Sunday, May 19, 2013

The Evolution Cycle: Watch Out For That Last Step, It’s a Doozy

Just Like the Movies



You know the pattern: First they deny the evidence and blackball, then they acknowledge with caveats, and finally they incorporate the evidence and celebrate. First you’re told you don’t know what you’re talking about, and then you’re told they knew it all along. But beware of that final phase, for as with the Star Wars bar fight scene, when the dust settles nothing has changed. It’s the same old lies, just with new data. Or as Ned Ryerson put it, “It’s a Doozy.” To wit, here is Denis Noble’s new paper on the inheritance of acquired characteristics, epigenetics, physiology, and all that, where Noble admits there was denial but, in fact, evolutionists really knew it all along and, in any case, evolution will simply subsume the once denied evidence anyway:

The “Modern Synthesis” (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-twentieth century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection. Any role of physiological function in influencing genetic inheritance was excluded. The organism became a mere carrier of the real objects of selection: its genes. We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual. Molecular genetics and genome sequencing have deconstructed this unnecessarily restrictive view of evolution in a way that reintroduces physiological function and interactions with the environment as factors influencing the speed and nature of inherited change. Acquired characteristics can be inherited, and in a few but growing number of cases that inheritance has now been shown to be robust for many generations. The twenty-first century can look forward to a new synthesis that will reintegrate physiology with evolutionary biology.

That would be a new new synthesis. Actually a new new new new new new synthesis, but who’s counting? Like Clint Eastwood in A Fistful of Dollars, evolution rises up every time after getting shot down by the evidence. Non random genetic change that responds rapidly to environmental shifts? No problem, evolution did it. It’s a Doozy.

265 comments:

  1. CH: you tend to use "random" as though it were defined as "unintended". Noble is not saying that mutations are "intended".

    This is only "news" to you, because you persist in equivocating between your own use of "random" to mean "unintended" and the way most scientists use it, which is essentially to mean "uncertain", or "drawn from a very broad probability distribution".

    I've been plugging Denis Noble's ideas for a few years now - his short book "The Music of Life" is a great essay.

    But the more important point is there is a vast and decades-old literature on the mechanisms of genetic variation. New variants are not plucked like tickets from a tombola - the probability distribution is far from flat. In other words mutations aren't all that "uncertain", and the more we learn, the less "uncertain" we may become about what generates a given variation. But while "certain" things are not "random", nor are they "intended".

    You really need to stop plugging this fallacious idea that anything non-random must be intended. It leads you to some very silly claims about evolutionary biology.

    And in other news:

    Of course there is a new new new new new synthesis. Every single time someone publishes original research in evolution the "synthesis" is renewed. If we didn't constantly refine and extend our theories, science would be dead.

    But I'm glad IDists and creationists are finally reading Denis Noble. The next step will be when they actually understand what he is saying.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't read it as if the mutations were intended specifically. I think the paper is talking more about epigenetics and the author's hope that the rapid changes resulting from modifying gene expression may hold more hope for evolutionists than the more gene centric view. If genetic expression wasn't controlled by the same type of machinery we see everywhere else in the cell, I think it would be worth exploring a little more.

      Personally, I think that the epigenetic systems can have such a marked effect that they would easily destroy hundreds of thousands of years of selection in just a few generations. It's hard to listen to people imagining that natural selection "purified" this or "refined" that when the filter through which the organism is sieved by the environment can be altered so radically.

      Delete
    2. Elizabeth Liddle

      "This is only "news" to you, because you persist in equivocating between your own use of "random" to mean "unintended" and the way most scientists use it, which is essentially to mean "uncertain", or "drawn from a very broad probability distribution"."

      Have I then to understand that "draw from a very broad probability distribution" as "intended"?
      Because if it is not unintendend it has to be "intended". May I then ask intended by who?

      Delete
    3. "But I'm glad IDists and creationists are finally reading Denis Noble. "

      Why wouldn't we? We read anyone that is catching up to us.

      "The next step will be when they actually understand what he is saying."

      No the next step will be when he actually does catch up and understand what we have been saying

      Still amusing to claim theres nothing new and its all blase and ho hum to Darwinists when the paper's title does not share your boredom

      "Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology"

      You did a fine job of illustrating Cornelius' point when he said

      "finally they incorporate the evidence and celebrate. First you’re told you don’t know what you’re talking about, and then you’re told they knew it all along"



      Delete
    4. Far from being bored, I am very excited. I read his book The Music of Life several years ago, and regularly give it to my friends and family as presents, and link to his lectures.

      So there is no "boredom" for "the paper's title" to "share". Have you read beyond the title?

      Noble takes a systems approach to evolution, rather than the gene-based approached that has, nonetheless, proved very fruitful over the last sixty years or so. But things move on, and, as Noble says, it's time to put the organism back as the unit of selection - or even the population. As Noble says: it's no more or less sensible to regard organisms as making genes do things as to regard genes as making organisms do things.

      Delete
    5. "So there is no "boredom" for "the paper's title" to "share". Have you read beyond the title?"

      Why Yes. Did you? IF you did unless you are just so invested in your dogma you would see several things that inspired Cornelius's post. From the admission that Junk Dna was a premature label to the dismantling of several neo darwinist dogmas creationist have had issues with for many years.

      Its a testament of the great dishonesty of darwinists engaged in debates with creationist or IDists that they cannot concede having been proven wrong on issues they used to "dance on the graves" of ID proponents with Junk DNA being a chief one and the centrality of natural selection being the driving force behind life's designs being another (I realize you may still cling to this but give it time. It will unravel even more)

      Delete
    6. Elizabeth,

      This is just plain rich. In the last thread you're extolling the virtues of adaptation via genetic mutation and natural selection. Now on this thread, you're the champion for epigentics. I'm sure CH appreciates you providing such a cogent example of the tendency evolutionists have for coming late to the party and claiming they were actually there all along.

      Delete
    7. Here's Noble's definition of "random" per NDE:

      I will use the definition that the changes are assumed to be random with respect to physiological function and could not therefore be influenced by such function or by functional changes in response to the environment.

      This sure sounds like its "unintended" to me. And, yes, it is, of course, against this neo-Darwinian definition that Noble argues for a newer understanding; but it is pointless to argue that this definition never was the prevailing view in evolutionary biology.

      Delete
    8. Nic: These are not either/or propositions. Evolution is not a matter of "genetics" or "epigenetics".

      And the vast majority of heritable phenotypic variance is genetic. However, not all of it is. Epigenetic markers in the germline can pre-set genetic expression in the offspring.

      And certainly we weren't "there all along" - science is constantly revealing new facets, and biology is no exception.

      But none of this is inconsistent with genetic inheritance and mutation, and natural selection. What Noble is advocating is a less gene-centred approach to evolutionary thinking than has been typical for the last half century or so. As he says:

      "In some respects, my article returns to a more nuanced, less dogmatic, view of evolutionary theory (see also Müller 2007; Mesoudi, Blanchet et al. 2013), which is much more in keeping with the spirit of Darwin’s own ideas than is the Neo-Darwinist view."

      Which I think is absolutely right.

      As I said to Cornelius last May:

      EL, last May: Cornelius, the only foolish thing here is your garbled understanding of epigenetics and how it relates to evolutionary theory!

      CH:A new extended theory? This should be interesting, for it would have to explain how evolution creates mechanisms which, themselves, cause evolution (in the form of adaptation).

      Well, not very new - people have been talking about the evolution of evolvability for decades (throughout my own life at least - in fact I remember thinking, when I first encountered the concept of genetic mutation, in my teens: "I guess mutation rates themselves could evolve")

      There is no law that says that the unit of selection has to be the organism. Why shouldn't it operate at population level as well? It's the same principle.

      And why shouldn't the mechanisms that govern gene expression within an organism also affect the germline? Especially if populations in which it did were less likely to go extinct when faced with environmental change?

      You seem to regard every advance in biological research as a setback for "evolution". Strange that all these advances/setbacks are discovered by "evolutionists"!

      And yes, it seems Lamarck was partially right.

      Have a listen to this lecture by Denis Noble.

      I think you will enjoy it.


      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/heres-new-technique-for-mapping-dna.html?showComment=1337333180112#c3785313507615400034

      Note my recommendation at the end.

      Delete
    9. Lino:Here's Noble's definition of "random" per NDE:

      I will use the definition that the changes are assumed to be random with respect to physiological function and could not therefore be influenced by such function or by functional changes in response to the environment.

      This sure sounds like its "unintended" to me. And, yes, it is, of course, against this neo-Darwinian definition that Noble argues for a newer understanding; but it is pointless to argue that this definition never was the prevailing view in evolutionary biology.


      You are missing the point of a definition. Noble is not defining random as "unintended".

      Whereas Cornelius seems to regard anything unintended as "random", including things that are highly non-random, such as natural selection.

      However, I do think that the evidence that mutations are anything but extremely weakly orthogonal to function is scant. But interesting if true.

      Delete
    10. Elizabeth,

      "You seem to regard every advance in biological research as a setback for "evolution". Strange that all these advances/setbacks are discovered by "evolutionists"!

      Well, it seems that advances in biological research continually force evolution to adapt its beliefs. Now I know you will argue this is always the case in science, and to a certain degree that is is true. However, with evolution this need to adjust seems to be chronic, to the point that one is left to wonder what exactly it can point to as an example that it has ever been right.

      As for these discoveries always being made by evolutionists, I doubt that is the case. And if it was, in what way does that lend support to the legitimacy of evolutionary theory? If the proponents of evolution are continually making discoveries which counter evolutionary theory you would think they would begin to question the validity of the theory. The fact that so many continually practice Gumby science and simply reshape the theory to absorb the new information only goes to show evolution is not in fact a science, but simply a world view living off the avails of science in an attempt to legitimate itself.

      Delete
    11. "Well, it seems that advances in biological research continually force evolution to adapt its beliefs. Now I know you will argue this is always the case in science, and to a certain degree that is is true. "

      It's absolutely true. It's the way science proceeds. Theories are constantly modified and extended. Newton was basically right, but only over limited scales. In a sense Einstein "falsified" Newton, but Newtonian physics is still broadly correct and makes very accurate predictions. However, over very large distances we need to take into account Einstein's model.

      "However, with evolution this need to adjust seems to be chronic, to the point that one is left to wonder what exactly it can point to as an example that it has ever been right."

      It's "chronic" in all science. Look at physics, for instance, the most basic science of them all. Darwin's basic concept, which is that when organisms reproduce, they do so with heritable variation, and that heritable variation contributes to their chances of reproducing. As a result, the variants that lead to most offspring become most prevalent. That is as true today as it was when Darwin first proposed it - indeed it is simple logic.

      However, what has increased vastly since Darwin's day is our understanding as to how variants arise, how genes are expressed (switched on and off at different times, and in multicellular organisms, in different tissues), how sometimes genetic material is shared not simply down a lineage, but passed "horizontally" by viruses, symbiosis, and other means; how the mechanisms that result in tissue differentiation also differentiate gene expression in the germ line; how population genetics show that even neutral variants or slightly deleterious genetic variants can propagate through a population by stochastic drift, and so on.

      None of these falsify Darwin's idea, which is, as I said, simple logic. But the do hugely flesh out how it happens in practice. What Noble invites us, rightly, I think, to reassess is our focus on the gene, and suggests we consider shifting our focus to systems - organisms, ecosystems, and entire populations over time. And to consider heritable sources of phenotypic variation other than the genome.

      Nic: As for these discoveries always being made by evolutionists, I doubt that is the case. And if it was, in what way does that lend support to the legitimacy of evolutionary theory? If the proponents of evolution are continually making discoveries which counter evolutionary theory you would think they would begin to question the validity of the theory.

      EL: What aspect of its validity do you think they should question, that they don't? Every single biologist who discovers something new about the way inheritance works is questioning the status quo and changing it. That's how the theory develops.

      Nic:
      The fact that so many continually practice Gumby science and simply reshape the theory to absorb the new information only goes to show evolution is not in fact a science, but simply a world view living off the avails of science in an attempt to legitimate itself.

      EL: No you got it right at the beginning of your post. Evolutionary science is simply normal science, and like all branches of science, continually refines its theories by deriving hypotheses from it and testing them against data. That's how people like Shapiro, and Margulis and McClintock and Noble find this stuff out.

      Delete
    12. Elizabeth,

      There is a difference between a theory developing and constantly redefining it self. However, this is a fact no evolutionist will ever accept. To them the fact of evolution is incontrovertible and therefore nothing can ever disprove it. All findings are just made to fit the presuppositional conclusion. It appears scientific, but in truth is far from it.

      Tell me truthfully, what would be accepted as falsifying evolution?

      Tell me, how has evolution ever been tested? Can it be repeated? All that has ever been observed is variation and adaptation. Descent from a common ancestor is nothing more than complete extrapolation. How on earth does this qualify as science in the real sense of the term?

      Delete
    13. Elizabeth:

      However, I do think that the evidence that mutations are anything but extremely weakly orthogonal to function is scant. But interesting if true.

      Noble, relying very heavily on Shapiro (2011) I'm sure would disagree with you here.

      EL: You are missing the point of a definition. Noble is not defining random as "unintended".

      I can only infer that you're referring to this statement of CH:'

      Non random genetic change that responds rapidly to environmental shifts?

      What CH here means is that the process of "adaptation" is anything but random, beginning with the initial genetic change--or, in your terminology: genetic variation---and, that the incorporation into genotype is too quick to have occurred via NS.

      So your invocation of NS as a generator of "non-randomness" is moot. It seems to me you'll have to find some other way to criticize him.

      Delete
    14. Tell me truthfully, what would be accepted as falsifying evolution?

      Not EL, but how about child born of normal parents with a nonDNA based system. The discovery of an ancient lab with schematics, the designer making an appearance and sharing his knowledge.

      Now how about the same? How do you prove that something is not designed by an unknown being with unknown capabilities?





      Delete
    15. "but how about child born of normal parents with a nonDNA based system"

      SO DNA itself proves evolution? LOL. and how would they be "parents"? They too must have non dna to contribute? That has to be one of the silliest prerequisites I have ever read among comments on this blog and given thorton's existence quite a feat.

      "The discovery of an ancient lab with schematics"

      SO the designer of humans must be humanoid/ or use labs and schematics like humans? Truly rich logic there VEL. The only thing I can take from those two is a veiled confession that darwinism is unfalsifiable

      "the designer making an appearance and sharing his knowledge."

      Well theists maintain he did but although his knowledge bats 100% at making people who accept it generally more healthy and has a mean record of predicting the future his knowledge was rejected. Furthermore why should the designer be made of visible stuff since he created all visible stuff?

      Your materialistic circular logic is showing again.

      "How do you prove that something is not designed by an unknown being with unknown capabilities?"


      You've tried to float this before but the answer is rather obvious. If abiogenesis had turned out to be as simple and reproducible as many of your side's earlier proponents had claimed it was you not only would have a potential falsification you yourself would be claiming it as the realized falsification.

      the fact that the facts didn't bare you up isn't our fault.

      Positively evidence of design is not overly complicated. Its actually pretty clear and why you have been unable to convince double digits of the population to convert to atheism. They know better. When we see multiple pieces of a system working logically together fulfilling a purpose we recognize design in any and everything that has it. What your side claims is not that we should show proof of design but that we must prove that your imagination designating a design as a "Designoid" is false and we do confess that your imagination has so many flights of fancy it is hard to nail it down to anything you cannot imagine yourself out of. But that has more to do with your appeals to imagination than it does to any facts.

      Delete
    16. Elijah,
      SO DNA itself proves evolution? LOL. and how would they be "parents"? They too must have non dna to contribute? That has to be one of the silliest prerequisites I have ever read among comments on this blog and given thorton's existence quite a feat.


      ah, I guess I could have used your criteria ," it looks designed"


      No ,Elijah, DNA does not prove the TOE. In my example there is no mechanism in the TOE that could account for the fact of the child's existence. The jump would be too great, while the mechanisms of the existing theory could be incorporated into a new theory, it primacy would be falsified. Before you say it, even ID accept some evolutionary affect.

      SO the designer of humans must be humanoid/ or use labs and schematics like humans? Truly rich logic there VEL. The only thing I can take from those two is a veiled confession that darwinism is unfalsifiable

      Are you saying that the designer of life on earth could not be comprehensible to man? Could not leave actual evidence of the means of design if they choose? Could not be an advanced race of non divine beings?

      After all, isn't your " it looks designed" the same?

      You are letting your eagerness to mock and your certainty overwhelm your critical thinking. Why must the designer of life on earth be God?

      If anyone is making a " veiled confession" it is you, the possibilty of a non divine designer is unthinkable even in a hypothetical scenario.

      Delete
    17. Well theists maintain he did but although his knowledge bats 100% at making people who accept it generally more healthy and has a mean record of predicting the future his knowledge was rejected

      First, if Jesus had mentioned the scientific explanation then you would have a point, the TOE is a scientific explanation

      Furthermore why should the designer be made of visible stuff since he created all visible stuff?

      Are you now saying that Jesus was not the same nature as the Designer? That He did not ascend into heaven? That God would be incapable of manifesting Himself in any manner He choose? I am shocked.

      Again you are accusing me of your lack of imagination, it is a hypothetical, but if the designer can manipulate matter in order to design then yes I believe it is reasonable to assume that he can manipulate matter.

      Delete
    18. v.."How do you prove that something is not designed by an unknown being with unknown capabilities?"


      You've tried to float this before but the answer is rather obvious. If abiogenesis had turned out to be as simple and reproducible as many of your side's earlier proponents had claimed it was you not only would have a potential falsification you yourself would be claiming it as the realized falsification.


      A natural cause for something does not falsify design. In science it is more parsimonious without any other evidence,but it cannot be falsified. After all, you believe God is the the primary cause of all things,except bad things which are still design but corrupted by man's disobience.

      Positively evidence of design is not overly complicated. Its actually pretty clear and why you have been unable to convince double digits of the population to convert to atheism. They know better

      True, still not an atheist. But the question was how do you falsify design? If you declare that the TOE is unfalsifiable and therefore suspect, doesn't it seem a wee bit hypocritical to embrace a even more unfalsifiable one?

      Delete
    19. "The jump would be too great, while the mechanisms of the existing theory could be incorporated into a new theory, it primacy would be falsified. "

      Its complete and utter nonsense. Claiming that a new life form distinct from DNA would have to arise in order to falsify evolution is simply saying that it is unfalsifiable. You are deteriorating into pure grade A foolishness.

      "Are you saying that the designer of life on earth could not be comprehensible to man? Could not leave actual evidence of the means of design if they choose? Could not be an advanced race of non divine beings?"

      as usual lost in our own mind and trying desperately to fudge and create strawmen. NO saying nothing of the sort. since you forgot what you were answering that was YOUR basis for falsification. Since it is a distinct possibility that a non human designer would not use a lab then your requirement of a lab and schematics in order to falsify Darwinism is an abject failure. Since I must spell it out to you like a child a proper basis for a falsification must be reasonable not merely imaginary and implausible. It does not matter a wit whether the designer is divine or non divine the point is you are using a HUMAN framework when you talk of schematics and a lab. There is ZERO reason to assume that an advanced alien race would use a lab and schematics. That is a HUMAN projection because we use those things ( and the silliness of it is that in many cases of inventions even we do not use them). Has the light come on? Non human does not equate automatically to divine

      "Why must the designer of life on earth be God?"

      Strawman with an intent to lie

      "If anyone is making a " veiled confession" it is you, the possibilty of a non divine designer is unthinkable even in a hypothetical scenario."

      Lie complete. mission accomplished

      " it looks designed"

      as I recall "my criteria" is right here.

      ". When we see multiple pieces of a system working logically together fulfilling a purpose we recognize design in any and everything that has it."

      I have no eagerness. The logic is faulty all by itself. Make better arguments and you will not feel mocked.






      Delete
    20. "That He did not ascend into heaven? That God would be incapable of manifesting Himself in any manner He choose? I am shocked."

      Not surprising. You often are shocked because you have taken so little time or effort to study what you oppose. SInce with ascension you are firmly planted in talking about Christianity it could not be any clearer. God is a spirit. Theres a passage in John that says it straight just like that . The fact that he may "manifest" himself in no way indicates that that is his natural state and certainly doesn't indicate he uses labs and schematics much less "manifest" what he doesn't use ;) .

      However this whole line of reason reeks with hypocrisy. DO you consider the concept of God as a scientific proposition? its one thing for you to say there is no evidence of a designer quite another matter to indicate a falsification of Darwinism requiring a manifestation of God. LOl..How scientific.


      "After all, you believe God is the the primary cause of all things,except bad things which are still design but corrupted by man's disobience."

      Perhaps one day you might have a debate with me in which you do not lie in order to make a point stick but alas today does not seem to be the day and I won't hold my breath waiting for such a day. Many bad things are designed. Surely you have not forgotten many theists believe in Hell? Does that qualify for a good thing? You are a non stop caricature making machine Vel.

      You refer to our disease debate but you never did effectively answer the scientific fact that many diseases are of recent origin did you?

      "A natural cause for something does not falsify design."

      IF you are claiming that had we found that abiogenesis was a simple matter easily reproduced that it would not be heralded as a falsification that God created life you are even more disingenuous of a character than I presently think. cue more strawmen

      "But the question was how do you falsify design? If you declare that the TOE is unfalsifiable and therefore suspect, doesn't it seem a wee bit hypocritical to embrace a even more unfalsifiable one?"

      unfalsifiable to whom? I have stated straight up that in regard to the origin of life if abiogenesis had proven to be a simple matter easily reproduced that would falsify the idea that God created life. You are doing what you always do and its still just as dishonest. You are fabricating what I believe and then drawing conclusions on your own fabrications.

      but then darwinists have alot of practice with that so I suppose old habits are hard to break.

      Delete
    21. elijah said without thinking:

      "Make better arguments and you will not feel mocked."

      Look who's talking.

      And calling velikovskys a liar just because he disagrees with you and/or because he asks you relevant questions that penetrate your dishonest, pompous, religious facade really shows what a typical christian turd you are.

      Does dressing yourself up in a cheap suit of self-righteous religious arrogance really compensate for your fears, failures, and ignorance?

      Delete
    22. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    23. "And calling velikovskys a liar just because he disagrees with you"

      I call Vel on his lying not for disagreeing with me but because of his persistent and deliberate habit of Asking questions of my position and then proceeding to answer them for me - and wrongly. It IS a dishonest way to debate. No apologies.

      Take your blood pressure medicine. Besides that I can mostly ignore the rest of your rant as substanceless which is the usual case for yur posts.

      Delete
    24. ""You know, you've been very sick, and you're taking this story very seriously. I think we'd better stop now."

      "No, I'm ok. I'm ok. Sit down. I'm all right."

      Elijah,

      Its complete and utter nonsense. Claiming that a new life form distinct from DNA would have to arise in order to falsify evolution is simply saying that it is unfalsifiable. You are deteriorating into pure grade A foolishness.


      Why,Elijah? In human design it is possible to create a uniquely new object. Are you saying that extrapolating human design of non reproducing objects to organisms is unwarranted? Or that a designer must use an existing framework in his design, that sounds a bit like TOE.


      Delete
    25. "Why,Elijah? In human design it is possible to create a uniquely new object."

      SO it is now your contention that DNA is the only unique object in the universe? LOl vel I keep thinking you can't make a more illogical argument and then you surprise me each time.

      "Or that a designer must use an existing framework in his design, that sounds a bit like TOE."

      whatever are you babbling about Vel? :)
      The designer has designed lots of things non biological AND toe is merely your assertion. At this point I figure you have no counter points to rebut me so running in place substitutes for any real movement of logic.

      The silliness of your position is that you are contradicting yourself - a child being born without DNA would not be a unique design. He would still be a child just without DNA. Your words not mine.

      The whole argument therefore is that the designer must create the same design in two different ways for no good reason than to mix things up or there is no designer.

      Yes I say it again - Grade A foolishness Vel and I suspect by now even you know it is.

      Delete
    26. Elijah,
      Its complete and utter nonsense. Claiming that a new life form distinct from DNA would have to arise in order to falsify evolution


      Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. You agree that that unique child would falsify the TOE. Your objection is that you think I am saying that is the only thing that would. I am not, it was one example. You understand when someone asks for an example it is not an necessary to include every possibilty?

      Nic asked EL" what would be accepted in falsifying evolution". Now I agree that depending of one's meaning of " evolution" even a unique child could be said to evolve but since EL was discussing the scientific theory of evolution I assumed that was Nic's meaning.

      Any confusion on your part was not my intent

      Delete
    27. "Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. You agree that that unique child would falsify the TOE. Your objection is that you think I am saying that is the only thing that would. I am not, it was one example."

      Wrong again Vel. I have covered my objection before. It is you again that are confused. When a standard for a falsification is asked it is babbling nonsense to present something that is either implausible or illogical as a falsification. The falsification standard must be reasonable or it is nothing but a ploy.

      IF I should say that ID could be falsified if We could watch a pack of chimpanzees in a zoo evolve into humans over the next 100 years you would object to it as being an unreasonable basis of falsification.

      Thats what we have been discussing - the reasonableness of each of your standards for falsification individually and collectively. IF my one statement made you miss the forest for the trees it was not my intent.

      Delete
    28. Twisting himself into a pretzel Elijah says,
      SO it is now your contention that DNA is the only unique object in the universe? LOl vel I keep thinking you can't make a more illogical argument and then you surprise me each time.

      If that was my argument, it wasn't

      The designer has designed lots of things non biological AND toe is merely your assertion. At this point I figure you have no counter points to rebut me so running in place substitutes for any real movement of logic

      Then you agreed with my example, a child born with a Non DNA based system from DNA based parents would fasify the TOE,remember that is the point you are disputing.

      The silliness of your position is that you are contradicting yourself - a child being born without DNA would not be a unique design. He would still be a child just without DNA. Your words not mine

      Unique

      1.
      existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
      2.
      having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable: Bach was unique in his handling of counterpoint.
      3.
      limited in occurrence to a given class, situation, or area: a species unique to Australia.
      4.
      limited to a single outcome or result; without alternative possibilities: Certain types of problems have unique solutions.
      5.
      not typical; unusual: She has a very unique smile.

      The whole argument therefore is that the designer must create the same design in two different ways for no good reason than to mix things up or there is no designer.

      No Elijah, I am not saying that. Again I believe for the fourth time, if a designer did do that it would fasify the TOE since no mechanism posited could do that which was exactly what Nic requested an example of.

      I cannot be responsible for the voices in your head making arguments other than mine. Mine are written

      Delete
    29. "Twisting himself into a pretzel Elijah says,"

      To the hopelessly confused all things look confusing.

      "Then you agreed with my example, a child born with a Non DNA based system from DNA based parents would fasify the TOE,remember that is the point you are disputing"

      Vel please stop the bare faced lying. Its getting tiring. I agreed nowhere. For all I know it would be claimed that such and event PROVED atheistic darwinism more viable since life could have started and evolved along multiple paths. One of your evangelists would most likely claim that it was a rare but not statistically impossible quantum event that given the infinite amount of universes was bound to happen in one universe that just happened to be ours. No what I have been disputing is the viability rationally of that falsification condition along with all of the other irrational ones that you proposed as possible falsifications. Incidentally since those examples are all you have offered its as fine an admission as I have seen anywhere that darwinsim is unfalsifiable. LOL if a Darwinist has to go to a couple of DNA lineage giving birth to a non DNA lineage you know how desperate the argument has come to escape the unfalsifiable nature of the theology.

      "Unique

      1.
      existing as the only one or as the sole example; single;"

      Sigh.....lol.....exactly if you created a CHILD (signifying the non unique young human that we use the name to refer to) he/she would not be unique except in its non DNA base. Are all the children in the world all a different design of child? Did you say ALIEN? So one of your proposed examples of how Darwinsim could be falsified is if an Earth couple gave birth to an ALien?

      Excuse me a moment

      ROFL.

      No? so the only nonsense you are jibbering on about is a child born to a couple (how they would be the parents without a Non dna based system is another piece of silliness left out) that looks like a child, acts like a child but is found to have a non dna base. the designer would essentially need to RECREATE a child without using dna. Its a positively stupid falsification standard. Makes no rational sense whatsoever and as such fails to answer the question in any meaningful way.

      "No Elijah, I am not saying that. Again I believe for the fourth time, if a designer did do that it would fasify the TOE since no mechanism posited could do that which was exactly what Nic requested an example of."

      NO it isn't. Not exactly and not at all. Only a child would read that question (I don't know your age) and think that NIC was asking for some irrational contrived fanciful imagination as an indicator of what would be accepted as a proper falsification standard. He was asking for a rational reasonable standard of falsification. You in fact FAILED to answer the question.

      "I cannot be responsible for the voices in your head"

      I am not asking you to. I am asking you to quiet down the many illogical ones in your own head before you write them down as you have been. They are the ones telling you I have multiple voices in mine. Thats all.

      Delete
    30. Elijah,
      There is ZERO reason to assume that an advanced alien race would use a lab and schematics.


      Unless,per my hypothetical example we discovered their lab and schematics. It is an example of what could,not must, falsify the ToE.

      That is a HUMAN projection because we use those things ( and the silliness of it is that in many cases of inventions even we do not use them). Has the light come on? Non human does not equate automatically to divine

      While it is true I never said or thought that,you have convinced me my original thought was correct.Thanks

      Again for the fifth time,these are only hypothetical things if true would fasify the ToE. Unless you know somehow these things are impossible,in which case how?

      Delete
    31. For the 6th time the questions was not about any ad hoc imaginary, silly conjecture of some illogical basis of falsification. We already have that in Darwinism itself ;). The question was a serious one and you have made a joke out of it because you are incapable of answering it.

      "you have convinced me my original thought was correct.Thanks"

      LOL even when you are using rhetorical devices you lie to do so Vel. Very sad but typical of Darwinists. You were convinced in your own mind long ago. I had nothing to do with it since my position has never been if its not human its divine.

      "Unless,per my hypothetical example we discovered their lab and schematics. It is an example of what could,not must, falsify the ToE."

      As drop down lousy your hypothetical would be at making any reasonable stab at a basis of
      falsification it would still be an abject failure. Labs and schematics would not falsify evolution. You would merely claim that the species that invented life evolved naturally and came here with it. It would hardly be the first time an atheistic proponent of Evolution would claim life was brought here by an alien race. it would simply move darwinism to the alien race. Thats all. Darwinism could and would still be invoked.

      You've failed on multiple fronts over and over.

      Delete
    32. And now we see if I need to go to confession,

      "Lying, as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas, is a statement at variance with the mind. This definition is more accurate than most others which are current. Thus a recent authority defines a lie as a false statement made with the intention of deceiving."

      V"Why must the designer of life on earth be God?"

      Is this a false statement trying to deceive others into thinking that you believe that God is the Designer? First, do you believe that God must be the the designer of life on earth?
      I assume since you are accusing me of false statement,that you do not.

      Do you believe God is the designer of life on earth?

      Strawman with an intent to lie

      VIf anyone is making a " veiled confession" it is you, the possibilty of a non divine designer is unthinkable even in a hypothetical scenario."

      While I might lawyer talk with the conditional " if anyone", and it is unclear who exactly I am trying to deceive,or that I do not believe that yes ultimately there is only one designer in your mind, since referring to the designer you said

      Well theists maintain he did but although his knowledge bats 100% at making people who accept it generally more healthy and has a mean record of predicting the future his knowledge was rejected. Furthermore why should the designer be made of visible stuff since he created all visible stuff?

      And you being a theist believe that, is it thinkable that it is not true?

      But the addition of a " hypothetical example" is a bridge too far, I now believe it is thinkable for you.

      Apologies for my misstatement.

      But since we are being such sensitive souls ,Elijah

      SO the designer of humans must be humanoid/ or use labs and schematics like humans?

      This is false,I never said " must"

      Truly rich logic there VEL. The only thing I can take from those two is a veiled confession that darwinism is unfalsifiable

      This is a misrepresentation of my position given I provded three examples that would fasify ToE. Only one would be sufficent. As you say
      Lie complete. mission accomplished

      Luckily for me my church believes in confession,how about yours?

      Delete
    33. I almost forgot amid the civil discourse, I missed your answer.How do you falsify the design" hypothesis"?


      Delete
    34. "Is this a false statement trying to deceive others into thinking that you believe that God is the Designer?"

      No VEL this is the lie

      ", the possibilty of a non divine designer is unthinkable EVEN IN A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO"

      I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in a hypothetical situation thinking about a non divine designer. I actually have weighed the non divine designer possibility and would never strike it out in a hypothetical situation.

      You therefore lied. You stated as fact what was patently false. You can appeal to Aquinas, you could appeal to the pope present or all past ones. Stating something as fact in regard to how someone thinks or approaches a subject without any evidence and making it up out of thin air what happens to be convenient as a caricature to suit your own argument IS lying. Yes generally we can all make mistakes however they have been pointed out to you and in almost each response there is the same tired tactic of fake asking, then answering in a way that suits you as a fact and then responding on that basis.

      Its lying. Want more?

      "Then you agreed with my example, a child born with a Non DNA based system from DNA based parents would falsify the TOE"

      Again never ever agreed. You will find nowhere where I said any such thing. I could not have disgreed with the entire premise more but there you fabricating it as fact. again

      Lying

      Want more?

      "After all, you believe God is the the primary cause of all things,except bad things"

      Hell not bad? I also believe God both curses and blesses So again a convenient caricature constructed to facilitate your point.

      Look Vel. This is the modus operandi I have learned about how you debate. You ask a question assume instantly the wrong answer and then answer based on your strawman assumption. Its TOTALLY dishonest way of debating. It can happen innocently every now and again in a discourse yes (mistakes CAN be made)but you appeal to it over and over and over again as your staple.

      "This is a misrepresentation of my position given I provded three examples"

      nonsense. read it again. It makes no claim that you made only two. It states that based on those two ridiculous proposals that darwinism is unfalsifiable. WHy? because Scroll up - the third was addressed as well and it requires a divine manifestation. That makes all of them and is no misrepresentation of your position.

      "Luckily for me my church believes in confession"

      I'd make an appointment based on the clear examples of fabrications you have made in this thread.

      "SO the designer of humans must be humanoid/ or use labs and schematics like humans?

      This is false,I never said " must""

      Nor did I say you said "must" the must there is a logical must not a verbal statement of must. IF you propose that labs and schematics are a potential falsification of darwinism then that would only follow and must logically infer that the designer designs as humanoids do. That was not me asking a fake question and giving a fake answer it arose from the necessary conditions of your premise.

      "I almost forgot amid the civil discourse, I missed your answer.How do you falsify the design" hypothesis"?"

      simple scroll up and read. you most certainly did MISS it (in that you did tell the truth). Its in the part I talked about abiogenesis.

      We still await one from you for Darwinism that does not involved humans giving birth to aliens, designers leaving behind labs and schematics that survive to this day or the oh so scientific proposal of a divine revelation that would not be accepted as such a week after.

      As I said as fine an admission I have ever seen of Darwinism being unfalsifiable.

      IF you cannot present a plausible logical falsification in your next response I see no reason to continue wasting both our time.



      Delete
    35. """You know, you've been very sick, and you're taking this story very seriously. I think we'd better stop now."

      "No, I'm ok. I'm ok. Sit down. I'm all right."


      Vel sideline to our disagreement. What does the above mean? If you are sickly and this discussion is upsetting you I definitely would want us to stop.

      Delete
    36. Elijah,
      Wrong again Vel. I have covered my objection before. It is you again that are confused. When a standard for a falsification is asked it is babbling nonsense to present something that is either implausible or illogical as a falsification.


      I see your point, what do we know about the designer that warrants any assumptions about him? The only thing you have is design, how close to the original who knows?

      You think it is implausible that at some time in the future human design would not be capable of genetic engineering of that scale?

      If life was designed, the designer had to be advanced enough to survive the climate of the early earth,as well as travel here from some distance. So far beyond our capabilities already.

      It has been 4 billion years since the designer was far advanced of present humanity. Are you saying it is implausible the such a technological could create a new branch of the tree of life in a single generation.


      The falsification standard must be reasonable or it is nothing but a ploy.

      Isn't the "falsification standard" ID? In it's purest form. It seems you are saying that ID is so scientifically unlikely that it is not reasonable to even think about or nothing but a ploy. Ouch!

      Delete
    37. Vel sideline to our disagreement.

      Do we disagree? Maybe we just haven't found a point of agreement yet.

      What does the above mean?

      Do you know the source?

      If you are sickly and this discussion is upsetting you I definitely would want us to stop

      That certainly would be one interpretation, the question is who is Fred Savage?

      Your concern if genuine is appreciated, if sarcastic merely a polite golf clap.

      Delete
    38. As drop down lousy your hypothetical would be at making any reasonable stab at a basis of
      falsification it would still be an abject failure.


      How do you really feel?

      Labs and schematics would not falsify evolution. You would merely claim that the species that invented life evolved naturally and came here with it.

      Are you saying that finding a lab in the middle of Africa with plans for a Homo sapiens on the wall would not falsify the evolutionary path of humans?

      You seem to be undermining completely your own position in order to save a bad argument.

      When a theory is falsified not every single thing in it is falsified Mutations might still happen to unexpectedly change the design, natural selection while predictable might have the occasional near mass extinction changing somewhat the trajectory of the plan.

      This is your theory not mine.

      Nevertheless the primacy of rm /ns would be replaced.Darwin would be replaced by study of the designers.Evidence would have to be reevaluated in light of new information. Science

      It would hardly be the first time an atheistic proponent of Evolution would claim life was brought here by an alien race. it would simply move darwinism to the alien race.

      Unless you really meant" evolution would claim if life was brought here... you are misrepresenting the quote,.....

      "It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civillization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry or molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer."


      Now you say" see I was right some will never give up" . You would be right ,but Dawkins was willing to accept it as a possibility .

      You now hypothetically have actual evidence of designers and knowledge of the means of design. The theory that life was nonteleological would be falsified,the extent of the teleological would be the question.

      After all there are flat earthers and seven day creationists even today.

      Delete
    39. "Isn't the "falsification standard" ID? In it's purest form. It seems you are saying that ID is so scientifically unlikely that it is not reasonable to even think about or nothing but a ploy. Ouch!"

      silly silly stuff. is that your yet again dishonest answer to my asking YOU to provide a reasonable standard of falsification for Darwinism. My request had nothing to do with ID's falsification. Was the "ouch" your dismay and pain at not being able to answer a simple question even after multiple tries? I can feel that pain from here for you.

      Vel I looked through your last two posts and saw nothing even close to a rational plausible falsification standard. All I saw was the rambling of a man that seems to know he has no answer so is waving around looking to head off into another area to skirt the issue and the overwhelming evidence of his former fabrications

      The concern was genuine but I have no desire to explore quotations from Fred savage as a ploy of distraction from the issues you cannot face. Perhaps avail yourself of the confessionals your church has? That would be a reasonable place to address some of your issues. Just my theist instincts.

      Have a good night.

      Delete
    40. saw your new post after I posted my last one. I must admit you are getting very entertaining with your hilarious defense of finding a lab and schematics falsification. I often find that when Darwinist get their back put to the wall both in regard to substance and in regard to character they completely implode in logic but this is in rare form even for that


      "Are you saying that finding a lab in the middle of Africa with plans for a Homo sapiens on the wall would not falsify the evolutionary path of humans?

      You seem to be undermining completely your own position in order to save a bad argument."

      ROFL you wish to pass off that my argument is the one that must be saved with your silly proposed falsification of possibly finding a lab just conveniently left with schematics that survived - billions of years ago (is that like dinosaur paper that lasts longer than anyone would think possible? How? preserved in amber? why? Did they come with technology to make concrete labs survive that amount of time as well? or Egads! are you a young earth evolutionists? Never met one of those before ) All this left behind from a designer
      of "Homo Sapiens"? Stop VEl. I'm about to drink a cup of tea and the laughter is interfering.

      "When a theory is falsified not every single thing in it is falsified Mutations might still happen to unexpectedly change the design, natural selection while predictable might have the occasional near mass extinction changing somewhat the trajectory of the plan.

      This is your theory not mine."

      VOila! when caught lying just go into high gear with it for extra vim and vigor right? Natural selection is now "my theory". More Vel. I have negotiated the tea and the good book says laughter is good for the heart. Tonight you are my cardiologist.

      "Unless you really meant" evolution would claim if life was brought here... you are misrepresenting the quote"

      Lying again and not even entertaining(I had high hopes). I referenced no quote. I merely stated a fact that some both in print and out of print have proposed that life may have been either brought here or created here. The fact that you are aware of only one quote is not my fault nor my "misrepresentation". There are even those that propose the entire universe is a simulation by an alien race. NO one was limiting themselves to a single author much less a single quote.

      Anyway thanks for the hilarity. Have a busy rest of the week and since you are doing nothing more than fabricating and ducking again (in between the jokes) theres no reason to go on.

      Have a good night

      Delete
    41. silly silly stuff. is that your yet again dishonest answer to my asking YOU to provide a reasonable standard of falsification for Darwinism. My request had nothing to do with ID's falsification. Was the "ouch" your dismay and pain at not being able to answer a simple question even after multiple tries? I can feel that pain from here for you.

      I do find it fascinating that actual proof for design by evidence of an actual designer is considered too absurd to consider.

      Vel I looked through your last two posts and saw nothing even close to a rational plausible falsification standard. All I saw was the rambling of a man that seems to know he has no answer so is waving around looking to head off into another area to skirt the issue and the overwhelming evidence of his former fabrications

      See I told you that we would find a point of agreement, that was exactly my impression reading your reply. Having to deny that direct proof of the existence of designer as too high a bar to expect.

      The concern was genuine but I have no desire to explore quotations from Fred savage as a ploy of distraction from the issues you cannot face.

      As you wish

      Perhaps avail yourself of the confessionals your church has? That would be a reasonable place to address some of your issues.

      Ah yes when all fails, distraction.Inconceivable

      Delete
    42. ROFL you wish to pass off that my argument is the one that must be saved with your silly proposed falsification of possibly finding a lab just conveniently left with schematics that survived - billions of years ago

      Unlikely ain't it. But why is it any less likely than any of the other ID possibilties?We know material beings exist,we have some knowledge of genetic engineering. The more you protest the more it sounds like any designer except your personal favorite is absurd.

      (is that like dinosaur paper that lasts longer than anyone would think possible? How? preserved in amber? why? Did they come with technology to make concrete labs survive that amount of time as well

      Gee I don't know,how exactly is life created and directed teleologically toward an end over four billion years taking into account for unexpected mutations ,comets crashing into the earth, volcanos causing mass extinction. Any technology that could account for all that could probably come up with durable housing. The Canadian Shield is essentially a stable geological structure


      Again this is ID theory, that an intelligent source of knowledge is required for life. You seem to be saying that no material being could leave evidence of the means of that knowledge's injection into the system.Are you?






      Delete
    43. "Again this is ID theory, that an intelligent source of knowledge is required for life. You seem to be saying that no material being could leave evidence of the means of that knowledge's injection into the system.Are you?"


      Sheesh Vel do you ever stop the lying by insinuation? Your position of wanting evidence of schematics and a lab is NOT ID theory. I'd ask you to stop the fibbing but by now I know its compulsive. I Had a brief moment and thought just perhaps there might finally be an answer but see just more of the same drivel. The material being leaves evidence IN the design That is the position of ID. Humans created in his image do so as well and so would ANY designer. THAT is the hallmark of all designers and what is left behind. Schematics and labs are only left tin place if the designer expects to be making more OR if the designer expected someone else to come along and use them. Your point is as usual - eminently silly.

      I know. I know. according to you and the voices in your head if we encounter an alien craft in space we will only know it was designed if we see the tools floating nearby and can locate a schematic on the face of a nearby planet. thats your position but it really is a sad character issue that because ID does not hold to your nonsense you then go around parading the fraud that its either a lab or schematics or the designer leaves no evidence behind.

      sigh....Darwinists. They might not all be the same but its pretty close.

      Delete

    44. Your position of wanting evidence of schematics and a lab is NOT ID theory

      It is completely compatible with ID theory, it provides ID theory with what it lacks,a mechanism to enable design, it provides a timeline on when design took place, it provides information on what was designed,it creates a scientific theory capable of falsifying another scientific theory.

      Unfortunately for ID expecting any evidence of those additional lines of proof is unreasonable

      be an answer but see just more of the same drivel. The material being leaves evidence IN the design That is the position of ID,

      "In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose"

      . Humans created in his image do so as well and so would ANY designer. THAT is the hallmark of all designers and what is left behind.

      Who is " his" ? So what are the universal qualities of design?

      Schematics and labs are only left tin place if the designer expects to be making more OR if the designer expected someone else to come along and use them.

      Perhaps,or as a historical record or as unwanted waste,certainly the only intelligent designers ,humans, do both.How are you so certain what the designer of life would or wouldn't do?

      I know. I know. according to you and the voices in your head
      Apparently creativity is not your thing

      if we encounter an alien craft in space we will only know it was designed if we see the tools floating nearby and can locate a schematic on the face of a nearby planet. thats your position

      Yes those would all be evidence about the design, of course your question assumes its conclusion

      How about a piece of flint with a point like shape? Designed or natural? How do you decide which?

      Delete
    45. "It is completely compatible with ID theory,"

      Lying repeatedly makes one a liar. ID theory has nothing to do with finding labs or schematics or anything but the design itself.

      "Apparently creativity is not your thing"

      Not the kind that involves multiple voices in your head. You can keep that kind.

      "How about a piece of flint with a point like shape?

      attached to a long stick by a piece of rope tied with a bow - found in the carcass of an animal? design.

      See how easy that was? I know you would require to find the lab where the spear was made along with schematics on cave walls but thats why your are guilty of being illogical.

      At this point its obvious you are incapable of making either a good argument for your position or rebutting any sub point without appealing to your own fabrications.

      Delete
    46. Elijah2012

      attached to a long stick by a piece of rope tied with a bow - found in the carcass of an animal? design.

      See how easy that was?


      It was easy for you to change the question and avoid answering. The question was How do you decide design or natural?

      In the case of a spear you have plenty of knowledge of known-designed spears to patter match the unknown with. How do you tell 'design' when you have no prior experience with the type of unknown object to compare to?

      Don't feel bad though. IDiots have been avoiding the same question for over a decade now.

      Delete
    47. "In the case of a spear you have plenty of knowledge of known-designed spears to patter match the unknown with."

      Silly silly child. your ability to process logic never improves. I answered the question as posed because we also have very many flint rocks with pointed shapes too that we are known not to have been designed. Works both ways.

      So I will put you in the group that claims if an alien aircraft we did not design appears next to the space station we will not be able to determine it was a designed machine no matter how we study it because it was previously unknown? Not to worry I already had you in that group. ;)

      Call your congressman and complain about the money wasted on SETI because no pattern context would have ever have been able to identified an alien language.

      Meanwhile the overwhelming majority of humans on the planet will continue to reject your atheism because when they see machines in the universe that have multiple parts, working in unison toward fulfilling a designated purpose with functional order the don't think evolutionary fairy tale telling makes it undesigned.

      Still leave the debates with me to Vel or someone else. Your rep as juvenile poster around here means no one need take you seriously.

      Delete
    48. Elijah2012

      I answered the question as posed because we also have very many flint rocks with pointed shapes too that we are known not to have been designed.


      Of course you didn't answer it. You were asked HOW to tell a pointy rock from a 'designed' arrowhead. But as usual, you have to lie and bluster instead of give an honest answer.

      You also ignored my question:

      How do you tell 'design' when you have no prior experience with the type of unknown object to compare to?

      Go ahead and bluster a bit more in lieu of an answer.

      Delete
  2. cornelius says:

    "It’s the same old lies, just with new data."

    That's pretty funny, in a face palming way, coming from a biblical-inerrancy-creationist who believes in and brain washes students with antiquated, impossible, barbaric, religious fairy tales (with no 'new data') and who deliberately distorts words, evidence, research, science, history, and evolutionary theory to push his dominionist agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which being interpreted means you have no substance to make a rebuttal.

      Delete
    2. Hey elijah, tell me about the "substance" in the wacky religious fairy tales you believe in, and in cornelius's deliberate distortions.

      You could start with the "substance" in the christian fairy tale about a talking serpent.

      Delete
    3. You first TWT

      I consider your fairy tales far more awesome. Everything, including talking parrots, talking human beings, barking dogs out of absolutely nothing beats one talking serpent any day especially since the Bible is so boring that it indicates the serpent wasn't what we know now as a serpent today.

      Animal not a serpent as we know it talking vrsus everything from nada

      See how better your fairy tales are? We can't compete. Even Grimm couldn't.

      Delete
    4. Okay, I'll bite, what do you mean by "since the Bible is so boring that it indicates the serpent wasn't what we know now as a serpent today."?

      What exactly was the biblical serpent? Don't spare the details, including where in the bible you got the details.

      Delete
    5. TWT

      thanks for the admission that you refer to things you know nothing about. Or else why do you now need to ask "what exactly was the biblical serpent"? Its at the very front of the book and less than two chapters. So theres not even the excuse of not being able to find it.

      Delete
    6. I know where it is, dumbass. I'm asking YOU to describe the biblical serpent in detail and to point out where in the bible you got those details.

      elijah, you're nothing but an arrogant, STUPID, dictatorial, dishonest, game playing, fairy tale believing, uneducated god zombie, and the accusations you're throwing at velikovskys are wrong and way out of line, but they're exactly what I expect from a typical, two-faced, christian asshole like you.

      Oh, and if you ever get around to giving your expert, detailed, description (LMAO) of the alleged talking serpent, maybe then you will grace us with your highly scientific rendition of how a man lived inside a fish, how goats and sheep produce striped/spotted offspring just because they mate while looking at striped sticks, how the imaginary adam and noah each lived for 900+ years, how kangaroos got to Australia from the alleged landing place of the fairy tale ark, how dead zombie saints and dead zombie jesus managed to escape their graves and walk around for awhile, how a woman was turned into a pillar of salt, etc.

      Delete
    7. Gibberish especially saying you know where it is but asking me to point out where it is all in the smae sentence. That was pretty good.

      Anyways

      Sorry TWh your whole antimiracle rant is dead. It has no effect anymore. We held a funeral for it when your atheistic cosmologist starting preaching the everything from nothing mantra - The ultimate miracle to overshadow all other miracles.

      You could list all biblical miracles off none of them or even put together, would compare to EVERYTHING coming from nothing which is your sides best answer for EVERY phenomenon on earth and beyond. I'll take a virgin birth of a boy over a boy coming ultimately from nothing. I'll take the waters of the red sea parting than water coming from ultimately nothing.

      point to anything in existence and its ultimate explanation is that it came from nothing. THats sensational stuff that makes the Bible blush.

      I told you before your fairy tales are far more spectacular.

      Delete
    8. So you're unable to explain what you mean by "since the Bible is so boring that it indicates the serpent wasn't what we know now as a serpent today." I figured that.

      Regarding fairy tales about everything coming from nothing, maybe you'd like to explain where 'God' came from, and where everything came from that 'God' used to create this universe and everything in it? If you're unable to explain that, maybe marcus or cornelius will take a stab at it.

      Delete
    9. "So you're unable to explain what you mean by "since the Bible is so boring that it indicates the serpent wasn't what we know now as a serpent today." I figured that."

      I already have by pointing you to the very place where it is clearly spelled out. That you are too lazy or stubborn not to go read it is hardly my fault. As the old saying goes you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink

      "Regarding fairy tales about everything coming from nothing, maybe you'd like to explain where 'God' came from, and where everything came from that 'God' used to create this universe and everything in it? "

      You first. Like I said your fairy tales are far better. Tell us all were the quantum laws that allowed everything to come out of nothing came from and how they existed before time or space in order to create both time and space when in fact every quantum law we see today operates only in time and space.

      This ought to be good :)

      but he wont answer it because he can't which is why all his anti miracle rants are DOA

      Dead on Arrival.

      Delete
    10. "Tell us all were the quantum laws that allowed everything to come out of nothing came from and how they existed before time or space in order to create both time and space when in fact every quantum law we see today operates only in time and space."

      I don't know.

      Now, about that alleged talking serpent and the other biblical fairy tales...

      Delete
    11. "I don't know."

      :)

      So um like I said. If you can't give any evidence for your own beliefs in miracles you have no rational basis to make any argument against anyone else's which is far less spectacular than your nothing to everything set of fairy tales. Or as I said

      Dead ON Arrival

      Delete
    12. Yeah, I don't know, which means that I don't know. So, so much for my alleged "beliefs" regarding everything coming from nothing and all that jazz.

      Now, IDiot, are you ever going to quit running from the questions that have been put to you, that are based on your expressed beliefs, or are you just going to keep on being a sniveling coward for dead on arrival zombie jesus?

      Delete
    13. lol I will answer your questions when you answer mine.

      Next time your teacher asks you a question and you say

      "I don't know"

      Try convincing her/him that you answered the question.

      Delete
  3. I'm confused. I thought there was supposed to be this worldwide conspiracy of biologists dedicated to the suppression of any heresy concerning the Gospel according the The New Synthesis. Anyone who didn't toe the line got blackballed, ruined professionally, Expelled and so on. So how come all this stuff about epigenetics has been getting out for decades it seems?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I thought there was supposed to be this worldwide conspiracy of biologists dedicated to the suppression of any heresy concerning the Gospel according the The New Synthesis"

      Sell its hardly a heresy if you can spin and fudge that it fits into your old synthesis. Your point died in infancy.

      Delete
    2. Do read the paper, Elijah. It seems to be open access.

      Delete
    3. Try again Elizabeth. I did read the paper. Perhaps you should take a stab at it. I am not even making the point that Noble attempts to do this but do evolutionists such as you and sped? why yes. Thats all you are trying to do in this thread.

      Delete
    4. Ian:

      Anyone who didn't toe the line got blackballed, ruined professionally, Expelled and so on. So how come all this stuff about epigenetics has been getting out for decades it seems?

      It's really easy to explain Ian: as long as you say that "evolution" explains the presence of life on earth, then you'll always be part of the "in-crowd." You just can't deny materialistic explanations. Noble persists in material explanations, and, so, is "acceptable." Why not take a look at what happened to Kimura and to Gould: when their views were understood to conflict with materialistic explanations, they were outcasts; when they either protested their "faith" in evolution (Gould) or nuanced their theory as to fit in with materialistic explanations (Kimura, and also Gould), they were welcomed back into the 'fold.'

      Delete
    5. Lino Di Ischia May 20, 2013 at 11:43 AM

      [...]

      You just can't deny materialistic explanations. Noble persists in material explanations, and, so, is "acceptable." Why not take a look at what happened to Kimura and to Gould: when their views were understood to conflict with materialistic explanations, they were outcasts; when they either protested their "faith" in evolution (Gould) or nuanced their theory as to fit in with materialistic explanations (Kimura, and also Gould), they were welcomed back into the 'fold.'


      Gould and Kimura weren't materialists? Since when?

      So their theories met resistance from the gradualist and panadaptationist schools. So what? They were radical departures in their times which means they were subjected to extensive and rigorous scrutiny. This is what happens to radical new ideas in science. It's how it's supposed to be.

      As for being shunned for heresy then welcomed back by the faithful after recanting, you're confusing science with religion.

      Delete
    6. Elijah2012 May 20, 2013 at 7:28 AM

      "I thought there was supposed to be this worldwide conspiracy of biologists dedicated to the suppression of any heresy concerning the Gospel according the The New Synthesis"

      Sell its hardly a heresy if you can spin and fudge that it fits into your old synthesis. Your point died in infancy.


      Nice try. But if it fits in nicely with the current orthodoxy why's CH making such a big fuss about it?

      Delete
    7. A) because no one said "spin and fudge" equates to "fits in nicely"
      B) because its illogical

      Delete
    8. Ian:

      Gould and Kimura weren't materialists? Since when?

      I didn't say they were "materialists". I said that they were shown the door when their views "conflicted with 'materialist views'."

      As for being shunned for heresy then welcomed back by the faithful after recanting, you're confusing science with religion.

      Am I? Or am I simply describing how 'science' works in the Darwinian world of science?

      Do you remember Richard Sternberg? What about Nagell?

      If you disagree with Darwinism, you're 'burned at the stake.'

      Dobzhansky said that "nothing in biology can be understood except in the light of evolution." The reality is that almost nothing can be understood in biology in the light of Darwinism. And, yet, it persists. Why?

      Is it because it makes "atheism respectable"?

      Delete
  4. It’s the same old lies, just with new data.

    You also owe me a new irony meter.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think Dennis Noble and James Shapiro are finally on the right track regarding evolution, and good riddance for random mutations + natural selection. Life is a lot more beautiful and complex than that!

    ReplyDelete
  6. What CH conveniently has left out, is that acquired traits they are referring to, such as the current state of regularity genes passed on to offspring, are themselves controlled by other knowledge laden genes. They are useful rules of thumb, rather than explanatory knowledge.

    As such, they do not conflict with biological Darwinism. Nor would merely the creation of such knowledge at a non uniform rate. As the biosphere evolves and other natural events occur, this would reflect changes in natural selection.

    Again, we explain the origin of the knowledge in the genome as being genuinely *created* by conjecture, in the form of mutation of genes which is random *to any specific problem to solve*, and regulation, in the form of natural selection.

    We explain why organisms appear in a particular order (i.e. from least complex to most complex, rather than most complex to least complex or all at once) because the knowledge of how to build more complex organisms had yet to be created. That particular order would a necessary state of the current system under biological Darwinism.

    ID merely says, "Some design must have wanted them appear in that order.", which doesn't explain that complexity. And since ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations, no particular order would be *necessary*. Nor can we make progress about the designer itself. ID claims that we can only make progress about what the designer supposedly designed. This is by design, as it leaves a hole big enough that they can drive through their preferred supernatural designer.

    Furthermore, if one believes that God put the knowledge there, that God has always existed, and God is uncreated, then God must have always known how to build any organism logically possible, including those he supposedly chose not to build. As such, the idea that this knowledge *was* created, rather than having always existed, is in direct conflict with those theological beliefs.

    Then again, I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths. Is there anything in about the above paragraph that theists disagree with. If so, how does your view differ, in detail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Natural selection as a form of regulation doesn't seem very efficient to me. It doesn't prevent failed experiments from happening again. And again.

      Delete
    2. Well, it does, in a couples of ways.

      Firstly, once a more successful variant sequence has completely replaced a less successful variant sequence, that old sequence has gone.

      Secondly, because similar genotypes produce similar phenotypes, variants on success will be more like their successful forebears than their unsucessful forebears.

      Changes accumulate, and gradually become "locked in". That's why we have many "highly conserved" sequences.

      Delete
    3. Scott says: "Furthermore, if one believes that God put the knowledge there, that God has always existed, and God is uncreated, then God must have always known how to build any organism logically possible, including those he supposedly chose not to build. As such, the idea that this knowledge *was* created, rather than having always existed, is in direct conflict with those theological beliefs."

      Scott, let me give it a shot.
      God knows all truths, and therefore, the knowledge has always existed with Him, but not in the universe. After the creation, the knowledge is presented for us to discover.

      Delete
    4. Him? "God" is a "Him"? What makes you think that? Does "God" have a penis?

      By the way, you better be more careful. Fifi the pink unicorn god, the one and only true god, doesn't like it when people refer to the one and only true god as a "Him". The punishment for such blasphemy is too horrible to describe.

      Delete
    5. Scott: Then again, I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths. Is there anything in about the above paragraph that theists disagree with. If so, how does your view differ, in detail.

      Marcus: God knows all truths, and therefore, the knowledge has always existed with Him, but not in the universe. After the creation, the knowledge is presented for us to discover.

      Do you see this as being different from what I described above?

      The knowledge of how to build a organisms can be instantiated in paper books, magnetic media, human brains and the genomes of those organisms themselves. Organism reproduce because they contain the knowledge of how to transform matter into copies of themselves. This transformation is of the kind that only occurs when the requisite knowledge is present. This is in contrast to spontaneous transformations of gasses into stars due to gravity, heat, etc.

      Everyone with me so far?

      While the genomes of organisms would be part of the universe (and therefore created), it is the medium which holds a specific instance of the knowledge of how to transform matter into the concrete adaptations we observe. According to theism, that knowledge (rather than the medium) would have always co-existed with God, who is supposedly uncreated. So it couldn't have been genuinely created either.

      As such, any theory which suggests this knowledge was genuinely created over time, rather than having always existed, would be in direct conflict with the idea of an uncreated God who instantiated this uncreated knowledge in the genomes of organisms.

      Still following me?

      Biological Darwinism is such a theory.

      Specifically, it's the theory that the knowledge of how to build the concrete adaptations of biological organisms was genuinely created through an error correcting process, which resulted in the creation of non-explanatory knowledge.

      So, not only does Biological Darwinism directly conflict with the source for this same knowledge, it represents a form of epistemology that directly conflicts with theism. It does this by suggesting this knowledge was incrementally created over time, rather than being uncreated and having always existed.

      More liberal theists might believe the statement, "God knows all truths" does not include my preferences or whether I will accept him because he gave us free will. However, at a minimum, I *do* think "all truths" would include the knowledge of how to transform raw materials into the adaptations of organisms we observe in the biosphere.

      Would this be an accurate assumption of theism?

      For example, do you think God knows how to build any logically possible organism, including those he supposedly decided not to create? If so, was there ever a time he did not possess this knowledge?

      Delete
    6. natschuster: Natural selection as a form of regulation doesn't seem very efficient to me.

      Biological darwinism is not as efficient at creating knowledge as humans are today because it "conjectures" mutations that are *random in respect to any specific problem to solve*.

      While organisms have problems from our perspective, only we can cannot conceive of them as such. Nor can non-conscious processes conceive of explanatory theories as to how the world works or design tests to criticize those theories.

      As such, Biological darwinism does not create explanatory knowledge. Rather it creates non-explanatory knowledge in the form of useful rules of thumb.

      On the other hand, people have made the leap to universal explainers. We can conjecture theories about how the world works in an attempt to solve specific problems. And we can specially design experiments to test those theories using observations.

      the the following article about Karl Popper and evolution includes the following quote ...

      "By criticizing our theories we can let our theories die in our stead."

      Biological Darwinism has no such luxury.

      So, unless assisted by them, biological evolution is not nearly as efficient at creating knowledge as people. Nor can it create knowledge with as much reach as people, because it is limited to creating useful rules of thumb.

      However, this limitation does not mean it's not efficient enough to explain the biological complexity we observe. In fact, it's these limitations that are what make it such a good explanation.

      For example, the limited reach of non-explanatory knowledge created by biological Darwinism explains why a great majority of all species that have ever existed is now extinct. It also explains why certain biological features have been carried on through various lines of inheritance.

      Delete
    7. Scott said:

      "So, unless assisted by them, biological evolution is not nearly as efficient at creating knowledge as people. Nor can it create knowledge with as much reach as people, because it is limited to creating useful rules of thumb. "

      And how could a process limited by rules of thumb could create humans that are more efficient and reach creating knoledge?

      Delete
    8. Scott: However, at a minimum, I *do* think "all truths" would include the knowledge of how to transform raw materials into the adaptations of organisms we observe in the biosphere.
      Would this be an accurate assumption of theism?

      I think what you say is consistent with the God of the bible. I also think God knows how to build every possible organism. The bible says in heaven, He has prepared things we have never seen or heard.

      Delete
    9. Twt: Him? "God" is a "Him"? What makes you think that? Does "God" have a penis?

      Yes, Jesus was a man, so it stands to reason he had a way of removing urine from his system.

      Twt: By the way, you better be more careful. Fifi the pink unicorn god, the one and only true god, doesn't like it when people refer to the one and only true god as a "Him". The punishment for such blasphemy is too horrible to describe.

      Does Fifi the pink unicorn god exist where thousands and thousands of documents talk about it? How many people around the world give their lives instead of denying Fifi exists. How many people have tried to extinguish Fifi from the population. Is the church of Fifi growing in China where Mao promised to remove religion?
      Jesus is a man and He has revealed Himself to us, you included. Fifi never revealed itself to me or you, so why do you bring it up? Using chemicals to see Fifi doesn't count.

      Delete
    10. Sorry I didn't reply sooner, marcus, but Fifi and her entourage of My Little Ponies and Pasta Monsterlings took me on a tour of a few of the other universes that she created and I just got home.

      Regarding "documents", how many are there that "talk about" Harry Potter or Donald Duck? Does that prove that Harry Potter or Donald Duck actually exist?

      Hmm, so "God" is jesus, eh? How about yhwh, holy ghost, allah, and satan? Do they all have penises too or is just one penis shared by all of them? When the combined "God" jesus, yhwh, holy ghost, allah, and satan fart, is it a really
      Big Bang?

      And regarding your lame appeals to popularity, how many people on this planet don't believe in and promote the so-called "God" that you believe in and promote? An how many christians don't believe in and promote the so-called "God" you believe in and promote in the same way that you do? Why are there so many versions and individual interpretations of the christian "God" and associated fairy tales?

      By the way, do you have any scientific evidence that verifies the existence of the alleged god-man that you call "Jesus", and the "truths" of the stories associated with 'Him', and that "He" has revealed "Himself" to "us", me "included"?

      You blindly said:

      "Fifi never revealed itself to me or you..."

      Fifi is losing patience with you. If you repent now and beg for forgiveness, you may still have a chance at spending eternity in unicorn heaven.

      Delete
    11. Twt, I find you offensive. Why would you go out of your way to speak so vulgarly about something you know doesn't exist? The only logical reason I can think of is you want to offend me and other Christians. There are many that throw stones at a red apple.
      The good news is, Jesus died for you too. When you get to the end of your rope, you can call out to Him and He will forgive you.

      Delete
    12. What's vulgar in what I've said? Is it the penis questions? Are penises vulgar? Don't you have one? They're a body part, yeah, a part of the human body that you believe was 'specially created by God in his image'. So, did 'God' do a vulgar thing by specially creating human bodies with penises? And what about all the animals with penises? Didn't 'God' create them too?

      The label 'penis', and all the other labels applied to that body part were all thought up by humans. Since, according to the bible, 'God' allegedly 'specially created man in his image' both physically and intellectually, 'God' must also have given man the ability and the right to label body parts, including the penis, right? Since a man typically has a penis, and if 'God' is a "He/Him/man", 'God' must have one too, and since 'God' is a combination of at least yhwh-allah-jesus-holy-ghost-satan, 'God' must either have multiple penises or it shares just one. Which is it? Surely you know because you're an expert on 'God'?

      If it's the fart question that you feel is vulgar, maybe you should take that up with 'God' too. After all, according to christian dogma 'God' is the source and creator of farting and penises and bowel movements and puking and toe jam and crotch rot and hemorrhoids and bad breath and body odor and boogers and everything else in the universe, 'vulgar' or otherwise.

      "The good news is, Jesus died for you too. When you get to the end of your rope, you can call out to Him and He will forgive you."

      How "offensive" it is of you to say that. Come down from your imaginary divine throne and join reality.

      Delete
    13. Twt, I'm happy to read you are going to take Jesus more seriously. Read the book of John to find out what kind of man he is. I also accept your apology.

      Delete
    14. Marcus,

      Regards your exchanges with TWT, trying to reason with individuals such as this is simply casting pearls before swine. When you say his only objective is to offend others, you've hit the nail squarely on the head. I've dealt with many people like this over the years. Reason and common sense are foreign to their thinking, the only thing that will impact them is a severe personal crisis which forces then to view the world differently.

      Delete
    15. Nic, Thank you for that. You blessed me.

      Delete
    16. "Reason and common sense are foreign to their thinking..."

      Says a god zombie who believes in and promotes bizarre, barbaric, impossible, nonsensical, unreasonable, religious fairy tales.

      "...the only thing that will impact them is a severe personal crisis which forces then to view the world differently."

      Yeah, people like you need a crutch, an imaginary sky daddy, because you can't handle reality.

      If anything, it's the "severe" crises, whether personal or otherwise, that demonstrate emphatically that your imaginary, allegedly loving-merciful-protective sky daddy either doesn't exist or is a sadistic, merciless, hateful, murderous monster.

      And what have you got against swine? Swine are pretty smart, and good eatin' too. Mmm, bacon.

      And hey, don't you believe that 'God' created swine? Are you bashing 'God's' creation?

      Delete
    17. MarcusMay 22, 2013 at 7:50 AM
      Twt, I'm happy to read you are going to take Jesus more seriously. Read the book of John to find out what kind of man he is. I also accept your apology.

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

      Dream on.

      Delete
    18. Blas: And how could a process limited by rules of thumb could create humans that are more efficient and reach creating knoledge?

      I don't think we're quite on the same page.

      Biological Darwinism is not not limited by useful rules of thumb, it *creates* useful rules of thumb, which represents non-explantory knowledge. It's those individual useful rules of thumb that have limited reach.

      What does that mean?

      Imagine I’ve been shipwrecked on a deserted island and I have partial amnesia due to the wreck. I remember that coconuts are edible so climb a tree to pick them. While attempting to pick a coconut, one falls, lands of a rock and splits open. Note that I did not intend for the coconut to fall, let alone plan for it to fall because I guessed coconuts that fall on rocks might crack open. The coconut falling was random *in respect to the problem I hadn’t yet even tried to solve*. Yet it ended solving a problem regardless. Furthermore, due to my amnesia, I’ve hypothetically forgotten what I know about physics, including mass, inertia, etc. Specifically, I lack an explanation as to why the coconut landing on the rock causes it to open. As such, my knowledge of how to open coconuts is merely a useful rule of thumb, which is limited in reach. For example, in the absence of an explanation, I might collect coconuts picked from other trees, carry them to this same tree, climb it, then drop them on the rocks to open them.

      However, explanatory knowledge has significant reach. Specifically, if my explanatory knowledge of physics, including inertia, mass, etc. returned, I could use that explanation to strike coconut with any similar sized rock, rather than vice versa. Furthermore, I could exchange the rock with another object with significant mass, such as an anchor and open objects other than coconuts, such as shells, use this knowledge to protect myself from attacking wildlife, etc.

      So, explanatory knowledge comes from intentional conjectures made by people and have significant reach. Non-explanatory knowledge (useful rules of thumb) represent unintentional conjectures and have limited reach. Knowledge can be created without intent in the form of useful rules of thumb. The knowledge of how to build biological adaptations isn’t explanatory in nature but a useful rule of thumb.

      With me so far?

      Now, for the majority of the 200,000 years we estimate people with brains of essentially the same structure as ours existed, we too were very inefficient at making progress. We arrived at myths that which contained useful rules of thumb, which also had limited reach. It's only very late in that time frame that we've become much more efficient. This is because we have and continue to make progress in the field of epistemology. Namely, by a trend to prefer hard to vary explanatory theories, rather than useful rules of thumb.

      So, humans are more efficient not by "hardware" alone, but by developing an error correction process. Specially, we conjectured explanatory theories about how human knowledge grows, criticized them and discarded errors.

      This is in contrast to assuming that people were pre-programmed to create explanatory knowledge and that our theories of human knowledge will not continue to improve through criticism.

      Delete
    19. Marcus: I think what you say is consistent with the God of the bible. I also think God knows how to build every possible organism. The bible says in heaven, He has prepared things we have never seen or heard.

      If, so then the knowledge of how to build every possible organism couldn't have been created, because God always knew it and God was uncreated, right?

      Delete
    20. Scott: If, so then the knowledge of how to build every possible organism couldn't have been created, because God always knew it and God was uncreated, right?

      From God's perspective I guess you are right. Him being without beginning and knowing all truths. However, specified information that comes into the universe, from our perspective, is an act of creation. Without God telling us where the information came from, we could not know.

      Delete
    21. Marcus,

      My point is, the knowledge itself wouldn't have been created, just the initial media that this knowledge was initially instanced in (the genome of the first organism).

      Going forward, the medium in future generations of an organism is created by the knowledge of how to transform matter into copies of the organism. The instructions of how to do so (knowledge) is found in its genome.

      To use an analogy, every time a book is created by copying it, this doesn't mean the knowledge in that book was created as well. Assuming it is copied exactly, each version of the book is an instantiation of the same knowledge.

      The author creates the knowledge in the book, which is then instantiated in pages, magnetic particles of a hard drive, or some other medium.

      It's in this sense that creationism is misleadingly named as it denies that the creation of this knowledge genuinely took place.

      Do you see the significance?

      However, biological Darwinism is not just the theory that the medium (genome) was created via reproduction. It is the theory that knowledge instanced in it was genuinely created, rather than having always existed.

      This is in direct conflict with the idea that this knowledge has always existed and was merely instantiated in the first version of each genome.

      Delete
    22. The whole truth,

      "Says a god zombie who believes in and promotes bizarre, barbaric, impossible, nonsensical, unreasonable, religious fairy tales."

      Maybe to you they're religious fairy tales, but to billions of people throughout history they're the word of God.

      "Yeah, people like you need a crutch, an imaginary sky daddy, because you can't handle reality."

      Christ is not a crutch, he's a whole foundation. As for not being able to handle reality, on what basis do you make such a statement? You know nothing about me, or any of the other Christians here you so readily ridicule. It makes me think of that line from Shakespeare, (to paraphrase), 'methinks thou doth protest too much'. I get the distinct feeling it is you who has a hard time dealing with the reality of life. I know I don't. I was close to death twice in the past year, and felt no fear whatsoever. I know what will become of me when I die, and I know I will have no desire to return.

      "If anything, it's the "severe" crises, whether personal or otherwise, that demonstrate emphatically that your imaginary, allegedly loving-merciful-protective sky daddy either doesn't exist or is a sadistic, merciless, hateful, murderous monster."

      Well. if he doesn't exist, he's none of these things. If he does, then he is omnipotent, and certainly beyond your puny criticism. How about you demonstrate these traits of which you accuse him.

      "And hey, don't you believe that 'God' created swine? Are you bashing 'God's' creation?"

      Where did you get the idea I don't believe God created swine? Perhaps you're not aware of the source of that particular phrase.

      Delete
    23. Scott: It's in this sense that creationism is misleadingly named as it denies that the creation of this knowledge genuinely took place.

      We know God exists. He says He created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. So, the word creation is referring to the knowledge being brought into the universe. He is the origin of the knowledge, and it's not random, it's planned and highly organized.

      If we remove God from the equation, we recognize the organization and the information content, and deduce, there must be an intelligence behind this information.

      Scott: However, biological Darwinism is not just the theory that the medium (genome) was created via reproduction. It is the theory that knowledge instanced in it was genuinely created, rather than having always existed.

      So, we have several problems now.
      1. How did the first genome appear?
      2. How did it know to replicate or why replicate at all?
      3. How did the systems appear to maintain it and protect it?
      So Darwin is saying the first information appeared, (a singularity in itself) then it started to create more information in a different way? Why does it use replication, when it could just use "appeared"?

      I'm not trying to be funny. I am truly interested and I grateful you take the time to explain things.


      Delete
    24. Scott: It's in this sense that creationism is misleadingly named as it denies that the creation of this knowledge genuinely took place.

      Marcus: We know God exists.

      A claim that we (human beings) know God exists would represent human knowledge. What is your explanation as to how we know this? Any explanation (theory) you provide would fall under the field of epistemology, which is the study of knowledge, how we obtain it, etc.

      Marcus: He says He created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. So, the word creation is referring to the knowledge being brought into the universe. He is the origin of the knowledge, and it's not random, it's planned and highly organized.

      You're not explaining the origin. You're merely say it was previously located in one place (in the "mind" of some incomprehensible, eternal being) and moved to another place (the genomes of biological organisms).

      Some designer that "just was", compete with the knowledge of how to adapt raw materials into the specific biological adaptations we observe, already present, doesn't serve an explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that biological organisms, "just appeared" compete with the knowledge of how to adapt raw materials, already present in their genome.

      So adding a designer to the mix merely pushes the problem into a incomprehensible realm.

      Biological darwinism is the theory that this knowledge actually didn't exist before, but was genuinely crated over time though a process of conjecture, in the form of genetic variation *independent of any specific problem to solve, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. As such, It does explain the origin of that knowledge.

      To use an analogy, imagine someone merely claimed God took money out of his own pocket and put in in someone else's pocket (Yes, I know you do not think God has pockets. It's an analogy), which they used to buy food. However, that someone did not explain the origin of the money that God had in his pocket, such that it started out as pulp from trees, was pressed into sheets, printed using a printing press at the treasury, cut into bills, backed by some other valuable material, such as gold, etc.

      That God, "just was", complete with money in his pocket, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that someone's pants "Just came out of the garment factory" complete with the money to buy food, already present. Neither explain the origin of the money used to by the food. Adding God to the mix just pushes the problem of the origin of the money into some inexplicable ream.

      Delete
    25. Marcus: "So, we have several problems now.
      1. How did the first genome appear?
      2. How did it know to replicate or why replicate at all?
      Early primitive cells, didn't replicate in the same way they do today. They
      3. How did the systems appear to maintain it and protect it?"


      We don't know exactly when it appeared or even it it initially used DNA or RNA as cells do today, but we have several good theories that are taking shape. For example, L-form bacteria reproduce using a much simpler means, as described here.

      However, evolutionary theory isn't abiogenesis. Rather it explains what concrete biological adaptations that occurred once reproduction took place. This would include adaptations that appear to maintain and protect it.

      One thing to remember is that simpler and less effective DNA error correcting adaptations in the past did not have to compete with the more complex error correcting adaptations cells imply today. They only have to compete with other less effected DNA repair adaptations in the past.

      Marcus: So Darwin is saying the first information appeared, (a singularity in itself) then it started to create more information in a different way?

      No, epistemology and information theory had not advanced to the degree it has today in Darwin's time. Nor had we discovered DNA. However, this doesn't mean that Darwin didn't genuinely think that adaptations were genuinely created

      Marcus: Why does it use replication, when it could just use "appeared"?

      "Just appeared" doesn't explain the origin of that knowledge.

      We didn't have information theory in Darwin's time. Nor had we discovered DNA. What separated Darwin from Lamarck (and even Wallace to some degree) was that is that he though biological adaptations were genuinely created by some yet to be explained way which was random *to any specific problem to solved*, then tested by natural selection. It's only when we made progress in the field of epistemology in human beings that we began to unify both the growth of human knowledge and the growth of knowledge in the genome.

      Delete
    26. nic said:

      "Maybe to you they're religious fairy tales, but to billions of people throughout history they're the word of God."

      Fallacious appeal to popularity, and there are about 2 billion christians (according to polls, that don't ask everyone on Earth) but if those polls are mostly accurate there are about 5 billion people alive right now who are not christians. You're way outnumbered. So much for christian popularity.

      "Christ is not a crutch, he's a whole foundation."

      A fairy tale sky daddy isn't a worthwhile foundation, or a worthwhile crutch.

      "As for not being able to handle reality, on what basis do you make such a statement?"

      On the basis that you have a "foundation" in ridiculous, impossible, religious fairy tales and use them as a crutch.

      "You know nothing about me, or any of the other Christians here you so readily ridicule."

      All I need to know to make my statements is that you believe in and promote religious fairy tales and want to force them on everyone else.

      "It makes me think of that line from Shakespeare, (to paraphrase), 'methinks thou doth protest too much'."

      If you and your fellow religious loons would keep your fairy tales to yourselves and quit trying to ruin education and science, and would quit trying to dominate the world, I wouldn't be here protesting against your dominionist agenda.

      "I get the distinct feeling it is you who has a hard time dealing with the reality of life."

      Nah, I like reality, mostly. It's much more interesting than religious crap, and when reality is harsh, I get through it without fairy tale crutches.

      "I know I don't."

      Actually, you do, otherwise you wouldn't need a christ crutch.

      "I was close to death twice in the past year, and felt no fear whatsoever."

      Even if that's true, which I seriously doubt, it's obviously only because you're brainwashed enough (by yourself and/or others) to believe that death is the doorway to an imaginary place called heaven.

      Did you get treatment from a doctor when you were ill? If so, why, if you're not afraid of dying?

      "I know what will become of me when I die, and I know I will have no desire to return."

      Well, you may have convinced yourself that you know, but you don't really know. And speaking of popularity, what about the billions of people who live now or have lived who 'know' or 'knew' that they are/were going someplace other than the imaginary christian heaven? They're all wrong and you're right?

      See part two.

      Delete
    27. Part two.

      "Well. if he doesn't exist, he's none of these things."

      That you and other people believe "he" exists is the problem, especially when you try to force it down everyone else's throat.

      "If he does, then he is omnipotent, and certainly beyond your puny criticism."

      If "he" does exist and is omnipotent, and omniscient, omnipresent, and perfect (according to the bible) then "he" is a malicious monster and thoroughly deserves my criticism. A petty, jealous, threatening, genocidal, destructive, tyrannical, so-called god is "puny".

      "How about you demonstrate these traits of which you accuse him."

      Read the bible and the koran. The same so-called god (the god of abraham) is depicted in both.

      "Where did you get the idea I don't believe God created swine?"

      Well, you don't appear to appreciate that swine were allegedly created by your chosen, so-called god.

      "Perhaps you're not aware of the source of that particular phrase."

      I'm aware of it, and you obviously think that swine are a filthy lower life form that 'pearls' (of wisdom) would be wasted on and that anyone who doesn't eagerly bend over for your imaginary sky daddy is swine too.

      That's one of the biggest problems with you god pushers. You think and act as though you're vastly superior to anyone who isn't just as religiously deluded and self-righteous as you are. You're 'specially created in God's image', right? You're WAY above impure swine and impure swiney non-christians, and especially impure swiney atheists, right? Atheists are just ungrateful, disobedient, evil sinners who stubbornly reject the love, mercy, and grace of 'God'. A loving, merciful, gracious 'God' that will torture them and other non-christians in a lake of fire for eternity if they don't kiss his ass, right?

      Delete
    28. The Truth

      "That you and other people believe "he" exists is the problem,"

      I don't believe, I know He exists.

      Delete
    29. Then you should easily be able to provide verifiable evidence of that, Eugen. A video of 'him' creating a universe or even just creating a woman from a man's rib would do.

      Delete
    30. Scott: A claim that we (human beings) know God exists would represent human knowledge. What is your explanation as to how we know this? Any explanation (theory) you provide would fall under the field of epistemology, which is the study of knowledge, how we obtain it, etc.

      We know God exists by the historical record of Jesus. There are first person recorded accounts. There are archaeological discoveries pointing to the historicity of the biblical record too. Jesus claimed to be God, he performed miracles that were recorded, he was crucified, died,and came back to life, all recorded. Lives all over the world have been changed after accepting the free gift of Christ.

      Delete
  7. Scott, the pattern of life in the fossil record is better described as 'different' in some ways, rather than a consistent trend from less complex to more complex. The Cambrian phyla was just as complex as what we see today in living forms with the exception of some mammals and birds and brain capacity. Some Cambrian phyla were as complex as many species alive today. Species appear suddenly in the fossil record already elegantly designed and optimized. Blue-green algae, for example, is like it has always been - very complex and elegantly optimized from the start.

    As I said before, there is nothing in what we observe to believe that your notion of building knowledge is possible. And, your less complex to more complex pattern is mostly just a cherry picked scenario which a critical look at the fossil record quickly dispatches to the realm of myth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal: Scott, the pattern of life in the fossil record is better described as 'different' in some ways, rather than a consistent trend from less complex to more complex

      Neal, stop for a moment and actually take the theory seriously for the purpose of criticism.

      Specifically, if the knowledge of how to build biological organisms was genuinely created, would it necessarily be the case that *all* organisms would become more complex? No. Only that those organisms that *were* more complex came later. That's it.

      Neal: The Cambrian phyla was just as complex as what we see today in living forms with the exception of some mammals and birds and brain capacity.

      Multi-cellular life is more complex because each cell differences itself in respect to other cells. And there are more complex variations of multi-cellular life. The details of those variations can be explained by the genuine creation of non-explanatory knowledge.

      Neal: Some Cambrian phyla were as complex as many species alive today.

      See above. Biological Darwinism doesn't suggest that all organism must evolve in the sense you're implying.

      Neal: Species appear suddenly in the fossil record already elegantly designed and optimized. Blue-green algae, for example, is like it has always been - very complex and elegantly optimized from the start.

      First, you're assuming we found it "designed". Second, you're playing fast and loose with the term "suddenly".

      Also, stop for a moment to take our best, current theory of why fossils appear in the fossil record seriously, for the purpose of criticism. Now ask yourself, why would you expect all forms of life to actually be found at all, let alone this specific time in history?

      Neal:As I said before, there is nothing in what we observe to believe that your notion of building knowledge is possible.

      First, it's not my notion. I'm merely presenting it here. Second, it is part of an umbrella theory that explains the growth of knowledge found in brains, books and the genes of organisms.

      As such, It's our best, current explanation for the universal growth of knowledge as a whole. While we cannot actually observe human beings creating knowledge, it represent the theory that has, up to this very moment, best withstood criticism.

      What is your criticism of this theory? Do you have a better theory that explains more phenomena? If so, what is it?

      For example, even if we did observe organisms evolving at a large scale, you could always claim it was due to some designer that somehow pre-programmed cells to re-write their own code. This has already started happening to a degree today, as indicated by this very post.

      But this suffers the same flaw. Namely, it still doesn't explain the origin of the knowledge that some designer supposedly put there.

      Delete
    2. Scott, you put in the word *all* - I didn't.

      You said, "Only that those organisms that *were* more complex came later"

      Some organisms that appear later in the fossil record were less complex than some cambrian fossils. You don't have a consistent pattern. I think you're trying to say that humans and mammals don't occur before Cambrian fossils. I get your point, but there is so much complexity early and less complexity in many later species that the pattern that you describe only holds up if you cherry pick the data to support your pattern. If you seriously want to investigate evolutionary patterns then begin with the Cambrian and you'll find that it is exactly opposite of evolutionary predictions. Evolution predicted few to more to many. Cambrian begins with many and then the number of phyla goes down over time.

      There are practical reasons for having prokaryotes and eukaryotes and vegetation early and that is to build the biomes infrastructure before larger herbivores and carnivores were introduced.

      My criticism of the theory is that it fails as a scientific theory because of the lack of empirical evidence, and its repeated failure to pass basic scientific testing of its hypothesis. Any notion can be supported by cherry picking data to support it.

      I'm not claiming that we need to have seen all organisms evolving on a large scale. You're giving your hypothesis too much credit.

      What we do see is rapid adaptive variation of existing traits (which is not really evolution since the trait is pre-existing) and mutations that are simple and not directional (just as we expect of complex systems). There is nothing that we observe today that would suggest that universal common descent is possible. Second, even if we play acted that it was, the fossil record is wrong for evolution.

      For those that believe that God guided evolution, then the fossil record fails too unless they also believe that the creator purposely left the fossil record to look like evolution didn't occur.

      You are left with having to cherry pick data and that's a shame.

      Delete
    3. Neal:Scott, the pattern of life in the fossil record is better described as 'different' in some ways, rather than a consistent trend from less complex to more complex.

      Scott: Specifically, if the knowledge of how to build biological organisms was genuinely created, would it necessarily be the case that *all* organisms would become more complex? No. Only that those organisms that *were* more complex came later. That's it.

      Neal:" Scott, you put in the word *all* - I didn't.

      I was clarifying what I meant, since you seemed to think a consistent trend would be that *all* organisms became more complex.

      Neal: You said, "Only that those organisms that *were* more complex came later"

      Right. you cannot build something before you create the knowledge of how to build it. That's doesn't mean that an organism that is well adapted for a particular environment must become more complex because there isn't much selection pressure at that time.

      For example, a blue beak and a green beak might have no advantage in a particular species in a particular environment. Or, the genes for an important trait *in a particular environment* might depend of other genes being off, even though those gene's might result in more complex adaptations. If those complex adaptations, which are not useful in that environment, are expressed at the expense of less complex traits that *are* useful in that environment, then that organism may not reproduce. So, organism with the less complex traits would remain less complex, unless the environment changes or they migrate elsewhere.

      Again, historical sciences are about positing a hypotheses about the distant past that would have necessary consequences for the current state of the system, which we can empirically test.

      However, in the case of an abstract designer with no defined limitations, there would no *necessary* consequences for the current state of the system. It could make organisms that appear in any order of complexity, including simultaneously.

      Neal: There are practical reasons for having prokaryotes and eukaryotes and vegetation early and that is to build the biomes infrastructure before larger herbivores and carnivores were introduced.

      What practical reasons are you referring to? For example, are you saying God isn't capable of creating the universe we observe 5 seconds ago, including populating the biosphere with eukaryotes and vegetation? Is that too difficult for him to do? Is it logically impossible?

      This seems like a walk in the park compared with creating a the very fabric of space and time out of nothing.

      Neal: My criticism of the theory is that it fails as a scientific theory because of the lack of empirical evidence, and its repeated failure to pass basic scientific testing of its hypothesis. Any notion can be supported by cherry picking data to support it.

      Except you keep making it painfully obvious that you do not understand what the theory is based on, how science works or how to devise tests to criticize them.

      Delete
  8. If mutations aren't random, then there must be a reason why. There must be a pre-existing mechanism that controls mutations so they are not random. That means that evolution depends on something that already exists. That isn't Darwinism. And how did that pre-existing mechanism come about, anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  9. If we CAN make predictions from based on evolution, I have a question.
    Suppose I own a cannery, and the current technology I use to sterilize the cans is a heat source. Based on known mutation rates, or other known variables that cause a progression of a species, can I forecast when the bacteria I am killing will evolve a resistance to heat like their brethren in the hydro-thermal vents?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marcus, does the environment of a hyrdo-thermal vent, in nature, have some kind of solid boundary that results in bacteria being either completely in the vent's heat or completely unaffected by it?

      No, it doesn't. There is a wide gradient of temperatures around the vent in which the environment gradually heats up. bacteria can slowly migrate towards the vent, rather than being suddenly forced into the thick of it in a few minutes.

      This isn't rocket science. It's basic critical thinking.

      Delete
  10. Well, this shows the power of the scientific method. It is able to by small steps correct evolutionary theory. First it incorporated dna, and now rapid evolution (which isn't evolution at all). So evolution is old evolution in name only. I may become an evolutionist after all, and very soon too. But I may have trouble explaining to a religious (atheist, based on blind faith) evolutionist that I am a divine creation evolutionist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't see anything missing, myself, only things added!

      Darwin's fundamental insight is still fundamental, what's happening is that we are finding out more and more about how variance is generated and selected.

      It's cool. And I do like Noble's focus on systems-level analysis.

      Delete
    2. Yes, "fundamental" as in Darwin's fundamentally imaginary ideas that have never ever been even remotely demonstrated to produce increasing functional complexity in populations.

      Your "theory" is a joke. It is a non-falsifiable fog ever settling over the shifting landscape of data amidst the religious chanting of the Darwinian mystics: "Evolooshun dunnit, evolooshun dunnit"

      Delete
    3. Well, if that's what you hear, I guess I can't help!

      But you could try googling some of the excellent empirical papers that are open access.

      Delete
  11. LOL, the damage control going on in here is truly entertaining. You almost want to root for the little guys.. For so long they've been spamming this pseudo-science mantra about the "fact" of RM+NS being the driver of biodiversity.. it's got to be awkward.

    Why on earth do you/did you guys ever believe culled genetic accidents can create living body plans and complex biological systems? This has to be the dumbest idea in the history of dumb ideas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody is attempting to "control damage". Actually to be honest, I'm rather pleased that finally ID supporters are starting to see that evolutionary theory really has rather a lot of explanatory power.

      All you ever disliked, it seems, was the word "random". Which never meant what you thought it meant (or Cornelius meant) anyway. As Noble said, it meant "random with respect to function".

      Mostly that is still the case. But as Noble says, it may not be 100% the case. Variation generation mechanisms may themselves have been subject to selection at population level.

      The "RM+NS" spam that I've seen over the years has been coming from ID proponents. Many of us have been patiently trying to explain that what the theory of evolution actually is is the straightforward logical proposition that if organisms reproduce with heritable variation in reproductive success, successful variants will become more prevalent in the population.

      But all some people seem to hear is "evolutiondidit!"

      But good for Noble for finally convincing some IDists that the Darwinian process may actually work, even if it took till now to flesh out the mechanisms of variation generation and selection to your satisfaction. Noble is arguing just as much for natural selection as Darwin did, but is, rightly IMO, asking us to focus on the organism, or the population, as units of selection, not the gene, rendering variation generation mechanisms themselves subject to selection.

      And to consider mechanisms of inheritance other than DNA sequence, including acquired characteristics.

      That's not "damage control". It's a sigh of relief that perhaps this absurd anti-Darwinist campaign may finally rest.

      Darwin's idea is no threat to theism, any more than it's a threat to your children.

      Delete
    2. Comedy.

      Writing: Elizabeth: " It's a sigh of relief that perhaps this absurd anti-Darwinist campaign may finally rest."
      ...About a paper that effectively falsifies neo-Darwinism... I think any reader can tell how ridiculous you sound right now.

      Elizabeth: Evolution actually is... if organisms reproduce with heritable variation in reproductive success, successful variants will become more prevalent in the population.

      In other words: that which survives to reproduce---survives to reproduce. A tautology is a good thing to hide behind when you have no evidence, isn't it?

      And Noble is not presenting evidence for Evolution of species, anatomical features, or the origins of any other biological complexity. Evolution is simply the philosophical paradigm that he's speaking from. What Noble IS doing however, is laying to waste the imaginary mechanisms your Darwinian cult has been espousing as "FACT" for decades.

      Of course you cannot admit this, Elizabeth. There is too much at stake, isn't there? On with the charade!

      Delete
    3. How does that paper "falsify neo-Darwinism"?

      lifespy: In other words: that which survives to reproduce---survives to reproduce. A tautology is a good thing to hide behind when you have no evidence, isn't it?

      No: "that which tends to survive to reproduce leaves more copies of itself than that which tends not.

      It's not tautological, just self-evidently true.

      lifespy:And Noble is not presenting evidence for Evolution of species, anatomical features, or the origins of any other biological complexity. Evolution is simply the philosophical paradigm that he's speaking from. What Noble IS doing however, is laying to waste the imaginary mechanisms your Darwinian cult has been espousing as "FACT" for decades.

      EL: I think you need to re-read the paper.

      lifespy:Of course you cannot admit this, Elizabeth. There is too much at stake, isn't there? On with the charade!

      I could say the same backatya, but there doesn't seem a lot of point.


      Delete
    4. "...About a paper that effectively falsifies neo-Darwinism... I think any reader can tell how ridiculous you sound right now."

      Ridiculous is not quite the word. You would have to add "Desperate" to it. Anyone who reads the paper can see Noble taking issue with Neo darwinism in many instances. Elizabeth is doing a fine impression of the proverbial child putting her hands over her ears and shouting LA-LALALA so as to not hear what she does not want to hear.

      Not that Noble is throwing Darwinism out with the bath water but he most certainly does counter (AND EVEN LISTS THOSE THAT HE DOES) several neo darwinist positions.

      ELizabeth is trying her best to spin and finesse the reality she doesn't like out of the paper or as Cornelius so rightfully pointed out to present it as if "this is perfectly in keeping with what we have always believed" .

      Delete
    5. "EL: I think you need to re-read the paper.'

      Oh the Irony ;)

      Delete
    6. EL: How does that paper "falsify neo-Darwinism"?

      J: If neo-Darwinism includes the hypothesis of naturalistic UCA, the real question is, "how CAN you falisfy naturalistic UCA?"

      Delete
    7. Elijah: what do you find ironic about my comment?

      Delete
    8. Easy answer Elizabeth. You tell others to read the paper and then you make the preposterous claim that the paper does not dispute neo-darwinism when anyone that reads it can see that it most certainly does.

      Delete
    9. I didn't say that that it didn't "dispute" neo-Darwinism - I asked how it falsified neo-Darwinism. In a sense it does - in the sense that every time we extend or modify a prior model we "falsify" that prior model, which is how normal science proceeds.

      Noble proposes refocussing on systems rather than genes, as "neo-Darwinism" has tended to do. He's saying, rather as Einstein said about Newton, that the "laws" of neo-Darwinism aren't universally applicable.

      So in a real sense Einstein "falsified" Newton. Einstein's theory is also almost certainly false.

      In fact all scientific theories are false. Science is a continual process of generating models that are progressively less false - make more and more accurate predictions.

      Delete
    10. EL: How does that paper "falsify neo-Darwinism"?

      J: If neo-Darwinism includes the hypothesis of naturalistic UCA, the real question is, "how CAN you falisfy naturalistic UCA?"


      Find more evidence of an another theory.

      Delete
    11. V: Find more evidence of an another theory.

      J: No one has demonstrated that there is more evidence for UCA than for SA. Again, evidence has to do with relative plausibility. Thus, when "evidence" is used outside of the context of the "self-evident," it is ALWAYS a relative concept. In this case, no one has demonstrated that SA scenarios are less ad-hoc than UCA. Thus, neither can be said to be more evident.

      Now, if you're using "evidence" in some non-relative (and, therefore, non-inductive) sense, please articulate it to us once and for all.

      Delete
    12. Jeff,
      J: No one has demonstrated that there is more evidence for UCA than for SA.


      First you need a actual scientific theory, one not an multitude. Then a mechanism would be helpful, a time frame. Specifics which would be more likely for SA.


      Again, evidence has to do with relative plausibility.

      Ok, determine it.

      Thus, when "evidence" is used outside of the context of the "self-evident," it is ALWAYS a relative concept.

      But not equal.


      In this case, no one has demonstrated that SA scenarios are less ad-hoc than UCA. Thus, neither can be said to be more evident.

      You asked how do you falsify UCA,the answer is by making SA more compelling. I'll give you the same examples as Nic, physical evidence. If by necessity you need an extranatural component for your theory then you need stronger evidence of that component than is presently known.

      UCA does not require anything other than time and nature,both observed. What exactly the scope of nature is science.

      Now, if you're using "evidence" in some non-relative (and, therefore, non-inductive) sense, please articulate it to us once and for all.

      All science is provisional,all evidence is not equal even if it is the same category.

      Delete
  12. One minor point: Cornelius seems to regard "synthesis" as synonymous with "theory".

    This is not a new "theory". It is a syn-thesis i.e. an integration of existing theories into a single larger theory.

    But from the cries of "neo-Darwinism falsified!" anyone would think that this little review paper had sent us back to the Paleyan drawing board.

    No.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Sent you back..." ?

      Sent you back from where? Your "Natural Selection Dunnit" cult has made absolutely zero progress on the origins of any amount of biological complexity.

      You do have a long list of errors and failed predictions to your credit, though.

      Delete
    2. As you've ignored my question, I'll ask you again.. "Sent you back" from where exactly?

      What exactly have you proven about the origin of any functional biological complexity that wasn't already there in the first place?

      Creationists and IDists have been asking evolutionists for this mysterious evidence for decades. Maybe I will get lucky this time?

      Delete
    3. What she means, lifespy, is that they can continue to bluster and bluff as successfully now as before. Because there never was an explanatory theory of the hypothetico-deductive kind in the first place. All they need to do is just start a whole new set of pontifications. And voila! Nothing has changed in substance to the MO! They just reassert that naturalistic UCA has not been falsified (neither has theism) yet, as if that per se constitutes a reason for finding it plausible (it doesn't).

      Delete
  13. You do have a long list of errors and failed predictions to your credit, though.

    Would it be any trouble to provide an example of a failed prediction from your long list?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I'd like to see that list too.

      Delete
    2. Cornelius Hunter has compiled a convenient list of failed evolution predictions right here.
      http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

      And... How many anatomical features did Evolutionist idiots claim were vestigial and useless? 170-something?

      As far as some more recent failed predictions, or should I say failed arguments for evolution.. off the top of my head..

      Orphan Genes-
      If Common Descent is true then closely related species should be expected to share sequence homology, yet it is now routine to find 20-30% genes with no signal of common ancestry. The ad hoc explanation evolutionists are forced into is "de novo" appearances of fully functioning genes... ya know, basically antithesis to what you guys have been arguing for decades.

      ERV's claimed to be evolutionary junk and evidence of phylogenetic ancestry, now known to be crucial to embyronic development, and also have been discovered in patterns which violate common descent storytelling... in which case they are Ad Hoc, regarded as "indpendent loss and capture" or HGT, because , ya know, evolution is non-falsifiable.

      And.. more relevant to the post.. I can go on any popular Evo-blog, website, Ask-An-Evolutionist, textbook, whatever, and ask how Evolution works.. Guess what I'm going to get as a response? Random Genetic Mutation -> Increases Fitness -> Selection -> Population Fixation.

      I'm sorry guys, that's what you've been telling everyone for decades. I know you'd like to backpedal back to the safety zone of your tautology of "stuff changes and things survive", but the damage has been done. All that's left is the amusing charade of watching your materialism cult try and smooth it over.

      Delete
    3. lifepsy May 21, 2013 at 9:02 AM

      Cornelius Hunter has compiled a convenient list of failed evolution predictions right here.
      http://www.darwinspredictions.com/


      And as fine a collection of strawmen as you'll find this side of the Discovery Institute.

      Delete
  14. "So sorry a out the tornadoes. And the dead children.

    Got caught masterbating by Daddy again."--------Jesus h. Christ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kilo you are a disgusting individual. The only hope is you are 7 years old and your brain is too immature to use reason.

      Delete
    2. Velikovskys,

      "Kilo you are a disgusting individual. The only hope is you are 7 years old and your brain is too immature to use reason."

      Thank you Vel, well said. I really don't understand how people like this think. Do they think this garbage is funny? It's simply insulting and immature on a whole lot of levels.

      Delete
  15. Cornelius Hunter has compiled a convenient list of failed evolution predictions right here.
    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/


    I agree it is long. Just noting the first item is obvious nonsense. Evolutionary theory does not address origin of life, just its diversity and elatedness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And why do you think that is, Alan? Maybe because the idea of spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) became so laughable on its face that it had to be separated from the rest of the theory? (and thus generating your disclaimer for years to come)

      However there is no doubt that, if Abiogenesis weren't so ridiculous, it would be re-absorbed back into your theory and taught right alongside the campfire tales about deer turning into whales.

      And even so, the evolution Klub is still teaching abiogenesis nonsense in schools, and pumping it out in "science" publications every month, with the approval and blessing of the Evo-priesthood.

      Delete
    2. "I agree it is long. Just noting the first item is obvious nonsense. Evolutionary theory does not address origin of life, just its diversity and elatedness."

      This is a false line of demarcation that your side always draws but only when it suits. Your leading Darwinist evangelists have no qualms whatsoever talking about the Origin of life when they attempt to indoctrinate the masses and to hear them tell it science has already concluded life arosed naturally but just the details need to be worked out. This IS part of the non ID Darwinist mantra and its just lying and hypocrisy to seek to exclude it only when it suits.

      Delete
    3. CH, notes the difference between chemical and biological evolution in his article. As Elijah2012 says, "only when it suits".

      It really is all lumped under "evolution" - Chemical and biological evolution are subsets. Both accurately fall under the term evolution. CH does not confuse the two.

      They are subsets of evolution. They should accurately be called "dumb and dumber".

      Delete
    4. elijah slobbered:

      "This is a false line of demarcation that your side always draws but only when it suits."

      Speaking of convenient lines of demarcation, where did 'God' come from?

      Delete
    5. twt
      "let" your "mind" ponder this: "I Am".

      Can you "comprehend?"

      Delete
    6. "I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam." - Popeye the Sailor

      By the way, your thread is still waiting for you at AtBC.

      Delete
    7. The whole truth,

      The whole truth: "I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam." - Popeye the Sailor.

      And in what way does that compare to God declaring, I Am that I Am, in response to Moses? You're very quick with ridicule, but so very slow with anything of substance.

      Delete
    8. Popeye is a cartoon character yet he is more realistic, and a helluva lot nicer, than your imaginary so-called god.

      Where is the SUBSTANCE in biblical fairy tales and other religious gobbledegook?

      Delete
  16. EZ said, "Many of us have been patiently trying to explain that what the theory of evolution actually is is the straightforward logical proposition that if organisms reproduce with heritable variation in reproductive success, successful variants will become more prevalent in the population"

    --
    There is nothing in the heritable variation that we observe today that would lead one to believe or assume that universal common descent is even possible. Furthermore, the fossil record does not support the notion of universal common descent. Any notion can be supported by cherry picked evidence and this is how evolutions interpret the fossil record.

    Even a broken clock is exactly right twice a day. The minute hand is right 24 times a day and the second hand is right 1,440 times a day. This is how evolutionists read the fossil record.

    Exaggeration and ungrounded equivocation do not belong in scientific research.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. tedford said:

      "There is nothing in the heritable variation that we observe today that would lead one to believe or assume that universal common descent is even possible."

      We? Speak for yourself.

      "Exaggeration and ungrounded equivocation do not belong in scientific research."

      Yep, so why do you think that your religious fairy tales belong in scientific research?

      Delete
    2. TWT, tell us what is it that you observe that would specifically lead you to believe that universal common descent was possible?

      Delete
    3. tedford, why don't you educate yourself and stop asking for information that has been pointed out to you many, many times?

      Delete
    4. By the way, tedford, you're an ape, and your ancestors were other primates and a whole bunch of other critters. Get used to it.

      Delete
  17. Eugen,
    Sky Alert,

    Triple conjunction 24-29 just after sunset
    Jupiter ,Venus ,Mercury. Clear skies

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I pointed our telescope towards Saturn the other night. My kids saw it for the first time. It was a blessed experience.

      Delete
    2. Marcus, did you see St. Dominic surfing the Saturn rings? Just kidding, St.Dominic is patron saint of astronomers and hopefully us, amateur astronomers.

      Velik, thanks for reminding me about conjunction. I'll go out with kids and we'll bring out the telescope. Weather forecast looks decent. Good luck!

      Delete
    3. Oooohhh!! Spooky! Someone, somewhere must think it augurs The Apocalypse™. Anyone? Bueller?

      Delete
    4. Marcus, a couple of weeks ago I had a similar experience with some friends it is special.

      Delete
    5. Ian,
      Oooohhh!! Spooky! Someone, somewhere must think it augurs The Apocalypse™. Anyone? Bueller?


      It is not the conjunction ye need to be afeard of,it is the comet ISON, for comets mean only one thing.........Dragons

      Delete
    6. Eugen, I hope St.Dominic will put a good word so I have clear sky's.

      Vel, I find it increasingly difficult to preserve the sense of wonder in my children.
      My telescope helped that night.

      Delete
    7. Marcus,

      Take them to the Grand Canyon.

      Delete
  18. Chemical evolution and origin of life evolutionists believe that life originated from inorganic chemicals by random and blind processes.

    Lizzie - It is a huge leap from inorganic materials to a living cell capable of reproduction and producing heritable variation... certainly a bigger leap than from a prokaryote to a eukaryote cell. Accordingly, the greatest evolution (inorganic to first life) in the history of earth would have had to occur without heritable variation!

    Scott - So much information (or as you like to call it "knowledge") that was introduced by purely random and blind processes without natural selection or mutation.

    What is observed of natural selection and variation today would not lead one to assume that they are responsible for universal common descent. Something much more is needed.

    Materialists are stuck between saying they don't know or lying. It seems they prefer the later.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Neal, couldn't this event, the beginning of life, be on the same order of miracle as the beginning of the universe?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Marcus, yes. The materialist has a really narrow viewpoint. They want to shutdown discussion of alternate viewpoints similar to what likeminded leftists normally are inclined to do.

    They have built a silly strawman argument that if you are not a materialist then scientific research stops because everything is simply attributed to a 'miracle'. This is a canard. The history of science shows that most of the founders of modern science and many since then who have made great contributions believed in a Creator.

    They contend that we must pretend that God isn't responsible for anything while doing scientific research. It is self limiting from the get go and it really assumes that scientists are stupid and must be controlled.

    I think if Darwinism had never been conceived or taken seriously and the design inference would have been refined used as the paradyme for biology over the alst 150 years, we would be more advanced in our understanding of biology today.

    Materialists think that those who hold to design would not bother to do research because they would just say God-did-it. The truth of the matter is that they would be driven to try to unlock the mysteries of how God's design's work. This was indeed the motivating factor in the founders of modern science.

    It can be pointed out that materialists have slowed down progress because their Darwinian assumptions were false. A good recent example of this is their "junk-DNA" fiasco. A few years were lost in researching non coding DNA because of this. Curiousity and practical science tend to trumph false Darwinian assumptions but not before they do damage.

    Evolution belongs in the same archaic bin as the theory of spontaneous generation. The spontaneous generation theory crowd had little appreciation for the elegance or information rich complexity of life. Evolutionists today, while forced otherwise by empirical evidence to some degree, still have that same kind of emotional and dumbed down view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tedford the Slow

      Marcus, yes. The materialist has a really narrow viewpoint. They want to shutdown discussion of alternate viewpoints similar to what likeminded leftists normally are inclined to do.


      Tedford the Slow cranks up his usual lie machine. You IDiots are free to discuss in science classes any alternate view point that you can support with positive evidence. That's the part you fools keep forgetting to do.

      They have built a silly strawman argument that if you are not a materialist then scientific research stops because everything is simply attributed to a 'miracle'. This is a canard. The history of science shows that most of the founders of modern science and many since then who have made great contributions believed in a Creator.

      And every last one of them made sure to keep their religious beliefs 100% out of their scientific work. They knew the importance of keeping supernatural claims put of the scientific world even if some fat-headed idiot pastor doesn't.

      They contend that we must pretend that God isn't responsible for anything while doing scientific research. It is self limiting from the get go and it really assumes that scientists are stupid and must be controlled.

      Go ahead idiot, tell us how to do science when we have to allow for the supernatural and/or miracles. Tell us how to design and test the lift of an aircraft wing when a Loki God keeps changing Bernoulli's principle.

      I think if Darwinism had never been conceived or taken seriously and the design inference would have been refined used as the paradyme for biology over the alst 150 years, we would be more advanced in our understanding of biology today.

      If fat-headed idiots like you were in change science would still be stuck in the 17th century

      Materialists think that those who hold to design would not bother to do research because they would just say God-did-it. The truth of the matter is that they would be driven to try to unlock the mysteries of how God's design's work. This was indeed the motivating factor in the founders of modern science.

      They kept the religion completely separate from the science. Moron.

      It can be pointed out that materialists have slowed down progress because their Darwinian assumptions were false. A good recent example of this is their "junk-DNA" fiasco. A few years were lost in researching non coding DNA because of this. Curiousity and practical science tend to trumph false Darwinian assumptions but not before they do damage.

      Another lie from the fat idiot. Evolutionary biologists are the ones who did investigate the non-coding regions of DNA. It certainly wasn't any IDiot researchers.

      Evolution belongs in the same archaic bin as the theory of spontaneous generation. The spontaneous generation theory crowd had little appreciation for the elegance or information rich complexity of life. Evolutionists today, while forced otherwise by empirical evidence to some degree, still have that same kind of emotional and dumbed down view.

      Go suck a fat one you willfully ignorant turd. Clowns like you do more to hold back scientific progress than any 10 failed experiments combined.

      Delete
    2. Thorton,

      Well buddy, it's looking bad for me and my prediction of Chicago and Pittsburgh in the final. Chicago's wheels seem to have fallen off.

      Pittsburgh is holding up its end, however. Looks like the Penguins and Boston in the East final. Whoever survives that will be pretty beat up.

      Looks like the Sharks and Kings will go to seven. I haven't seen all the games, but from what I have seen, it looks close.

      I'm going to watch the third period of the Sharks and Kings now.

      Take care my hockey loving buddy.

      Delete
    3. tedfford said:

      "A good recent example of this is their "junk-DNA" fiasco."

      Are you saying that there's no such thing as junk DNA and that Encode proved that there's no such thing as junk DNA?

      Delete
    4. TWT, still can't let it go can you? Myths die hard for evolutionists.

      Delete
    5. Let's see you show that junk DNA is a myth. And you really should read something besides creationist propaganda.

      Start with these, and follow all of the relevant links, and do some more actual research on the Encode hype:

      http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/20/gbe.evt028.full.pdf


      http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2013/04/bbc-interview-with-ewan-birney/


      Delete
    6. NIc and Neil

      Might I suggest your review the strategy of responding to these two in any ongoing manner?. In every way possible and with no end of evidence thorton and TWT have shown themselves in hundreds of posts to be thoroughly unworthy of being taken seriously.

      As they say other places - don't feed the trolls. IF you feed them you will not get anywhere but encouraging more to come around.

      Delete
    7. LOL! What a pitiful excuse for a man you are Elijah2012. I bet your nose bleeds every 28 days.

      Delete
  21. Thorton:

    Are you saying that it would be alright for me to teach my students that, since have characteristics that are really hard to explain without coming on to design, that design is a possibility?

    And didn't Newton say that God had to tinker withthe solar system to keep it stable? And wasn't Einstein's objection to Quantum theory theological? Y'know, "God doesn't play dice."

    And even Darwin used evidence that was based on theology. Lots of things like God wouldn't use vestigal structures.

    ReplyDelete
  22. natschuster

    Are you saying that it would be alright for me to teach my students that, since have characteristics that are really hard to explain without coming on to design, that design is a possibility?


    If you did you'd be lying. Science isn't aware of any biological feature where 'design' is a better explanation.

    And didn't Newton say that God had to tinker withthe solar system to keep it stable?

    That wasn't part of his scientific work in Principia, it was his personal opinion on the things he couldn't explain.

    And wasn't Einstein's objection to Quantum theory theological? Y'know, "God doesn't play dice."

    Again that was a personal opinion, not part of the body of scientific work.

    And even Darwin used evidence that was based on theology. Lots of things like God wouldn't use vestigal structures.

    No, he didn't. His personal opinion isn't part of the theory. Nothing in any scientific theory is based on the supernatural and/or religious miracles.

    You seem to be very confused about people's personal religious views and the science they did, much more so than they were.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You didn't say above that the explanation had to be better.

    And isn't explainig how the solar system works science.

    And Einstein's theology guided his research.

    And isn't saying God wouldn't so something this way, so it must be evolution applying theology to science?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Albert Einstein

      Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

      Delete
    2. More about Einstein:

      http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/einstein-the-atheist-on-religion-and-god/#more-889

      Delete
  24. natschuster

    You didn't say above that the explanation had to be better.


    Leave it to you to think lying to kids is a good thing. You already have a history of lying to kids as I recall.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It is strange that coming from Darwin's book that pretends to be a scientific work, it has more religion in it than some church sunday school classes.

    From the British Journal for the History of Science -

    "Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species"

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8499239


    "I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):

    1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.

    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.

    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures.

    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function.

    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.

    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.

    7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life.

    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.

    9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.

    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Neal Tedford May 24, 2013 at 6:47 AM

    It is strange that coming from Darwin's book that pretends to be a scientific work, it has more religion in it than some church sunday school classes.

    From the British Journal for the History of Science -

    "Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species"

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8499239


    The question is, does Darwin's theory still stand as good science if all the theological arguments are stripped out? The answer is, yes, it does.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ToE was never "good science" with or without any theological arguments. Real science continues to demonstrate how feeble the ridiculous philosophy really is, with it's unheard of levels of gratuitous speculation and conjecture. You and your fellow cronies ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You deserve a good spanking. Science my rear.

    ReplyDelete
  28. bpragmatic,
    You and your fellow cronies ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You deserve a good spanking.


    À chacun son goût,

    ReplyDelete
  29. bpragmatic May 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM

    [...]

    You and your fellow cronies ought to be ashamed of yourselves.


    I have cronies? Cool!

    You deserve a good spanking. Science my rear.

    You should meet Joe G. Sounds like you have a lot in common.

    ReplyDelete
  30. what joe g and or i have in common is totally irrelevant to this discussion. YOU can not scientifically demonstrate why anything exists, or how living organisms are what they observably are from an ability of us to observe and descibe theories trying to explain the array of configurations required. You pathetic lying self serving anal outlets. are you being paid perpetuate self serving speculations? If so, be honest enough to say so, you MURDERERS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bpragmatic May 25, 2013 at 9:00 PM

      [...]

      YOU can not scientifically demonstrate why anything exists,


      Quite right. I don't know where you got the idea that anyone said we could.

      ...or how living organisms are what they observably are from an ability of us to observe and descibe theories trying to explain the array of configurations required.

      If by that you mean that we cannot provide a detailed evolutionary pathway leading to all species, either extant or extinct, you're right. Just as EID theorists have no detailed explanation of how their designer accomplished its designs. It's an impossible standard of evidence at this time.

      You pathetic lying self serving anal outlets. are you being paid perpetuate self serving speculations? If so, be honest enough to say so, you MURDERERS.

      No, unlike the Discovery Institute shills, I'm not being paid. I wish I was.

      As for being murderers, I'd have to ask, in what way?

      Delete
  31. spedding.

    you are part of the perpetuation of an ignorant philosophical premise that degrades human existence to a mere figmant of unexplicable combinations of stuff that you cannot explain. where it came from. or why the assemblages are what they are. who are you to state so confidently that you know anything about origins, or a coherent progression of derivatives of speculation that we perceive as material reality resulting in THE KICK YOUR ASS IN YOUR FACE SELF OBSERVATIONS OF WHAT THERE IS THAT IS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see that it is degrading to try and understand what we really are and where we came from. Just because some people don't like the answers the evidence points to doesn't mean they are wrong.

      What is unwarranted, from my perspective, is this belief that, out of the uncounted billions of planets in this entire vast universe, a species of ape on just one of them is somehow a special or favored or chosen people. What would you do if we ever met an alien race who believed the same thing about themselves - launch an interstellar crusade or holy war?

      Delete
    2. If Earth is the only species with life,then that makes Earth special. If we are the only species that can do things like ask about other species, then that makes humans special.

      Delete
  32. Let me put it in a simlistic way that you might be able to understand, Spedding, and your simpathizers. YOU DONT KNOW SHIT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bpragmatic, why don't you take a second and list for us what YOU know about the 'Intelligent Design' of life.

      When was the design done? How long did it take? Was it a one-time event or is it still happening?

      Where was the design done? Where was the manufacturing done? Was the manufacture done in the same place at the same time as the design?

      How was the manufacturing done? What forces were used to manipulate matter to produce the end object? How and where were the raw materials for the product collected?

      Did the same Designer do the manufacturing or was there an Intelligent Builder too? Was there one Designer of many? If more than one, were they cooperating with each other or competing?

      Why was the design done the way it was?

      What is the identity of the Designer, and how do you know?

      Seems like YOU KNOW LESS THAN SHIT about ID.

      Delete
    2. how should i know? why should i know? you arrogant a hole. how can you know? why should you know? what makes you think that you know or ever will know? what you want to know has nothing to do with reality necessarily, pathetic one. yet you and your sympathics will proclaim that you do know and have sufficient demonstable evidence to support your conjecture and assertions. BULLSHIT. you DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENCE DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS. AND IF YOU THINK YOU DO, PUT IT OUT RIGHT HERE AND END THE DISSCUSSION, YOU COWARD.

      Delete
    3. Hey bprickmatic, your 'christianity' is showing.

      Your thread at AtBC is still waiting for you. You're not afraid, are you?

      Delete
    4. bpragmatic May 25, 2013 at 9:22 PM

      Let me put it in a simlistic way that you might be able to understand, Spedding, and your simpathizers. YOU DONT KNOW SHIT.


      Feeling better now?

      Delete
    5. bpragmatic,
      %#*#%^<~€!""


      A memorial meltdown.

      Delete
  33. What do you want in Entertainment..? Picutres, Videos, Loll Pictures, Hot Pictures, Funny Pictures, Funny Videos, Hot Videos, Entertainment Pictures, Entertainment Articles, Entertainment News, Internet Classified Sites, Buying and Selling Classified Sites, Online Jobs, Online Marketing and all Current Affairs News updates.
    All Current Affairs in Only 1 Best Entertainment Website Network
    hotcurrentaffairs.com

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thorton:

    If scientistians and evolutionist can respond with "We hope to have answer for you someday" and leave it at that, why can't ID proponents?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because real scientists have already provided a huge number of verified explanatory answers and continue to research the unknowns.

      The IDiots have yet to provide a single thing, are doing zero work on their claims, yet demand equal time in science classrooms.

      That's why.

      Delete