tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post582998871882658791..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Hemant Mehta buys what Chris Mooney is sellingLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11955429430740380732013-12-17T12:33:28.456-05:002013-12-17T12:33:28.456-05:00Here's a helpful hint, Andre Gross,
Just beca...Here's a helpful hint, <b>Andre Gross</b>,<br /><br />Just because someone puts something up on the internet claiming something has been debunked, that doesn't mean it's actually been debunked.<br /><br />Kindly go thru that article I linked for you and, if you think that YouTube video or that pdf you posted actually refutes the scientific evidence presented there, let us know in detail how it does so.<br /><br />Or you could just remain ignorant and stupid. There's that option, as well. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60292776472742318252013-12-17T06:39:23.889-05:002013-12-17T06:39:23.889-05:00Re Andre Gross
I have no interest in reading nons...Re Andre Gross<br /><br />I have no interest in reading nonsense from a YEC site, particularly one by Ken Ham, a lying fraudulent piece of filth. If you have an article from a peer reviewed journal, like Nature or Science, which in any way, shape, form, or regard refutes Miller's claim, feel free to post a link to it. Otherwise, get lost.colnago80https://www.blogger.com/profile/02640567775340860582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82791794352492326372013-12-17T06:02:52.222-05:002013-12-17T06:02:52.222-05:00Nobody says you have to read it but I would certai...<i>Nobody says you have to read it but I would certainly urge you to do so because the case is compelling enough to put the fusion event to bed once and for all....</i><br /><br />I have read it. Which part is so compelling, Andre? Do <i>you</i> understand the main point of Tomkins's argument?Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36204532116713542372013-12-17T05:23:18.689-05:002013-12-17T05:23:18.689-05:00Andre,
Your PDF link is to a poorly written rehas...Andre,<br /><br />Your PDF link is to a poorly written rehash of some of the routine "rebuttals" of the ERV evidence. The author (somebody called Daniel Nahum, othertwise unknown to the world) can't even spell or punctuate. He repeats the same weary arguments copied from other wannabe evolution debunkers without having the slightest grasp of the subject. All those arguments (as well as anumber of more sophisticated ones) are dealt with <a href="http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/evolutionnews.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />The site from which the PDF comes offers more such rebuttals, all of them ridiculous. But what can one expect of a website whose front page looks like <a href="http://swordandshield.biz/" rel="nofollow">this</a>? If you can't see that the stuff you link to is bullshit, I wonder what you hope to achieve on this blog.<br />Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4948105355882588312013-12-17T04:49:01.255-05:002013-12-17T04:49:01.255-05:00Luitsuite did you see the debunking of ERV's a...Luitsuite did you see the debunking of ERV's as evidence for evolution?<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrEOe2E0Euc<br />http://swordandshield.biz/endogenous_retroviruses.pdfAndrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78282077349947605142013-12-17T04:41:16.713-05:002013-12-17T04:41:16.713-05:00Luitsuite and thank you for correcting me on the M...Luitsuite and thank you for correcting me on the Missouri, Minnesota error much appreciated, but the show me still stands so please showw me!Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31202336439792843262013-12-17T04:38:43.678-05:002013-12-17T04:38:43.678-05:00I know this will be met with the usual retort but ...I know this will be met with the usual retort but Ken Miller's fusion story is finished.<br /><br />http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chromosome-fusion<br /><br />Nobody says you have to read it but I would certainly urge you to do so because the case is compelling enough to put the fusion event to bed once and for all....<br />Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58295308246335029932013-12-15T10:36:49.518-05:002013-12-15T10:36:49.518-05:00Hey booby, it's Prof. Moran or Dr. Moran.Hey booby, it's Prof. Moran or Dr. Moran.colnago80https://www.blogger.com/profile/02640567775340860582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74087286792000897552013-12-15T08:43:52.445-05:002013-12-15T08:43:52.445-05:00Anyway, have you got around to that article I post...Anyway, have you got around to that article I posted on Friday, Andre? All the "proof" you should need is right there.<br /><br />BTW, it's interesting to note that some believe Missouri's nickname did not initially originate to describe the skeptical and practical nature of that state's inhabitants. Rather, it arose when Colorado had to import mine workers from Missouri who were so stupid that it was necessary to repeatedly "show them" how to do their job:<br /><br />http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/slogan.asp<br /><br />Meaning no disparagement to the good people of Missouri, who I am sure are no more or less intelligent than people are generally. But in your case, Andre, I find the irony quite enjoyable.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41758405658323621912013-12-15T08:37:04.568-05:002013-12-15T08:37:04.568-05:00Andre, the "Show Me" state is Missouri, ...Andre, the "Show Me" state is Missouri, not Minnesota. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42694212859052169042013-12-15T01:18:47.820-05:002013-12-15T01:18:47.820-05:00Anyone can say that they have refuted some long-he...Anyone can say that they have refuted some long-held principle of science, such as common descent, but there is a simple test for that: have they managed to change the consensus of scientist thought and/or have they received a Nobel Prize for this? With regard to any refutation of common descent, the answer would be no.<br /><br />Regarding evidence for or against things, a creationist recently told me that that according to the Bible (quoting Paul) God doesn't do tests, and if you are skeptical enough to look for evidence of Him (or Her) He/She will personally see that you don't find any. I tend to define reality as that which can be tested with evidence, myself.JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74419114812300389912013-12-15T00:45:51.448-05:002013-12-15T00:45:51.448-05:00My point was intended to be that a) half the human...My point was intended to be that a) half the human population are below the average (or perhaps median) IQ of 100, and b) 100 is not very high. The latter I did not state directly but assumed to be common knowledge, e.g., I know of no Phd's with an IQ that low. My thought is that much of the current human race is not well-equipped to understand the fallacies of religion and that this is indeed an innate tendency - just as chimpanzees will never understand the principle pf combustion via oxidation.<br /><br /> I was aware that IQ tests are supposed to be designed so that 100 is the average score. And I have read Cozma Shalizi's excellent article on the lack of evidence for a "q" factor underlying IQ tests. Nevertheless I suspect that both the variation and the mean of intelligence that a species has were largely determined by its evolution and hence are innate tendencies of that species.JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5512090027490460032013-12-14T19:14:22.813-05:002013-12-14T19:14:22.813-05:00Yup.Yup.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64763912978710775072013-12-14T17:56:16.666-05:002013-12-14T17:56:16.666-05:00Skinner's research discovered many fascinating...<i>Skinner's research discovered many fascinating examples of animal behavior. One of the most interesting, perhaps, was Skinner's work on superstition. Instead of giving a reward for a specific action and training a specific behavior, Skinner would take a hungry pigeon and place it in a box that would release a food pellet at random. The pigeons developed all kinds of complex behavioral responses such as bowing, scraping, dancing, and neck turns.</i><br /><br />Just think, those pigeons must be hard wired by evolution not to believe in evolution.steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45250866394764149462013-12-14T17:27:05.045-05:002013-12-14T17:27:05.045-05:00Is this your area of expertise John?Is this your area of expertise John?Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40620689018801437702013-12-14T14:19:26.520-05:002013-12-14T14:19:26.520-05:00Ken Miller has been refuted
Citation needed. If ...<i>Ken Miller has been refuted</i><br /><br />Citation needed. If Gross is referring to Casey Luskin's crap, which consists of a totally spurious claim that the structures identified as telomeres in the middle of human chromosome 2 aren't really telomeres, then he is sh*t out of luck. That claim has been totally discredited.<br /><br /><i>In order for NS and RM to work it would need the information upfront.</i><br /><br />If Gross is referring to the spurious claims of William Dumbski, he again is sh*t out of luck. Dumbski has steadfastly refused to provide a definition of what he means by information. Whatever he means, it bears no relationship to either of the definitions of Kolmogorov or Shannon, which are considered by the experts in the field of information theory to be definitive.colnago80https://www.blogger.com/profile/02640567775340860582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34876678545456646672013-12-14T11:30:59.757-05:002013-12-14T11:30:59.757-05:00Piotr,
Yep. Form and not substance. Note that the...Piotr,<br /><br />Yep. Form and not substance. Note that there is not the slightest attempt to justify the method. They so very much want to be sciency, but not enough to actually form and test hypotheses.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17061160957031582342013-12-14T11:23:30.466-05:002013-12-14T11:23:30.466-05:00Quest, I find your sexual fantasies uninteresting....Quest, I find your sexual fantasies uninteresting. And you didn't answer the question.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86739296286112926002013-12-14T04:11:59.569-05:002013-12-14T04:11:59.569-05:00John, are you aware these creationist discoveries ...John, are you aware these creationist discoveries in the field of avian phylobaraminothingumagizmo?<br /><br />http://creation.com/sparrow-finch-baramin<br /><br />They will soon reinvent the wheel (and refuse to admit it's a wheel).Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80426029330921228902013-12-14T03:46:39.290-05:002013-12-14T03:46:39.290-05:00Quest,
What if population A is interfertile with ...Quest,<br /><br />What if population A is interfertile with population B, B with C, C with D and D with E, but A is not interfertile with E? You can't classify them them neatly into self-contained "separate species" using a relation that isn't transitive.<br /><br />What if species X and species Y can mate and produce viable offspring but the offspring is sterile? What if it is semi-fertile? What if it's sterile in most cases but occasionally fertile? What if it's fertile but becomes sterile after three or four generations? What if mating doesn't occur in nature but can happen in captivity, or if fertilisation can be achieved in vitro?<br />Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42899979983213295762013-12-14T02:06:11.791-05:002013-12-14T02:06:11.791-05:00Mr Moran.
The evidence for god, in the bible, and ...Mr Moran.<br />The evidence for god, in the bible, and in mankinds heritage is the observable universe and earth. That is the thing and its complexity being beyond chance happenings creating it.<br />That is the historic evidence for God(s). Say its a wrong conclusion but its been, and still is, the evidence for a smart creator.<br /><br />AMEN. Science is about evidence or its not science.<br />Science must be a higher standard of investigation that can demand confidence in its conclusions.<br />There must be that quality of evidence to say its scientific evidence.<br />Is evolutionary biology composed of that quality of evidence.<br />All creationists and others say its not. Even if true its not yet.<br />thus there is a great and rising criticism against it based on its wrong claim to scientific evidence or any evidence at all.<br />This forum exists because of this criticism. Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82081599187808111742013-12-14T01:13:52.560-05:002013-12-14T01:13:52.560-05:00A few points;
1. Ken Miller has been refuted
2. I...A few points;<br /><br />1. Ken Miller has been refuted<br />2. I still don't see empirical evidence from anyone.<br />3. God is the last thing I want to be true, you see if He is real where does that leave us? <br /><br />In order for NS and RM to work it would need the information upfront. There is simply no process in existence today or in the past that can create its own information from scratch and then build itself (yes you are a system). You can stand on your soapbox and call me any name you like but that won't make it so. To believe that any functional system can build itself is way past delusional. <br /><br />Lastly what is being sold as fact right now to young minds is nothing more than a materialist creation story and you don't have any evidence that can prove me wrong. If you have like they say in Minnesota.... show me!Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60123448891834917032013-12-13T20:38:52.972-05:002013-12-13T20:38:52.972-05:00Sorry, but I just realized it's time for me to...Sorry, but I just realized it's time for me to move on....I'm retiring at 46...I will not waste any more time discussing the same bullshit....I'm gettin a nice bike and I'm going around Australia/New Zaeland... God love ya all! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44086128794168478012013-12-13T20:30:08.749-05:002013-12-13T20:30:08.749-05:00OMG! Larry did it again:
"No. The scientifi...OMG! Larry did it again: <br /><br />"No. The scientific way of knowing requires evidence. There are many ways of obtaining evidence but if by saying "not observable" you mean "no evidence" then the conclusion can't be scientific. Some people think that it's okay to believe in something without having any evidence to support that belief (e.g. belief in god(s)) but nobody has ever shown that imagination and delusion leads to true knowledge."<br /><br />Really Larry??? Try to apply the same rule you just lectured to Andre to the origins of life... I know you can't... I know where imagination and delusion leads... Do you???<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15454731834349224602013-12-13T20:20:06.313-05:002013-12-13T20:20:06.313-05:00John,
Let's say Jerry and his wife travel to...John, <br /><br />Let's say Jerry and his wife travel to Africa. When there, Jerry has a fight with his wife and they split. Jerry walks away one way and finds an isolated tribe of what it appears to be homo sapiens. He has sex with one of the women there and produces an offspring.... His wife does the same thing with another tribe's man and she produces an offspring....<br /><br />Let's say that the couple goes a little wild. The man has sex with a monkey and so does his wife. But they can't produce offspring.... Why? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com