Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicking O... 
traderdrew
17 y
3,199
I have taken some time to study intelligent design recently. I look at what some of these evolutionists write and it seems to me that they in a state of panic over I.D. I see it in various books I find at the bookstore or reading info on the net.
Here is one example:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
Here is a reply from Michael Behe to the above: http://www.iscid.org/papers/Behe_ReplyToCritics_121201.pdf
Such a brief story is of no use at all in understanding how the irreducible complexity of the
clotting cascade could be dealt with by natural selection. It strikes me that the main purpose of
the paragraph is not to actually contribute to our understanding of how clotting actually may
have arisen, but to persuade those who aren't familiar with biochemical complexity to believe
Darwinism has the problem under control. It doesn't....and another one:
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm
This link above tells us that researchers estimated arthropods diverged from primitive chordates over 900 million years ago.
That is fine but the problem is I can't find any fossil records for primitive chordates before the Cambrian explosion that occurred some 530 million years ago. I can't find any pre-Cambrian arthropods either.
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... #76830
17 y
3,202
MoreThis is a reply to # 1,255,698Ooooo... yeah... I'm shaking with fear over it.
You have to be kidding.- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... traderdrew
17 y
3,004
MoreThis is a reply to # 1,255,764Kidding? I can see how you can view me this way if you are steadfast into thinking that evolution is unshakeable. If you are willing to look at both sides of the debate, study up on it.
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... #104232
17 y
3,039
This is a reply to # 1,256,107Advertisement
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenrod
Only people who don't understand evolution and have supernatural tendencies think that evolution is in trouble. For 150 years since it's inception every discovery inv every field of Science has supported the ToE.- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... traderdrew
17 y
2,945
This is a reply to # 1,256,242
Let me put it this way. When I saw the movie No Intelligence Allowed, I heard on of the scientists say, "Beware of one hand clapping." I recently took that advice and I started reading a couple of books that support evolution. I have not finished them but I was surprised when I actually found myself debating the information that supposedly crushes positions of ID. One was the new evolution book called Only a Theory by Kenneth Miller. Inside he claimed his book proclaimed some sort of victory over ID. From my point of view, he did nothing of the sort. I read his answers to ID positions about the Cambrian explosion and irreducible complexity. Now I don't even have a college degree but I was able to see obvious flaws in his arguments. I have only read a small fraction of his book. If you wish to cut and paste this information right out of his book, I will refute it.
I have lost almost all my fear for reading books that support evolution.
I do have a respect for science. It obviously has its place in our society but it seems to me that these evolutionary scientists are indeed humans after all.
There was a time some 150 years ago when evolution made sense and creation didn't. Science had made a lot of discoveries in the past century. I think the pendulum is swinging the other way and it has moved into the hands of those who are proponents of ID.
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... #104232
17 y
3,045
This is a reply to # 1,256,735I see your problem. You have taken a poorly made propaganda film at face value. There are several websites dedicated to correcting the many intentional errors in expelled. Two of them are:
http://www.expelledexposed.com
and
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Expelled:Leader%27s_Guide
You also have your history turned around. For thousands of years, the supernatural theories of creation were held to be true, but as we learned more about the true nature of the universe it because evident that majiks weren't needed. I challenge you to find any real Science that is not in line with the ToE, there is none. If you really think your refutations have any value, take them to Talkrational, JREF, RichardDawkins, BiologyOnline, IIDB, or rantsnraves and you'll quickly find that there are many people there to set you straight.
Finally the only people that think ID is making headway is those that don't understand evolution. The attack by IDiots and Crediots is not a scientific one, any ground they gain achieved through politics. This is because they do no science, no research, no original work.Advertisement
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenrod
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... traderdrew
17 y
3,000
This is a reply to # 1,256,809
I challenge you to find any real science that is not in line with ToE, there is none.
Unfortunately I cannot because this is like a loaded question. Since hard science is defined by what can be tested and if there is any idea that a creator was involved, it is automatically disqualified. I can give readers something to wonder about.
How about the sudden appearance of just one phylum "trilobites" and other had bodied groups of phyla during the Cambrian? No apparent ancestors were before them.
If you fit the Earth's history into a 24 hour period of time, the Cambrian would have lasted one minute. During this period of time, a large majority of new phylum suddenly appeared. Even evolutionists have stated that there should have been enough evidence in sedimentary rocks before the Cambrian to preserve ancestors even soft bodied ancestors. Even if genes were responsible for the sudden diversity of body plans, how did they evolve? What process of natural selection led to their development? If this was the case, why didn't these genes reassert themselves during the 510 million years after the Cambrian?
The simple to more complex body designs is what we have seen in cars and automobiles. We saw the basic body designs first and then engineers improved on these machines. I think biological body designs were made in the same way. This probably explains the jumps in evolutionary lineages of various groups of animals.
Back to my original point about evolutionists panicking. This is a paraphrased quote from Miller's book, "When people see a rainbow, scientists might want to understand the physics of light but creationists attribute it to a creation of God. Inquiry will become lost because that is where it ends for creationists." This is just one reason why we have to stop ID from being taught in our schools. If you ask me this is ridiculous. There will always be people like Miller who wish to study the physics of light and I think the vast majority of creationists believe that the world is a unified order that sustains itself.
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
3,111
This is a reply to # 1,256,871There is nothing "sudden" about the appearance of trilobites and the lack of definitive answer on that doesn't mean that evolution is not a fact. If we were to apply such a standard then nothing is true because in every field there remains questions that have not been answered. In the evo-creo Debate Forums the creos like to throw this around. And as we like to point out; just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can't know anything. The little number game may play big in the bible belt, among intelligent people it is just dumb to try it with anybody that can do math. Why don't you try calculation how "long" humans have been around in this 24h clock.
You are also making the same logical errors of the typical creationist - frankly it's tiring having to correct, in every board, the same mistakes over and over and over ...) the assumption that life today is a reflection of the beginning of life and that that the first lifeforms were as complex as those of today. The basics of evolution explain everything 1) life replicates imperfectly 2)natural selection results in preferential reproduction. Do you realize that natural selection IS a process?
And you may not realize it this is the reason why ID cannot be taught in Science class. It is not Science because it invokes a supernatural force that initiates and guides the process. Science is a naturalistic pursuit so Miller is correct to oppose the teaching of what is essentially religion and trying to pass it off as science. You can have religion and creationism classes to read up on the hundreds of creation myths but don't befoul science class with religion.Advertisement
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenrod
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... dquixote1217
17 y
2,895
This is a reply to # 1,257,270
Anderson Cooper? LOL
Does being in "the bible belt" preclude intelligence?
Although I can certainly see that there is a lack of sound agreement on just what teaching intelligent design might entail and how much of what passes for intelligent design theory could be considered merely religious myths in great part, some also might argue that the reason ID cannot be taught in schools is because Scientists cannot except that there might be any entity more knowledgeable and highly developed than themselves, even though a great truism about science appears to be that today's science often becomes tomorrow's de-bunked quackery.
Do not many scientists believe in the possiblity, if not the probability, of other intelligent life in the universe? After all, it is a very big and very old universe (no I do not doubt the "scientific" age of the universe being billions of years old). I have seen "scientific" estimates that some planets likely exist where there is life that are at least 5 million years further along than we are. If such is true, then when one take humans at their present woeful stage of development (or some other life form at a similar stage of development) and gives them 5 million more years to develope, surely there is a distinct possibility that they could have reached a point where their abilities and technologies would be truly "godlike" in comparison to we mere highly fallible mortals on this tiny speck in universe - even the almighty scientists.
And if such highly advanced beings existed, would that not give at least the possibility of entities existing who could design, create, and even guide the development of other life forms? Perhaps including programming the genetic code itself for adaptation and survival. Actually, I cannot see how someone could believe in evolution and not believe in such a possiblity - or at least not totally exclude it.
Just thinking out loud here, or trying to (you know how it is for us who are disadvantaged by being in "the bible belt").
You stated the two basic tenents of evolution. I think there is onc in creation that science has never been able to adequately explain away. How did the universe begin in the first place? In other words, where did the very first matter come from. How did it get created in other words. Oops - there's that word . . .
DQ
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
3,148
This is a reply to # 1,257,281Yeah Jerk those are my family names.
ID should not be taught in Science class not because as you so ignorantly assert "Scientists cannot except that there might be any entity more knowledgeable" but because it fails to meet the standards of science. Chiefly naturalism.
Evolution will never be debunked. To do so would require that we'd also debunk physics, chemistry, biology, geology, cosmology, astronomy and every other science. The term quackery is more suited to homeopathy.
Many scientists are religious, however to do Science you must take a naturalistic approach. This is why the (legit) Science of a muslim, sikh, hindu, jew, christian is the same. They don't apply their religion to retrofit their findings, they know that to do so is theology and not science. And while you are free to speculate about your advance aliens, magical beings, or anything else, without evidence it is not science and it belongs in the fiction category. The evidence as supports the parsimonious explanation provided by ToE. As William of Ockham writes "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
BTW Big bang is not part of the ToE.
Advertisement
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenrod
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... dquixote1217
17 y
2,999
This is a reply to # 1,257,300
"Jerk" you say? I merely remarked LOL because you just happen to have, or have chosen, the same name as a noted journalist and writer. It is rare to see someone choose their real name here. Got a phota?
It is also funny how you resemble someone else who comes newborn to the evolution and vaccination forums and immediately begins attacking other members by calling them "jerks" and further slurring them with terms like "ignorant" instead of sticking to the debate. Pretty ballsy for a Newbie. aren't you "Anderson"? Maybe you should do some scientific research on the CureZone TOS policies.
ToE stands for THEORY of evolution, does it not? Lots of definitions for that word, such as "hypothesis", "conjecture", "speculation", etc. As pertains to science it generally means "the general or abstract principles of a body of fact," or "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another" but even so, nowhere is a theory itself defined as a fact.
Just to sit you at ease, I am fully aware of the reasons put forward as to why creationism should not be taught in schools. The same reasons are often used by science poeple to protect what they believe is their turf. Nevertheless, as it so happens I do not believe that religious creationism should be taught as science in schools either. Perhaps as part of elective classes on religion, but certainly not as science. And the ToE itself should be taught as a scientific theory based on a set of facts, because by definition it has not been completely proven regardless of the facts that have been presented to base the theory on.
BTW, since you seem so interested in correctness, the correct verb you should have used is "accept", as the other Anderson Cooper could have likely told you. Taken literally, your sentence would be nonsense and not at all "scientific".
DQ
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
3,047
This is a reply to # 1,257,322There are plenty of marriages between Andersons and Coopers, it is common enough so it protects my privacy and it avoids the childish handles of fictional characters. And it's funny how you are a jerk. You laugh at my name, I call you a jerk simple. Now, if you hadn't acted like a spoilt child and remarked "AC, interesting" and not LOL that would have been different.
I see by your history that you like to lobby the same accusation to everyone that speaks the truth. Frankly the Evo forum is one of the most important because of the education or rather miseducation that the I.D.iots and Crediots want to impose on our schools and from a health perspective the Anti-vaxxers are the greatest threat to public health. Maybe I'll stop by the homeopathy, silver, cleansing, liver flush, and Rife liars and set them straight too.
And you know nothing about science, despite you claim about "advance" courses. A scientific theory is not a hypothesis, or conjecture or speculation. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY had a very specific definition. Why don't you do some real investigative work and get yourself a Science dictionary Jayson Blair? Evolution is a FACT. The theory of Evolution provides the mechanistic models. EVOLUTION IS FACT. The Theory of Evolution explains that fact.
Evolution is taught as a scientific fact and if the teacher is doing their job correctly, ToE is taught as a scientific theory. In this way it is no different that String theory or Atomic Theory. The scientific theories are the naturalistic explanations that address the observed facts and make predictions. Any teacher that presents the Theory of the Fact as a Fact is lying to their students.
Advertisement
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenrod
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... dquixote1217
17 y
2,899
This is a reply to # 1,257,467
"There are plenty of marriages between Andersons and Coopers"
So you ended up with one family's last name as your first name? Whatever you say, AC. Were these two families closely related perchance?
Yes, by all means do stop by the homeopathy, silver, cleansing, liver flush, and Rife liars and set them straight too. You will no doubt be welcomed with open arms and quite the popular guy here by providing information the vast majority of members have already rejected on a website which was created to provide alternatives to mainstream medications. Just like the graveyards of America are littered with millions who have died from the side effects of approved mainstream medicines, so is the CureZone graveyard littered with the dead and banned IDs of mainstream trolls who come here and post nothing but information contrary to the stated purpose of this website. Good luck!
I personally will take homeopathy, silver, cleansing, liver flush, and Rife over anything mainstream medication has to offer beyond diagnoses and repair of broken parts.
DQ
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
3,025
This is a reply to # 1,257,530You are a foolish to assume that Anderson is my given name; I've seen enough of your posts to realize that you tend to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. And that is enough to address the second and third paragraph of your post.
Just like the graveyards are littered with the millions of victims of CAM quacks and anti-vax liars, the ones left standing are those of us who know how to use the available scientific evidence to better their health.
Your paltry threats are the sign of a desperate fool, whose sole means of maintaining order is through assassinations and disappearances. Kim Jong-il could use a guy like you.Advertisement
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenrod
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
3,025
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... traderdrew
17 y
2,999
This is a reply to # 1,257,467
I believe you are correct when someone states when a theory is a fact is lying to their students. It seems to me that when an evolutionist proclaims something as a fact, what they are actually doing is of the same things they accuse proponents of ID. When proponents of ID start say something like the universe is fine-tuned, we are accused of abuseing science or that we are stopping all injuiry into further investigation. Like evolution, ID is based on a preponderance of evidence. At least they both can demonstrate a preponderance of evidence. I think IDs greatest stength is a fine-tuned universe. Atheists seem to hate hearing things like this so they come up with theories such as "guided transpermia" or the concept of a multi-universe in order to to build an escape hatch from the idea that there was a creator. Unbenounced to them, the mulit-universe theory actually calls for a creator because there has to be something that creates universes such as a machine.
As far as your beliefs that there are ancestors to trilobites or other groups of unique creatures of the Cambrian era, you cannot prove it with the fossil record. Your belief is based on your rigid adherence to your belief system thinking that ToE is the only acceptable theory.
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
2,896
This is a reply to # 1,258,058The theory of evolution is as much a fact as the atomic theory or the theory of gravity. Scienctists are conservative when making declaration and so we are left with the Theory of Evolution - not because it isn't a fact but because from a scientific standpoint that is how it has been defined. You will find few "law" and absolute declarations in science so it remains the ToE. For this reason Evolution while it's a fact remains as theory, it is actually a tribute to the intellectual honesty of the scientist. The IDiots and Crediots otoh KNOW that god was responsible - theirs is a dishonest position.
When IDiots declare the universe is fined tuned, they are not making a primary observation, they are making a conclusion and introducing magical beings into the equation. What ID does is shoe horn some facts into a magical explanation while ignoring many others because they don't fit. Michael Behe's flagella has already been shown to be false and so have all the other arguments put forth by ID propopents. What IDiots do is have an apriori conclusion about the role of God and then jam some facts into their speculation.
It is your ingorance that is the problem. There is plenty of information on trilobites for any honest person willing to look for it.
Advertisement
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenrod
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... traderdrew
17 y
2,970
This is a reply to # 1,258,147
First of all, I didn't say that I do not believe in ToE. I think it is a legitimate theory but only to a certain extent. What do you do to a computer then you want it do perform a new task? You have to program it with new information. The same thing goes with DNA. With evolution you can shuffle existing genes and create a new related species but you have to input new information into the genetic code to create new phylum.
Sure there is information on trilobites. I think there were approximately fourteen species and they survived many millions of years after their sudden appearance. They were all variations of each other and this I believe was an example of what can happen when genes become reshuffled.
When IDiots declare the universe is fine tuned, they are not making a primary observation, they are making a conclusion and introducing magical beings into the equation.
Have you ever heard of the cosmological constant? It says that the chances of getting a universe arranged the way it is 1 part in 10 to the 120th power. If I am right that is 1 chance over a 1 with 120 zeros after it. Common sense says that you must conclude that there was a supernatural explanation. This is just one sign out of many others that suggests universe was designed. Even our solar system suggests design. It sits comfortably between two spiral arms in this galaxy so it isn't exposed to dangerous radiation of the activity in the arms of the Milky Way.
Michael Behe's flagella has already proven to be false.
If you are referring to the bacteria that inject poison, this is just a point of view. I think Miller's mousetrap analogy with a device that fires spitballs was flawed. His finger and the spitballs are two new parts of a new irreducibly complex design but I don't think that was really his point. His veiw is just a point of view dictated from the neo-darwin paradigm. It also depends partly on someone changing of the definition of irreducible complexity.
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
2,942
This is a reply to # 1,258,176p>Your analogy is flawed. I've had to correct the same idiotic analogy over at AIG not too long ago. First your use of information theory is pooly applied to living systems and secondly unlike a computer, life replicates - and it does so imperfectly. Life does more than just shuffle, it adds, removes, replicates, shifts, duplicates. There is a reason why you guys like to resort to analogies; to confuse the issue and because the facts don't support your assertions.
You are being dishonest regarding the appearance of trilobites, it was not "sudden". It wasn't magic; the putative ancestors of the trilobites are known and they left plenty of evidence.
Talkorigins has a few pages explaining the nonsense of the comosmological constant/fine tuning. Read up on it.
Axle-Less F 1-ATPase Rotates in the Correct Direction
Science 15 February 2008:Vol. 319. no. 5865, pp. 955 - 958There are so many other experimental examples showing that Behe is simply wrong that it is brutally dishonest for you to bring it up as supporting evidence
Advertisement
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenrod
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... traderdrew
17 y
2,952
This is a reply to # 1,258,196
I can't find any good information about the cosmological constant in Talk Orgins. You didn't document your evidence here very well at all. You usually appear professional on CNN but I see you are showing much more of your liberal bias when you are not on TV.
Here is something interesting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC352.html
Archaeoraptor was touted by scientists as a bird-dinosaur transition, but it was revealed as a fake.
Read #1 and #3 under Response
They say that the body is from one genus and the tail is from another genus. So Talk Orgins says that attaching two different fossils and naming it Archaeoraptor saying that it is a transition between dinosaurs and birds will not make it a scientific fraud! Is that not a convoluted point of view? Once again it seems to me that evolutionists are on the defensive and panicking.
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
3,012
This is a reply to # 1,258,810
Good of you to shift the goalposts from one losing proposition to another. Aside from having no facts, distorting the truth, your position suffers from schizophrenia. Choose a topic and stick to it!!
The creationist liars claim that : Archaeoraptor was touted by scientists as a bird-dinosaur transition, but it was revealed as a fake.
The truth is that :
- Archaeoraptor was not a scientific fraud. It was put
together by the Chinese fossil hunter who discovered it. The pieces
were assembled to make the fossil more marketable to collectors, not to
researchers. This worker may or may not have known that the tail came
from a separate fossil (Simons 2000).
- Archaeoraptor was published in the popular press, not in
peer-reviewed journals. The main author of the article about it was National
Geographic's art editor, not a scientist. Nature and Science
both rejected papers describing it, citing suspicions that it was
doctored and illegally smuggled (Dalton 2000; Simons 2000). Normal
scientific procedures worked to uphold high standards.
- The two halves of Archaeoraptor (Yanornis martini, the body, and Microraptor zhaoianus, the tail) are valuable fossils in their own right (Rowe et al. 2001; Xu et al. 2000; Zhou et al. 2002).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Cooling.cfm
Advertisement
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenrod
Expand 17 messages, 21 to 37 of 37 traderdrew
17 y
2,904
- Archaeoraptor was not a scientific fraud. It was put
together by the Chinese fossil hunter who discovered it. The pieces
were assembled to make the fossil more marketable to collectors, not to
researchers. This worker may or may not have known that the tail came
from a separate fossil (Simons 2000).
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
3,012
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... traderdrew
17 y
2,952
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
2,942
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... traderdrew
17 y
2,970
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
2,896
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... dquixote1217
17 y
2,899
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
3,047
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... dquixote1217
17 y
2,999
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
3,148
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... dquixote1217
17 y
2,895
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... AndersonCooper
17 y
3,111
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... traderdrew
17 y
3,000
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... #104232
17 y
3,045
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... traderdrew
17 y
2,945
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... #104232
17 y
3,039
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... traderdrew
17 y
3,004
- Re: Evolutionists Seem To Be Panicki... #76830
17 y
3,202
