tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5044176208225845741..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: What Really MattersUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger193125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92148663604528533052013-04-10T22:52:20.493-07:002013-04-10T22:52:20.493-07:00structure somewhat clear, always think of what the...structure somewhat clear, always think of what the problem go <a href="http://www.honeybuy.com/c/Mother-Of-The-Bride-Dresses" rel="nofollow"><strong>mother of bride dresses</strong></a> write, without good separation of clear hierarchy, so the article is a little messy, this article must not meet the requirements, but, after all, is a first draft, also carried out under the guidance of a teacher's repeated changes. Writing Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29425193275113631042013-02-07T14:30:48.173-08:002013-02-07T14:30:48.173-08:00Well said, Dr Hunter!!!
God bless.Well said, Dr Hunter!!! <br /><br />God bless.National Velourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15142359587875219081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33644327571788247742013-02-05T18:39:20.769-08:002013-02-05T18:39:20.769-08:00Nic
There isn't a competent historian in the ...<i>Nic<br /><br />There isn't a competent historian in the world, Christian or otherwise, who doubts the existence of Christ. Yet people like Ritchie think they know better than all the historians throughout history. It's completely futile even trying to demonstrate to them where and why they are wrong.</i><br /><br />This coming from the same guy who has been claiming evolution is an <i>argument ad populum</i> and telling me I only believe it because the scientists say it's true.<br /><br />Let's change a few words and see what we get:<br /><br />"There isn't a competent scientist in the world, evolutionist or otherwise, who doubts the veracity of ToE. Yet people like Nic think they know better than all the scientists in the last two centuries. It's completely futile even trying to demonstrate to them where and why they are wrong"<br /><br />As I noted before, Nic only seems to understand argument from authority. That's how his religion is run, so science must be run that way too.<br /><br />I'm not going to get into this particular argument at all, but watching Nic's compartmentalized and self-contradictory "reasoning" is quite the phenomenon.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17394999697868548552013-02-05T18:14:19.073-08:002013-02-05T18:14:19.073-08:00Nic
Just because you see the design explanation a...<i>Nic<br /><br />Just because you see the design explanation as unreasonable, doesn't make it unreasonable.</i><br /><br />It's not unreasonable, it's just completely unsupported. Go do the work, present the positive evidence for the design and you may have a case.<br /><br /><i>If it was completely unreasonable there would be no controversy regards evolution.</i><br /><br />There is no <b>scientific</b> controversy over ToE. There is a mild political one stirred up by religious Fundamentalists trying to push their particular religious beliefs.<br /><br /><i> I know what's coming next.</i><br /><br />Of course you do. Push the fake 'controversy' has been a Creationist political strategy since day one.<br /><br /><i>Just because you do and most scientists do, does not mean it's true.</i><br /><br />But it works pretty darn well, so we'll keep it until a better one comes along, thank you.<br /><br /><i>Nonsense, a design scenario fits the data very nicely.</i><br /><br />If fits just the same as the MAGIC! scenario. Like MAGIC!, a design scenario fits <b>ANY</b> data very nicely, which is why it's absolutely worthless as a scientific explanation.<br /><br />Sharks v. Hawks tonight is gonna be a real barn-burner. :)<br /><br />How long before the Toronto media starts screaming for a Kessel trade?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57043248159370043172013-02-05T17:57:45.582-08:002013-02-05T17:57:45.582-08:00Thorton,
"Which is correct, and dramatically...Thorton,<br /><br />"Which is correct, and dramatically different that what you claimed above:"<br /><br />Notice the term 'reasonably'. Just because you see the design explanation as unreasonable, doesn't make it unreasonable. If it was completely unreasonable there would be no controversy regards evolution. I know what's coming next.<br /><br />"Thank you for the admission of your error."<br /><br />I don't recall admitting an error.<br /><br />"Which is the exact method science uses that I've been explaining to you all along. Any individual piece may not be conclusive, but when all are taken together you get virtual certainty."<br /><br />Common sense and evolution ranks really high on the oxymoron scale. When all pieces of evidence are put together it can produce a convincing picture, but there is no guarantee of that result. All the physical evidence pointed to Joe, but yet he was innocent because an alternative explanation was completely feasible.<br /><br /><br />"Yes, so we go with the best explanation we have until a better one comes along, or until more evidence emerges that forces a reevaluation. That's how all science works Nic."<br /><br />But not everyone thinks evolution is the best explanation. Just because you do and most scientists do, does not mean it's true.<br /><br />"ToE fits the data because it was derived from the data. You guys don't have an explanation that fits any of the data." <br /><br />Nonsense, a design scenario fits the data very nicely. Such factors as genetic similarity and morphology are not counter to a design scenario at all. <br /><br />"Sharks vs. Leafs - race to the bottom for the #1 draft pick. :)"<br /><br />i haven't kept track, but the Leafs probably traded their first pick. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21424320542684499832013-02-05T17:43:01.542-08:002013-02-05T17:43:01.542-08:00It's painfully obvious they have never read an...<b>It's painfully obvious they have never read any history whatsoever and have absolutely no idea what constitutes an historical document. They function under the delusion the Bible is simply a collection of stories and does not qualify as a collection of historical documents. </b><br /><br />The Bible IS simply a collection of stories. The Old Testament is full of mythical events which we know did not literally happen (Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel, the Exodus) while the New Testament, while more modest in scope, still includes miraculous deeds and events. The gospels are not independent accounts, but borrow directly from each other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels), they contradict each other many times and they fail to be verified by independent accounts.<br /><br />So no, the Bible doesn't count as a reliable historical document at all. Far, far from it.<br /><br /><b>There isn't a competent historian in the world, Christian or otherwise, who doubts the existence of Christ.</b><br /><br />I can name you many. The Jesus Myth Theory has been publically advocated by Friedrich Holderlin, Gerald Massey, Alvind Kuhn, Charles Francois Dupuis, David Strauss, Bruno Bauer, James George Frazer, J. M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, Arthur Drews, Paul-Louis Couchoud and G. J. P. J. Bolland. <br /><br />Modern day scholars include Richard Carrier, G. A. Wells, Robert M. Price and Thomas Brodie.<br /><br />Besides, truth is not established by the number of people who believe certain propositions. It is established through evidence.<br /><br /><b>Yet people like Ritchie think they know better than all the historians throughout history.</b><br /><br />Can I just take a moment to remark how massively hypocritical that is coming from someone who claims to know biology better than every biologist?<br /><br /><b>It's completely futile even trying to demonstrate to them where and why they are wrong. </b><br /><br />Can't support your position? Simply declare yourself right and that it's futile to argue because your opponent is too dim to understand. Classic Creationist tactic #4, I believe...?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64017604595813499452013-02-05T17:28:15.325-08:002013-02-05T17:28:15.325-08:00Thorton,
"I'll see how you explain that ...Thorton,<br /><br />"I'll see how you explain that one before I bring out the good stuff."<br /><br />Okay, I'll do some research.<br /><br />Leafs lost again last night. Will likely beat your Sharks to oblivion. Maybe that's one win I can gain. What do you think?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80897844751161387992013-02-05T16:35:54.108-08:002013-02-05T16:35:54.108-08:00Joe G,
"Wow, another moron with the "Je...Joe G,<br /><br />"Wow, another moron with the "Jesus was fictional"- "<br /><br />I don't even bother to debate this subject with people like Ritchie. It's painfully obvious they have never read any history whatsoever and have absolutely no idea what constitutes an historical document. They function under the delusion the Bible is simply a collection of stories and does not qualify as a collection of historical documents. <br /><br />There isn't a competent historian in the world, Christian or otherwise, who doubts the existence of Christ. Yet people like Ritchie think they know better than all the historians throughout history. It's completely futile even trying to demonstrate to them where and why they are wrong. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39478520730241695992013-02-05T12:20:20.313-08:002013-02-05T12:20:20.313-08:00Nic
Take your best shot.
Oh boy, I love geology!...<i>Nic<br /><br />Take your best shot.</i><br /><br />Oh boy, I love geology! I've literally got hundreds of examples I can use of features that couldn't possibly have formed in a one time catastrophic event (i.e. "Da Flud")<br /><br />How about the 1000' deep incised meanders at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goosenecks_State_Park" rel="nofollow">Goosenecks state park?</a><br /><br />Carved by the San Juan River over the last 10MY as the Colorado Plateau lifted. A one time Flood strong enough to remove that volume of rock would blast straight channels as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods" rel="nofollow">Missoula glacial lake burst floods</a> did, not gentle 180 degree switchback meanders. The river wasn't carved in soft mud either because soft mud doesn't have the tensile strength to support near vertical walls - it would slump and immediately collapse.<br /><br />I'll see how you explain that one before I bring out the good stuff.<br /><br /><br /><br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30099977536481401542013-02-05T12:02:38.720-08:002013-02-05T12:02:38.720-08:00Nic
If various pieces can be shown to fit togethe...<i>Nic<br /><br />If various pieces can be shown to fit together and paint a picture for which no other interpretation is reasonably<br />possible, then they can collectively add weight to the argument. </i><br /><br />Which is correct, and dramatically different that what you claimed above:<br /><br /><i>N: "The age ranges are not conclusive evidence, the morphological features are not conclusive evidence, and the genetic similarities are not conclusive evidence. Therefore, logically, the combination of these three do not amount to conclusive evidence."</i><br /><br />Thank you for the admission of your error.<br /><br /><i>Really, if you think that through, it's simply common sense that this is the only way you can handle evidence in any situation. </i><br /><br />Which is the <b>exact method science uses that I've been explaining to you all along.</b> Any individual piece may not be conclusive, but when all are taken together you get virtual certainty.<br /><br /><i>An explanation can fit all the data and still be wrong, do you not realize that?</i><br /><br />Yes, so we go with the best explanation we have until a better one comes along, or until more evidence emerges that forces a reevaluation. That's how all science works Nic.<br /><br />ToE fits the data because it was derived from the data. You guys don't have an explanation that fits <b>any</b> of the data. Sorry to Joke G, but just saying "it was designed that way" <b>isn't</b> an explanation.<br /><br /><i>Sorry to hear your Sharks lost their first in regulation. Looks like a long slide to oblivion now.</i><br /><br />Sharks vs. Leafs - race to the bottom for the #1 draft pick. :)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11328083187347308422013-02-05T09:25:19.798-08:002013-02-05T09:25:19.798-08:00Thorton,
"The physical evidence will win out...Thorton,<br /><br />"The physical evidence will win out over the eyewitnesses every time."<br /><br />No, my friend, it will not. The eyewitness testimony would be accepted. One cannot simply reject the eyewitness testimony on the basis that people may be lying. In law people affirm to tell the truth and unless it can be shown that ALL the witnesses are lying their testimony is to be taken at face value.<br /><br />"The physical evidence doesn't (lie)."<br /><br />No, it doesn't lie, nor does it tell the truth, it's simply interpreted. In the case of Joe and Chuck all physical evidence is explainable in such manner as it does not point to Joe as the killer.<br /><br />You see, Joe is Chuck's brother. The day before Chuck was murdered Joe was in his office helping him finish a business proposal. In the course of assembling the paper work Joe received a paper cut to his hand resulting in his blood being found at the scene. His fingerprints would not be out of place in his own brother's office nor would fibres from his clothing.<br /><br />So you see, my friend evidence is not always what people make it out to be.<br /><br />"What did your lawyer family say about considering each piece of evidence separately as opposed to considering the weight of all the evidence combined?"<br /><br />Each piece of evidence is considered on its own merits. If various pieces can be shown to fit together and paint a picture for which no other interpretation is reasonably<br />possible, then they can collectively add weight to the argument. But each piece is first measured and considered on its own.<br /><br />Really, if you think that through, it's simply common sense that this is the only way you can handle evidence in any situation. <br /><br />"LOL! You don't even want to go there Nic. I'll smoke you with geologic evidence you'll never be able to explain as the result of a sudden catastrophe. Wanna bet another e-beer? :)"<br /><br />Take your best shot.<br /><br />"Of course there are scientific facts. That's the raw empirically collected data. You can argue 'interpretation' all you want but you can't change the facts, like the close correlation of all that fossil and genetic data from cetaceans."<br /><br />No matter how much you wish to believe otherwise any evidence of a historical nature is subject to interpretation. That's simply the way it is and all your hand waving and assertions to the contrary mean nothing at all to that fact.<br /><br />"Science has one that fits all the data. The data drives the conclusion Nic, even though it seems you'll never get it."<br /><br />An explanation can fit all the data and still be wrong, do you not realize that?<br /><br />"Another lame attempt to avoid the data you can't explain noted."<br /><br />No, it's a serious observation of what is continually passed off as evidence by evolution.<br /><br />"Then use the design scenario to explain those five major mass extinction events. Use the design scenario to explain why all those different cetacean species appear millions of years apart. You're long on rhetoric but woefully short on support for your claims."<br /><br />I will do more reading on mass extinction events, as I will freely admit I'm not well versed on that particular subject.<br /><br />"We could shoot the breeze about hockey. At least you have some understanding of that. ;)"<br /><br />That would be fun. Sorry to hear your Sharks lost their first in regulation. Looks like a long slide to oblivion now. ;)<br /><br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60790922874480096312013-02-04T16:49:29.181-08:002013-02-04T16:49:29.181-08:00Nic
Tell me Thorton, what evidence will win out?
...<i>Nic<br /><br />Tell me Thorton, what evidence will win out?</i><br /><br />The physical evidence will win out over the eyewitnesses every time. Eyewitnesses can and do lie (or simply misremember) all the time. The physical evidence doesn't. In science you don't get to ignore data you don't like Nic.<br /><br />What did your lawyer family say about considering each piece of evidence separately as opposed to considering the weight of all the evidence combined?<br /><br /><i>As far as geology is concerned, what we see in the world is better explained in light of catastrophic events rather than gradualism. </i><br /><br />LOL! You don't <b>even</b> want to go there Nic. I'll smoke you with geologic evidence you'll <b>never</b> be able to explain as the result of a sudden catastrophe. Wanna bet another e-beer? :)<br /><br /><i>I thought there was no such thing as a scientific fact.</i><br /><br />Of course there are scientific facts. That's the raw empirically collected data. You can argue 'interpretation' all you want but you can't change the facts, like the close correlation of all that fossil and genetic data from cetaceans.<br /><br /><i>Only if science has the correct explanation.</i><br /><br />Science has one that fits all the data. The data drives the conclusion Nic, even though it seems you'll never get it.<br /><br /><i>Can I make up just-so stories like evolution does on a continual basis?</i><br /><br />Another lame attempt to avoid the data you can't explain noted.<br /><br /><i>A design scenario is plainly a better explanation in light of what is observable than the blind, unobservable process which is evolution.</i><br /><br />Then use the design scenario to explain those five major mass extinction events. Use the design scenario to explain why all those different cetacean species appear millions of years apart. You're long on rhetoric but woefully short on support for your claims.<br /><br /><i>If I was to do that what fun would we have?</i><br /><br />We could shoot the breeze about hockey. At least you have some understanding of that. ;)<br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55031283564043773992013-02-04T11:38:41.741-08:002013-02-04T11:38:41.741-08:00Thorton,
"Ask them if judges and juries are ...Thorton,<br /><br />"Ask them if judges and juries are instructed to consider each piece of evidence in a vacuum, or if they consider the weight of all the evidence as a whole."<br /><br />Joe is accused of murdering Chuck. Joe's fingerprints are found at the scene, his blood is found at the scene and fibers from his clothing is found at the scene.<br /><br />The time of Chuck's death is known to be exactly 5pm on Jan 5, 2011 as the murder was recorded on security cameras at Chuck's office. However, no identification of the murderer could be made because of poor image quality and the fact the murderer's face was covered.<br /><br />However, several eyewitnesses testify that Joe was 5,000 miles away at the time of the murder. They were in fact with him at the moment Chuck died.<br /><br />Tell me Thorton, what evidence will win out?<br /><br />"Tell me Nic, where does geology teach "all your data better support ToE"? <br /><br />As far as geology is concerned, what we see in the world is better explained in light of catastrophic events rather than gradualism. <br /><br />Exactly how does 'verified empirical data' from nuclear physics and geology 'better' explain what we see? <br /><br />"The data provided in the cetacean paper are empirically established scientific facts."<br /><br />I thought there was no such thing as a scientific fact. So, you'd better make up your mind. Is there such a thing as a scientific fact or is ti just another way of saying definitely maybe?<br /><br />Again, your 'scientific facts are nothing more than conjecture based on presupposition. You keep pressing the 'factual' nature of the evidence for cetacean evolution, but it continually rests on the same foundation of conjecture and presupposition. <br /><br />"Science has one. You don't. Science wins."<br /><br />Only if science has the correct explanation. Assume I don't have an explanation. Does that mean an evolutionary is correct simply by virtue of my lack of an explanation? Ii think the nonsense of that logic is fairly plain.<br /><br />"You've got to explain ALL the data we have for life's history over the last 3+ billion years if you want your story to have any credibility."<br /><br />Can I make up just-so stories like evolution does on a continual basis?<br /><br />"You're the one who claimed ID-Creationism provided a better explanation than ToE."<br /><br />A design scenario is plainly a better explanation in light of what is observable than the blind, unobservable process which is evolution. And please, do not say Lenski's work with bacteria is observable evolution. <br /><br />"If you wish to withdraw your claim for lack of support it's OK with me."<br /><br />If I was to do that what fun would we have?<br /><br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66676815143318357532013-02-04T10:31:19.939-08:002013-02-04T10:31:19.939-08:00Joe G,
Thw whole truth:and it will continue to ge...Joe G,<br /><br />Thw whole truth:and it will continue to get you to where it always has> left behind. Way behind."<br /><br />Don't worry Joe, like all evolutionists TWT is looking over his shoulder at you and others who oppose evolution and thinking about how far ahead he his. Little does he realize he's been lapped a long time ago and he's so far behind he thinks he's ahead.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50073116051278406282013-02-04T02:29:03.493-08:002013-02-04T02:29:03.493-08:00Nic
That would come as a real surprise to the thr...<i>Nic<br /><br />That would come as a real surprise to the three lawyers in my immediate family. Me thinks you watch too much TV law.</i><br /><br />LOL! Then ask them how reliable eyewitness testimony is considered. Ask them if judges and juries are instructed to consider each piece of evidence in a vacuum, or if they consider the weight of all the evidence as a whole. Let us know what they say, OK?<br /><br /><i>And all these fields of study start from the assumption that evolution is true and all that needs to be done is demonstrate how it all happened.</i><br /><br />You keep making the same dumb Creationist excuse to hand-wave away the data you can't explain but just can't back it up anywhere. Tell me Nic, where does geology teach "all your data better support ToE"? Geology by itself has nothing to do with evolution. Neither does nuclear physics. But the verified empirical data from both <b>supports</b> the ToE. How does the verified empirical data support ID-Creationism? <br /><br /><i>Oh, I see. If you keep saying the same thing thousands of times based on the same assumptions it becomes a fact. Silly me.</i><br /><br />No, you don't see, or you're faking it pretty good. The data provided in the cetacean paper <b>are</b> empirically established scientific facts. So yes, silly you. The data is there Nic. <b>It needs an explanation.</b> Science has one. You don't. Science wins.<br /><br /><i>apparently I have to explain the extinction of thousands of creatures.</i><br /><br />Yep. You've got to explain ALL the data we have for life's history over the last 3+ billion years if you want your story to have any credibility. You're the one who claimed ID-Creationism provided a better explanation than ToE. If you wish to withdraw your claim for lack of support it's OK with me.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34015702096723041132013-02-03T22:38:17.246-08:002013-02-03T22:38:17.246-08:00Thorton,
"LOL! You've never been anywher...Thorton,<br /><br />"LOL! You've never been anywhere near a real trial have you? Eyewitness testimony is the absolute worst, least credible form of evidence there is."<br /><br />That would come as a real surprise to the three lawyers in my immediate family. Me thinks you watch too much TV law.<br /><br />"Oh dear - not Ken Ham's idiotic "were you there??? C'mon Nic, you're better than that. I hope."<br /><br />I wasn't the one who brought up video tape, you were. I assume it was a desperate attempt to add weight to your argument about the credibility of evidence against Joe for Chuck's death.<br /><br />"Science has a 150+ years of independent, consilient, corroborating direct physical evidence from dozens of different scientific disciplines. This includes fields of study such as biology, paleontology, organic chemistry, genetics, geology, botany, nuclear physics, zoology, etc. ToE has as overwhelming preponderence of evidence."<br /><br />Independent of what? And all these fields of study start from the assumption that evolution is true and all that needs to be done is demonstrate how it all happened. You said so yourself. Thorton: "That evolution has occurred is now an established scientific fact. New papers published don’t have to rehash 150 years of data for your benefit."<br /><br />"When you start making claims as dumb as that one I know you've lost the argument, and you know it too."<br /><br />Never made that claim.<br /><br />"it's hundreds of thousands of lines of evidence in three major categories,..."<br /><br />Oh, I see. If you keep saying the same thing thousands of times based on the same assumptions it becomes a fact. Silly me.<br /><br />"Sharks lost to Preds in shootout. There goes the 48-0 season. :("<br /><br />I feel so sorry for you. Look at the up side, they still haven't lost in regulation time, so they've gained points in every game so far. No other team can say that.<br /><br />Got to go, getting very tired and have busy day coming up, and now apparently I have to explain the extinction of thousands of creatures.<br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56571581096962046352013-02-03T08:52:20.537-08:002013-02-03T08:52:20.537-08:00The whole truth
And "Please be specific"...<i>The whole truth<br /><br />And "Please be specific", joey.</i><br /><br />LOL! Chubby Joke G deal with any specifics in the scientific data? Chubby Joke G do anything but his usual knee-jerk belching of "YOUR SIDE HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!"?<br /><br />You're a funny guy TWT!<br /><br />Here's the actual cetacean paper again<br /><br /><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007062#s3" rel="nofollow">Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and Character Evolution</a><br /><br />Nic at least tried to read the first few paragraphs before his eyes glazed over. You think Chubs will even bother to click on the link?<br /><br />The authors did a detailed examination including over <b>600 morphological features</b> (cranial osteology, dental, postcranial osteology, and soft-tissue/behavior) from 81 different taxa as well as <b>49 new genetic sequences</b> comprising over 40,000 molecular characters to get their 'best fit' phylogenetic trees.<br /><br />But according to Creationists you can explain away all that data as inconclusive coincidence.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6759558986437833362013-02-03T08:18:42.009-08:002013-02-03T08:18:42.009-08:00Neal Tedford February 1, 2013 at 11:34 AM
[...]
...<i><b>Neal Tedford</b> February 1, 2013 at 11:34 AM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Turning a faucet to hot or cold water and understanding how it works does not explain how the faucet originated. Yes, you can vary the flow and change the temperature of the water coming out of the faucet but one should not say, "look I can vary the flow and temperature of the water, this is how we came to have faucets". </i><br /><br />Once more, the title of Darwin's book was <i>On The Origin of <b>Species</b></i> for a reason. That reason is that his theory was about how life had evolved <i>after</i> it appeared. He had no idea about the origin of life itself and said as much.<br /><br />Yes, abiogenesis is a related field of research but it is <i>not</i> the same. Criticizing the theory of evolution for not explaining what it was never intended to explain in the first place is simply irrational.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88162370531467789932013-02-03T01:26:47.772-08:002013-02-03T01:26:47.772-08:00And "Please be specific", joey.And "Please be specific", joey.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8662006383704826492013-02-03T01:21:01.592-08:002013-02-03T01:21:01.592-08:00Thorton asked Nic:
"BTW, I never did hear yo...Thorton asked Nic:<br /><br />"BTW, I never did hear your better explanation for all that cetacean data - what explains the objectively determined patterns in the genetic record and fossil record over deep time? Why are Ambulocetus always found in older strata than Rodhocetus, which is always in older strata than Durodon?"<br /><br />joey yelped:<br /><br />"What's your explanation and how can it be tested? Please be specific."<br /><br />The cetacean data has already been 'tested' and explained, joey, and it will be further tested and explained as more studies are done and if or when more data is found. You really should read something besides the koran/bible. <br /><br />Now, since you're such an expert (LOL) on all things biological and paleontological (and everything else), can and will you answer Thorton's questions? The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43097725596836809882013-02-03T00:29:52.220-08:002013-02-03T00:29:52.220-08:00joey impotently barked:
"Then it is strange ...joey impotently barked:<br /><br />"Then it is strange that no one can produce ONE testable hypothesis based on the ToE's posited mechanism of accumulations of genetic accidents."<br /><br />There you go again, poorly describing the ToE, and there you go again griping about "accidents" even though you claim that there are accidents in allegedly 'fine tuned, programmed, designed' genetics and in the allegedly 'fine tuned, programmed, designed' entire universe. You just can't make up your puny mind, can you joey?<br /><br />Hmm, let's see, even though you claim that the entire universe was 'fine tuned, programmed, and designed' you'll probably say that accidents simply happen along with the allegedly 'fine tuned, programmed, designed' other stuff, so tell me joey, exactly how do you <i>scientifically</i> differentiate the allegedly 'fine tuned, programmed, designed' accidents from the allegedly 'fine tuned, programmed, designed' other stuff? Is it just the 'bad' stuff that is 'fine tuned, programmed, designed' accidents and the 'good' stuff is 'fine tuned designed' non-accidents? Would <i>sinful</i> and <i>righteous</i> fit better than 'bad' and 'good'? Does worshiping and praying to yhwh-allah-jesus-mohammed prevent "accidents", joey?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46169862258033330322013-02-02T23:42:50.019-08:002013-02-02T23:42:50.019-08:00Nic
Do you have video tape to support evolution? ...<i>Nic<br /><br />Do you have video tape to support evolution? Do you have eyewitness testimony of one creature evolving to another?</i><br /><br />How many major crimes were solved by US and Canadian police in the last decade by using the direct physical evidence left at the crime scene?<br /><br />What percentage of those had videotape of the crime actually being committed? <br /><br />Look up the numbers for me, will you Nic?<br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69364530241870426992013-02-02T23:28:48.392-08:002013-02-02T23:28:48.392-08:00Nic
This is why I would have been a competent att...<i>Nic<br /><br />This is why I would have been a competent attorney and you would be in the gallery watching. Eyewitness evidence such as video tape of the crime, always carries much more weight. Do you have video tape to support evolution? Do you have eyewitness testimony of one creature evolving to another?</i><br /><br />LOL! You've never been anywhere near a real trial have you? Eyewitness testimony is the absolute worst, <b>least</b> credible form of evidence there is. Almost any sort of directs physical evidence (which would include a videotape that can be replayed and all my other examples) is considered the most reliable, with circumstantial evidence carrying less weight.<br /><br /><i>Do you have video tape to support evolution? Do you have eyewitness testimony of one creature evolving to another?</i><br /><br />Oh dear - not Ken Ham's idiotic <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/11/nation/na-creation11" rel="nofollow">"were you there??? </a> C'mon Nic, you're better than that. I hope.<br /><br />FYI, science doesn't need a videotape. Science has a 150+ years of independent, consilient, corroborating direct physical evidence from dozens of different scientific disciplines. This includes fields of study such as biology, paleontology, organic chemistry, genetics, geology, botany, nuclear physics, zoology, etc. ToE has as overwhelming <b>preponderence of evidence</b>.<br /><br /><i>I thought not. Therefore, my argument stands. Your three pieces of evidence can each be explained independently and therefore do not carry anymore weight collectively</i><br /><br />Not without directly contradicting yourself they can't. Creationist organizations have been trying for years to hand-wave away each piece independently and making themselves look like idiots with their contradictions. I already showed you a good example with the AND claim on radiometric dating.<br /><br />When you start making claims as dumb as that one I know you've lost the argument, and you know it too. <br /><br />BTW it's not 3 pieces of evidence. it's hundreds of thousands of lines of evidence in three major categories - real time observed evolutionary processes, the fossil morphological record, the genetic record.<br /><br />I'm really looking forward to your Design/Creation explanation for all the mass extinction events over the last 550MY. Also how the many extinct species of cetaceans were "created" millions of years apart. Think you'll be able to make up something by tomorrow?<br /><br /><i>My Leafs lost to the Bruins AGAIN! If I remember right, that's seven in a row.</i><br /><br />Sharks lost to Preds in shootout. There goes the 48-0 season. :(Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59120955408067680812013-02-02T22:28:55.952-08:002013-02-02T22:28:55.952-08:00joey bluffed:
"OK, let's do it.
As I sa...joey bluffed:<br /><br />"OK, let's do it.<br /><br />As I said I also will fight and debate you too- $5,000 for the fight and another $5000 for the debate- unfortunately you won't make the debate."<br /><br />Yeah sure, joey, like you have the money and would actually show up and pay up. You've been spewing threats and bets/challenges for years and I and several other people have offered to take you up on them but you always run away. Yawn. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31473977158851489772013-02-02T22:15:48.925-08:002013-02-02T22:15:48.925-08:00Thorton,
"and the surveillance video clearly...Thorton,<br /><br />"and the surveillance video clearly shows him doing the stabbing."<br /><br />This is why I would have been a competent attorney and you would be in the gallery watching. Eyewitness evidence such as video tape of the crime, always carries much more weight. Do you have video tape to support evolution? Do you have eyewitness testimony of one creature evolving to another?<br /><br />I thought not. Therefore, my argument stands. Your three pieces of evidence can each be explained independently and therefore do not carry anymore weight collectively. <br /><br />As for your analogy, there could possibly be legitimate reasons why the physical evidence, saliva, blood, fibres, etc., would not be damning to Joe. The eyewitness testimony, however, would be quite problematic. But such eyewitness testimony does not exist for evolution, and as such, does not pose a problem.<br /><br />Only got time for a short response. I will respond to the rest later. <br /><br />My Leafs lost to the Bruins AGAIN! If I remember right, that's seven in a row.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.com