I don't know who wrote that post but here's the punchline ...
Tour signed Discovery's Scientific Dissent from Darwinism years ago when the National Center for Science Education asserted that only a handful of scientists doubt Darwin's theory. Our list of dissenters started at 100, then grew to 800. At that point we stopped inviting people to sign it because their names on the list were used by Darwinists to persecute them professionally. Some lost their jobs.Maybe we should consider the possibility that that a synthetic organic chemist is not an expert on biology? Naw, that would require the application of skepticism [How to use selective hyperskepticism to debate Darwinists].
However, Tour doesn't seem to have been hurt. Is that possibly because chemists are more open-minded than biologists? Or is the dirty little secret about Darwinism -- that it has more public advocates in science than private believers -- becoming more apparent?
You just can't make this stuff up.
251 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 251 of 251The whole truth,
Are you 9 years old...? Are you asking ME to replicate what I'm convinced that a superior intelligence and power did...? Get a life you stupid idiot if that is what you are asking me to do... To me, that means you have not arguments for my challenges and you are looking for childish excuses... You can sod off whatever that means.... you stupid, stupid moron...
Quest, I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm CHALLENGING you to replicate all of the things I listed. You and other god pushers constantly assert that unless scientists can and do exactly replicate the origin, existence, and every nitpicking detail of life, evolution, and virtually everything else that has ever existed and occurred, they cannot make any credible claims or inferences about any of it. So, as I said before, since you obviously believe in a 'designer-creator-god' and since you are obviously asserting that exact replication of ancient processes and events is absolutely necessary in order to make credible claims or inferences about them, let's see you exactly replicate all of the things that I listed, for a start, and then you should replicate all of the other claims of your religion that I didn't specifically list:
Tell you what, since your beliefs and claims totally depend on the existence of your chosen, so-called 'God', I'll settle for you replicating your chosen, so-called 'God'. Get busy.
Barbara said:
"The Whole Truth: Well, this would come as news to the thousands upon thousands of members of the more liberal, protestant Christian churches."
I suppose it would if they were willing to face facts, but I'm sure that they would just brush it off and continue to conveniently select bits and pieces of the bible and whatever else they feel like including or excluding. There's nothing in the bible that says it's okay to select bits and pieces and/or modify anything in it to fit whatever people feel like believing, worshiping, and pushing, and still call themselves 'Christians'. In fact, according to the bible, anyone who doesn't believe in and adhere strictly to it will be punished severely. After all, it's allegedly 'the word of God', and 'God's' word must be obeyed, or else.
As allways you missed the most important question. Can you explain by random errors the origin of:1,2,3,..anything. What is your best you can demonstrate by random errors?
With open letter to professor Behe and professor Tour please.
Still nothing? There has to be something your faith is based on. Do you realize how much fun to see evolutionists who supposed to teach evolution acknowledging they really don't understand evolution. No wonder nobody can teach professor Tour evolution.
Let's see what the scientific data shows.
Michael J. Behe
"In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.
Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.
Although the data reviewed are mostly from laboratory experiments, there are good reasons to think that the same situation would hold for Darwinian evolution in nature, too, as I discuss in the paper. From the data I propose a rule of thumb that could help guide researchers in their expectations of what they will find much of the time in studies of evolutionary adaptation. I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain."
Our Jonathan M. has been reviewing Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True in a seven-part series. He has now concluded. Why this attention, at such length, and when Jonathan Wells reviewed the book for us already when it came out in 2009?
We went to this trouble for a couple of reasons. First, Coyne, it appears, seeks to be the American Dawkins and his currency has risen considerably in the past few years. (Would this, it occurs to us, make Larry Moran a viable contender as the Canadian Dawkins?) Also the book, at least in its title, claims to really tackle the evolution question head-on. Where else would a reader look for evidence that "evolution is true"? Yet if it truly represents the main force of that evidence, the best they've got, it's pretty underwhelming. Did we think Coyne would answer our criticisms this time around? No, like the real Dawkins, he's not really in the habit of engaging serious challenges.
So for your convenience, anyway, here in one convenient place are links to Jonathan's review, presented sequentially and with links. If you haven't read it yet, by all means do so.
Enjoy!
Original Page: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/here_it_is_jon1067261.html
My, my unknown you seem to have 'missed' this review of Behe's paper:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/behes-new-paper/
The conclusion is interesting:
"While Behe’s study is useful in summarizing how adaptive evolution has operated over the short term in bacteria and viruses in the lab, it’s far less useful in summarizing how evolution has happened over the longer term in bacteria or viruses in nature—or in eukaryotes in nature. In this sense it says nothing about whether new genes and gene functions have been important in the evolution of life. Granted, Behe doesn’t make such a sweeping statement—his paper wouldn’t have been published if he had—but there’s no doubt that his intelligent-design acolytes will use the paper in this way.
Finally, this paper gives ID advocates no reason to crow that a peer-reviewed paper supporting intelligent design has finally appeared in the scientific literature. The paper says absolutely nothing—zilch—that supports any contention of ID “theory.” "
You wrote:
"As allways you missed the most important question. Can you explain by random errors the origin of:1,2,3,..anything. What is your best you can demonstrate by random errors?
With open letter to professor Behe and professor Tour please."
The paper of Behe you cite says nothing about '1,2,3... anything' either. So... prof. Behe would have to write an open letter to... himself?
Finally, if Prof. Behe indeed made a valid argument in favor of ID (which he doesn't make in the paper you mention above, but lets assume he has), the paper is 4 years old now. This would be a reasonable time period for Behe's phd students to perform experiments in further support of Behe's claim. Their initial papers should have been published by now and they should be doing follow up experiments at this moment for their thesis defense.
It should be very easy to find these initial papers by Behe's phd students published in peer reviewed scientific journals. They should cite Behe's initial paper, easy find on pubmed I would expect. You should be able to find these papers easy Unknown... good luck.
Oh look, Unknown is back to not say anything, only to copy paste and link to other people's opinions as if their mere words establish their authority and truth.
Hey Unknown, you have yet to answer my challenge from further up this thread, all you do is mindlessly relegate to your seemingly infallible authorities. There's never any actual explanations given from you, in your own words, why something is wrong or invalid, you just mindlessly link and copy-paste various ID proponents.
Here's what I wrote earlier: "The best thing about this "Unknown" dude is that he doesn't seem to have any thoughts of his own. It's all about presenting stuff to Behe so that Behe can respond. It would seem Behe is this "Unknown" dudes infallible authority.
He quotes Behe's general statements all the time but never directly responds to any comments. He might pick out a single sentence here or there, but then he just responds by quoting Behe whether or not it befits the subject or question.
Unknown, I recommend learning to think for yourself instead of this mindless relying on a single authority. I have yet to see you make or even address a single argument or claim with your own thoughts or explanations. Can you even do anything but mindlessly regurgitate Michaeal Behe?
Tell me in your own words how Behe's work somehow invalidates the work done in the papers I have given. Don't just mindlessly quote something, explain it in detail. I challenge you to do that because I don't think you can."
It seems we can now add Jonathan M to the list of infallible authorities that "Unknown" will mindlessly link to, instead of giving us any indication that he actually understands the subject matter and can explain in his own words what is or isn't wrong.
Also, what's this thing about being a "Dawkins" of some country? I'm sure this is intended to be some sort of insult in the IDiot circles (Dawkins is the ultimate badguy, as Dembski says, he's a "villain"), but we're not idiots here so maybe you should come up with something productive, like give actual arguments of your own, in your own words that address the raised points?
Also interesting to note is the fact that after the initial review in 2009, there's need for a new review in 2012 of the same book. Why would this be?
Is it because Prof. Behe has new experimental data to support his 2010 paper and officially he can now declare ID is true? Or have Behe's phd students managed to do the experiments and they have uncovered their first design?
No. They recognize Coyne's star has risen high, too high for their liking. And thus, because they don't have science to backup their claims, it's time for ad hominum attacks with the (I bet this one has ID-proponents ROFLOL-ing) 'Dawkins of the US' insult, and renewed scrutiny of Coyne's book. Clearly the first review was too nice?
Could "Unknown" be Denyse O'leary or Barry Arrington? It's funny how "Unknown" just brainlessly copy-pastes from the various discovery institute nutters.
Unknown doesn't sound like either Barry or Denyse. Unknown hasn't tried to ban anyone, and hasn't talked about dualist theories of mind/brain, or argued that evolutionary biology is a conspiracy by "tenured bores", or linked to an amazing new article that turns out, amazingly, to be written by Denyse O'Leary.
Or have they done this and I just missed it?
The Whole Truth,
Believing and obeying all of the Bible literally would be easier if it were not self-contradicting, e.g. advocating both genocide and turning the other cheek.
Why are you so determined to define "Christian" in one limited way? Just to make it easier to treat Christians as wrong?
I ask because your reference above to "so-called 'God'" suggests that you would classify God as imaginary, and thus Christianity as an act of imagination. Are we going to argue about the definition of a term based on imagined beings and events? And exclude other people's definitions of this imaginary state? Yet you seem as absolute and exclusive in your definition as any fundamentalist preacher.
Joe's Fried Chicken,
So..., you have found out that the only excuse to escape the "difficult questions" from The CreoID's is to blame others like...? Maybe the unknown is Witton, which in your narrow mind would mean he is me, which in turn would mean that witton was pretty much the only creationist who whipped your ass for the last few weeks... I don't think so...
Barbara,
This is the last message I write to you... You probably have sensed already what I am all about...
I know why you avoid the answer to my "The Question"... I do... and you are in the same shoes I was few years ago.... You can ignore the reality or you can pretend it was never there.... The choice is yours.... think about it... it you can or are allowed...
Why is Unknown cutting and pasting an EN&V article from 2012?
Poor Jerry Coyne. He never recovered from that drubbing, did he? I wonder what he's up to now? Oh, not much:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/the-rna-world/
If Joe Felsenstein is reading this, or Larry, here is further evidence that no one at the Discovery Institute knows what population genetics is... (unless of course Stephen Meyer does know, and is just a pathological liar.) Remember in 2012 when Luskin #AttackGerbil, Ann Gauger and Axe wrote that book defending "The Science of Adam and Eve", and Gauger appeared on camera in front of a green screen laboratory that was just a stock photo of a 1990's era lab? The green screen lab wasn't the funniest part of that video, the funniest part was that Gauger was moronically criticizing phylogenetics but she called it "population genetics" because she's too flipping dumb to know what either one is.
We now find out that Stephen Meyer likewise doesn't know what population genetics or phylogenetics are.
The Christian magazine World just did a hit piece on Biologos' theistic evolution, with a bunch of quotes from Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and John West of the DI all admitting that Intelligent Design is based on the Biblical story of Genesis and a real, literal Adam and Eve. This is despite years of the IDiots claiming that Intelligent Design is not creationism because ID does *not* start with the Bible. In the World article, the Discovernaughts state clearly that ID requires that a real Adam and Eve were made from dirt by magic like in the Bible.
Along the way they give some choice quotes from Stephen Meyer, like this one; he is denouncing theistic evolution which
"is not based on evidence, but on a speculative field called theoretical population genetics, [which] assumes but does not establish that humans and lower primates share a common ancestor
Stop right there. What a lying putz Stephen Meyer is. Population genetics is based on the assumption that humans and lower primates share a common ancestor!? Does Meyer still not know what population genetics is-- or is he just a pathological liar who can't control himself?
and that all gene differences between humans and other primates are the result of random mutations."
Right, that's population genetics. And that's why we call them IDiots.
Joe says: Unknown doesn't sound like either Barry or Denyse.
It's obviously not O'Leary, but it could be Arrington the Abortion Ambulance Chaser.
Unknown is definitely an UDite. Unknown must be one of the more sycophantic UDites because of his habit of quoting creatard authorities and his endless demands that we acknowledge Behe as a scientific authority by writing him an "open letter" (he's not so we won't.)
Unknown is totally uninterested in and uncurious about science-- he only cares about authority. Who's the most sycophantic and grovelling authoritarian UDite?
1. Not O'Leary, as she cannot write a whole paragraph without attacking scientists as scientists. She cannot control her hatred of scientists for actually doing science, "tenured bores" as she calls them, not merely "Darwinists."
2. Arrington the Abortion Ambulance Chaser? Possibly. Although he likes to bully, ban, and insult evolutionists, all bullies are sycophants underneath and deep down, they all want to grovel before a "Strong Man."
3. Not Joe Security Clearance Gallien, who has the self-control of a rhesus monkey, and who blurts out obscene sexual name-calling and threats of physical violence the second you prove him wrong.
4. He Who Shall Not Be Named? Possibly, the evidence in favor being Unknown's desire for anonymity, authoritarianism, and his lists of authority quotes. But HWSNBN mixes up quotes from real scientists and creationists, and does numbered lists. On the other hand, Unknown, like HWSNBN, does not understand the meaning of his own authority quotes. Hmmm...
5. BA77? What do you think? We can test it by mocking the Quantum Shroud of Turin.
6. Dung? No, Dung does name calling only, not quoting creatard authorities.
7. Torley? No, I have a little more respect for Torley; he can think for himself and does not need to quote authorities like a damn sycophant.
8. Sal Cordova? For all of Sal's flaws, he can think for himself sometimes and does not need authority quotes, he can make scientific arguments even if they are very bad, and is not obsessed with forcing us to kiss Behe's ass.
Unknown says: Yet if it ["Why Evolution Is True"] truly represents the main force of that evidence, the best they've got, it's pretty underwhelming.
Translation: Unknown didn't read the book but will falsely insinuate he did.
Tell us, Unknown, since you read the book, please summarize what Coyne said on these topics:
1. Some fossils found in Antarctica
2. Kidney development in mammalian embryos
3. Biogeography of continents vs. islands
Explain what Coyne said on the above topics, why Coyne thinks they're evidence for evolution, and why you think he's wrong.
You did read the book, didn't you? You wouldn't bullshit us, would you?
I need to repost because you are not paying attention to the questions. I know you can't address them but maybe you'll admit it yourselves.
As allways you missed the most important question. Can you explain by random errors the origin of:1,2,3,..anything. What is your best you can demonstrate by random errors?
With open letter to professor Behe and professor Tour please.
Still nothing? There has to be something your faith is based on. Do you realize how much fun to see evolutionists who supposed to teach evolution acknowledging they really don't understand evolution. No wonder nobody can teach professor Tour evolution.
Let's see what the scientific data shows.
Michael J. Behe
"In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.
Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.
Although the data reviewed are mostly from laboratory experiments, there are good reasons to think that the same situation would hold for Darwinian evolution in nature, too, as I discuss in the paper. From the data I propose a rule of thumb that could help guide researchers in their expectations of what they will find much of the time in studies of evolutionary adaptation. I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain."
"While Behe’s study is useful in summarizing how adaptive evolution has operated over the short term in bacteria and viruses in the lab, it’s far less useful in summarizing how evolution has happened over the longer term in bacteria or viruses in nature—or in eukaryotes in nature."
Excuses after excuses, never evidence of what random errors can actually do. All evolutionists are good at provide excuses why they don't have evidence.
How the flip would you know? We presented tons of evidence for what random mutations +NS can create here on this blog, but what is there to stop you from lying and saying we presented no such evidence after we presented it? What's to stop you from lying? Answer me that.
You lied about having read "Why Evolution Is True", right? You said the book had no evidence, so you implied you read it. I asked you simple questions about its content and you haven't answered. What's to stop you from lying? Answer me that.
It's not a rhetorical question, asshole. I want an actual answer: what's to stop you from lying?
No, I won't write an open letter to Behe because to do so is just your attempt to get us to acknowledge Behe as an authority. We don't acknowledge Behe as an authority so no open letters. But I will challenge Behe or Tour to a face to face debate on evolution vs. creationism. You tell them that. You tell them Diogenes will debate either one of them, or both vs. me, with video of debate to be posted only on a neutral website NOT the DI and an open comment policy, no banning of critics. Probably we can get U. Penn. to set something up.
Let's remember that Behe demanded we compute how many malaria mutants are needed to evolve chloroquine resistance, and I did such a computation on this blog, and in Behe's reply, he misrepresented my computation. So no more "open letters"; let him or Tour, or Dembski or Meyer, or all of them together, debate just me, face to face, and if Behe again misrepresents my calculations, I can call him on it in front of a live audience. You tell them that. Off you go. Behe can leave a comment on my blog or email me.
The ball's in Behe's court now.
Crickets. So you were lying, right?
Oh my, he can copy-paste Behe again. WELL DONE Unknown.
Another copy-paste of Behe by Unknown. Behe said it, Unknown agrees because Behe is Unknown's infallible authority because Behe says things Unknown agrees with. The matter is settled, pack your bags guys.
By the way, Unknown, here's some of that data Behe pretends doesn't exist, which shows that Behe's "loss of function" mutations can built increasingly complex structures:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22230956
Evolution of increased complexity in a molecular machine.
This is why the discovery institute's "lab", the BioLogic institute never uses Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction, it gives insights into processes they are being paid to pretend doesn't happen.
Now off you go to find some discovery institute apologist to copy-paste in response.
He's getting you to respond, though, isn't he? ;) May as well play Chopin to a rock. It will continue to respond "CALL THAT MUSIC?"
Point taken.
To be fair, Unknown didn't say he read the book. He just cut and pasted a two year old article from a creationist blog that linked to some articles by some other creationist who says he has read the book. I believe that other guy is Jonathan McLatchie, who many of us here will remember for this embarrassing incident:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2013/08/what-happens-when-creationist-argument.html
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2013/08/what-happens-when-creationist-argument.html
With anti-evolutionists, insinuation is everything. When they need to lie about something, they insinuate a falsehood which would be a lie if stated directly. This gives them plausible deniability.
I wouldn't say that Meyer is "lying" when he gets it wrong what is population genetics and what is not, If I held forth on general relativity and got it all wrong, would I be "lying" or just confused about the science?
But the real news there, as you see quite clearly, is that the Discovery Institute is lending itself to a defense of Adam and Eve, and not objecting when World Magazine described their expertise as arising from their advocacy of Intelligent Design. It looks as if the Big Tent is getting frayed enough that it is transparent in places.
I wonder whether Meyer realizes that the "speculative" field of population genetics flows directly from some crosses of pea plants by an Augustinian monk?
That they drag in the issue of whether humans are related to chimps, and consider it relevant, shows their confusion. Humans could be close relatives of woodchucks, and the Adam/Eve issue would still be the same.
Diogenes, can you tell us where to find this hit piece? Presumably you don't subscribe to a paper copy of the magazine.
Here is Klinghoffer at ENV quoting World magazine:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/world_magazine_091251.html
Here is World Magazine's article directly:
https://www.worldmag.com/mobile/article.php?id=32175
Never mind. I found it.
I dunno. There's a mostly reasonable, though weaselly, way to read that quote that makes sense. He's talking about coalescent models of human population size, apparently, and that is population genetics. Nor does population genetics establish the relationships of humans to other primates. Phylogenetics does that, which he conveniently doesn't mention. The only technical problem is what Joe brought up: the idea that population genetic models have to assume relationships between species; nope, it's all within one species (or its ancestral populations).
Meyer's falsehoods are offensive enough that I wish Larry would write a post on it. But if he doesn't, I will.
John: "The only technical problem is what Joe brought up: the idea that population genetic models have to assume relationships between species; nope, it's all within one species (or its ancestral populations)."
How is that just a technical problem? It shows that he doesn't know what population genetics is, and doesn't know how it is different from phylogenetics. If someone presents himself as an expert in electromagnetism, but clearly has it confused with gravity, is that just a "technical problem"?
But Meyer falsely presents himself as an authority on a subject about which he knows nothing. At the very least, if his mistake is due to ignorance and not lying, then he is still falsely representing his expertise, and that is still dishonest.
When Gauger made the very same mistake in 2012, we laughed at it. Why should we not regard Meyer as, at best, equally laughable?
Once again, the subject Meyer is discussing actually is population genetics. He isn't confused on that. Nor does he seem confused about what phylogenetics or population genetics are, since he never talks about the first and discusses the second. The only thing he's confused about is what assumptions are necessary for the particular population genetics problem at hand.
Gauger made a quite different mistake, and if you read carefully you will notice that.
What Quest lacks in coherence he makes up for with consistency.
It's confusing. In the World Magazine issue this does not appear (at least in the stories posted online) but at ENV Klinghoffer quotes Stephen Meyer as saying (without a source as to where) that Bologos's view on Adam and Eve.
is not based on evidence, but on a speculative field called theoretical population genetics, [which] assumes but does not establish that humans and lower primates share a common ancestor and that all gene differences between humans and other primates are the result of random mutations.
... which seems to be a reference to use of neutral models in molecular phylogeny, but reflects a misunderstanding of how the chimp/human divergence date comes into the Adam/Eve issue.
I'm assuming that Meyer's misstatement was in email to Klinghoffer as they are coworkers.
Joe says: In the World Magazine issue this does not appear (at least in the stories posted online)
I see it tacked at the bottom of the World magazine webpage, just randomly shoved in at the end of the article.
John says: the subject Meyer is discussing actually is population genetics. He isn't confused on that. Nor does he seem confused about what phylogenetics or population genetics are, since he never talks about the first and discusses the second. The only thing he's confused about is what assumptions are necessary for the particular population genetics problem at hand.
Gauger made a quite different mistake
OK, granted, they make two different falsehoods.
1. Meyer 2014 thinks population genetics assumes a tree already drawn, a tree that has apes arbitrarily shoved in as sharing a common ancestor with humans, when there ain't no evidence we come from a damn monkey.
2. Gauger 2012 thinks "population genetics" means drawing trees. Plus she says a bunch of other weird things, like it takes 6 million years for one (1) mutation in a DNA-binding region. She seems unaware that every human baby born has ~100-200 novel mutations relative to its parents.
So you got me John, Meyer and Gauger made two different errors. Massive, ridiculous, bonehead errors.
Joe,
As Diogenes says, it's in a box on page 2 of the story, between the story itself and the comments. But I don't think it's a reference to molecular systematics. I think he's talking about coalescent models of population size history.
You're right -- in my case the quote is not in a box but just sort-of floating down there at the end of the article. I think it refers to rates of molecular change used to date things as "speculative". I suppose that Meyer might have some defense since those rates of change come partly from divergence times among species. However you can also, these days, get rates of overall change in DNA from empirically measures mutation rates within humans.
Interesting to hear that all of population genetics is "speculative" though.
243 comments and still nobody can explain what Macro-evolution is?.... So who are the real idiots? Diogenes, Ed? How many mutations to create one single eye?, not to mention.. the nerve-system, circulatory system, imune system, digest system.. to be short... the countles systems to keep yor body healthy.. how is it al togetherevolved at the same time in a few million years? Macro-evolution?
Come on.......
And please forgive me my bad english. Dutch is my native language
Strange... is it sooo difficult to explain what macro-evolution is? Maybe because the lack of evidence?
Pest uses his sock puppet Topgoosz: So who are the real idiots? Diogenes, Ed?
Jesus tapdancing Christ, it's Pest again. Pest, you already outed yourself the last time you used the sock puppet Topgoosz.
Last time you were posting as Topgoosz, you addressed Topgoosz as "Quest" while posting under the Quest sock puppet. So we know it's you.
Plus, Pest and Topgoosz do exactly the same things: they troll us into posting a bunch of references to the scientific literature, and after we've posted them, Quest/Topgoosz plays dumb and pretends we never presented any evidence, always framed in the form of a question based on a false premise. "What, you still haven't posted any evidence?"
And then there are the ellipses...
Total trollery. I'm not even convinced you believe in creationism. You could be a Hindu for all I know or care; you just contradict what we wrote because you're trolling us.
Quest, every time you ask us a question based on false premise (243 comments and still nobody can explain what Macro-evolution is?), I'm going to ask you questions based on false premises.
Quest, are you still sexually molesting baby seals or have the court-ordered drugs suppressed this behavior?
Yeah, right.. i'm just topgoosz... You just cannot answer the most simple question what macro-evolution is and still-as always- using avoiding tactics.. Tons of evidences...huh... Where are they? Show me one recent example of macro-E..
More then 234 comments and STILL nobody can give a valid example of macro-evolution
How many mutations to create one single eye?, not to mention.. the nerve-system, circulatory system, imune system, digest system.. to be short... the countles systems to keep yor body healthy.. how is it al together evolved at the same time in a few million years?
How many random blind attempts to let it evolve per second??
Your done... This whole topic is done... Not a single evidence for macro-evolution. You can't even explain what it is... Your done....
Tons of evidence?!! Where? Where? I can't find it!!
Dino-moron-pest-deflector is losing it... again...
BTW: I'm not sure 100% but it is quite possible that witton made the parole... He has tried in the past to "incriminate me" but he often failed by one and only mistake... double ellipses instead of triple...
Dinogene,
You are falling apart... get a grip on life! For no particular reason, the more there is evidence against evolution, the more people like it...the evolution...So your crummy little job as a, as a evolutionary scientist is safe if that was what you have been worried about... You can sleep well... if you have no conscience...
Top,
I've asked you this a few times already on the Dutch forum, but you've dodged this question as often as I asked it:
Can you show me a design prof. Behe and his phd students must have uncovered, which clearly shows there was an intelligent designer at work? In turn this designers work lead to the current diversity of life on this planet? One simple design? Something as simple as a gram positive bacteria perhaps? Or an algae?
While you're answering this question, perhaps you can also explain which designer this must have been? I understand the DI clan has the christian god pinned down as *the* designer, but for some reason I would expect a different answer if we'd ask a muslim or a jew or a hindu.
@Quest:
how's the chicken/ stick experiment coming along? I expect you're really anxious on the outcome of this experiment, being able to prove them evilutionists are wrong.
The hens should be sitting on your evidence for a designer right now, as we type this... Wow, can you imagine it Quest, within a month you'll be famous. Stockholm here you come. Ofcourse, YEC's will hate you, they don't like the idea of ID. Muslims will hate you too, because you're designer isn't theirs. The DI ID-ers will hate you too, because after 40 years of doing nothing to proof ID, except cash in on their believes and sit on their behinds, they'll be out of their jobs in 0,0 seconds flat.
It'll be the prize to pay Quest, but hey, here's your chance for a place in the eternal spotlight and history. In 150 years we won't be discussing the Origin, but the Chickens and the Stick.
Post a Comment