientists who are employed by these animalistic Corporate entities who receive a healthy paycheque for the chemcials they invent and the other countless technologies they've introduced for the amoral profiteering pursuit purposes of their masters ??? Are you insisting these innocent dweebs were merely ignorant of the consequences ??? That they couldn't possibly have foreseen any permanent damage to nature and humankind ??? That they are simply innocent bystanders who are only part of the unfortunate collateral damage just as the people whose lives have been directly ruined for good ???

    Did you watch that Environment and Public Works Subcommittee meeting where the so-called experts for the Oil & Gas companies looked like nothing more than those scientists and doctors working for Big Tobacco saying that it is not their belief that smoking causes cancer ??? And at that press conference for the Safe Drinking Water act on Capitol Hill, February 17, 2011, why is it that these Fracking Industries are exempt from the rules and laws of the "Safe Drinking Water Act" ??? Why is it that you or anyone else would go to prison for throwing a battery in a river, but these Jerks can pump countless billions of gallons of the same chemicals into the water table and not even get a slap on the wrist ???

    Did you also know that no matter what inept political party over in your country which runs your nation from the top down is also on board with allowing these creeps to do as they please because it's in the National interests of the country to do so ??? What happened to all those left wing party environmental gang members ??? Where were they way back when and where are they today ??? Oh yeah, they're trying to get their good ol'boy re-elcted while the other could care less crowd on the opposing side attempts it's own trek at power take over.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Peer Review means nothing. It is ideologically and politically motivated. Ritchie said that TOE is treated just like any other scientific theory. That is a flat out falsehood. TOE gets the same exempt get out of jail free card as these corupt industries and this favouritism is nothing like the treatment of other theories. Other Scientific Theories need to show evidence and facts, but Stories, Fables, Myths all count as facts for TOE and they don't have to be proven at all, because after all, it's a given.

    TOE was invented to counter being accountable for ones freewilled actions and it is this miserable attitude which has infected all other sciences where consequences are well, of no consequence. Where lying, cheating and stealing are considered the new morality and honesty, integrity and consideration of one's fellow man are looked down on and actually made fun of under the context of discussions such as these.

    Isaiah 5:20

    New Century Version (NCV)

    (20) "How terrible it will be for people who call good things bad and bad things good,
    who think darkness is light and light is darkness, who think sour is sweet and sweet is sour."

    This is the greatest legacy for which TOE has been responsible and it has infected not only Science(Business), Politics, Religion, but even right down to the common family. After all, morality is nothing but judgementalism and bigotry!

    ReplyDelete
  66. Eocene -

    "In these later times we have many who have been married the heterosexual way with grown raised kids and grandkids and suddenly they had a perverted midlife crisis and chose to identify themselves amongst the Gay set. No other time in history has this happened."

    Yes it has. In pre-monotheistic cultures (ie, ones who totally demonise it) homosexuality was not uncommon. It has also always been viewed relatively liberally in many Eastern countries too. The whole of human existence is not limited to the Christian West.

    I've spoken to several gay men the far side of 50 who have been married and had children. Without exception, it's not that they TURNED gay (either by conscious choice or by some mental/hormonal change beyond their control) - they were always gay, but simply chose to hide it. In a society which says being gay is wrong, you will inevitably get people hiding their homosexuality out of embarrassment and shame. The only choice is the choice to deny it and live a life of repression, or to accept it along with the petty insults of people like you who call it a twisted perversion.

    "However, the second programming screwup is far more common these days and they don't necessarily pursue Gay lifestyle and that is also their choice."

    I have yet to see a paper which shows a link between chemical pollution and homosexuality. If you know of one, please show it.

    "Of course you do. So does almost every single atheist out there."

    I imagine that's because without the entirely baseless rationale of 'It says so in the Bible', there is no objective reason to vilify homosexuality as being morally wrong.

    "When they can actually get down and do the hard science using real in this world evidence as opposed to pimping a storytelling fable and insisting the myth is fact, there's a whole big difference. What it proves is that they are actually quite capable of discerning between actual facts and myths, but their religiosity for evolution loses out to myth every time."

    Eocene, these are still biologists. Doing biology. Their every conclusion is ultimately built on the premise of evolution. It is pretty-much the basis of the whole of biology.

    "What is astonishing is that you didn't really look at the case of where Josh Fox who championed the cause against "Fracking" with his film documentary "Gasland", isn't even remotely a scientist."

    Yes, he is a film-maker. He doubtless consulted scientists to get the facts which make up his film. Do you think he did every single scrap of research, collected every piece of data, himself?

    "So what were all the other scientists doing while all this has been going on ??? Oh that's right, they(Chemists, Physicists, Geologists, etc) were all employed by the Industrial Pimps who whore them for producing their wares."

    What scientists? Who are you talking about? These big corporate industrial companies do not answer to scientsts. Why should they?

    "WRONG!!! The evolutionary religious dogma was invented to counter other religions."

    No it wasn't. It was invented to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with religion - well, except that it contradicts the entirely unevidenced, unscientific, religious myth that God made the world and everything in it in 6 days. But so what? The theory of gravity contradicts a similar belief that tiny fairies push things down when they fall.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Eocene (cont)

    "The influence of evolutionary thinking, ideology and philosophy has destroyed most common sense of morality and definitions of what is right and what is to be considered bad."

    Nope. Yet again you equate acceptance of the theory of evolution with atheism. As though accepting that God DIDN'T literally make the world in 6 days leads inevitably to the conclusion that 'there is no God' (which it doesn't, necessarily). I realise the concepts are just mashed up together in your head, but in the real world they are quite distinct.

    "ROFL!!! Clearly the stench of your own religiosity is ascending far up above the stratosphere eating away at the ozone. You need to stop. It's causing climate change!"

    Thump thump thump! I think even you can see you goofed on this one!

    "Do you actually EVER watch the world global News of what is going on ??? Clearly the bad science is winning out and the good science isn't even placing. What part of a fixed Race don't you get ???"

    What I don't get is your ideas of 'good science' and 'bad science'. What does that even mean? Yes, humans are causing damage to the Earth's eco-systems. But how the Hell is that the fault of scientists? Your ire would be far more accurately aimed at big, industrial, capitalistic companies who screw over the natural world for the sake of increasing their profit margins. These people are generally not scientists. Most scientists (biologists, anyway) are to be found opposing their unsustainable, planet-wrecking ways. As you do.

    "One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people..."

    Well that's a lovely story. One question though - what the Hell has it got to do with anything we are discussing?

    "So what happened to the so-called infallible process of Peer Review when it comes to companies like Monsanto ?"

    Monsanto make pesticides and genetically-engineered seeds. They are a manufacturing company. The only thing a peer review panel would do is test whether the pesticides and genetically-engineered seeds actually WORK. Which, I suppose, they do.

    If you are a scientist developing a pesticide, the only measure of whether your methods work or not is whether your pesticide kills pests without killing the plant. If it does, then you performed 'good science' - that is, performed science correctly. But this says nothing at all about whether the use of pesticides is a morally good thing to do. That is a completely different question, and one science is unable to answer. Again, claiming 'the use of pesticides is morally bad, therefore the pesticides don't work' is an entirely fallacious argument.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Ritchie:

    "The only choice is the choice to deny it and live a life of repression, or to accept it along with the petty insults of people like you who call it a twisted perversion."
    =====

    It is more common today than in times past to hear more and more speach of effeminate men, but they don't pursue homosexual lifestyles. No one has ever said it is a sin to be born a homosexual. It's the acting out on the sexual impulses that is wrong. Clearly though, one being born with screwed up genetics for which they have no power over can however consciously make CHOICES not to pursue such a lifestyle. I've known many who simply chose NOT to marry. So the CHOICE option can cut both ways.

    Ultimately ALL human beings have this problem hanging over their heads as a natural consequence of imperfection. It will always linger as long as we are alive, but the struggle can be fought against and won:

    James 1:14-15

    New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    (14) "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. (15) Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin [a]is accomplished, it brings forth death."

    Footnotes:

    [a] James 1:15 Lit is brought to completion
    -------

    Ritchie:

    "I have yet to see a paper which shows a link between chemical pollution and homosexuality. If you know of one, please show it."
    =======

    As predicted accurately and precisely, you REFUSED to read anything from that website I linked to on the subject. If you conscientiously took the time to read and digest ALL of the studies on that website, it would probably take the average person several months to do so.

    At the very least you could order the book "Our Stolen Future" (1996) and read the thing. I discovered it while researching various physical properties of water and it's effects on the environment and a colleague recommended it that very year. The forward is wrtten by one of your very own Holy Men - "Al Gore".

    Incidents of Epispadias and Hypospadias are becoming more and more common. There are even far more physical abnormalities being caused by Hormone Disrupters, but as Theo Colborn acknowledges when being asked about sexual orientation, it's a hot potato subject no one dares touch:

    "It's one thing to say that exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals may contribute to hypospadias. It's quite another to say that a person's sexual orientation could be shaped, in part, by their environmental exposures. That, is an explosive issue. No one wants to touch that research."

    "If you were to ask for dollars for that you wouldn’t get the money. I mean, you would be laughed out of your chair, believe me. It’s that sensitive."

    That's the beauty of freewill Ritchie. You even have the right to bury your head in the sand.

    "Our Stolen Future"

    ------

    ReplyDelete
  69. Ritchie:

    "Eocene, these are still biologists. Doing biology. Their every conclusion is ultimately built on the premise of evolution. It is pretty-much the basis of the whole of biology."
    ======

    Who's arguing against that ??? Of course they are motivated by a priori and personal bias, no one is saying they don't. Cornelius' very subject here has always been "Evolution Mandated as Fact" and "Evolution is a Given". Why would you think I don't recognize this ???
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "He doubtless consulted scientists to get the facts which make up his film."
    ======

    Do you actually believe it is necessary to consult scientists to see whether Fracking would be dangerous ??? The man was offered $100,000 for the rights to drill on his land. He knew nothing about it and embarked out on his own to discover what it was and what it could do because he had heard horrendous stories of problems elsewhere.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Do you think he did every single scrap of research, collected every piece of data, himself?"
    ======

    Of course not. That's why he traveled around the country and listened to first hand accounts from hundreds of people personally raped by these companies and their scientifically peer reviewed researched technologies.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "What scientists? Who are you talking about? These big corporate industrial companies do not answer to scientsts. Why should they?"
    ======

    CORRECT, Scientists all answer to these bohemoth corporation entities, not the other way around, especially if they know what's healthy for them. And they do!

    ReplyDelete
  70. Ritchie:

    "Yet again you equate acceptance of the theory of evolution with atheism."
    ======

    What part of "No Intelligence Allowed" doesn't penetrate that thick skull ??? Even Thordy gets that!
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "As though accepting that God DIDN'T literally make the world in 6 days leads inevitably to the conclusion that 'there is no God' (which it doesn't, necessarily)."
    ======

    So take it up with someone else who actually believes the literal take on it. I don't believe that, but timeline is ultimately unimportant to me.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "What I don't get is your ideas of 'good science' and 'bad science'. What does that even mean?"
    ======

    So you don't believe that there is good and bad science ??? This has been one of your sides number one themes here. Sure you understand.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "Yes, humans are causing damage to the Earth's eco-systems. But how the Hell is that the fault of scientists?"
    ======

    So none of these scientists have a conscience for which if properly trained, does not in any way help them in rejecting the outright horrendous wishes of their Masters ??? Maybe we'll send a letter of recomendation for you to be the next Public Relations darling for Monsanto!!!

    ReplyDelete
  71. Eocene -

    "No one has ever said it is a sin to be born a homosexual."

    So if you're a homosexual you should be celibate your entire life?

    "It's the acting out on the sexual impulses that is wrong."

    That is your religious belief.

    "Ultimately ALL human beings have this problem hanging over their heads as a natural consequence of imperfection."

    Christianity has always had a peculiarly prohibitive attitude towards sex - of any description. The only sexual state actively praised in the New Testament is celibacy.

    But what on Earth is wrong with sex? If everyone on Earth became celibate - as it recommends in the Bible we should - the human race would die out. Is that what we all should do?

    "As predicted accurately and precisely, you REFUSED to read anything from that website I linked to on the subject."

    I did not. I simply asked you to link directly to a study which supports your point. Do you think I'm going to read an entire index of studies just to trawl through for the relevent one?

    "If you conscientiously took the time to read and digest ALL of the studies on that website, it would probably take the average person several months to do so."

    Exactly. So point out the one which supports the position that chemical pollution causes homosexuality.

    "At the very least you could order the book "Our Stolen Future" (1996) and read the thing."

    This book explicitly makes the point that chemical pollution can cause homosexuality, does it?

    "Incidents of Epispadias and Hypospadias are becoming more and more common."

    Epispadias and Hypospadias are malformations of the penis. They have nothing to do with homosexuality.

    "It's one thing to say that exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals may contribute to hypospadias. It's quite another to say that a person's sexual orientation could be shaped, in part, by their environmental exposures. That, is an explosive issue. No one wants to touch that research."

    This is an explicit statement that no-one is willing to do the research whether chemical pollution can affect sexuality. So such studies don't actually exist then?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Eocene -

    "Who's arguing against that ??? Of course they are motivated by a priori and personal bias, no one is saying they don't."

    AAnd yet you're willing to accept their conclusions when it suits you?

    "Do you actually believe it is necessary to consult scientists to see whether Fracking would be dangerous ?"

    It's not necessary to do so to imagine it MIGHT be dangerous. But I would say it's necessary to get the solid data to prove the point.

    "That's why he traveled around the country and listened to first hand accounts from hundreds of people personally raped by these companies and their scientifically peer reviewed researched technologies."

    The scientists only go as far as whether the technology works. That's it. Whether the companies should use them is not for the scientists to say.

    "CORRECT, Scientists all answer to these bohemoth corporation entities, not the other way around, especially if they know what's healthy for them. And they do!"

    Scientists need funding to do research. The usual method is government grants. Any scientist funded by a company who produces work which absolutely endorses that company in direct contradiction to the evidence of independent research is viewed with extreme suspicion.

    "What part of "No Intelligence Allowed" doesn't penetrate that thick skull ??? Even Thordy gets that!"

    No Intelligence Allowed IN THE LAB!!! That is, SCIENTISTS (not evolutionists - ALL scientists) must assume miracles do not happen. SCience says absolutely nothing about, for example, a deist God - one who does not interfere dirctly in the events of the world.

    "So take it up with someone else who actually believes the literal take on it. I don't believe that, but timeline is ultimately unimportant to me."

    But you do believe the ultimate source of the world/life is God?

    "So you don't believe that there is good and bad science ??? This has been one of your sides number one themes here. Sure you understand."

    The difference between 'good science' and 'bad science' is whether is it truly performed scientifically. That does not appear to be the sense in which you were using it.

    "So none of these scientists have a conscience for which if properly trained, does not in any way help them in rejecting the outright horrendous wishes of their Masters ?"

    It is not the scientists destroying the planet. It is the corporate industries doing that. Yes, some employ scientists (though many don't). I'm sure the all employ secretaries too, but that doesn't mean the planet is being destroyed by secretaries, does it?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Ritchie:

    "This book explicitly makes the point that chemical pollution can cause homosexuality, does it?"
    ======

    Every creature studied has been shown to exhibit homosexual behavior. The terms homosexual behavior and Gay are the book's terms, not mine. And all proven Endocrine disrupting chemcials have been proven to cause this. This is why things are going extinct. Even the documentary "The Disappearing Male" links Humans along with all birds, fish and animals as losing out as males to feminization.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "I did not. I simply asked you to link directly to a study which supports your point. Do you think I'm going to read an entire index of studies just to trawl through for the relevent one?"
    =======

    Ritchie, I don't expect anything from you. You still have refused to look up anything on your own with that website's own google feature and I'm not your male domineering mother to order you what you should and shouldn't do. You're on your own.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "This book explicitly makes the point that chemical pollution can cause homosexuality, does it?"
    ======

    What did I just say ??? How many times do you need to hear it ??? These specific Endocrine Hormonal Disruptors cause homosexuality in almost everything they molest at a fetal stage of development. You have the power of Google, do the homework. Otherwise pull the Ostrich act and stop blaming others for your lot in life. If you're happy, content and comfortable, then we're all for you Ritchie. But the bottomline is you've got the resources and they're just the tip of the iceberg. But count on things getting worse, not better.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Eocene,

    There is indeed a kernel of truth in some of what you say, however it is buried beneath a mishmash of nonsense and prejudice .Do oil companies put profits over potential safety concerns, yes. Is there cherry picking of data? Yes. Is there a large state university in Penn with ties to the fracking industry? Yes. Are people willing to trash out part of the environment in order to extract energy? You betcha. Do we need this energy? Yep. Is there a way to mitigate the effects of energy extraction? People are working on that now, they have a name for those people,they are called scientists.

    Thus you have proved gays should,if they must exist,remain in the closet since it offends your sense of morality,peer review is not infallible and Darwin is the source of all evil,praise the lord. As a side note ,your rants alone make you look a little " overwrought", lose the" ??? " at the end of every question at least. Just sayin.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Eocenette said...

    Every creature studied has been shown to exhibit homosexual behavior. The terms homosexual behavior and Gay are the book's terms, not mine. And all proven Endocrine disrupting chemcials have been proven to cause this.


    Homosexual behavior is described in literature as old at 2400BC in ancient Egypt. It's mentioned in the Bible repeatedly too. Did Endocrine disrupting chemicals exist back then, 4400 years ago?

    'Fess up Eocenette. You're just upset because you watched 'The Disappearing Male' and thought that meant you'd have no one to ask out on a date.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Ritchie:

    "The scientists only go as far as whether the technology works. That's it. Whether the companies should use them is not for the scientists to say."
    ======

    Thanks for making my point!
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "No Intelligence Allowed IN THE LAB!!! That is, SCIENTISTS (not evolutionists - ALL scientists) must assume miracles do not happen. SCience says absolutely nothing about, for example, a deist God - one who does not interfere dirctly in the events of the world."
    =======

    Once again, Theory of Evolution = No Intelligence Allowed. Thanks for comfirming that.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "But you do believe the ultimate source of the world/life is God?"
    ======

    Would we be discussing this otherwise ??? Great observation Ritchie! *eyes rolling*
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "The difference between 'good science' and 'bad science' is whether is it truly performed scientifically. That does not appear to be the sense in which you were using it."
    ======

    There's no hidden agenda mystery here Ritchie. Good Science or Bad Science. By your diliberate muddling here, apparently Nuclear Weapons fall under the category of "good science" for no other reason than because everything was impirically done using the scientific method and peer reviewed by experts with Phds.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "It is not the scientists destroying the planet. It is the corporate industries doing that."
    ======

    Got it. Scientists fall under a technicality umbrella of a no accountability clause. Kinda like their own version of don't ask don't tell, leave us out of it. The general umbrella excuse making for scientific idiocy is astonishing here.

    ReplyDelete
  77. velikovskys:

    "There is indeed a kernel of truth in some of what you say, however it is buried beneath a mishmash of nonsense and prejudice .Do oil companies put profits over potential safety concerns, yes. Is there cherry picking of data? Yes. Is there a large state university in Penn with ties to the fracking industry? Yes. Are people willing to trash out part of the environment in order to extract energy? You betcha. Do we need this energy? Yep. Is there a way to mitigate the effects of energy extraction? People are working on that now, they have a name for those people,they are called scientists."
    ====

    Got it. Science and Scientists are exempt from any accountability because they were just following orders. Don't you just love the ol'Nuremburg Defense ???
    -----

    velikovskys:

    "Thus you have proved gays should,if they must exist,remain in the closet since it offends your sense of morality,peer review is not infallible and Darwin is the source of all evil,praise the lord."
    =====

    I love this. Do you fudge and distort much ??? They should be allowed to do as they so please. That is their freewilled right. But it is absolutely astounding how the bad science and mess created by irresponsible sciece gets a free pass on this Hot Potato politcally charged subject. Thanks for illustrating those flaws.
    -----

    velikovskys:

    "As a side note ,your rants alone make you look a little " overwrought", lose the" ??? " at the end of every question at least. Just sayin."
    =====

    Called personal signature, so it's just stayin!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Eocene,
    I'm not your male domineering mother to order you what you should and shouldn't do. You're on your own

    You know there is a line of thought that people project their own insecurities onto others.Food for thought

    ReplyDelete
  79. Thordy the IDiot:

    "Homosexual behavior is described in literature as old at 2400BC in ancient Egypt. It's mentioned in the Bible repeatedly too. Did Endocrine disrupting chemicals exist back then, 4400 years ago?"
    =====

    Maybe you should ask Theo Colborn. However an accurate translation of the above snark is: Scientist get another "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Leave my Homies alone.

    ReplyDelete
  80. velikovskys:

    "You know there is a line of thought that people project their own insecurities onto others.Food for thought"
    =====

    Sounds like you're likely another boardmember candidate to have a personal problem with this issue. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Eocene,
    love this. Do you fudge and distort much ??? They should be allowed to do as they so please. That is their freewilled right

    I thought it was all the bad chemicals that turned them into "women",and of course by logic, science as well. You did imply to act on their chemically caused aberration was a sin. Sin surely offends your sense of morality? And don't forget that the is no way that Lee Harvey Oswald could have made that shott!!! So proving that it is you who is distorting!!!

    ReplyDelete
  82. Eocene
    Sounds like you're likely another boardmember candidate to have a personal problem with this issue. Good luck.

    I rest my case

    ReplyDelete
  83. Eocene: I love this. Do you fudge and distort much ??? They should be allowed to do as they so please. That is their freewilled right.

    Let me guess. We have free will because God gave it to us and allows us to exercise it. We must be allowed to, otherwise it wouldn't happen.

    Of course, you've reached this conclusion because you must reconcile this observation with your presupposition that God is completely in control.

    This is the same sort of thinking as God must want Obama as president, otherwise he wouldn't have never made it to office, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  84. velikovskys:

    "I rest my case"
    =====

    Please, not in public.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Beam Me Up Scotty:

    "Let me guess."
    =====

    No please, allow me.

    "Pay no attention to that Intelligent Designer behind that curtain. I am the great and primordial OOZE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  86. Eocene -

    "Every creature studied has been shown to exhibit homosexual behavior."

    I'm sorry, are you saying there was a study in which every single animal exposed to certain levels of whatever drug exhibited homosexual behaviour?

    "This is why things are going extinct."

    Don't overstate it. It MIGHT be CONTRIBUTING to SOME things are going extinct. If true, it's a pollutant. And there are plenty of them being spilled.

    "You still have refused to look up anything on your own with that website's own google feature and I'm not your male domineering mother to order you what you should and shouldn't do. You're on your own."

    Eocene, I'm not refusing to read. I'm just asking for a link to the relevent article. Why is that so hard? Why are you dodging and making excuses? Give me an index and tell me to find it and I might read and analyse the wrong one. I want to know what study YOU think supports YOUR point. This dodging just makes me suspect there is no such study and you're just fumbling.

    "You have the power of Google, do the homework."

    I do indeed, but when I enter 'Endocrine Hormonal Disruptors homosexuality' into Google, all I get are a few journalistic article (and let me tell you journalists have an amazing track record for sensationalising science stories). I'd like to read whatever original scientific paper you are referring to. I don't know why you're getting so defensive.

    "Once again, Theory of Evolution = No Intelligence Allowed."

    No, SCIENCE = No Intelligence Allowed. Seriously, how can you still not get that?

    "By your diliberate muddling here, apparently Nuclear Weapons fall under the category of "good science" for no other reason than because everything was impirically done using the scientific method and peer reviewed by experts with Phds."

    It's not deliberate muddling. It's that you have your own definitions for things. And yes, if you research and build a nuclear weapon properly using all the correct scientific protocols, then you have indeed done 'good science'.

    "Got it. Scientists fall under a technicality umbrella of a no accountability clause. Kinda like their own version of don't ask don't tell, leave us out of it. The general umbrella excuse making for scientific idiocy is astonishing here."

    Eocene, you're still trying to blame the tool-makers for the misuse of tools. The destruction of valuable ecosystems goes far and wide with many causes.

    Rainforests and vital habitats are being felled because people are clearing them for housing and farmland to feed an exponentially spiralling global population. Grossly inflated livestock herds are a massively inefficient waste of precious food and water, and they produce huge quantities of waste. Huge amounts of carbon and methane are being relentlessly pumped into the atmosphere every day. None of this is fault of scientists.

    This Epispadias and Hypospadias chemical pollution scare you seem to be obsessed with is one pollution story among many. And it may yet turn out to be an overblown, over-sensationalised conspiracy. But even if it isn't, then why aren't you angry at the people who are not using the pesticides responsibly? Why are you instead angry at the people who MADE the pesticides - saying their science is flawed even though the pesticides do actually work?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Ritchie:

    "I'm sorry, are you saying there was a study in which every single animal exposed to certain levels of whatever drug exhibited homosexual behaviour?"
    ====

    Incredible, EcoVegen-Boy still refuses to read the massvie volumes of material baring this out, incredible.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "Don't overstate it. It MIGHT be CONTRIBUTING to SOME things are going extinct. If true, it's a pollutant. And there are plenty of them being spilled."
    =====

    Got it. You still refuse to read anything that may disrupt your comfort zone of a worldview.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "I'm not refusing to read. I'm just asking for a link to the relevent article. Why is that so hard? Why are you dodging and making excuses?"
    =====

    Astonishing, you'll play this helpless Damsel in distress thing clear to the end.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Give me an index and tell me to find it and I might read and analyse the wrong one. I want to know what study YOU think supports YOUR point. This dodging just makes me suspect there is no such study and you're just fumbling."
    =====

    How can anybody be that dense. I gave you an entire website to use their google feature with enough material to keep you distracted for months.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "I do indeed, but when I enter 'Endocrine Hormonal Disruptors homosexuality' into Google, all I get are a few journalistic article (and let me tell you journalists have an amazing track record for sensationalising science stories)"
    =====

    How incredible. I trust then that this journalistic penchant for over exagerated emotionalism hits pretty close to home ???
    You have figuratively and symbolically defecated and urinated on every link I've given on any subject. Now I'm to believe you have the ability to change your historical Leopard spots ??? Part of googling is inserting any creative combination of words, that is if your sincere and truly hungry for the truth of a matter.

    This is NOT for you, but rather the viewing public who may actually be truthfully interested in the subject and the science.

    http://www.nel.edu/22_6/NEL220601R02_Dorner.htm

    http://www.trans-health.com/displayarticle.php?aid=51

    http://www.antijen.org/transadvocate/

    http://archive.greenpeace.org/toxics/reports/ptf/ptf.html

    http://www.nel.edu/22_6/NEL220601R02_Dorner_.pdf


    http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00001segmentID=7

    http://www.transadvocate.org/articles/edc1.htm

    http://gendertree.com/When%20Does%20it%20Happen.htm

    This next one was one of my favourites. Written by Psychologist Dan Eden championing Homosexuality is not a choice. He points towards what I have been saying.

    http://viewzone2.com/phthalatesx.html

    Now interestingly, almost every single research group points back the the studies found on Our Stolen Future website I originally directed you towards and caused this childish little girl foot stomping tantrum.
    ------

    ReplyDelete
  88. Ritchie:

    Well, the system is apparently screwing up again. I actually broke down and provided numerous fascinating links beyond Our Stolen Future, but even these research papers linked back to Theo Colborn and the website as the foundational primary research experts on this subject. Much of the papers even came from Transgender organizations and other related research Think Tanks. I'll have to wait.

    This is my 3rd post and not sure if it will post. Noticed other folks posts have disappeared here.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Here's a further attempt with one link. This Psychologist ( Dan Eden ) championing the cause for Homosexuality as NOT being a choice while at the same time bad mouthing militant religious organizations(no problem there actually), nevertheless procedes to point out all the points I made as to the Human cause for this biological wreakage phenomena with regards chamicals. Interesting read for everyone.

    Environmental causes of homosexuality

    Here goes nothing!

    ReplyDelete
  90. The world according to Eocene:

    science -> bad chemicals -> homos everywhere -> end of the world -> Eocene beamed up by Jebus -> Eocene having fun watching homos killed by Jebus -> reruns of above in heaven ad infinitum

    What's not to like?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Troylent Green:

    "science -> bad chemicals -> homos everywhere -> end of the world -> Eocene beamed up by Jebus -> Eocene having fun watching homos killed by Jebus -> reruns of above in heaven ad infinitum"
    =====

    Actually admitting a problem is the first step on the road to recovery. Thanks for sharing your Affirmation with us!

    ReplyDelete
  92. Ritchie:

    "I'm sorry, are you saying there was a study in which every single animal exposed to certain levels of whatever drug exhibited homosexual behaviour?"
    ====

    You refuse to read the research papers on that website, more more can I say ???
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "Don't overstate it. It MIGHT be CONTRIBUTING to SOME things are going extinct. If true, it's a pollutant. And there are plenty of them being spilled."
    ====

    I am absolutely unimportant here Ritchie, read the website.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "I'm just asking for a link to the relevent article. Why is that so hard? Why are you dodging and making excuses? Give me an index and tell me to find it and I might read and analyse the wrong one. I want to know what study YOU think supports YOUR point. This dodging just makes me suspect there is no such study and you're just fumbling."
    ====

    You can lead an atheist to Spring Break, but only he/she/it can party animal!
    ----

    Ritchie:

    ""I do indeed, but when I enter 'Endocrine Hormonal Disruptors homosexuality' into Google, all I get are a few journalistic article (and let me tell you journalists have an amazing track record for sensationalising science stories). I'd like to read whatever original scientific paper you are referring to."
    ====

    Could somebody else explain to Ritchie how to google properly with various word variations ??? Sadly, one has to be intently interested and motivated to arrive at a success. This clearly isn't one of those instances.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "
    No, SCIENCE = No Intelligence Allowed. Seriously, how can you still not get that?"
    ====

    Seriously, how can you not still get that ???
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "It's not deliberate muddling. It's that you have your own definitions for things. And yes, if you research and build a nuclear weapon properly using all the correct scientific protocols, then you have indeed done 'good science'."
    ====

    Let's see here. Double Standards. Pot-Kettle-Black. And Nuclear Weapons programs are by definition 'Good Science' ??? Got it!!!
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "None of this is fault of scientists."
    ====

    Rule #1, science accepts no personal responsibility for anything! Yet another Monsantoism!
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "But even if it isn't, then why aren't you angry at the people who are not using the pesticides responsibly? "
    ====

    Incredible. You're an Eco-Vegan, you tell me! Do you actually believe there is a responsible way to use pesticides ??? How many more decades do we need to prove that pesticidal usage are damning our natural world ??? I've got years of experience of never using pesticides. Why is that ??? Unfortunately, an evolutionist is incapable of understanding that there are PURPOSED checks and balances out in nature that can be easily replicated on the agricultural and urban landscape.

    Researching something from the standpoint that there perhaps are purposed organisms found throughout any environment hinders the evolutionist from asking the most important questions since there are "No Absolutes" and even invasive species are viewed as nothing more than the glory of Natural Selection and actually something to be celebrated. Certainly nothing that a good'ol fix-it-pill technology won't straighten out. Right Pedant ???
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "Why are you instead angry at the people who MADE the pesticides - saying their science is flawed even though the pesticides do actually work?"
    ====

    Correct. Pesticides do kill. They may kill indiscriminately, but by golly the KILL!

    ReplyDelete
  93. Eocene,

    First, why don't you start by giving us a clear picture of the problem that pesticides are targeted to solve.

    Second, give us an alternative solution to this same problem. That is, unless you're suggesting the problem is unsolvable. Or perhaps you think it not supposed to be solved in the first place.?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Uerrgh! Wrote out a big reply and stupidly deleted it. Here we go again:

    Eocene -

    The studies don't quite show what you think they do. For one thing, neither are scientific papers. The Living On Earth one is talking about physical abnormalities. This 'feminization' they refer to is males taking on physical female characteristics. True, it does mention homosexual behaviour, but as a by-product of becoming so thoroughly 'feminized'.

    The ViewZone.com article is much more on target, though I notice that you steer clear of its conclusion - that homosexuality is a biological condition, not a choice and therefore, sure, not a sin? How can a person deserve to be punished for something which is beyond their control? You cannot choose whether you are left-handed or right-handed. How unfair would it be to condemn left-handedness? Why would God make some people left-handed if He considered it a sin?

    "And Nuclear Weapons programs are by definition 'Good Science' ??? Got it!!!"

    This is an example of your disingenuousness. I am saying science has nothing to say on matters of morality. It only explains what is TRUE, not what is RIGHT. Yet you have quite consciously twisted my words explaining this to make it sound like I am saying that all scientists would consider nuclear weapons to be morally 'good'.

    It is this heels-in-the-sand attitude that is the most disappointing thing about the way you argue. You are not looking to resolve anything, you just want to fight.

    "Rule #1, science accepts no personal responsibility for anything! Yet another Monsantoism!"

    Not true at all. But you are trying to blame science for things which are way beyond its responsibility. It's as though I blamed you for 9/11, and whenever you tried to explain it wasn't your fault, I just accused you of trying to wriggle out of it. Face it like a man, Eocene, sometimes you are just wrong! The mature thing is to just face it.

    "Incredible. You're an Eco-Vegan, you tell me! Do you actually believe there is a responsible way to use pesticides ?"

    I really don't know. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't. One thing I do know is that they are pretty necessary if we, as we currently do, strip bio-diverse ecosystems to build vast fields of monocrops, which are in turn necessary to feed an exponentially growing population.

    Practically all the ecological problems humans are heaping onto the planet stem from the fact that there are only so many the world can take. One of the most important things we can do to try to safeguard the future of the planet, along with abstaining from meat, is to ensure we keep families small.

    "Unfortunately, an evolutionist is incapable of understanding that there are PURPOSED checks and balances out in nature that can be easily replicated on the agricultural and urban landscape."

    Complete nonsense! It requires no belief in a divine creator to see that ecosystems are fragile and each species plays a vital role in the web of life. Traditionally more damage has been done by men who believe they held 'dominion over the animals' and that animals and plants existed purely for the comfort and convenience of humans, as it says in the Bible, so don't go painting the godless as the abusers of the natural world.

    "Researching something from the standpoint that there perhaps are purposed organisms found throughout any environment hinders the evolutionist from asking the most important questions since there are "No Absolutes" and even invasive species are viewed as nothing more than the glory of Natural Selection and actually something to be celebrated."

    More rubbish. For one thing, accepting ToE has nothing to do with absolutism. Invasive species can wreak havoc on native ecosystems, and it takes no childish believe that 'animals were built with a purpose' to see that.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Ritchie:

    "The studies don't quite show what you think they do."
    =====

    Oh but they do. Only someone with a vested interested in what these studies truthfully reveal would find the need to attack tham at every turn. Unfortunately for you, when Theo Colborn was interviewed by Environmental Journalist Ashley Ahearn, your take on life was NOT what came to the surface. Indeed it's much worse:

    Ashley Ahearn:
    "So I asked Dr. Theo Colborn, who's been studying endocrine disruptors for over 30 years, if she thought our environmental exposures could be affecting our reproductive health. Or more specifically, given what we’re seeing with hypospadias, I asked her, do you think we are feminizing our baby boys?"

    Dr Theo Colborn:
    "I definitely do. I think there’s a certain percentage that are definitely being affected and there’s no denying it."

    Ashley Ahearn:
    "It's one thing to say that exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals may contribute to hypospadias. It's quite another to say that a person's sexual orientation could be shaped, in part, by their environmental exposures. That, Colborn says, is an explosive issue. No one wants to touch that research."

    Dr Theo Colborn:
    "If you were to ask for dollars for that you wouldn’t get the money. I mean, you would be laughed out of your chair, believe me. It’s that sensitive."

    *********

    The study done on the Frogs used a chemical dilution considered acceptable by the United States government. Researcher Tyrone Hayes exposed half of his frogs to the same level of atrazine that the Environmental Protection Agency says is safe for drinking water, and he kept the rest of the frogs atrazine-free in a separate tank.

    Incredibly it only takes minute amounts of chemcial molecules to trigger this corruption in the gentic code during early stage development. There does not have to be gross wholesale high concentration dumping of chemicals anywhere to accomplish these disasterous effects on the natural world. As the articles pointed out, controlled studies have recorded over 450 species being effected with feminized behavior from "bison to beetles."

    The problem as all of these articles bring out is that it is unethical(indeed would be immoral) to expose human fetuses to such experimentation as they have done on animals, birds, fish, etc. Personally I find it sad that science has to experiment on other creatures, but that's how the program works. Human Error has caused these conditions to exist and it is this sad state that proves humans are incapable of maintaining a proper custodialship in view of the historical damning evidence presented in this allowed experimental trial.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Ritchie:

    "The ViewZone.com article is much more on target, though I notice that you steer clear of its conclusion - that homosexuality is a biological condition, not a choice and therefore, sure, not a sin?"
    ======

    Didn't steer clear of anything, I referenced it in the first place. You are a complete dunce here Ritchie if you refuse to accept that human error has caused these biological corrupted systems. That's the very point here. There ARE a biological FACTORS today and it's getting worse. How many figurative mental reasoning disruptor chemicals are in your personal brand of Kool-Aid Ritchie ???
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "How can a person deserve to be punished for something which is beyond their control?"
    ======

    There is no such conclusion whatsoever, but I appreciate and understand your angry need to take this train wreck for a spin in that direction. This sad condition is on equal footing with other epigenetic and genomic imprinting disasters created by human error. As Marcus Pembrey and the other geneticists brought out on that documentary
    "The Ghost In Your Genes"
    there are numerous other bad behavior choices made by human ancestors that have an effect on predisposition in the genetic wiring for smoking, alcoholism, drug use, etc, etc, etc.

    Anyone born with such various predispositions have a freewilled choice NOT to act on such srewed up programming. Unfortunately a brain washed materialist will never admit this as it is destructive to their comfort zone of a worldview.

    "Too bad for them." ( Jude 11,12,13 )
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "You cannot choose whether you are left-handed or right-handed. How unfair would it be to condemn left-handedness? Why would God make some people left-handed if He considered it a sin?"
    =====

    WOW! Never underestimate the power of one's own chosen blind faith pathway. Normalcy Bias all over the map here on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Ritchie defending the faith:

    "One thing I do know is that chemicals are pretty necessary if we, as we currently do, strip bio-diverse ecosystems to build vast fields of monocrops, which are in turn necessary to feed an exponentially growing population."
    =====

    Do you realize that the majority of GMO Franken-plants developed by Monsanto, Syngenta and others are specifically designed to be sprayed with dangerous chemcials ???

    Do you also realize that these same hideous GMO companies manufacture the same chemicals to be sold for even more ecessive profits and if you don't buy their chemicals, those same GMOs won't function the way they were intelligently but irresponsibly manipulated and that failure is almost a guarantee ???
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "One of the most important things we can do to try to safeguard the future of the planet, along with abstaining from meat, is to ensure we keep families small."
    =====

    Another side effect of Endocrine disruptors are the low healthy viable sperm rates(see "The Disappearing Male"), especially in the industrially technologically advanced countires. The developing countries however are catching up as E.U. and USA industrial giants have their way by paying off leaders in those 3rd world wreakages.

    Interestingly, perhaps that's why birth rates are explosive in those countries as opposed to low birth rates in the so-called superior ones. Maybe those chemicals are beneficial after all Ritchie. Isn't evolutionary thinking brilliant. A negative can always be turned into a possitive when you worship on the alter of Darwin.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "More rubbish. For one thing, accepting ToE has nothing to do with absolutism."
    ======

    You haven't been reading some of the absurd asinine comments from some of your own brethern on this have you ??? Right Larry ???
    ------

    "Invasive species can wreak havoc on native ecosystems, and it takes no childish believe that 'animals were built with a purpose' to see that."
    ======

    This is the problem. Most invasive species problems were caused by human selfishness and greed in the first place. When pointing this out before on these and other boards, an evolutionist( those that traditionally in the past been labled as the ECO-GANG) will always, rather than acknowledge human error, will instead champion the eco-disasterous situation as another proof of the existance of yet another one of their mysterious gods - "Natural Selection".

    No matter how much you shed light on the negative effects of human imperfection and error, it's amazing to observe uncanny almost occult-like ability of an atheist/evolutionist to turn the negatives into a possitives for the bearded Buddha. And all the while, nature and the rest of humanity get screwed in the end because of the necessity laid upon them of pimping a worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Scotty:

    "First, why don't you start by giving us a clear picture of the problem that pesticides are targeted to solve."
    ======

    I'm sorry, and you are who exactly ???

    This is a nonsense question. I'm not for any manmade chemical pesticides in the first place. You need to ask others who champion their so-called purpose as you put it.
    ------

    Scotty:

    "Second, give us an alternative solution to this same problem."
    ======

    It's called preventative maintenance in the first place, just as when responsible health measures are taken to ensure good health. Of course in both agricultural and Medical industries, there's NO MONEY to be made in prevention.
    ------

    Scotty:

    "That is, unless you're suggesting the problem is unsolvable."
    ======

    It is indeed solvable, but not under the present conditions of the way the system runs now. Remember the golden rule. The one with the gold makes the rules.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Eocene -

    "Unfortunately for you, when Theo Colborn was interviewed by Environmental Journalist Ashley Ahearn, your take on life was NOT what came to the surface."

    The in the passage you quote above, they say directly that studies HAVEN'T been done as to whether these chemicals directly affect human sexuality because no-one will find such studies. That WAS exactly the point I was making.

    "You are a complete dunce here Ritchie if you refuse to accept that human error has caused these biological corrupted systems. That's the very point here. There ARE a biological FACTORS today and it's getting worse."

    Ummm, I hate to be the one to point this out, but homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. Whatever the attitude towards it, it can be found in the historical records of practically every culture in the world, and can be found in many, many animal species from a wide variety of habitats too. It obviously vastly predates these agricultural chemicals which have been around for, what, 50 years at most?

    "There is no such conclusion whatsoever, but I appreciate and understand your angry need to take this train wreck for a spin in that direction. This sad condition is on equal footing with other epigenetic and genomic imprinting disasters created by human error."

    No, it really isn't. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years - and in many species of animals. It is an entirely natural sexual state. It is nothing like a 'genomic imprinting disaster caused by human error.'

    "Anyone born with such various predispositions have a freewilled choice NOT to act on such srewed up programming. Unfortunately a brain washed materialist will never admit this as it is destructive to their comfort zone of a worldview."

    Rubbish. Why would anyone choose to NOT act on homosexual urges? What exactly is wrong with homosexuality? Again, the parallel with left-handedness is appropriate: both affect roughly 10% of the population (depending on your source) both are merely in innate preference for a mode of behaviour opposite to the norm, and both have historically been vilified by the Church and society as being a 'corruption' or 'perversion' of normal, natural, righteous human nature and The Work Of The Devil. A sober person not filled with religious brain-washing will see this as total rubbish - in both cases.

    "WOW! Never underestimate the power of one's own chosen blind faith pathway. Normalcy Bias all over the map here on this one."

    You dodged my question. Why should God make people gay/left-handed if he finds such behaviour abhorrent?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Eocene (cont)

    "Do you realize that the majority of GMO Franken-plants developed by Monsanto, Syngenta and others are specifically designed to be sprayed with dangerous chemcials ?"

    Not specifically but it doesn't surprise me in the least. Yet again you are confusing what is ethically good with what is true. You are saying that what they are doing is MORALLY WRONG, therefore their tools and methods DON'T WORK. That is a fallacy.

    "This is the problem. Most invasive species problems were caused by human selfishness and greed in the first place."

    And I agree.

    "When pointing this out before on these and other boards, an evolutionist( those that traditionally in the past been labled as the ECO-GANG) will always, rather than acknowledge human error, will instead champion the eco-disasterous situation as another proof of the existance of yet another one of their mysterious gods - "Natural Selection"."

    Invasive species out-reproducing native species IS an example of natural selection! The whole reason invasive species can be a problem is because they can be better-suited to survive than the native species - that is, they will OUT-COMPETE them.

    Take squirrels for example. Britain has red squirrels. But a few foreign grey squirrels were released in Britain 150 years ago, and now they have almost completely taken over. How? They are bigger and can out-compete red squirrels in the struggle to survive. That is a perfect example of natural selection right there.

    "No matter how much you shed light on the negative effects of human imperfection and error, it's amazing to observe uncanny almost occult-like ability of an atheist/evolutionist to turn the negatives into a possitives for the bearded Buddha."

    Once again you really do just mash up any world-view that opposes yours in your head, don't you? There are plenty of atheists / biologists / evolutionists who are perfectly happy to speak out against the follies of humanity - of ruthlessly tapping the Earth for finite resources, of polluting with reckless abandon, of shamelessly hunting and introducing invasive species into eco-systems. Why on Earth would any atheist or evolutionist have a problem with admitting such things?

    Again, the far more troubling attitude is one of 'Animals are here for the convenience of we humans' which is far more prevalent among the religious. 'It is the animals' PLACE or DIVINELY-ORDAINED PURPOSE to serve humans no matter what cruelties or destruction this entails. We can do whatever the Hell we want with animals - God says so! They don't have souls.' It is the same reasoning which kept slavery alive for so long - all carried on the horrific worldview that the oppressors have a God-given right to oppress. No cruelty, no abhorrence, no illegal, immoral atrocity is denied to the man who genuinely believes he has God on his side.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Ritchie:

    "The in the passage you quote above, they say directly that studies HAVEN'T been done as to whether these chemicals directly affect human sexuality because no-one will find such studies. That WAS exactly the point I was making."
    ======

    You didn't make any such point. Theo Colborn made that point HERE.

    Theo Colborn:

    "If you were to ask for dollars for that you wouldn’t get the money. I mean, you would be laughed out of your chair, believe me. It’s that sensitive."

    It's a political hot potato subject and one that is kept under wraps by an elist group that wants it styfled. ALL sorts of creatures tested resulted in negative effects of gay behavioral traits. The problem with human studies NOW is that it is left as a "Trojan Horse" waiting to explode in further choas because those in charge have a mental block for further responsible research. The inference is clearly there and you still have googled all the rest of the pertinant articles out there which have touched on this because you little world may come crumbling down. This is pathetic since your side champions itself as the nothing but SCIENCE gang.

    ReplyDelete
  102. What Eocene is really doing is blaming those nasty chemicals for changing his sexual orientation. Of all people he/she should know.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Ritchie:

    "Ummm, I hate to be the one to point this out, but homosexuality has been around for thousands of years."

    "No, it really isn't. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years - and in many species of animals. It is an entirely natural sexual state. It is nothing like a 'genomic imprinting disaster caused by human error.'
    ======

    WOW, the "Normalcy Biased" denial here is astounding. If the present scientific leadership has the same blinders on that you do on this clear problem facing out entire planet, then the end must be closer than we first thought.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "Rubbish. Why would anyone choose to NOT act on homosexual urges?"
    ======

    Why would one predisposed to alcoholism want to refrain from such over induging activity ???

    Why would someone predisposed to child abuse not pursue his/her desires ???

    Why would we even want to prevent someone predisposed to smoking from pursuing such desires ???
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "You dodged my question. Why should God make people gay/left-handed if he finds such behaviour abhorrent?"
    =======

    I didn't dodge anything. The question is nonsense as God is NOT responsible for the behavior. It is a result of the pursuit of the failed self determination insistance. You remember, the determination and right to choose what is good and what is bad ??? You wouldn't want him to stop that experiment and before it's unproven success now would you ???

    ReplyDelete
  104. Ritchie:

    "Yet again you are confusing what is ethically good with what is true. You are saying that what they are doing is MORALLY WRONG, therefore their tools and methods DON'T WORK. That is a fallacy."
    ======

    Fallacy ??? No try idiocy! This is clear abuse and misuse of science. How you refuse to see this is beyond me. This is not about science. It's about greed and selfishness by those in charge of it. If conscientious decent and clean people actually ran science today, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Clearly blinders are necessary to make through life now days.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "Invasive species out-reproducing native species IS an example of natural selection! The whole reason invasive species can be a problem is because they can be better-suited to survive than the native species - that is, they will OUT-COMPETE them."
    ======

    And this is why the environment will never be successfully restored anywhere. This discusting worldview prevents looking at any ecosystem with respect to the purpose of all it's various componants within it. Instead we are forced to view a perverted celebration of sorts of it's downfall by some imaginary animist god-like force which amorally accomplishes wonderful things even when it seeks and sets out to destroy it's various inhabitants.

    It doesn't get anymore perverted and twisted than this!
    -------

    Ritchie:

    "Again, the far more troubling attitude is one of 'Animals are here for the convenience of we humans' which is far more prevalent among the religious."
    =======

    WRONG, that was NOT the meaning of have in subjection or dominion of creation. Humans are allowed to pursue life as they see fit. Even the religious are allowed to experiment at their version of dominion, yet many there too have failed miserably. Keep watching the News Ritchie, there are seriously NO answers to be found anywhere. Well, there are answers, but no motivation until it's too late and they are forced to do something.

    Like the present Global Warming crisis, which unfortunately is nothing more than a power play by one side against another. The whole mess focusses on one minor symtomatic aspect of climate change and not the actual cause. There is more goinig on around the Earth than fluctuating temps or CO2s increases.

    At the moment, and unknown to most of the public, numerous governments are attempting their own climate reversal by other failed means of pumping chemicals into the air to deflect sunlight. It's the Mount Pinatubo solution. If you actually knew what they were doing, especially after reading the patents for this rediculous technology, you'd puke.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Eocene -

    "If you were to ask for dollars for that you wouldn’t get the money. I mean, you would be laughed out of your chair, believe me. It’s that sensitive."

    This is as explicit as it gets. You wouldn't get any money to fund such an experiment. So there is no scientific papers on this. Which is exactly what I've been saying.

    "The inference is clearly there and you still have googled all the rest of the pertinant articles out there which have touched on this because you little world may come crumbling down."

    Utter rubbish. It wouldn't affect my worldview at all. Perhaps these pesticides do have a 'feminizing' influence on foetuses. Who am I to say otherwise? But we don't know that for sure because NO PAPERS HAVE BEEN DONE TO SHOW ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

    "WOW, the "Normalcy Biased" denial here is astounding."

    Back to chest-thumping. Homosexuality has been present for thousands of years. Pesticides less than a century. Homosexuality obviously vastly precedes pesticides.

    "Why would one predisposed to alcoholism want to refrain from such over induging activity ??? Why would someone predisposed to child abuse not pursue his/her desires ??? Why would we even want to prevent someone predisposed to smoking from pursuing such desires ???"

    In these case of child abuse, there are victims. There are none with homosexuality. In the cases of alcoholism and smoking, these are demonstrably hugely harmful addictions. Homosexuality is not.

    "The question is nonsense as God is NOT responsible for the behavior. It is a result of the pursuit of the failed self determination insistance."

    Errr, actually yes, God kindof IS responsible. If he hates homosexuality so much then why not just make everyone heterosexual? Problem solved. That would work. Why create the urge for something that is then forbidden? That is just cruel.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Eocene (cont)

    "This is clear abuse and misuse of science. How you refuse to see this is beyond me."

    I have never denied this!! What I do keep pointing out time and time again is that just because something is MISUSED, doesn't mean it DOESN'T WORK!! How many times?!

    "This is not about science. It's about greed and selfishness by those in charge of it."

    For once we actually agree. These examples you bring up - pesticides and pollution. These AREN'T about science. These ARE about selfishness and corporate greed.

    Why just leaves the question of why you think these are good examples to demonstrate the theory of evolution via natural selection is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Because they do no such thing.

    "And this is why the environment will never be successfully restored anywhere. This discusting worldview prevents looking at any ecosystem with respect to the purpose of all it's various componants within it. Instead we are forced to view a perverted celebration of sorts of it's downfall by some imaginary animist god-like force which amorally accomplishes wonderful things even when it seeks and sets out to destroy it's various inhabitants."

    What?! This is just absolute nonsense. People who care about the environment are plentiful, and they come in all stripes. People who want to conserve the beauty of nature and protect indigenous biodiversity. And there are plenty of scientists, 'evolutionists', atheists among them. There is absolutely nothing about science, atheism or evolution which encourages the destruction of the land.

    Unfortunately there are huge corporate businesses whose concerns for the natural world are eclipsed by their concerns for profit. These few can destroy the world for the many. And they are not representative of anyone but themselves - not atheists, not scientists and not 'evolutionists'. How you've come to the conclusion that they do is really quite a mystery.

    "WRONG, that was NOT the meaning of have in subjection or dominion of creation. Humans are allowed to pursue life as they see fit."

    That is YOUR interpretation. The problem with holy books is that everyone interprets them to be used as divine approval for whatever the Hell they want to do.

    Am I saying Christians want to be cruel to animals and destroy the planet? No. You sound like you care about the planet a great deal. But you seem to have just blended every stance you disagree with - science, evolution, atheism, homosexuality - and determined that the problems of the world are all the fault of these Other People. You have so much tangled up that you can't even seperate any of it anymore. You have no chance of finding any solutions because you don't understand the problems in the slightest.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Theo Colborn:

    "If you were to ask for dollars for that you wouldn’t get the money. I mean, you would be laughed out of your chair, believe me. It’s that sensitive."
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "This is as explicit as it gets. You wouldn't get any money to fund such an experiment. So there is no scientific papers on this. Which is exactly what I've been saying."
    ======

    And you diliberately and conveniently allow it to blow completely over your head. Nice Ostrich imitation Ritchie, what other tricks can you do ??? Hmmmmmmmmm, time for some more articles if at least for others interested and to illustrate the scientific Normalcy Bias issues.
    ---------

    Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
    A policy report from The Royal Society.
    June 2000


    The greatest challenge to further research of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals is not scientists wanting to do the research, but the idiocy of ideological and political hacks blocking or preventing such studies. In fact many of the worst enemies of honest EDC research are the bought and paid for Chemical Industry Scientists, PR Flacks and Lawyers who throw wrenches into the works.

    Under the link
    "Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment"
    US National Research Council
    on the Our Stolen Future website, there were three paragraphs which beautifully illustrated not only Chemical Industry's "Normalcy Bias", but almost word for word "Classic Ritchie"!

    Enjoy!

    ---------------
    "Industry's response to this report was to emphasize the Academy's conclusion that no scientific certainty had been established. They then argued that without certainty, endocrine disruption was not an issue for public health concern.

    This is a classic argument from industry spokespeople: that the absence of data proves safety. In reality, all it proves is ignorance.

    The Academy report, however, revealed far more than ignorance. It demonstrated that the risks, while not proven, are both serious and highly plausible. It concluded by recommending an ambitious, large-scale research program to resolve unanswered questions, one commensurate with its concerns for the potential risks entailed.

    Unfortunately, it could take several decades to reach scientific certainty about causality."
    ---------------

    Normalcy Bias maintained

    Maintaining Careers Maintained

    Strategic Political Maneuverings

    Ideological comfort zones maintained

    PRICELESS!

    ReplyDelete
  108. Ritchie:

    "Utter rubbish. It wouldn't affect my worldview at all."
    ======

    Translation: "It still seems to me that I am right"
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "In these case of child abuse, there are victims. There are none with homosexuality. In the cases of alcoholism and smoking, these are demonstrably hugely harmful addictions. Homosexuality is not."
    ======

    Therefore if EDCs caused a normal healthy human being fetus with intact healthy DNA genetic makeup to degenerate from a normal healthy pattern for which they were powerless in the matter, this should be celebrated and as opposed to fault finding from an otherwise wonderful snow white Industry.

    Got it!
    -------

    Ritchie:

    "Errr, actually yes, God kindof IS responsible. If he hates homosexuality so much then why not just make everyone heterosexual? Problem solved. That would work. Why create the urge for something that is then forbidden? That is just cruel."
    =========

    WRONG. Time and trial must be allowed to prove that mankind's course of self determination has been a total failure. There is nothing that has been done that cannot be reverse in it's due appointed time. Time however is necessary to set and establish a Legal Precedent to avoid any future attempts in the future. It at least will add comfirmation in the minds of those who want to do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Ritchie:

    "Why just leaves the question of why you think these are good examples to demonstrate the theory of evolution via natural selection is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Because they do no such thing."
    =====

    This actually goes back to Cornelius' question of "Is Eugenics wrong?"

    If evolution is true, then as evolutionists insist, there are "No Absolutes". In otherwords, no absolute basis for definitions of morality other than all humans beings(animals) deciding for themselves whatever adaptive moral strategy works for them.

    Environmental ruin is a normal nature consequence of evolution and should not be judged as inappropriate because after all, we animals are only part of the natural game of DICE! The debased thinking never allows for responsible thinking beyond our otherwise selfish genes(memes). The raw animal selfishness cannot be judged wrong as there are no absolutes. Nature's destruction is nothing more than a rearrangement of nothing more than a lucky bundle of comprimises in the first place. If invasive species move in as a result of human idiocy, this is only part of the grand scheme of all things evolutionary and should not be judged harshly.
    ------

    ReplyDelete
  110. Ritchie:

    "But you seem to have just blended every stance you disagree with - science, evolution, atheism, homosexuality - and determined that the problems of the world are all the fault of these Other People."
    =====

    How convenient. The fault for what ails this planet is the fault of anything wielding power over others and I couldn't care less if it is an evolutionists, athists creationist, religious or political or whatever. But leave it to you to completely blow smoke away from the cause.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "You have so much tangled up that you can't even seperate any of it anymore. You have no chance of finding any solutions because you don't understand the problems in the slightest."
    ======

    Really ??? I have no clue in the slightest ???

    Let's see. If I wanted to establish an area of Maple Trees(say the U.S. west coast variety called Acer Macrophyllum), would it be advantageous to use my favourite mycorrhizal innoculant containing Pisolithus tinctorius or would Scott's Miracle Grow created by scientists be a better option ???

    ReplyDelete
  111. Does anyone have the slightest idea what Eocene is blithering about?

    ReplyDelete
  112. I think he's struggling with how idiotic his comments sound because the ideas he's expressing were so awesome in his own head. He's trying desperately to recapture that awesomeness and make us see it, but keeps butting up against the inescapable idiocy. Cognitive dissonance can be an ugly thing to witness.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Eocene:

    "Let's see. If I wanted to establish an area of Maple Trees(say the U.S. west coast variety called Acer Macrophyllum), would it be advantageous to use my favourite mycorrhizal innoculant containing Pisolithus tinctorius or would Scott's Miracle Grow created by scientists be a better option ???"
    ======

    Thorton:

    "Does anyone have the slightest idea what Eocene is blithering about?"
    =======

    Thanks for comfirmation on what myself and others already knew!
    -------

    "I think he's struggling with how idiotic his comments sound because the ideas he's expressing were so awesome in his own head."
    =====

    Funny, coming from closet IDiot such as yourself. The comments I've expressed have been quotes from the research papers for which not one of the local cowards here will avail themselves of the research done by Theo Colborn and others.
    ------

    Venture Free Maggy:

    "Cognitive dissonance can be an ugly thing to witness."
    =======

    "Normalcy Bias" is an ugly thing too. It is the biggest cause of loss of life.


    If you'll be patient, I have yet another example of how the flawed reasonings , dastardly underhanded dirty tactics against opponants and corrupt scheming employed in defending the religious evolutionary theory have indeed infected like a disease other sciences and technologies which have ruined this planet. Maybe we could call it, "Horizontal Meme Transfer". LOL

    Interestingly, it's the GMO Industry itself and their bastardized version of science that has almost an uncanny mirror image of many of the cowardly acts exposed in the documentary film "EXPELLED"-

    This should be fun!!!

    ReplyDelete
  114. Does any of this sound familiar ???

    Remember the Golden Rule. The one with the Gold makes the Rules!

    Quote from above Link:
    "Among a corporate controlled scientific community it is notoriously difficult for clinical studies to "prove" the link between environmental contamination and health results, since life is not a "controlled environment."

    ReplyDelete
  115. Interestingly, Monsanto itself is familiar with the damaging effects of it's own death machine "Round-Up" to Aquatic lifeforms. If anyone has ever used their product, you will notice the strong warnings against usage near any aquatic environments. The lie has always been that once the chemical touches the ground it becomes neutral and inert. That is a flat out lie as further research has proven. Notice this report from an Australian Organic watch dog group about Glyphosate:

    http://www.ofa.org.au/papers//glyphosatereview.htm

    As usual, all negative studies refuting Dr Carrasco's research and campaigns targeted personally against the Doctor are funded by the CASAFE—Argentina’s association of agrochemical companies that counts Monsanto, Dow Agro-sciences, Dupont, and Bayer CropScience among its members.

    Remember the Golden Rule. The one with the Gold makes the Rules.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Evolutionary Philosophy/Religion Dogmatically Defended has infected the way other bad sciences are justified and promoted. Clearly evolutionary thinking and reasoning has made many bad technologies successful. Evolutionary thinking champions "No Absolutes" and therefore nothing could be considered morally wrong if pursued. Evolutionary thinking not only allows for disrespect for moral laws, but also that of Physical Laws. If moral laws can be broken, then so can Physical Laws, that is if it allows for instant gratification, in the Technological sense that would be profits. Any consequences which result from pushing ahead without discipline will be corrected by science's ability to invent new fix-it-pills.

    Here's another case of evolutionary justification tactics used by other science technologies such as that done by GMOs. On Monsanto's own website, you will find articles dealing with the subject of anyone against GMOs are nothing more than "Anti-Science". Where have we heard that before ???

    Here's the case examples of Dr. Andreas Carrasco leading embryologist at the University of Buenos Aires Medical School and the Argentinean national research council. Dr Carrasco was attacked by an angry mob no doubt organized by the Rice/Soybean growers. His crime was informing the public people that Roundup herbicide from Monsanto causes birth defects in animals, and probably humans. While Dr Carrasco made it to his car as a refuge, his colleagues were so lucky as he watched them beaten and attacked for two hours. One was paraylized and the other beaten unconscious.

    No doubt, Dr Carrasco was inspired by such stories as that of an 11-year-old Paraguay boy named Salvino Talavera who passes on his bicycle under a cloud of poison being sprayed on a soya crop. He becomes ill immediately and dies soon thereafter.

    Paraguay: Soya and Pesticides, story of 11 year old Salvino Talavera:
    http://ffh.films.com/PreviewClip.aspx?id=17863

    Here's the link to a 2009 report done, detailing the simple experiments Dr Carrasco did which were similiar to studies written about in "Our Stolen Fututre".

    Study Released in Argentina Puts Glyphosate Under Fire
    http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/1765

    Norice this paragraph outlining the simple experiment:
    "We injected the amphibian embryo cells with glyphosate diluted to a concentration 1,500 times than what is used commercially and we allowed the amphibians to grow in strictly controlled conditions." Dr. Carrasco reports that the embryos survived from a fertilized egg state until the tadpole stage, but developed obvious defects which would compromise their ability to live in their normal habitats."

    ReplyDelete
  117. Seems the system is deleting again.

    The above was a subject matter of a Dr. Andreas Carrasco of Argentina who came under attack for his findings on Monsanto's Glyphosate found in "Round-Up", something I actually use to use heavily years ago. The warnings on the lable itself warns against the dangerous effects on aquatic life of all kinds.

    Part of the propaganda wording of the product is that it becomes inert or neutral after touching the gound. This is a lie. There was a piece done recently on Natural News and reprinted here:

    http://rickmick.com/?p=3117

    The details of two researchers Dr Andreas Carrasco and Dr. Irina Ermakova. Both misrepresented and abused by industry pimps and outside supporters who are against their clearly easy to understand findings. The experiments could have easily been conducted by any number of Elementary or High School Students for a Science Fair project.

    The bottom line here is that the same dastardly tactics used by TOE Advocates to squash heretics are also used by others when conventional popular scientific thinking which results in power/wealth creation and Social Status ladder climbing is shown to have dangerous flaws which effect the health and well being of human beings around the globe.

    The GMO industry (Monsanto being foremost of these) take scripts right out of the pages of Evolutionary apologentics. On Monsanto's very own website there are articles written insisting that those against their technology are in fact Anti-Science. This of course is a lie. Physical bullying, personal attacks on researchers and incompetance of company scientists covering up the damning data show an uncanny similiarity of the way TOE advocates combat opposition. These imperfect corrupt flaws obviously have infected other sciences who find such flawed reasinings and cowardly modes of operation effective in pursuing their goals against their critics and for promoting their wares.

    If TOE is true and there are no absolutes, then once again, the underhanded cowardly methods used at destroying any opposition would be viewed as survival adaptations for dealing with critics/heretics to conventionally accepted Mandates would be necessary acceptable advantage. Lying, cheating, stealing, embellishing, personal assasinations would all be perfectly acceptable under the philosophical worldview born out of TOE.

    ReplyDelete
  118. eocene, do you actually believe that only people who accept the ToE are guilty of "Lying, cheating, stealing, embellishing, personal assasinations"?

    The most vile people on this planet are people who would say that they believe in a god. All of your accusations of wrongdoing are aimed at the wrong target. It's not the ToE that is to blame, or the people who accept it. It's the selfishness, arrogance, and greed in people, and especially people like you who think that they ARE a god.

    I don't like the way many things are done in this world by humans and we certainly are destroying out planet, but it's not the fault of science. It's overpopulation and the so-called leaders we allow to run the show.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Ecocene: I'm sorry, and you are who exactly ???

    Yet another vague question that seems unrelated. Deflect much?

    Eocene:This is a nonsense question. I'm not for any manmade chemical pesticides in the first place. You need to ask others who champion their so-called purpose as you put it.

    Huh? You seem to have confused a particular implementation of a solution with the underlying problem it was designed to solve, Are you suggesting that farmers just decided one day to start applying pesticides to their crops, at significant expense, for no reason? If not, then what underlying problem are they trying to solve?

    Eocene: It's called preventative maintenance in the first place.....

    Maintenance of what? Again, how this vague statement solves a problem we have yet to clearly define.

    Eocene: It is indeed solvable, but not under the present conditions of the way system runs now.

    And you claim I'm talking nonsense?

    What what "system" are you referring to? How is it "preventing" a problem we have yet to define from being solved by "maintenance", etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Whole:

    "It's overpopulation and the so-called leaders we allow to run the show."
    ======

    One of the most accurate things you've said, though over population is more of an uneven population distribution. But then the question begs - Why do you support these leaders ???
    ------

    Whole:

    "Lying, cheating, stealing, embellishing, personal assasinations"
    ======

    So are the above actions wrong ???

    ReplyDelete
  121. Scotty:

    "Huh? You seem to have confused a particular implementation of a solution with the underlying problem it was designed to solve, Are you suggesting that farmers just decided one day to start applying pesticides to their crops, at significant expense, for no reason? If not, then what underlying problem are they trying to solve?"
    ======

    You're the one advocating pesticides, you tell us and go from there!
    ------

    Scotty:

    "Maintenance of what? Again, how this vague statement solves a problem we have yet to clearly define."
    ======

    Incredible the ability you have for screwing up and fuzzing simple things that even children get! If nothing else it's illustrative of why this world of humankind's making offers very few viable answers/solutions of value and worth. LOL
    ------

    Scotty:

    "And you claim I'm talking nonsense?"
    ======

    Your the Grand Guru of all there is to know throughout ALL the parellel universes, you tell us!

    ReplyDelete
  122. Eocene: You're the one advocating pesticides, you tell us and go from there!

    Where exactly did I advocate pesticides? Rather, I asked what problem they were attempting to solve? Can you be any more evasive?

    Eocone: Incredible the ability you have for screwing up and fuzzing simple things that even children get! If nothing else it's illustrative of why this world of humankind's making offers very few viable answers/solutions of value and worth. LOL

    Are you suggesting it's possible to solve a problem without first clearly defining it? If so, it would be you who's acting like a child with all of your hand waving.

    Scott: And you claim I'm talking nonsense? What what "system" are you referring to? How is it "preventing" a problem we have yet to define from being solved by "maintenance", etc.?

    Eocene: Your the Grand Guru of all there is to know throughout ALL the parellel universes, you tell us!

    Translated: "la, la, la, netherworld, la, la, la, I can't year you!"

    ReplyDelete
  123. Scotty:

    "Rather, I asked what problem they were attempting to solve?"
    =======

    You inform us, what problem are pesticides attempting to solve!
    -------

    Scotty:

    "Are you suggesting it's possible to solve a problem without first clearly defining it?"
    =======

    Great, now define the problem for us Scotty and we'll go from there!
    ------

    Scotty:

    "What what "system" are you referring to?"
    ======

    Define System:

    1. A set of detailed methods, procedures, and routines established or formulated to carry out a specific activity, perform a duty, or solve a problem.

    2. An organized, purposeful structure regarded as a whole and consisting of interrelated and interdependent elements (components, entities, factors, members, parts etc.). These elements continually influence one another (directly or indirectly) to maintain their activity and the existence of the system, in order to achieve the goal of the system.
    -----

    So if that is a what system is, then what is meant by,

    "Eocene: It is indeed solvable, but not under the present conditions of the way system runs now ???
    ------

    Scotty:

    How is it "preventing" a problem we have yet to define from being solved by "maintenance", etc.?
    ======

    A problem we have yet to define ??? Who's "we" ??? You me your inability to actually read the subject and acknowledge what is being discussed here without the halfcocked deflection gamings ???

    Hey if you want to further fuzzy and word game play, fine, then so can I !!!

    ReplyDelete
  124. "A Silent Forest"

    This is an excellent 46 minute documentary which explains some good science as opposed to undisciplined science motivated by nothing more than power grabbing, obscene profits invention and created through an Amoral undisciplined viewpoint which refuses to recognize componants in nature from the standpoint that they are engineered and have their own set of genetics rules and laws which need to be respected. This is what "No Abolutes" thinking has done to Earth's environment.

    The film features renowned geneticist and host of PBS' The Nature of Things David Suzuki, who explores the unknown and possibly disastrous consequences of improperly tested GE methods. Listen to the way he explains the undisciplined way GMO scientists bull ahead without caring about or considering any consequence of breaking Natural Laws.

    "A Silent Forest: The Growing Threat of Genetically Engineered Trees" - Part 1


    "A Silent Forest: The Growing Threat of Genetically Engineered Trees" - Part 2


    "A Silent Forest: The Growing Threat of Genetically Engineered Trees" - Part 3


    ENJOY!


    -----

    ReplyDelete
  125. Eocene: You inform us, what problem are pesticides attempting to solve!

    If YOU'RE claiming there is a solution to the problem pesticides are designed to solve, wouldn't this necessitate you knowing the problem that pesticides are designed to solve in the first place? Not only are you apparently a mind reader, but you know the answers to problems with out first defining them.

    Amazing!

    Scott: "What what "system" are you referring to?"

    Eocene: Define System:

    I clearly DID NOT ask for the definition of the term "system". Either you lack basic reading comprehension skills or you knew perfectly well what I asked, but attempted to change the subject. Again, I asked which SPECIFIC system you were referring to and how it prevents YOUR supposed solution from solving a problem which, apparently, you haven't defined.

    Eocene: A problem we have yet to define ??? Who's "we" ??? You me your inability to actually read the subject and acknowledge what is being discussed here without the halfcocked deflection gamings ???

    You're the one who claimed to have a solution to the problem that pesticides are designed to solve.

    If I said the solution is "12", how can this information be used to solve anything without first having a well defined problem? How many weeks you should jog each day to get to shape? 10+2? How many months in a year?

    "Maintenance" doesn't tell us anything without a well defined problem in the first place. You might as well have said "bubble gum and bailing wire"

    If you don't have a solution to the problem that pesticides are supposed to solve, then why not just say so up front, rather than play silly word games?

    If you don't thing this same problem is supposed to be solved then just come out and admit it, rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la, la, la, netherworld, la, la, la, I can't year you!"

    ReplyDelete
  126. Eocene: … an Amoral undisciplined viewpoint which refuses to recognize componants in nature from the standpoint that they are engineered and have their own set of genetics rules and laws which need to be respected.

    Again, it sounds to me like your arguing the problem pesticides are attempting to solve ISN'T supposed to be solve in the first place. Or are you arguing that the problem isn't' supposed to be solved by genetic means? Which is it?

    And if your solution solves this problem, then why don't you enlighten us as to how "the system" prevents this solution from solving it. Please be specific.

    Otherwise, this is yet another example of the blind playing pin the tail on science.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Scotty:

    "If YOU'RE claiming there is a solution to the problem pesticides are designed to solve, wouldn't this necessitate you knowing the problem that pesticides are designed to solve in the first place? Not only are you apparently a mind reader, but you know the answers to problems with out first defining them."
    =====

    You haven't defined pesticide solving. How can we possibly know unless you channel David Deutsch through an acceptable Miami Medium ???
    -----

    Scotty:

    "Either you lack basic reading comprehension skills or you knew perfectly well what I asked, but attempted to change the subject."
    ======

    What was the subject again ???
    ------

    Scotty:

    "Again, I asked which SPECIFIC system you were referring to and how it prevents YOUR supposed solution from solving a problem which, apparently, you haven't defined."
    ======

    You tell and inform us. You're the MAYA master wearing the Veil. What system does succeed under your infinite understanding of a perfect system.
    ------

    Scotty:

    "If I said the solution is "12", how can this information be used to solve anything without first having a well defined problem?"
    ======

    Is this Channel #12 and how is it superior to Channel #5 ??? Do we have to define the pest of the problem or is it simply a matter of going with the flow ???
    ------

    Scotty:

    "How many weeks you should jog each day to get to shape? 10+2? How many months in a year?"
    =====

    What if I don't like jogging ??? Is a lap pool an acceptable substitute and what was the question again ???
    -----

    Scotty:

    "If you don't have a solution to the problem that pesticides are supposed to solve, then why not just say so up front, rather than play silly word games?"
    =====

    Define word gaming!
    -----

    Scotty:

    "If you don't thing this same problem is supposed to be solved then just come out and admit it, rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la, la, la, netherworld, la, la, la, I can't year you!"
    =====

    Is that what Altzheimer's looks like in print ???

    ReplyDelete
  128. Scotty:

    "Again, it sounds to me like your arguing the problem pesticides are attempting to solve ISN'T supposed to be solve in the first place."
    =====

    Could it be the Applicators fault for not being licensed ???
    -----

    Scotty:

    "Or are you arguing that the problem isn't' supposed to be solved by genetic means? Which is it?"
    =====

    By genetic means ???
    -----

    Scotty:

    "And if your solution solves this problem, then why don't you enlighten us as to how "the system" prevents this solution from solving it. Please be specific."
    =====

    Who are the system, please define and how it's superior!
    -----

    Scotty:

    "Otherwise, this is yet another example of the blind playing pin the tail on science."
    =====

    Science is only a tool. But it's the ever evolving ever self-correcting mechanism by which humans will attain ascension to Nirvana. Eventually if we meditate long and hard enough, science will show us the enlightened pathway down the yellow brick road where where Judy Garland is waiting to take our hand if we just reach out.

    ReplyDelete
  129. I asked Eocene two reasonable, simple questions.

    First, why don't you start by giving us a clear picture of the problem that pesticides are targeted to solve.

    Second, give us an alternative solution to this same problem. That is, unless you're suggesting the problem is unsolvable. Or perhaps you think it not supposed to be solved in the first place.?


    Yet, after five comments, all we have are transparent attempts to avoid answering them. Why it is this? Because Eocene is attempting to frame this entire issue as some sort of cosmic test which he supposedly has the right answers, rather than a solvable problem. Knowledge is not created. The right answers never change. Everything that needs to be known is already known and he supposedly has all the right answers by some means he has yet to clearly disclose.

    Of course, this makes the presupposition that God carefully designed everything. Any deviation from this careful design represents is wrong, and means we've failed the test.

    The last thing Eocene wants is to define the problem that pesticides are designed to solve, as this (a) suggests this is a "problem" in the first place, to which solutions can be found and (b) this doesn't suit his agenda of pinning potentially undesired results on change as a whole.

    For example, to answer to my first question, pesticides are designed to solve the problem of increasing the signal to noise ratio in agriculture. More crop, less of everything else, which reduces yield.

    This is separate from pesticides, which are a particular chemical solution to this problem and can have negative effects can extend beyond the field to cause unwanted and even toxic effects.

    In other words, not only does Eocene not have no explanation for our recent, rapid increases in creating knowledge, he denies that it's even possible to create knowledge in the first place. To assume this is possible is to fail the test. And he's trying to support this claim by framing this whole issues as falling a test, rather than a poor solution to a problem.

    Which again leads me to ask, if Eocene thinks the problem is unsolvable and why. Specifically, unless it's somehow forbidden by the laws of physics, what else would prevent us from safely and effectively increasing the signal to noise ratio in crops other than knowing how?

    ReplyDelete
  130. Eocene -

    "And you diliberately and conveniently allow it to blow completely over your head. Nice Ostrich imitation Ritchie, what other tricks can you do ?"

    Yet again you link to a report which is not a scientific paper showing a link between these pesticides and homosexuality in human beings. I am not saying this is conclusive, I am just saying that without such studies your claims that these pesticides are definitely affecting human sexuality are pre-emptive. You need to get the data first.

    "This is a classic argument from industry spokespeople: that the absence of data proves safety. In reality, all it proves is ignorance."

    I absolutely agree. The absence of this data does not show these pesticides are safe. And in the interest of claiming that their products are safe, these companies are likely to forestall any such studies. In short, it is not the scientists you should be worrying about - it is the people who try to prevent science!

    "Therefore if EDCs caused a normal healthy human being fetus with intact healthy DNA genetic makeup to degenerate from a normal healthy pattern for which they were powerless in the matter, this should be celebrated and as opposed to fault finding from an otherwise wonderful snow white Industry.

    Got it!"

    What are you talking about? Stop trying to twist my words. I never said anything like this!

    There is no 'degeneration'. Homosexuality is a perfectly natural state. Just as left-handedness is. If you found out there was a pesticide which caused some foetuses to turn out left-handed, would you call it a 'degeneration from a healthy, right-handed pattern'?

    What I am saying is that homosexuality is certainly not EXCLUSIVELY the result of chemical pollutants. That much should be absolutely obvious. Yet you keep dodging this.

    "WRONG. Time and trial must be allowed to prove that mankind's course of self determination has been a total failure. There is nothing that has been done that cannot be reverse in it's due appointed time. Time however is necessary to set and establish a Legal Precedent to avoid any future attempts in the future. It at least will add comfirmation in the minds of those who want to do the right thing."

    I have no idea what you mean by any of this.

    God makes some people gay. Then He punishes those very same people for being gay. How is that anything other than monstrously unfair. Surely only a cruel and sadistic monster would do such a thing?

    "This actually goes back to Cornelius' question of "Is Eugenics wrong?""

    A question ToE, being a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, is unable to address.

    "If evolution is true, then as evolutionists insist, there are "No Absolutes"."

    Wrong. Utterly, utterly, hopelessly wrong. ToE is a scientific theory. It has no bearing on morality. Scientific theories say what IS, not what SHOULD BE. Nice to see you have utterly failed to grasp this childishly simple point throughout this now quite epic exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Eocene (cont)

    "Environmental ruin is a normal nature consequence of evolution..."

    No it isn't. Not even close.

    "The debased thinking never allows for responsible thinking beyond our otherwise selfish genes(memes). The raw animal selfishness cannot be judged wrong as there are no absolutes."

    You think the Selfish Gene means all living things are programmed to be inately selfish? Yet another clanger. You're full of them. No, Dawkins did NOT mean that by the Selfish Gene. I'd explain what it actually means but honestly, would you listen? Do you ever listen to anyone? Honestly?

    "The fault for what ails this planet is the fault of anything wielding power over others and I couldn't care less if it is an evolutionists, athists creationist, religious or political or whatever."

    HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

    That's obviously not true. You care a great deal. Look how doggedly you go round yapping and growling at everyone you see. You're like a angry homeless man shouting drunkenly at everyone who walks past as though they were responsible for all the wrongs of the world.

    Get some perspective. Get a clue.

    "Let's see. If I wanted to establish an area of Maple Trees(say the U.S. west coast variety called Acer Macrophyllum), would it be advantageous to use my favourite mycorrhizal innoculant containing Pisolithus tinctorius or would Scott's Miracle Grow created by scientists be a better option ??? "

    Why don't you do a study and find out?

    ReplyDelete
  132. Master Scott:

    "Specifically, unless it's somehow forbidden by the laws of physics, what else would prevent us from safely and effectively increasing the signal to noise ratio in crops other than knowing how?"
    ======

    Very well done Scotty. Can you also roll over, sit up and beg, play dead and make cannibis ring smoke come out of your nostrils ???

    This might be helpful to the Paraguay family of little 11-year-old boy, Silvino Talavera who died while riding his bicycle past a field sprayed with a cloud of Glyphosate.

    Please tell them it wasn't the fault of the responsible Leviathan Corporation called Monsanto. Let them know that in reality there was an "Negative Aura" sorrounding the fields because no one bothered to inform the family and nieghbours to collectively channel possitve energy to counter the bad effects of ignorant thought processes going on in the village at the time.

    Monsanto only had the villager's best interests and well being in mind and furthermore accepts no responsibility for the uneducation of peasants who choose to live a quiet passive lifestyle.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Eocene:
    "Environmental ruin is a normal nature consequence of evolution..."

    Ritchie:
    "No it isn't. Not even close."
    =====

    Untrue. If TOE is true, then all consequences of man bastardizing the environment are nothing more than the constantly evolving animal called man, because, afterall, he's just the top preditory animal in the road of Fittest Survival game
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "What are you talking about? Stop trying to twist my words. I never said anything like this!
    =====

    Translation:

    "Pay no attention to that Lab Coat behind the curtain. I am the great and promordial Ooze"
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Why don't you do a study and find out?"
    =====

    Been there done that. Thousands of times over. Now you need to get a clue and replicate the reality and leave the superstitions, myths and fables behind.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Ecocne,

    If you don't want to answer the question, just say so, rather than quote mine me yet again. After all, what I wrote is just a few comments up. Are you really that delusional to think this isn't transparent?

    Scott: Which again leads me to ask, if Eocene thinks the problem is unsolvable and why. Specifically, unless it's somehow forbidden by the laws of physics, what else would prevent us from safely and effectively increasing the signal to noise ratio in crops other than knowing how?

    Why am I asking this question? You finally explicitly disclosed your presupposition when you wrote….

    Eocene: "WRONG. Time and trial must be allowed to prove that mankind's course of self determination has been a total failure. There is nothing that has been done that cannot be reverse in it's due appointed time. Time however is necessary to set and establish a Legal Precedent to avoid any future attempts in the future. It at least will add comfirmation in the minds of those who want to do the right thing."

    You're implying the problem is "mankind's course of self determination". How do you explain why self determination has resulted in this supposed "total failure"? Why must would it "establish a Legal Precedent to avoid any future attempts in the future"?

    Again, what else would prevent us from safely and effectively increasing the signal to noise ratio in crops other than knowing how?

    Eocene: Very well done Scotty. Can you also roll over, sit up and beg, play dead and make cannibis ring smoke come out of your nostrils ???

    Not an answer to my question. Not a request for clarification. Not an argument as to how my question it's not relevant to your above claim.

    Eocene: This might be helpful to the Paraguay family of little 11-year-old boy, Silvino Talavera who died while riding his bicycle past a field sprayed with a cloud of Glyphosate.

    Not an answer to my question. Not a request for clarification. Not an argument as to how my question it's not relevant to your above claim.

    Also, why do you feel the need to sensationalize this, rather than simply present the facts? What purpose does it serve other than to show you're willing to twist events to suit your agenda?

    - 2 January 2003: Silvino Talavera Villasboa (11) got sprayed by soy producer Hermann Schlender with pesticides that were used in the soy monocultures around his house. He had to be hospitalised.
    - 6 January 2003: Silvino returns from the hospital. On the same day other soy producer Alfredo Laustenlager fumigates again at 15 metres from their house. 3 brothers and 20 more villagers have to be hospitalised.
    - 7 January 2003: Silvino dies.

    Eocene: Please tell them it wasn't the fault of the responsible Leviathan Corporation called Monsanto.

    Not an answer to my question. Not a request for clarification. Not an argument as to how my question it's not relevant to your above claim.

    Rocks can be used as building materials. Yet when thrown at people repeatedly, they can cause significant injury and even death. If God designed everything, including rocks, would he be responsible for indiscriminate placement of rocks that end up causing injury or death?

    Eocene: Monsanto only had the villager's best interests and well being in mind and furthermore accepts no responsibility for the uneducation of peasants who choose to live a quiet passive lifestyle.

    Yet again, not an answer to my question. Not a request for clarification. Not an argument as to how my question it's not relevant to your above claim.

    Again, if you don't want to answer the question, then just say so? No one's forcing you to respond. If my point is irrelevant to your claim, then you should be able to clearly point out why.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Eocene -

    "Untrue. If TOE is true, then all consequences of man bastardizing the environment are nothing more than the constantly evolving animal called man, because, afterall, he's just the top preditory animal in the road of Fittest Survival game"

    No, that's your (and, admittedly, Cornelius')strawman. If ToE is true, then that does not absolve us from any ecologial responsibility. ToE is not a code of morality, but it does not mean we don't have a duty to behave morally either. You are STILL thinking that 'evolutionists' live by ToE as if it was a basis on which to live your life, but no-one does. Just like people who accept the theory of gravity do not base their lives on living as though gravity were some code of morality.

    Yes, humans did evolve. Yes, we share common ancestors with every other living thing on Earth. But so what? That doesn't mean we shouldn't look after our planet. In fact it's all the more reason why we SHOULD look after our planet - every living creature is, however distantly, a cousin.

    "Translation: Pay no attention to that Lab Coat behind the curtain. I am the great and promordial Ooze""

    No, I meant exactly what I said. Stop trying to twist my words.

    "Been there done that. Thousands of times over"

    Well if you've done such a study then you've performed science! You've practiced this eeeeeeevil system which you seem to think is sending the whole planet straight to Hell.

    By the way, could you please explain how you trust the results of your study? After all, you believe miracles happen. Maybe one happened to skew your study. How can you possibly discount this possibility?

    ReplyDelete
  136. Ritchie:

    "Why don't you do a study and find out?"
    =====

    eocene:

    "Been there done that. Thousands of times over. Now you need to get a clue and replicate the reality and leave the superstitions, myths and fables behind."

    Hey eocene, you're funny. You're also insane.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Ritchie:

    "ToE is not a code of morality, but it does not mean we don't have a duty to behave morally either."
    =====

    TOE is not a code for anything. That's the point. Remember your hardcore beliefs. It's blind, pointless, pitiless, indifferent and incapable of caring less or more in one way or another. It is not an authority for anything moral. So whatever raw animalistic passionate selfish feelings come along for whoever because of whaever suffices for that moment.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Yes, humans did evolve. Yes, we share common ancestors with every other living thing on Earth. But so what?"
    =====

    There's no "so what?" about it.. This is nothing but a parishioner standing up in the pew and boldly babbling at the top of their lungs a mere religious affirmation of beliefs founded on faith-based statements. You want to be an Ape, so be it. You're an Ape if that's what you want to be.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "In fact it's all the more reason why we SHOULD look after our planet - every living creature is, however distantly, a cousin."
    ======

    Give your cousins my regards. Curious tho, does that include slime mold ???
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "You've practiced this eeeeeeevil system which you seem to think is sending the whole planet straight to Hell."
    =====

    This is hilarious. Everytime you have a big fat ZERO for retort, you always fall back on some other off the wall myth as if you think I believe in it. LOL!
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Well if you've done such a study then you've performed science! By the way, could you please explain how you trust the results of your study?"
    ======

    Well that's comfortable!

    And funny enough, "SCIENCE" wasn't actually the issue now was it ??? It's the way evolutionary thinking and concepts like lying, cheating, embellishing the truth, burying inconvenient data/facts, etc have bastardized other sciences and I gave plenty of examples above. Who are you trying to convince here, me or keeping on reasuring yourself ???
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "After all, you believe miracles happen. Maybe one happened to skew your study. How can you possibly discount this possibility?"
    =======

    Usual double standards and Pot-Kettle-Blackings.

    I can't think of nothing more miraculous than blind undirected purposeless unguided forces of physics and various for no apparent reason chemical cocktails creating extensive complex encoded informational systems which run further complex sophisticated nanomachinery.

    Intelligence, I get and relate to. But sadly the cowards on your end will never come clean on this without using I.D. and painting evolutionary lables all over the place.

    Ritchie, you have far more faith than I could ever hope to have!

    ReplyDelete
  138. Eocene -

    "TOE is not a code for anything. That's the point. Remember your hardcore beliefs. It's blind, pointless, pitiless, indifferent and incapable of caring less or more in one way or another. It is not an authority for anything moral."

    Correct!

    "So whatever raw animalistic passionate selfish feelings come along for whoever because of whaever suffices for that moment."

    NO! Once again you miss the point. You are right that ToE is not a system of morality. But that doesn't mean that 'evolutionists' therefore don't HAVE a system of morality. It just means we get it from elsewhere.

    I accept the theory of gravity. Yet the theory of gravity does not provide a code of morality. Does this mean I therefore have no morals? No, it just means I get my morals from somewhere else.

    "Give your cousins my regards. Curious tho, does that include slime mold ???"

    It includes every living creature on Earth. You too, by the way. Don't think that just because you don't accept evolution it means you didn't evolve.

    "And funny enough, "SCIENCE" wasn't actually the issue now was it ??? It's the way evolutionary thinking and concepts like lying, cheating, embellishing the truth, burying inconvenient data/facts, etc have bastardized other sciences and I gave plenty of examples above."

    No, that's precisely what you haven't given examples of.

    Why exactly is evolutionary thought synonymous with 'lying, cheating, embellishing the truth, burying inconvenient data/facts, etc'? The theory of evolution is supported by a vast deal of solid objective facts obtained by honest, simply and thoroughly transparent scientific research.

    Calling evotulion lies is preaching from the pulpit!

    "I can't think of nothing more miraculous than blind undirected purposeless unguided forces of physics and various for no apparent reason chemical cocktails creating extensive complex encoded informational systems which run further complex sophisticated nanomachinery."

    Then you have a truly stunted imagination/understanding.

    Do you understand how blind, undirected, purposeless, unguided forces of erosion and geology created a chasm as vast as the grand canyon? A geological feature which is both enormous and amazingly intricate and complex if you consider the exact dimensions of every surface. Yet formed out of nothing more than blind, purposeless, unguided, natural forces.

    "Intelligence, I get and relate to."

    But you still need an agent. Who could that possibly be, I wonder? Obviously a sensible, level-headed person such as yourself would never EVER bring religion into science. So what exactly is the scource, the agent of this intelligence?

    ReplyDelete
  139. Eocene:
    It's the way evolutionary thinking and concepts like lying, cheating, embellishing the truth, burying inconvenient data/facts, etc have bastardized other sciences and I gave plenty of examples

    This is confusing, are you saying 1) evolutionary thinking 2) human failings have bastardized science ? Or evolutionary thinking which originated cocepts like lying, cheating, etc have bastardized science ?

    ReplyDelete
  140. "lying, cheating, embellishing the truth, burying inconvenient data/facts, etc"

    Hmm, I find myself thinking of the catholic church, and all other religions, and of course the people who support and promote them.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Eocene: "WRONG. Time and trial must be allowed to prove that mankind's course of self determination has been a total failure. There is nothing that has been done that cannot be reverse in it's due appointed time. Time however is necessary to set and establish a Legal Precedent to avoid any future attempts in the future. It at least will add comfirmation in the minds of those who want to do the right thing."

    As I suspected, Eocene has declined to answer questions designed to clarify his claim. For example, what does Eocene mean by "self determination has been a total failure"? This is merely handwaving.

    One definition of "determine" is to make up one's mind, choose, opt, resolve. But given this definition, it's unclear how human beings have failed to act in a self determined manner. In fact, it's unclear how this is even possible given that Eocene believes in free will. Does Eocene define "success" as human beings that act in an un-self determined manner, with a lack of choice and decision? Do people who want to do the "right thing" exhibit no resolve?

    Determine can also be defined as to "control, decide, regulate, direct, dictate, govern; affect, influence, mold." But, again, human beings haven't failed to do any of these things either. Do people who "want to do the right thing" do the opposite of above? Should we have no government? Should there be no regulations?

    If not, Eocene is implying that the specific direction or course we've chosen has "totally failed", rather than having "totally failed" to take one. Of course, total failure is a broad claim which he has yet to establish. Nor has he specified a criteria for which outcomes are to be evaluated. Eocene is attempting to paint science, as a whole, as having "failed" by appealing to specific actions, events and outcomes. Instead, this is merely another example of handwaving.

    Nor is it clear why he'd expect a complete lack of failure as we create knowledge.

    Eocene must be claiming all of the "right" answers could not have been created as we went along, otherwise, how could we completely avoid failure in their absence? In other words, the "right" answers must have already existed.

    This is the underlying presupposition I'm referring to.

    So, it seems the failure total failure "determine" Eocene is referring to is based on the yet another definition of "ascertain, find out, discover, learn, establish, calculate, work out, make out, deduce, diagnose, discern; check, verify, confirm; informal figure out." And we've failed because it's impossible for us to create knowledge. If this somehow set a precedent for the future, then it must indicate a complete inability to create knowledge.

    But, again, I'd ask, what else would prevent us from safely and effectively increasing the signal to noise ratio in crops other than knowing how? What makes it impossible for us to create this knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  142. Ritchie:

    "NO! Once again you miss the point. You are right that ToE is not a system of morality. But that doesn't mean that 'evolutionists' therefore don't HAVE a system of morality. It just means we get it from elsewhere."
    =====

    Really ??? 'Survival of the fittest' didn't have a Amoral effect on the thinking of the late 19th and 20th centuries which gave us the wonderful concepts of 'Eugenics', 'Final Solution', classifying other races of humans as "SPECIES"(or more importantly sub-human), etc. If TOE is correct, then none of those things are wrong. To think otherwise would be a mere personal opinion that has no authoritive foundation. This in turn gives birth to those time wasting "what is truth" arguments.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "I accept the theory of gravity. Yet the theory of gravity does not provide a code of morality. Does this mean I therefore have no morals? No, it just means I get my morals from somewhere else."
    ====

    Great. Now come back down to earth and ground yourself in reality.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "It includes every living creature on Earth. You too, by the way. Don't think that just because you don't accept evolution it means you didn't evolve."
    =====

    No, I'm not a part of that vulgar religious concept. Unfortunately for billions of Africans, Aboriginals and other people of colour, they've had to endure decades of decadant white intellectual thought that has always placed them at the bottom of the evolutionary feces pile on those perverted Charts.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "No, that's precisely what you haven't given examples of."
    =====

    WRONG!!! I gave multiple accounts. But clearly the old, "they don't make'em anymore the way they use too" factor hit a little too close to home for some.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Why exactly is evolutionary thought synonymous with 'lying, cheating, embellishing the truth, burying inconvenient data/facts, etc'?"
    =====

    You tell me! That is exactly the question. Why ???
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "The theory of evolution is supported by a vast deal of solid objective facts obtained by honest, simply and thoroughly transparent scientific research."
    =====

    WRONG!!!

    TOE is propped up by imaginative storying, conjecturing, assumptions and personal assertions motivated by a priori of religious concepts relying on FAITH.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "Do you understand how blind, undirected, purposeless, unguided forces of erosion and geology created a chasm as vast as the grand canyon?"
    =====

    You're kidding right ??? It is not my job to teach and prove to you your religious faith. That is strictly your responsibility.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "A geological feature which is both enormous and amazingly intricate and complex if you consider the exact dimensions of every surface. Yet formed out of nothing more than blind, purposeless, unguided, natural forces."
    =====

    There's no comparison to some geological anomalie or phenomena and brilliantly precisioned informational systems running complex sophisticated nano-machinery. Where does such crap come from, east bloc Soviet-Styled KinderGarten ???
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "But you still need an agent. Who could that possibly be, I wonder? Obviously a sensible, level-headed person such as yourself would never EVER bring religion into science. So what exactly is the scource, the agent of this intelligence?"
    =====

    Not a bad question, but actually this would be totally unnecessary if science were worked from a NEUTRAL position. The bad thing for evolution is the inference. This is why religious bias is so important for evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Velikovskys:

    "This is confusing, are you saying 1) evolutionary thinking 2) human failings have bastardized science ?"
    =====

    Correct! This is the grotesque illustrative beauty of 'epigentics/genomic imprinting'. Evolutionary thought has brought such failed human traits down to new lows.

    Jeremiah 31:29

    Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

    (29) " . . Fathers have eaten unripe fruit, And the sons' teeth are blunted."

    *****

    Lamentations 5:7

    Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

    (7) "Our fathers sinned; they no longer exist,
    but we bear their punishment."

    ReplyDelete
  144. Eocene -

    "Really ??? 'Survival of the fittest' didn't have a Amoral effect on the thinking of the late 19th and 20th centuries which gave us the wonderful concepts of 'Eugenics', 'Final Solution', classifying other races of humans as "SPECIES"(or more importantly sub-human), etc. If TOE is correct, then none of those things are wrong."

    No, if ToE is correct, then these things WORK. And the distasteful truth is that they do. ToE is powerless to tell us whether eugenics is right or wrong because any scientific theory is powerless to talk about morality. We turn to philosophy and our own moral sense for that.

    ToE being true does not make eugenics MORALLY RIGHT.

    "Great. Now come back down to earth and ground yourself in reality."

    Witty.

    "No, I'm not a part of that vulgar religious concept."

    Tough. You are the product of billions of years of evolution whether you like it or not. Gorillas ARE your cousins. Snails and slime molds ARE your cousins. You can no more change that by denying it than you can change who your mother is by denying your relationship with her. I could claim the Queen was my mother until the cows came home - but that wouldn't make it true.

    "Unfortunately for billions of Africans, Aboriginals and other people of colour, they've had to endure decades of decadant white intellectual thought that has always placed them at the bottom of the evolutionary feces pile on those perverted Charts."

    You're blaming slavery on ToE?!?! HA HA HA HA HAAAAA!!!! The slave trade was in place centuries before ToE was even thought up - put in place, by the way, by white European Christians! And even in the final days of slavery in the west, the last bastions who clung on to the institution were always the religious ones who defended slavery because it was a practice santioned in the Bible. Which it is!

    If you actually understood ToE, you'd know that it gives no such concept as a 'lesser species'. Each species is unique, invaluable and perfectly suited for its own environment.

    "WRONG!!! I gave multiple accounts. But clearly the old, "they don't make'em anymore the way they use too" factor hit a little too close to home for some."

    No, you've poured scorn on a couple of big GI agricultural companies using potentially harmful pesticides. What this has to do with evolution, and how it demonstrates the very theory is based on lies exactly is a total mystery, except perhaps in your corkscrew mind.

    "WRONG!!! TOE is propped up by imaginative storying, conjecturing, assumptions and personal assertions motivated by a priori of religious concepts relying on FAITH."

    No. It really isn't. You just don't know and don't WANT to know the evidence, and religious concepts have nothing to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Eocene (cont)

    "You're kidding right ??? It is not my job to teach and prove to you your religious faith. That is strictly your responsibility."

    I am not kidding. It was a rhetorical question.

    You wondered how blind, unintelligent, unguided forces can create big complex structures. The grand canyon is a big, complex structure. Are we to conclude the grand canyon was therefore created deliberately by an 'intelligent agent'? Clearly not.

    Blind, unguided, unintelligent forces are indeed capable of great things given enough time and your inability to put it down as anything other than 'miraculous' says far more about you than it does about the world. That was my point. Which obviously sailed right over your head.

    "There's no comparison to some geological anomalie or phenomena and brilliantly precisioned informational systems running complex sophisticated nano-machinery."

    Why not?

    "Not a bad question, but actually this would be totally unnecessary if science were worked from a NEUTRAL position."

    Why would it be unnecessary? Science is a process of discovery. Why on Earth would it say 'something was created deliberately by a conscious agent' and then have no interest in identifying the agent?

    "The bad thing for evolution is the inference. This is why religious bias is so important for evolution."

    It is not a religious bias to disallow magic and miracles as scientific forces. And how exactly would it affect the many people who accept evolution AND believe in God?

    ReplyDelete
  146. Ritchie:

    "ToE being true does not make eugenics MORALLY RIGHT."
    ====

    WRONG! That is simply your personal biased opinion as no doubt it is mine. However, if TOE is true then it is technically not wrong. It is simply a consequence of yet another blind pointless randomn result of natural selection taking it's evolutionary course for no rhyme or reason. That's the beauty of "Dice Theory". Anything can be justified.

    I don't accept Sharia Law either, but if TOE is true, then mistreatment of women in those countries is the exact mirror of what goes on in Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. We're all animals anyway, therefore any act of animalistic passion could be considered normal, perhaps even something to be celebrated as more proof of evolutionary wonders.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    Tough. You are the product of billions of years of evolution whether you like it or not. Gorillas ARE your cousins. Snails and slime molds ARE your cousins."
    =====

    Somewhere James Watson is jumping for joy!
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "I could claim the Queen was my mother until the cows came home - but that wouldn't make it true."
    =====

    I don't think anyone would argue against your being related to the Queen!
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "If you actually understood ToE, you'd know that it gives no such concept as a 'lesser species'."
    ======

    Correct! It's the twisted power hungry Europeans who invented the TOE Dogma that gave life to such asinine absurd concepts.
    ------

    Ritchie;

    "Each species is unique, invaluable and perfectly suited for its own environment."
    =====

    Which lends justification to the Secularist protestors over here German/Franco E.U. that insist all immigrants(lower species) be sent back to their own natural habitats and let superior species in Europa remain homogenous.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "No. It really isn't. You just don't know and don't WANT to know the evidence, and religious concepts have nothing to do with it."
    =====

    LOL! - Dogmatically defending bastardized science is such a joy to behold. Sometimes their own words are all that is necessary.
    ----

    ReplyDelete
  147. Ritchie:

    "You wondered how blind, unintelligent, unguided forces can create big complex structures. The grand canyon is a big, complex structure. Are we to conclude the grand canyon was therefore created deliberately by an 'intelligent agent'? Clearly not."
    =====

    What are you, a closet IDiot ??? We're not talking about blind undirected unguided imaginations of Evolutionary flatulence and urination scupting a rock. We're talking about blind undirected unguided forces miraculously creating biological super computers running complex infrastructure with purpose and intent. You clearly need reminding over and over again of your own Dogma's articles of FAITH, like "No Intelligence Allowed".
    -----

    "Blind, unguided, unintelligent forces are indeed capable of great things given enough time and your inability to put it down as anything other than 'miraculous' says far more about you than it does about the world. That was my point. Which obviously sailed right over your head."
    =====

    Though there has NEVER ONCE been an honest truthful experiment proving blind undirected forces doing anything remotely wonderfully complex minus the cheating lying and grossly fudging of truth, somewhere Gerald Joyce is jumping for joy.

    Ritchie:

    "Science is a process of discovery."
    =====

    It perhaps use to be. However, today it is more often a tool hijacked by underground crime bosses for pursuing power and obscene wealth and pimping dogma indoctrination.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "It is not a religious bias to disallow magic and miracles as scientific forces."
    =====

    Do you even listen to yourself when you print this stuff ??? Your own Fogma is the exact mirror image of what you just dogmatically soap-boxed here.
    -----

    ReplyDelete
  148. Eocene

    Dude, you gotta stop this. Step back and take a good look at what you're writing. Try to read your posts as though they were written by someone else. If you read comments like that from a Darwinist, would you take them seriously?

    Look, I'm not saying that you're wrong or that you just need to shut up. I'm saying that you are simply not communicating effectively.

    ReplyDelete
  149. velikovskys:

    "Look, I'm not saying that you're wrong or that you just need to shut up. I'm saying that you are simply not communicating effectively."
    =====

    Incredible. What you actually don't like in reality is the exposure of huge degenerative flaws in your logic which have had horrible consequences on our planet.

    I could care less if you hate religion. I don't like the massive volumes of religious idiocy either, but I'm not going to trade it all in for another BAD RELIGIOUS worldview. What you should also hate is irresponsible bad science.

    At least be consistant!

    ReplyDelete
  150. "I don't like the massive volumes of religious idiocy either..."

    While you spout crap from the bible.

    You are as insane as ba77. Maybe you are ba77. ???!!!???!!!

    ReplyDelete
  151. For links call toll free 1 800 555 BA77!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  152. Eocene:
    velikovskys:

    "Look, I'm not saying that you're wrong or that you just need to shut up. I'm saying that you are simply not communicating effectively."

    Venture Free said that.

    Eocene:

    Incredible. What you actually don't like in reality is the exposure of huge degenerative flaws in your logic which have had horrible consequences on our planet.

    It was a comment on style ,not content.

    ReplyDelete
  153. velikovskys:

    "Venture Free said that."
    ====

    Sorry, too many Veejays I guess to keep track of.
    ----

    velikovskys:

    "It was a comment on style ,not content."
    ====

    It's safe to say that were I to be defending the politically correct faith, I wouldn't be getting so much as a whisper from the local Elite Intellects. Clearly others of their gang get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  154. No Truth:

    "While you spout crap from the bible."
    =====

    Here's one chosen specifically with you in mind.

    1 Timothy 6:4

    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    (4) "He is puffed up with pride and stupefied with conceit, [although he is] woefully ignorant. He has a [a]morbid fondness for controversy and disputes and strife about words, which result in (produce) envy and jealousy, quarrels and dissension, abuse and insults and slander, and base suspicions, . . "

    ReplyDelete
  155. Eocene said...

    No Truth:

    "While you spout crap from the bible."
    =====

    Here's one chosen specifically with you in mind.


    Whatta ya know, there's one in there specifically with you in mind too!

    Proverbs 18:2

    "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."

    ReplyDelete
  156. Thordy:

    "Proverbs 18:2

    "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."
    =====

    And yet the word "Fool" when used in the Bible does not denote a person of mental disability, but rather an individual who spurns reason and follows a morally insensible course. These two below, well, you know ???

    Psalm 10:4

    GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

    (4) "He turns up his nose and says, “God doesn’t care.”
    His every thought concludes, “There is no God.”
    ****

    Proverbs 1:7

    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    (7) "The reverent and worshipful fear of the Lord is the beginning and the principal and choice part of knowledge [its starting point and its essence]; but fools despise skillful and godly Wisdom, instruction, and discipline."

    ReplyDelete
  157. Eocene,

    As I've pointed out elsewhere, "survival of the fitttest" is a straw man of evolutionary theory. As such, you're blaming science for ignorant people havng formed their moral beliefs based on an incorrect interpretation of a scientific theory.

    Should we blame religion for ignorant people having formed moral beliefs based on incorrect interpretations of Christianity?

    Furthermore, the majority of thesists here appear bound and determined to remain ignorant about evolutionary theory so they can vilify / mock / attack it. We've bent over backwards to educate, but are met with evasion, repeating the same mistakes, etc.

    So, it's unclear how science is to blame when people cling to definitions that paint evolutionary theory as evil to protect their theological presuppositions.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Eocene: We're talking about blind undirected unguided forces miraculously creating biological super computers running complex infrastructure with purpose and intent.

    Again, this is another example of how one cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework.

    You presuppose that God - a supernatural being - did it, therefore it would be a miracle that evolution could have done it, because it's not supernatural, exhibits intent, purpose, etc. Purpose and intent are "magic" and unless Evolution is "magic" as well, it couldn't have possibly done it. Therefore, if we think evolution did it, you assume we must think evolution is "magic" as well.

    But this is YOUR baggage, not ours.

    You think everyone knows God exists, that God did it and that God is "magic", because the Bible says so. Therefore, we must be in denial.

    However, again, this is the result of extrapolating observations in a framework that presupposes that…

    01. God exists
    02. God communicates Truth, with a capital 'T', to specific people though divine revelation
    03. The Bible represents True divine revelation because it claims to be the word of God.
    04. The Bible claims God did it in a specific way, that everyone knows God did it this way, and those who suggest otherwise are merely in denial.

    But you have't substantiated any of these assumptions. They are, as you say, faith based statements.

    In other words, you assume that evolution having created knowledge represents faith on our part because of your faith based presuppositions above. In absence of your faith based presuppositions, evolution no more faith based any any other field in science.

    Of course, you can't see this because you refuse to admit that one cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. Doing so would undermine your presuppositions that knowledge has always existed (we generalize observations to form theories, etc.) This threatens your world view, so you vilify / mock / attack it. Furthermore, your "explanatory framework" is a bad explanation for reasons I've pointed out elsewhere. That's just what God must have wanted, does't explain the concrete differences between species.

    Like the majority of all religious beliefs, it's an attempt to explain why good things happen to some people, but not others. And, in the case of Christianity, in the context of the Christian God's existence. You've provided a textbook example of this by appealing to Silvino Talavera's death

    If an all powerful, all knowing and perfectly God exists, then why did Silvino Talavera die? You desperately want this God to exist, so there must be some special purpose to his death. As such, you've bought into the idea that God is testing us, including corporations such as Monsano, and Silvino's death was a necessary part of that test. Even then, such a God wouldn't make Silvino'd death be permeant, as you wrote…

    Eocene: There is nothing that has been done that cannot be reverse in it's due appointed time.

    So, your entire rant is just a transparent attempt to justify your particular theodicy.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Scotty Watty Doo Dah:

    "So, your entire rant is just a transparent attempt to justify your particular theodicy."
    ======

    Proverbs 26:4-5

    Good News Translation (GNT)

    (4) "If you answer a silly question, you are just as silly as the person who asked it.

    (5) "Give a silly answer to a silly question, and the one who asked it will realize that he's not as smart as he thinks."

    ReplyDelete
  160. Eocene: Proverbs 26:4-5

    Gee, Eocene, this is yet another appeal to assumptions 2 & 3 above.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Eocene:
    It's safe to say that were I to be defending the politically correct faith, I wouldn't be getting so much as a whisper from the local Elite Intellects. Clearly others of their gang get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card as usual

    It would be cringeworthy whichever side you were on. I doubt either side would claim you as well. You're just lucky Scott has strange taste in entertainment.

    ReplyDelete
  162. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  163. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Eocene -

    "WRONG! That is simply your personal biased opinion as no doubt it is mine. However, if TOE is true then it is technically not wrong."

    But it's not right either!! That's exactly what I mean when I say we cannot draw morality from scientific theories. Yet again, the truth of ToE says nothing at all about whether eugenics is morally right or wrong - only that it works. Which it does.

    "We're all animals anyway, therefore any act of animalistic passion could be considered normal, perhaps even something to be celebrated as more proof of evolutionary wonders."

    NO!!!

    That would be trying to draw morality from ToE! No-one does this. We do not get our morality from scientific theories. We get it from elsewhere. Seriously, I'm running out of ways of saying this. I'm just saying it over and over again and it truly is a wonder to behold that you simply cannot grasp it.

    "Correct! It's the twisted power hungry Europeans who invented the TOE Dogma that gave life to such asinine absurd concepts."

    You really do just make up history as you go along, don't you? These concepts of 'civilised people' and 'lesser barbarians' have been around for thousands of years. Thousands. ToE was drawn up in the mid-nineteenth century. How in Hell could anyone draw concept from a theory that was thousands of years into the future?

    This is just yet another example of you desperately trying to heap the sins of the world onto the shoulders of evolution. JFK's assassination? Got to be the fault of evolution. The sinking of the Titanic? The captain was probably an evolutionist. The Black Death? The Crusades? Cannibalism? Yep, I'm sure they can all be traced back to being the fault of evolutionists! I'm sure evolution is behind ever bad thing that has ever been done in the history of the world, no matter how long ago.

    You are making yourself sound at best extremely ignorant, and at worst unhinged with delusions of paranoia. Get some perspective. ToE was a scientific theory drawn up 150 years ago to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Nothing more.

    "ME : Each species is unique, invaluable and perfectly suited for its own environment.

    YOU: Which lends justification to the Secularist protestors over here German/Franco E.U. that insist all immigrants(lower species) be sent back to their own natural habitats and let superior species in Europa remain homogenous."

    I could draw exactly the same inference from your own position! Each eco-system is purposefully designed by God (whoops, I mean 'mysterious creator-designer'). Therefore immigration is messing up systems God (whoops, I mean the 'mysterious creator-designer') has set in place! Immigration is a violation of God's divine order! It is sinful! Heretical! Blasphemous! Do you still stone blasphemers to death like the Bible says you should (Lev 24:16)? You want to kill all immigrants!? You vile racist! You sicken me!

    ReplyDelete
  165. Eocene (cont)

    "LOL! - Dogmatically defending bastardized science is such a joy to behold. Sometimes their own words are all that is necessary."

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    "We're talking about blind undirected unguided forces miraculously creating biological super computers running complex infrastructure with purpose and intent."

    Which is precisely what ToE explains. Pity you don't understand it. My point was that, given time, blind unguided forces can, little by little, create vast and complex structures. It is true of the grand canyon and it is true of human beings.

    "You clearly need reminding over and over again of your own Dogma's articles of FAITH, like "No Intelligence Allowed"."

    Welcome to the world of science. We tend not to allow things like magic and miracles in here.

    "Though there has NEVER ONCE been an honest truthful experiment proving blind undirected forces doing anything remotely wonderfully complex..."

    All that really boils down to is 'No-one has proved that a miracle HASN'T taken place during their experiment'. Which, as far as it goes, is true. But it is a totally meaningless claim.

    There have been a great number of studies showing an increase in biological complexity and information. It's true, no-one can prove that God DIDN'T intervene in the experiment and perform a miracle in some small and undetectable way. But if you think that argument carries any weight then you are crazy. No-one can prove that the magic pixie, or the ghostly unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster DIDN'T magically intervene either. Doesn't make their existence any more likely.

    "ME: It is not a religious bias to disallow magic and miracles as scientific forces."

    YOU: Do you even listen to yourself when you print this stuff ??? Your own Fogma is the exact mirror image of what you just dogmatically soap-boxed here."

    No it isn't. Saying 'It MIGHT have been the work of a supernatural deity' is allowing for miracles. THAT would be smuggling religion into science. Discounting that possibility until evidence for it is presented is not.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Religion = the home of the mentally ill.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Ritchie:

    "Yet again, the truth of ToE says nothing at all about whether eugenics is morally right or wrong - only that it works. Which it does."
    =====

    Thank you for confirming that Eugenics is a wonder of everything evolutionary. Somewhere Eugen Fisher is high fiving Der Führer.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "We do not get our morality from scientific theories. We get it from elsewhere."
    =====

    The earth has over 225 different major countries. Within those countries lay many different ideological entities which disagree with each other. Many more have covert guerilla group operations with bizzare varying opinions which hope to overthrow and replace the morality of the other side. There is no unity even among so-called allies at times and no light at the end of the tunnel on any such universally accepted view of morality. If evolution is true morality is set in stone only by whatever majority rule in any one spot that governs that area on the planet. If Evolution is true then there are no absolutes. Then any type of morality is simply an ever evolving matter of who governs at any one time in any particular area of the planet. If Evolution is true, then even definition shell gaming any topic of any matter is a Evo-wonder to behold.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "This is just yet another example of you desperately trying to heap the sins of the world onto the shoulders of evolution. Got to be the fault of evolution."
    =====

    Your missing the point. If the world as we know it came about by blind undirected unguided forces of physics and chemical cocktails which resulted in a mercilous pitiless competition of selfish sex driven organisms wanting to promote their DNA over the competition, then the present disunited world we experience now must be proof of Evolution as a fact. I don't know how you could see it any other way.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "ToE was a scientific theory drawn up 150 years ago to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Nothing more."
    =====

    No, TOE was invented by a bitter old man who had a beef with God over his daughter's death. This same man made metaphysical assumptions and assertions in South America of how could there be a God who would create savages and other superior white races such as himself at the same time. Only after such metaphysical meditations did this bitter angry individual set out to find material to fit into his biased worldview. It certainly wasn't that he was out one day researching and accidently stumbled across something of evolutionary proof and thereafter changed his mind on matters. The predjudice and bias had already given birth to manipulating his version of 'what is truth?' arguing.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Which is precisely what ToE explains. Pity you don't understand it. My point was that, given time, blind unguided forces can, little by little, create vast and complex structures. It is true of the grand canyon and it is true of human beings."
    =====

    Perfect, at least you're now acknowledging the miracles required by your faith. Because they sure as heck haven't been satifactorily proven without myth insertions.
    ----

    Ritchie:

    "Seriously, I'm running out of ways of saying this."
    =====

    No argument there!
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Welcome to the world of science. We tend not to allow things like magic and miracles in here."
    =====

    So then, TOE is not a fact?

    ReplyDelete
  168. Eocene -

    "Thank you for confirming that Eugenics is a wonder of everything evolutionary."

    It absolutely is not. I have said aboslutely nothing that remotely resembles that. Do I really need to ask you to stop twisting my words again? Particularly when you are on your high horse about lying and dishonesty? Seems you don't have a problem whenever YOU want to lie.

    "The earth has over 225 different major countries. Within those countries lay many different ideological entities which disagree with each other."

    Yes, morality IS more difficult if we have to decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. It WOULD be easier and more convenient if there was a magic book somewhere which told us in advance what was right and what was wrong. But just because it's easier, doesn't mean it's true. It would be easier for me if Santa was real - then I wouldn't need to buy presents for my friends' children. But that doesn't make him real.

    "If evolution is true morality is set in stone only by whatever majority rule in any one spot that governs that area on the planet."

    No it doesn't! Not in the slightest. Evolution being true has absolutely no bearing on morality at all. If ToE is true then there could still be moral absolutes. ToE has NOTHING to do with morality AT ALL.

    "If Evolution is true then there are no absolutes."

    "WRING!! Evolution being true has absolutely no bearing on morality at all. If ToE is true then there could still be moral absolutes. ToE has NOTHING to do with morality AT ALL."

    "Then any type of morality is simply an ever evolving matter of who governs at any one time in any particular area of the planet."


    No it isn't! Not in the slightest. Evolution being true has absolutely no bearing on morality at all. If ToE is true then there could still be moral absolutes. ToE has NOTHING to do with morality AT ALL.

    "Your missing the point. If the world as we know it came about by blind undirected unguided forces of physics and chemical cocktails which resulted in a mercilous pitiless competition of selfish sex driven organisms wanting to promote their DNA over the competition, then the present disunited world we experience now must be proof of Evolution as a fact. I don't know how you could see it any other way."

    I don't know how you can see it this way! There is struggle and competition to survive in nature. That much is obvious. But you are talking about political and social conflict and strife. Which has nothing to do with ToE.

    "No, TOE was invented by a bitter old man who had a beef with God over his daughter's death. This same man made metaphysical assumptions and assertions in South America of how could there be a God who would create savages and other superior white races such as himself at the same time. Only after such metaphysical meditations did this bitter angry individual set out to find material to fit into his biased worldview."

    A re-inventing of history as hilarious as it is inaccurate. The inspiration for Darwin's idea is extremely well documented. It struck when he examined the finches of the Galapagos islands. He was not, as you seem to imagine, on a mission to disprove God! For one thing, his daughter did not die until 1851 - 20 years after the Beagle set sail. Was Darwin psychic? Was he angry with God because he magically knew his as-yet-unborn daughter WOULD die in the future?

    For another, it really doesn't matter what his motivations were at all. All that matters is that this was a novel idea which does stand up to the rigours of scientific critical analysis. And after 150 years of vigorous scientific testing, it almost certainly is.

    If ToE is such a vehicle for atheism then why has it even been endorsed by the Pope? Is the Pope an atheist? Is the Pope pushing an atheistic agenda?

    Or perhaps, just perhaps, ToE is NOT intrinsically atheistic. I know you can barely stand to consider this point and yet here it is.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Eocene (cont)

    "Perfect, at least you're now acknowledging the miracles required by your faith."

    Swing and a miss. Given sufficient time, blind, purposeless, ungoverned forces, can create huge and complex structures. This isn't miraculous! Miralces have nothing to do with it.

    "So then, TOE is not a fact?"

    No it IS a fact. Because (unlike ID, by the way) ToE has nothing to do with magic and miralces whatsoever. It describes how complex organisms can arise and diversify through entiurely natural forces. That's not miraculous.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Ritchie:

    "It absolutely is not. I have said aboslutely nothing that remotely resembles that. Do I really need to ask you to stop twisting my words again? Particularly when you are on your high horse about lying and dishonesty? Seems you don't have a problem whenever YOU want to lie."
    ======

    Who are you trying to kid here Ritchie ??? Me or YOU ???
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "Yes, morality IS more difficult if we have to decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. It WOULD be easier and more convenient if there was a magic book somewhere which told us in advance what was right and what was wrong. "
    =====

    There's no magic book Ritchie. But it is the very reason Genesis was written. If you or any other atheist/creationist thinks that is the purpose then you're both wrong. Creation was the least of the reasons.

    Remember, self-determination of what is good and what is bad. That has always been the issue, not who or what created the material world. Don't feel bad, most creationists don't get it either.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "If ToE is true then there could still be moral absolutes. ToE has NOTHING to do with morality AT ALL."
    =====

    Forget TOE, we're talking IF EVOLUTION is true. The theory is over bloated with all manner of imperfections which is indeed it's purpose for which it was conceived.
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "No it isn't! Not in the slightest. Evolution being true has absolutely no bearing on morality at all."
    ======

    CORRECT, there is only Amorality, which explains the bastardized health condition of the planet.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "If ToE is true then there could still be moral absolutes. ToE has NOTHING to do with morality AT ALL."
    ======

    That's the beauty of TOE and self-determination. There are literally billions with variying viewpoints on what is good and what is bad, right vrs wrong. Hence the wonderful world CNN & BBC give us every evening. Why you can just visualize the random acts of different morality breaking out all over the place. Each self-genetcially alter individual propagating his/her own version of it.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "There is struggle and competition to survive in nature. That much is obvious. But you are talking about political and social conflict and strife. Which has nothing to do with ToE."
    ======

    And of course evolution certainly explains the present chaos around us. Because as PZ Meyers put it:

    "We go right to the central issue of whether there is God or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does."

    ReplyDelete
  171. Ritchie:

    "A re-inventing of history as hilarious as it is inaccurate. The inspiration for Darwin's idea is extremely well documented."
    ======

    Well you're going to have to take it up with the History Channel and other documentaries which exposed the man's early feelings which lead him to invent TOE.
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "If ToE is such a vehicle for atheism then why has it even been endorsed by the Pope? Is the Pope an atheist? Is the Pope pushing an atheistic agenda?"
    ======

    Totally agree, but no one here on the religious side or those over at U.D. will discuss it. TOE was given life not by Atheists/Agnostics, but by the religious. It's dogma justified colonialization and subjecting other races. Why in the world did the religious ever support and push agendas like Apartheid, Australian Aboriginal genocide, etc ??? Why did 60+ million religious people support the Nazis' Social Darwinianisn in light of what their own holy book says to the contrary ??? I have been unable to get a satifactory answer, can you ???
    -----

    Ritchie:

    "Swing and a miss. Given sufficient time, blind, purposeless, ungoverned forces, can create huge and complex structures. This isn't miraculous! Miralces have nothing to do with it."
    ======

    LOL, not only have you struck out multiple times but you've lost the series. You don't even know the game is over. None of that rubbish you just posted has ever been satisfactorily happen without massive amounts of blind faith needed to believe in those religious fables.
    =====

    Ritchie:

    "Because (unlike ID, by the way) ToE has nothing to do with magic and miralces whatsoever."
    ======

    This is called blind faith!
    ------

    Ritchie:

    "It describes how complex organisms can arise and diversify through entiurely natural forces. That's not miraculous."
    ======

    Oh there's no doubt that TOE's imperfect religiously holymen describe just exactly that. But it's the reality that is what's lacking. And yes, miracles are exactly what TOE is founded on, because nothing in reality even remotely relates to what you just said. Faith is a powerful tool Ritchie!

    ReplyDelete
  172. eocene barfed: "Why you can just visualize the random acts of different morality breaking out all over the place. Each self-genetcially alter individual propagating his/her own version of it."

    Yeah, like you're doing.

    What makes your version of morality any better than any other version? And if you're so moral, why are you so dishonest and hypocritical?

    By the way, you're absolutely insane. Seriously. Seek help.

    ReplyDelete
  173. "I have been unable to get a satifactory answer, can you ???"

    People, and especially religious people, like you, often manipulate their alleged beliefs to suit whatever agenda they have at the time. Anyone who is unstable enough to believe in, or at least say they believe in religious fairy tales is also unstable enough to not be trustworthy, honest, responsible, respectable, or have good, unalterable morals and satndards.

    It's funny that you complain so much about how screwed up the world is but what you have conveniently left out is that most of the people in the world are religious, and have been for many centuries. What does that say about religion, and whether it influences people to behave in a better, more responsible way?

    Evolution and evolutionary theory aren't the problems. Religious delusions, disagreements about those delusions, and using those delusions as an excuse to oppress and destroy other people are certainly some of the biggest problems.

    Hitler essentially made up his own religion (belief system) and it's not Darwin's fault. Connecting Hitler to Darwin is a lame, old argument that carries no weight.

    Since Hitler wasn't born yet, who was to blame for all of the death and destruction before him? Who is to blame for all of the death and destruction that your chosen god carried out, or ordered to be carried out, as alleged in your so-called bible? Was it also Hitler's fault that an asteroid hit the Earth 65 million years ago and killed massive amounts of living things? Was the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 Hitler's fault? How about the recent earthquake in Haiti, or the tsunamis in Indonesia and Japan? Is cancer Hitler's fault? Toothaches? Athlete's foot? Feminine itch? Your insanity?

    ReplyDelete
  174. Oh, and since Darwin also wasn't born yet, who was to blame for all of the death and destruction before him? Who is to blame for all of the death and destruction that your chosen god carried out, or ordered to be carried out, as alleged in your so-called bible? Was it Darwin's fault that an asteroid hit the Earth 65 million years ago and killed massive amounts of living things? Was the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 Darwin's fault? How about the recent earthquake in Haiti, or the tsunamis in Indonesia and Japan? Is cancer Darwin's fault? Toothaches? Athlete's foot? Feminine itch? Your insanity?

    Is there anyone else you'd like to falsely blame for all of the world's ills besides Darwin and Hitler?

    ReplyDelete
  175. Amend that to:

    Is there anyone else you'd like to falsely blame for all of the world's ills besides Darwin and Hitler, and scientists?

    ReplyDelete
  176. Sorry we're late. We weren't monitoring this channel.

    Eocene: Here's a prime example of a local pimp with personal issues of it's own on championing honosexuality as a natural wonder of nature when it has NEVER historically been so before.

    The context is the best part.

    Katz: The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet.

    Zachriel (May 23, 2010): "The human body is not designed for hypodermic needles, at all. Or riding motorcyles, with or without a helmet. However, promiscuity and homosexuality occur throughout human culture, and even in other species."

    Eocene: Indeed, for some it may not be a choice, but nothing more than unfortunate screwed up genetic programming brought about by the misuse and abuse of science by men and women driven by nothing more than selfishness and greed.

    Not sure that applies to penguins or bonobos, or any of the other species observed to engage in homosexuality or promiscuity.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Neal Tedford: Zachriel, Derrick, and others, So much for the objective nested hierarchy.

    Not sure what to what you are referencing. The nested hierarchy is not perfect, nor ever posited to be. Darwin wrote an entire chapter on hybridization in Origin of Species, for instance.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Zachriel

    "Sorry we're late. We weren't monitoring this channel."

    How many of you?

    You didn't miss much on this channel,10-4 good buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Zachriel, "not perfect" are weasel words. The contradictions between your archaic objective nested hierarchy based on morphology and new research in genetics is not revealing trivial exceptions. As more and more genomes are sequenced, the contradictions appear to be the rule and not the expection.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Neal Tedford: Zachriel, "not perfect" are weasel words.

    Do planets follow elliptical orbits?

    Neal Tedford: The contradictions between your archaic objective nested hierarchy based on morphology and new research in genetics is not revealing trivial exceptions.

    Didn't say they were trivial. It's rather odd you wave your hands at morphology, when genetics is considered the strongest support for the nested hierarchy. Indeed, many exceptions are noticed simply because they stand out like sore thumbs against the background nested hierarchy pattern.


    But if you disagree, it would help if you were specific. That would require actually looking that the data, including the data that does support the nested hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Zachriel said, "Indeed, many exceptions are noticed simply because they stand out like sore thumbs against the background nested hierarchy pattern."

    ---
    What an incredible justification of contradictory evidence on your part. The mind sucking Darwinian vortex has you trapped.

    ---

    Let's turn this around and ask the question a different way. Can you give me one, clear example where supposed common ancestry based on morphology PERFECTLY agrees with supposed phylogeny based on genetics?

    ReplyDelete
  182. Tedford:

    Can you give me one, clear example where supposed common ancestry based on morphology PERFECTLY agrees with supposed phylogeny based on genetics?

    It depends on what you mean by "PERFECTLY." For example, common ancestry of primates (including you, Bubba) based on morphology has been confirmed by genome analyses.

    PERFECT enough?

    ReplyDelete
  183. Neal Tedford: Can you give me one, clear example where supposed common ancestry based on morphology PERFECTLY agrees with supposed phylogeny based on genetics?

    The concept isnt' that difficult. Can you point to a planet that traces a PERFECT elliptical orbit?

    ReplyDelete
  184. It depends on what you mean by "PERFECTLY." For example, common ancestry of primates (including you, Bubba) based on morphology has been confirmed by genome analyses.

    Shouldn't that apply to ALL living organisms (not just allegedly primates)? So why doesn't it?

    Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts—also known as tunicates—are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates.

    “Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another,” Syvanen says.


    Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009).

    ReplyDelete
  185. National Velour: Shouldn't that apply to ALL living organisms (not just allegedly primates)? So why doesn't it?

    A perfect pattern isn't expected due to various mechanisms, such as hybridization, convergence, and the particulate nature of genes. Nevertheless, there is a strong signal across eukaryotes, as well as within much of the proteome.

    ReplyDelete
  186. National Velour:

    Shouldn't that apply to ALL living organisms (not just allegedly primates)? So why doesn't it?

    The challenge was to provide one example, which I provided . Do you have trouble keeping your goalposts from spinning out of control?

    Do you have trouble realizing that the example I provided has profound negative implications for Christian apologetics?

    Surely you do, which is the reason for your movement of the goalposts.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Pedant:
    Do you have trouble realizing that the example I provided has profound negative implications for Christian apologetics

    You underestimate the cleverness of Catholics theologians. It is believed,by some,that God took the unensouled ape and by yadda yadda ensouled the ape to form man.There is no evidence that this did not occur.

    ReplyDelete
  188. velikovsky

    First cell appeared and yadda yadda yadda elephant.

    It's time for yadda jokes while we wait for CH. C'mon velikovsky.

    BTW do you know what velik means in Slavic languages?

    ReplyDelete
  189. Pendant said: The challenge was to provide one example, which I provided . Do you have trouble keeping your goalposts from spinning out of control?

    Nobody moved them...I simply stated something that should be a simple fact, yet it isn't. Why? Why doesn't the genetic data support a clear common ancestry if evolution is true?

    Do you have trouble realizing that the example I provided has profound negative implications for Christian apologetics?

    If it were evidence based on objective data, and not riddled with biased assumptions, then yes it would.

    Surely you do, which is the reason for your movement of the goalposts.

    For someone who claims his darwinian myth is factual and has evidence to support it, you sure get testy when shown evidence that contradicts it. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  190. If it were evidence based on objective data, and not riddled with biased assumptions, then yes it would.

    For a review of the objective data supporting the common ancestry of humans and other apes, especially the chimpanzee, see:

    Venema, D.R. (2010). Genesis and the genome: genomics evidence for human – ape common ancestry and ancestral hominid population sizes. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62 (3), 166-178.

    For someone who claims his darwinian myth is factual and has evidence to support it, you sure get testy when shown evidence that contradicts it.

    The quoted article cites research findings of Michael Syvanen, University of California. There is no reference to such findings in PubMed or in the list of publications on Dr Syvanen's Web page.

    ReplyDelete
  191. National Velour: Why? Why doesn't the genetic data support a clear common ancestry if evolution is true?

    You're confusing common descent with bifurcating descent. The former is strongly supported, the latter is largely supported for much of evolutionary history, but is not universal.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Eugen

    First cell appeared and yadda yadda yadda elephant.

    It's time for yadda jokes while we wait for CH. C'mon velikovsky.


    I thought it was "dirt yadda yadda Mozart ". If you have a more detailed explanation of the ensoulment process ,I am interested. Unfortunately none of my yadda yadda jokes are PG. No what does it mean,as handsome as smart?

    ReplyDelete
  193. I don't know about ensoulment trick, I'm tecnical guy, not my job. Just ask Pedantski , he knows everything.

    Velik means big, good pick for the name. Knowing that you have more joke material.

    I should write a book Brief History of the Universe. " BigBang yadda yadda IPhone4S" that covers pretty much everything.

    yadda yadda Seinfeld

    ReplyDelete
  194. Pedant and Zachriel, let's look at the example Pedant gave regarding the supposed common ancestry of primates.


    Evolutionists say that humans are most closely related to chimps. The hyped and amateurish attempt at comparing the human and chimp genomes would turn yellow journalism into a bright neon yellow. But the genetic data conflicts with the standard Darwinian tree.

    The problem is that one part of the genome gives you one version of a tree, while another part of the genome gives you a different version of the tree.

    Again and again we see discrepancies between genome based trees... the DNA data fails to provide a consistency for common ancestry.

    To quote one study, "In a study published online in Genome Research, in coordination with the publication of the orangutan genome sequence, scientists have presented the surprising finding that although orangutans and humans are more distantly related, some regions of our genomes are more alike than those of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee."

    This contradicting data is not trival but is estimated at around 20 million base pairs.

    If the case for common ancestry and objective nested hierarchy were be to compared to the orbits of the planets, as Zachriel is fond of doing, the planets would be weaving around the solar system without predictable orbits. However, the planets do follow predictable orbits. Such is not the case with life. It is not predictable and the "signals" are NOT consistent. The strong signal Zachriel sees is coming from the mind sucking Darwinian vortex, not reality.

    So not only do you have inconsistencies between morphology and genome based trees, but inconsistencies within genetics itself. Like I said before, so much for the Objective nested hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete