tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2092819801074346176..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Arguing with Evolutionists or How I Could be RichUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60330226132279260742010-06-08T12:30:31.508-07:002010-06-08T12:30:31.508-07:00Smokey said...
"I can stop thinking &quo...<i>Smokey said...<br /><br /> "I can stop thinking "creation vs evolution" for the moment and laugh at witticisms."<br /><br /> You mean that you can stop thinking about the fact that you've been pwned.</i><br /><br />Cut Fil a bit of slack here Smokey. He seems to be the only IDCer around here who's not an arrogant juvenile delinquent with a chip on his shoulder.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56242290497932888242010-06-08T08:14:29.506-07:002010-06-08T08:14:29.506-07:00"I can stop thinking "creation vs evolut..."I can stop thinking "creation vs evolution" for the moment and laugh at witticisms."<br /><br />You mean that you can stop thinking about the fact that you've been pwned.Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28145683437893613932010-06-08T07:24:35.085-07:002010-06-08T07:24:35.085-07:00Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya! :)Kumbaya my Lord, <b>kumbaya!</b> :)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81857848584884119822010-06-08T05:08:42.342-07:002010-06-08T05:08:42.342-07:00Nope. But I can appreciate humor in posts I read, ...Nope. But I can appreciate humor in posts I read, even directed at the posts I wrote. I can stop thinking "creation vs evolution" for the moment and laugh at witticisms.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86015792467148494162010-06-07T19:46:34.648-07:002010-06-07T19:46:34.648-07:00"Don't be a smart ass smokey, I was just ..."Don't be a smart ass smokey, I was just saying I liked the way thornton retorted."<br /><br />You're projecting. So does that mean that you concede Thornton's point that your analogy was fatally flawed?Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12350826752938261612010-06-07T19:35:54.491-07:002010-06-07T19:35:54.491-07:00This board needs smileys and other huggy emoticons...This board needs smileys and other huggy emoticons so we can all remember to keep it light.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34710643732402432572010-06-07T19:23:57.000-07:002010-06-07T19:23:57.000-07:00"What's funny about your desperate need t..."What's funny about your desperate need to misrepresent?"<br /><br />Don't be a smart ass smokey, I was just saying I liked the way thornton retorted.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42136053890271727022010-06-07T18:30:02.742-07:002010-06-07T18:30:02.742-07:00What's funny about your desperate need to misr...What's funny about your desperate need to misrepresent?Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88327284971672896002010-06-07T17:02:40.091-07:002010-06-07T17:02:40.091-07:00Lmao. At least you are funny about it.Lmao. At least you are funny about it.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46691010742161956642010-06-06T16:40:06.070-07:002010-06-06T16:40:06.070-07:00Fil said...
"Fish live in the sea
we...<i>Fil said...<br /><br /> "Fish live in the sea<br /> we find whales in the sea<br /> therefore whales are fish"<br /><br /> "Land mammals have limbs<br /> we see stubs of limbs in water mammals<br /> <b>and we find the genes for creating hind limbs in water mammals<br /> and we find the a sequence of fossils that when arranged by age show a clear morphological transition from land mammals to water mammals<br /> Given the consilience of evidence</b><br /> therefore water mammals used to be land mammals" </i><br /><br />Fixed it for you Fil.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90019911036884024912010-06-06T16:17:38.374-07:002010-06-06T16:17:38.374-07:00Fil: "therefore water mammals used to be land...Fil: "therefore water mammals used to be land mammals"<br /><br />Each animal is what it is. Populations evolve. Individual organisms don't.Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18900005509063638522010-06-06T14:06:58.130-07:002010-06-06T14:06:58.130-07:00"Fish live in the sea
we find whales in the s..."Fish live in the sea<br />we find whales in the sea<br />therefore whales are fish"<br /><br />"Land mammals have limbs<br />we see stubs of limbs in water mammals<br />therefore water mammals used to be land mammals"Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76499919757695733682010-06-04T16:37:26.629-07:002010-06-04T16:37:26.629-07:00I wrote:
"We do define step-by-step pathways ...I wrote:<br />"We do define step-by-step pathways that perform amazing biological construction feats. Everything we learn about them screams that they are modifications of other pathways, not designed de novo."<br /><br />Neal dishonestly removed the first sentence and pretended that I was writing about evolution instead of the morphogenesis of an organism in real time:<br /><br />"Smokey, does "everything" in the Cambrian Explosion fossil record scream of descent with modification??? Your everything screams statement is debunked by this one simple example alone. "<br /><br />Um, Neal, what is the antecedent of "them" in the statement you claim you debunked? Was it biological construction (morphogenesis) or evolution?<br /><br />Answer my questions about morphogenesis if you have the courage. I predict that you won't because your faith is thin.Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83103869644032857312010-06-04T16:32:16.963-07:002010-06-04T16:32:16.963-07:00Neal asked:
"What is your point about the or...Neal asked:<br /><br />"What is your point about the orthologous genes?"<br /><br />That you have assumptions about how living things were "designed," and you are basing your claim on false assumptions.<br /><br />"Are they ancestral just because evolutionists say they are?"<br /><br />My point has nothing to do with whether they are ancestral or not. "Orthologous" and "ortholog" make no suppositions about ancestry.<br /><br />"Saying something is ancestral doesn't make it so."<br /><br />Falsely claiming that I'm claiming that something is ancestral doesn't mean that I've claimed that. So how about having sufficient faith to answer my simple question?<br /><br />—<br />1) How many orthologous genes are present in human and absent in mouse, or vice versa? Note that this is NOT a question about percent identity or percent similarity. It's a question about finding a K-ras gene in mice means that one expects a K-ras gene to be found in humans, not how similar they are when they are aligned.<br />—<br /><br />No explicit or implicit claim about ancestry. This is about a simple fact. If you don't know the answer, answer it based on your beliefs about how biology works.<br /><br />"I think I know where you going with the whale hind limbs…"<br /><br />It's not relevant to my point. Again, you show complete cowardice. Answer the question if you have the slightest faith in your conclusions:<br /><br />—<br />2) Do specific structures (say, hind limbs) require specific genes? Put another way, how many hind limb genes do you think there are in the human genome vs. the orca genome? Remember, whales don't have hind limbs.<br />—<br /><br />"Where are the step-by-step evolutionary pathways for the development of the blowhole?"<br /><br />Sorry, your question is gibberish. Are you talking about evolution or development? How would you predict the blowhole would develop in an embryo if it had been designed?<br /><br />"...but behold there are a million other differences between whales and land mammals."<br /><br />So answer my question and stop being so cowardly. How many of those million other differences are genes?<br /><br />"Blowing hot air is an evolutionist specialty, perhaps that is one area that you have details on."<br /><br />I'm asking simple questions. You're the one blowing hot air because you lack sufficient faith to answer them.Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2732230195551353302010-06-04T15:44:11.867-07:002010-06-04T15:44:11.867-07:00Jared Jammer said...
With that said, I'll thr...<i>Jared Jammer said...<br /><br />With that said, I'll throw you a bone and give you some links to people much smarter than myself (and thus much, much, much smarter than you) discussing the positive case for scientific revolution of Intelligent Design.</i><br /><br />I dug around and found a printed copy of Luskin's "positive evidence for ID" here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=986" rel="nofollow">The Positive Case For ID</a><br /><br />I though it might be fun to examine them.<br /><br />Luskin first makes four claims about the way Intelligent Designers think and act. I assume he took the examples from human behavior since they're the only designers we currently know of. He then makes four 'predictions', one for each of the four claims. Finally he states the natural evidence (kinda) and crows loudly that he has supplied 'positive evidence'. But has he? Let's look at the first one<br /><br /><i>Claim:(1) Intelligent agents think with an “end goal” in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information):<br /><br />Prediction:(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).<br /><br />Evidence: (1)Natural structures have been found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information), such as irreducibly complex machines in the cell.)</i><br /><br />Right off the bat Luskin makes a beginner's logic error that would shame a high school freshman.<br /><br />"Fish live in the sea<br />we find whales in the sea<br />therefore whales are fish"<br /><br />"Designers make complex things<br />We find complex things in nature<br />therefore natural things are designed"<br /><br />This from the guy who is way smarter than Jared Jammer.<br /><br />The other three examples from the attack gerbil are just as bad.<br /><br />How about it Jared - you want to go over the other three? You want to defend any of Luskin's steaming pile of idiocy?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28606552910191327982010-06-04T14:58:39.034-07:002010-06-04T14:58:39.034-07:00Jared Jammer said...
With that said, I'll thr...<i>Jared Jammer said...<br /><br />With that said, I'll throw you a bone and give you some links to people much smarter than myself (and thus much, much, much smarter than you) discussing the positive case for scientific revolution of Intelligent Design.</i><br /><br /><b>BWAHAHAHA!!</b> The Discovery Institute as a credible scientific source. Good one!<br /><br />Sadly, it seems you can't tell me in your own words what the positive evidence for ID is. You must not understand it very well if you can't come up with even one example. The reality is that positive evidence for ID <b>doesn't exist.</b> Every last bit is negative, just baseless attacks on established evolutionary sciences and a claim that somehow ID wins by default.<br /><br />BTW if you think the DI's attack gerbil Casey 'the eyebrow' Luskin is smarter than you, that tells us all we need to know about your competence to judge scientific evidence.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44936911557398457492010-06-04T14:51:23.463-07:002010-06-04T14:51:23.463-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52056342492144413292010-06-04T13:53:44.654-07:002010-06-04T13:53:44.654-07:00Thornton, I've read many of your posts and I&#...Thornton, I've read many of your posts and I've yet to see you present yourself as anything more than an irrationalist attempting to keep science stuck in the early 20th century. As a rule of thumb I don't debate with irrationalists as it would be giving them more respect than warranted while also potentially sullying my own reputation (guilt by association).<br /><br />With that said, I'll throw you a bone and give you some links to people much smarter than myself (and thus much, much, much smarter than you) discussing the positive case for scientific revolution of Intelligent Design.<br /><br /><b><a href="http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/01/biomimetics_and_the_positive_i_1.html" rel="nofollow">Intelligent Design the Future: Biomimetics and the Positive Implications for Intelligent Design</a></b><br /><br /><b><a href="http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/03/the_positive_case_for_intellig_2.html" rel="nofollow">Intelligent Design the Future: The Positive Case for Intelligent Design and Why It’s Being Expelled from Academia</a></b><br /><br /><b><a href="http://www.idthefuture.com/2009/11/the_positive_case_for_intellig_1.html" rel="nofollow">Intelligent Design the Future: The Positive Case for Intelligent Design</a></b><br /><br />More can be found at <b><a href="http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Aevolutionnews.org+positive&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=" rel="nofollow">Evolution News & Views</a></b>, and as stated earlier, Stephen Meyer's <b><a href="http://www.signatureinthecell.com/" rel="nofollow">Signature in the Cell</a></b> makes an overwhelming case (try the media section of his website to see him embarrass Darwinist over Darwinist in debate).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694293885096441082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42711083509590465052010-06-04T12:45:09.136-07:002010-06-04T12:45:09.136-07:00Jared Jammer said...
Overwhelming positive evide...<i>Jared Jammer said... <br /><br />Overwhelming positive evidence (intelligence-driven origin of life).</i><br /><br />Could you please describe in your own words some of this positive evidence for intelligence-driven origin of life, and supply the supporting scientific references?<br /><br />Keep in mind that positive evidence does not include arguments from personal incredulity ("it's so complex, it must be designed") nor arguments from false dichotomy ("evolutionary theory currently doesn't explain all the details, so ID must be true"). Nor does it include probability estimates based upon incomplete information and unsubstantiated assumptions.<br /><br />Thanks in advance.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29725857818934474742010-06-04T12:21:52.868-07:002010-06-04T12:21:52.868-07:00So then you fellas agree that there is zero positi...So then you fellas agree that there is <b>zero</b> positive evidence that unguided natural processes can create life? Interesting confession, one that matches what I've found (haven't found, to be precise) while searching around.<br /><br />I'm currently reading Stephen C. Meyer's brilliant <i>Signature in the Cell</i>, and he's making an overwhelming positive argument for design, an argument every bit as strong as the argument for Heliocentrism. It's a really great read.<br /><br />Anyways, we now have:<br /><br /><b>Zero positive evidence</b> (unguided origin of life)<br /><br />vs.<br /><br /><b>Overwhelming positive evidence</b> (intelligence-driven origin of life).<br /><br />I consider myself a man of reason and evidence, so why should I -- or any progressive thinker -- choose the former over the latter?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694293885096441082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86148229844191025042010-06-04T09:19:50.722-07:002010-06-04T09:19:50.722-07:00Lenoxus -
Very well put!Lenoxus - <br /><br />Very well put!Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7373225193209509762010-06-04T08:35:21.114-07:002010-06-04T08:35:21.114-07:00Smokey,
What is your point about the orthologous ...Smokey,<br /><br />What is your point about the orthologous genes? Are they ancestral just because evolutionists say they are? Saying something is ancestral doesn't make it so.<br /><br />I think I know where you going with the whale hind limbs, but behold there are a million other differences between whales and land mammals. Where are the step-by-step evolutionary pathways for the development of the blowhole? Blowing hot air is an evolutionist specialty, perhaps that is one area that you have details on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57787264409954943142010-06-04T08:18:21.324-07:002010-06-04T08:18:21.324-07:00Jared Jammer:
What is the positive evidence that ...Jared Jammer:<br /><br />What is the <i>positive evidence</i> that <b>volcanoes are unemotional</b>? Where is the evidence that they are capable of emitting tons of molten and ashen matter without being in some way assisted by the emotion of anger?<br /><br />The naturalistic hypotheses on the subject are simply so much metaphysical insistence that "angry volcanoes wouldn't do that".<br /><br />You can tell me until you're red in the face (ironically) either that volcanoes "don't feel anger" (huh, guess you've never experienced one), or that proposing that they are angry contributes nothing to further study or explanation. It doesn't matter, because you are eliminating a perfectly valid possibility, and are doing it for religious reasons.<br /><br />Look, there can never, ever be any evidence or proof that <i>anything</i> is "undirected". It's just the null hypothesis for any situation.Lenoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10809085020841868387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41517705905032790402010-06-04T08:17:05.160-07:002010-06-04T08:17:05.160-07:00Evolutionists, global warming... I see a trend tow...Evolutionists, global warming... I see a trend towards science becoming more interested in coming to the "right" conclusions rather than using the right methodology. This is a dangerous trend and a sorry era for science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85675697578993552862010-06-04T08:02:35.039-07:002010-06-04T08:02:35.039-07:00Smokey said...
Everything we learn about them scr...Smokey said...<br /><br />Everything we learn about them screams that they are modifications of other pathways, not designed de novo.<br /><br />Thorton said...<br /><br />What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Science doesn't have to know every last individual step to ascertain the overall evolutionary pathway by which a particular function evolved.<br /><br /><br />I say... there you go again! <br /><br /> Smokey, does "everything" in the Cambrian Explosion fossil record scream of descent with modification??? Your everything screams statement is debunked by this one simple example alone. <br /><br /><br />Thorton, your arguing from ignorance. Evolutionists are not even close to knowing "every last" step. It's not about filling in a few missing pieces but chunks the size of Arizona. Seeing the big picture ("overall") is sufficient for evolutionists because scientific support for evolution is secondary. Unfortunately for evolutionists more and more people are beginning to ask the right questions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com