Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This article reminded me of the creationist tactic of trotting out people such as Ann Gauger, a thoroughly discredited hack who humiliates herself by thoroughly discrediting her own arguments and those of christian fundies.
Creationist Lies That Never Die
Creationist Lies That Never Die – Dispatches from the Creation Wars
Anyone who has dealt with creationists can tell you about the game of creationist whack-a-mole. Whack-a-mole is that game where you have a mallet and these moles pop out of various holes and you have to whack them with the mallet, but as soon as you whack one of them, another one comes up in another hole. It never seems to end. That is exactly what it’s like dealing with creationists. No matter how many times you disprove a creationist claim, it simply pops up in another hole and you have to whack it all over again. I was reminded of this yet again when I came across this essay:
Dust on the Moon
on a creationist webpage that rehashes the long-discredited “moon dust” argument.
The moon dust argument is sort of a creationist classic, first advanced by Henry Morris in the early 70s, just after the first manned moon landing in 1969. The argument goes like this: meteoritic dust accumulates at a particular rate on the Earth (Morris used a figure of 14 million tons per year). On the Earth, erosion and other processes makes this negligible, but on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, that dust would simply accumulate. At that rate of influx, if the moon is really 4 billion years old it should have hundreds of feet of meteoritic dust on the surface; however, we only find a few inches of dust on the moon, which means it must be only a few thousand years old.
Most everyone is grossed out by you. Juvenile behavior is expected of 12 year olds but your behavior is a pathology.
You're just disgusting. Get help.
What's strange is that during you frequent episodes of masturbation, is that the image you pleasure yourself to?
"Ann Gauger and I have shown that Darwin's mechanism cannot accomplish what appears to be one of the more favorable functional transitions among proteins. Specifically, we've presented experimental evidence that the protein pictured here on the left cannot evolve to perform the function of the protein shown on the right, despite their striking similarity and the generous assumptions we granted.
We completely agree with Moran that this exact transition never happened in the history of enzyme evolution (and said as much in our paper). But evidently we expect more of Darwin's theory than he does. In particular, we expect it to conform to the established norm of offering universal principles instead of just-so stories."
Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime? - Evolution News & Views
Soon folks are going to start waking up to the fantasy that is the TOE. People will look back and wonder how so many educated people (Daws, Loki, and Hollie excluded) could have fallen for the Darwinian myth.
Ah yes. Ann Gauger. Another hack who fronts for the goofy christian fundie movement.
It's a shame that the creationist industry of charlatans and whack-jobs is made up of such loons but then again, when you're pressing religion under the guise of science, I suppose you're only going to get crackpots and fools.
Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for gauger
#140: Ann Gauger
Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institute’s 2005 petition “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”. She’s currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed “scientists”.
A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed “leaky growth” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.
Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).
So funny that you that you insist your goofy creationist claims are not religiously based.This article reminded me of the creationist tactic of trotting out people such as Ann Gauger, a thoroughly discredited hack who humiliates herself by thoroughly discrediting her own arguments and those of christian fundies.
Creationist Lies That Never Die
Creationist Lies That Never Die Dispatches from the Creation Wars
Anyone who has dealt with creationists can tell you about the game of creationist whack-a-mole. Whack-a-mole is that game where you have a mallet and these moles pop out of various holes and you have to whack them with the mallet, but as soon as you whack one of them, another one comes up in another hole. It never seems to end. That is exactly what its like dealing with creationists. No matter how many times you disprove a creationist claim, it simply pops up in another hole and you have to whack it all over again. I was reminded of this yet again when I came across this essay:
Dust on the Moon
on a creationist webpage that rehashes the long-discredited moon dust argument.
The moon dust argument is sort of a creationist classic, first advanced by Henry Morris in the early 70s, just after the first manned moon landing in 1969. The argument goes like this: meteoritic dust accumulates at a particular rate on the Earth (Morris used a figure of 14 million tons per year). On the Earth, erosion and other processes makes this negligible, but on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, that dust would simply accumulate. At that rate of influx, if the moon is really 4 billion years old it should have hundreds of feet of meteoritic dust on the surface; however, we only find a few inches of dust on the moon, which means it must be only a few thousand years old.
So funny that in your psychosis you continually respond to ID's scientific arguments with religious Creationist cut and paste responses. That is just further proof that you can't actually argue the critical points, but continue in your bait and switch methodology to conceal your blatant ignorance.
Pathetic.
Most everyone is grossed out by you. Juvenile behavior is expected of 12 year olds but your behavior is a pathology.
You're just disgusting. Get help.
What's strange is that during you frequent episodes of masturbation, is that the image you pleasure yourself to?
Hmmm. I'm the disgusting one? The things you are picturing in your mind are making me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. I will require you to cease exposing your disgusting thoughts on a public forum.
Pointless babble."Ann Gauger and I have shown that Darwin's mechanism cannot accomplish what appears to be one of the more favorable functional transitions among proteins. Specifically, we've presented experimental evidence that the protein pictured here on the left cannot evolve to perform the function of the protein shown on the right, despite their striking similarity and the generous assumptions we granted.
We completely agree with Moran that this exact transition never happened in the history of enzyme evolution (and said as much in our paper). But evidently we expect more of Darwin's theory than he does. In particular, we expect it to conform to the established norm of offering universal principles instead of just-so stories."
Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime? - Evolution News & Views
Soon folks are going to start waking up to the fantasy that is the TOE. People will look back and wonder how so many educated people (Daws, Loki, and Hollie excluded) could have fallen for the Darwinian myth.
Ah yes. Ann Gauger. Another hack who fronts for the goofy christian fundie movement.
It's a shame that the creationist industry of charlatans and whack-jobs is made up of such loons but then again, when you're pressing religion under the guise of science, I suppose you're only going to get crackpots and fools.
Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for gauger
#140: Ann Gauger
Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institutes 2005 petition Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Shes currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed scientists.
A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed leaky growth in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab? at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.
Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).
Oh Hollie, you poor dear. You are so easily led astray. Funny with all your complaining about lack of education that you would put so much faith in a graduate student in philosophy to know anything about scientific arguments. But then again, you are driven by your confirmation bias, and not really the truth, so it makes perfect sense.
Pathetic.
Frederick*Haraldsen - University of Miami - RateMyProfessors.com
"The problem with Haraldsens criticisms is that his only strategy centers around maniacally endeavoring to cover the subject in question with as much ad hominem manure as possible, so that he can stand back, point to the person in question, and exclaim for all to hear: Look everybody! He is covered in manure! "
Ah, Ad Hollimen and this guy are like two peas and a pod. No wonder Rugged Hollie Touch likes quoting him so much. Poor Hollie, so easily led astray...
So if we were made by ID, why did they make humans so stupid?
Actually, no. I've opened my eyes to the dishonest tactics of creationists who falsifying "quotes" and take no issue with that tactic.
You haven't shown the quote to be "falsified".
And yes, you are blinded by your own prejudices.
This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.
Review your posted "quote" and you will see that what you "quoted" was actually commentary by Henry Morris who was offering his slanted commentary on a partial "quote" (allegedly) by Jeffrey Schwartz. This bit of intellectual sloth was familiar and the same dishonest and sloppy "quoting" has been done before.
There's a good Christian. You can feel better about yourself by poking fun at someone with medical issues.You're having difficulty paying attention. You have failed to offer a response to posts of mine and to posts of others without mindless babble. It is you who mindlessly drones on about magical gods without ever offering anything but juvenile cut and paste.
Have you not looked back through tens of pages and noticed your childish pattern of spamming with gargantuan fonts?
This latest post of spam was yet another desperate plea for my attention. You're a love struck schoolboy with big, weepy doe-eyes looking for attention who has crossed over into creepy stalking.
You're delusional.
A common tactic of creationists is to cut and paste "quotes" from websites such as the ICR without spending the time to verify the authenticity of the material they "quote". That resulted in you falsely and incorrectly attributed a "quote" to an individual who never made such statements. Your carelessness (or was it deception), in falsely attributing "quotes" is a tactic seen often in this thread by creationists who have no ethical standards in connection with what they cut and paste.You haven't shown the quote to be "falsified".
And yes, you are blinded by your own prejudices.
This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.
Review your posted "quote" and you will see that what you "quoted" was actually commentary by Henry Morris who was offering his slanted commentary on a partial "quote" (allegedly) by Jeffrey Schwartz. This bit of intellectual sloth was familiar and the same dishonest and sloppy "quoting" has been done before.
And what you posted did not, in any way, refute any part of that quote.
Perhaps you should read your own links.
BTW I read every word of the link I provided.
A common tactic of creationists is to cut and paste "quotes" from websites such as the ICR without spending the time to verify the authenticity of the material they "quote". That us you falsely and incorrectly attributed a "quote" to an individual who never made such statements. Your carelessness (or was it deception), in falsely attributing "quotes" is a tactic seen often in this thread by creationists who have no ethical standards in connection to what they cut and paste.This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.
Review your posted "quote" and you will see that what you "quoted" was actually commentary by Henry Morris who was offering his slanted commentary on a partial "quote" (allegedly) by Jeffrey Schwartz. This bit of intellectual sloth was familiar and the same dishonest and sloppy "quoting" has been done before.
And what you posted did not, in any way, refute any part of that quote.
Perhaps you should read your own links.
BTW I read every word of the link I provided.
Yes. That is a great example.A common tactic of creationists is to cut and paste "quotes" from websites such as the ICR without spending the time to verify the authenticity of the material they "quote". That us you falsely and incorrectly attributed a "quote" to an individual who never made such statements. Your carelessness (or was it deception), in falsely attributing "quotes" is a tactic seen often in this thread by creationists who have no ethical standards in connection to what they cut and paste.And what you posted did not, in any way, refute any part of that quote.
Perhaps you should read your own links.
BTW I read every word of the link I provided.
Just like the authors Of Pandas and People.
Yep, the flat-earthers own book of tales and fables is as bankrupt as their claims to gods, jinn and other claims to supermagicalism.
Still avoiding the questions put to you ?
You're still dodging and sidestepping any attempt at addressing why you can't account for your gods?
Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.
Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.
The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.
This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.
Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
I don't loathe science.
But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.
Why did humans stop evolving?
Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
Full source and references here.
You do not understand the scientific method.
lie...No.Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?
Hollie, ywc' does have a degree in biology an AA degree (2year) which carries just enough clout to get him a lab assistant job.Look Hollie, I hold a degree in science. Can someone who holds a degree in science look at evidence and infer design verses your invisible creator through naturalism ? if i can't please provide an answer as to why ?
Firstly, I have no reason to believe that you hold a science degree. Secondly, you infer design as a result of your religious belief which is nothing more than mere assertion of supernatural agents. As we see with regularity, your best attempt at proving your gods amounts to flaccid attempts to vilify science. You offer no support for evidence of your supernatural gods and we have every reason to accept that your gods are nothing more than re-telling of earlier tales and fables with adjustments to those earlier superstitious tales.
You make really ignorant statements such as verses (versus -ed.) your invisible creator through naturalism. Thats just ridiculous. You reject the vast and overwhelming evidence for evolution because evolution makes yours gods superfluous and unnecessary. Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. Can you supply any facts to support the argument for your gods? No. That was a rhetorical question because your gods are currently configured conceptions of earlier gods emanating from earlier superstitious tales and fables.
At the core of the arguments separating science, technology, biology and reason from superstition, fear and ignorance lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective facts drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. It is a simple matter to resolve and to dismiss the non-objectivity, grandiose claims and explicit superstitions surrounding creationist holy text literalism. There are literally hundreds of claims to superstitions and fears of supernatural realms similar to yours, all without a single piece of hard evidence to support them.
in other words he's qualified to clean petri dishes and handle biological waste.
any "theories" he adheres to do not remotely qualify him as a scientist of any kind.
bullshit ! the "decision"(if it could be called that) you made was not based on an objective examination of the evidence, it was however based on a lifetime of rabid indoctrination, denial of fact, threats of eternal damnation.You are wrong. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have imposed upon yourself an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support your conclusions; you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe; you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.
You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the evidence that supports the theory.
No, I simply made a decision after looking at evidence and the explanations of the evidence.
any (lol) "decision" you claim to have made was bias from the start.
You are grossly ignorant regarding evolution which of course has been observed.I don't loathe science.
But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.
Why did humans stop evolving?
Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
Full source and references here.
You do not understand the scientific method.
I have not seen one of you on your side yet understand it.
Test study and observe. How do you test and study something that has never been observed ? do you really want to know how faulty assumptions and vivid imaginations.
