tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8235729658925391751..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Meet Professor Pedersen: Turning Science on its HeadUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82251765463658114102013-07-07T21:26:18.381-07:002013-07-07T21:26:18.381-07:00I stand by what i said.
Where is the scientific bi...I stand by what i said.<br />Where is the scientific biological evidence fior evolution??<br />For the great claim of evolution?<br />If one observes largely they say fossils, DNA, morphology, biogeography , or speciation.<br />They mostly use lines of reasoning and secondary subjects.<br />Yet not biological investigation.<br />Name your top three?Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36036365349579907832013-07-07T10:03:40.243-07:002013-07-07T10:03:40.243-07:00'That might seem strange since evolutionary th...'That might seem strange since evolutionary theory’s fundamental predictions have turned out to be false and the species do not fit into an evolutionary tree.'<br /><br />That's right.... pick, pick, pick. Nit-picking again, Cornelius. You know full well evolutionary theory possesses an arbitrary, self-justifying existence, requiring no basis in empirical evidence.<br /><br />Post above deleted, as I thought I'd change the word 'on' in the last line, to, 'no', as posted immediately above. Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157872703645656943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28648308146251489422013-07-07T09:57:53.960-07:002013-07-07T09:57:53.960-07:00I'm Broadway Danny Rose. May I interject?
To...I'm Broadway Danny Rose. May I interject? <br /><br />To begin with your username is grossly misleading; indeed, a misnomer. Please change it without delay.<br /><br />Secondly, the meaning of 'science' is simply knowledge. However, the simplest truths have the most vast implications. And I'm afraid 'empirical science', to which you are referring, is among the basest forms of knowledge of all. Unless you are a real, meat-head materialist, when meat and dirt reign above all. <br />Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157872703645656943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71704954185763654382013-07-07T09:50:16.026-07:002013-07-07T09:50:16.026-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157872703645656943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20089747611912669262013-07-07T01:02:28.736-07:002013-07-07T01:02:28.736-07:00robert byers, how can you possibly be so dumb to s...robert byers, how can you possibly be so dumb to say this:<br /><br />"..its not from biological investigation."?<br /><br />The scientific methodology to study evolution involves <b>biological</b>, geological, paleontological, meteorological, anthropological, astronomical, etc., etc., etc., investigation. <br /><br />You haven't got a clue.<br /><br />Hey robert, tell me about the <b>scientific</b> "methodology" of 'god-did-it-in-six-days-six-thousand-years-ago-and-I-believe-it-because-the-bible-says-so'.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5682539421496105162013-07-07T00:05:25.901-07:002013-07-07T00:05:25.901-07:00Eveolution fails every test, especially the IQ tes...Eveolution fails every test, especially the IQ test. LOL.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69481802953762121512013-07-06T22:04:14.636-07:002013-07-06T22:04:14.636-07:00Evolution does fail the evidence test.
However it ...Evolution does fail the evidence test.<br />However it fails worse the methodology test.<br />Its biological scientific evidence is not just wrong evidence its not from biological investigation.<br />Therefore evolution is not even a wrong biological theory. its not a theory.<br />Just a poorly supported hypothesis from non biological evidence.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79680521182235047542013-07-06T20:57:24.392-07:002013-07-06T20:57:24.392-07:00Or Mike Hunt
:)
Yup, the old Ed Zachary disease ...Or Mike Hunt<br /><br />:)<br />Yup, the old Ed Zachary disease <br />:)Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6062266354073806852013-07-06T20:45:34.701-07:002013-07-06T20:45:34.701-07:00Good thing it wasn't Ima ButtGood thing it wasn't Ima Buttvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44586584277778653502013-07-06T20:36:20.132-07:002013-07-06T20:36:20.132-07:00velikovskys
Eugen,
Ed Zachary?
A Creationist we...<i>velikovskys<br /><br />Eugen,<br /><br />Ed Zachary?</i><br /><br />A Creationist went to see his Chinese doctor.<br /><br />The doctor told him he had Zachary disease.<br /><br />"Zachary disease, what's that?" asked the confused Fundy.<br /><br />"Means your face look zachary like your butt"<br /><br />:D :D :DGhostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48272677199763423552013-07-06T20:06:56.790-07:002013-07-06T20:06:56.790-07:00Twt
Asking IDists for their own evidence, not lik...Twt<br /><br />Asking IDists for their own evidence, not likely<br /><br />Eugen,<br /><br />Ed Zachary?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82941355954069258192013-07-06T19:29:26.458-07:002013-07-06T19:29:26.458-07:00Ed Zachary, what do you mean, Velik?Ed Zachary, what do you mean, Velik?Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47691085882022409162013-07-06T19:03:41.499-07:002013-07-06T19:03:41.499-07:00velikovskys, what do you mean?velikovskys, what do you mean?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60074871117900418932013-07-06T18:24:48.350-07:002013-07-06T18:24:48.350-07:00OWN evidence
Rookie mistake<b>OWN evidence</b><br /><br />Rookie mistakevelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74215568705880017752013-07-06T18:20:45.649-07:002013-07-06T18:20:45.649-07:00BA, you might find this interesting,it is the plot...BA, you might find this interesting,it is the plot from the movie " Conagher" shot in 1990 for TBS.<br /><br />" The film opens with the Teale family moving west on a wagon into Indian Territory. They reach their home, and plan to go on the cattle business. The father, Jacob, rides out to get the cattle, promising to return in a month. However, he is killed along the way when his horse falls over on him, and he bleeds to death internally.<br />Meanwhile, a Stagecoach passes by the Teale farm; Evie Teale agrees to work for the Stagecoach by feeding customers who come by. One of the men on the Stagecoach warns Evie of a man named Conn Conagher, who he says is a fierce gunfighter. One day, Conagher does stop by for food, along with his partner Mahler. The Teale farm later comes under attack by Indians. The Stagecoach arrives by again in the middle of the gunfight, and the drivers and the passengers defend the farm. The Indians retreat in the morning.<br />Conagher, meanwhile, drifts out in the wilderness. He and Mahler meet an old rancher, Seaborn Tay, who hires both of them for work. Conagher proves to be a hardworking cowhand, but the ranch comes under threat by the Ladder Five gang, led by Smoke Parnell, who swear to kill Conagher. Mahler deserts the ranch after an argument with Conagher and joins the Ladder Five. Conagher saves the ranch and Tay's cattle twice from the Ladder Five, both in a series of quick gun battles. He also visits the Teale farm regularly, and he and Evie grow fond of each other and he becomes a father figure to her children.<br />One day, when Conagher is out herding Tay's cattle, he is ambushed and shot by the Ladder Five gang. The wounded Conagher hides out during the day, and but at night returns and holds the Ladder Five, including Parnell, at gunpoint. Weak from his wound, Conagher eventually collapses and passes out, but not before he demands the Ladder Five to clear off of the land. Parnell knows now that he can finish Conagher, as his gang has sworn to do, but instead orders his men to heal Conagher back to health. The next day, the Ladder Five gang clears off the land.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12997816452321721252013-07-06T18:16:35.953-07:002013-07-06T18:16:35.953-07:00Luckily, SCIENTISTS decide what constitutes scienc...Luckily, SCIENTISTS decide what constitutes science - And over 99% of them accept the VERY scientific theory of evolution. Evidence against evolution is NOT evidence for creationism. You should know that. Why don't you come up with your OWN evidence for your beliefs?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10080108693531264537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33913069144020428692013-07-06T18:09:39.146-07:002013-07-06T18:09:39.146-07:00In short, if alternate hypotheses are rejected sum...<b>In short, if alternate hypotheses are rejected summarily, one may be impeded from performing objective and unbiased science.</b><br /><br />Which specific scientific hypotheses have been summarily rejected? Perhaps they are rejected for cause.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80348935567934835122013-07-06T13:33:21.958-07:002013-07-06T13:33:21.958-07:00Also, I feel that that is one of the key problems ...Also, I feel that that is one of the key problems regarding predictions and even retrodictions, that once made and committed to regarding one’s research goals, one’s objectivity is often compromised. Peer review is often biased in the same regard.<br /><br />In short, if alternate hypotheses are rejected summarily, one may be impeded from performing objective and unbiased science.Lee Bowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11032697992689736055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56199787428042580092013-07-06T13:21:33.379-07:002013-07-06T13:21:33.379-07:00Dr. Hunter you may appreciate this article.
Darwi...Dr. Hunter you may appreciate this article.<br /><br />Darwin’s Frog Defies Evolution - July 5, 2013<br />Excerpt: Lynn Margulis in an interview with Mazur pronounced,<br />"neo-Darwinists are a… religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology."<br />http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/07/darwins-frog-defies-evolution/bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76831042001542497332013-07-06T13:12:05.184-07:002013-07-06T13:12:05.184-07:00“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the ligh...“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”<br /><br /><br />I have always been confused by this statement.<br />Does anyone know what inspired the statement? On face it seems just ridiculous. <br /><br />Did he really mean to say that “Nothing in EVOLUTIONARY biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”? (Which is a ridiculous statement)<br /><br />I think the NDE enterprise would do itself a favor by getting rid of that statement in the literature. <br /><br />As CH might allude to, even without all of the scientific problems with NDE, this kind of a statement just seems to underscore the level of brazen conjecture employed by evolutionary "scientists". <br />bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12394331748223390152013-07-06T12:32:07.806-07:002013-07-06T12:32:07.806-07:00"Evolutionists could not be more clear about ..."Evolutionists could not be more clear about their beliefs and their non scientific claims."<br /><br />Such that natural selection is the sole mechanism of change.<br /><br />"This is not a minor or tangential aspect of evolutionary thought. For evolutionists this is their core position."<br /><br />The mechanisms of phyogenetic change are indeed a core aspect of evolutionary theory. It's just that the <b>core</b> explanatory processes are highly subjective, and have failed empirical verification.<br /><br />"They are at war with empirical science. A theory that continually contradicts the evidence is declared to be a fact because, well, it must be."<br /><br />Maybe it's due to being wedded to a reductionist and materialistic belief structure.Lee Bowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11032697992689736055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16650178314427329212013-07-06T12:25:21.946-07:002013-07-06T12:25:21.946-07:00Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fa...Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails - Ann Gauger - June 2011<br />Excerpt: I'm a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them.<br />Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn't troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it's high time we moved on. - Matthew<br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161<br /><br />“All I’ve studied and researched over the past 30 years has only strengthened my belief that nothing makes sense in biology apart from belief in an intelligent being who has created us. Those who do not believe in an intelligent being must go to great extents to rationalize that what they see as design is not the product of intelligence.<br />Dr. Donald L. Ewert, Microbiologist, researcher at the Wistar Institute for almost 20 years.”<br /><br />bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.com