tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5412723849917856312..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: IDiot Quote of the DayLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63865347034569220322014-10-27T09:20:33.996-04:002014-10-27T09:20:33.996-04:00I think the problem here is that evolutionist in t...I think the problem here is that evolutionist in this blog believe in the existence of "theory of creation" or "creationism" those two things just dont exist.. for something to be considered a theory it must have according to the scientific method, a testable and approved hypothesis... and that has not happened yet.. they just elevate their talk to science to try to make it relevant, but so far, there has been No evidence, so it is only talk.. do not fall into thair game, creation is not science, and creationist are not scientists...[[Conde]]https://www.blogger.com/profile/03496918244706705677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26711713399770566082013-02-11T17:06:06.577-05:002013-02-11T17:06:06.577-05:00Dangerous is a dangerous use of words in targeting...Dangerous is a dangerous use of words in targeting people and ideas.<br />Its saying its received wisdom of a society that these dangerous ideas are wrong and bad.<br />This not from society but from someone imagining their position gives them a boss status.<br />I mean the newspapers here quoted.<br /><br />Mr Klinghoffer is Jewish and , I think, defending a fellow Jew.<br />He isn't a YEC creationist.<br />He often stresses this in his writings.<br />He simply wants a God with fingerprints on nature as a excellent option or conclusion based on natures evidence.<br />He's wrong to run from the creationist tent.<br />He gets attention because he touches on peoples ideas of God, maybe Genesis, being revealed or acceptable by natures evidence.<br />ID people are believers in God or Christ.<br />Evolutionists got a good point about if it looks like a duck.<br /><br />The moral and intellectual leadership of creationism and all oppositions to evolution etc etc should be YEC.<br />Today its ID that has created the modern revolution that has shook the thinking world.<br />The future however must be better managed.<br />America was a Yankee Puritan creation despite a Southern angligan upper class intellectual leadership.<br />Same thing now. Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23062305506645426012013-02-11T06:51:16.229-05:002013-02-11T06:51:16.229-05:00I will go slow. Try to focus.
You said, "Th...I will go slow. Try to focus. <br /><br />You said, <i>"They must have learned this from DEvoLUSIONISTS, who neither provided them with testable theories or ideas for the biochemical evolution, nor for macro-evolution."</i><br /><br />I point out that Universal Common Ancestry (a cornerstone of evolutionary theory) is testable, and that someone has tested it, and link to the Theobald paper. In my second comment, I even reminded you of the topic at hand, by saying <i>"Remember, it was you who made the claim that we just assume common descent. I showed you the paper where it is formally tested."</i> <br /><br />You then switch topics which metaphor best describes this process. This is a clear abandonment of the topic we were actually discussing. Though it is a fun topic of legitimate debate, it is completely off topic to our discussion. <br /><br />Will you retract your "no testable hypothesis" statement?TheOtherJimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01727633779107067250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77291750548104250662013-02-10T20:22:15.237-05:002013-02-10T20:22:15.237-05:00@Allan Miller
Didn't mean to be disrespectful...@Allan Miller<br /><br />Didn't mean to be disrespectful but some DEvoLUTIONISTS have distracted me... The problem with the genetic code is that even if it has evolved (like that can be explained by evolutionary terms or laws) it (evolution) in itself does not make any sense ...I'm not in a mood to explain this as very few would get it; or accept it. Look in the literature and I will try to find something that proves my point. Few years ago we did a study on that and we could make any sense of it in an evolutionary sense, so you know what happened?<br /><br />This article is no too bad though it does not cover all the problems with the code evolution if that is really possible. If someone claims it is, it's not a Darwinian evolution or any logical process... Well, you be the judge...<br />http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02103422?LI=true#page-2Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757817713984430982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29314489245463335742013-02-10T19:52:29.661-05:002013-02-10T19:52:29.661-05:00@TheOtherJim
Go back to the basics and do some re...@TheOtherJim <br />Go back to the basics and do some reaidind...I'm not going to do any explaining on an idea that is dead. Yeah... you choose to believe in it but that is not my problem...Science has moved on...Even Larry swallowed it and moved on...So why can't you? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757817713984430982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49658455810886820562013-02-10T19:40:54.058-05:002013-02-10T19:40:54.058-05:00@Piotr
"FYI, I'm not an English teacher b...@Piotr<br />"FYI, I'm not an English teacher but a linguist. My particular area of interest is language variation and change. You know, the stuff they call evolution." <br /><br />In what category of experts on the theme does that put you??? Neither? You might try to test language variations in a test tube and see where it takes you... ;) what a oxymoron or osiol ;)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757817713984430982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77383928001705370792013-02-10T19:32:05.222-05:002013-02-10T19:32:05.222-05:00@Piotr
I knew you have never been to a lab and sin...@Piotr<br />I knew you have never been to a lab and since linguistics do not require one, all you have is nothing to present...<br />BTW: Linguistics means many languages...In how many languages can you explain your blind faith? I'm just curios...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757817713984430982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85523799618856484572013-02-10T17:45:58.967-05:002013-02-10T17:45:58.967-05:00@John Witton
I'm still waiting for you to add...@John Witton<br /><br />I'm still waiting for you to address my actual point. Even with a "web of life" or a "net of life" (AKA Horizontal Genet Transfer (HGT)), common descent is the best explanation. Please explain your point.TheOtherJimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01727633779107067250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88235349082447570602013-02-10T17:34:17.375-05:002013-02-10T17:34:17.375-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88167165771071082562013-02-10T16:52:55.787-05:002013-02-10T16:52:55.787-05:00Judging from your lunatic blabbering, it's bee...Judging from your lunatic blabbering, it's been a long time since you were anywhere near a classroom where biology was taught, let alone inside a lab. Are you perchance another magic shroom junkie trying to instruct the world how science should be practiced?<br /><br />FYI, I'm not an English teacher but a linguist. My particular area of interest is language variation and change. You know, the stuff they call evolution.Piotr GÄ…siorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50316990415917578842013-02-10T16:41:04.347-05:002013-02-10T16:41:04.347-05:00@Piotr Gasiorowski
What do you know? You're a...@Piotr Gasiorowski<br /><br />What do you know? You're an English teacher...Have you ever been in a lab? If yes, show me your data from the experiment that proves endosymbiosis of prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic...<br />Then will talk... If not, continue in your DEovLUSION ;)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757817713984430982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53720171318670094152013-02-10T16:11:26.337-05:002013-02-10T16:11:26.337-05:00Well, I just know I'm being trolled, but ... d...Well, I just know I'm being trolled, but ... did you actually understand my point about the different codes, and the far greater amount of commonality than difference, and the implication of that for Common Descent? I really don't think you did. No-one is obliged to take anything Venter, or Prof Moran, or Dawkins says, or your bizzarely distorted version thereof. There is real scientific data on this, not a guess, and it points clearly to universal common descent. Anyone who thinks otherwise, or thinks someone else thinks otherwise, needs to confront that data, not pick sentences off the interweb. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73261220790435911932013-02-10T15:17:25.375-05:002013-02-10T15:17:25.375-05:00@John Witton: You don't get it, do you? "...@John Witton: You don't get it, do you? "The tree of life" is just an idealised model whose adequacy depends on to what extent inheritance is strictly vertical (from one generation to the next). It works very well for eukaryotes, but if there's a lot of HGT, the structure of relationships between organisms becomes web-like rather than tree-like (and the history of individual genes is not the same as the history of their carriers). It's no problem for universal common descent.<br /><br />But then, I know you aren't interested in understanding any of it.Piotr GÄ…siorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46380661986930154122013-02-10T15:01:04.072-05:002013-02-10T15:01:04.072-05:00@Diogenes, Allan Miller, TheOtherJim, Steve Obersk...@Diogenes, Allan Miller, TheOtherJim, Steve Oberski: <br /><br />I was going to play you for few more days, especially Mr.. bigmouth creepy attitude Diogenes, and then let you have it until you bleed to death...However, professor Moran has done it for me...Too bad he jumped the gun with his new blog... :(<br /><br />I was going to have a lot of fun... I still had, but not as much as I was intending to... Well, all you can do now is try to prove professor Moran wrong, who stated: "Everything that Venter says (in the video) is correct."<br /> <br />http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2013/02/craig-ventor-discusses-tree-of-life.html<br /><br />So...the logical concussion must be, either professor Moran is a creationist.... Or you don't know the basis of biology??? Take you pick..<br /><br />Have a DEvoLUSIONAL day:)<br /><br />Love, IDs<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757817713984430982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39001458262264340272013-02-10T14:14:45.166-05:002013-02-10T14:14:45.166-05:00And I see that I have misinterpreted your statemen...And I see that I have misinterpreted your statement, my apologies.steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4127493891710369802013-02-10T08:19:00.614-05:002013-02-10T08:19:00.614-05:00He's got 100 millions a year to burn.
And tha...<i>He's got 100 millions a year to burn.</i><br /><br />And that is all there really is to your position.<br /><br />Extortion messages delivered via fairy tales.<br /><br />With sociopathic smiley faces. How sweet.steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3235773070259904302013-02-10T05:43:32.816-05:002013-02-10T05:43:32.816-05:00Of course Dawkins knows that the genetic code is n...Of course Dawkins knows that the genetic code is not *the same* in every lineage. But how 'different' is it? There are about 9 variant codons out of the 64 possible ones, which means 50-odd out of 64 are <i>in</i>variant. There are 17+ different codes, but the differences cluster on different permutations of those 9. Those that vary almost all act, in at least one lineage, as a STOP codon. Which suggests a mechanistic connection between code lability and STOP codons. <br /><br />If a set of pieces of text were 55/64ths 'similar' to one another, I'd be saying, as Dawkins does, unanswered by Venter : "That means they are (probably) related .... doesn't it?"AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9636499178088093272013-02-10T05:03:52.876-05:002013-02-10T05:03:52.876-05:00See my reply, below.See my reply, below.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58349805299243168482013-02-10T05:02:35.530-05:002013-02-10T05:02:35.530-05:00Now, this really is turning into a Gish Gallop.Now, this really <i>is</i> turning into a Gish Gallop. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55974308899031479832013-02-10T04:55:42.808-05:002013-02-10T04:55:42.808-05:00DEvoLUSIONIST
You need something snappier, a bit ...<i>DEvoLUSIONIST</i><br /><br />You need something snappier, a bit easier to type. <br /><br />@Steve,<br /><br />You're right, bonehead.AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72506661076409739272013-02-10T04:45:16.198-05:002013-02-10T04:45:16.198-05:00Witton, you're a liar or an idiot.
Craig Vent...Witton, you're a liar or an idiot.<br /><br /><i>Craig Venter denies common descent, says the tree of life is a joke...<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMQkAqxNeE<br /></i><br /><br />That video does not say what you say it says, so you're lying or an idiot. Venter doesn't deny common descent, so the title of this video is another creationist lie. Shocking... I'm shocked.<br /><br />Everybody knows there's a lot of HGT among bacteria, not among animals and plants. Animals and plants, eukaryotes still form a tree of life and Venter knows it. He even described the bacteria he found as "deeply branching". "Branching" means Venter knows there's a tree.<br /><br />Witton, are you a regular at Uncommon Descent?Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14627237183987670332013-02-10T04:35:50.755-05:002013-02-10T04:35:50.755-05:00I'm sure that one of DEvoLUTIONISTS knows some...<i>I'm sure that one of DEvoLUTIONISTS knows some basic physics and will be able to decode whether the scientists were wrong or the External Agent was... </i><br /><br />Well, you pasted little snippets of quotes and you're a creationist, so you probably didn't read it and if you did it, a creationist has the reading comprehension of a limpet. <br /><br />So I can't trust the quotes, they might be taken out of context to change their meaning.<br /><br />But, you want us to decode whether the scientists were wrong. How many times do I have to say this.<br /><br />First of all, if you don't have a grand unified theory, you CANNOT compute the probability of physical constants having a different value. What's the probability of Planck's constant being 10 percent higher? No one knows.<br /><br />Secondly, this bullprob calculations multiply together probabilities, which assumes the probabilities are independent. If you DID have a grand unified theory, the probabilities would NOT be independent, they'd be coupled (that's why we call it "unified") so multiplying probabilities is fallacious.<br /><br />Thirdly, they make the mud puddle fallacy. They switch the 'adapter' and the 'adaptee', which always gives you astronomically incorrect probabilities. A mud puddle is the 'adapter' that adapts to the ditch it's in, the ditch is the 'adaptee'.<br /><br />But if you stupidly assume the ditch's match to the shape of the mud in it is due to a random rearrangement of the Earth, you get an astronomically incorrect probability. If you were smart and assumed the mud puddle's match to the shape of the ditch is due to minimum free energy, you get the right probability.<br /><br />Life adapted itself to the physical constants. If you stupidly compute the probability that the physical constants adapted themselves to life, you get an astronomically wrong probability.<br /><br />Fourth, <b>God of the Gaps!!</b> What makes you think that an astronomically small probability (which was computed astronomically incorrectly) proves that "a spook did it" is the default hypothesis?<br /><br />Who decided that "a spook did it" is the default hypothesis that "wins" every time you trick an uneducated audience into thinking there's no natural explanation, which you got by computing astronomically incorrect probabilities?<br /><br />The Cotton Mather logic here.<br /><br />1. If there's no natural explanation for a phenomena, default hypothesis is that a spook did it.<br />2. My cow died.<br />3. I don't know any natural cause for that.<br />4. A spook did it.<br /><br />You think your error might be in step (1)?Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-341542466575264522013-02-10T03:47:23.330-05:002013-02-10T03:47:23.330-05:00So you have no reply to analysis that shows best h...So you have no reply to analysis that shows best hypothesis to explain extant genetic diversity, even give HGT*, is common descent. Remember, it was you who made the claim that we just assume common descent. I showed you the paper where it is formally tested. <br /><br />Instead you are resorting to a Gish-Gallop of misquoting other people's work, misrepresenting them to suit you religious bent. Typical. If you want to have a real conversation, read the paper and get back to me. <br /><br /><br /><br />*All that the Venter / Dawkins things was about is whether a "tree" is the best metaphor, versus a "net". This topic has been discussed on this blog (ex. http://sandwalk.blogspot.de/2009/07/perspectives-on-tree-of-life-day-one.html). The study above deals with this, but you never read it, did you. TheOtherJimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01727633779107067250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31893897296433475282013-02-10T00:35:05.827-05:002013-02-10T00:35:05.827-05:00In their paper Disturbing Implications of a Cosmol...In their paper Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant three atheistic astrophysicists (Dyson, Kleban, Susskind) found that the odds of the cosmological constant existing the way that science now understands it would have required breaking odds so extreme that it would be considered miraculous. In their words:<br /><br /> "...arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle..." <br /><br />They went on to say that this would mean that "an External AGENT intervened in cosmic history of reasons of its own..." <br /><br />Miracles??? Reasons of its own??? Sounds like unguided luck to me... or...?<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf<br /><br />I'm sure that one of DEvoLUTIONISTS knows some basic physics and will be able to decode whether the scientists were wrong or the External Agent was... Either way, it will be entertaining... <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757817713984430982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72107741126999168202013-02-09T21:26:48.500-05:002013-02-09T21:26:48.500-05:00Craig Venter denies common descent, says the tree ...Craig Venter denies common descent, says the tree of life is a joke, and makes a fool out of R. Dawkins who does not know that genetic code is not identical in all living organisms...I wonder who writes his books...?<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMQkAqxNeE<br /><br />I'm sure that many of the DEvoLUSIONISTS on this blog can, have better credentials and means to deny CV... Just prove him wrong...:) Maybe he will go after you...? He's got 100 millions a year to burn... ;) Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757817713984430982noreply@blogger.com