tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post947374179469526230..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Wasp Evolution ForgotUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger183125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31518087393416683292010-06-29T17:39:58.949-07:002010-06-29T17:39:58.949-07:00Tesla-
Someone who actually did something useful...Tesla- <br /><br />Someone who actually did something useful, unlike evolutionists... <br /><br />As for his views on eugenics- how Darwinian of him.<br /><br />Still his accomplishments are what I admire.<br /><br />I built my first Tesla coil when I was 12- used my dad's power drill to help wind the secondary coil- a 6' piece of 1"D PVC.<br /><br />Used old window panes about 2' x 2' with aluminum foil on both sides for homemade capacitors.<br /><br />It put out well over 1 million volts with a frequency in the megahertz.<br /><br />But anyway...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64450874589826270482010-06-29T15:47:45.906-07:002010-06-29T15:47:45.906-07:00Joe G:
"As for heroes, the only person that ...Joe G:<br /><br />"As for heroes, the only person that comes close is Nicola Tesla."<br /><br />You mean Nikola Tesla? He said this:<br /><br /><br />"The year 2100 will see eugenics universally established. In past ages, the law governing the survival of the fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man’s new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the unfit. The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct, Several European countries and a number of states of the American Union sterilize the criminal and the insane. This is not sufficient. The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal."troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65724018005958289552010-06-29T15:27:37.170-07:002010-06-29T15:27:37.170-07:00As for heroes, the only person that comes close is...As for heroes, the only person that comes close is Nicola Tesla.<br /><br />Someone who actually did something useful, unlike evolutionists...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68237861390100412802010-06-29T14:00:08.779-07:002010-06-29T14:00:08.779-07:00Troy,
Any desperation is yours and yours alone.
...Troy,<br /><br />Any desperation is yours and yours alone.<br /><br />And again you are lying.<br /><br />Only the first edition had that typo.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.fteonline.com/aclu-dover.html" rel="nofollow"><b>What the publisher says</b></a><br /><br />be sure to read all the articles.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91055967035660524352010-06-29T13:24:53.683-07:002010-06-29T13:24:53.683-07:00Joe G,
No matter how desperately you try to spin ...Joe G,<br /><br />No matter how desperately you try to spin it, several of ID's leading, um, lights (Behe, Dembski et al.) were involved with several editions of a book where numerous times "creationist" was replaced by "ID proponent" without significant contextual changes. Your heroes are frauds.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64912767055047374932010-06-29T11:58:22.559-07:002010-06-29T11:58:22.559-07:00Troy,
The third edition has nothing to do with th...Troy,<br /><br />The third edition has nothing to do with the book that was on trial.<br /><br />I know Dembski co-authored "The Design of Life".<br /><br />That doesn't help you.<br /><br />You were caught in a lie.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61307696576215921812010-06-29T09:36:23.726-07:002010-06-29T09:36:23.726-07:00Joe G:
"Thank you for your evotardgasm."...Joe G:<br /><br />"Thank you for your evotardgasm."<br /><br />You're welcome, but what's a evotardgasm?<br /><br />"BTW the authors of "Of Pandas and People" were Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis- Not Wm. Dembski."<br /><br />Dembski co-authored the 3rd edition. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People" rel="nofollow">here</a>troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48960550788807150902010-06-29T09:33:20.590-07:002010-06-29T09:33:20.590-07:00Fil,
"While I think Thorntons example is mor...Fil,<br /><br />"While I think Thorntons example is more appropriate I didn't even know that museum existed. If it teaches things exactly as the Bible does then it does not classify as a lie. It classifies as historical information. Do they actually claim to try to 'save souls' with it?"<br /><br />Just Google Ken Ham and/or Creation Museum to see for yourself. One example: they show humans and dinosaurs living together in harmony. There might even be a dino with a saddle but I'm not sure.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46695116464420273422010-06-29T09:11:30.558-07:002010-06-29T09:11:30.558-07:00troy,
Thank you for your evotardgasm.
BTW the au...troy,<br /><br />Thank you for your evotardgasm.<br /><br />BTW the authors of "Of Pandas and People" were Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis- Not Wm. Dembski.<br /><br />So thanks for once again expsoing your ignorance...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47715798471467251312010-06-29T09:10:44.034-07:002010-06-29T09:10:44.034-07:00"Telling a teenager who is still unsure about..."Telling a teenager who is still unsure about his gender identity that gay sex causes AIDS to try and 'scare' him straight. I've seen that lie propagated by Christians trying to save 'sinners' for years. "<br /><br />I would agree that lying in that way is still wrong regardless of the motive. Parents may try to convince their child to obey God and remain straight but that example is meant to scare the child into doing what the Bible says. Ultimately, it's each individuals choice, but it should be an informed choice based on truth not on lies. While the bible condemns practicing homosexuality it does not do it on the basis of health.<br /><br />While at the start it may have been mostly homosexuals that suffered from AIDS I know that is nowhere near the case now. Anyone who practices ANY form of unsafe sex is at risk. Doing drugs while sharing needles can do it. Blood transfusions still are not perfectly safe with regard to that either.<br /><br />That being said IF a couple are in a monagamous relationship, do not take drugs and/or blood then their chance of getting AIDS is virtually eliminated.<br /><br />"The Creation Museum comes to mind as industrial-scale lying, intended to "save" the visitors' souls for Jesus et al. "<br /><br />While I think Thorntons example is more appropriate I didn't even know that museum existed. If it teaches things exactly as the Bible does then it does not classify as a lie. It classifies as historical information. Do they actually claim to try to 'save souls' with it?Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41064226767830485462010-06-29T09:02:46.392-07:002010-06-29T09:02:46.392-07:00Fil, I assume you mean a lie that would save someo...Fil, I assume you mean a lie that would save someone. The Creation Museum comes to mind as industrial-scale lying, intended to "save" the visitors' souls for Jesus et al.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41902767639258269132010-06-29T08:59:25.003-07:002010-06-29T08:59:25.003-07:00Fil said...
"In other words, is the sin ...<i>Fil said...<br /><br /> "In other words, is the sin of lying canceled out by the good deed of bringing salvation to someone?"<br /><br /> Give me an example of a lie that would 'save' someone?(i dont believe that concept as most do)<br /> I cant think of any.</i><br /><br />Telling a teenager who is still unsure about his gender identity that gay sex causes AIDS to try and 'scare' him straight. I've seen that lie propagated by Christians trying to save 'sinners' for years.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33668761662373087092010-06-29T08:50:32.790-07:002010-06-29T08:50:32.790-07:00Troy. Do you have an example for my question above...Troy. Do you have an example for my question above?Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27235136646900941352010-06-29T08:00:54.314-07:002010-06-29T08:00:54.314-07:00Joe G:
"Too bad judge jonesy wouldn't le...Joe G:<br /><br />"Too bad judge jonesy wouldn't let the publisher defend the book during the trial.<br /><br />Is that how your side does it? By not letting people defend themselves so you can just make up any story you want? "<br /><br />The correct spelling is judge Jones. <br /><br />One of the contributors to the book, a Dr William Dembski, was given the opportunity to testify under oath, but he preferred not to show up (but, inexplicably, he did take the monetary compensation). Hey, here's an idea: why don't you show up in the next trial as an expert witness? You are a well-known ID spokesman after all. But don't forget to memorize the titles of the evolution textbooks you read at Uni.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27553146924483715222010-06-29T07:24:46.562-07:002010-06-29T07:24:46.562-07:00troy,
As for nested hierarchies I notced yiou did...troy,<br /><br />As for nested hierarchies I notced yiou didn't present a valid definition, nor did you post what you thought a nested hierarchy is.<br /><br />What are you afraid of troy?<br /><br />Do you realize that we do not observe a nested hierarchy at the root of the alleged "tree of life"?<br /><br />That alone means evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy.<br /><br />As for peer-reviewed papers please present ONE that says evolution predicts a nested hierarchy.<br /><br />As I said we do not see a nested hierarchy at the root of the tree- because of HGT- so that pretty much refutes your nonsensical claims...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20790952476755031932010-06-29T07:19:58.315-07:002010-06-29T07:19:58.315-07:00troy:
Darwin allowed for the possibility that a Cr...troy:<br /><i>Darwin allowed for the possibility that a Creator made the first life.</i><br /><br />That is Creation.<br /><br /><i>He didn't search and replace "creation" with "evolution", did he?</i><br /><br />That doesn't matter- he used the word "Creator" in a published copy.<br /><br /><br /><i> Yet the frauds who wrote OP&P did just that. They simply replaced "creationists" with "ID proponents" for political reasons - not scientific reasons - in an attempt to legally peddle their crap.</i><br /><br />That is your opinion and it is meaningless.<br /><br />It appears that is all you have to offer- meaningless nonsense.<br /><br />Too bad judge jonesy wouldn't let the publisher defend the book during the trial.<br /><br />Is that how your side does it? By not letting people defend themselves so you can just make up any story you want?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17640149059768400982010-06-26T22:41:20.135-07:002010-06-26T22:41:20.135-07:00Joe G: No more trash talking, please.Joe G: No more trash talking, please.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21369623584880802492010-06-26T16:40:05.094-07:002010-06-26T16:40:05.094-07:00"In other words, is the sin of lying canceled..."In other words, is the sin of lying canceled out by the good deed of bringing salvation to someone?"<br /><br />Give me an example of a lie that would 'save' someone?(i dont believe that concept as most do) <br />I cant think of any.<br /><br />"whatever you do, no matter how horrible your sins (with the possible exception of insulting the holy spirit) the Lord will forgive your sins and you will have a place in heaven."<br /><br />Asking forgiveness is insufficient. Sincere repentance along with a determination never to repeat that wrong(or others) and turn to doing good is the requirement.(I dont believe all go to heaven either)<br /><br />ie. If you punch me then say you are sorry and I forgive you, then you punch me again will I continue to be a sucker and take the strength of your words over what your actions show? How naive would that be. The same applies to forgiveness by him.<br /><br />Let me say I do agree with you that most Christian religions are fundamentally flawed. They speak good things (some times) but quite often their actions belie their words.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90284569759128877532010-06-26T15:40:58.819-07:002010-06-26T15:40:58.819-07:00Gee, I have yet to meet a knowledgeable and honest...Gee, I have yet to meet a knowledgeable and honest creationist. We even have lying pastors on this thread. Here's a question for the creationists: is it OK to lie in order to save souls for Jesus? In other words, is the sin of lying canceled out by the good deed of bringing salvation to someone?<br /><br />Here's one reason why I think Christianity (well, at least some flavors of it) is detrimental to morality: whatever you do, no matter how horrible your sins (with the possible exception of insulting the holy spirit) the Lord will forgive your sins and you will have a place in heaven. Isn't that the very reason why a sadistic Roman emperor promoted the superstition to official creed? Correct me if I'm wrong please.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38458810961575960372010-06-26T15:11:28.796-07:002010-06-26T15:11:28.796-07:00Michael said...
I first proof to you that Koonin ...<i>Michael said...<br /><br />I first proof to you that Koonin never implied HGT to be isolated to the base of the phylogenetic tree. Something you and Thorton blatantly lied about his work and now you compound it by forcing more of your preferred dogma into interpreting Koonin's work.<br /><br />I am not going to argue with someone with such a debased integrity. Anyone can read Koonin's work and decide for them self how sound the Tree of Live concept stands as proposed by Darwinian thinking.</i><br /><br />LOL! Besides being a quote-mining liar, you never even bothered to read the whole Koonin article, did you?<br /><br />How about this part?<br /><br />"Koonin: The high prevalence of HGT in prokaryotes might, in part, explain the persistence of the organization of many operons across broad ranges of organisms, under the selfish operon hypothesis. Although the operons might be initially selected for the beneficial coexpression and coregulation of functionally linked genes, it is likely that they are maintained and disseminated in the prokaryotic world owing to the increased likelihood of fixation of an operon following HGT, compared, e.g. to a non-operonic pair of genes. This scenario presents a notable case of a combination of selective (coregulation) and neutral (HGT) forces contributing to the evolution of a major aspect of genome organization.<br /><br /><b>Eukaryotes are different from prokaryotes with respect to the role played by HGT in genome evolution. In multicellular eukaryotes, where germline cells are distinct from the soma, HGT appears to be rare although not impossible"</b><br /><br />Gee, how about that! Koonin was mainly talking about HGT in prokaryotes, i.e. the roots of the TOL being a bush, not the main branches.<br /><br />Maybe next time you'll read the article first before blindly C&Ping a dishonest quote-mined version. But given your lack of integrity I doubt it.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67798828420464933442010-06-26T15:09:10.197-07:002010-06-26T15:09:10.197-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42060250552080052732010-06-26T11:00:07.270-07:002010-06-26T11:00:07.270-07:00Michael:
"I am not going to argue with someo...Michael:<br /><br />"I am not going to argue with someone with such a debased integrity. Anyone can read Koonin's work and decide for them self how sound the Tree of Live concept stands as proposed by Darwinian thinking. "<br /><br />Haha. As if you had been "arguing" in the first place. You did nothing of the kind. Instead you quote-mined Koonin, while demonstrating your ignorance by conflating the "tree of life" with "Darwinian thinking". You're just another lying creationist, dime a dozen. Bye now.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70621428830536429462010-06-26T10:38:34.552-07:002010-06-26T10:38:34.552-07:00Troy,
Your integrity has reached the same level a...Troy,<br /><br />Your integrity has reached the same level as Thorton's in my mind.<br /><br />I first proof to you that Koonin never implied HGT to be isolated to the base of the phylogenetic tree. Something you and Thorton blatantly lied about his work and now you compound it by forcing more of your preferred dogma into interpreting Koonin's work.<br /><br />I am not going to argue with someone with such a debased integrity. Anyone can read Koonin's work and decide for them self how sound the Tree of Live concept stands as proposed by Darwinian thinking.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27678123475053989342010-06-26T09:58:38.671-07:002010-06-26T09:58:38.671-07:00Michael:
"Is this the way you would admit th...Michael:<br /><br />"Is this the way you would admit that you and Thorton misrepresented Koonin to suite your preference?<br /><br />Koonin's BBB is as unsupportive of Darvinian views of the TOL as is the article that I quoted."<br /><br />You misrepresented Koonin, not me or Thorton<br /><br />I have no problem whatsoever accepting that some parts of the tree are more network-like, due to HGT, than previously thought. You seem to think that this somehow undermines "Darwinism", the view that natural selection played a major role in the evolutionary process. But it doesn't. Genes that can spread horizontally have an obvious selective advantage compared to genes that can't, all else being equal. Yet such genes can also be detrimental to individuals that harbor such genes. The current view is that opposing selection forces at the gene level and the individual level have led to the disappearance of HGT. That also explains why mitochondria are only transmitted via the female line.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58185572675284799542010-06-26T09:37:39.983-07:002010-06-26T09:37:39.983-07:00Joe G:
"So Darwin's inclusion of "C...Joe G:<br /><br />"So Darwin's inclusion of "Creator" means that the theory of evolution is a Creationist theory.<br /><br />Also "Of Panda's and people" has no bearing on ID- it has been superseded by "The Design of Life"."<br /><br />Darwin allowed for the possibility that a Creator made the first life. He didn't search and replace "creation" with "evolution", did he? Yet the frauds who wrote OP&P did just that. They simply replaced "creationists" with "ID proponents" for political reasons - not scientific reasons - in an attempt to legally peddle their crap.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.com