It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Debate still rages over Darwin

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 10:10 PM
reply to post by Hellish-D

Darn you. I was supposed to go to bed early tonight. I thought, i will just watch one or two segments. But I ended up watching the whole thing.

All I gotta say is that the winners could not have made a more convincing case.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 07:47 AM
reply to post by nixie_nox

Engrossing isn't it? It was really amazing how biologists were able to dissect and dismiss every point that the ID folks presented.

But that wasn't the most interesting part. All that the ID folks needed to do to win their case was present a viable scientific theory that could produce testable and predictable results so that it could be taught along side evolution. Not one single ID proponent was able to do it. As a matter of fact, several witnesses for the ID team failed to appear!

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:04 AM
I agree that this thread has pretty much devolved into an uncivil situation. The PBS special is indeed interesting but again it will never change the opinion of those who are unable to accept any dissenting ideas or theories.

Just my opinion.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Aermacchi

The PBS series purports to be a thoughtful, accurate instructional aid for a troubled and important field. Unfortunately, it is committed to the idea that the vindication of evolution against Creationism requires the valorization of Darwin as evolution's hero. This, I believe, is a grave misrecognition of how science works, and thus is a bad lesson for students.

Let us repeat it six times before breakfast: science does not depend on authority. then please ask *cough*Dr.hovind to stop calling him self doctor as he isnt, and please stop claiming things in the bible are accurate despite a lack of evidence which i an appeal from authority, and please stop saying god did it when you clearly cant prove that and its an appeal to authority as well

On the contrary, clinging to authority is another way of evading the force of evidence.
Ernst Mayr and the Darwin Cult

The PBS series comes with the endorsement of leading evolutionists. I wondered whether anyone, scientist or historian, had challenged its egregious disregard for fact.

A Google search turned up criticisms, but all were from the Intelligent Design and Creationist camp. The sample I read complained of misrepresentations of their case;

maybe if the discorvery institute hadnt twice tried to apply for an Amicus brief by intentionally ignoring all the rules to secure one becasue they would have to release information they just didnt want to too gain them, then becasue they couldnt get the amicus briefs and would have to testify in court jut like everyone else and would get asked quetions about what it i they are saying they decided not to turn up and accuratley portray ID. but hey yeah it not thier fault obviously that there was no one there to give an accurate represention.

and then just maybe if they read the actuial court transcripts of what hapened they might realise its firaly accurate

and when they are all sitting around complaining about the judge maybe they should think back to the discoevry institues website hailing it as great news that this perticular judge was placed in charge of the case as he was a friend of bush and bush loves creationim .. i mean ID sorry so there was no way they could lose

they did not touch on the issues I am raising. The negative result of the Google search is of course no proof of the absence of criticism by scientists or historians in the evolution camp.

so becasue there were no results found you going to make stuff up? and then pretend its real and not just stuff you felt like making up and writting down on paper? wow

The circumstance that such criticism is liable to be appropriated by religionists in their on-going struggle with science would tend to discourage pro-evolution critics from going public. Who wants to be quoted by a Creationist, against evolution, why let that stop you usually just quote mine or misrepresent quotes from Darwin, Dawkins, Einstein, Hawkins, Feduccia Et AL so a direct honest quote would be a nice change

at the next meeting of the Kansas Board of Education? However that may be, I know from the printed word and from personal knowledge that some senior evolutionists concur with the PBS baloney. hmmm but no examples of that written word? .... i think someone may be making stuff up judging from his own written word and admission of doing so above

I shall discuss one case, chosen because of this scholar's golden credentials, because of his numerous publications on the history of evolutionary thought, and because he is the paradigm of Darwin worship.

I refer to the recently deceased Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard, Ernst Mayr. i also pick him becasue theres no way he can defend him elf from my cowardly attack on a recently deceased person
bold mine writtings

sorry what is this to show that a lack of evidence allow the discovery institue to make stuff up and carry on regardless?

wow cant find anyone complaining so ill complain about no one complaining then attack someone who' dead and misrepresent thier views entirley like im pretending they did with mine

I watched the documentary several times now and always find it interesting how Ken Miller uses the mouse trap as a tie clip suggesting it as some clever anecdote for how IC gets trumped by natural selection but fails to explain how natural selection works for the mouse trap missing a part when Ken Miller isn't there to act as the mindless aimless mechanism called Natural Selection.

i think its not the failue of the argument its the failure of perception of the argument, thats a nice way of saying your making an Argument by false analogy

shall we look at the initial argument?

"If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled. Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several parts, it is irreducibly complex." (Behe, 1996). < - listing sources how novel

thank Professor Behe

so it not an exploration of mutation natural selection or anything like that its uing the Behe annalogy to show how faulty the IC argument is, while missing any parts it fails to be a mouse trap but can still be functional o while a mouse trap i now iriducably complex for the j0ob of catching mice the component do not all have to form at the same time in a specific arrangment for the parts to be functional

as shown with the flaggelum the bombadire beetle et al the component parts are often employed under various other uses and you see several of tese component parts working totgether to perfom other functions, so an IC system doesnt suddenly appear from no where as an IC system hence could only have been made by God *cough* i mean a designer as the argument goes

as Ken Miller demonstrates with the mouse trap prior to the spring mechanism and latch bieng added the mouse trap still has functionality so it no more irreducably complex the the flagelum et al which are composed of parts used for other things at other times

What Ken Miller did is the same mistake Richard Dawkins has made trying to explain Natuarl Selection when he came out with his computer algorthm for his "me thinks it's a weasel software to illustrate a mindless. aimless natural selection process.

umm what mistake i that? Ken Miller is demonstrating how Behe's argument by anology is flawed and well Dawkins doesnt say it represents natural selection he ays it gives an analogous example of a goal orientated system that is similar to but not actually natural selection as that is unguided with out a set goal

so ummm looks the mistake is with trying to misrepresent thing again to be omthing they are not wernt ever meant to be, unles the its the what the dont say so i can make it all up argument about to make another appearance, Argument by false analogy *tut tut*

Ken Miller is not there to figure out what other way the now useless mousetrap can be used for something else.
ummm ..... you do realise your even thinking the wrong way round about the time frame?

its not mouse trap - tie clip it shows how a tie clip can become a mouse trap through varying its usage a system that i currently IC doesnt always have to have been IC and when looked at sensibly mot if not all the component parts of IC ytems are functional else where doing different tasks

Never mind that in nature and according to natural selection's own definition, that it wouldn't even care to find another use for it because natural selection is not Ken Miller and is not trying to win an argument.
no but as clearly shown by evolutionary biology chemical biology and natural selection its self it has a habbit of altering and recombining existant parts to change the functionality as Ken Miller demonstrated

because in nature recombination is easier them just making somthing totally new

inner ear bones were one part of jaw structure which was once part of the gill system of fish,

fin radials becomeing wrist and finger joint then becoming paws hooves flippers wings

teeth becoming beaks

scales becoming feathers

the list is endless

PBS displays this as a classic response to the fool Michael Behe is when what Ken Miller did was prove Behe's point.

so by showing a mousetrap with some missing bits are functional for other uses proves Behe's point that a moue trap with any missing pieces i totally without function?

im going to have to call once again Argument by false analogy actually probabily more of a none sequitor

The fact is the the mouse trap needed a damn college educated scientist as the guiding hand ie(god) to give that mouse trap a purpose.
no jut to how that without all its component parts it still has ome functionality so the ireducably complex argument i a crock of nonsense

[edit on 13/2/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 13/2/09 by noobfun]

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Aermacchi
This is also the reason Dawkins little program has now been terminated as an accurate illustration for natural selection and why they depend so much on the plausibility of mutation to fill in where Natural Selection fails to be logically explained. It simply doesn't work. Prof. Lennox shut out Dawkins using mathmatics pure science this way also.

its never been used as an accurate representation, infact in his own book in his own words he says what it i similar in operation but i not natural selection and clearly states why it isnt natural selection in action

yes Lennox shut out Dawkin ... was this before or after pulling out the same tired well beaten canards of religeon=morality and before or after ignoring every point made by Dawkins and just saying what he wanted to and was going to anyway and often just putting rediculous words in Dawkins mouth so he could villify him ...

'my faith is not like any other faith' ....... way to go there proffesor Lennox, if your talking about the Alabama debate maybe you should go watch it again

why are you even bringing this ambush up? Dawkins arrives for a book lecture Lennox is waiting knowing its a debate not only that but he ha hi answers written down already

theres no chance to reply to anything Lennox says in the original format but that doesnt last long

and they dont talk about evolution .. well orry Dawkins touches on it, Lennox agrees its how the variety of life got here but then chooses to talk about the origin of life its self

so how does Lennox/Dawkins debate have anything relevant to the topic, they debate has nothing to do with Evolution

its once again a red herring, it deception its an attempt to try and mash several unrelated things together through dishonesty

Lennox/dawkins has nothing to do with the toipic, Dawkins 'me thinks its like a weasel' was never presented as proof or an accurate model of natural selection

but once again dishonesty and simply making things up come to the fore, you create a lie that it was ever passed off as an accurate model and proof, then pull a red herring to assosciate a debate on somthing entierley different, then pretend that dawkins was destroyed in said debate which some how then shows that Dawkins was wrong about his 'weasel' or more accuratley a lie you just made up about it

I give you the fruit flys failures
umm which one of the many species/subspecies?

why alway the lack of accuracy? fruitfly as if it were one species, not the many species/subspecies covered by the title, several of which are a reult of lab experimentation

and Ceolcanth as if it was 1 fish not 30+ different species of fish

and E-coli as if it was just 1 single solitary strain not many that fall under the umbrella term

a the saying goes 'the devils in the detail' is that it? worried about using any langiuage that goes into detail rather then vague generaliation incase satan jumps out the keyboard?

There is both of your mechanism's
in a misrepresentational Argument by false analogy kinda way that doesnt really say anything about either of the mechanisms

Now what?
try again without the false anologies and bits you made up?

Does that occur to anyone out there in Atheist land??
that if we didnt care for facts figures context or relevance we could make up such wonderful tall tales as well?

yepp we just dont want to follow in the footsteps, if were calling creationists dishonest in thier tactics and portrayl of practically everything they talk about then it doesnt do for us to follow thier tactics and be a dishonest

1) Scientists lawyers from several firms including the ACLU were gave questions and answered un-challenged by a cross examination of any kind. More of a yes man argument.
so the question is WHY wasnt it crossexamined? not that it wasnt but why did the defence NOT question it like it DIDNT cross examine Miller either

why didnt the defense object and put forward its own ..... maybe becasue it wa accurate and they knew it?

2) ID had Michael Behe and an adversarial court system that used tactics so bombastic even going as far as stacking a pile of books infront of someone the court recognised as an "expert witness".
when your experts claims that NO peer reviewed literature exists on the subject he is talking about but then is supplied with multipul peer reviewed papers several college text book covering it and several high school texts that also cover it ......

when the expert witness clearly doesnt know or refuses to acknowledge as he did in court the existance of all the stuff his 'expertise' clearly comes into question

can you imagine everytime an expert witness took the stand all anyone would have to do is buy a stack of books and overwhelm the expert by suggesting he read all those books.
ooops no they didnt do that sorry they asked if he HAD read ANY of them, with thier bieng such a wide array easily available from high school upwards which contradict the claim that NO papers exist on the topic of the evolution of the immune system

bieng an expert on the subject and claiming none of it exits when clearly this rather large pile suggests other wise .. bieng an expert witnes does not free you from relevnat and probing cross examination theres the court transcript he continually states over and over that none of the 58 peer reviewed papers or the many books answer his question and show a detailed hypothesis of how the immune system evolved

and alo continually admits he hasnt rad most of them so i basing his claim not on fact but on what he chooses to believe


of the over 5000 words in that statement 98% were written by the ACLU and as supiciously strange as that is, it is not illegal but using it, to justify decisions on rulings during a trial is indicative of a Judge who not only didn't know how to speak for himself, but never cared enough to give this a serious impartial trial making up his mind well before the trial was even half way through.

actually i think it shows the judge not bieng an expert of evolutionary biology asked the premier scientific organisation to supply him with documentation that would allow him to understand evolutionary thoery enough to give an honest and understood ruling on it

The documentary on PBS is not an accurate depiction of ID but is more of the same liberal media that wants to use the media and science to effect public policy and elect Presidents.
if only the discovery intitue wasnt so scared of bieng asked questions .....

or had bothered to look in to what was required to apply for the immunity from evil questions that scared them all, there might have been a more accurate portrayl .. but as Behe himself in the court transcripts changes the meaning or grounds of his own argument several times when he is presented with his earlier comment that contradict his current statement no wonder they were so afraid of those evil questions created by satan himself

[edit on 13/2/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 13/2/09 by noobfun]

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:12 AM
I really need to find this video link!!!!

Can someone tell me, what page?

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Shame on you weedwhacker! You got in trouble

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Hellish-D
For those interested, there was a great NOVA documentary recently on just this topic. Since so few of us here are actually biologists, I suggest you watch it.

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

The rural community of Dover, Pennsylvania is torn apart in the latest battle over the teaching of evolution, and parents file a lawsuit against the town's school board in federal court.

This documentary is a fantastic example of the objective look at Intelligent Design vs Evolution. As I watched, I expected to be floored by the arguments on both sides, and the arguments in court. One side lived up to this expectation, the other side did not.

Judgment Day has full of reenactments and interviews with proponents of both sides of the debate. I highly recommend this documentary to anyone interested in this topic.

Here it is, for those who missed it.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by Hellish-D

effing unbelievable.

Or, should I say Frakking unbelievable....but, as always, thanks for the linky!!!

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:16 AM
I think the evolution vs. creationism arguement has been made black and white for simplicity.

Creationists are offended becasue they think evolutionists can't believe in God. they call them atheists as if that is a bad thing, but god-less none the less.

Evolutionists are offended because creationists reject all that which is science, though they have no problem using it every single day.

Except for those secs that reject it.

Fact is, you can be an evolutionist, and believe in God. What the arguement REALLY is about is that evolution debunks the bible. Because in no way, can you have the BIBLE and evolution at the same time.

As a pagan, I have no prboblems believe the God(s) Goddesse(s) have created the Earth. And did it billions of years ago. Being deities, time is not an issue. And they got a bowl of popcorn, stirred the primordial stew with the finger, and watched the show. Maybe putting in a personal touch now and then.

You can't believe in the bible and evolution at the same time, because evolution has had billions of years to work. And the bible, only 4-6 thousand years.

You can't argue ID, that God put a platypus in now and then, because that would mean we would of had to witness major evolutionary changes in a very short period of time.

I am sure there would of been an article, written somewhere, where someone said: wow, I just watched a frog changed into cardinal in a week!

So if there are christians who have ditched the Bible, they can certainly accept evolution.

And evolutionists can certianly be God fearing. The real stickler here is the Bible.

personal note:

I have no problem being decended from Apes. I don't consider animals a lesser species. Except maybe mosquitos.

But the fact that the christians find being decended from apes as degrading, that we are made in the image of God, is interesting.

I personally think that touting that we are made in the image of God, as arrogant. Nothing but arrogant. God and/or Goddess do not have forms. They appear as they want.

Fact is, we look like apes, with less hair and we stand up. We have the same social structures. the same needs. Instead of saying that it is degrading that we are decended from apes, I just see it as apes must be the favorite animal as God. A chosen work of art. I have no problem with that.

If we were made in God's image, and not an animal, then we wouldn't have hair,mammary glands, reproduce the same way, eat the same foods, give birth the same way, be hunted, catch diseases, etc etc etc.

So either God made us like the rest of the animals, which means they are special to him too. Or he/she made the animals like us, which means they are special to him too. And are otherwise interchangeable.

For all anybody knows, all we did was win the competition, to be special.

Either way, animals and humans are God's work, and we must treat each other and other species as such. And ditch the arrogance.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by nixie_nox]

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:24 AM
reply to post by nixie_nox

ermmmmm..nixie....I think you've got most of it...although a bit scattered.

I've been quite a nutter as least, some think so....

Darwin's birthday...he'd be 150, if still alive....but his ideas live on!!!!!

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Sorry, I always think of what I MEAN to say latter.

Sometimes I am just trying to get an idea out before I lose it...LOL

once its gone, it may never be recovered.

hence the scattering.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by nixie_nox]

What did I miss btw? and who called me a nutter?

[edit on 13-2-2009 by nixie_nox]

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:53 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

i would disagree with your notion of having to throw away the bible to be a chritian who agrees with evolution

i think its more a case of throwing away childish notions, and throwing away a view of god who i so powerful everything he does must be understandable to a bunch of backwards uneducated desert goat hearders

if you raise god above a simplistic retard and give him a bit of flair suddenly the creation become a metaphor so the sheep herders can understand some of what he did not a perfect descritpion of what he did

when you make your god so retarded he has to sit there for 6 days with some bluetack selotape and plastacine making all these little bit and pieces and screwing it up by mking talking snakes and magic trees when if your all knowing you really should know bette, if this is your god then your gods not all that great

but raise him above the level of retard and suddenly he can fire off like a domnioe run one dominoe falls topples the next on and on leading to a 14 billion year old system that leads to us and life on earth that he was capable of setting off 14 billion years ago and making work, no talking nakes and magic trees thats simplified for the desert goat lovers it a metaphor for our nature

im not a big fan of appologetic but id rather someone who builds a frame around reality

then one who build it right through reality and tries to destroy it in favour of thier frame work

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 03:55 PM
reply to post by noobfun

noob....your spelling may be faulty, but you seem to be on the same (funny) page!

You got yor point across, and that WAS the point!!! (I accidentally wrote pint.....but that works too!!!)

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Bringer In order to prove there is no god or there is a god you would have to be omniscient omnipotent and omnipresent.

I think omniscient would do. Being especially big and/or mighty doesn't help you know things and all that.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

i try to type as fast as the ideas pour out of my head which isnt great for spelling and my keyboards about to die of old age so the several faulty keys help even less unless i feel like spell checking(usually cant) then i make sure the message gets across and ignore the rest

glad i made you laugh with it ^_^

[edit on 13/2/09 by noobfun]

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by noobfun just made me laugh again!!!!

Just don't use that keyboard when you write your resume, if you wanna get the job!!


posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:48 PM
I think the biggest reason why Christian Creationists (there are many flavors, usually from rural communities or third world nations) simply cannot, will not, under any circumstances accept Evolution as a plausible theory is because the very core of it can be seen to unravel their entire religion. Christian Creationists, even if they claim it metaphor, need to believe in a literal interpretation of the genesis accounts - or else, to them, Christ has no meaning. There is no point in redemption without the fall. So their faith dictates that they must believe a talking snake convinced the first humans on Earth to eat a magic fruit and get kicked out of paradise so that god's son (who is also god) could redeem us though a brutal blood sacrifice to himself.

I know a lot of Christians who accept Genesis as simply a metaphor, can retain their faith, and not blind themselves to the evidence. The vast majority can, actually. I don't know what the problem is with the others - the creationists.

Lawrence Krauss, in a talk a few year ago, made a powerful anecdote from his experience with the Bush administration. He recalled once when President Bush stated that we should teach Evolution and ID in our schools, so that our children know what the debate is about. Which he mentions is not an intrinsically stupid thing to say, because if there was a debate - we would want our students to know. However, when the Avian Bird Flu panic kicked up and people were scared of a mass pandemic - not ONE cabinet member in the Bush Administration said... "Well, god must have designed this thing to kill us. No use fighting it". No. They wanted to know how fast it was mutating, and they wanted to know immediately.

I find it a bit humorous and sad, like Lawrence, that in times like these that ID seems like such a wonder contrary theory to some... but when things come to a head and we're faced with a real and impending crisis - people turn to science for a way out, without fail. They may pray for a beneficial resolution, but their actions are grounded in the laboratory, not the altar.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Hellish-D

Engrossing isn't it? It was really amazing how biologists were able to dissect and dismiss every point that the ID folks presented.

But that wasn't the most interesting part. All that the ID folks needed to do to win their case was present a viable scientific theory that could produce testable and predictable results so that it could be taught along side evolution. Not one single ID proponent was able to do it. As a matter of fact, several witnesses for the ID team failed to appear!

It was really amazing how biologists were able to dissect and dismiss every point that the ID folks presented.

LOL you are off by a LONG shot but I guess you'd have to actually read the courts transcripts to see that PBS took the most inane testimony on behalf of ID while using the best for Darwins. Never Mind that bit about tiktaalik was not entirely accurate or that Darwins camp didn't get cross examined in the movie in the short time given to portray ID as pathetic as PBS could possibly portray it, they generously used HALF of that time prosecuting it like it was a criminal act.

The reason ID, lost was NOT because it couldn't be used as a theory for the same reason evolution was allowed into schools when Clarence Darrow defended it. You can't have it both ways it is case law.

The reason it wasn't allowed is the ACLU cited sepration powers that the word science or creation or agent or anything suggesting a designer is automatically a religion. ID doesn't address orign it only adresses a mechanism and one I might add that is as obvious, observable and testable. The fact YOU never got to see that is not ID's fault no more than what evolutionists claim is there fault when the movie expelled no intelligence allowed by Ben Stein opened. Or is it only the Darwinist that get setup admitting they believed in intellegent design.

ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive you could have evolution by design.

Tiktaalik was a bust and as noob tries to slip out from the coelacanth canard, we see the same mistakes made in the PBS special but never mentioned was that not long before that, evolutionists believed the Devonian layer of geologic strata was thought to be 360 to 400 to million years ago. They believe the Jurassic layer contains certain dinosaur fossils the evolutionists thought existed during the Jurassic era 140 to 200 million years ago. That Evolutionary paleontologists used to believe that the coelacanth evolved into the first amphibian.

The biology textbooks still used today are teaching this also.

All you and all of science does is use concensus science and think it is fact. This is NOT fact and I think I am going to start calling it the logical fallacy for macroevolution by consensus.

Then, it goes how the lung of a lobefin adapted itself for breathing, and how the fins turned into legs and walked up on land and while this is a direct contradiction to what Dawkins says ( evolutionists can't EVER get their story straight because it changes with the wind)

the discovery of a living coelacanth, proved that the coelacanth's lung is only used for buoyancy NOT breathing. Like a ballast on a submarine That it is a salt-water fish not freshwater fish, that swims in deep water, , not a shallow. Never mind that it doesn't use its fins for walking on the bottom. Never mind that is like sooo many "just so" fantasy's by these pseudo scientists that have come before. Never mind that I was on this site arguing with evolutionists about this very "proof" for Darwinism, saying back then as I will now that what they got now is the bunk that doesn't prove jack squat tommorrow.

That the coelacanth is no longer considered to be the missing link between fish and amphibians that was so thrown in our faces as if it was some super thread stopper. We would say their is no transitional fossils and darwinists would pull out Coelacanth! Reload: Coelacanth! Reload: Coelacanth! Reload: blah blah blah etc, etc, et-tedious, cetera.

When all along it was BUNK Reload: Bunk Reload: Bunk Reload:

darwinian explanations had changed while I was watching and I noticed that THIS time it was Punctuated Equilibrium they touted as the answer and that species evolved rapidly in spurts.

Yet both depend upon dumb luck. Random DNA copying errors allegedly made us taller or shorter or smarter. Now Regardless of which mechanism you subscribe to about these theories, one would have to believe, evolution is either like a craps player who has occasional streaks of uncanny good luck or evolution is like a gambler who never loses his luck is so good because he is using loaded dice.

It just doesn't add up. If I was that attorney in that dover trial I would like to take Dawkins testimony of the stumped question video, you know the "engrossing one" where I will disect his incoherent mangled mutterings, tht make NO sense what so ever. I encourage you to correct me if I am missing something but keep in mind we are about to hear the testimoney of the leading Prof. in his field in the UK one,

It goes like this

DICK: "The misconception in evolution is that we ought to be able to see the intermediates, we ought to be able to see fish turning into reptiles and reptiles turning into mammals. -

So we ought NOT be able to?

Ok so we should not see the intermediates of fish turning into amphibians and into reptiles and all that

DICK: "Thats not the way it is at all fish are are modern animals they are just as modern as we are. they're descended from ancestors which we are descended from way back three hundred million years ago there would have been an ancestor which was the ancestor of modern fish and the ancestor of modern humans"

ok,,, ok,,,,,what kind of ancestor did we come from Dick?

Dick said, "The Ancestor of Modern humans and the Ancestor of Modern fish"


DICK: ""If you could have been there back then, you could have seen the fish coming onto land, becoming an amphibian but that was a long time ago you wouldn't expect to see that today. So quite a lot of the misunderstanding of evolution is that we have descended from modern animals but we're NOT. "


Dick Said:"If you could have been there back then, you could have seen" ???? SEEN what!

This is where he starts the fable and trust me if you think it is easy to prove Jesus never existed or the holocaust naver happened, as many Atheist's would have us believe, WAIT till you try to prove what happened 350 million years ago!

You think you got problems with a two thousand years old book! I should BE so bothered!


Dick said "If you could have been there back then you could have seen the fish coming onto land, becoming an amphibian"

But DICK! Didn't you just say the that was the misconception that we ought not expect to see the intermediates?

to see fish turning into reptiles and reptiles turning into mammals is the common misconception?

Yeah, he said that and

We're not descended from modern monkeys were not descended from modern fish from modern apes. They are modern animals just as WE are they are our cousins, not our ancestors.

After copy pasting his statement to my Science writer program I get grade level 21 which is usually the scores I get with richards writing, 80 for superfluous word usage which is usually indicative of those using circular logic and deception and the score for readability is pathetic.

This is one smart verbal gymnast but one complete failure as teacher. Intelligent Scientists should be able to make the complex simple even for average intelligence to grasp but what we see Richard doing is quite the opposite, this is wordsmithing, obfuscation and where I come from we call this "covering our own ass"

All of this is ONE HUGE contradiction.

All of this is one HUGE bit of Circular logic and

All of this does NOT answer the question first asked

All Richard has done here, was side step the question answering one that was never asked but raises another.

Consensus Science

Consider the difference between these two questions: "When was the Declaration of Independence signed?" and "When do most historians say the Declaration of Independence was signed?" The phrasing of the question affects how the answer is proved to be true or false.

If one gives the answer "1776" to the first question, one merely needs to cite the date on the document as proof. If one gives the answer "1776" to the second question, then one needs to cite a survey of historians. In the second case, it doesn't matter if the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 or not. All that matters is how many historians think that it was signed in that year.

Their example of drug interruption therapy for HIV illustrates an important point that PBS chose to ignore. It has been noted by some people that the "super bugs" (the most drug resistant bacteria), tend to exist primarily in hospitals. There is an explanation for this observation which is consistent with the facts.

According to this explanation, ordinary bacteria don't survive well in the antiseptic environment of a hospital. Only the antiseptic-resistant varieties are able to survive there. The reason why they survive is that they don't absorb antibiotics very well. The reason why they don't absorb antibiotics very well is that they don't absorb anything well, including nutrients. Outside the hospital environment, they have to compete with other bacteria that do absorb nutrients well. Consequently, the super bugs starve to death when they have to compete with ordinary bacteria because they are less fit for survival under normal circumstances.

That, according to the theory, is why drug interruption therapy sometimes works for AIDS patients. Stopping the drug treatment for a while allows the non-resistant HIV virus to compete with the drug-resistant HIV virus. The resistant HIV loses the competition to the ordinary HIV. Once the resistant strain has lost the battle of survival, then large doses of the HIV drug are given to wipe out the ordinary variants of HIV.

Drugs do not create new forms of viruses or bacteria. Drugs merely eliminate some variants, allowing existing variants to become more plentiful. It is the relative numbers of the various kinds of critters that change, not the critters themselves

What is the best argument against evolution?

What is the best argument in favor of evolution?

Their best argument is, “We are here,

so we must have evolved.”

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 09:22 PM
It's extremely amusing how so many people do not know what fact and theory means in science.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in