Creationists

[UltimateReality]

UltimateReality, how many of the 50 peer-reviewed articles you mentioned were published in creationist or ID journals? I ask because I recall seeing somewhere that there had been a few ID articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but that the large majority were published in journals from ID organizations such as the Discovery Institute or did not actually make any claims about a designer.

In a related question, how many of the 900 scientists you mention in the dissent from evolution are in scientific fields related to evolution? There are many fields of scientific study, and some have only a passing relationship to evolution, if even that. Just as Hollie showing statistics about biologists not believing in god doesn't really mean anything, saying 900 scientists agreed to sign a disagreement with evolution is meaningless if we don't know what type of science they study.

Whatever the case may be, what I have seen is that the vast majority of scientists in fields relating to evolutionary theory accept it as being sound. Perhaps that is a blindness on their part, an institutional desire not to be proven wrong; until I see a lot more than 50 (possible) peer-reviewed ID articles and 900 scientists (from unknown fields) disagreeing, I will need to see some pretty compelling evidence to believe in the validity of ID as a field of scientific study. As usual, that doesn't deny the possible existence of a designer, merely my inability to see it as a form of scientific research.

ID Theory is a relatively new field of study which by most accounts got its start in 2004. Since then it has been widely ridiculed so I would say 50 such papers is quite an accomplishment. I'm not really sure what would be considered an ID publication. The link I provided showed all the publications and volumes for the papers quoted. An internet search could probably dig deeper as to who is behind the journals. Its not like they are trying to hid who which ones they are. Some a quick glance I noted:

The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85

Journal Description
The premier review journal in biology, The Quarterly Review of Biology has since 1926 presented insightful historical, philosophical, and technical treatments of important biological topics. The QRB publishes outstanding review articles of generous length that are guided by an expansive, inclusive, and often humanistic understanding of biology. Beyond the core biological sciences, the QRB is also an important review journal for scholars in related areas, which include policy studies and the history and philosophy of science. A comprehensive section of reviews on new biological books provides educators and researchers alike with information on the latest publications in the life sciences.

BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(4) [ID Journal, but if they are presenting scientific arguments, are they lest scientific because they aren't trying to fit everything to the TOE?]

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal's scope.

To achieve its aim, BIO-Complexity is founded on the principle of critical exchange that makes science work. Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID, but who agree on the importance of science for resolving controversies of this kind. Our editors use expert peer review, guided by their own judgement, to decide whether submitted work merits consideration and critique. BIO-Complexity aims not merely to publish work that meets this standard, but also to provide expert critical commentary on it.

Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012).

The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, Vol. 4:14-27 (January 20, 2010).

Frontiers in Bioscience, Vol. 14:2959-2969 (January 1, 2010).

The journal "Frontiers in Bioscience" is a modern forum for scientific communication. Data and information that are useful to investigators in any discipline in biology and medicine including biochemistry, microbiology, parasitology, virology, immunology, biotechnology, and bioinformatics will be published after they have been peer reviewed. This will include reviews and research articles in basic science and clinical science, as well as technical notes and protocols. Other materials that have not been traditionally published as peer reviewed articles will also be considered for publication. This will include, rare images ,videos and sounds, and assimilated data in the form of a database on any subject in medicine and biology. The journal will include useful search strategies of internet and databases related to biology and medicine, links to medically relevant journals and the guidelines to authors of scientific journals and as well as information regarding manufacturers' products and links to manufacturers' homepages. Other items that will be posted are book reviews, as well as a list of conferences.

International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics:

The International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics acts as a channel of communication for researchers from around the world working on a variety of studies involving nature and its significance to modern scientific thought and design. These studies have demonstrated the rich diversity of the natural world. Ecodynamics in particular aims to relate ecosystems to evolutionary thermodynamics in order to arrive at satisfactory solutions for sustainable development. The International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics also opens new avenues for understanding the relationship between arts and sciences.

Have you seen the movie Expelled? There is a real militant prejudice to eliminate any one that questions the party line of Darwinism so I am not shocked by your comments above.

 

[UltimateReality]

Here is the list of the 900 who dissented and their titles. I'd say mcuh more than half are involved in biology, chemistry or anthropology.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I guess for me the most aggravating thing about folks like Hollie is the attitude that it is the "fact" of evolution. No one seems willing to admit there are just as much personal beliefs influencing the materialists as there are the theists, it's just that the materialists are in total denial. That is why I am fond of putting up this quote...

To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant - Amos Bronson Alcot

Theist admit their motivations. It's no secret to be a Theist is to accept there is something more than matter. It is quite amazing to me that even in light of all the modern scientific discovery, the Bible's basic claims still fit. We believe that God is outside of matter, space, time and energy. The Bible teaches He has always existed. Even if we study Hawkins claims for the Big Bang, he now postulates than even time itself began at the Big Bang, which is incredibly hard to comprehend. What I like to call the ACDC paradox, who made who?, is only solved if the Designer exists outside of spacetime. You see, if you subscribe to the fact that we were designed by Aliens, then the question of who made them arises and leads to a paradox that goes back infinitely. But if the Creator has always existed, as God told Moses, I AM, the paradox is solved.

My only hope is that folks would return to actual science and where the evidence leads, not continue to try and make the evidence fit an outdated theory that obviously has some VERY SERIOUS problems when the details are delved into.

 

[Hollie]

Here is the list of the 900 who dissented and their titles. I'd say mcuh more than half are involved in biology, chemistry or anthropology.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I guess for me the most aggravating thing about folks like Hollie is the attitude that it is the "fact" of evolution. No one seems willing to admit there are just as much personal beliefs influencing the materialists as there are the theists, it's just that the materialists are in total denial. That is why I am fond of putting up this quote...


My only hope is that folks would return to actual science and where the evidence leads, not continue to try and make the evidence fit an outdated theory that obviously has some VERY SERIOUS problems when the details are delved into.

There is little disagreement among mainstream scientists as to the veracity of the data and the facts of evolution. I understand you will refuse to accept information that contradicts Christian creationist claims but that is no reason to think that science will accept claims of supernaturalism.

Since it was you claim, please show us the data where personal beliefs of scientists have established scientific protocol.

Secondly, did you look at the names of those on the editorial board of BIO-Complexity?

It's simply a roll call of charlatans associated with the Discovery Institute, the ICR and other fundie creationist organizations.

 

[Hollie]

David L. Abel,

I'm familiar with David Abel with the fundie ID / creationist site Uncommon descent

One of the gem quotes on the site is:

“But one thing is clear right now: Adam and Eve have not been disproven by science, and those who claim otherwise are misrepresenting the scientific evidence.”

My comment is thus: Adam and Eve have been disproven by science. Can you disprove it?

 

[UltimateReality]

Here is the list of the 900 who dissented and their titles. I'd say mcuh more than half are involved in biology, chemistry or anthropology.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I guess for me the most aggravating thing about folks like Hollie is the attitude that it is the "fact" of evolution. No one seems willing to admit there are just as much personal beliefs influencing the materialists as there are the theists, it's just that the materialists are in total denial. That is why I am fond of putting up this quote...


My only hope is that folks would return to actual science and where the evidence leads, not continue to try and make the evidence fit an outdated theory that obviously has some VERY SERIOUS problems when the details are delved into.

There is little disagreement among mainstream scientists as to the veracity of the data and the facts of evolution. I understand you will refuse to accept information that contradicts Christian creationist claims but that is no reason to think that science will accept claims of supernaturalism.

Since it was you claim, please show us the data where personal beliefs of scientists have established scientific protocol.

Secondly, did you look at the names of those on the editorial board of BIO-Complexity?

It's simply a roll call of charlatans associated with the Discovery Institute, the ICR and other fundie creationist organizations.

Umm, did you happen to actually read the brackets next to Bio Complexity where I show it is an ID Theory journal??? Just because you lie and try to hide the truth doesn't mean everyone does.

Oh and you seem hopelessly caught in a black and white universe, where someone either has to accept the TOE or God. This is NOT the case. Just because 900 scientists are beginning to realize the hoax that is Darwinism, doesn't mean their only other option is to convert to Christianity and start singing Kum ba ya. You really are hopelessly blind and brainwashed.

And you still haven't answered my questions. Were you raised in a Christian Home?? Do have some serious anger issues with your parents?

 

[Hollie]

The Fruitlessness of ID “Research”

By Jeffrey Shallit on November 30, 2009 8:37 AM| 81 Comments

The Fruitlessness of ID "Research" - The Panda's Thumb

Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as “intelligent design” (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?

One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful. A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper. Although citation counts are not completely reliable metrics for evaluating scientific papers, they do give some general information about what papers are considered important.

ID advocates like to point to lists of “peer-reviewed publications” advocating their position. Upon closer examination, their lists are misleading, packed with publications that are either not in scientific journals, or that appeared in venues of questionable quality, or papers whose relationship to ID is tangential at best. Today, however, I’d like to look at a different issue: the fruitfulness of intelligent design. Let’s take a particular ID publication, one that was trumpeted by ID advocates as a “breakthrough”, and see how much further scientific work it inspired.

The paper I have in mind is Stephen Meyer’s paper “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”,
CSC - Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

which was published, amid some controversy, in the relatively obscure journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Critics pointed out that the paper was not suited to the journal, which is usually devoted to taxonomic issues, and that the paper was riddled with mistakes
Meyer's Hopeless Monster - The Panda's Thumb

and misleading claims. In response, the editors of the journal issued a disclaimer repudiating the paper.

Putting these considerations aside, what I want to do here is look at every scientific publication that has cited Meyer’s paper to determine whether his work can fairly said to be “fruitful”. I used the ISI Web of Science Database to do a “cited reference” search on his article. This database, which used to be called Science Citation Index, is generally acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive available. The search I did included Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Even such a search will miss some papers, of course, but it will still give a general idea of how much the scientific community has been inspired by Meyer’s work.

I found exactly 9 citations to Meyer’s paper in this database. Of these, counting generously, exactly 1 is a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.

 

[UltimateReality]

David L. Abel,

I'm familiar with David Abel with the fundie ID / creationist site Uncommon descent

One of the gem quotes on the site is:

“But one thing is clear right now: Adam and Eve have not been disproven by science, and those who claim otherwise are misrepresenting the scientific evidence.”

My comment is thus: Adam and Eve have been disproven by science. Can you disprove it?

Can you hear yourself right now? Don't you not know what a double negative is?

Go look up the word falsifiable as it relates to scientific theory and get back with me Spanky.

I know this is WAAAAAYY over your head, but I have posted it here anyway...

"Some evolutionary biologists try to explain this discordance between the HLA-DRB1 trees by arguing that this proves that these genes have their origin in deep time, before the lineages of chimps, humans and macaques separated, and that it is the exon 2 data that defines the gene’s history. Others think that there has been cross-species shuffling of ancient peptide-binding motifs between different exon 2 sequences over time, but leaving the intron lineages unchanged. It is not clear, however, how such a patchwork cross-species assortment of exon 2 sequences could have been acquired without disrupting the species-specific introns. Furthermore, this would require that the incipient species’ populations intermingled for a prolonged period of time. The intermingling is highly unlikely to have lasted for thirty million years, though, which is the last time macaques, chimps, and humans supposedly shared a common ancestor. And the fact that the intron sequences do associate by species, with branch lengths as long or longer than the exon branch lengths, argues that many of these intronic lineages have been evolving independently for quite a while, indeed some as long as thirty to forty million years. Therefore this phylogenetic discordance is something that cannot be explained by common ancestry, especially when one considers an additional piece of information: The HLA-DRB1 region of chromosome six shows little or no signs of recombination."

From Wiki:

"Genetic evidence suggests that all humans alive today, despite apparent variety, are descended from a very small population, perhaps between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago.[28] Note that this is an estimate of ancestors, not of total human population. Isolated human populations that eventually died out without descendants may have also existed in numbers that cannot be estimated by geneticists."

 

[UltimateReality]

The Fruitlessness of ID “Research”

By Jeffrey Shallit on November 30, 2009 8:37 AM| 81 Comments

The Fruitlessness of ID "Research" - The Panda's Thumb

Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as “intelligent design” (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?

One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful. A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper. Although citation counts are not completely reliable metrics for evaluating scientific papers, they do give some general information about what papers are considered important.

ID advocates like to point to lists of “peer-reviewed publications” advocating their position. Upon closer examination, their lists are misleading, packed with publications that are either not in scientific journals, or that appeared in venues of questionable quality, or papers whose relationship to ID is tangential at best. Today, however, I’d like to look at a different issue: the fruitfulness of intelligent design. Let’s take a particular ID publication, one that was trumpeted by ID advocates as a “breakthrough”, and see how much further scientific work it inspired.

The paper I have in mind is Stephen Meyer’s paper “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”,
CSC - Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

which was published, amid some controversy, in the relatively obscure journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Critics pointed out that the paper was not suited to the journal, which is usually devoted to taxonomic issues, and that the paper was riddled with mistakes
Meyer's Hopeless Monster - The Panda's Thumb

and misleading claims. In response, the editors of the journal issued a disclaimer repudiating the paper.

Putting these considerations aside, what I want to do here is look at every scientific publication that has cited Meyer’s paper to determine whether his work can fairly said to be “fruitful”. I used the ISI Web of Science Database to do a “cited reference” search on his article. This database, which used to be called Science Citation Index, is generally acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive available. The search I did included Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Even such a search will miss some papers, of course, but it will still give a general idea of how much the scientific community has been inspired by Meyer’s work.

I found exactly 9 citations to Meyer’s paper in this database. Of these, counting generously, exactly 1 is a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.

What kind of home were you raised in?

 

[Hollie]

David L. Abel,

I'm familiar with David Abel with the fundie ID / creationist site Uncommon descent

One of the gem quotes on the site is:

“But one thing is clear right now: Adam and Eve have not been disproven by science, and those who claim otherwise are misrepresenting the scientific evidence.”

My comment is thus: Adam and Eve have been disproven by science. Can you disprove it?

I'm not sure why you object to the above.

Leprechauns have similarly not been disproven by science. I was playing a bit of a game with you.

It's a common tactic of the ID / creationist crowd to defend their claims (because all else fails), with the silly, " but you haven't disproved it", drop ten and punt.

Well, I have disproved it. I've disproved ID. Prove I haven't.

Thanks. I'll await your disproof.

 

[Hollie]

The Fruitlessness of ID “Research”

By Jeffrey Shallit on November 30, 2009 8:37 AM| 81 Comments

The Fruitlessness of ID "Research" - The Panda's Thumb

Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as “intelligent design” (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?

One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful. A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper. Although citation counts are not completely reliable metrics for evaluating scientific papers, they do give some general information about what papers are considered important.

ID advocates like to point to lists of “peer-reviewed publications” advocating their position. Upon closer examination, their lists are misleading, packed with publications that are either not in scientific journals, or that appeared in venues of questionable quality, or papers whose relationship to ID is tangential at best. Today, however, I’d like to look at a different issue: the fruitfulness of intelligent design. Let’s take a particular ID publication, one that was trumpeted by ID advocates as a “breakthrough”, and see how much further scientific work it inspired.

The paper I have in mind is Stephen Meyer’s paper “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”,
CSC - Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

which was published, amid some controversy, in the relatively obscure journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Critics pointed out that the paper was not suited to the journal, which is usually devoted to taxonomic issues, and that the paper was riddled with mistakes
Meyer's Hopeless Monster - The Panda's Thumb

and misleading claims. In response, the editors of the journal issued a disclaimer repudiating the paper.

Putting these considerations aside, what I want to do here is look at every scientific publication that has cited Meyer’s paper to determine whether his work can fairly said to be “fruitful”. I used the ISI Web of Science Database to do a “cited reference” search on his article. This database, which used to be called Science Citation Index, is generally acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive available. The search I did included Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Even such a search will miss some papers, of course, but it will still give a general idea of how much the scientific community has been inspired by Meyer’s work.

I found exactly 9 citations to Meyer’s paper in this database. Of these, counting generously, exactly 1 is a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.

What kind of home were you raised in?

Nothing sends a fundie ID / creationist into sidestepping and backstroking like facts.

 

[UltimateReality]

"Remember when evolution was a fact? Remember when your high school biology teacher explained the origin of life from a muddy pond (or maybe ocean vent) was beyond any doubt? Remember when the National Academy of Science declared that “For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells”? [1] Remember when Carl Zimmer wrote that scientists “have found compelling evidence that life could have evolved into a DNA-based microbe in a series of steps.”

Well, err, that was all wrong. Truth be told, there never was any such compelling evidence. There never was any proof that life arose spontaneously—from a warm little pond, ocean vent, or anywhere else for that matter.

In fact, as one evolutionist admitted, “there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem.” That doesn’t exactly qualify as a fact."


1. National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2d ed. (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999) 6.

Darwin's God

 

[UltimateReality]

I'm familiar with David Abel with the fundie ID / creationist site Uncommon descent

One of the gem quotes on the site is:

“But one thing is clear right now: Adam and Eve have not been disproven by science, and those who claim otherwise are misrepresenting the scientific evidence.”

My comment is thus: Adam and Eve have been disproven by science. Can you disprove it?

I'm not sure why you object to the above.

Leprechauns have similarly not been disproven by science. I was playing a bit of a game with you.

It's a common tactic of the ID / creationist crowd to defend their claims (because all else fails), with the silly, " but you haven't disproved it", drop ten and punt.

Well, I have disproved it. I've disproved ID. Prove I haven't.

Thanks. I'll await your disproof.

So how can evolutionists proclaim evolution to be a fact with such fervor? There seems to be a glaring mismatch between the evidence and the truth claims of evolutionists. The answer is that evolutionists use contrastive reasoning. Evolution is not claimed to be a fact based on how well it fits the evidence, but rather on how poorly the alternative fits the evidence. Evolution is proved by the process of elimination.

For example, evolutionists explain that nature’s apparently useless or harmful designs make no sense except on evolution. Such harmful designs are actually not predicted by evolution. They are low probability on evolution, but such harmful designs are at least understandable given evolution’s lack of planning. The designs may be low probability, but not altogether impossible.

But if the species were intelligently designed, then these useless or harmful designs make no sense. So we might say that evolution is proved not by positive evidences, but by negative evidences. And in fact the worse the evidence, the better for evolution, because such negative evidences are even worse for the alternative.

Indeed, there are no demonstrations of the fact of evolution that do not appeal to such contrastive reasoning. Evolutionists have a great many proofs for the fact of evolution, but they always entail some form of this contrastive reasoning. Here is how philosopher Eliott Sober explains contrastive reasoning:

This last result provides a reminder of how important the contrastive framework is for evaluating evidence. It seems to offend against common sense to say that E is stronger evidence for the common-ancestry hypothesis the lower the value is of [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis]. This seems tantamount to saying that the evidence better supports a hypothesis the more miraculous the evidence would be if the hypothesis were true. Have we entered a Lewis Carroll world in which down is up? No, the point is that, in the models we have examined, the ratio [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis divided by the probability of E given the separate-ancestry hypothesis] goes up as [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis] goes down. … When the likelihoods of the two hypotheses are linked in this way, it is a point in favor of the common-ancestry hypothesis that it says that the evidence is very improbable. [Evidence and Evolution, p. 314]


These evolutionary arguments and conclusions are very powerful. It seems that the evolutionist’s argument is compelling. The species must have arisen spontaneously via evolutionary mechanisms. But in all of this there is a catch.

Science cannot know all the alternative explanations for the origin of the species. When evolutionists conclude evolution is a fact via the process of elimination, they are making a subtle but crucial non scientific assumption—that they know all the alternative explanations.

So all of these powerful evolutionary arguments for the fact of evolution are non scientific. In other words, evolution has extremely powerful and compelling arguments, but the cost of building such a powerful case is that the idea is not scientific.

Without these powerful proofs, evolution would lie exposed to the many scientific problems and contradictions. The idea that the world, and all of biology, spontaneously arose is, from a strictly scientific perspective, extremely unlikely. But evolution is shielded from such problems by its powerful non scientific proofs.

This non scientific aspect of evolution is immense and would be difficult to underestimate. It has dramatically altered the very perception of science and its evidence. For given the fact of evolution, all of biology is interpreted according to the idea. The many scientific problems with evolution become more friendly “research problems.” And the theory becomes immune to scientific skepticism.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolution-for-dummies-in-750-words.html

 

[UltimateReality]

Question: Why does someone who doesn't believe in God so fervently try to prove to others He does not exist? I mean, if you don't believe in God, why do care that a bunch of ignoramus's cling to their myth? Why do you care if they wallow in their "sad devotion to an ancient religion"? I mean, what is there to prove? Are you concerned they are going to poison science?

History proves believers in God are not "science-loathing" as Darwinist claim.

From Wikipedia:

Sir Isaac Newton (January 4, 1643 – March 31, 1727 or in Old Style: December 25, 1642 – March 20, 1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, inventor, theologian and natural philosopher. He is often regarded as the most influential scientist in history and is most famous for discovering the Laws of Gravity.
Contents

"It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. And therefore as they would understand the frame of the world must endeavor to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity, so must it be in seeking to understand these visions."

I just trying to understand the motivation. There are those on this forum than are sincerely looking for answers and open minded to some lines of logic, but then there are always the attackers, who seem hell bent on antisemitism and Christian bashing. I guess I'm trying to understand, what is their point?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Maybe you should try considering the evidence rather then attack someone for their views in faith.

Odd that you should make such a claim when you drench your posts with "Darwinists", "evolutionists", etc.

As for evidence, you simply link to creationist websites which further fraudulent information.

Here is a thought why don't you show my information and the creationist websites fraudulent information.

You are not listening,pay attention address my questions or take your drivel somewhere else. Is this DAWS in hiding ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't need Neo explained to me.

There is no such entity or ideology. You need "'splainin" that you're using terms promoted by the fundie creationist websites you promote.

You have never heard of Neo darwinism

 

[Youwerecreated]

False assumptions and bad analogies.

However, with DNA mapping, we can find similarities that connect species. In case you missed it, it was that detestable science which provided the knowledge to map DNA.

Why are your gods such incompetent "designers"? Or, why do your gods hate their "creation"?

Have you read the Noah tale? Only Noah and his immediate fanily were alive after your gods murdered their children - because they were a disappointment. It was left to Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the earth. That suggests some rather... sordid... events were to unfold... you know... family members and procreation and such.

But.... but..... but.... but.....but....

I am leaving for home to Arizona from California do me a favor and point out my faulty assumptions. I will respond when I get the chance. Try to9 stay focused and keep it on science ok,that is not too much to ask is it ?

Do you mean that revolting evilutionary science you insist is false?

I was hoping you would have offered some science testimony to support your sectarian version of gods but not once have you managed to do so.

It's apparent your entire promotion in these threads is to vilify the science you despise. It's also apparent that your agenda, as well as that of the ICR, is to vilify science in the hope that, that will bolster your promotion of gods.

That's a failed agenda. Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not going to occur given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.

All of the failed attempts to negate evolution add nothing to Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right".

I am beginning to question your honesty and integrity along with your education in science. No offense but you can't seem to stay away from regurgitating your atheistic websites.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

This research, published by molecular biologist Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute, Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior started by breaking a gene in the bacterium Escherichia coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the gene was broken in just one place, random mutations in the bacteria’s genome were capable of “fixing” the gene. But when two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution could not do the job. Such results show that it is extremely unlikely for blind and unguided Darwinian processes to find rare amino-acid sequences that yield functional proteins. In essence, functional proteins are multi-mutation features in the extreme.

Thereby negating all of the biology that we know. Hey - if you read it on the internet, it must be true and because you used large, bolded text, we're now convinced.

Therefore, we have proved "The gods did it".

Time for another global flood.

Hey ,what biology have you really discussed ? I gave you the chance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Thereby negating all of the biology that we know. Hey - if you read it on the internet, it must be true and because you used large, bolded text, we're now convinced.

Therefore, we have proved "The gods did it".

Time for another global flood.

How does that negate biology? Please explain? (i'm guessing all we'll get is crickets chirping again since Materialist Darwinist Plagiarist Hollie has no thoughts of her own.)

The bold text convinced me. And Michael Behe, another tired, used-up crank who is rolled out by creationist hacks to babble about hack creationism.

Let me guess, you and the other guy are the same poster, different accounts, and scour creationist websites for material to dump into thread upon thread.

Just another crazy atheist that offers nothing in the way of science but bitterness.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The Fruitlessness of ID “Research”

By Jeffrey Shallit on November 30, 2009 8:37 AM| 81 Comments

The Fruitlessness of ID "Research" - The Panda's Thumb

What kind of home were you raised in?

Nothing sends a fundie ID / creationist into sidestepping and backstroking like facts.

In case you forgot.

Hollie, I have a few questions for you.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie, it seems you ignored the part where I brought up the Genome project where they discovered what once was considered junk DNA, it seems it is not junk DNA. Just more DNA information that will further separate humans from all organisms.

That is why I don't believe the 1% difference between human and chimp DNA, Your thoughts ?