tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6556279949065791352..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Humble Comb Jelly Has a Through-GutUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63777850265321451432016-03-29T23:22:21.535-07:002016-03-29T23:22:21.535-07:00NIC: "We will probably get to that but I firs...NIC: "<i>We will probably get to that but I first want you to demonstrate your claim that all creation science is guilty of nonsense, misrepresentations and outright lies."</i><br /><br />Nic, if you are talking about YEC, I am afraid that this form of creationism is guilty of everything that GR claims. The alternative is that they are criminally stupid.William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15136708838514937572016-03-29T10:32:53.379-07:002016-03-29T10:32:53.379-07:00ghostrider,
"too scientifically ignorant to ...ghostrider,<br /><br />"too scientifically ignorant to take seriously."<br /><br />Sorry, this is still just a personal attack on the man, not his science. As I said, he was smart enough to be taken seriously when he was an evolutionist.<br /><br />"I'm still waiting for your explanation of the KT iridium boundary layer and why no dino fossils are found above it. I guess you're going to punt on that one too."<br /><br />Well, I haven't punted on anything yet so I am not likely to start now. We will probably get to that but I first want you to demonstrate your claim that all creation science is guilty of nonsense, misrepresentations and outright lies. When we deal with that we will see how you feel about K-T.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10123481207173427432016-03-29T10:29:34.585-07:002016-03-29T10:29:34.585-07:00The evidence is you can pick virtually any "s...The evidence is you can pick virtually any "science" page at random from AIG, ICR, or CMI and find nonsense, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Try it and see.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82525287964857673952016-03-29T10:26:49.946-07:002016-03-29T10:26:49.946-07:00Sorry Nic but any moron who thinks the world is on...Sorry Nic but any moron who thinks the world is only 6000 years old and that all extant species came from a few pairs on a wooden boat while the whole planet was covered with a megaflood only 4500 years ago is too scientifically ignorant to take seriously.<br /><br />I'm still waiting for your explanation of the KT iridium boundary layer and why no dino fossils are found above it. I guess you're going to punt on that one too.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90892911280824956462016-03-29T10:11:41.157-07:002016-03-29T10:11:41.157-07:00ghostrider,
"How many other scientists has h...ghostrider,<br /><br />"How many other scientists has he convinced with his 45 year old book?"<br /><br />I don't know, but it was the standard textbook used to teach chemical evolution for many years. You see, ghostrider, Biochemical Predestination is a pro-evolution book written at a time when Kenyon was an evolutionist. That's why it is good to read more.<br /><br />"BTW Kenyon is a well known YEC. That alone disqualifies him from any serious scientific discussions on OOL or evolution."<br /><br />So again, we attack the source and not the content. He certainly wasn't unqualified to discuss OOL or evolution when he was an ardent evolutionist writing textbooks used to teach both subjects. I'm quite sure if he was still doing so you would be quoting him to support your position. But I guess he must have hit his head hard at some point because now he is an idiot, right?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36685854480158789922016-03-29T09:58:37.701-07:002016-03-29T09:58:37.701-07:00Nic
This is why you need to read more. Dean Kenyo...<i>Nic<br /><br />This is why you need to read more. Dean Kenyon wrote the textbook on chemical evolution; BIOCHEMICAL PREDESTINATION; McGraw Hill, 1969. He now categorically denies the possibility of randomly occurring chemical processes can lead to the origin of life.</i><br /><br />How many other scientists has he convinced with his 45 year old book?<br /><br />BTW Kenyon is a well known YEC. That alone disqualifies him from any serious scientific discussions on OOL or evolution.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30579320995391412602016-03-29T09:11:23.653-07:002016-03-29T09:11:23.653-07:00ghostrider,
BC:"What's the mechanism tha...ghostrider,<br /><br />BC:"What's the mechanism that got the genome to organize in order to build these?"<br /><br />ghostrider: "Chemistry."<br /><br />This is why you need to read more. Dean Kenyon wrote the textbook on chemical evolution; BIOCHEMICAL PREDESTINATION; McGraw Hill, 1969. He now categorically denies the possibility of randomly occurring chemical processes can lead to the origin of life. That shipload of arguments sank a long time ago, my friend.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67647171181605789392016-03-29T09:03:05.007-07:002016-03-29T09:03:05.007-07:00ghostrider,
"It's made up nonsense, misr...ghostrider,<br /><br />"It's made up nonsense, misrepresentations, and outright lies."<br /><br />I want you to support this assertion with detailed evidence, not just some isolated examples; which I will admit do exist, they exist in evolution community as well; but detailed and abundant evidence that this state of affairs entailing nonsense, misrepresentations and outright lies is rampant throughout the creationist community. I want you to demonstrate the scientists who support the idea of creation are incompetent and deceitful as you claim.<br /><br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53266896169061190122016-03-29T07:55:46.289-07:002016-03-29T07:55:46.289-07:00I don't know if tachyons can, did, should, or ...I don't know if tachyons can, did, should, or will exceed the speed of light. <br /><br />I do, however, after some more thought about it, think the most likely scenario is bad auto-negotiation of duplex and speed, usually caused by older networking equipment. This erratic operation would make accurate synchronization of the clocks using external timing sources like an atomic clock difficult.<br /><br />This is different than a "loose" cable and it bugs me. Would the people designing the experiment make it so the computers detect the time at which a particle passes, to be then processed by hand? (when it makes more sense to obtain the results in real time or by a batch process)? <br /><br />I doubt it, so a loose cable either works or doesn't and therefore the experiment either runs or doesn't. What can I say...<br /><br />To touch on a couple other things you mentioned:<br /><br />Your PC has a 10MHz timer called the HPET - which is good for 100ns. Not good enough for measuring tachyons, but certainly better than millisecond or microsecond timing you mentioned.<br /><br />This bad auto-negotiation can make it look like a reseating of an ethernet cable fixed a problem caused by the cable while in fact the networking equipment was at fault.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7229746505842625022016-03-29T05:26:14.160-07:002016-03-29T05:26:14.160-07:00Did I do that, are you implying tachyons really di...Did I do that, are you implying tachyons really did break the speed limit in the OPERA experiment, and the "Ethernet and time story" is just yet another conspiracy by the science community, like evolutionay theory?<br /><br />But that assumes general purpose millisecond resolution clocks found on Windows and UNIX systems are accurate enough to check the speed of tachyons. Also, I've seen dozens of Ethernet cables go bad or need to be reseated to prevent intermittent or degraded connectivity. <br /><br />Even then, you'd still be missing a explanation that not only explains the same observations just as well, but explained even more, such as why tachyons traveled faster in the OPERA experiment, but not others. There could be some other reason why the results were wrong. <br /><br />Furthermore, All theories have are incomplete and contain errors to some degree. For example, we know that Einstein's theory contains errors because we lack a working theory of quantum gravity. So, it's not a question of if we're wrong, but to what degree and where. <br /><br />This is how science works in general. Of course, this view of science does not fit Cornelious' view that evolution is bad science, which is falling apart at the seams, etc. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84028425574397716862016-03-28T20:46:34.957-07:002016-03-28T20:46:34.957-07:00The truth is to a dirt worshipper like holy water ...The truth is to a dirt worshipper like holy water is to a vampire.<br /><br />ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha... Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11989999014068927942016-03-28T19:44:42.584-07:002016-03-28T19:44:42.584-07:00The crap published on Creationist sites like AIG a...The crap published on Creationist sites like AIG and ICR isn't scientific evidence. It's made up nonsense, misrepresentations, and outright lies. That's "stating the true state of the situation" too.<br /><br />I'll accept your admission you have no explanation for the tree patterns seen in the fossil and genetic records.<br /><br />You want to try again? What is your explanation for the K-T boundary layer of iridium found all over the planet and the fact dinosaur fossils are never found above it?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1191337284180883072016-03-28T19:27:17.938-07:002016-03-28T19:27:17.938-07:00"it is simply stating the true state of the s...<br /><br />"it is simply stating the true state of the situation."<br /><br />What is really needed is a program to eliminate a sentence like that one. That's horrible.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87386943155413593872016-03-28T19:18:28.665-07:002016-03-28T19:18:28.665-07:00ghostrider,
"Heh. An intellectually honest p...ghostrider,<br /><br />"Heh. An intellectually honest person doesn't hand wave away all the evidence he can't explain with a lame excuse like this:"<br /><br />It's hardly an attempt to hand wave away unanswerable evidence, it is simply stating the true state of the situation.<br /><br />"Please support your claims with the appropriate published scientific research, not crap from AIG or ICR."<br /><br />So, you again demonstrate it is not about the evidence at all, but is in fact all about the source of the evidence and whether or not that source carries the ghostrider seal of approval.<br /><br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81531590097791485402016-03-28T17:46:07.398-07:002016-03-28T17:46:07.398-07:00Nic
That is not an intellectually honest approach...<i>Nic<br /><br />That is not an intellectually honest approach to the question and truthfully, you should be ashamed of your attitude.</i><br /><br />Heh. An intellectually honest person doesn't hand wave away all the evidence he can't explain with a lame excuse like this:<br /><br /><i>"Acceptance and majority opinion is also driven by presuppositions vis a vis world view, the quest for tenure, research grants and the desire to toe the party line, etc."</i><br /><br />But go ahead, give me your better explanation for the empirically observed twin nested hierarchies of life, the matching <a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/%3C?%20echo%20$baseURL;%20?%3E/evotrees_primer_01" rel="nofollow">evolutionary tree</a> patterns seen in the deep time fossil and genetic records. Please support your claims with the appropriate published scientific research, not crap from AIG or ICR.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21712245620851760032016-03-28T17:12:00.570-07:002016-03-28T17:12:00.570-07:00Priceless :-)Priceless :-)Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15733815038990107202016-03-28T16:27:34.838-07:002016-03-28T16:27:34.838-07:00ghostrider,
"The information is a genome is ...ghostrider,<br /><br />"The information is a genome is defined as the determination of the genetic sequence. Any process which creates a new genetic sequence as those listed do creates new information."<br /><br />I guess that would depend on how you define new information. Most mutations are neutral and have no effect. As such one could hardly argue the result would be new information. Other mutations are detrimental in nature and can cause catastrophic damage. I really have never heard of a mutation which truly resulted in a positive effect of the magnitude and nature required to support the argument of descent from a single common ancestor. If you have such an example I would be glad to hear it.<br /><br />"Here's a Wilder-Smith quote:<br /><br />"The Bible teaches us that we are the living lessons that God uses to demonstrate His divine wisdom to the angelic beings as He works in us. How God deals with us in this world demonstrates His character to the angels! "<br /><br />Seriously, that is what you're going to go with, one minor quote from the hundreds of thousands of paragraphs written by Wilder-Smith?<br /><br />I must say I am disappointed, not surprised at all, but disappointed that you pay so little respect to the writings of these men, all of whom are highly educated in their fields. That is not an intellectually honest approach to the question and truthfully, you should be ashamed of your attitude. I am not afraid to read material written by evolutionists, so why are you so afraid to expand your horizons?<br /><br />"Dr. Gary Parker shows how, step by step, the Lord helped him to see the false assumptions behind modern evolutionary belief, and how the Bible’s account of origins fits the facts."<br /><br />Why not try reading it? Maybe you might learn something, or is that what you're afraid of? If the assumptions behind evolutionary thought are indeed false wouldn't that be good to know?<br /><br />I used to be an evolutionist but changed my view because I was willing to keep an open mind. Sorry to have to say it but I don't sense that from you. I sense an intensely dogmatic individual who refuses to even entertain the concept that he may be backing the wrong horse.<br /><br />"Looks like the Lord did it, not science."<br /><br />Why do you hold to the idea that the two are diametrically opposed? After all, science is not an actual entity, it is only a process of investigation and one who is honestly approaching an investigation should be willing to go where the evidence leads, should he not?<br /><br /><br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85452463051040431412016-03-28T16:14:49.123-07:002016-03-28T16:14:49.123-07:00What's the mechanism that got the genome to or...<i>What's the mechanism that got the genome to organize in order to build these?</i><br /><br />Chemistry.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61400165521789954052016-03-28T15:55:06.398-07:002016-03-28T15:55:06.398-07:00Nic
I only said the 99% was rhetorical and it is....<i>Nic<br /><br />I only said the 99% was rhetorical and it is.</i><br /><br />No Nic, it wasn't rhetorical. It was the result of an actual poll of scientists.<br /><br /><i>Your reference did nothing to support your claim of an increase in information, it simply summarized various forms of genetic mutation.</i><br /><br />The information is a genome is <b>defined</b> as the determination of the genetic sequence. Any process which creates a new genetic sequence as those listed do creates new information.<br /><br /><i>A.E. Wilder-Smith published several books.</i><br /><br />Here's a Wilder-Smith quote:<br /><br />"The Bible teaches us that we are the living lessons that God uses to demonstrate His divine wisdom to the angelic beings as He works in us. How God deals with us in this world demonstrates His character to the angels! "<br /><br />No science there.<br /><br /><i>Kenyon co-authored Of Pandas and People.</i><br /><br />LOL! The cdesignproponentist book. We all know how that one turned out.<br /><br /><i>If you google Dr. Gary Parker you will find several articles he has written.</i><br /><br />I found this on his Creation Ministries webpage<br /><br />"Dr. Gary Parker shows how, step by step, the Lord helped him to see the false assumptions behind modern evolutionary belief, and how the Bible’s account of origins fits the facts."<br /><br />Looks like the Lord did it, not science.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40386796519988472462016-03-28T15:26:53.016-07:002016-03-28T15:26:53.016-07:00ghostrider,
"The link was to show you the po...ghostrider,<br /><br />"The link was to show you the poll numbers you doubted, not to establish the truth of evolution."<br /><br />I never said I doubted polls existed or that the vast majority agree with evolution. I only said the 99% was rhetorical and it is.<br /><br />"Known processes in reproduction such as gene duplication and frame shifts create new genetic sequences and new information. This has also been empirically observed."<br /><br />Your reference did nothing to support your claim of an increase in information, it simply summarized various forms of genetic mutation. <br /><br />"I see. So the people you listed supposedly reject evolution for scientific reasons but you can't show that science. Hmmm..."<br /><br />You missed my point. I meant you would have to read their work with an open mind, otherwise it would be pointless.<br /><br />A.E. Wilder-Smith published several books. Kenyon co-authored Of Pandas and People. If you google Dr. Gary Parker you will find several articles he has written. Yes, they are published in creationist magazines, but if you truly have an open mind that should be irrelevant.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13537301349200308742016-03-28T15:05:33.093-07:002016-03-28T15:05:33.093-07:00William
This claim has been discredited so many ti...William<br />This claim has been discredited so many times I don't want to waste my time on it when a 30 second Google search will answer it for you."<br /><br />Do you really believe that the problem of darwinian mechanisms building a 30 protein motor has been discredited? This requires about 4^40000 of genome space to become precisely organized in order to build these motors every 20 minutes. What's the mechanism that got the genome to organize in order to build these?Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67398654367793255082016-03-28T15:01:39.640-07:002016-03-28T15:01:39.640-07:00Nic
Polls determine truth even less than do major...<i>Nic<br /><br />Polls determine truth even less than do majorities.</i><br /><br />The link was to show you the poll numbers you doubted, not to establish the truth of evolution.<br /><br /><i>As evolution from a single common ancestor would, by definition, require a massive increase in information for an organism to advance from pond sum to man, the reducing nature of artificial selection is hardly an observable demonstration of common descent</i><br /><br />Known processes in reproduction such as gene duplication and frame shifts create new genetic sequences and new information. This has also been empirically observed. <br /><br /><a href="https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations" rel="nofollow">mechanisms of genetic variation</a><br /><br /><i>No where.</i><br /><br />I see. So the people you listed supposedly reject evolution for scientific reasons but you can't show that science. Hmmm...Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11061366716074423792016-03-28T14:23:01.578-07:002016-03-28T14:23:01.578-07:00ghostrider,
"I provided a link to the poll i...ghostrider,<br /><br />"I provided a link to the poll information but apparently you didn't bother to look at it."<br /><br />Polls determine truth even less than do majorities. So looking at your poll results would be of no consequence outside of curiosity. <br /><br /><br />"How the process works can be seen every time artificial selection in animal breeding is done."<br /><br />Artificial selection demonstrates nothing more than canines produce canines and bovines produce bovines. Any conclusions beyond that are based completely on unsupported speculation and extrapolation. <br /><br />Artificial selection in no way whatsoever demonstrates common descent. In fact it is an argument against common descent as any animal breeder will tell you there are strict limits as to what can actually be accomplished through the process of artificial selection. <br /><br />Virtually all artificial selection is achieved via the removal of traits, not an addition of traits. For example, if you wish a dog to have long hair you breed out the gene which would produce short hair. Therefore, artificial selection is much more often than not a reduction of information not an increase. <br /><br />As evolution from a single common ancestor would, by definition, require a massive increase in information for an organism to advance from pond sum to man, the reducing nature of artificial selection is hardly an observable demonstration of common descent<br /><br />Also, artificial selection in its desire to produce certain traits can result in detrimental consequences for the animals as the tendency to inbreed to achieve the desired results can lead to a higher incidence of genetic disorders within a population.<br /><br />"Same old creationist whine. They can't come up with any evidence against evolution so it must be a big evil conspiracy."<br /><br />Who said anything about a conspiracy?<br /><br />"Where is their evolution killing evidence published?"<br /><br />No where. Evolution cannot be killed as it is a philosophically based world view and as such can only be vanquished by an individual changing his world view and accepting an alternative interpretation of the evidence.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58346247036673953542016-03-28T13:23:12.681-07:002016-03-28T13:23:12.681-07:00ghostrider,
"We all agree this board needs a...ghostrider,<br /><br />"We all agree this board needs an EDIT function big time."<br /><br />I should do a better job of self editing, but it would be nice to blame it on the absence an EDIT function.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85909618304448907592016-03-28T12:59:38.198-07:002016-03-28T12:59:38.198-07:00Nic
"Acceptance and majority opinion is also...<i>Nic<br /><br />"Acceptance and majority opinion is also driven,..."<br /><br />That should read 'are also driven'. :)</i><br /><br />We all agree this board needs an EDIT function big time.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com