The immune system cross-examination still burns

Give us a better, more detailed explanation of the origins of the immune system, Luskin and Ewert.

Is this bit by Luskin the mighty refutation of which Steve P. writes with such reverence and awe? (scratches head) Looks like another own-goal to me.

Kind of like that "pathetic level of detail" bit. Funny how the creos insist on all the details imaginable or MET must be a lie and a scam, but when challenged to meet the same impossible standard it's time to make like the proverbial tree and leave by the nearest entrance.

The MadPanda, FCD

The MadPanda, FCD said: Looks like another own-goal to me.

mrg said: Oh, just another round of Pigeon Chess(TM).

Somebody better call a Waaaambulance for these guys. No one else cares what they are saying.

Well Behe now has five more years of papers to catch up on. Assuming of course that he ever did get around to reading all of the original papers. As the models get more and more detailed and more and more refined, he is really going to get tired having to ignore more and more data. Does anyone think that he is ever going to do any real research in this field? Does anyone think that he is ever going to propose any real alternative? Why would anyone consider him an expert anyway?

At the next trial, assuming he has the guts to show up, why not put one of the transposon origins guys on the stand? You know, one of thuys who actually did collect data and test the hypothesis. Then ask Behe if there is any research on the question. He will have to deny the very existence of the witness who just testified! Of course, no matter what model is proposed or what evidence is presented, he will still claim it isn't good enough. But that's not really the point now is it? I'm sure the next judge will understand that as well.

raw assertions that sequence similarity doesn’t suggest common ancestry

The immune system cross still burns

hmm, maybe they should talk to John Freshwater about that.

I bet he could make a sweet tatt out of that with a tesla coil.

DS said: Well Behe now has five more years of papers to catch up on. Assuming of course that he ever did get around to reading all of the original papers. As the models get more and more detailed and more and more refined, he is really going to get tired having to ignore more and more data. Does anyone think that he is ever going to do any real research in this field? Does anyone think that he is ever going to propose any real alternative? Why would anyone consider him an expert anyway? At the next trial, assuming he has the guts to show up, why not put one of the transposon origins guys on the stand? You know, one of thuys who actually did collect data and test the hypothesis. Then ask Behe if there is any research on the question. He will have to deny the very existence of the witness who just testified! Of course, no matter what model is proposed or what evidence is presented, he will still claim it isn't good enough. But that's not really the point now is it? I'm sure the next judge will understand that as well.

Ichthyic said: The immune system cross still burns hmm, maybe they should talk to John Freshwater about that. I bet he could make a sweet tatt out of that with a tesla coil.

awww, I liked the original.

:)

btw, I consider this to be YOUR day, Nick, and while we have disagreements about many things, I have to give you a hat-tip for Dover.

The background work you did there was instrumental, I think.

You simply cannot receive too many kudos for it.

Ichthyic said: btw, I consider this to be YOUR day, Nick, and while we have disagreements about many things, I have to give you a hat-tip for Dover.

Is Donald Ewert any relation to Winston Ewert, the grad student at Baylor who has sadly fallen in with a bad crowd?

Glen Davidson said: Just because it's a prediction of evolution (in context) and not the least bit a prediction of design means nothing.

“…is perfectly consistent with the creative diversity we expect from the Lord.”

...but of course evolution is TOO creative and diverse for his Lord.

Ichthyic said: awww, I liked the original. :) btw, I consider this to be YOUR day, Nick, and while we have disagreements about many things, I have to give you a hat-tip for Dover. The background work you did there was instrumental, I think. You simply cannot receive too many kudos for it.

Just Bob said: “…is perfectly consistent with the creative diversity we expect from the Lord.” ...but of course evolution is TOO creative and diverse for his Lord.

TomS said: The question arises from time to time, in asking for a description of what happened, according to creationism/intelligent design: What did not happen (or could not, or would not, or will not, or ought not). I suppose that the answer is: evolution. Evolution is the "rock too heavy".

I haven't listened to the podcast, but just reading the excerpts by Luskin, Ewert's critique seems to make little sense. First of all, any summary of the argument for the evolution of the adaptive immune system as a simple claim that similarity = homology = proof of evolution has already missed the bus. The point we made here at PT and was later made at the trial is quite different: that by looking at similarities and interpreting them as potential homologies in evolutionary scenarios, scientists could come up with highly predictive non-trivial hypotheses (that the recombination mechanism would actually *work* like transposition, that transposases would be found with high similarity to the immune system enzymes but no immune function, that they would work on sequences very similar to the corresponding immune system sequences, that non-rearranging forms of the antigen receptors would also be found in non-vertebrate organisms, etc) that can be, and were, empirically confirmed. When several multiple predictions of this type are independently confirmed, any honest scientist HAS to conclude that the original hypothesis (i.e. that similarities reflect true homologies) is strongly supported. Compare this to Behe's passive attitude of "no matter how much we look, we can't find evidence", or that the relevant hypotheses were all flights of fancy, or to Ewert's own "One can easily see how a common ancestor... can equally be replaced by a common designer who used similar structures in different organisms to perform similar functions", where he not manages to both demonstrate how ID has no predictive value, and to show he understands the evidence perfectly backwards.

OK, I actually listened to the podcast, and it also manages to demonstrate how ID is just an exercise in goalpost-moving. Behe chose the antigen receptor recombination system in the vertebrate immune system as a key example of IC, and based on his broader claim that IC was an insurmountable obstacle to gradual evolution, this was a key part of his argument that the immune system could not have evolved by darwinian mechanisms. He specifically ridiculed the hypothesis that the recombination system could have evolved from transposition systems (the trip in Calvin and Hobbes' box). Scientists used the same hypothesis he ridiculed to make testable predictions, which were later empirically verified. So Ewert says that what scientists should have demonstrated instead was how the evolution of the *entire immune system* occurred. Ridiculous.

I've considered Casey Luskin to be a hack ever since I saw this quote from him trying to rebut the Chromosome #2 genetic evidence for common ancestry between humans and other ape species:

[b]"To be more specific, the fusion-evidence implies that some of our ancestors likely had 48 chromosomes. But Miller has not provided any evidence that the individual with 48 chromosomes was historically related to modern apes. (I grant that our chromosome #2 has banding patterns similar to two ape chromosomes, but given that our chromosome structure is generally similar to that of apes anyways, it is not a stretch to assume that any 48 chromosome ancestor of modern humans might have also had a chromosomal scheme similar to that of apes, regardless of whether or not that individual was related to apes. Claiming that banding pattern similarities is evidence of common ancestry with apes simply invokes the “similarity = common ancestry” argument, and thus begs the question.) It is entirely possible that our genus Homo underwent a chromosomal fusion event within its own separate history."[/b]

So he thinks "similarity = common ancestry" begs the question? This idea is the whole basis on which the field of genetics is founded! I suppose we should toss paternity tests and DNA evidence for criminal convictions out the window, if genetic similarity can't be considered evidence of relatedness.

eric said:

Glen Davidson said: Just because it's a prediction of evolution (in context) and not the least bit a prediction of design means nothing.

Every possible outcome is an equally valid prediction of design. Jason Lisle, talking about recent astronomy discoveries here, said something that I think captures ID's can-accommodate-any-discovery pablum perfectly. In speaking about large gas giants in very close orbits around other stars, he commented that the discovery "...is perfectly consistent with the creative diversity we expect from the Lord." That's what makes it science, don'cha know.

These types of retorts are indicative of your (pl) penchant for interpreting any and all data to fit your preconceived notions of non-directed, non-designed, unseen step-wise fortuitous accumulations of extremely rare beneficial mutations building complex, multi-tier, interactive systems over deep time.

In your (pl) own words, it is simply wrong-headed to think there is no design and no purpose. It is all that we see in the microscope and on the street.

Steve P. said:

eric said:

Glen Davidson said: Just because it's a prediction of evolution (in context) and not the least bit a prediction of design means nothing.

Every possible outcome is an equally valid prediction of design. Jason Lisle, talking about recent astronomy discoveries here, said something that I think captures ID's can-accommodate-any-discovery pablum perfectly. In speaking about large gas giants in very close orbits around other stars, he commented that the discovery "...is perfectly consistent with the creative diversity we expect from the Lord." That's what makes it science, don'cha know.

It appears he is borrowing a page from your book, Eric. How many times have we heard from posters here commments like "that is not a problem for evolution." or "How is that a problem for evolution?" These types of retorts are indicative of your (pl) penchant for interpreting any and all data to fit your preconceived notions of non-directed, non-designed, unseen step-wise fortuitous accumulations of extremely rare beneficial mutations building complex, multi-tier, interactive systems over deep time. Thing is, it is not possible to provide supporting evidence for non-direction, non-purpose, non-design. Moreso, such a philosophy flies in the face of what we as humans experience in our daily activity. In your (pl) own words, it is simply wrong-headed to think there is no design and no purpose. It is all that we see in the microscope and on the street.

Sorry, but eric’s claim that “Every possible outcome is an equally valid prediction of design.” is such a BIG LIE that it’s not even phunny. Just stupid.

Flint said:

Sorry, but eric’s claim that “Every possible outcome is an equally valid prediction of design.” is such a BIG LIE that it’s not even phunny. Just stupid.

I have to defend Eric. Unless you can point to anything whatsoever and say "this could not have been designed this way by divine miracle", he's quite right. Theistic evolutionists (those who believe evolution is their god's chosen means of achieving His Purposes) still impose this notion of "if it happened this way, that's because it was meant to by external influence." (And I must say I've seen no mechanical or procedural limits to what "goddidit" can be applied to.)

??? I don't think eric believes in any Designer. He is pointing out that the creationist Designer is logically unconstrained by any limitations whatsoever. And that therefore, logically, ANY CONCEIVABLE outcome could have been Designed. And that therefore, logically, Design cannot make any prediction that can turn out to be incorrect in any way. Which makes every possible outcome a valid prediction of Design, just as eric said.

Yes, of course there is design and purpose, and we see it in the microscope and on the s treet. The question isn’t whether or not there is design or purpose (or functionality), the question is how it got there, what mechanism(s) led to it. Even Bill Dembski had to admit (before he decided to censor the whole discussion away!) that natural selection leads to designs, makes “intelligent” choices (between which organisms survive and which do not), that there is in fact direction and purpose (differential rewards for fitting ecological niches, etc.)

So evolution, unlike Divine Design, is highly limited in where it can go and and how it can get there from here. But if staying alive to breed another generation is considered a purpose, and living in a way that accomplishes that is considered a function, then indeed there is design and purpose in nature. No external imaginary entities required.

It seems you are ascribing something to natural selection that is simply not there. NS is an outcome. Nothing more. NS doesn’t do anything whatsoever. The doing comes from the organism.

Staying alive is never a question for life in general. It only seems to be a question for individual members of species with longer gestation periods and lower reproductive numbers.

At any rate, survival as a purpose is trivially true. But what I am talking about is purpose as quality decisions, detached from questions of survival.

This is what Man does. I don’t consider my (physical) survival when I decide to attend Church on Sunday

In context of this OP, there are so many questions that darwinian concepts can't answer IMHO that is seems so presumptuous to put all ones eggs in that basket.

How does one come to the conclusion that the immune system is not a designed system? To answer that question you have to delve into the deep history of life and answer such threshold questions as:

1) how did organisms recongize other organisms as sources of energy?

2) how did these organisms manage the consumption of other organisms when their structure was made for consumption of nutrients directly from the environment?

3)how and why did some organisms become pathogenic?

4)Why are some organisms both symbiotic and pathogenic?

5)How did organisms recognize the difference between symbiotic and pathogenic organisms?

It appears you have to have a rudimentary immune mechanism in place in order to recognize a threat. As well, having even a rudimentary immune mechanism in advance of a threat is foresight.

So the chicken/egg problem of the immune system in particular and other systems in general seems an insurmountable problem from a non-purpose, non-design perspective.

So the chicken/egg problem of the immune system in particular and other systems in general seems an insurmountable problem from a non-purpose, non-design perspective.

This needs to be clarified a bit. NS refers to the environment’s filtering effect. Some organisms make it through the filter, others do not. Kind of like a tough school where a few students graduate and most flunk out. If only those who graduate are permitted to have children, after a few generations one would expect the average student to produce better schoolwork, right? The environment can be a tough school.

I don’t know what you mean by this. There are multiple strategies in nature that have proved (by surviving) to be effective. One strategy is long gestation periods, and careful protection of the offspring. Another is producing vast numbers of offspring very few of which will survive to breed. Another is having offspring extremely early in the life cycle (pregnancy before hatching, even). Staying alive is HARD, but many strategies are workable. Staying alive is an issue for ALL life, regardless of the various strategies that have evolved.

But even that would seem to be universal. Nearly all organisms, even bacteria, make “quality of life” decisions like avoiding danger, moving toward food, etc. Sexual species make decisions about who gets to mate, etc.

Nor does my cat seem concerned with physical survival when it decides to play with a ball of yarn, or curl up in my lap. So it might very well be the case that all organisms have some notion, at some level, of what makes THEIR life worth living.

And for nearly all of your (and my) species history, the immediate goal of staying alive dominated their lives continually. Most offspring did not live to breed for most of that time, most of those who did just barely made it, and life was indeed cruel, brutish and short. There are genetic clues that our species went through some bottlenecks of near-extinction.

Yes, recently (and mostly with the advent of science) we have abstracted the need for survival somewhat so we can enjoy our lifes rather than just staying alive. But we are no smarter today than we were 50,000 years ago. We simply managed to invent means of making our lives easier.

Steve,

You do understand that the Earth is old. Right?

One trivial example. The North Atlantic is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate is ~1 inch per year through multiple independent measures including GPS.

Most people can do the math.

Rob

Rob said: Steve, You do understand that the Earth is old. Right? One trivial example. The North Atlantic is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate is ~1 inch per year through multiple independent measures including GPS. Most people can do the math. Rob

Steve P. said: .... In your (pl) own words, it is simply wrong-headed to think there is no design and no purpose. It is all that we see in the microscope and on the street. ....

And this gives you two choices: Keep the black/white blinders on and fabricate a perspective where they make sense (like, some creater just up and poofed an immune system from nothing, all at once). Or, adopt a realistic perspective where a very long series of tiny changes gradually added up like the single steps that add up to a long journey.

Immune systems can be regarded, at least in part, as the outcome of a long arms race.

Some organism lucked into a means of attack, and those that inherited this ability were more successful and more of them reproduced.

Some of their victims were more resistant than others, and the more resistant ones survived to reproduce. Small mutations that made EITHER side more effective were selected in the sense that those which were more effective survived better. That’s the NS filter at work.

If you look at your questions, you can see that all of them assume all-or-nothing conditions. Another organism is a source of energy or it isn’t. Their structure was suitable for consuming others, or it wasn’t. Some organisms went from non-pathogenic to pathogenic overnight. Organisms can be symbiotic or pathogenic, but not both, and they are either FULLY symbiotic or pathogenic, or not at all. And the difference is either recognized or it is not. And so on. ALL of your questions are built on these either/or, all-or-nothing assumptions. Pure dichotomous thinking.

And if you can follow this, hopefully you can see that a poofing creator only makes sense within that sort of thinking, a kind of instant all-at-once answer to get from black to white, like a lightswitch.

But life doesn’t work like that. People grow a little bit every day, they learn a little bit every day. I might wish that I could play music like a virtuoso, but I know that no fairy godmother waved a wand one day and imparted all that skill. No, he had to drill HARD, many hours every single day without a break, for YEARS to get that good. You need to understand gradual processes.

Dale Husband said: You left out the other part of my statement against eric: "Unless he is admitting that the Designer he beleives in is an incompetent idiot. After all, men do tend to create God in their own limited image."

eric said: I also think Steve P. is running a linguistic game on you guys.

Steve P said "I don't understand how it happened naturally so it must be a designer."

Sorry, Behe said it long before you and Paley said it long before either of you.

Terrible editing mistake. "Reduced" and "reducer" should be "oxidized" and "oxidizer" of course. That's an own goal. Must need more caffeine.

eric said:

Dale Husband said: You left out the other part of my statement against eric: "Unless he is admitting that the Designer he beleives in is an incompetent idiot. After all, men do tend to create God in their own limited image."

I'm not a creationist Dale; I don't think life or species were designed at all. I meant my comment exactly the way Flint took it: Lisle's saying some phenomena is 'perfectly consistent with the creative diversity of the lord' is absolutely worthless as an explanation because a creationist could say that about anything. (With the caveat I mentioned above; for rhetorical/political reasons fundies will say that whatever policies they disagree with are not consistent with the Lord). I also think Steve P. is running a linguistic game on you guys. His whole line about how strategies can't exist in a non-purpose world is a creationist oldie. Machines can't exist without a machinist. Acts can't happen without an intelligent actor. "X can't happen without an intelligent Xer." How often have we heard that stupidity before? English is flexible enough to allow one to take just about any verb and linguistically convert it into an agent. This does not mean intelligent agency is required for some or all acts. If it did, every time a squirrel buried a nut, we'd have to claim the squirrel is intelligent. Every time oxygen reduced iron, we'd have to claim there's an intelligent reducer. The only thing the verb-agency connection means is that we use language flexibly. There's no metaphysical implication to it at all. Describing some adaptation as a strategy does not imply a strategist, any more than me claiming Steve P. is a tool implies there was a toolmaker who built him in a lab.

Steve P -

By evading these questions, you prove yourself to be cowardly, dishonest, and pathetic.

1. Who is the designer?

2. Precisely what did the designer design?

3. How did the designer design it?

4. When did the designer design it?

5. What is an example of something that might not have been intelligently designed?

Steve P. said: How does one come to the conclusion that the immune system is not a designed system?

The fact that certain individuals survive or not is neither here nor there IMO.

The point is that life in general always survives. Its not a question. Life is not interested in any particular individual, but at best primary forms.

Does it matter if the Dodo made it or not? Obviously no. But does it matter if birds make it or not? Yes. If birds went extinct, game over in short order as it would do irreparable damage to the fragile eco-balance.

Also, the fact that some descendants will survive and some will perish is already known to the organism.

Hence, the number of offspring. The way I like to see it is: roaches produce thousands to keep hundreds, snakes produce hundreds to keep several, rabbits produce several to keep a few. Life is intelligent.

Yes, but strategies don’t exist in a non-purpose, non-designed scenario.

‘Staying alive is hard’ seems a very subjective comment. (the following comment requires preemption. I mean this comment in sincerity, not snarkiness). How do you know it is hard for bacteria, insects, viruses, fish, algae, trees, grass, etc to survive? It seems only a certain narrow band of life appears to struggle.

Your examples are all questions related to physical existence. My examples have no relation to my survival. My happiness may extend my life a few years, but so can stubbornness and fear. So it seems QoL decisions are not related to survival.

Interestingly enough, this phenomemon of ‘play’ seems to reside in the higher forms like mammals, those with a higher brain capacity.

Some organisms may appear to struggle but life in general does not.

Isn’t that the million dollar question? Why are we concerned with QoL and not just surviving. Is it because Humanity is so successful at survival that it bored to death. From a non-purpose, non-design perspective, that would mean evolution (i.e. adapting as a means to survival)is obsolete, at the very least in the case of Man.

Ironically enough, your characterization of a very long series of small step as realistic is an attempt to avoid the question of intelligence imbedded in nature. The specific example of small steps along a journey is an example of intelligence. Each step is considered with a target in mind. Even wandering has a target of never being pinned down.

Moreso, the idea of small step change leading to complexity has not been observed empirically.

Yes, tinkering and hit and miss activity are seen in both Man and bacteria. But the bacteria are not tinkering and hitting and missing in an effort to build complexity but to maintain equilibrium.

AFAIK, we have never witnessed an organism building itself up from a simple set of basic interactive systems to a set of complex, multi-tier, interactive systems. This is an idea that seems to reside only in our imagination, regardless of the sophistication of those imaginings.

The question is why an arms race? This has not been empirically observed. There must be a very strong basis for this type of assertion.

Again, this presupposes a need to attack. How do you get from the original pacifism to barbarism in early organisms?

What was the impetus for such a dramatic change? And I stress the dramatic part. It doesn’t seem a trivial event.

This seems the standard darwinian narrative. But too many questions unanswered.

First, some organisms acquire the ability to attack. How but more importantly, why?

In the early biosphere there was plenty of room and resources. You have to assume there was a dramatic reduction in resources. What is the supporting evidence for this dramatic reduction?

As well, at the same time you have to assume that 1) organisms somehow recognized their depleting pool of energy resources in advance of that depletion

and 2)that they recognized other organisms as now a new source of energy

and 3) that organisms acquired the ability to transform themselves in time to have the means to consume other organisms.

Secondly, in response to attacks, the recipients of these attacks had to acquire the ability to defend. How was that done?

Moreover, the ability to defend had to be acquired, at the very least, at the same time that attacking organisms acquired their brutish trait.

Yet, this dichotomy exists. Early organisms were self-replicating and substisted on nutrients extracted directly from the environment. Now we have organisms that consume other organisms, where they didn’t before. You are asking for a denial of that observation.

It would not be a question only if there was no change in how organisms consume energy resources. An immune system is the recognition of that change from white to black. The question is what compelled early life to make that change, how did that change occur, and how did complementary yet separate systems (attack/defend) arise simultaneously?

Yet your ‘some organism lucked into a means of attack’ appears as a long-winded version of ‘poofery’. How is luck quantified from a scientific perspective? How is it transformed into a physio-chemical process?

You are viewing the development of life from human experience. You recognize gradual processes in your life and apply them to biological development. Yet, another experience is that of human creativity, taken in a chronological context is very much a flash in the pan, explosion of activity, analogous to the Cambrian explosion.

To this date, I have not heard any music that can match it quality in terms of packing technical ability, musical innovation, vision, emotional impact, and combining so many musical genres in a single composition. IMO it has been a slow, rolling hill going slightly downhill ever since.

IMO creativity happens in explosions, lingers and varies, then slowly fades until the next explosion.

The point being that I can come to a strong design perspective precisely in the same manner that you seem to arrive at your concept of ‘gradual accumulation of capabilities’; by contemplating my human experience.

For me, the design perspective matches more closely both with my human experience and what we observe in nature.

Steve P. said: The fact that certain individuals survive or not is neither here nor there IMO. The point is that life in general always survives. Its not a question. Life is not interested in any particular individual, but at best primary forms.

Does it matter if the Dodo made it or not? Obviously no. But does it matter if birds make it or not? Yes. If birds went extinct, game over in short order as it would do irreparable damage to the fragile eco-balance.

Also, the fact that some descendants will survive and some will perish is already known to the organism. Hence, the number of offspring. The way I like to see it is: roaches produce thousands to keep hundreds, snakes produce hundreds to keep several, rabbits produce several to keep a few. Life is intelligent.

Your examples are all questions related to physical existence. My examples have no relation to my survival. My happiness may extend my life a few years, but so can stubbornness and fear. So it seems QoL decisions are not related to survival.

Yes, recently (and mostly with the advent of science) we have abstracted the need for survival somewhat so we can enjoy our lifes rather than just staying alive. But we are no smarter today than we were 50,000 years ago. We simply managed to invent means of making our lives easier.

Isn't that the million dollar question? Why are we concerned with QoL and not just surviving. Is it because Humanity is so successful at survival that it bored to death. From a non-purpose, non-design perspective, that would mean evolution (i.e. adapting as a means to survival)is obsolete, at the very least in the case of Man.

Flint said:

Moreso, the idea of small step change leading to complexity has not been observed empirically.

Yes, it has.

I think Steve P is making a good-faith effort to defend his viewpoint, and deserves more than mocking dismissal.

He makes some interesting points.

eric said: Either that, or God is desiging new genes on the fly.

Steve P. said:

Yes, of course there is design and purpose, and we see it in the microscope and on the s treet. The question isn’t whether or not there is design or purpose (or functionality), the question is how it got there, what mechanism(s) led to it. Even Bill Dembski had to admit (before he decided to censor the whole discussion away!) that natural selection leads to designs, makes “intelligent” choices (between which organisms survive and which do not), that there is in fact direction and purpose (differential rewards for fitting ecological niches, etc.)

It seems you are ascribing something to natural selection that is simply not there. NS is an outcome. Nothing more. NS doesn't do anything whatsoever. The doing comes from the organism.

So evolution, unlike Divine Design, is highly limited in where it can go and and how it can get there from here. But if staying alive to breed another generation is considered a purpose, and living in a way that accomplishes that is considered a function, then indeed there is design and purpose in nature. No external imaginary entities required.

Staying alive is never a question for life in general.

It only seems to be a question for individual members of species with longer gestation periods and lower reproductive numbers.

At any rate, survival as a purpose is trivially true. But what I am talking about is purpose as quality decisions, detached from questions of survival. This is what Man does.I don't consider my (physical) survival when I decide to attend Church on Sunday, or buy a Mitshubishi instead of a Toyota, or Reebok Zigtech instead of Nikes, or coffee instead of Coke, or helping a tourist with directions even though I am late for work, or putting a bill in a tin cup, or countless other examples of purpose detached from physics and chemistry.

What did the designer do? Were there modern vertebrates existing with no immune system? Did the designer use magic to put immune systems into them? Or did the designer create modern vertebrates intact out of nothing? As far as I can tell, some variation on one of these is essentially Steve P’s only two possible position. After all, he’s arguing that modern vertebrate immune systems couldn’t have evolved.

Karen S. said: There is another option: None of this is real! That is, we could all be bewitched, under a curse or spell, asleep or drugged, or implanted with false memories. There's no telling what that designer might do, right?

Stuart Weinstein said: As it is genetic algorithms based on NS already beat known designers. I've posted on this before.

harold said: 2) What did the designer do? Were there modern vertebrates existing with no immune system? Did the designer use magic to put immune systems into them? Or did the designer create modern vertebrates intact out of nothing? As far as I can tell, some variation on one of these is essentially Steve P's only two possible position. After all, he's arguing that modern vertebrate immune systems couldn't have evolved. Therefore either modern vertebrates without immune systems were magically given immune systems (some magic step needed), or they were magically created with immune systems, from the get go.

TomS said: But mostly I wonder whether any of all of these scientists and other smart people ever actually thought about what they are talking about when they support "intelligent design".

He won’t say who the designer is, what the designer did, when the designer did it, how the designer did it, or even give an example of something the designer might not have done. Even valid critique of some specific science about how the immune system evolved is not a defense of ID. It’s irrelevant. It seems unlikely, but maybe we will find out tomorrow that current thinking on the evolution of the immune system needs to be modified in a major way. That doesn’t make magic the default.

Flint, as Nick recently reminded us you defeat by reason that which was arrived at irrationally.

I've begged creationists to let me teach them biology. We'll start at chapter 1 of whatever bio book they can get a hold of and go through the whole thing with interesting side notes, experiments, and other supplementary material provided by myself.

None of them have ever taken me up on it. Of one of them was willing to honestly examine the evidence, then I would be first in line to help them.

They are afraid to honestly examine the evidence because they know, in their heart of hearts, that science is correct. Why? Because they know it works. From their cars to take them to church, to the squeaky rubber-soled shoes, everything in their world has been provided by science.

Steve P. said:

And this gives you two choices: Keep the black/white blinders on and fabricate a perspective where they make sense (like, some creater just up and poofed an immune system from nothing, all at once). Or, adopt a realistic perspective where a very long series of tiny changes gradually added up like the single steps that add up to a long journey.

Ironically enough, your characterization of a very long series of small step as realistic is an attempt to avoid the question of intelligence imbedded in nature. The specific example of small steps along a journey is an example of intelligence. Each step is considered with a target in mind. Even wandering has a target of never being pinned down. Moreso, the idea of small step change leading to complexity has not been observed empirically. Yes, tinkering and hit and miss activity are seen in both Man and bacteria. But the bacteria are not tinkering and hitting and missing in an effort to build complexity but to maintain equilibrium. AFAIK, we have never witnessed an organism building itself up from a simple set of basic interactive systems to a set of complex, multi-tier, interactive systems. This is an idea that seems to reside only in our imagination, regardless of the sophistication of those imaginings.

Immune systems can be regarded, at least in part, as the outcome of a long arms race.

The question is why an arms race? This has not been empirically observed. There must be a very strong basis for this type of assertion.

Some organism lucked into a means of attack, and those that inherited this ability were more successful and more of them reproduced.

Again, this presupposes a need to attack. How do you get from the original pacifism to barbarism in early organisms? What was the impetus for such a dramatic change? And I stress the dramatic part. It doesn't seem a trivial event.

Some of their victims were more resistant than others, and the more resistant ones survived to reproduce. Small mutations that made EITHER side more effective were selected in the sense that those which were more effective survived better. That’s the NS filter at work.

This seems the standard darwinian narrative. But too many questions unanswered. First, some organisms acquire the ability to attack. How but more importantly, why? In the early biosphere there was plenty of room and resources. You have to assume there was a dramatic reduction in resources. What is the supporting evidence for this dramatic reduction? As well, at the same time you have to assume that 1) organisms somehow recognized their depleting pool of energy resources in advance of that depletion and 2)that they recognized other organisms as now a new source of energy and 3) that organisms acquired the ability to transform themselves in time to have the means to consume other organisms. Secondly, in response to attacks, the recipients of these attacks had to acquire the ability to defend. How was that done? Moreover, the ability to defend had to be acquired, at the very least, at the same time that attacking organisms acquired their brutish trait.

If you look at your questions, you can see that all of them assume all-or-nothing conditions. Another organism is a source of energy or it isn’t. Their structure was suitable for consuming others, or it wasn’t. Some organisms went from non-pathogenic to pathogenic overnight. Organisms can be symbiotic or pathogenic, but not both, and they are either FULLY symbiotic or pathogenic, or not at all. And the difference is either recognized or it is not. And so on. ALL of your questions are built on these either/or, all-or-nothing assumptions. Pure dichotomous thinking.

Yet, this dichotomy exists. Early organisms were self-replicating and substisted on nutrients extracted directly from the environment. Now we have organisms that consume other organisms, where they didn't before. You are asking for a denial of that observation. It would not be a question only if there was no change in how organisms consume energy resources. An immune system is the recognition of that change from white to black. The question is what compelled early life to make that change, how did that change occur, and how did complementary yet separate systems (attack/defend) arise simultaneously?

And if you can follow this, hopefully you can see that a poofing creator only makes sense within that sort of thinking, a kind of instant all-at-once answer to get from black to white, like a lightswitch.

Yet your 'some organism lucked into a means of attack' appears as a long-winded version of 'poofery'. How is luck quantified from a scientific perspective? How is it transformed into a physio-chemical process?

But life doesn’t work like that. People grow a little bit every day, they learn a little bit every day. I might wish that I could play music like a virtuoso, but I know that no fairy godmother waved a wand one day and imparted all that skill. No, he had to drill HARD, many hours every single day without a break, for YEARS to get that good. You need to understand gradual processes.

You are viewing the development of life from human experience. You recognize gradual processes in your life and apply them to biological development. Yet, another experience is that of human creativity, taken in a chronological context is very much a flash in the pan, explosion of activity, analogous to the Cambrian explosion. I was thinking about this last night when I was driving to Taipei to p/u the wife. I was listening to the first cut John McLaughlin/ Mahavishnu Orchestra' Lost Trident Sessions and Jean-Luc Ponty's Upon the Wings of Music. This music dates back to the early '70s, 40 years ago. To this date, I have not heard any music that can match it quality in terms of packing technical ability, musical innovation, vision, emotional impact, and combining so many musical genres in a single composition. IMO it has been a slow, rolling hill going slightly downhill ever since. IMO creativity happens in explosions, lingers and varies, then slowly fades until the next explosion. The point being that I can come to a strong design perspective precisely in the same manner that you seem to arrive at your concept of 'gradual accumulation of capabilities'; by contemplating my human experience. For me, the design perspective matches more closely both with my human experience and what we observe in nature.

Steve P. said:

This needs to be clarified a bit. NS refers to the environment’s filtering effect. Some organisms make it through the filter, others do not. Kind of like a tough school where a few students graduate and most flunk out. If only those who graduate are permitted to have children, after a few generations one would expect the average student to produce better schoolwork, right? The environment can be a tough school.

The fact that certain individuals survive or not is neither here nor there IMO. The point is that life in general always survives. Its not a question. Life is not interested in any particular individual, but at best primary forms. Does it matter if the Dodo made it or not? Obviously no. But does it matter if birds make it or not? Yes. If birds went extinct, game over in short order as it would do irreparable damage to the fragile eco-balance. Also, the fact that some descendants will survive and some will perish is already known to the organism. Hence, the number of offspring. The way I like to see it is: roaches produce thousands to keep hundreds, snakes produce hundreds to keep several, rabbits produce several to keep a few. Life is intelligent.

I don’t know what you mean by this. There are multiple strategies in nature that have proved (by surviving) to be effective. One strategy is long gestation periods, and careful protection of the offspring. Another is producing vast numbers of offspring very few of which will survive to breed. Another is having offspring extremely early in the life cycle (pregnancy before hatching, even). Staying alive is HARD, but many strategies are workable. Staying alive is an issue for ALL life, regardless of the various strategies that have evolved.

Yes, but strategies don't exist in a non-purpose, non-designed scenario. So you can't talk about strategies. There is only the effects of physics and chemistry. 'Staying alive is hard' seems a very subjective comment. (the following comment requires preemption. I mean this comment in sincerity, not snarkiness). How do you know it is hard for bacteria, insects, viruses, fish, algae, trees, grass, etc to survive? It seems only a certain narrow band of life appears to struggle.

But even that would seem to be universal. Nearly all organisms, even bacteria, make “quality of life” decisions like avoiding danger, moving toward food, etc. Sexual species make decisions about who gets to mate, etc.

Your examples are all questions related to physical existence. My examples have no relation to my survival. My happiness may extend my life a few years, but so can stubbornness and fear. So it seems QoL decisions are not related to survival.

Nor does my cat seem concerned with physical survival when it decides to play with a ball of yarn, or curl up in my lap. So it might very well be the case that all organisms have some notion, at some level, of what makes THEIR life worth living.

Interestingly enough, this phenomemon of 'play' seems to reside in the higher forms like mammals, those with a higher brain capacity. I have two dogs, a schnauzer and a toy poodle. The schnauzer is the older sister, and the poodle the little sister. And I swear that the relationship they have imitates closely in many respects that of relations between two humans. So I don't claim QoL decisions are exclusive to humans, but without question IMO QoL decisions dominate human life.

And for nearly all of your (and my) species history, the immediate goal of staying alive dominated their lives continually. Most offspring did not live to breed for most of that time, most of those who did just barely made it, and life was indeed cruel, brutish and short. There are genetic clues that our species went through some bottlenecks of near-extinction.

Maybe so. But from a non-design, non-purpose perspective, it must be true for all of Life. But that does not seem to be the case. Some organisms may appear to struggle but life in general does not.

Yes, recently (and mostly with the advent of science) we have abstracted the need for survival somewhat so we can enjoy our lifes rather than just staying alive. But we are no smarter today than we were 50,000 years ago. We simply managed to invent means of making our lives easier.

Isn't that the million dollar question? Why are we concerned with QoL and not just surviving. Is it because Humanity is so successful at survival that it bored to death. From a non-purpose, non-design perspective, that would mean evolution (i.e. adapting as a means to survival)is obsolete, at the very least in the case of Man.

Anyone notice that IBelieve seems stupider than usual?

IBelieveInGod babbled: NICE POST!!! I really enjoyed reading!

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: NICE POST!!! I really enjoyed reading!

And yet, your posts suggest that you made no effort to actually read Steve P's inane posts, and that, you're just saying this in order to antagonize us by showing solidarity with a fellow troll.

Flint, sorry but I got caught in a meeting this morning and now have to go to Carrefour to p/u a turkey. I will respond after lunch.

What was inane about his posts? Are they inane because you don’t agree with them? If someone were to have a different view about anything then you, would you consider their view inane?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: NICE POST!!! I really enjoyed reading!

And yet, your posts suggest that you made no effort to actually read Steve P's inane posts, and that, you're just saying this in order to antagonize us by showing solidarity with a fellow troll.

What was inane about his posts? Are they inane because you don't agree with them? If someone were to have a different view about anything then you, would you consider their view inane? Do you already have complete knowledge of everything?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: NICE POST!!! I really enjoyed reading!

And yet, your posts suggest that you made no effort to actually read Steve P's inane posts, and that, you're just saying this in order to antagonize us by showing solidarity with a fellow troll.

What was inane about his posts? Are they inane because you don't agree with them? If someone were to have a different view about anything then you, would you consider their view inane? Do you already have complete knowledge of everything?

Flint said: I found Steve P's posts sincere if profoundly uninformed. Certainly not inane. But if Steve P decides to drop anchor where he is and defend his lack of knowledge against all threat of education, then there's no further reason to engage with him.

In my opinion, Steve P’s posts are inane because they betray willful ignorance of science education, as well as a haughty refusal to learn anything.

Flint said:

In my opinion, Steve P’s posts are inane because they betray willful ignorance of science education, as well as a haughty refusal to learn anything.

OK, I'm not sure I see this same thing. What I see is LACK of science education (for whatever reason). And like many (and as nearly ALL people did before the invention of science), he's constructed a mental model that works for him. And for him as for most people, magic is entirely acceptable and admirably fills the role of "explaining" what otherwise would be confusing or mysterious. What I haven't determined yet is whether he's curious, and whether he might be less than fully satisfied with a model so accommodating that just anything will fit. After all, the POOF model is so simple and straightforward, it requires no research, no knowledge, no education, no evidence, no heavy thinking. It can't be proved wrong. It's a Herculean exercise to abandon it in favor of something complex, tenuous, and demanding. Especially when one's social milieu rewards swallowing magic and punishes nose-to-the-grindstone education.

IBelieveInGod said: *SNIP* Well Put!

Stanton said:

Flint said:

In my opinion, Steve P’s posts are inane because they betray willful ignorance of science education, as well as a haughty refusal to learn anything.

OK, I'm not sure I see this same thing. What I see is LACK of science education (for whatever reason). And like many (and as nearly ALL people did before the invention of science), he's constructed a mental model that works for him. And for him as for most people, magic is entirely acceptable and admirably fills the role of "explaining" what otherwise would be confusing or mysterious. What I haven't determined yet is whether he's curious, and whether he might be less than fully satisfied with a model so accommodating that just anything will fit. After all, the POOF model is so simple and straightforward, it requires no research, no knowledge, no education, no evidence, no heavy thinking. It can't be proved wrong. It's a Herculean exercise to abandon it in favor of something complex, tenuous, and demanding. Especially when one's social milieu rewards swallowing magic and punishes nose-to-the-grindstone education.

As far as I can tell from all of Steve P's posts here, he does not appear to be curious of other thought-models, AND he spends a lot of time looking down his nose at people he deems stupid enough to get an actual education.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: NICE POST!!! I really enjoyed reading!

And yet, your posts suggest that you made no effort to actually read Steve P's inane posts, and that, you're just saying this in order to antagonize us by showing solidarity with a fellow troll.

What was inane about his posts? Are they inane because you don't agree with them? If someone were to have a different view about anything then you, would you consider their view inane? Do you already have complete knowledge of everything?

Furthermore, why do you continue posting here? After all, you've demonstrated that you are an inane bigot who hates science, knowledge, education, truth, and Catholics. And then there's the fact that you're delusionally stupid enough to think that you can somehow overturn science with just lies, and stupid word games.

In the last post I meant to say that I'm not going to say that you are inane if you post an opposing view.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: NICE POST!!! I really enjoyed reading!

And yet, your posts suggest that you made no effort to actually read Steve P's inane posts, and that, you're just saying this in order to antagonize us by showing solidarity with a fellow troll.

What was inane about his posts? Are they inane because you don't agree with them? If someone were to have a different view about anything then you, would you consider their view inane? Do you already have complete knowledge of everything?

Furthermore, why do you continue posting here? After all, you've demonstrated that you are an inane bigot who hates science, knowledge, education, truth, and Catholics. And then there's the fact that you're delusionally stupid enough to think that you can somehow overturn science with just lies, and stupid word games.

Can you point out one post that I said that I hate science? My problem isn't science, but it is people like you who use science as a tool to attempt to destroy the faith in God of many. In doing so you are leading many to destruction, which I find awful. Science will never know how life came about, the best scientists can ever do is come up with an explanation, which really has nothing to do with what 'REALLY HAPPENED', the same holds true with evolution from common descent, big bang, etc... All of these are examples of Scientism, where scientists attempt to explain the unexplainable. Attempt to apply scientific method where it can't and shouldn't be applied. Many keep throwing out 'POOFING', 'MAGIC', etc... But I don't know precisely how God created, all I know is that He spoke and the laws of nature, that He created obeyed. But, if God created physical laws, then isn't it safe to say that He lives outside those physical laws. But, this is my belief and I'm going to say that you are inane if you post an opposing view. You won't admit it, but your so-called THOUGHT-MODELS are nothing more the a belief system, and uses peer pressure to get all others to line up with those THOUGHT-MODELS or else be ostracized, does that sound familiar?

Stanton said:

Flint said:

In my opinion, Steve P’s posts are inane because they betray willful ignorance of science education, as well as a haughty refusal to learn anything.

OK, I'm not sure I see this same thing. What I see is LACK of science education (for whatever reason). And like many (and as nearly ALL people did before the invention of science), he's constructed a mental model that works for him. And for him as for most people, magic is entirely acceptable and admirably fills the role of "explaining" what otherwise would be confusing or mysterious. What I haven't determined yet is whether he's curious, and whether he might be less than fully satisfied with a model so accommodating that just anything will fit. After all, the POOF model is so simple and straightforward, it requires no research, no knowledge, no education, no evidence, no heavy thinking. It can't be proved wrong. It's a Herculean exercise to abandon it in favor of something complex, tenuous, and demanding. Especially when one's social milieu rewards swallowing magic and punishes nose-to-the-grindstone education.

As far as I can tell from all of Steve P's posts here, he does not appear to be curious of other thought-models, AND he spends a lot of time looking down his nose at people he deems stupid enough to get an actual education.

Keelyn said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: NICE POST!!! I really enjoyed reading!

And yet, your posts suggest that you made no effort to actually read Steve P's inane posts, and that, you're just saying this in order to antagonize us by showing solidarity with a fellow troll.

What was inane about his posts? Are they inane because you don't agree with them? If someone were to have a different view about anything then you, would you consider their view inane? Do you already have complete knowledge of everything?

Furthermore, why do you continue posting here? After all, you've demonstrated that you are an inane bigot who hates science, knowledge, education, truth, and Catholics. And then there's the fact that you're delusionally stupid enough to think that you can somehow overturn science with just lies, and stupid word games.

Can you point out one post that I said that I hate science? My problem isn't science, but it is people like you who use science as a tool to attempt to destroy the faith in God of many. In doing so you are leading many to destruction, which I find awful. Science will never know how life came about, the best scientists can ever do is come up with an explanation, which really has nothing to do with what 'REALLY HAPPENED', the same holds true with evolution from common descent, big bang, etc... All of these are examples of Scientism, where scientists attempt to explain the unexplainable. Attempt to apply scientific method where it can't and shouldn't be applied. Many keep throwing out 'POOFING', 'MAGIC', etc... But I don't know precisely how God created, all I know is that He spoke and the laws of nature, that He created obeyed. But, if God created physical laws, then isn't it safe to say that He lives outside those physical laws. But, this is my belief and I'm going to say that you are inane if you post an opposing view. You won't admit it, but your so-called THOUGHT-MODELS are nothing more the a belief system, and uses peer pressure to get all others to line up with those THOUGHT-MODELS or else be ostracized, does that sound familiar?

You know, IBIG, I have no problem or argument with you knowing, “that He spoke and the laws of nature, that He created obeyed.” I don’t think most of the people on here do. If that’s what you “know,” then fine. But, I don’t “know” that. My complaint with you is your insistence that what you “know” has legitimate scientific usefulness and should be rammed into the public science curriculum. It doesn’t and it shouldn’t be. In recent years, the attempts to do so have fortunately met with dismal failure. However, I have no intention of becoming complacent and assuming it will always stay that way. You can believe anything you want – nobody cares – but, don’t expect people who actually understand and appreciate what science is to sit idly by while you, or someone like you in a position of policy making, try to shove your religious dogma into public education. Constant vigilance is the only thing that keeps a very small, but very vocal and dangerous (to good science education) minority in check.

IBelieveInGod said: Yet science doesn't and never will know if Abiogenesis took place, and science doesn't know that evolution from common descent took place, and science doesn't know that big bang took place, so using your argument, there is no place for them in public education as well. You have no right to shove your anti-religous dogma into public education. A small minority? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html

IBelieveInGod said: In the last post I meant to say that I'm not going to say that you are inane if you post an opposing view.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: Yet science doesn't and never will know if Abiogenesis took place, and science doesn't know that evolution from common descent took place, and science doesn't know that big bang took place, so using your argument, there is no place for them in public education as well. You have no right to shove your anti-religous dogma into public education. A small minority? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html

Fuck, you're stupid. Argumentam ad populam again? What part of 'logical fallacy' did you miss when they were teaching critical thinking skills? Oh, wait, you skipped that class because it was against your religion. Go spew on ATBC, stay on topic, or go away. The MadPanda, FCD

IBelieveInGod said: Yet science doesn't and never will know if Abiogenesis took place, and science doesn't know that evolution from common descent took place, and science doesn't know that big bang took place, so using your argument, there is no place for them in public education as well. You have no right to shove your anti-religous dogma into public education.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: NICE POST!!! I really enjoyed reading!

And yet, your posts suggest that you made no effort to actually read Steve P's inane posts, and that, you're just saying this in order to antagonize us by showing solidarity with a fellow troll.

What was inane about his posts? Are they inane because you don't agree with them? If someone were to have a different view about anything then you, would you consider their view inane? Do you already have complete knowledge of everything?

Stanton said: IBelieve is trying to imply that, since scientists can not magically go back in time to see, therefore, scientists are useless idiots who will never know anything, ever, and that we should assume that God magically poofed everything into existence without any evidence, 10,000 years ago, under pain of eternal damnation. Like IBelieve keeps telling us.

Stanton said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: Yet science doesn't and never will know if Abiogenesis took place, and science doesn't know that evolution from common descent took place, and science doesn't know that big bang took place, so using your argument, there is no place for them in public education as well. You have no right to shove your anti-religous dogma into public education. A small minority? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html

Fuck, you're stupid. Argumentam ad populam again? What part of 'logical fallacy' did you miss when they were teaching critical thinking skills? Oh, wait, you skipped that class because it was against your religion. Go spew on ATBC, stay on topic, or go away. The MadPanda, FCD

IBelieve is trying to imply that, since scientists can not magically go back in time to see, therefore, scientists are useless idiots who will never know anything, ever, and that we should assume that God magically poofed everything into existence without any evidence, 10,000 years ago, under pain of eternal damnation. Like IBelieve keeps telling us.

IBelieveInGod said: I'm not actually implying that at all. My point is that your explanation of origins is not any more valid then others who believe in a Creator.

Somehow even though you will never know the origin of life on earth, you expect me and others to accept supposed scientific explanations of origins. Science will never be able to know the actual origin of life on earth. Hey you don't even know what the first insect really was, the first dinosaur, or the first bird really was, etc...

I’m not actually implying that at all. My point is that your explanation of origins is not any more valid then others who believe in a Creator.

Somehow even though you will never know the origin of life on earth, you expect me and others to accept supposed scientific explanations of origins.

Science will never be able to know the actual origin of life on earth.

Hey you don’t even know what the first insect really was, the first dinosaur, or the first bird really was, etc…

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: Yet science doesn't and never will know if Abiogenesis took place, and science doesn't know that evolution from common descent took place, and science doesn't know that big bang took place, so using your argument, there is no place for them in public education as well. You have no right to shove your anti-religous dogma into public education. A small minority? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html

Fuck, you're stupid. Argumentam ad populam again? What part of 'logical fallacy' did you miss when they were teaching critical thinking skills? Oh, wait, you skipped that class because it was against your religion. Go spew on ATBC, stay on topic, or go away. The MadPanda, FCD

IBelieve is trying to imply that, since scientists can not magically go back in time to see, therefore, scientists are useless idiots who will never know anything, ever, and that we should assume that God magically poofed everything into existence without any evidence, 10,000 years ago, under pain of eternal damnation. Like IBelieve keeps telling us.

I'm not actually implying that at all. My point is that your explanation of origins is not any more valid then others who believe in a Creator. Somehow even though you will never know the origin of life on earth, you expect me and others to accept supposed scientific explanations of origins. Science will never be able to know the actual origin of life on earth. Hey you don't even know what the first insect really was, the first dinosaur, or the first bird really was, etc...

There are certain semantic problems here that cause confusion. You have described what I called “strategies”. Different organisms evolved different strategies. But this didn’t happen because “life is intelligent”, it happened because just about every imaginable strategy was tried, and one of them worked best for each organism (and for 99% of organisms, nothing worked permanently and they are all extinct).

What do you mean by “appears”? If yeast (for example) were given all the nutrients it could consume, then yeast would have a mass greater than the entire earth in three days! What that means is, the mortality rate of yeast is enormous, almost (but not quite) 100%, before reproducing. Is that not a struggle to survive?

(And perhaps the basic elements of evolution need to be presented here. For evolution to take place, we need more than a source of variation and the capacity to inherit it. We need more offspring than can survive, for all forms of life. Because if all offspring could survive, there would be no selection. The result is nonstop, life-and-death competition for limited resources, by too many organisms to survive on those resources. Most organisms simply don’t make it. Experiments show that the more drastic the selection (the fewer survivors), the faster the rate of evolution. The struggle to survive MUST be universal and difficult. Otherwise, evolution would simply stop.)

Evolution is the process of those who succeeded, breeding with others who succeeded.

Oh yes, it has indeed been empirically observed. The battle to produce effective antibiotics results from the bacteria arming themselves better and better against existing antibiotics. All forms of life require resources, all such resources are also required by other forms of life. The entire human food supply consists of life we prey on. We in turn are prey for countless other forms. Much of medicine is concerned with this empirical observation.

What original pacifism? To survive, all organisms must eat, and most must eat the kinds of molecules they are made of. BUT those molecules form the bodies of other organisms. This has always been the case. Pacifism never existed.

So my goal isn’t to demand what Steve P clearly doesn’t know and doesn’t feel he needs to know. My goal is to explore how he views his world, how he rationalizes his dismissal of evidence. Of course he has gross misunderstandings. But what are they and how did they get there and can they be corrected at all? I think some of them can.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: I'm not actually implying that at all. My point is that your explanation of origins is not any more valid then others who believe in a Creator.

Riiiiight. And you know this, how? (Note that I do not ask you why you believe it, I ask how you know it.)

Somehow even though you will never know the origin of life on earth, you expect me and others to accept supposed scientific explanations of origins. Science will never be able to know the actual origin of life on earth. Hey you don't even know what the first insect really was, the first dinosaur, or the first bird really was, etc...

This is one long argument from incredulity and may thus be rejected out of hand. If you knew the material, you would know why your questions are not even wrong. Even for you, this is a weak attempt. The MadPanda, FCD

From Dale: But life forms are not music.

Robin said:

Steve P. said: How does one come to the conclusion that the immune system is not a designed system?

Why conclude such when it's the default position? You're begging the question by presuming there's a basis for the question - there isn't. Unless and until there is an actual testable phenomenon of other-than-human-design, there's nothing to presume about such. Merely saying, "well it must be designed because it's waaaaay more complex than anything humans design" isn't a valid or credible argument or hypothesis.

Contrary to the charge that I am attempting a linguistic game, IMO it is a real problem to use the word strategy when in fact that is not what you mean. As well, the word strategy connotes foreknowledge, intelligence; but this is exactly what you do not wish to convey. If I am an evolutionary biologist that rejects purpose, design in nature, I would most certainly wish to avoid using these terms. In fact, if I could not find the appropriate word to describe the meaning I wanted to convey, I would invent my own. Not only would it help to convey the precise, technical point I am trying to make, it would also provide my field with its own unique signature.

Actually, no. That is what the yeast does. The yeast that die are nutrients for other organisms. The yeast is always with us precisely because it reproduces in huge quantities. So the say, +/-1% that survive is all it takes. There is no struggle. There is only work.

We can see it another way. The fact that most organisms don’t make it is part of the balance of life.

Like I mentioned before, the snake provides sustenance to other animals in the way of excess offspring in order to ensure the survival of the minimum number of offspring it needs to keep the snake gene pool viable. It’s not a competition, but a win/win compromise.

Another point is that each organism is part of the environment and a source of food. So there is never a reduction in resources, only a shift. Organisms producing more than can survive serves two purposes IMO 1)ensuring the survival of a least one offspring that will in turn reproduce AND 2)ensuring that other organisms will have the opportunity to do the same.

The big picture is that life in general persists. As Weinstein quipped, its about populations, not individuals. So stressing the idea of struggle in any individual organism seems IMHO meaningless, from a scientific, biological perspective.

I never get why this [differential reproductive success] is stressed. It is trivially true.

It only seems important if/when you wish to anthropomorphize biological processes. Like Prof. Felsenstein pointed out, its a matter of outcomes, not successes or failures.

Success of life in general is never in doubt. Why speak of the change in the allele frequency in a population in terms of successes and failures?

You are right to say that it has been empirically observed but only in modern organisms, those we study today. In the context of this OP, we have not observed that early organisms were involved in an arms race. You are extrapolating your observations from current study and asserting it applies to all organisms throughout the history of life.

If I may make a correction to your comment on the human food supply, the better part of our food supply comes from plants (specifically rice and wheat), not prey. I believe this has been the case since the advent of agriculture.

I am thinks of early life when there were only single-celled organisms. What was their food? Themselves?

At what point did the nutrients from the environments become scarce and the organism became a carnivore?

Moreso, seeing as the single-celled organism took its nutrients from the environment for presumable a very long time, how did it manage the transformation?

What tools did it have to help it recognize an impending recession?

Steve P. said: Actually it is Robin. By considering a design perspective, one is asking is there something we are missing here. Is there something that we cannot see that is tieing together all these systems together? Before the advent of microscopes, we were hopelessly trapped in the world of demons as the cause of disease. Now we know viruses and bacteria are the mechanisms that appear to be the cause of disease. Now this is the current consensus. Should we just sit on our laurels and proclaim there is nothing more to investigate? What's next after the electron microscope and the Hadron Collider? What if we stumble upon a new way of investigating the world? If we act like the people of old, that thought the scientists looking down tubes with a piece of glass at either end were nuts, then we will laugh at those scientists that proclaim the answers are not in the electron microscope or the Collider, but elsewhere. Design to me says look at a bigger picture; see the universe other than as just nuts and bolts. Look for meta-patterns that tie it all together. God, contrary to assertions made on this board, is a forward looking concept. God is the last great frontier of knowledge and perception. It is not a question of "Is He necessary? but "Is He desirable as a means of understanding? Can we learn something more if we see the Universe as alive? If we view force and information as cognitive entities? Isn't that what Einstein was talking about when he eluded to the importance of imagination when doing science? How is a skeptical approach going to break us on through to a new plane of perception? Christ was speaking directly to this foreseen problem with the disciple Thomas. For me design is about keeping an open mind, excitement about the possibility of something more than just nuts and bolts. And this take surely does not impede science but injects it with a perspective that can possibly hit upon new insights into the relationships between the myriad, multi-tiered, interacting systems we observe.

Flint, I welcome any inquiry into what make me tick. Likewise, one of the reasons I visit this site is to analyze how you(pl)tick; i.e. what makes you (pl) enamoured of small-step change? Why do you(pl)see science as confirming an atheistic worldview, etc.?

Here is a design hypothesis based on theistic underpinnings.

IN the context of this OP, what caused the change in life from herbivorous to carnivorous causing organisms to turn on each other and thus apparently creating the pressure to develop an immune system?

The bible alludes to the fall of Man. God took something away from Man. What might it be?

Here's a hypothesis: God took light away from Man.

We could investigate in excruciating detail how different forms of light act upon organisms. From my experience in textiles, FAR light is therapeutic to the human body (ironically enough the first speaker in that origins conference mentioned in a previous thread flew right past it without giving it a thought; said infra-red light was far too low intensity to have any effect). But why is it therapeutic? Also, could we direct this light in different ways to amplify its therapeutic effects? That's one avenue.

Another avenue is asking if there is any telltale marks or indentations at a nano-level in cells, DNA, etc that are indicative of the past presents of photons in configuration. Did non-coding DNA once utilize light but went into disarray due God's repossession of the light that was the linchpin of our immortality?

Actually it is Robin. By considering a design perspective, one is asking is there something we are missing here. Is there something that we cannot see that is tieing together all these systems together?

Before the advent of microscopes, we were hopelessly trapped in the world of demons as the cause of disease. Now we know viruses and bacteria are the mechanisms that appear to be the cause of disease.

Now this is the current consensus. Should we just sit on our laurels and proclaim there is nothing more to investigate? What’s next after the electron microscope and the Hadron Collider?

What if we stumble upon a new way of investigating the world?

If we act like the people of old, that thought the scientists looking down tubes with a piece of glass at either end were nuts, then we will laugh at those scientists that proclaim the answers are not in the electron microscope or the Collider, but elsewhere.

Design to me says look at a bigger picture; see the universe other than as just nuts and bolts. Look for meta-patterns that tie it all together.

God, contrary to assertions made on this board, is a forward looking concept. God is the last great frontier of knowledge and perception.

It is not a question of “Is He necessary? but “Is He desirable as a means of understanding? Can we learn something more if we see the Universe as alive? If we view force and information as cognitive entities?

Isn’t that what Einstein was talking about when he eluded (alluded) to the importance of imagination when doing science? How is a skeptical approach going to break us on through to a new plane of perception? Christ was speaking directly to this foreseen problem with the disciple Thomas.

For me design is about keeping an open mind, excitement about the possibility of something more than just nuts and bolts.

And this take surely does not impede science but injects it with a perspective that can possibly hit upon new insights into the relationships between the myriad, multi-tiered, interacting systems we observe.

Steve P. said: For me design is about keeping an open mind, excitement about the possibility of something more than just nuts and bolts. And this take surely does not impede science but injects it with a perspective that can possibly hit upon new insights into the relationships between the myriad, multi-tiered, interacting systems we observe.

Steve P. said: Here is a design hypothesis based on theistic underpinnings. IN the context of this OP, what caused the change in life from herbivorous to carnivorous causing organisms to turn on each other and thus apparently creating the pressure to develop an immune system? The bible alludes to the fall of Man. God took something away from Man. What might it be? Here's a hypothesis: God took light away from Man. We could investigate in excruciating detail how different forms of light act upon organisms. From my experience in textiles, FAR light is therapeutic to the human body (ironically enough the first speaker in that origins conference mentioned in a previous thread flew right past it without giving it a thought; said infra-red light was far too low intensity to have any effect). But why is it therapeutic? Also, could we direct this light in different ways to amplify its therapeutic effects? That's one avenue. Another avenue is asking if there is any telltale marks or indentations at a nano-level in cells, DNA, etc that are indicative of the past presents of photons in configuration. Did non-coding DNA once utilize light but went into disarray due God's repossession of the light that was the linchpin of our immortality?

Here is a design hypothesis based on theistic underpinnings.

IN the context of this OP, what caused the change in life from herbivorous to carnivorous causing organisms to turn on each other and thus apparently creating the pressure to develop an immune system?

The bible alludes to the fall of Man. God took something away from Man. What might it be?

Here’s a hypothesis: God took light away from Man.

We could investigate in excruciating detail how different forms of light act upon organisms.

From my experience in textiles, FAR light is therapeutic to the human body (ironically enough the first speaker in that origins conference mentioned in a previous thread flew right past it without giving it a thought; said infra-red light was far too low intensity to have any effect).

But why is it therapeutic?

Also, could we direct this light in different ways to amplify its therapeutic effects? That’s one avenue.

Another avenue is asking if there is any telltale marks or indentations at a nano-level in cells, DNA, etc that are indicative of the past presents of photons in configuration.

Did non-coding DNA once utilize light but went into disarray due God’s repossession of the light that was the linchpin of our immortality?

Steve P. said: We could investigate in excruciating detail how different forms of light act upon organisms. From my experience in textiles, FAR light is therapeutic to the human body (ironically enough the first speaker in that origins conference mentioned in a previous thread flew right past it without giving it a thought; said infra-red light was far too low intensity to have any effect). But why is it therapeutic? Also, could we direct this light in different ways to amplify its therapeutic effects? That's one avenue. Another avenue is asking if there is any telltale marks or indentations at a nano-level in cells, DNA, etc that are indicative of the past presents of photons in configuration. Did non-coding DNA once utilize light but went into disarray due God's repossession of the light that was the linchpin of our immortality?

Steve P. said:

Robin said:

Steve P. said: How does one come to the conclusion that the immune system is not a designed system?

Why conclude such when it's the default position? You're begging the question by presuming there's a basis for the question - there isn't. Unless and until there is an actual testable phenomenon of other-than-human-design, there's nothing to presume about such. Merely saying, "well it must be designed because it's waaaaay more complex than anything humans design" isn't a valid or credible argument or hypothesis.

Actually it is Robin. By considering a design perspective, one is asking is there something we are missing here. Is there something that we cannot see that is tieing together all these systems together?

Before the advent of microscopes, we were hopelessly trapped in the world of demons as the cause of disease. Now we know viruses and bacteria are the mechanisms that appear to be the cause of disease.

Now this is the current consensus. Should we just sit on our laurels and proclaim there is nothing more to investigate? What's next after the electron microscope and the Hadron Collider?

What if we stumble upon a new way of investigating the world? If we act like the people of old, that thought the scientists looking down tubes with a piece of glass at either end were nuts, then we will laugh at those scientists that proclaim the answers are not in the electron microscope or the Collider, but elsewhere.

Design to me says look at a bigger picture; see the universe other than as just nuts and bolts. Look for meta-patterns that tie it all together.

God, contrary to assertions made on this board, is a forward looking concept. God is the last great frontier of knowledge and perception.

It is not a question of "Is He necessary? but "Is He desirable as a means of understanding? Can we learn something more if we see the Universe as alive? If we view force and information as cognitive entities?

Isn't that what Einstein was talking about when he eluded to the importance of imagination when doing science? How is a skeptical approach going to break us on through to a new plane of perception? Christ was speaking directly to this foreseen problem with the disciple Thomas.

For me design is about keeping an open mind, excitement about the possibility of something more than just nuts and bolts. And this take surely does not impede science but injects it with a perspective that can possibly hit upon new insights into the relationships between the myriad, multi-tiered, interacting systems we observe.

A "design perspective" such as our ID-pushing friend Steve P. is proselytizing for, is worthless for doing science. How can I say that? Easy: Just compare the "design perspective" beloved of ID-pushers like Steve P., to the separate and distinct "design perspective" that' actually used by scientists who work in fields which actually do depend on a "design perspective" -- fields like archaeology and forensics.
For real scientists, a "design perspective" which is actually useful in doing science is a "design perspective" which has things to say about the Designer -- about what the Designer's purposes and goals were, what sort of tools and materials the Designer had to work with, etc etc. This is because real scientists like to test their ideas, and any "design perspective" which doesn't go into practical details like the Designers goals/tools/etc, is a "design perspective" which can be stated in seven words: Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something. How the heck is that kind of "design perspective" useful for doing science? Answer: It's not useful for doing science, end of discussion.
The "design perspective" which ID-pushers like Steve P. proselytze for, is a rather different beast than the "design perspective" which is employed by real scientists. Under the "design perspective" preferred by ID-pushers, most (if not all) questions about the Designer are explicitly declared off-limits. According to ID-pushers, we puny humans cannot say anything about what the Designer's goals were, what tools the Designer used, what raw materials the Designer worked with, etc etc etc. Seems that ID-pushers regard the Designer as a sacred idol, a holy relic that we mere mortals can only assume the existence of, but never actually ask questions about.
Science doesn't need sacred idols. Science doesn't need assumed-to-be-true concepts that can never be questioned. And under the "design perspective" favored by ID-pushers like Steve P., the Designer is exactly and precisely an assumed-to-be-true saqcred idol that can never be questioned.

harold said: Steve P - By evading these questions, you prove yourself to be cowardly, dishonest, and pathetic. 1. Who is the designer? 2. Precisely what did the designer design? 3. How did the designer design it? 4. When did the designer design it? 5. What is an example of something that might not have been intelligently designed?

Kris said:

harold said: Steve P - By evading these questions, you prove yourself to be cowardly, dishonest, and pathetic. 1. Who is the designer? 2. Precisely what did the designer design? 3. How did the designer design it? 4. When did the designer design it? 5. What is an example of something that might not have been intelligently designed?

By evading these questions, you prove yourself to be cowardly, dishonest, and pathetic. [Various trick questions]

Cubist said: A "design perspective" such as our ID-pushing friend Steve P. is proselytizing for, is worthless for doing science. How can I say that? Easy: Just compare the "design perspective" beloved of ID-pushers like Steve P., to the separate and distinct "design perspective" that' actually used by scientists who work in fields which actually do depend on a "design perspective" -- fields like archaeology and forensics. For real scientists, a "design perspective" which is actually useful in doing science is a "design perspective" which has things to say about the Designer -- about what the Designer's purposes and goals were, what sort of tools and materials the Designer had to work with, etc etc. This is because real scientists like to test their ideas, and any "design perspective" which doesn't go into practical details like the Designers goals/tools/etc, is a "design perspective" which can be stated in seven words: Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something. How the heck is that kind of "design perspective" useful for doing science? Answer: It's not useful for doing science, end of discussion. The "design perspective" which ID-pushers like Steve P. proselytze for, is a rather different beast than the "design perspective" which is employed by real scientists. Under the "design perspective" preferred by ID-pushers, most (if not all) questions about the Designer are explicitly declared off-limits. According to ID-pushers, we puny humans cannot say anything about what the Designer's goals were, what tools the Designer used, what raw materials the Designer worked with, etc etc etc. Seems that ID-pushers regard the Designer as a sacred idol, a holy relic that we mere mortals can only assume the existence of, but never actually ask questions about. Science doesn't need sacred idols. Science doesn't need assumed-to-be-true concepts that can never be questioned. And under the "design perspective" favored by ID-pushers like Steve P., the Designer is exactly and precisely an assumed-to-be-true saqcred idol that can never be questioned.

Dale Husband said: At least we try to answer the questions we know can reasonably be answered. harold's point was that the claims of Intelligent Design cannot be specified within the bounds of science. That's why it is useless to scientists. We don't make such bogus claims about evolution, so your questions are indeed pointless.

eric said:

Flint said:

Moreso, the idea of small step change leading to complexity has not been observed empirically.

Yes, it has.

In fact, the most recent PT article discusses the development of new genes in some Drosophila species. So, now you have exact evidence that small incemental variation and selection can result in greater genetic complexity. Either that, or God is desiging new genes on the fly. :P :)

Dale Husband said:

Cubist said: A "design perspective" such as our ID-pushing friend Steve P. is proselytizing for, is worthless for doing science. How can I say that? Easy: Just compare the "design perspective" beloved of ID-pushers like Steve P., to the separate and distinct "design perspective" that' actually used by scientists who work in fields which actually do depend on a "design perspective" -- fields like archaeology and forensics. For real scientists, a "design perspective" which is actually useful in doing science is a "design perspective" which has things to say about the Designer -- about what the Designer's purposes and goals were, what sort of tools and materials the Designer had to work with, etc etc. This is because real scientists like to test their ideas, and any "design perspective" which doesn't go into practical details like the Designers goals/tools/etc, is a "design perspective" which can be stated in seven words: Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something. How the heck is that kind of "design perspective" useful for doing science? Answer: It's not useful for doing science, end of discussion. The "design perspective" which ID-pushers like Steve P. proselytze for, is a rather different beast than the "design perspective" which is employed by real scientists. Under the "design perspective" preferred by ID-pushers, most (if not all) questions about the Designer are explicitly declared off-limits. According to ID-pushers, we puny humans cannot say anything about what the Designer's goals were, what tools the Designer used, what raw materials the Designer worked with, etc etc etc. Seems that ID-pushers regard the Designer as a sacred idol, a holy relic that we mere mortals can only assume the existence of, but never actually ask questions about. Science doesn't need sacred idols. Science doesn't need assumed-to-be-true concepts that can never be questioned. And under the "design perspective" favored by ID-pushers like Steve P., the Designer is exactly and precisely an assumed-to-be-true saqcred idol that can never be questioned.

Put more simply, we can look at the faces of U S Presidents carved on Mount Rushmore and know they were designed because we can come up with precise explanations for how human beings could have done it. We know human beings exist and that they are capable of doing such work. Likewise, we can examine a crime scene, knowing that human beings exist and are capable of committing crimes like robbery and murder, and how such crimes can be committed. But we know NOTHING directly about the supposed Designer of life on Earth or how he could have operated in the design process. Without that knowledge, Intelligent Design has no real scientific applications. It is nothing more than an appeal to religious prejudices.

Robin said:

Steve P. said: The fact that certain individuals survive or not is neither here nor there IMO. The point is that life in general always survives. Its not a question. Life is not interested in any particular individual, but at best primary forms.

Except of course that the "primary forms" level, "life in general" doesn't always survive. In point of fact, the majority of life at the primary level hasn't survived at all. The vast majority of forms of life on this planet are no longer here - that's a fact - so your statement is quite naive and erroneous.

Does it matter if the Dodo made it or not? Obviously no. But does it matter if birds make it or not? Yes. If birds went extinct, game over in short order as it would do irreparable damage to the fragile eco-balance.

Incredibly wrong - clearly - since "birds" are but a rather recent blink of life on this planet. Oh...but perhaps you're of the mind that dinosaurs were relatives of birds (similar primary forms) and thus fish are birds and so on? Naw...that would mean you'd understand evolution, but then you wouldn't be making this silly statement.

Also, the fact that some descendants will survive and some will perish is already known to the organism. Hence, the number of offspring. The way I like to see it is: roaches produce thousands to keep hundreds, snakes produce hundreds to keep several, rabbits produce several to keep a few. Life is intelligent.

Ummm...what about species that don't produce...you know...thousands and hundreds of offspring? You know...like sharks, whales, kangaroos, cheetahs, ostriches, Galapagos tortoises, humans, chimpanzees, Stellar Eagles, etc?

Your examples are all questions related to physical existence. My examples have no relation to my survival. My happiness may extend my life a few years, but so can stubbornness and fear. So it seems QoL decisions are not related to survival.

You're thinking extremely narrowly and ignoring the vast research arena on this subject. You're also switching perspective to the individual, which as you indicated earlier, is irrelevant. The fact is, having a multitude of traits is conducive to human species survival. It is currently advantages for us as a species to have a variety of personalities - it gives us dynamic redundancy for a variety of environmental conditions. If certain situations crop up where fear is selected for, guess what...in a few generations the majority of humans have a dominant fear trait. If, on the other hand, conditions arise that favor playfulness, we're ready for that too...and so on. That said, no species can have all traits - too many diminishing returns against the cost. And, for some species, conditions arise that select out diversity altogether, making the species incredibly specialized and successful in those favorable conditions, but very fragile when it comes to any sudden environmental change.

Yes, recently (and mostly with the advent of science) we have abstracted the need for survival somewhat so we can enjoy our lifes rather than just staying alive. But we are no smarter today than we were 50,000 years ago. We simply managed to invent means of making our lives easier.

Isn't that the million dollar question? Why are we concerned with QoL and not just surviving. Is it because Humanity is so successful at survival that it bored to death. From a non-purpose, non-design perspective, that would mean evolution (i.e. adapting as a means to survival)is obsolete, at the very least in the case of Man.

The implication in your statement is that "just surviving" doesn't include degrees of enjoyment/hardship. Why would you presume such?

harold said: Flint -

I think Steve P is making a good-faith effort to defend his viewpoint, and deserves more than mocking dismissal.

I think that I have offered him the chance to explain what his position is multiple times, and he has refused enough to frustrate me. He won't say who the designer is, what the designer did, when the designer did it, how the designer did it, or even give an example of something the designer might not have done. Even valid critique of some specific science about how the immune system evolved is not a defense of ID. It's irrelevant. It seems unlikely, but maybe we will find out tomorrow that current thinking on the evolution of the immune system needs to be modified in a major way. That doesn't make magic the default. Let's ask Steve P about the modern vertebrate immune systems - 1) Who designed them? 2) What did the designer do? Were there modern vertebrates existing with no immune system? Did the designer use magic to put immune systems into them? Or did the designer create modern vertebrates intact out of nothing? As far as I can tell, some variation on one of these is essentially Steve P's only two possible position. After all, he's arguing that modern vertebrate immune systems couldn't have evolved. Therefore either modern vertebrates without immune systems were magically given immune systems (some magic step needed), or they were magically created with immune systems, from the get go. 3) How did the designer do it? Specifically what actions did the designer take, and how can we test that claim? 4) When did all this happen? 5) To clarify for us that modern vertebrate immune systems must have been designed, what is an example of something that might not have been designed, so that we can see the difference?

He makes some interesting points.

He voices some gross misunderstanding of the theory of evolution and basic biomedical science. You generously dealt with that, and although I don't agree that mutations have any relationship to "poofery" - unless you argue that all spontaneous chemical reactions are poofery - that's a semantic quibble and your explanations will be helpful to third party readers. Unfortunately, of course, Steve P. will reply to your efforts with superficial arrogance and scorn, unless he chooses to astound me by learning something. I'd be delighted to be astounded, but I'd also be astounded to be astounded.

Kris said: Which also means that science cannot disprove a designer of life. Science makes many claims or inferences without "direct evidence", and it makes contradictory claims or inferences even with "direct evidence". Why don't you guys have a problem with that and why don't you see and admit the prejudices in science?

Kris said: 140+ million years of birds "are but a rather recent blink of life on this planet"?? Are you joking or just stupid? Oh wait, I already know. And you really do need to learn how to read. Steve P. already made it clear that some animals don't produce hundreds or thousands of offspring.

Kris said: How about this question: Could a designer have created the ability (or mechanism if you prefer) for organisms to evolve immune systems, and/or anything else? And if not "poofery" by a designer, then please precisely explain and prove the evolutionary process that shows how life came to be, and precisely how and why allegedly spontaneous mutations (no outside or designer influence) occur and have occurred throughout time.

Kris said: 140+ million years of birds "are but a rather recent blink of life on this planet"?? Are you joking or just stupid? Oh wait, I already know. And you really do need to learn how to read. Steve P. already made it clear that some animals don't produce hundreds or thousands of offspring.

Kris said: How about this question: Could a designer have created the ability (or mechanism if you prefer) for organisms to evolve immune systems, and/or anything else? And if not "poofery" by a designer, then please precisely explain and prove the evolutionary process that shows how life came to be, and precisely how and why allegedly spontaneous mutations (no outside or designer influence) occur and have occurred throughout time.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: 140+ million years of birds "are but a rather recent blink of life on this planet"?? Are you joking or just stupid? Oh wait, I already know. And you really do need to learn how to read. Steve P. already made it clear that some animals don't produce hundreds or thousands of offspring.

Are you disputing that Earth is billions of years old? And Steve P merely stating the obvious is no big deal.

Kris said: How about this question: Could a designer have created the ability (or mechanism if you prefer) for organisms to evolve immune systems, and/or anything else? And if not "poofery" by a designer, then please precisely explain and prove the evolutionary process that shows how life came to be, and precisely how and why allegedly spontaneous mutations (no outside or designer influence) occur and have occurred throughout time.

I have already taken note of your earlier trick questions. We know what the limitations of science are. Making up dogmas to compensate for science's limitations is itself unscientific, obviously.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: 140+ million years of birds "are but a rather recent blink of life on this planet"?? Are you joking or just stupid? Oh wait, I already know. And you really do need to learn how to read. Steve P. already made it clear that some animals don't produce hundreds or thousands of offspring.

Are you disputing that Earth is billions of years old? And Steve P merely stating the obvious is no big deal.

Kris said: How about this question: Could a designer have created the ability (or mechanism if you prefer) for organisms to evolve immune systems, and/or anything else? And if not "poofery" by a designer, then please precisely explain and prove the evolutionary process that shows how life came to be, and precisely how and why allegedly spontaneous mutations (no outside or designer influence) occur and have occurred throughout time.

I have already taken note of your earlier trick questions. We know what the limitations of science are. Making up dogmas to compensate for science's limitations is itself unscientific, obviously.

You're too stupid to even bother responding to except for a FUCK YOU Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocritical impotent chicken-shit douchebag.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: 140+ million years of birds "are but a rather recent blink of life on this planet"?? Are you joking or just stupid? Oh wait, I already know. And you really do need to learn how to read. Steve P. already made it clear that some animals don't produce hundreds or thousands of offspring.

Are you disputing that Earth is billions of years old? And Steve P merely stating the obvious is no big deal.

Kris said: How about this question: Could a designer have created the ability (or mechanism if you prefer) for organisms to evolve immune systems, and/or anything else? And if not "poofery" by a designer, then please precisely explain and prove the evolutionary process that shows how life came to be, and precisely how and why allegedly spontaneous mutations (no outside or designer influence) occur and have occurred throughout time.

I have already taken note of your earlier trick questions. We know what the limitations of science are. Making up dogmas to compensate for science's limitations is itself unscientific, obviously.

You're too stupid to even bother responding to except for a FUCK YOU Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocritical impotent chicken-shit douchebag.

Stuart Weinstein said:

Steve P. said:

Yes, of course there is design and purpose, and we see it in the microscope and on the s treet. The question isn’t whether or not there is design or purpose (or functionality), the question is how it got there, what mechanism(s) led to it. Even Bill Dembski had to admit (before he decided to censor the whole discussion away!) that natural selection leads to designs, makes “intelligent” choices (between which organisms survive and which do not), that there is in fact direction and purpose (differential rewards for fitting ecological niches, etc.)

It seems you are ascribing something to natural selection that is simply not there. NS is an outcome. Nothing more. NS doesn't do anything whatsoever. The doing comes from the organism.

An arrogant and erroneous remark. Populations evolve, not individuals. Do catch up to the 21st century. NS is a sieve which selects those traits that increase differential reproductive propensity. It isn't as simple as *survival*. As it is genetic algorithms based on NS already beat known designers. I've posted on this before.

So evolution, unlike Divine Design, is highly limited in where it can go and and how it can get there from here. But if staying alive to breed another generation is considered a purpose, and living in a way that accomplishes that is considered a function, then indeed there is design and purpose in nature. No external imaginary entities required.

Staying alive is never a question for life in general.

No huh? It was for better than 99% of the species in the fossil record. If better than 99% isn't *in general* Steve, then, what preytell, is?

It only seems to be a question for individual members of species with longer gestation periods and lower reproductive numbers.

Thr Trilobites disagree with you, along with countless foraminifera and other small beasties.

At any rate, survival as a purpose is trivially true. But what I am talking about is purpose as quality decisions, detached from questions of survival. This is what Man does.I don't consider my (physical) survival when I decide to attend Church on Sunday, or buy a Mitshubishi instead of a Toyota, or Reebok Zigtech instead of Nikes, or coffee instead of Coke, or helping a tourist with directions even though I am late for work, or putting a bill in a tin cup, or countless other examples of purpose detached from physics and chemistry.

And what does that have to do with life in general? We are talking about life *in general*? Yes?

ben said:

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: 140+ million years of birds "are but a rather recent blink of life on this planet"?? Are you joking or just stupid? Oh wait, I already know. And you really do need to learn how to read. Steve P. already made it clear that some animals don't produce hundreds or thousands of offspring.

Are you disputing that Earth is billions of years old? And Steve P merely stating the obvious is no big deal.

Kris said: How about this question: Could a designer have created the ability (or mechanism if you prefer) for organisms to evolve immune systems, and/or anything else? And if not "poofery" by a designer, then please precisely explain and prove the evolutionary process that shows how life came to be, and precisely how and why allegedly spontaneous mutations (no outside or designer influence) occur and have occurred throughout time.

I have already taken note of your earlier trick questions. We know what the limitations of science are. Making up dogmas to compensate for science's limitations is itself unscientific, obviously.

You're too stupid to even bother responding to except for a FUCK YOU Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocritical impotent chicken-shit douchebag.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: 140+ million years of birds "are but a rather recent blink of life on this planet"?? Are you joking or just stupid? Oh wait, I already know. And you really do need to learn how to read. Steve P. already made it clear that some animals don't produce hundreds or thousands of offspring.

Are you disputing that Earth is billions of years old? And Steve P merely stating the obvious is no big deal.

Kris said: How about this question: Could a designer have created the ability (or mechanism if you prefer) for organisms to evolve immune systems, and/or anything else? And if not "poofery" by a designer, then please precisely explain and prove the evolutionary process that shows how life came to be, and precisely how and why allegedly spontaneous mutations (no outside or designer influence) occur and have occurred throughout time.

I have already taken note of your earlier trick questions. We know what the limitations of science are. Making up dogmas to compensate for science's limitations is itself unscientific, obviously.

You're too stupid to even bother responding to except for a FUCK YOU Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocritical impotent chicken-shit douchebag.

Ha ha ha. An equally big FU to the guy who came here pretending to be a scientist, pretending to accept evolution, and pretending to have thoughtful questions he actually wanted answers to. Turns out he's just an obnoxious, dishonest idiot creo concern troll who intentionally provoked an angry response so he could whine about the level of discourse, yet apparently can't even handle the heat from his own fire. Waaaaaaa!

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: Yet science doesn't and never will know if Abiogenesis took place, and science doesn't know that evolution from common descent took place, and science doesn't know that big bang took place, so using your argument, there is no place for them in public education as well. You have no right to shove your anti-religous dogma into public education. A small minority? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html

Fuck, you're stupid. Argumentam ad populam again? What part of 'logical fallacy' did you miss when they were teaching critical thinking skills? Oh, wait, you skipped that class because it was against your religion. Go spew on ATBC, stay on topic, or go away. The MadPanda, FCD

Bobsie said:

IBelieveInGod said: Yet science doesn't and never will know if Abiogenesis took place, and science doesn't know that evolution from common descent took place, and science doesn't know that big bang took place, so using your argument, there is no place for them in public education as well. You have no right to shove your anti-religous dogma into public education.

Except the actual truth of the matter is that science does know that abiogenesis happened, and that evolution from common descent happened, and that big bang happened because there is overwhelming empirical evidence confirming those event we all can examine. Haven't you forgotten that part?

Robin said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: NICE POST!!! I really enjoyed reading!

And yet, your posts suggest that you made no effort to actually read Steve P's inane posts, and that, you're just saying this in order to antagonize us by showing solidarity with a fellow troll.

What was inane about his posts? Are they inane because you don't agree with them? If someone were to have a different view about anything then you, would you consider their view inane? Do you already have complete knowledge of everything?

Well I raised a bunch of objections and pointed out holes in his claims that he has not addressed and you seem not to understand. You're certainly welcome to continue supporting Steve P.'s arguments, but without addressing the issues presented, I can't for the life of me understand why you'd wish to look that silly.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: I'm not actually implying that at all. My point is that your explanation of origins is not any more valid then others who believe in a Creator.

Riiiiight. And you know this, how? (Note that I do not ask you why you believe it, I ask how you know it.)

Somehow even though you will never know the origin of life on earth, you expect me and others to accept supposed scientific explanations of origins. Science will never be able to know the actual origin of life on earth. Hey you don't even know what the first insect really was, the first dinosaur, or the first bird really was, etc...

This is one long argument from incredulity and may thus be rejected out of hand. If you knew the material, you would know why your questions are not even wrong. Even for you, this is a weak attempt. The MadPanda, FCD

John Kwok said: Agreed:

Stanton said:

Flint said:

In my opinion, Steve P’s posts are inane because they betray willful ignorance of science education, as well as a haughty refusal to learn anything.

OK, I'm not sure I see this same thing. What I see is LACK of science education (for whatever reason). And like many (and as nearly ALL people did before the invention of science), he's constructed a mental model that works for him. And for him as for most people, magic is entirely acceptable and admirably fills the role of "explaining" what otherwise would be confusing or mysterious. What I haven't determined yet is whether he's curious, and whether he might be less than fully satisfied with a model so accommodating that just anything will fit. After all, the POOF model is so simple and straightforward, it requires no research, no knowledge, no education, no evidence, no heavy thinking. It can't be proved wrong. It's a Herculean exercise to abandon it in favor of something complex, tenuous, and demanding. Especially when one's social milieu rewards swallowing magic and punishes nose-to-the-grindstone education.

As far as I can tell from all of Steve P's posts here, he does not appear to be curious of other thought-models, AND he spends a lot of time looking down his nose at people he deems stupid enough to get an actual education.

Apparently Steve P. is a textile merchant living and working in Taiwan. More than once I have challenged him to learn something about modern biology from his Taiwanese colleagues, but unfortunately, he has resisted every effort I have made. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Sadly, the same must be said about Steve P.

Kris said: You're too stupid to even bother responding to except for a FUCK YOU Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocritical impotent chicken-shit douchebag. Well, Steve P. did say "the organism", not individual, and "organism" can be interpreted as either an individual or a population, especially when prefaced with "the". And do you guys/gals always have to be insulting and rude even when someone simply states their opinion in a decent way? Do you kick your dog and smack your kids just to make yourselves feel powerful and superior? Regardless of what Steve P. meant exactly, don't the individuals have to evolve for the population to evolve? Now you'll probably say that the individuals don't evolve, they mutate, and if the mutations and features they produce are passed on and 'selected', the population evolves. If so, can you define and explain precisely how and why this occurs? Can you precisely define and explain how and why mutations either do or may occur before there is selective pressure? In other words, before they're needed. Oh wait, you guys say that mutations happen all the time and that the beneficial ones, that improve 'fitness', are 'selected', right? If that's true, please define and explain precisely how and why all those mutations occur all the time, right down to the fundamental parts, forces, and processes. Are the mutations happening in anticipation of possibly or probably being needed, or because of some outside (environmental) pressure or influence? If an environmental pressure or influence is required before the process of a mutation starts, then would you say that individual organisms are able to somehow detect those pressures or influences, even if they are extremely small, and that the mutation process then starts? If no environmental pressure or influence is required or necessary to start the mutation process, and mutations happen all the time regardless of environmental pressures or influences, then couldn't mutations or at least the ability to mutate be considered anticipatory? If so, please precisely define and explain the parts, force, and/or process behind it. I haven’t pretended anything. You guys just can’t stand being challenged or questioned. You arrogantly and viciously expect ID-ists and creationists to strictly define and explain a designer or creator in a scientific way that meets your criteria for a definition and explanation, but when you’re pressed or even nicely asked to define and explain how you know that no designer or creator exists or could exist, or about specific details and evidence of evolution or the origin of life, you get all bent out of shape and go on the attack. You’re just as unwilling or unable to provide answers to some questions as some ID-ists or creationists are. They don’t KNOW that there is a designer or creator, but you don’t KNOW that there isn’t. Just be honest. And you ID-ists or creationists? You be honest too. The only “topic” on this site is bashing ID/creationists and touting science as though it has all the answers to everything. So, how can anyone be off topic when they’re saying something that pertains those things? Is “on topic” to you just a matter of bashing ID/creationists and touting the perfection of science? Do you only want yes-men and yes-women here? If so, you should make the forums private and by invitation only, and put a prominent message on the home page that says Obsessive Compulsive ID/Creationist Haters and Bashers ONLY!! No one else is allowed here!! Show me the overwhelming empirical evidence that confirms that science does know that Abiogenesis, and the Big Bang, and evolution from common descent happened. Please make sure it’s the truth. Tell ya what, I’ll settle for Abiogenesis and the Big Bang. That should make it easier, especially if the evidence is overwhelming. Tell ya what again, I’ll settle for Abiogenesis, for now at least. Where did Stanton support Steve P.’s arguments? I only saw that he thinks they’re not “inane” and apparently wants to understand them better, and discuss them. You’re so obsessed with hating creationists that you even misread people who are on your side. You have ZERO tolerance for even discussing opposing or possibly opposing views. What’s it like to know absolutely everything? Take some reading courses, and get some anger management counseling too.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Stanton said: IBelieve is trying to imply that, since scientists can not magically go back in time to see, therefore, scientists are useless idiots who will never know anything, ever, and that we should assume that God magically poofed everything into existence without any evidence, 10,000 years ago, under pain of eternal damnation. Like IBelieve keeps telling us.

Well, since he can't go back and time and verify that his magic book with magic words wasn't the result of a bunch of scribes sitting around at an impromptu jam session over wine and hashish about 2600 years back, having a good laugh about how their newest work of parody was going to be big on the lecture circuit... I'd call that an own-goal, frankly. But what Biggy misses is that all that crap in Job about "where were you when I created the world?" is, essentially, a non-answer that demonstrates his invisible friend's inner asshole very clearly. A real deity would have had the guts to provide actual answers and not played dodge'em with a man who had earned the right to spit in his face. But that's YHWH for you, as chickenshit as some of his most vocal adherents. The MadPanda, FCD

Kris said: I think IBIG's argument above about first insects, dinosaurs, and birds has merit, and I agree that science has no more a valid (provable) explanation for the origin of life on Earth than others who believe in a creator. The verifiable, valid evidence may yet be discovered but we will all have to wait and see. Actually, I doubt that indisputable proof will ever be discovered, either way. Do you KNOW that there is or was no creator or designer? What does FCD stand for? And who are you? A ditch-digger living in Podunk, Alabammy? Why does it matter where Steve lives or what he does for a living? Is there something dishonorable about living in Taiwan or being a textile merchant? And you can’t go back in time to verify the origin of life or the theory of The Big Bang, or a lot of other things.

And it should be noted for the record that Kris is using a well known Creationist tactic called the Gish Gallop, named after Duane T. Gish of the ICR, who would use it against opponents in verbal debates.

Sorry, Kris, it doesn't work so well online. It only makes you look silly.

Flint said:

I’m not actually implying that at all. My point is that your explanation of origins is not any more valid then others who believe in a Creator.

Unless, of course, we think evidence MEANS something. In which case, there is a great deal of evidence, albeit indirect, for the natural origins of everything and ABSOLUTELY NO evidence for a Creator.

Somehow even though you will never know the origin of life on earth, you expect me and others to accept supposed scientific explanations of origins.

No, you're not really expected to accept scientific explanations. You ARE expected to at least recognize the MEANING of evidence, and understand that magical explanations without a trace of evidence aren't going to be persuasive to anyone not pre-convinced.

Science will never be able to know the actual origin of life on earth.

You're right. Let's say you meet a man in city A, and later encounter him in city B. Without any further information, would you say it's equally likely that he traveled between cities by any of the usual means, or that some magical undetectible entity POOFED him from one place to the other? If well-understood processes CAN transport him between cities, why assume unexplainable undemonstrable magic did it?

Hey you don’t even know what the first insect really was, the first dinosaur, or the first bird really was, etc…

And again, you're right. And not knowing, we must speculate. Now, should we speculate based on known, testable, observable, replicable processes? Or should we MAKE STUFF UP, without any real-world parallels, and think that's just as likely? What you are doing is claiming some process you can't even BEGIN to describe, test, replicate, or even suggest is a better explanation than anything based on real-world experience and observations. Let's say again, you meet someone and do not know exactly how tall he is. Does this mean any old figure you pull out of your ear is as good as any other? Would you reject an estimate accurate to within an inch or two, or reject it in favor of a guess that he's 30 feet tall? You seem to be falling into the logical fallacy that if you do not know everything in full detail, therefore you not only know nothing whatsoever, but you CAN know nothing whatsoever. So you make up whatever makes you FEEL good, and claim it trumps reality because you WANT it to. And you wonder why sane people mock you?

Kris, Steve P and IBIG,

The Atlantic Ocean is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by GPS (like a car navigator) at ~1 inch per year. There are multiple other lines of evidence that confirm this spreading rate. How old is the Atlantic ocean?

Robin said:

Steve P. said:

Robin said:

Steve P. said: How does one come to the conclusion that the immune system is not a designed system?

Why conclude such when it's the default position? You're begging the question by presuming there's a basis for the question - there isn't. Unless and until there is an actual testable phenomenon of other-than-human-design, there's nothing to presume about such. Merely saying, "well it must be designed because it's waaaaay more complex than anything humans design" isn't a valid or credible argument or hypothesis.

Actually it is Robin. By considering a design perspective, one is asking is there something we are missing here. Is there something that we cannot see that is tieing together all these systems together?

And again...that's called begging the question by definition. You are asking whether there's a design perspective by presuming there is one. That's both your premise AND your conclusion, which isn't logical. So once again, I repeat - you're begging the question by presuming there's a basis for the question - there isn't.

Before the advent of microscopes, we were hopelessly trapped in the world of demons as the cause of disease. Now we know viruses and bacteria are the mechanisms that appear to be the cause of disease.

Absolutely - and "demonic possession" is just another question begging proposition. It's no different than your position of presuming intelligence - no different at all. However, germ theory was first advanced looooong before microscopes. The Atharvaveda, a Sanskrit Hindu text dated to the 2nd Millennium BCE, proposed a form of germs AND provided medicinal remedies for such. So your position is erroneous. It doesn't take modern tools to approach the world logically - it just takes a logical perspective. Recognizing that things like "intelligence" and "design" as factors in biological life is question begging is such a logical perspective.

Now this is the current consensus. Should we just sit on our laurels and proclaim there is nothing more to investigate? What's next after the electron microscope and the Hadron Collider?

A world of discoveries...of which "design" has no meaning.

What if we stumble upon a new way of investigating the world? If we act like the people of old, that thought the scientists looking down tubes with a piece of glass at either end were nuts, then we will laugh at those scientists that proclaim the answers are not in the electron microscope or the Collider, but elsewhere.

You need to read a bit more. The tools we currently use - things like the Hadron Collider, Hubble Telescope, electron microscope, and super computers - are all used to further investigate hypotheses that came up long before the devices. Coming up with a new way to investigate the world won't make a difference without someone (or someones) advancing a logical concept to investigate in the first place. Alas, "design" in nature is not a logical concept at all.

Design to me says look at a bigger picture; see the universe other than as just nuts and bolts. Look for meta-patterns that tie it all together.

EXACTLY! Hence, it's question begging by definition! It amazes me that you can so freely describe a question begging position and not realize it.

God, contrary to assertions made on this board, is a forward looking concept. God is the last great frontier of knowledge and perception.

You may well believe this, but it's still a question begging proposition - one that has no place in science.

It is not a question of "Is He necessary? but "Is He desirable as a means of understanding? Can we learn something more if we see the Universe as alive? If we view force and information as cognitive entities?

The only question pertinent from a scientific perspective is, "is the explanation useful for making accurate predictions?" That's it. Period. "God", under pretty much any concept, but particular as described by conservative Christianity, adds nothing to any explanation for improving predictions about this world.

Isn't that what Einstein was talking about when he eluded to the importance of imagination when doing science? How is a skeptical approach going to break us on through to a new plane of perception? Christ was speaking directly to this foreseen problem with the disciple Thomas.

Incorrect - Einstein posed the importance of imagination in terms of explanations that more narrowly defined our world. The concept of "Jesus Christ" as proposed by conservative Christianity is 180 degrees away from what Einstein proposed. There's a reason that Einstein later elaborated on his religious beliefs to distance himself from folks who wished to try assign such associations.

For me design is about keeping an open mind, excitement about the possibility of something more than just nuts and bolts. And this take surely does not impede science but injects it with a perspective that can possibly hit upon new insights into the relationships between the myriad, multi-tiered, interacting systems we observe.

Well, you're welcome to believe whatever you wish that helps you put a positive spin on your worldview. But as you've so eloquently stated, your position is inherently question begging and irrelevant to science.

Rob said: Kris, Steve P and IBIG, The Atlantic Ocean is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by GPS (like a car navigator) at ~1 inch per year. There are multiple other lines of evidence that confirm this spreading rate. How old is the Atlantic ocean?

Kris said: It's as old as when the name "Atlantic" was first applied.

Kris said:

Rob said: Kris, Steve P and IBIG, The Atlantic Ocean is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by GPS (like a car navigator) at ~1 inch per year. There are multiple other lines of evidence that confirm this spreading rate. How old is the Atlantic ocean?

It's as old as when the name "Atlantic" was first applied. The water in the Atlantic Ocean is of variable age, depending on how it is measured. The area or volume of the water in the Atlantic Ocean is also of variable size and age. Plate tectonics, tidal fluctuations, river runoff, weather, and all that jazz ya know. Did I miss anything? It's late and I'm sleepy. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Kris said:

Rob said: Kris, Steve P and IBIG, The Atlantic Ocean is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by GPS (like a car navigator) at ~1 inch per year. There are multiple other lines of evidence that confirm this spreading rate. How old is the Atlantic ocean?

It's as old as when the name "Atlantic" was first applied. The water in the Atlantic Ocean is of variable age, depending on how it is measured. The area or volume of the water in the Atlantic Ocean is also of variable size and age. Plate tectonics, tidal fluctuations, river runoff, weather, and all that jazz ya know.

Personally, I wouldn’t say that an argument for a creator or designer is “persuasive”, but I would say that unless proof to the contrary is discovered that a creator or designer is possible.

Speculation based on indirect evidence or alleged evidence is not “persuasive” either, to me. It is only suggestive.

ben said: Classic Joe G.-type stuff. Measure the age of the water? Hmmmm....

Rob said: Kris, Steve P and IBIG, The Atlantic Ocean is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by GPS (like a car navigator) at ~1 inch per year. There are multiple other lines of evidence that confirm this spreading rate. How old is the Atlantic ocean?

The problem with your calculation is that only recent spread rates are known. No one knows what it was before we had the ability to measure. It doesn’t account for meteor strikes, volcanic activity, earthquakes, floods, etc… So,

IBelieveInGod said:

Rob said: Kris, Steve P and IBIG, The Atlantic Ocean is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by GPS (like a car navigator) at ~1 inch per year. There are multiple other lines of evidence that confirm this spreading rate. How old is the Atlantic ocean?

The problem with your calculation is that only recent spread rates are known. No one knows what it was before we had the ability to measure. It doesn't account for meteor strikes, volcanic activity, earthquakes, floods, etc... So,

Kris said: blah blah blah

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Rob said: Kris, Steve P and IBIG, The Atlantic Ocean is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by GPS (like a car navigator) at ~1 inch per year. There are multiple other lines of evidence that confirm this spreading rate. How old is the Atlantic ocean?

The problem with your calculation is that only recent spread rates are known. No one knows what it was before we had the ability to measure. It doesn't account for meteor strikes, volcanic activity, earthquakes, floods, etc... So,

So, you're saying that if we lack the ability to magically go back in time to check everything, science is utterly useless and should be completely abandoned in favor of doing absolutely nothing other than mindlessly worshiping a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible.

Kris said: I think

IBIG's argument above about first insects, dinosaurs, and birds has merit...

We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.

IBelieveInGod said: The problem with your calculation is that only recent spread rates are known. No one knows what it was before we had the ability to measure. It doesn't account for meteor strikes, volcanic activity, earthquakes, floods, etc... So,

IBelieveInGod said: Incredulity - just another word for disbelief. Yes I admit that I don't believe your myth of origins.

The MadPanda, FCD said: Who was the very first English speaker? Name and specific location, please.

mrg said: Yep. Who invented the wheel? Who domesticated the horse? Who invented the sailboat? Who invented the needle and thread? We can get a fair idea of when and where these things happened. I don't think we need to feel embarrassed if we can't find the copyright on the wheel in the files.

IBelieveInGod said:

Rob said: Kris, Steve P and IBIG, The Atlantic Ocean is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by GPS (like a car navigator) at ~1 inch per year. There are multiple other lines of evidence that confirm this spreading rate. How old is the Atlantic ocean?

The problem with your calculation is that only recent spread rates are known. No one knows what it was before we had the ability to measure. It doesn't account for meteor strikes, volcanic activity, earthquakes, floods, etc... So,

Mike Elzinga said: And these poor trolls can’t even identify the date, time, and exact individual who came up with their arsenal of creationist “refutations” of science.

Guys, that's the main problem with people like Kris and IBIG, they absolutely cannot understand the concept of multiple lines of evidence.

I've already offered to give Kris 30+ categories of evidence (not individual examples, but categories, each with thousands of independent examples) of macroevolution and the age of the Earth/Universe.

The IDists know that they can't even defeat one of them, much less hundreds of thousands of them.

They can't understand that the rate of sea floor spreading over the entire history of the Atlantic ocean can be verified by other, independent means.

This is exactly the same thing as "you can't radio-date material because the rate of radioactive decay could have changed", but the rate of radioactive decay is not the only measurement we use. We have hundreds of independent methods of confirming this.

IDists/creationists/evolution-deniers will never understand this. And the really funny part, of course, is that they demand from science what their own pet notions can't even begin to show.

In all these pages and all the posts that Krissy, SteveP. and Ibiggy have made, not a single one offers and evidence, hypotheses, or other support for design. None. Zip. Zilch.

So, I make this offer... let's start over. Pretend none of this has happened and present your evidence and support for design. Then we can all see if there are any testable hypotheses, experiments that have already been done, etc.

SO, you are the representatives of ID. Convince us.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: Incredulity - just another word for disbelief. Yes I admit that I don't believe your myth of origins.

Fuck, you're stupid. Belief has got nothing to do with it: it is a matter of converging evidence. There is a logical fallacy called 'argument from incredulity' and you commit it constantly. Go look it up, delusional one. The MadPanda, FCD

OgreMkV said: SO, you are the representatives of ID. Convince us.

IBelieveInGod said: And you evidently don't know that the "argument from incredulity' actually means an 'argument from disbelief'. You do know that when you state that God doesn't exist that you are making an 'argument from incredulity'?

OgreMkV said: So, I make this offer... let's start over. Pretend none of this has happened and present your evidence and support for design. Then we can all see if there are any testable hypotheses, experiments that have already been done, etc. SO, you are the representatives of ID. Convince us.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: And you evidently don't know that the "argument from incredulity' actually means an 'argument from disbelief'. You do know that when you state that God doesn't exist that you are making an 'argument from incredulity'?

Fuck, you're stupid. And delusional. You do know that when you deny that Thor exists, you are arguing from incredulity? When you deny Quetzalcoatl, it's an argument from incredulity. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is very cross with your incredulity, heretic. There's this thing called a null hypothesis, Biggy. Look it up. Then define 'god' in a meaningful and coherent way. Then we'll talk. The MadPanda, FCD

Mike Elzinga said: Oh good grief, NO! This troll has plugged up every toilet, urinal, sink, drain, and sewer line over on the Bathroom Wall many, many, many times over. Its diapers are full, its mouth is full, and its head is full of all the crap spewed all over there. These trolls are crap generating machines; and no miracle will turn them into anything else.

IBelieveInGod said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: And you evidently don't know that the "argument from incredulity' actually means an 'argument from disbelief'. You do know that when you state that God doesn't exist that you are making an 'argument from incredulity'?

Fuck, you're stupid. And delusional. You do know that when you deny that Thor exists, you are arguing from incredulity? When you deny Quetzalcoatl, it's an argument from incredulity. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is very cross with your incredulity, heretic. There's this thing called a null hypothesis, Biggy. Look it up. Then define 'god' in a meaningful and coherent way. Then we'll talk. The MadPanda, FCD

I'm sorry but 'argument from incredulity' doesn't apply to Abiogenesis. There is no evidence that it actually happened. NONE!!! Life has only been observed coming from life Biogenesis. Go check it out for yourself.

Okay, let's say for the moment there's no evidence of abiogenesis (btw, why did you capitalize that?).

How do we explain that there was once, billions of years ago, no life here, then, not much later on, there was?

Well, we test our ideas.

Could lipid bubbles form as a basis for early containment membranes?

Yep, tested.

Could certain minerals act as substrates for polymer chains?

Yep, sure could.

Could organic molecules form under early-earth-like conditions?

Oh, yeah. Big time.

Could an all-powerful, limitlessly pan-dimensional, infinitely-intelligent immortal have simply willed life into existence?

Well, yeah, I guess, but how would you test that?

IBelieveInGod said: I'm sorry but 'argument from incredulity' doesn't apply to Abiogenesis. There is no evidence that it actually happened. NONE!!! Life has only been observed coming from life Biogenesis. Go check it out for yourself.

And IBIG still ignored any attempt to provide evidence for his own brand of creationism.

fnxtr said: Okay, let's say for the moment there's no evidence of abiogenesis ...

And IBIG still ignored any attempt to provide evidence for his own brand of creationism.

Flint said: Poof is the default.

Kris said:

Robin said:

Steve P. said: The fact that certain individuals survive or not is neither here nor there IMO. The point is that life in general always survives. Its not a question. Life is not interested in any particular individual, but at best primary forms.

Except of course that the "primary forms" level, "life in general" doesn't always survive. In point of fact, the majority of life at the primary level hasn't survived at all. The vast majority of forms of life on this planet are no longer here - that's a fact - so your statement is quite naive and erroneous.

Does it matter if the Dodo made it or not? Obviously no. But does it matter if birds make it or not? Yes. If birds went extinct, game over in short order as it would do irreparable damage to the fragile eco-balance.

Incredibly wrong - clearly - since "birds" are but a rather recent blink of life on this planet. Oh...but perhaps you're of the mind that dinosaurs were relatives of birds (similar primary forms) and thus fish are birds and so on? Naw...that would mean you'd understand evolution, but then you wouldn't be making this silly statement.

Also, the fact that some descendants will survive and some will perish is already known to the organism. Hence, the number of offspring. The way I like to see it is: roaches produce thousands to keep hundreds, snakes produce hundreds to keep several, rabbits produce several to keep a few. Life is intelligent.

Ummm...what about species that don't produce...you know...thousands and hundreds of offspring? You know...like sharks, whales, kangaroos, cheetahs, ostriches, Galapagos tortoises, humans, chimpanzees, Stellar Eagles, etc?

Your examples are all questions related to physical existence. My examples have no relation to my survival. My happiness may extend my life a few years, but so can stubbornness and fear. So it seems QoL decisions are not related to survival.

You're thinking extremely narrowly and ignoring the vast research arena on this subject. You're also switching perspective to the individual, which as you indicated earlier, is irrelevant. The fact is, having a multitude of traits is conducive to human species survival. It is currently advantages for us as a species to have a variety of personalities - it gives us dynamic redundancy for a variety of environmental conditions. If certain situations crop up where fear is selected for, guess what...in a few generations the majority of humans have a dominant fear trait. If, on the other hand, conditions arise that favor playfulness, we're ready for that too...and so on. That said, no species can have all traits - too many diminishing returns against the cost. And, for some species, conditions arise that select out diversity altogether, making the species incredibly specialized and successful in those favorable conditions, but very fragile when it comes to any sudden environmental change.

Yes, recently (and mostly with the advent of science) we have abstracted the need for survival somewhat so we can enjoy our lifes rather than just staying alive. But we are no smarter today than we were 50,000 years ago. We simply managed to invent means of making our lives easier.

Isn't that the million dollar question? Why are we concerned with QoL and not just surviving. Is it because Humanity is so successful at survival that it bored to death. From a non-purpose, non-design perspective, that would mean evolution (i.e. adapting as a means to survival)is obsolete, at the very least in the case of Man.

The implication in your statement is that "just surviving" doesn't include degrees of enjoyment/hardship. Why would you presume such?

140+ million years of birds "are but a rather recent blink of life on this planet"?? Are you joking or just stupid? Oh wait, I already know. And you really do need to learn how to read. Steve P. already made it clear that some animals don't produce hundreds or thousands of offspring.

OgreMkV said: And IBIG still ignored any attempt to provide evidence for his own brand of creationism.

140+ million years of birds “are but a rather recent blink of life on this planet”?? Are you joking or just stupid? Oh wait, I already know.

IBelieveInGod said: I'm sorry but 'argument from incredulity' doesn't apply to Abiogenesis. There is no evidence that it actually happened. NONE!!! Life has only been observed coming from life Biogenesis. Go check it out for yourself.

fnxtr said: Could an all-powerful, limitlessly pan-dimensional, infinitely-intelligent immortal have simply willed life into existence? Well, yeah, I guess, but how would you test that?

mrg said: Or maybe it just sort of magically happened, without any rhyme or reason? I mean, if we're talking magic here, we can come up with any magic scenario we like, one is just as supported by the evidence as the other, and: "It just went POOF! for no particular reason." -- at least has the virtue of absolutely minimal overhead.

I mean, if we’re talking magic here, we can come up with any magic scenario we like, one is just as supported by the evidence as the other, and: “It just went POOF! for no particular reason.” – at least has the virtue of absolutely minimal overhead.

Ghost of Phhhht Past said: As you have been told before: Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: And you evidently don't know that the "argument from incredulity' actually means an 'argument from disbelief'. You do know that when you state that God doesn't exist that you are making an 'argument from incredulity'?

Fuck, you're stupid. And delusional. You do know that when you deny that Thor exists, you are arguing from incredulity? When you deny Quetzalcoatl, it's an argument from incredulity. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is very cross with your incredulity, heretic. There's this thing called a null hypothesis, Biggy. Look it up. Then define 'god' in a meaningful and coherent way. Then we'll talk. The MadPanda, FCD

I'm sorry but 'argument from incredulity' doesn't apply to Abiogenesis. There is no evidence that it actually happened. NONE!!! Life has only been observed coming from life Biogenesis. Go check it out for yourself.

How is this supposed to be evidence that God magically poofed the world and its inhabitants 10,000 years ago, leaving no evidence beyond a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible?

what makes you think that we would expect some special evidence other then what we have?

Flint said:

I mean, if we’re talking magic here, we can come up with any magic scenario we like, one is just as supported by the evidence as the other, and: “It just went POOF! for no particular reason.” – at least has the virtue of absolutely minimal overhead.

What's interesting is that when our brand of creationists are exposed to the creation tales of other religions, which differ only in peripheral detail, they recognize that such tales are either metaphorical, or simply silly. Even cultures that have single deities poofing reality into existence are rejected as silly, if the deity's name SOUNDS different. I've always wished someone would do a study of exactly how our creationist's fables would have to change, which details are critical and which are not, etc. before that fine line is reached, on one side of which is Absolute Truth, and on the other side is nonsense and imagination. Would the "Garden of Deen" be Truth, or nonsense? If the snake spoke French, would that do it? As I recall, "Adam and Steve" crosses that line from Absolute Truth to foolishness. But one thing seems very clear, and that is it's not a gradual change from Truth to idle tall tales. It's a sudden distinct phase change. Just where that change occurs seems worth researching.

IBelieveInGod said: Could it be that all of these religions, cultures, etc... have the similar stories of a Creator, because it really happened, and was passed down through generations?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: And you evidently don't know that the "argument from incredulity' actually means an 'argument from disbelief'. You do know that when you state that God doesn't exist that you are making an 'argument from incredulity'?

Fuck, you're stupid. And delusional. You do know that when you deny that Thor exists, you are arguing from incredulity? When you deny Quetzalcoatl, it's an argument from incredulity. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is very cross with your incredulity, heretic. There's this thing called a null hypothesis, Biggy. Look it up. Then define 'god' in a meaningful and coherent way. Then we'll talk. The MadPanda, FCD

I'm sorry but 'argument from incredulity' doesn't apply to Abiogenesis. There is no evidence that it actually happened. NONE!!! Life has only been observed coming from life Biogenesis. Go check it out for yourself.

How is this supposed to be evidence that God magically poofed the world and its inhabitants 10,000 years ago, leaving no evidence beyond a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible?

What evidence would you expect? His word is good enough evidence for me, I know you don't believe it, but that is something you will have to deal with. If God created the natural universe, then He would be able to control the natural laws within that universe, so what makes you think that we would expect some special evidence other then what we have?

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: Could it be that all of these religions, cultures, etc... have the similar stories of a Creator, because it really happened, and was passed down through generations?

Given the unexpectedly high level of disagreement on every imaginable point between the various versions of creation myths? No. Try again, and this time try to either know the material or stay within the realm of plausibility, neh? I'd suggest Joseph Campbell for starters, assuming that your invisible friend won't give you boils for daring to read something other than his magic book. The MadPanda, FCD

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: And you evidently don't know that the "argument from incredulity' actually means an 'argument from disbelief'. You do know that when you state that God doesn't exist that you are making an 'argument from incredulity'?

Fuck, you're stupid. And delusional. You do know that when you deny that Thor exists, you are arguing from incredulity? When you deny Quetzalcoatl, it's an argument from incredulity. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is very cross with your incredulity, heretic. There's this thing called a null hypothesis, Biggy. Look it up. Then define 'god' in a meaningful and coherent way. Then we'll talk. The MadPanda, FCD

I'm sorry but 'argument from incredulity' doesn't apply to Abiogenesis. There is no evidence that it actually happened. NONE!!! Life has only been observed coming from life Biogenesis. Go check it out for yourself.

How is this supposed to be evidence that God magically poofed the world and its inhabitants 10,000 years ago, leaving no evidence beyond a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible?

What evidence would you expect? His word is good enough evidence for me, I know you don't believe it, but that is something you will have to deal with. If God created the natural universe, then He would be able to control the natural laws within that universe, so what makes you think that we would expect some special evidence other then what we have?

You've demonstrated that your word is worthless, that you are a liar who hates science, education and the truth. You only profess to worship God in order to force us to worship you and your inane lies. You demand that we worship you because God magically poofed the world and its inhabitants into existence, yet, refuse to provide proof of this, AND refuse to explain how this is supposed to be magically more scientific than actual science. Quite frankly, you're an insane idiot to expect that we would bow down to your inane, insane demands.

IBelieveInGod said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: Could it be that all of these religions, cultures, etc... have the similar stories of a Creator, because it really happened, and was passed down through generations?

Given the unexpectedly high level of disagreement on every imaginable point between the various versions of creation myths? No. Try again, and this time try to either know the material or stay within the realm of plausibility, neh? I'd suggest Joseph Campbell for starters, assuming that your invisible friend won't give you boils for daring to read something other than his magic book. The MadPanda, FCD

There may be disagreements, but that doesn't change that there was a Creator. I thankful for my invisible friend.

IBelieveInGod said: ...but that doesn't change that I am under the delusion that there was a Creator. I thankful for my invisible imaginary friend.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: And you evidently don't know that the "argument from incredulity' actually means an 'argument from disbelief'. You do know that when you state that God doesn't exist that you are making an 'argument from incredulity'?

Fuck, you're stupid. And delusional. You do know that when you deny that Thor exists, you are arguing from incredulity? When you deny Quetzalcoatl, it's an argument from incredulity. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is very cross with your incredulity, heretic. There's this thing called a null hypothesis, Biggy. Look it up. Then define 'god' in a meaningful and coherent way. Then we'll talk. The MadPanda, FCD

I'm sorry but 'argument from incredulity' doesn't apply to Abiogenesis. There is no evidence that it actually happened. NONE!!! Life has only been observed coming from life Biogenesis. Go check it out for yourself.

How is this supposed to be evidence that God magically poofed the world and its inhabitants 10,000 years ago, leaving no evidence beyond a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible?

What evidence would you expect? His word is good enough evidence for me, I know you don't believe it, but that is something you will have to deal with. If God created the natural universe, then He would be able to control the natural laws within that universe, so what makes you think that we would expect some special evidence other then what we have?

You've demonstrated that your word is worthless, that you are a liar who hates science, education and the truth. You only profess to worship God in order to force us to worship you and your inane lies. You demand that we worship you because God magically poofed the world and its inhabitants into existence, yet, refuse to provide proof of this, AND refuse to explain how this is supposed to be magically more scientific than actual science. Quite frankly, you're an insane idiot to expect that we would bow down to your inane, insane demands.

I don't want you to worship me. My word is on the word of a man, but God's word is that of the eternal God and Creator of the universe.

Could it be that all of these religions, cultures, etc… have the similar stories of a Creator, because it really happened, and was passed down through generations?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: And you evidently don't know that the "argument from incredulity' actually means an 'argument from disbelief'. You do know that when you state that God doesn't exist that you are making an 'argument from incredulity'?

Fuck, you're stupid. And delusional. You do know that when you deny that Thor exists, you are arguing from incredulity? When you deny Quetzalcoatl, it's an argument from incredulity. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is very cross with your incredulity, heretic. There's this thing called a null hypothesis, Biggy. Look it up. Then define 'god' in a meaningful and coherent way. Then we'll talk. The MadPanda, FCD

I'm sorry but 'argument from incredulity' doesn't apply to Abiogenesis. There is no evidence that it actually happened. NONE!!! Life has only been observed coming from life Biogenesis. Go check it out for yourself.

How is this supposed to be evidence that God magically poofed the world and its inhabitants 10,000 years ago, leaving no evidence beyond a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible?

What evidence would you expect? His word is good enough evidence for me, I know you don't believe it, but that is something you will have to deal with. If God created the natural universe, then He would be able to control the natural laws within that universe, so what makes you think that we would expect some special evidence other then what we have?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: You've demonstrated that your word is worthless, that you are a liar who hates science, education and the truth. You only profess to worship God in order to force us to worship you and your inane lies. You demand that we worship you because God magically poofed the world and its inhabitants into existence, yet, refuse to provide proof of this, AND refuse to explain how this is supposed to be magically more scientific than actual science. Quite frankly, you're an insane idiot to expect that we would bow down to your inane, insane demands.

I don't want you to worship me. My word is on the word of a man, but God's word is that of the eternal God and Creator of the universe.

IBelieveInGod said: My word is on the word of a man, but God's word is that of the eternal God and Creator of the universe.

OgreMkV said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: And you evidently don't know that the "argument from incredulity' actually means an 'argument from disbelief'. You do know that when you state that God doesn't exist that you are making an 'argument from incredulity'?

Fuck, you're stupid. And delusional. You do know that when you deny that Thor exists, you are arguing from incredulity? When you deny Quetzalcoatl, it's an argument from incredulity. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is very cross with your incredulity, heretic. There's this thing called a null hypothesis, Biggy. Look it up. Then define 'god' in a meaningful and coherent way. Then we'll talk. The MadPanda, FCD

I'm sorry but 'argument from incredulity' doesn't apply to Abiogenesis. There is no evidence that it actually happened. NONE!!! Life has only been observed coming from life Biogenesis. Go check it out for yourself.

How is this supposed to be evidence that God magically poofed the world and its inhabitants 10,000 years ago, leaving no evidence beyond a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible?

What evidence would you expect? His word is good enough evidence for me, I know you don't believe it, but that is something you will have to deal with. If God created the natural universe, then He would be able to control the natural laws within that universe, so what makes you think that we would expect some special evidence other then what we have?

Sorry, your evidence is meaningless to anyone who can think critically. How do you explain why your magic books sometimes says one thing and sometimes something else. Oh wait, you go into apologetics... which is not based on the bible or anything in it. Why are you here again? Just answer this after having asked you for months. You aren't here to learn science. You don't want to tell us about your brand of creation (other than its in the bible) and you can't explain why you know what you know about the bible. And you still haven't explained which parts of the bible are literal and which aren't and how you know. And finally, you still haven't dealt with, by your own admission, that your creation story is based on a specific sect of a specific cult or a specific breed of religion and is therefore illegal to teach in public schools. So, why are you here? BTW< take it ATBC, this is about the immune system and you sure as heck don't know anything about that. I forget, do you believe in Noah's ark or not? Care to explain 620+ HLA-B alleles in less than 4000 years?

Merry Christmas to everyone here, and may the Peace of God, that passes all understanding be with all of you this Christmas. God Bless all of you.

God's peace!?!?!??! You really are a moron.

But Happy Holidays anyway.

And you're still wrong. Science is science, whether it biology, evolution, chemistry or astronomy.

may the Peace of God, that passes all my understanding

IBelieveInGod said: Merry Christmas to everyone here, and may the Peace of God, that passes all understanding be with all of you this Christmas. God Bless all of you.

Flint said:

140+ million years of birds “are but a rather recent blink of life on this planet”?? Are you joking or just stupid? Oh wait, I already know.

The oldest fossils widely agreed to be birds are about 60 million years old, but molecular clock evidence suggests the earliest birds may have begun to evolve as birds as much as 100 million years ago. So if we think of the age of the earth as starting at midnight, with the present as the next midnight, then birds appeared sometime between 11:30 and 11:45 PM. Not the blink humans represent (sometime within the last minute or two), but still pretty close to the end of the day.

Dale Husband said: And it should be noted for the record that Kris is using a well known Creationist tactic called the Gish Gallop, named after Duane T. Gish of the ICR, who would use it against opponents in verbal debates. Sorry, Kris, it doesn't work so well online. It only makes you look silly.

ben said:

Kris said:

Rob said: Kris, Steve P and IBIG, The Atlantic Ocean is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by GPS (like a car navigator) at ~1 inch per year. There are multiple other lines of evidence that confirm this spreading rate. How old is the Atlantic ocean?

It's as old as when the name "Atlantic" was first applied. The water in the Atlantic Ocean is of variable age, depending on how it is measured. The area or volume of the water in the Atlantic Ocean is also of variable size and age. Plate tectonics, tidal fluctuations, river runoff, weather, and all that jazz ya know.

Classic Joe G.-type stuff. Measure the age of the water? Hmmmm....

OgreMkV said: God's peace!?!?!??! You really are a moron. But Happy Holidays anyway. And you're still wrong. Science is science, whether it biology, evolution, chemistry or astronomy.

Or "it takes one to know one":)

IBelieveInGod said:

OgreMkV said: God's peace!?!?!??! You really are a moron. But Happy Holidays anyway. And you're still wrong. Science is science, whether it biology, evolution, chemistry or astronomy.

Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. I'm a moron for wishing everyone a Merry Christmas? Or is it that I'm a moron because I believe that God's peace passes all understanding? Like the old saying it takes one to call one:)

IBelieveInGod said: I'm a moron...

"Here is a calibration of the little Kris Troll"

Rob said: "Kris, Steve P and IBIG,
The Atlantic Ocean is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by GPS (like a car navigator) at ~1 inch per year. There are multiple other lines of evidence that confirm this spreading rate. How old is the Atlantic ocean?"

Kris said: "It’s as old as when the name “Atlantic” was first applied. The water in the Atlantic Ocean is of variable age, depending on how it is measured. The area or volume of the water in the Atlantic Ocean is also of variable size and age. Plate tectonics, tidal fluctuations, river runoff, weather, and all that jazz ya know. Did I miss anything? It’s late and I’m sleepy. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

Flint said:

Personally, I wouldn’t say that an argument for a creator or designer is “persuasive”, but I would say that unless proof to the contrary is discovered that a creator or designer is possible.

But there are a couple of serious problems here that you need to address. First, the creator "mechanism" can't be duplicated, it can't be explained, it can't be tested. Nobody has any evidence about it at all. And second, you absolutely MUST have at least SOME means of providing your "proof to the contrary." I'm not asking you to perform an experiment, I'm simply asking what experiment you might suggest that would provide "proof to the contrary" to your satisfaction. If there is no such experiment in principle, then you are demanding what you yourself admit is not possible. That's not honest.

Speculation based on indirect evidence or alleged evidence is not “persuasive” either, to me. It is only suggestive.

True, suggestive indirect evidence is very often not persuasive, BUT what it suggests is avenues of further research, which are likely to provide additional evidence. Eventually there's enough evidence so that, as Gould wrote, "it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." That's how science works. And the notion of a poofing creator has the disadvangtage that it doesn't suggest anything. Whether it's true or false, it can't be investigated or applied or understood or even observed. And in this way, it's no different from anything any child might make up.

Rob said: "Here is a calibration of the little Kris Troll" Rob said: "Kris, Steve P and IBIG, The Atlantic Ocean is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by GPS (like a car navigator) at ~1 inch per year. There are multiple other lines of evidence that confirm this spreading rate. How old is the Atlantic ocean?" Kris said: "It’s as old as when the name “Atlantic” was first applied. The water in the Atlantic Ocean is of variable age, depending on how it is measured. The area or volume of the water in the Atlantic Ocean is also of variable size and age. Plate tectonics, tidal fluctuations, river runoff, weather, and all that jazz ya know. Did I miss anything? It’s late and I’m sleepy. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

Mike Elzinga said:

ben said: Classic Joe G.-type stuff. Measure the age of the water? Hmmmm....

We have had a number of these “cloaked” creationists pop in here from time to time. They tread ever so carefully in the beginning; but you can always sense that they are about to spring a gotcha game on you. They prance around in the middle of the room with their eyes closed thinking they are invisible. Then when their bluff is called, they rip off their cloak and start screaming and throwing feces all over the place. This Kris character is such a cliché. It’s quite likely he has been here before under another name.

mrg said:

The MadPanda, FCD said: Who was the very first English speaker? Name and specific location, please.

Yep. Who invented the wheel? Who domesticated the horse? Who invented the sailboat? Who invented the needle and thread? We can get a fair idea of when and where these things happened. I don't think we need to feel embarrassed if we can't find the copyright on the wheel in the files.

Kris said: To me, the possibility of a creator or ID are suggestive (not persuasive). Avenues of research may be possible, if not now maybe someday. People, including scientists, used to think that no avenues of research were possible for many things, that now are common and routine.

OgreMkV said: Guys, that's the main problem with people like Kris and IBIG, they absolutely cannot understand the concept of multiple lines of evidence. I've already offered to give Kris 30+ categories of evidence (not individual examples, but categories, each with thousands of independent examples) of macroevolution and the age of the Earth/Universe. The IDists know that they can't even defeat one of them, much less hundreds of thousands of them. They can't understand that the rate of sea floor spreading over the entire history of the Atlantic ocean can be verified by other, independent means. This is exactly the same thing as "you can't radio-date material because the rate of radioactive decay could have changed", but the rate of radioactive decay is not the only measurement we use. We have hundreds of independent methods of confirming this. IDists/creationists/evolution-deniers will never understand this. And the really funny part, of course, is that they demand from science what their own pet notions can't even begin to show. In all these pages and all the posts that Krissy, SteveP. and Ibiggy have made, not a single one offers and evidence, hypotheses, or other support for design. None. Zip. Zilch. So, I make this offer... let's start over. Pretend none of this has happened and present your evidence and support for design. Then we can all see if there are any testable hypotheses, experiments that have already been done, etc. SO, you are the representatives of ID. Convince us.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

OgreMkV said: God's peace!?!?!??! You really are a moron. But Happy Holidays anyway. And you're still wrong. Science is science, whether it biology, evolution, chemistry or astronomy.

Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. I'm a moron for wishing everyone a Merry Christmas? Or is it that I'm a moron because I believe that God's peace passes all understanding? Like the old saying it takes one to call one:)

We point out that you are a moron because you want us to believe that you know more than all of the scientists of the world combined, that you want us to believe that God magically poofing the world into existence 10,000 years ago, without any evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be more scientific than actual science, and that, because scientists can not magically go back in time to verify the very first member of any given taxon, all scientists and science are stupid and useless. And there is the fact that you want us to believe that you have the love of God in you, even though you repeatedly accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being an evil atheist, and how you consider all atheists/non-Christians to be evil, subhuman monsters, and how you consider Catholics to be even worse than atheists. In other words, IBelieve, we call you "bigot," "liar," "hypocrite" and "moron" because those are what you are, a bigot, a liar, a hypocrite and a moron.

Archeopteryx was not a bird. If some 27 characters, it has 17 that are only dinosaurian and a mere 7 that are bird... which kind of blows your entire conjecture out of the water itself.

IBIG. God's peace = crusades, dark ages, genocide over the last 4000 years, slavery, death, untold pain and suffering all directly commanded by or done in the name of your God.

I'll take Man's Peace over God's Peace. And you STILL haven't explained which parts of the Bible are literal and are metaphorical and how you know. Personally, based on observed historical events, I'd have to say the verse you cited is metaphorical... moron. Learn some history that isn't a myth.

Stanton said:

Kris said: To me, the possibility of a creator or ID are suggestive (not persuasive). Avenues of research may be possible, if not now maybe someday. People, including scientists, used to think that no avenues of research were possible for many things, that now are common and routine.

The main problem of this is that proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design have neither the desire or ability to explain how the possibility of a Creator is relevant to science, nor do they have the desire or ability to explain how the possibility of a Creator will create new avenues of research. It's been over two decades since the Discovery Institute, the flagship of Intelligent Design, has come out, and it's quite obvious that no one there is even the slightest bit interested in doing any science. So, why is it so bad of us to assume that supporters of Creationism and Intelligent Design are never going to produce new avenues of research in the future, if they show that they have no ability or desire of producing new avenues of research now?

You've repeatedly implied that you know more than all of the scientists of the world combined, like you're doing right now.

And you've also shown that you are an untrustworthy liar who deludes himself into thinking that he has the power to magically overturn science and logic through inane word games, like you're trying to do right now.

And how come you remain so hesitant to explain to us why we should assume that your FAITH trumps science? Why do you continue to hesitate in explaining why and how God magically poofing the world 10,000 years ago as according to a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible is supposed to be superior science?

God expects us to come to Him by FAITH! If evidence is what you demand, then will not have it, you would be like Thomas who had to touch Jesus' wounds before he believed Jesus was really who He said He was. You don't have to believe that God exists, it's your right. God will give you evidence of His existence when you have faith in Him, He will reveal Himself to you in ways, that you will know that you know that He exists. You don't have to take my word for it, try it for yourself, seek Him out and you will find Him.

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Kris said: To me, the possibility of a creator or ID are suggestive (not persuasive). Avenues of research may be possible, if not now maybe someday. People, including scientists, used to think that no avenues of research were possible for many things, that now are common and routine.

The main problem of this is that proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design have neither the desire or ability to explain how the possibility of a Creator is relevant to science, nor do they have the desire or ability to explain how the possibility of a Creator will create new avenues of research. It's been over two decades since the Discovery Institute, the flagship of Intelligent Design, has come out, and it's quite obvious that no one there is even the slightest bit interested in doing any science. So, why is it so bad of us to assume that supporters of Creationism and Intelligent Design are never going to produce new avenues of research in the future, if they show that they have no ability or desire of producing new avenues of research now?

Come on now, you can do better than that, can't you? 20 whole years. Wow, that's a looooooooooonngg time. LOL How long has science been trying to figure out things? Can you or science say with certainty that ID or creation do not, cannot, and never did happen? Does science have all the answers to everything and all the avenues or possible avenues of research figured out for everything in the universe, or outside it, if there is an outside? Science can't even define the word "species". Now THAT'S pathetic.

OgreMkV said: Archeopteryx was not a bird. If some 27 characters, it has 17 that are only dinosaurian and a mere 7 that are bird... which kind of blows your entire conjecture out of the water itself. IBIG. God's peace = crusades, dark ages, genocide over the last 4000 years, slavery, death, untold pain and suffering all directly commanded by or done in the name of your God. I'll take Man's Peace over God's Peace. And you STILL haven't explained which parts of the Bible are literal and are metaphorical and how you know. Personally, based on observed historical events, I'd have to say the verse you cited is metaphorical... moron. Learn some history that isn't a myth.

OgreMkV said: Archeopteryx was not a bird. If some 27 characters, it has 17 that are only dinosaurian and a mere 7 that are bird... which kind of blows your entire conjecture out of the water itself. IBIG. God's peace = crusades, dark ages, genocide over the last 4000 years, slavery, death, untold pain and suffering all directly commanded by or done in the name of your God. I'll take Man's Peace over God's Peace. And you STILL haven't explained which parts of the Bible are literal and are metaphorical and how you know. Personally, based on observed historical events, I'd have to say the verse you cited is metaphorical... moron. Learn some history that isn't a myth.

The MadPanda, FCD said: .... anecdotes, argument from authority, argumentam ad populam, argument from incredulity, moving the goalposts, shrieking insults, spitting venom, blatant quote-mining...

fnxtr said: Okay, let's say for the moment there's no evidence of abiogenesis (btw, why did you capitalize that?). How do we explain that there was once, billions of years ago, no life here, then, not much later on, there was? Well, we test our ideas. Could lipid bubbles form as a basis for early containment membranes? Yep, tested. Could certain minerals act as substrates for polymer chains? Yep, sure could. Could organic molecules form under early-earth-like conditions? Oh, yeah. Big time.

IBelieveInGod said: God expects us to come to Him by FAITH! If evidence is what you demand, then will not have it, you would be like Thomas who had to touch Jesus' wounds before he believed Jesus was really who He said He was. You don't have to believe that God exists, it's your right. God will give you evidence of His existence when you have faith in Him, He will reveal Himself to you in ways, that you will know that you know that He exists. You don't have to take my word for it, try it for yourself, seek Him out and you will find Him.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: God expects us to come to Him by FAITH! If evidence is what you demand, then will not have it, you would be like Thomas who had to touch Jesus' wounds before he believed Jesus was really who He said He was. You don't have to believe that God exists, it's your right. God will give you evidence of His existence when you have faith in Him, He will reveal Himself to you in ways, that you will know that you know that He exists. You don't have to take my word for it, try it for yourself, seek Him out and you will find Him.

We're talking about science, not FAITH. Evidence is everything in science. Furthermore, why would any of us here want to place faith in you, IBelieve? You're a bigot, a liar, a hypocrite and a moron. In fact, the very first post you made in Panda's Thumb was a bald-faced lie. You don't care about anything other than forcing people to stroke your ego, and forcing other people to worship the same lies you worship.

My Christmas wish is for Santa Blog to throw down the banhammer on Joe G's sock, "Kris", and IdiotBelievesInGod once and for all. SRSLY, they are tiresome.

IBelieveInGod said:

OgreMkV said: Archeopteryx was not a bird. If some 27 characters, it has 17 that are only dinosaurian and a mere 7 that are bird... which kind of blows your entire conjecture out of the water itself. IBIG. God's peace = crusades, dark ages, genocide over the last 4000 years, slavery, death, untold pain and suffering all directly commanded by or done in the name of your God. I'll take Man's Peace over God's Peace. And you STILL haven't explained which parts of the Bible are literal and are metaphorical and how you know. Personally, based on observed historical events, I'd have to say the verse you cited is metaphorical... moron. Learn some history that isn't a myth.

God wasn't behind the Crusades, they took place after the Death and resurrection of Christ. The crusades were all man's fault. The Kingdom of God is Righteous, Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost. Man has done many horrible things in the name of God, and that is iniquity, which each will have account for someday. Matthew 7:21-23 (New International Version, ©2010) 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ This scriptures describe those who do things out of God's will, yet claim to do them in God's name. You see not everyone who claims to do things in God's name are doing God's will, and in fact are guilty of iniquity.

Have you forgotten that we're already aware of how you deliberately refuse to look at any links we provide?

Really, you have no intention of providing any evidence or explanation of why we have to believe that GODDIDIT is supposed to be magically more scientific than actual science, beyond the fact that you say so, why don't you just go away?

I know you're too stupid to understant Joe... I mean Kris

"Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.[2][3] The features above make Archaeopteryx a clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds."

BUt please explain to us the concept of species as an IDist understands the term.

IBIG, just go away. all you have is faith. You've proven in the past that you don't even have faith in the bible. There is nothing for you here. Just go away.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: Could it be that all of these religions, cultures, etc... have the similar stories of a Creator, because it really happened, and was passed down through generations?

Given the unexpectedly high level of disagreement on every imaginable point between the various versions of creation myths? No. Try again, and this time try to either know the material or stay within the realm of plausibility, neh? I'd suggest Joseph Campbell for starters, assuming that your invisible friend won't give you boils for daring to read something other than his magic book. The MadPanda, FCD

Kris said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: Could it be that all of these religions, cultures, etc... have the similar stories of a Creator, because it really happened, and was passed down through generations?

Given the unexpectedly high level of disagreement on every imaginable point between the various versions of creation myths? No. Try again, and this time try to either know the material or stay within the realm of plausibility, neh? I'd suggest Joseph Campbell for starters, assuming that your invisible friend won't give you boils for daring to read something other than his magic book. The MadPanda, FCD

Whether IBIG is right or wrong, why don't you convince me of what exactly is within the realm of plausibility; and is that different from the realm of possibility? Who is Joseph Campbell and why should anyone care? Does he have all the answers to everything? If so, will you please ask him what the first insect was (genus and species) and what its direct ancestor was (genus and species)?

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Ghost of Phhhht Past said: As you have been told before: Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred.

Ohhhhh, that doesn't count! After all, we can't go back and time and pinpoint the exact date and time, therefore Biggy's Muppet-loving Imaginary Friend diddit eleventyone!!!! (snerk) The MadPanda, FCD

OgreMkV said:

Kris said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: Could it be that all of these religions, cultures, etc... have the similar stories of a Creator, because it really happened, and was passed down through generations?

Given the unexpectedly high level of disagreement on every imaginable point between the various versions of creation myths? No. Try again, and this time try to either know the material or stay within the realm of plausibility, neh? I'd suggest Joseph Campbell for starters, assuming that your invisible friend won't give you boils for daring to read something other than his magic book. The MadPanda, FCD

Whether IBIG is right or wrong, why don't you convince me of what exactly is within the realm of plausibility; and is that different from the realm of possibility? Who is Joseph Campbell and why should anyone care? Does he have all the answers to everything? If so, will you please ask him what the first insect was (genus and species) and what its direct ancestor was (genus and species)?

Why don't you tell us who wrote the book of Genesis and when?

Kris said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Ghost of Phhhht Past said: As you have been told before: Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred.

Ohhhhh, that doesn't count! After all, we can't go back and time and pinpoint the exact date and time, therefore Biggy's Muppet-loving Imaginary Friend diddit eleventyone!!!! (snerk) The MadPanda, FCD

"Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred." sure doesn't sound scientific. Did evolution just poof life into existence?

OgreMkV said:

Kris said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Ghost of Phhhht Past said: As you have been told before: Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred.

Ohhhhh, that doesn't count! After all, we can't go back and time and pinpoint the exact date and time, therefore Biggy's Muppet-loving Imaginary Friend diddit eleventyone!!!! (snerk) The MadPanda, FCD

"Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred." sure doesn't sound scientific. Did evolution just poof life into existence?

Please do 10 seconds worth of thinking and research before saying such stupid things. "In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inanimate matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose"

IBelieveInGod said:

OgreMkV said:

Kris said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Ghost of Phhhht Past said: As you have been told before: Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred.

Ohhhhh, that doesn't count! After all, we can't go back and time and pinpoint the exact date and time, therefore Biggy's Muppet-loving Imaginary Friend diddit eleventyone!!!! (snerk) The MadPanda, FCD

"Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred." sure doesn't sound scientific. Did evolution just poof life into existence?

Please do 10 seconds worth of thinking and research before saying such stupid things. "In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inanimate matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose"

So explain in precise detail how it happened and precisely when it happened, and no conjecture please just the facts.

OgreMkV said:

IBelieveInGod said:

OgreMkV said:

Kris said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Ghost of Phhhht Past said: As you have been told before: Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred.

Ohhhhh, that doesn't count! After all, we can't go back and time and pinpoint the exact date and time, therefore Biggy's Muppet-loving Imaginary Friend diddit eleventyone!!!! (snerk) The MadPanda, FCD

"Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred." sure doesn't sound scientific. Did evolution just poof life into existence?

Please do 10 seconds worth of thinking and research before saying such stupid things. "In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inanimate matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose"

So explain in precise detail how it happened and precisely when it happened, and no conjecture please just the facts.

You bet, as soon as you explain in detail, with no conjecture who wrote the book of Genesis and when.

IBelieveInGod said:

OgreMkV said:

IBelieveInGod said:

OgreMkV said:

Kris said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Ghost of Phhhht Past said: As you have been told before: Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred.

Ohhhhh, that doesn't count! After all, we can't go back and time and pinpoint the exact date and time, therefore Biggy's Muppet-loving Imaginary Friend diddit eleventyone!!!! (snerk) The MadPanda, FCD

"Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred." sure doesn't sound scientific. Did evolution just poof life into existence?

Please do 10 seconds worth of thinking and research before saying such stupid things. "In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inanimate matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose"

So explain in precise detail how it happened and precisely when it happened, and no conjecture please just the facts.

You bet, as soon as you explain in detail, with no conjecture who wrote the book of Genesis and when.

LOL you can't can you? That's what I expected. Here is your problem, you are the one making the claim that Abiogenesis is scientific. Has Abiogenesis ever been observed? I didn't think so:):):)

Kris said: That none of your allegedly scientifically knowledgeable buddies here have contested your grossly erroneous statements clearly demonstrates that massive cluelessness is rampant on this site. So, to help you all out a bit here are some clues to learning what is "widely agreed" regarding the oldest known birds, and other information regarding the age and evolution of birds. Archaeopteryx Longipterygidae Dalianraptor Archaeorhynchus Hongshanornithidae Noguerornis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_birds http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v377/n6550/abs/377616a0.html http://www.springerlink.com/content/8u27652u62n75q45/ And it should be noted for the record that you are a sack of rancid monkey shit. Your lack of knowledge is showing. I was asked “How old is the Atlantic ocean?” Let’s explore that question, and what pertains to measuring the age. The “Atlantic ocean” (sic) has been a large body of water for a long time but it was not the “Atlantic” Ocean until it was named the Atlantic Ocean. The contents, area, and volume of the “Atlantic ocean” has changed over time, and also changes every nanosecond of every day, for various reasons (see below). The water in the AO is not all the same age, unless one were to believe and assert that all of the water on Earth (every last drop), and therefore in any ocean, is exactly the same age. If that’s what one believes, then all water on Earth could be said to be the same age regardless of where it is, on or in The Earth. In that sense then, the AO could be dated to the age of the origin of all the water on Earth. Another thing to consider is when did the AO become an “ocean”, regardless of it’s current name (Atlantic)? Can you or anyone else here precisely define and explain when it became an “ocean”, rather than just a big puddle? And if not precisely, how about reasonably (say, within one million years)? How about 5 million? How about ten million? Now, back to the dating of the water that is in the AO. After all, an “ocean” can’t very well be an “ocean” unless there’s water in it. So, since water in any ocean is recirculated, or recycled constantly, the water in any ocean is never the same water from moment to moment. Therefore, the Atlantic Ocean, which is comprised of water, varies constantly in age. The area and volume of the AO also varies constantly in age, due to plate tectonics, erosion of the adjacent land, river runoff, sedimentation, rainfall on the ocean and on the land that drains into it, evaporation, and meteoroid, comet, or asteroid impacts (no matter how big or small and no matter when they occur or occurred), etc. So, how old is the Atlantic Ocean? I didn’t say or suggest that a creator mechanism could be duplicated, tested, or explained (at least scientifically) and especially right now, and there is no universal rule or law (except in science?) that says all possibilities have to be definable, testable, explainable, verifiable, or duplicable by ‘science’. Many people would disagree that a creator’s powers or actions (mechanism) can’t be explained. There is or may be a big difference between an explanation and what you or anyone else considers to be a ‘scientific’ explanation. For instance, can you scientifically define, test, and explain ‘love’? Can you duplicate it at will in a lab? And do you think everyone, including scientists, would agree with your definition, tests, and explanation? Just because there’s no evidence of something right now, whether for or against it, doesn’t mean there will never be any evidence. Can science provide evidence, or complete proof, of absolutely everything, or even close to it, right now? Each and every possibility does not require immediate evidence, or a currently available means of pursuing or acquiring evidence, to be possible. I’ve never said that a creator or ID does exist, I’ve only said it’s possible that either may exist, so I’m not required to provide you with evidence of either one’s existence, or with a means to produce evidence to the contrary. And, even if I or someone else were to say something does or doesn’t exist, that something may not be definable, testable, duplicable, verifiable, or disprovable by any scientific methods or standards, either now or in the future. Believe it or not, there are things that are outside the realm of scientific testing and verifiability, and many things are likely to remain that way. The possibility of a creator or ID are just a couple of those things. No one would like to know more than I would whether a creator or ID are real, but I’m sure I’ll never find out. Don’t forget now that I’m not lumping the possibility of ID or a creator with religious beliefs or religion in general. To me, the possibility of ID or a creator are not related to religion. To many others they obviously are. Regarding science: Speculation, based on suggestive, indirect evidence, or alleged evidence, could also be something any child might make up and may not be persuasive at all. It depends on the situation. Instead of saying “It is only suggestive.” I wish I had said ‘It is only suggestive, at best.’ I thought of that right after hitting the submit button but I didn’t think it was necessary to amend it in another post. To me, the possibility of a creator or ID are suggestive (not persuasive). Avenues of research may be possible, if not now maybe someday. People, including scientists, used to think that no avenues of research were possible for many things, that now are common and routine. How the fuck should I know? I’ve never said I know and I’ve never even mentioned the book of Genesis. Why do you assume I’m defending religion or the book of Genesis? Why don’t you read everything I’ve ever posted on this site and see if you can find where I’ve done either.

Kris said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: Could it be that all of these religions, cultures, etc... have the similar stories of a Creator, because it really happened, and was passed down through generations?

Given the unexpectedly high level of disagreement on every imaginable point between the various versions of creation myths? No. Try again, and this time try to either know the material or stay within the realm of plausibility, neh? I'd suggest Joseph Campbell for starters, assuming that your invisible friend won't give you boils for daring to read something other than his magic book. The MadPanda, FCD

Whether IBIG is right or wrong, why don't you convince me of what exactly is within the realm of plausibility; and is that different from the realm of possibility? Who is Joseph Campbell and why should anyone care? Does he have all the answers to everything? If so, will you please ask him what the first insect was (genus and species) and what its direct ancestor was (genus and species)?

IBelieveInGod said: God wasn't behind the Crusades, they took place after the Death and resurrection of Christ. The crusades were all man's fault. The Kingdom of God is Righteous, Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost. Man has done many horrible things in the name of God, and that is iniquity, which each will have account for someday. Matthew 7:21-23 (New International Version, ©2010) 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ This scriptures describe those who do things out of God's will, yet claim to do them in God's name. You see not everyone who claims to do things in God's name are doing God's will, and in fact are guilty of iniquity.

Kris said: No one asked for the copyright or specific location of the first insect or first flying insect. Genus and species names will do.

And in that context, Homo sapiens is the correct answer to the insane Panda's question.

IBelieveInGod said: Blah blah blah.

Kris said: "Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred." sure doesn't sound scientific. Did evolution just poof life into existence?

Kris said: Of course none of you guys/gals use those tactics. You're all perfect human beings who never do anything wrong. Yeah, sure.

Kris said: Whether IBIG is right or wrong, why don't you convince me of what exactly is within the realm of plausibility; and is that different from the realm of possibility?

Who is Joseph Campbell and why should anyone care? Does he have all the answers to everything?

If so, will you please ask him what the first insect was (genus and species) and what its direct ancestor was (genus and species)?

Ghost of Phhhht Past said: As you have been told before: Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred.

The MadPanda, FCD said: Ohhhhh, that doesn't count! After all, we can't go back and time and pinpoint the exact date and time, therefore Biggy's Muppet-loving Imaginary Friend diddit eleventyone!!!! (snerk) The MadPanda, FCD

Kris said: "Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred." sure doesn't sound scientific. Did evolution just poof life into existence?

OgreMkV said: Please do 10 seconds worth of thinking and research before saying such stupid things. "In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inanimate matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose"

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: No one asked for the copyright or specific location of the first insect or first flying insect. Genus and species names will do.

This was exactly what Colin was demanding we produce.

And in that context, Homo sapiens is the correct answer to the insane Panda's question.

Read for comprehension, Kris. I did not ask the species of the first English speaker. (That, by the way, was Colin's first attempt to dodge the question, which you'd know if you were honestly paying attention to anything.) Fuck, you're stupid. Also inattentive and prone to delusions of adequacy. You lose. Again. The MadPanda, FCD

Flint said:

140+ million years of birds “are but a rather recent blink of life on this planet”?? Are you joking or just stupid? Oh wait, I already know.

The oldest fossils widely agreed to be birds are about 60 million years old, but molecular clock evidence suggests the earliest birds may have begun to evolve as birds as much as 100 million years ago. So if we think of the age of the earth as starting at midnight, with the present as the next midnight, then birds appeared sometime between 11:30 and 11:45 PM. Not the blink humans represent (sometime within the last minute or two), but still pretty close to the end of the day.

Flint said:

Could it be that all of these religions, cultures, etc… have the similar stories of a Creator, because it really happened, and was passed down through generations?

The question is a good one, even if the suggested answer is nonsense. After all, there ARE creation tales in nearly every culture, and many if not most of these involve various supernatural events. Those I've heard feature people who somehow "became" that mountain, or the rain, or whatever, through magical transformations resting on normal human emotions. My speculation is, people are curious. All peoples want to know where they came from, where the "first people" came from, where their lands came from, what made the seas and the mountains, etc. And to answer these questions to satisfy this curiosity, most cultures have devised various creation stories. What those stories have in common (at least those I've looked into) is (1) they assume the first people appeared as people are today, all at once; (2) they involve various sorts of magic; (3) they involve entities, not necessarily personalities but at least agencies, who bring all this about for some Purpose or Final Cause. And I think this tells us something about how the human mind works, that it has little problem accepting magic, that "just because" is generally a satisfying explanation, that people think in terms of either/or rather than in terms of spectra, that people have no intuitive grasp of Deep Time, that probabilities are not natural to us, that notions of verification are unnatural. What's surprising isn't that it took 10,000 years from the advent of writing to the invention of science, but that science was invented at all. Nearly every convention of science runs directly counter to our natural and historical way of seeing our world. Conversely, IBIG's approach that "it's true because I WANT it to be true and because I can't tolerate anything else" seems very much the norm. The human imagination may be our greatest strength and the engine behind science, but the flip side is our ability to kid ourselves in direct rejection of evidence "no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing." We simply imagine all that stuff away.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: I'm a moron...

FINALLY an honest answer! ...albeit a crudely quote-mined one. Go to ATBC, Biggy. You're off topic (as usual) and off your meds (also as usual). Kris, you sound like Joey. This is not a positive development. Stay on topic or go to ATBC. Do not Pass Go. Do not collect your thirty pieces of silver. Five years after Dover and all Behe has to show is that he doesn't understand why his side lost. He certainly didn't learn anything...and neither have his apologists. You'd think they'd at least have the self-respect to stop digging, but I guess being a Troo BeLIEver (tm pat pend) gets in the way of a good hard introspective analysis. The MadPanda, FCD

OgreMkV said:

IBelieveInGod said:

OgreMkV said:

IBelieveInGod said:

OgreMkV said:

Kris said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Ghost of Phhhht Past said: As you have been told before: Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred.

Ohhhhh, that doesn't count! After all, we can't go back and time and pinpoint the exact date and time, therefore Biggy's Muppet-loving Imaginary Friend diddit eleventyone!!!! (snerk) The MadPanda, FCD

"Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred." sure doesn't sound scientific. Did evolution just poof life into existence?

Please do 10 seconds worth of thinking and research before saying such stupid things. "In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inanimate matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose"

So explain in precise detail how it happened and precisely when it happened, and no conjecture please just the facts.

You bet, as soon as you explain in detail, with no conjecture who wrote the book of Genesis and when.

LOL you can't can you? That's what I expected. Here is your problem, you are the one making the claim that Abiogenesis is scientific. Has Abiogenesis ever been observed? I didn't think so:):):)

Here is your problem. You require standards for evidence for us that you don't require for you. In other words, there is nothing that I can tell you that will change your mind or even begin the learning process. You've already decided and what has been decided without rational thought cannot be changed by rational thought. Just go away, you have no place here. You do not challenge us the way you think you do. We are in no way threatened or even much care about your presence here (this forum or this planet). You have zero impact on the rational thought processes that allow science to continue. The only thing that remains is to point out how much of a hypocrite you are: for demanding levels of evidence you don't require from you own pet beliefs. for damning practices of rational people that you do not damn from those of your own belief structure for using the tools that science has brought you to rail against the inadequacies of science for proclaiming a belief that you do not actually hold for using your own gods word to achieve your own personal ends, just like those of the crusades that you so much decry For saying "IT IS NEVER OK TO LIE", then repeatedly doing so yourself For not holding yourself to the same standards you proclaim For all of these things and more... Hypocrite. Do you remember what verse I told you a few months back? Have you really reflected on it, as you claim to all the others? Matthew 7:21-23 reflect on that

Dale Husband said: The @$$hole is still spitting out shyt, I see.

Kris said: That none of your allegedly scientifically knowledgeable buddies here have contested your grossly erroneous statements clearly demonstrates that massive cluelessness is rampant on this site. So, to help you all out a bit here are some clues to learning what is "widely agreed" regarding the oldest known birds, and other information regarding the age and evolution of birds. Archaeopteryx Longipterygidae Dalianraptor Archaeorhynchus Hongshanornithidae Noguerornis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_birds http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v377/n6550/abs/377616a0.html http://www.springerlink.com/content/8u27652u62n75q45/ And it should be noted for the record that you are a sack of rancid monkey shit. Your lack of knowledge is showing. I was asked “How old is the Atlantic ocean?” Let’s explore that question, and what pertains to measuring the age. The “Atlantic ocean” (sic) has been a large body of water for a long time but it was not the “Atlantic” Ocean until it was named the Atlantic Ocean. The contents, area, and volume of the “Atlantic ocean” has changed over time, and also changes every nanosecond of every day, for various reasons (see below). The water in the AO is not all the same age, unless one were to believe and assert that all of the water on Earth (every last drop), and therefore in any ocean, is exactly the same age. If that’s what one believes, then all water on Earth could be said to be the same age regardless of where it is, on or in The Earth. In that sense then, the AO could be dated to the age of the origin of all the water on Earth. Another thing to consider is when did the AO become an “ocean”, regardless of it’s current name (Atlantic)? Can you or anyone else here precisely define and explain when it became an “ocean”, rather than just a big puddle? And if not precisely, how about reasonably (say, within one million years)? How about 5 million? How about ten million? Now, back to the dating of the water that is in the AO. After all, an “ocean” can’t very well be an “ocean” unless there’s water in it. So, since water in any ocean is recirculated, or recycled constantly, the water in any ocean is never the same water from moment to moment. Therefore, the Atlantic Ocean, which is comprised of water, varies constantly in age. The area and volume of the AO also varies constantly in age, due to plate tectonics, erosion of the adjacent land, river runoff, sedimentation, rainfall on the ocean and on the land that drains into it, evaporation, and meteoroid, comet, or asteroid impacts (no matter how big or small and no matter when they occur or occurred), etc. So, how old is the Atlantic Ocean? I didn’t say or suggest that a creator mechanism could be duplicated, tested, or explained (at least scientifically) and especially right now, and there is no universal rule or law (except in science?) that says all possibilities have to be definable, testable, explainable, verifiable, or duplicable by ‘science’. Many people would disagree that a creator’s powers or actions (mechanism) can’t be explained. There is or may be a big difference between an explanation and what you or anyone else considers to be a ‘scientific’ explanation. For instance, can you scientifically define, test, and explain ‘love’? Can you duplicate it at will in a lab? And do you think everyone, including scientists, would agree with your definition, tests, and explanation? Just because there’s no evidence of something right now, whether for or against it, doesn’t mean there will never be any evidence. Can science provide evidence, or complete proof, of absolutely everything, or even close to it, right now? Each and every possibility does not require immediate evidence, or a currently available means of pursuing or acquiring evidence, to be possible. I’ve never said that a creator or ID does exist, I’ve only said it’s possible that either may exist, so I’m not required to provide you with evidence of either one’s existence, or with a means to produce evidence to the contrary. And, even if I or someone else were to say something does or doesn’t exist, that something may not be definable, testable, duplicable, verifiable, or disprovable by any scientific methods or standards, either now or in the future. Believe it or not, there are things that are outside the realm of scientific testing and verifiability, and many things are likely to remain that way. The possibility of a creator or ID are just a couple of those things. No one would like to know more than I would whether a creator or ID are real, but I’m sure I’ll never find out. Don’t forget now that I’m not lumping the possibility of ID or a creator with religious beliefs or religion in general. To me, the possibility of ID or a creator are not related to religion. To many others they obviously are. Regarding science: Speculation, based on suggestive, indirect evidence, or alleged evidence, could also be something any child might make up and may not be persuasive at all. It depends on the situation. Instead of saying “It is only suggestive.” I wish I had said ‘It is only suggestive, at best.’ I thought of that right after hitting the submit button but I didn’t think it was necessary to amend it in another post. To me, the possibility of a creator or ID are suggestive (not persuasive). Avenues of research may be possible, if not now maybe someday. People, including scientists, used to think that no avenues of research were possible for many things, that now are common and routine. How the fuck should I know? I’ve never said I know and I’ve never even mentioned the book of Genesis. Why do you assume I’m defending religion or the book of Genesis? Why don’t you read everything I’ve ever posted on this site and see if you can find where I’ve done either.

By collecting all his latest attacks and rants in one place, I hope to show the totality of his arrogance and insanity. He uses many of the lame arguments and claims of creationists, yet denies being one. That's like a man stabbing dozens of people to death over several years, yet he denies being a serial killer.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: Whether IBIG is right or wrong, why don't you convince me of what exactly is within the realm of plausibility; and is that different from the realm of possibility?

Why? You're not listening to anyone else, don't care for an honest discussion on this or any other point, and will only use any response as an excuse to spew invective.

Who is Joseph Campbell and why should anyone care? Does he have all the answers to everything?

It's called Google. Look him up. You're a scientist. This thing called 'research' ought not be a surprise.

If so, will you please ask him what the first insect was (genus and species) and what its direct ancestor was (genus and species)?

You seem to have quite the idee fixee in regards to a rather stupid question (which has already been dealt with adequately elsewhere, not that you were paying attention). Rather like your bafflegab about the Atlantic, in which you first demonstrate why it is neither coherent nor in some ways intelligent to speak of the Atlantic Ocean having a particular age and then demand that we answer the same question you just ruled out. Do try to keep up, there's a good little muppet. The MadPanda, FCD

Kris, an honest discussion would require that you respond to questions asked of you just like we do.

An honest discussion is impossible with a child like yourself. I'll note that you haven't ventured to other threads where adults are discussing actual science and contributing to the knowledge of man.

By DEFINITION if there was once no life and now there is, then abiogenesis occurred. Life from non-life. Get it? No? Color me surprised.

The only difference between your creationist swill and science is that you think a magic sky faerie breathed life into the dust and we use a couple hundred years of knowledge of chemistry and geology to determine if it's even possible.

I'm sorry you are too indoctrinated to understand. And I am sorry that you don't know how science works of even how evidence works. I just hope you never get on a jury. You'll have made your mind up in the first 30 seconds, probably based on whether the defendant is a Christian or not and will remain immune to evidence.

As far as the rest, I'd be happy to teach you. I'm really good at teaching science. But I doubt you are capable of learning. I'm still willing to give it a go.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: God expects us to come to Him by FAITH! If evidence is what you demand, then will not have it, you would be like Thomas who had to touch Jesus' wounds before he believed Jesus was really who He said He was. You don't have to believe that God exists, it's your right. God will give you evidence of His existence when you have faith in Him, He will reveal Himself to you in ways, that you will know that you know that He exists. You don't have to take my word for it, try it for yourself, seek Him out and you will find Him.

We're talking about science, not FAITH. Evidence is everything in science. Furthermore, why would any of us here want to place faith in you, IBelieve? You're a bigot, a liar, a hypocrite and a moron. In fact, the very first post you made in Panda's Thumb was a bald-faced lie. You don't care about anything other than forcing people to stroke your ego, and forcing other people to worship the same lies you worship.

I'm not a bigot either!!!

Kris said: How fucking stupid can you be?? READ what I actually wrote! Do 10 seconds worth of thinking and research and you’ll find that I’m not the one who said “Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred.” Here, I’ll make it REAL easy for you. I copied what “Ghost of Phhhht Past” said. Then I pasted it, and added quote marks, and then added MY WORDS to it; “sure doesn’t sound scientific.” Get it now?????? When I look at what Colin wrote I don’t see any demands. He asked for genus and species, and didn’t ask for the copyright or the personal name of the insects. I know you didn’t ask for the species of the first English speaker. YOU moved the goalposts. Even “adequacy” is many steps above your level. Actually, the oldest fossils “widely agreed” to be birds are 140+ million years old, and 140+ million years is hardly a “recent blink”. I’m curious; when exactly was science invented and who invented it? How is he off topic? How am I off topic? The entire ‘topic’ and purpose of this site is the bashing of religious beliefs, ID, and creation. That makes religious beliefs, ID, and creation the topic. Most of the people on this site require and/or demand standards of evidence from ID-ists and/or creationists that you don't require for yourselves. You guys are the so-called scientists. You should meet your own stated scientific standards before requiring or demanding them from others, and especially when it comes to something really big like abiogenesis. Now what was that that many of you have said about quote mining? Quoting me out of context is sure to make you look stupid and desperate. Oh wait, you already look that way, to anyone sane. Honest discussion?? Listening to anyone else?? On this site?? ROFLMAO!! You and the other obsessive compulsive ID/creationist-haters here wouldn’t know an honest discussion even if it slapped you in the face. Actual honest discussions include more than just your insanely hateful point of view.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: How fucking stupid can you be?? READ what I actually wrote! Do 10 seconds worth of thinking and research and you’ll find that I’m not the one who said “Once there was no life. Now there is life. Proof that abiogensis has occurred.” Here, I’ll make it REAL easy for you. I copied what “Ghost of Phhhht Past” said. Then I pasted it, and added quote marks, and then added MY WORDS to it; “sure doesn’t sound scientific.” Get it now?????? When I look at what Colin wrote I don’t see any demands. He asked for genus and species, and didn’t ask for the copyright or the personal name of the insects. I know you didn’t ask for the species of the first English speaker. YOU moved the goalposts. Even “adequacy” is many steps above your level. Actually, the oldest fossils “widely agreed” to be birds are 140+ million years old, and 140+ million years is hardly a “recent blink”. I’m curious; when exactly was science invented and who invented it? How is he off topic? How am I off topic? The entire ‘topic’ and purpose of this site is the bashing of religious beliefs, ID, and creation. That makes religious beliefs, ID, and creation the topic. Most of the people on this site require and/or demand standards of evidence from ID-ists and/or creationists that you don't require for yourselves. You guys are the so-called scientists. You should meet your own stated scientific standards before requiring or demanding them from others, and especially when it comes to something really big like abiogenesis. Now what was that that many of you have said about quote mining? Quoting me out of context is sure to make you look stupid and desperate. Oh wait, you already look that way, to anyone sane. Honest discussion?? Listening to anyone else?? On this site?? ROFLMAO!! You and the other obsessive compulsive ID/creationist-haters here wouldn’t know an honest discussion even if it slapped you in the face. Actual honest discussions include more than just your insanely hateful point of view.

What is so hateful about our point of view? How is dealing directly and in detail with reality itself hateful? You and other Creationist bigots are the ones who come here with your bull$#it and expect us to take it seriously. And since your crap is based more on 2000 year old dogmas rather than recent scientific discoveries, with a ton of speculation to support the dogmas thrown in, we won't! Get it now?????? We have the clear and overwhelming evidence for evolution and we meet our own standards (not yours) every day, so you have lied outright yet again. Trick questions about the origin of science are pointless here too.

IBIG,

There is a ridge at the center of the Atlantic because the newly formed ocean crust is hot and expanded. As the crust moves away from the formation zone it cools and contracts. The slope on both sides of the mid Atlantic ridge confirms the formation of the Atlantic basin has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year. GPS simply agrees with the ~1 inch per year.

Ocean floor sediment at the center of the Atlantic is thin and thickens away from the zone of formation. This also agrees with the slow and steady spreading rate of ~1 inch per year.

There is additional confirming evidence. What is your evidence that the North Atlantic is not old?

rob said: IBIG, There is a ridge at the center of the Atlantic because the newly formed ocean crust is hot and expanded. As the crust moves away from the formation zone it cools and contracts. The slope on both sides of the mid Atlantic ridge confirms the formation of the Atlantic basin has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year. GPS simply agrees with the ~1 inch per year. Ocean floor sediment at the center of the Atlantic is thin and thickens away from the zone of formation. This also agrees with the slow and steady spreading rate of ~1 inch per year. There is additional confirming evidence. What is your evidence that the North Atlantic is not old?

Actually, IBIG, you are dead wrong again. There are many different independent data sets that confirm the ancient age of the earth. You are simply ignorant of them, just as you are completely ignorant of all of the evidence for abiogenesis.

Look dude, this has nothing to do with the immune system. If you want to argue about things you know nothing about, if you want to demand evidence and then ignore it, if you want to claim that no evidence is good enough for you in order to allow you to cling to your ancient myths, fine. No one cares. But do it on the bathroom wall where you belong. That's what Jesus would do.

DS said: Actually, IBIG, you are dead wrong again. There are many different independent data sets that confirm the ancient age of the earth. You are simply ignorant of them, just as you are completely ignorant of all of the evidence for abiogenesis. Look dude, this has nothing to do with the immune system. If you want to argue about things you know nothing about, if you want to demand evidence and then ignore it, if you want to claim that no evidence is good enough for you in order to allow you to cling to your ancient myths, fine. No one cares. But do it on the bathroom wall where you belong. That's what Jesus would do.

So it would not be scientific to make a claim about the earth’s age strictly based on current spread rates. NOT SCIENTIFIC!

If you move to the Bathroom Wall I will do just that.

Look dude, you have your very own thread dedicated exclusively to you at After the Bar Closes. Why do you refuse to use it? Are you afraid of getting your ass handed to you again? Remember, you were actually banned from the Bathroom Wall already! You are emotionally incapable of admitting you are wrong and too dense to ever look at any evidence. Why should anyone bother with you and your nonsense?

By the way, Kris seems to think that birds have been arounds for over 140 million years. Care to disagree with him? Thought not.

Now do what Jesus would do and get thee to the Bathroom Wall.

If you move to the Bathroom Wall I will do just that.

Look dude, you have your very own thread dedicated exclusively to you at After the Bar Closes. Why do you refuse to use it? Are you afraid of getting your ass handed to you again? Remember, you were actually banned from the Bathroom Wall already! You are emotionally incapable of admitting you are wrong and too dense to ever look at any evidence. Why should anyone bother with you and your nonsense?

By the way, Kris seems to think that birds have been arounds for over 140 million years. Care to disagree with him? Thought not.

Now do what Jesus would do and get thee to the Bathroom Wall.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: God expects us to come to Him by FAITH! If evidence is what you demand, then will not have it, you would be like Thomas who had to touch Jesus' wounds before he believed Jesus was really who He said He was. You don't have to believe that God exists, it's your right. God will give you evidence of His existence when you have faith in Him, He will reveal Himself to you in ways, that you will know that you know that He exists. You don't have to take my word for it, try it for yourself, seek Him out and you will find Him.

We're talking about science, not FAITH. Evidence is everything in science. Furthermore, why would any of us here want to place faith in you, IBelieve? You're a bigot, a liar, a hypocrite and a moron. In fact, the very first post you made in Panda's Thumb was a bald-faced lie. You don't care about anything other than forcing people to stroke your ego, and forcing other people to worship the same lies you worship.

That's right evidence is supposedly everything in science, yet you have no evidence that Abiogenesis actually happened, you actually have no evidence that the universe was actually formed by the so-called big bang either. I am not a liar, a hypocrite or a moron. Now I'm still waiting for that lie that I supposedly posted in my very first post here. Put up or shut up, since you state that my very first post was a bald-face lie, please post the link to that post for all to see here that you are indeed telling the truth:) It's been so long ago, I don't even remember what the content of my first post was, and which thread that I posted to, so since everything is about the evidence for you, please post the link to the evidence "the very first post" for everyone to see.

IBelieveInGod said:

rob said: IBIG, There is a ridge at the center of the Atlantic because the newly formed ocean crust is hot and expanded. As the crust moves away from the formation zone it cools and contracts. The slope on both sides of the mid Atlantic ridge confirms the formation of the Atlantic basin has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year. GPS simply agrees with the ~1 inch per year. Ocean floor sediment at the center of the Atlantic is thin and thickens away from the zone of formation. This also agrees with the slow and steady spreading rate of ~1 inch per year. There is additional confirming evidence. What is your evidence that the North Atlantic is not old?

Not evidence for how old the earth is! Nothing more then conjecture! Many explanations could be presented to shoot down your claims. There is no way of knowing what the spread rate was before recent measurements were made. So it would not be scientific to make a claim about the earth's age strictly based on current spread rates. NOT SCIENTIFIC!

DS said: If you move to the Bathroom Wall I will do just that. Look dude, you have your very own thread dedicated exclusively to you at After the Bar Closes. Why do you refuse to use it? Are you afraid of getting your ass handed to you again? Remember, you were actually banned from the Bathroom Wall already! You are emotionally incapable of admitting you are wrong and too dense to ever look at any evidence. Why should anyone bother with you and your nonsense?

IBelieveInGod said: You are the ones who make demands of evidence from creationists and IDers, yet somehow you are immune from being required to present actual evidence of Abiogenesis.

What is said to be evidence is nothing more then conjecture and speculation, and not real evidence of Abiogenesis, the same could be said about big bang. As far as evolution, there are changes that are witnessed within species, that is a fact, but that is no more evidence of evolution from common descent then it is evidence of a Creator who created life with the ability to adapt to environmental changes. You don't own the evidence that is observed in the present day, and your interpretation of that evidence isn't the only valid interpretation. Therefore my point is that Abiogenesis isn't true science, it is pseudo-science. Evolutionary biology can be science in a limited scope, and that is the study of changes that are currently being witnessed, but attempting to determine if all life evolved from a single common ancestor is not real science, as no such determination could ever be made scientifically, and confirmed with any certainty.

rob said: IBIG, There is a ridge at the center of the Atlantic because the newly formed ocean crust is hot and expanded. As the crust moves away from the formation zone it cools and contracts. The slope on both sides of the mid Atlantic ridge confirms the formation of the Atlantic basin has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year. GPS simply agrees with the ~1 inch per year. Ocean floor sediment at the center of the Atlantic is thin and thickens away from the zone of formation. This also agrees with the slow and steady spreading rate of ~1 inch per year. There is additional confirming evidence.

IBelieveInGod said: (A display of mind-boggling ignorance and presumption)

fnxtr said:

IBelieveInGod said: (A display of mind-boggling ignorance and presumption)

Okay, I know trying to educate you -- or even inform you -- is like talking to a brick wall, IBIG, (I know because we've tried. Evidence, remember?) but I do have one question: Why do you think you know more about what science is, and what it can discover, than people who actually do it? Really, no-one gives a flying dog turd whether you accept the facts or not, you just don't matter that much, but where do you get off telling scientists the rules of science? Do you tell your plumber how to fix your pipes? Do you tell your auto mechanic how to diagnose your car trouble? Do you tell your doctor how to treat your illnesses? You don't, do you? So why are biologists somehow exempt from actually knowing what they're doing, moreso than you do? Talk about Dunning-Kruger.

IBelieveInGod said: I'm not a bigot either!!!

Kris said: When I look at what Colin wrote I don't see any demands. He asked for genus and species, and didn't ask for the copyright or the personal name of the insects. I know you didn't ask for the species of the first English speaker. YOU moved the goalposts.

Kris said: Honest discussion?? Listening to anyone else?? On this site?? ROFLMAO!! You and the other obsessive compulsive ID/creationist-haters here wouldn't know an honest discussion even if it slapped you in the face. Actual honest discussions include more than just your insanely hateful point of view.

The MadPanda, FCD said: Apparently we have struck a nerve. Poor ikkle Krissy can dish it out but can't take it. Poor Ikkle Krissy can't even discuss in good faith. Why are you here, muppet? Because you sure aren't here for actual honest and open discussion. The MadPanda, FCD

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: Honest discussion?? Listening to anyone else?? On this site?? ROFLMAO!! You and the other obsessive compulsive ID/creationist-haters here wouldn't know an honest discussion even if it slapped you in the face. Actual honest discussions include more than just your insanely hateful point of view.

Apparently we have struck a nerve. Poor ikkle Krissy can dish it out but can't take it. Poor Ikkle Krissy can't even discuss in good faith. Why are you here, muppet? Because you sure aren't here for actual honest and open discussion. The MadPanda, FCD

Mike Elzinga said: It has been quite obvious he is here to taunt people an piss them off. We already have a pretty good profile of him, so he's no longer adding anything new here.

OgreMkV said: Kris, an honest discussion would require that you respond to questions asked of you just like we do. An honest discussion is impossible with a child like yourself. I'll note that you haven't ventured to other threads where adults are discussing actual science and contributing to the knowledge of man. By DEFINITION if there was once no life and now there is, then abiogenesis occurred. Life from non-life. Get it? No? Color me surprised. The only difference between your creationist swill and science is that you think a magic sky faerie breathed life into the dust and we use a couple hundred years of knowledge of chemistry and geology to determine if it's even possible. I'm sorry you are too indoctrinated to understand. And I am sorry that you don't know how science works of even how evidence works. I just hope you never get on a jury. You'll have made your mind up in the first 30 seconds, probably based on whether the defendant is a Christian or not and will remain immune to evidence. As far as the rest, I'd be happy to teach you. I'm really good at teaching science. But I doubt you are capable of learning. I'm still willing to give it a go.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: When I look at what Colin wrote I don't see any demands. He asked for genus and species, and didn't ask for the copyright or the personal name of the insects. I know you didn't ask for the species of the first English speaker. YOU moved the goalposts.

Let us add 'analogy' to the list of things you don't quite grasp. Quit bullshitting, muppet. The MadPanda, FCD

Hi JoeG... I mean Kris.

As I've told you plenty of times (I mean... once) there's about 50 YEARS of research into abiogenesis. It's not our fault you refuse to read it.

It's truly amazing that you think design is an acceptable substitute when you refuse to even discuss the designer.

Here's a list of questions that I want answered. When you answer them all, then we'll talk about abiogenesis (either version).

Do you have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design?

Do you even understand why these questions are important?

Do you know Demsbki's math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved?

Do you understand why these question are important?

Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can't be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don't accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say... why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let's get on with it.

You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.

Oh, and take it back to JoeG's tardgasm. That's your personal thread. It is POLITE to stay on topic of the original post...

IBelieveInGod said: I don't hate you, if I did I wouldn't be here. I don't find many of you to hateful either. You are the ones who make demands of evidence from creationists and IDers, yet somehow you are immune from being required to present actual evidence of Abiogenesis. What is said to be evidence is nothing more then conjecture and speculation, and not real evidence of Abiogenesis, the same could be said about big bang. As far as evolution, there are changes that are witnessed within species, that is a fact, but that is no more evidence of evolution from common descent then it is evidence of a Creator who created life with the ability to adapt to environmental changes. You don't own the evidence that is observed in the present day, and your interpretation of that evidence isn't the only valid interpretation. Therefore my point is that Abiogenesis isn't true science, it is pseudo-science. Evolutionary biology can be science in a limited scope, and that is the study of changes that are currently being witnessed, but attempting to determine if all life evolved from a single common ancestor is not real science, as no such determination could ever be made scientifically, and confirmed with any certainty.

IBelieveInGod said: Not evidence for how old the earth is! Nothing more then conjecture! Many explanations could be presented to shoot down your claims. There is no way of knowing what the spread rate was before recent measurements were made. So it would not be scientific to make a claim about the earth's age strictly based on current spread rates. NOT SCIENTIFIC! I wasn’t the one who brought up the Atlantic Ocean, you might want to bring that up with rob! I just responded to his claim. Present the many different independent data sets that confirm the ancient age of the earth, and please provide actual verifiable proof that the data sets are accurate. I’ve seen many so-called evidences that really aren’t verifiable, if they aren’t verifiably accurate, then it isn’t real science, again nothing more then pseudo-science.

Kris said: The personal name of the first human to speak English is not analogous to the genus and species names of the first insect or first flying insect, except in your uneducated, demented mind.

JoeG, I mean Kris, perhaps you could stay on topic and discuss the actual impact of the current state of knowledge of the immune system and its effects on Intelligent Design. Of course, even Behe, the actual scientist of ID doesn't read much about the immune system, but that's OK. I'm sure you'll step up where no one else in the ID community ever has before.

Or you could answer some basic questions about ID. Which you haven't in the years I've known you... I mean... in the last month or so. Indeed these are the questions that every ID proponent is scared to answer... just like you are.

Do you have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design?

Do you even understand why these questions are important?

Do you know Demsbki’s math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved?

Do you understand why these question are important?

Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can’t be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don’t accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say… why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let’s get on with it.

You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.

Oh, and take it back to JoeG’s tardgasm. That’s your personal thread. It is POLITE to stay on topic of the original post…

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: I don't hate you, if I did I wouldn't be here. I don't find many of you to hateful either. You are the ones who make demands of evidence from creationists and IDers, yet somehow you are immune from being required to present actual evidence of Abiogenesis. What is said to be evidence is nothing more then conjecture and speculation, and not real evidence of Abiogenesis, the same could be said about big bang. As far as evolution, there are changes that are witnessed within species, that is a fact, but that is no more evidence of evolution from common descent then it is evidence of a Creator who created life with the ability to adapt to environmental changes. You don't own the evidence that is observed in the present day, and your interpretation of that evidence isn't the only valid interpretation. Therefore my point is that Abiogenesis isn't true science, it is pseudo-science. Evolutionary biology can be science in a limited scope, and that is the study of changes that are currently being witnessed, but attempting to determine if all life evolved from a single common ancestor is not real science, as no such determination could ever be made scientifically, and confirmed with any certainty.

There is far more evidence for evolution than for any of your Creationist dogmas. As for abiogenesis, since it is on the cutting edge of science, there are indeed gaps in what we know. But at least we are using empirical means to find plausible explanations for what may have happened, rather than throw in the towel and fly into Wonderland for explanations that can never be confirmed by any scientific process.

IBelieveInGod said: Not evidence for how old the earth is! Nothing more then conjecture! Many explanations could be presented to shoot down your claims. There is no way of knowing what the spread rate was before recent measurements were made. So it would not be scientific to make a claim about the earth's age strictly based on current spread rates. NOT SCIENTIFIC! I wasn’t the one who brought up the Atlantic Ocean, you might want to bring that up with rob! I just responded to his claim. Present the many different independent data sets that confirm the ancient age of the earth, and please provide actual verifiable proof that the data sets are accurate. I’ve seen many so-called evidences that really aren’t verifiable, if they aren’t verifiably accurate, then it isn’t real science, again nothing more then pseudo-science.

You are a liar once more IBIG. Natural history is what results when the known laws of chemistry and physics are applied to deep time to create hypotheses to fit the evidence we find in the natural world. That is when science is at its most powerful. To say that process is not scientific is like saying science itself is unreliable, despite the fact that all modern technology, including that computer you type on, are products of science. If the laws of chemistry and physics are not consistent throughout all of space and time, then how can we humans make sense of reality? We certainly can't do it with religion, since there are so many competing claims in religion that science cannot even test.

So, since scientists are so certain that evolution by common descent occurred, and since there is claimed to be an incredible amount of empirical evidence, then it should be easy to explain how did bacteria evolve? and what did it evolve from? How many generations are necessary for bacteria to evolve into a completely different life form? When did life go from using only photosynthesis for it's nutrition and energy, to using other lifeforms for it's nutrition? How did all of the necessary machinery evolve at once to allow that life to be able to use other lifeforms for it food supply, including the ability to ingest, digest, and eliminate waste? There are a lot of chemical processes, and machinery necessary for those processes to function.

OgreMkV said: Hi JoeG... I mean Kris. As I've told you plenty of times (I mean... once) there's about 50 YEARS of research into abiogenesis. It's not our fault you refuse to read it. It's truly amazing that you think design is an acceptable substitute when you refuse to even discuss the designer. Here's a list of questions that I want answered. When you answer them all, then we'll talk about abiogenesis (either version). Do you have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design? Do you even understand why these questions are important? Do you know Demsbki's math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved? Do you understand why these question are important? Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can't be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don't accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say... why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let's get on with it. You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it. Oh, and take it back to JoeG's tardgasm. That's your personal thread. It is POLITE to stay on topic of the original post...

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: God expects us to come to Him by FAITH! If evidence is what you demand, then will not have it, you would be like Thomas who had to touch Jesus' wounds before he believed Jesus was really who He said He was. You don't have to believe that God exists, it's your right. God will give you evidence of His existence when you have faith in Him, He will reveal Himself to you in ways, that you will know that you know that He exists. You don't have to take my word for it, try it for yourself, seek Him out and you will find Him.

We're talking about science, not FAITH. Evidence is everything in science. Furthermore, why would any of us here want to place faith in you, IBelieve? You're a bigot, a liar, a hypocrite and a moron. In fact, the very first post you made in Panda's Thumb was a bald-faced lie. You don't care about anything other than forcing people to stroke your ego, and forcing other people to worship the same lies you worship.

That's right evidence is supposedly everything in science, yet you have no evidence that Abiogenesis actually happened, you actually have no evidence that the universe was actually formed by the so-called big bang either. I am not a liar, a hypocrite or a moron. Now I'm still waiting for that lie that I supposedly posted in my very first post here. Put up or shut up, since you state that my very first post was a bald-face lie, please post the link to that post for all to see here that you are indeed telling the truth:) It's been so long ago, I don't even remember what the content of my first post was, and which thread that I posted to, so since everything is about the evidence for you, please post the link to the evidence "the very first post" for everyone to see.

Everyone else here remembers the first lie you posted here. If you're so sure that you're not a quote-mining liar, why don't you find it and repost it in order to refresh my memory? And yes, you are a hypocrite: you claim that you don't hate science, yet, you constantly say that science is just a religion, implying that it's just faith. And then there's how you always demand that we show you evidence for everything, whether it's Abiogenesis, or more proof of your own wrong-doings, whereupon you then refuse to look at the evidence, and go on and lie about how we couldn't provide you evidence. And yes, you are a bigot, IBelieve. Or, why do you accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you as being evil, devil-worshiping atheists? And if you aren't a bigot, then why did you say that you hate Catholics even more than devil-worshiping atheists?

OgreMkV said: JoeG, I mean Kris, perhaps you could stay on topic and discuss the actual impact of the current state of knowledge of the immune system and its effects on Intelligent Design. Of course, even Behe, the actual scientist of ID doesn't read much about the immune system, but that's OK. I'm sure you'll step up where no one else in the ID community ever has before. Or you could answer some basic questions about ID. Which you haven't in the years I've known you... I mean... in the last month or so. Indeed these are the questions that every ID proponent is scared to answer... just like you are. Do you have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design? Do you even understand why these questions are important? Do you know Demsbki’s math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved? Do you understand why these question are important? Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can’t be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don’t accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say… why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let’s get on with it. You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it. Oh, and take it back to JoeG’s tardgasm. That’s your personal thread. It is POLITE to stay on topic of the original post…

JoeG... I mean Kris, and yet you still don't answer the questions that, at a minimum, are what is required to begin investigating design. Coward. Take to ATBC.

IBIG... the point was, there are thousands of peer reviewed research papers published every year that show the reality of evolution. There are no research papers every year showing the reality of biblical myth. I note that you still haven't answered the question "who wrote genesis and when?" You probably don't even realize that the oldest manuscript for genesis only dates to around year 0. It could be slightly older... or slightly younger. So, there is even less evidence for your myth. Of course, you, as usual, refuse to even consider evidence that isn't what you want (JoeG... I mean Kris has this problem too).

As far as polite, when you failed to acquiesce to a polite request to move off-topic posts to the forum, when you lied, when you cursed people for no reason... then you get exactly the same amount of 'politeness' in return. You don't like it... then be nicer yourself.

OgreMkV said: JoeG... I mean Kris, and yet you still don't answer the questions that, at a minimum, are what is required to begin investigating design. Coward. Take to ATBC. IBIG... the point was, there are thousands of peer reviewed research papers published every year that show the reality of evolution. There are no research papers every year showing the reality of biblical myth. I note that you still haven't answered the question "who wrote genesis and when?" You probably don't even realize that the oldest manuscript for genesis only dates to around year 0. It could be slightly older... or slightly younger. So, there is even less evidence for your myth. Of course, you, as usual, refuse to even consider evidence that isn't what you want (JoeG... I mean Kris has this problem too). As far as polite, when you failed to acquiesce to a polite request to move off-topic posts to the forum, when you lied, when you cursed people for no reason... then you get exactly the same amount of 'politeness' in return. You don't like it... then be nicer yourself.

Isn't that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?

IBelieveInLying, do you REALLY want your ugly face rubbed in all the questions you've fled in terror from, all the answers you've denied and lied about, all your contradictions and cowardice? Do you remember when you refused to pray for sick people? You are the scum of the earth. Be gone, foul inhuman thing.

Ogre, you keep asking for evidence of creation, yet you can't answer what should be the most rudimentary of questions about evolution.

IBelieveInGod said: Ogre, you keep asking for evidence of creation, yet you can't answer what should be the most rudimentary of questions about evolution.

phantomreader42 said: Isn't that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? IBelieveInLying, do you REALLY want your ugly face rubbed in all the questions you've fled in terror from, all the answers you've denied and lied about, all your contradictions and cowardice? Do you remember when you refused to pray for sick people? You are the scum of the earth. Be gone, foul inhuman thing.

Hi Ogre- I am Joe G and have always posted here as Joe G.

But anyway "evolution" is not being debated and there isn't ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT a functional multipart system.

IOW you evotards are still clueless and still unable to produce positive evidence for your position.

It is funny watching you evotards equivocate as if your equivocation is some sort of argument.

Hopefully Matzke will be called to testify at the next "ID trial"...

Kris said:

OgreMkV said: Hi JoeG... I mean Kris. As I've told you plenty of times (I mean... once) there's about 50 YEARS of research into abiogenesis. It's not our fault you refuse to read it. It's truly amazing that you think design is an acceptable substitute when you refuse to even discuss the designer. Here's a list of questions that I want answered. When you answer them all, then we'll talk about abiogenesis (either version). Do you have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design? Do you even understand why these questions are important? Do you know Demsbki's math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved? Do you understand why these question are important? Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can't be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don't accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say... why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let's get on with it. You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it. Oh, and take it back to JoeG's tardgasm. That's your personal thread. It is POLITE to stay on topic of the original post...

I'm not JoeG, whoever that is. Is the amount of research supposed to impress me or should I be impressed by actual, credible evidence? I don't care whether 50 years or 500 or 5,000 years has been put into something. I care about actual, credible evidence and what it reveals. Ya know, religious beliefs have been around a VERY LONG time. MUCH longer than 50 years. Does that automatically make them credible? I have read plenty about abiogenesis and I see a lot of disagreement, debate, speculation, inferences, suggestive evidence, and flaky, alleged evidence. It's a mixed and argued bag. I've never said that I think design "is an acceptable substitute". I've only said it's "possible". Since no confirmation of abiogenesis has been produced, there's nothing to "substitute". Either is possible, until and unless one is confirmed, and it's also possible that the two may eventually be combined somehow. In other words, eventual proof of one might completely rule out the other, or someone might find some evidence someday that warrants some sort of combination. For now, I have an open mind about it, although I'm more inclined to lean toward abiogenesis in some form. Since you've read me completely incorrectly, your questions are totally irrelevant. Connecting me in any way with Dembski, Behe, or any of the others you mentioned is also completely incorrect and totally irrelevant. I have a mind of my own and do not follow or worship any person or dogma.

Joe G said: Hi Ogre- I am Joe G and have always posted here as Joe G. But anyway "evolution" is not being debated and there isn't ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT a functional multipart system. IOW you evotards are still clueless and still unable to produce positive evidence for your position. It is funny watching you evotards equivocate as if your equivocation is some sort of argument. Hopefully Matzke will be called to testify at the next "ID trial"...

OgreMkV said: Archeopteryx was not a bird. If some 27 characters, it has 17 that are only dinosaurian and a mere 7 that are bird... which kind of blows your entire conjecture out of the water itself.

IBelieveInGod said:

phantomreader42 said: Isn't that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? IBelieveInLying, do you REALLY want your ugly face rubbed in all the questions you've fled in terror from, all the answers you've denied and lied about, all your contradictions and cowardice? Do you remember when you refused to pray for sick people? You are the scum of the earth. Be gone, foul inhuman thing.

Aren't you supposedly the scientists? Aren't you the ones who claim to have the answers about science? Aren't you the ones who claim to be defending the integrity of science? If so, I would think the best way to do so would be to answer the scientific questions asked of you, and if you don't know the answer, just reply that you don't know. Instead of attacking person's character, and intelligence, etc...

Joe G said: Hi Ogre- I am Joe G and have always posted here as Joe G. But anyway "evolution" is not being debated and there isn't ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT a functional multipart system. IOW you evotards are still clueless and still unable to produce positive evidence for your position. It is funny watching you evotards equivocate as if your equivocation is some sort of argument. Hopefully Matzke will be called to testify at the next "ID trial"...

The MadPanda, FCD said: As opposed to using anecdotes, argument from authority, argumentam ad populam, argument from incredulity, moving the goalposts, shrieking insults, spitting venom, blatant quote-mining...those are all perfectly acceptable. The MadPanda, FCD

OgreMkV said: JoeG, I mean Kris, perhaps you could stay on topic and discuss the actual impact of the current state of knowledge of the immune system and its effects on Intelligent Design. Of course, even Behe, the actual scientist of ID doesn't read much about the immune system, but that's OK. I'm sure you'll step up where no one else in the ID community ever has before. Or you could answer some basic questions about ID. Which you haven't in the years I've known you... I mean... in the last month or so. Indeed these are the questions that every ID proponent is scared to answer... just like you are. Do you have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design? Do you even understand why these questions are important? Do you know Demsbki’s math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved? Do you understand why these question are important? Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can’t be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don’t accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say… why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let’s get on with it. You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it. Oh, and take it back to JoeG’s tardgasm. That’s your personal thread. It is POLITE to stay on topic of the original post…

OgreMkV said: JoeG... I mean Kris, and yet you still don't answer the questions that, at a minimum, are what is required to begin investigating design. Coward. Take to ATBC. IBIG... the point was, there are thousands of peer reviewed research papers published every year that show the reality of evolution. There are no research papers every year showing the reality of biblical myth. I note that you still haven't answered the question "who wrote genesis and when?" You probably don't even realize that the oldest manuscript for genesis only dates to around year 0. It could be slightly older... or slightly younger. So, there is even less evidence for your myth. Of course, you, as usual, refuse to even consider evidence that isn't what you want (JoeG... I mean Kris has this problem too). As far as polite, when you failed to acquiesce to a polite request to move off-topic posts to the forum, when you lied, when you cursed people for no reason... then you get exactly the same amount of 'politeness' in return. You don't like it... then be nicer yourself.

Robin said: More power to you and others who wish to entertain those rants, but I certainly have no interest until Kris can discuss a subject with intellectual honesty and a degree or two of rational behavior.

OgreMkV said:

Joe G said: Hi Ogre- I am Joe G and have always posted here as Joe G. But anyway "evolution" is not being debated and there isn't ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT a functional multipart system. IOW you evotards are still clueless and still unable to produce positive evidence for your position. It is funny watching you evotards equivocate as if your equivocation is some sort of argument. Hopefully Matzke will be called to testify at the next "ID trial"...

Nice of you to join us... just more evidence that you are Kris, because, in my memory you've never posted on PT. But whatever. BTW: You are absolutely correct. There is no evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can generate life... of course NO scientist would say that anyway. As usual, you are attacking your stupid, useless and wrong definition of evolution. But thanks for playing. IBIG: I've previously posted TO YOU a list of some 75 odd papers that discuss abiogenesis. Since you never commented or pointed out factual errors in them, I assume that you (being the polite, scholarly person you are) have read, understood, and have no disagreements with them. In that case, you have no basis for your comments. Why not go back to ATBC and we can talk about it. JoeG... I mean Kris, same for you... you want us to support design, then answer the questions. Do you have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design? Do you even understand why these questions are important? Do you know Demsbki’s math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved? Do you understand why these question are important? Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can’t be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don’t accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say… why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let’s get on with it. You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.

OgreMkV said:

Joe G said: Hi Ogre- I am Joe G and have always posted here as Joe G. But anyway "evolution" is not being debated and there isn't ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT a functional multipart system. IOW you evotards are still clueless and still unable to produce positive evidence for your position. It is funny watching you evotards equivocate as if your equivocation is some sort of argument. Hopefully Matzke will be called to testify at the next "ID trial"...

Nice of you to join us... just more evidence that you are Kris, because, in my memory you've never posted on PT. But whatever. BTW: You are absolutely correct. There is no evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can generate life... of course NO scientist would say that anyway. As usual, you are attacking your stupid, useless and wrong definition of evolution. But thanks for playing. IBIG: I've previously posted TO YOU a list of some 75 odd papers that discuss abiogenesis. Since you never commented or pointed out factual errors in them, I assume that you (being the polite, scholarly person you are) have read, understood, and have no disagreements with them. In that case, you have no basis for your comments. Why not go back to ATBC and we can talk about it. JoeG... I mean Kris, same for you... you want us to support design, then answer the questions. Do you have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design? Do you even understand why these questions are important? Do you know Demsbki’s math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved? Do you understand why these question are important? Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can’t be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don’t accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say… why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let’s get on with it. You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said: Hi Ogre- I am Joe G and have always posted here as Joe G. But anyway "evolution" is not being debated and there isn't ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT a functional multipart system. IOW you evotards are still clueless and still unable to produce positive evidence for your position. It is funny watching you evotards equivocate as if your equivocation is some sort of argument. Hopefully Matzke will be called to testify at the next "ID trial"...

And yet, according to Kris, evolution happens. Will the two of you dare contradict each other, or are you just sockpuppets?

Kris said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: God expects us to come to Him by FAITH! If evidence is what you demand, then will not have it, you would be like Thomas who had to touch Jesus' wounds before he believed Jesus was really who He said He was. You don't have to believe that God exists, it's your right. God will give you evidence of His existence when you have faith in Him, He will reveal Himself to you in ways, that you will know that you know that He exists. You don't have to take my word for it, try it for yourself, seek Him out and you will find Him.

We're talking about science, not FAITH. Evidence is everything in science. Furthermore, why would any of us here want to place faith in you, IBelieve? You're a bigot, a liar, a hypocrite and a moron. In fact, the very first post you made in Panda's Thumb was a bald-faced lie. You don't care about anything other than forcing people to stroke your ego, and forcing other people to worship the same lies you worship.

That's right evidence is supposedly everything in science, yet you have no evidence that Abiogenesis actually happened, you actually have no evidence that the universe was actually formed by the so-called big bang either. I am not a liar, a hypocrite or a moron. Now I'm still waiting for that lie that I supposedly posted in my very first post here. Put up or shut up, since you state that my very first post was a bald-face lie, please post the link to that post for all to see here that you are indeed telling the truth:) It's been so long ago, I don't even remember what the content of my first post was, and which thread that I posted to, so since everything is about the evidence for you, please post the link to the evidence "the very first post" for everyone to see.

Everyone else here remembers the first lie you posted here. If you're so sure that you're not a quote-mining liar, why don't you find it and repost it in order to refresh my memory? And yes, you are a hypocrite: you claim that you don't hate science, yet, you constantly say that science is just a religion, implying that it's just faith. And then there's how you always demand that we show you evidence for everything, whether it's Abiogenesis, or more proof of your own wrong-doings, whereupon you then refuse to look at the evidence, and go on and lie about how we couldn't provide you evidence. And yes, you are a bigot, IBelieve. Or, why do you accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you as being evil, devil-worshiping atheists? And if you aren't a bigot, then why did you say that you hate Catholics even more than devil-worshiping atheists?

Everyone else here remembers? Everyone? I don't "remember" his first post because I haven't seen it. I'm a bit curious about it though.

Robin, there is no possible way that JoeG, Kris, or IBIG will ever conduct a rational discussion. That's not their 'mission' if you will.

They want to attack strawmen, because they know that they can't attack actual evolution. It's been pointed out to JoeG a thousand times that his version of evolution isn't the actual version and he can bang his head on that one a million times and no one cares.

IBIG, I don't know what he's doing here. He just wants to rant about Jebus... of course, evidence suggests that he doesn't actually believe in the bible or know very much about it for that matter. Think of him as the ultimate creobot.

Kris, well, evidence still suggests that Kris is JoeG. BTW: JoeG's nick is not Joe_G. He talks like Joe, acts like Joe, attacks the exact same strawmen as Joe and still refuses to support his own pet notion... whatever that is.

What they don't get is that even if they prove evolution wrong, which they can't, then it still doesn't mean design is correct.

Totally useless... and impolite for keeping this discussion here, when it belongs at ATBC. I think I'll just move all my responses there...to the appropriate thread.

IBIG -- The "IBelieveInGod" thread

JoeG and Kris -- JoeG's tardgasm.

Joe G said:

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said: Hi Ogre- I am Joe G and have always posted here as Joe G. But anyway "evolution" is not being debated and there isn't ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT a functional multipart system. IOW you evotards are still clueless and still unable to produce positive evidence for your position. It is funny watching you evotards equivocate as if your equivocation is some sort of argument. Hopefully Matzke will be called to testify at the next "ID trial"...

And yet, according to Kris, evolution happens. Will the two of you dare contradict each other, or are you just sockpuppets?

ID is NOT anti-evolution- are you chumps really that ignorant?

Joe G said:

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said: Hi Ogre- I am Joe G and have always posted here as Joe G. But anyway "evolution" is not being debated and there isn't ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT a functional multipart system. IOW you evotards are still clueless and still unable to produce positive evidence for your position. It is funny watching you evotards equivocate as if your equivocation is some sort of argument. Hopefully Matzke will be called to testify at the next "ID trial"...

And yet, according to Kris, evolution happens. Will the two of you dare contradict each other, or are you just sockpuppets?

ID is NOT anti-evolution- are you chumps really that ignorant?

OgreMkV said: Robin, there is no possible way that JoeG, Kris, or IBIG will ever conduct a rational discussion. That's not their 'mission' if you will.

They want to attack strawmen, because they know that they can't attack actual evolution. It's been pointed out to JoeG a thousand times that his version of evolution isn't the actual version and he can bang his head on that one a million times and no one cares.

IBIG, I don't know what he's doing here. He just wants to rant about Jebus... of course, evidence suggests that he doesn't actually believe in the bible or know very much about it for that matter. Think of him as the ultimate creobot. Kris, well, evidence still suggests that Kris is JoeG. BTW: JoeG's nick is not Joe_G. He talks like Joe, acts like Joe, attacks the exact same strawmen as Joe and still refuses to support his own pet notion... whatever that is. What they don't get is that even if they prove evolution wrong, which they can't, then it still doesn't mean design is correct. Totally useless... and impolite for keeping this discussion here, when it belongs at ATBC. I think I'll just move all my responses there...to the appropriate thread. IBIG -- The "IBelieveInGod" thread JoeG and Kris -- JoeG's tardgasm.

OgreMkV said: You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.

Kris said:

OgreMkV said: You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.

I'm so glad you said that. :) Now, since you and/or other scientists and most people here state that abiogenesis occurred, and since most of the people on Earth don't agree, let's see you defend it. Remember now; only actual, testable, duplicable, verifiable evidence will do. Here's your chance to PROVE that creation and/or ID are NOT POSSIBLE under any circumstances or by any definition, and that chemistry, mutation, natural selection or other strictly natural processes are the ONLY way life could and does exist, here and elsewhere in the universe.

OgreMkV said: Robin, there is no possible way that JoeG, Kris, or IBIG will ever conduct a rational discussion. That's not their 'mission' if you will. They want to attack strawmen, because they know that they can't attack actual evolution. It's been pointed out to JoeG a thousand times that his version of evolution isn't the actual version and he can bang his head on that one a million times and no one cares. IBIG, I don't know what he's doing here. He just wants to rant about Jebus... of course, evidence suggests that he doesn't actually believe in the bible or know very much about it for that matter. Think of him as the ultimate creobot. Kris, well, evidence still suggests that Kris is JoeG. BTW: JoeG's nick is not Joe_G. He talks like Joe, acts like Joe, attacks the exact same strawmen as Joe and still refuses to support his own pet notion... whatever that is. What they don't get is that even if they prove evolution wrong, which they can't, then it still doesn't mean design is correct. Totally useless... and impolite for keeping this discussion here, when it belongs at ATBC. I think I'll just move all my responses there...to the appropriate thread. IBIG -- The "IBelieveInGod" thread JoeG and Kris -- JoeG's tardgasm.

Joe G said: Yes there is plenty of evidence to support the design inference.

Make all replies to ATBC closes please. Just shut them down here... let them fight at ATBC.

Yes, I know... I'm guilty too. I was under the temporary delusion that they were interested in conversation.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said:

OgreMkV said: You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.

I'm so glad you said that. :) Now, since you and/or other scientists and most people here state that abiogenesis occurred, and since most of the people on Earth don't agree, let's see you defend it. Remember now; only actual, testable, duplicable, verifiable evidence will do. Here's your chance to PROVE that creation and/or ID are NOT POSSIBLE under any circumstances or by any definition, and that chemistry, mutation, natural selection or other strictly natural processes are the ONLY way life could and does exist, here and elsewhere in the universe.

Cheater! You'd know, if you studied basic logic, that negative statements can never be proven. YOU are the ones who must prove your claims that there is a Designer of life. And you never have. All you have is dogmas and fallacies like that you just spit out.

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said:

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said: Hi Ogre- I am Joe G and have always posted here as Joe G. But anyway "evolution" is not being debated and there isn't ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT a functional multipart system. IOW you evotards are still clueless and still unable to produce positive evidence for your position. It is funny watching you evotards equivocate as if your equivocation is some sort of argument. Hopefully Matzke will be called to testify at the next "ID trial"...

And yet, according to Kris, evolution happens. Will the two of you dare contradict each other, or are you just sockpuppets?

ID is NOT anti-evolution- are you chumps really that ignorant?

It's not? Then why is EVERY "ID" argument a poorly-disguised creationist attack on evoltuion? Why is "ID" explicitly promoted by its own cdesign proponentsists as an alternative to evolution? Why was the big "ID" textbook nothing more than an incompetently relabeled crationist textbook? Why do "ID"'s witnesses in court babble that there's no way such-and-such could have evolved, no matter how many pounds of papers full of plausible evolutionary explanations for such-and-such have been dropped on the IDiots? Oh, yeah, because you're lying, as your cult always does.

Kris said:

OgreMkV said: You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.

I'm so glad you said that. :) Now, since you and/or other scientists and most people here state that abiogenesis occurred, and since most of the people on Earth don't agree, let's see you defend it. Remember now; only actual, testable, duplicable, verifiable evidence will do. Here's your chance to PROVE

that creation and/or ID are NOT POSSIBLE

under any circumstances or by any definition, and that chemistry, mutation, natural selection or other strictly natural processes are the ONLY way life could and does exist, here and elsewhere in the universe.

OgreMkV said: Make all replies to ATBC closes please. Just shut them down here... let them fight at ATBC. Yes, I know... I'm guilty too. I was under the temporary delusion that they were interested in conversation.

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said:

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said: Hi Ogre- I am Joe G and have always posted here as Joe G. But anyway "evolution" is not being debated and there isn't ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT a functional multipart system. IOW you evotards are still clueless and still unable to produce positive evidence for your position. It is funny watching you evotards equivocate as if your equivocation is some sort of argument. Hopefully Matzke will be called to testify at the next "ID trial"...

And yet, according to Kris, evolution happens. Will the two of you dare contradict each other, or are you just sockpuppets?

ID is NOT anti-evolution- are you chumps really that ignorant?

It's not? Then why is EVERY "ID" argument a poorly-disguised creationist attack on evoltuion? Why is "ID" explicitly promoted by its own cdesign proponentsists as an alternative to evolution? Why was the big "ID" textbook nothing more than an incompetently relabeled crationist textbook? Why do "ID"'s witnesses in court babble that there's no way such-and-such could have evolved, no matter how many pounds of papers full of plausible evolutionary explanations for such-and-such have been dropped on the IDiots? Oh, yeah, because you're lying, as your cult always does.

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said: Yes there is plenty of evidence to support the design inference.

...not one speck of which you will ever show anyone. Every member of your cult CLAIMS to have evidence, but when called upon to actually support their claims, they run away. Really, what does it take for IDiots to put their alleged evidence on the table? An engraved invitation carved by no man of woman born, on a tree felled with a herring, using a knife without a point, delivered by a man who is already dead, on the thirtieth of February?

IBelieveInDishonesty said: So, since scientists are so certain that evolution by common descent occurred, and since there is claimed to be an incredible amount of empirical evidence, then it should be easy to explain: How did bacteria evolve? What did bacteria evolve from? How many generations are necessary for bacteria to evolve into a completely different life form? When did life go from using only photosynthesis for it’s nutrition and energy, to using other lifeforms for it’s nutrition? How did all of the necessary machinery evolve at once to allow that life to be able to use other lifeforms for it's food supply, including the ability to ingest food, digest food, and eliminate waste? There are a lot of chemical processes, and machinery necessary for those processes to function. These questions should be very easy for you to answer, considering all would be necessary for life to have evolved from a common ancestor, and since it is claimed here that there is such an incredible amount of evidence to support such a claim.

Joe G said:

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said: Yes there is plenty of evidence to support the design inference.

...not one speck of which you will ever show anyone. Every member of your cult CLAIMS to have evidence, but when called upon to actually support their claims, they run away. Really, what does it take for IDiots to put their alleged evidence on the table? An engraved invitation carved by no man of woman born, on a tree felled with a herring, using a knife without a point, delivered by a man who is already dead, on the thirtieth of February?

Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID.

OgreMkV said: Robin, there is no possible way that JoeG, Kris, or IBIG will ever conduct a rational discussion. That's not their 'mission' if you will. They want to attack strawmen, because they know that they can't attack actual evolution. It's been pointed out to JoeG a thousand times that his version of evolution isn't the actual version and he can bang his head on that one a million times and no one cares. IBIG, I don't know what he's doing here. He just wants to rant about Jebus... of course, evidence suggests that he doesn't actually believe in the bible or know very much about it for that matter. Think of him as the ultimate creobot. Kris, well, evidence still suggests that Kris is JoeG. BTW: JoeG's nick is not Joe_G. He talks like Joe, acts like Joe, attacks the exact same strawmen as Joe and still refuses to support his own pet notion... whatever that is. What they don't get is that even if they prove evolution wrong, which they can't, then it still doesn't mean design is correct. Totally useless... and impolite for keeping this discussion here, when it belongs at ATBC. I think I'll just move all my responses there...to the appropriate thread. IBIG -- The "IBelieveInGod" thread JoeG and Kris -- JoeG's tardgasm.

ben said:

Joe G said:

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said: Yes there is plenty of evidence to support the design inference.

...not one speck of which you will ever show anyone. Every member of your cult CLAIMS to have evidence, but when called upon to actually support their claims, they run away. Really, what does it take for IDiots to put their alleged evidence on the table? An engraved invitation carved by no man of woman born, on a tree felled with a herring, using a knife without a point, delivered by a man who is already dead, on the thirtieth of February?

Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID.

Link?

Kris said: Not every ID argument is a poorly-disguised creationist attack on evolution.

Yes, it is. We have seen enough of them to know their intent.

Mine certainly aren't. I've only argued that creation or ID are possible in some form, and I have also stated that I believe evolution has occurred and does occur.

You think too highly of yourself. Most of your arguments are empty claims, including personal attacks on people here who don't bow down to your claims without question, that mean nothing here.

Not everyone thinks like the people you keep referring to and not everyone thinks like you do. I'm sure that comes as a big surprise to you, but it's true.

Or you can start here:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008/02/supporting-intelligent-design.html

The theory of evolution posits blind, undirected chemical processes- an easy refutation of the Ogre:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/11/blind-undirected-chemical-processes.html

Dale Husband said:

Kris said:

OgreMkV said: You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.

I'm so glad you said that. :) Now, since you and/or other scientists and most people here state that abiogenesis occurred, and since most of the people on Earth don't agree, let's see you defend it. Remember now; only actual, testable, duplicable, verifiable evidence will do. Here's your chance to PROVE that creation and/or ID are NOT POSSIBLE under any circumstances or by any definition, and that chemistry, mutation, natural selection or other strictly natural processes are the ONLY way life could and does exist, here and elsewhere in the universe.

Cheater! You'd know, if you studied basic logic, that negative statements can never be proven. YOU are the ones who must prove your claims that there is a Designer of life. And you never have. All you have is dogmas and fallacies like that you just spit out.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: Not every ID argument is a poorly-disguised creationist attack on evolution.

Yes, it is. We have seen enough of them to know their intent.

Mine certainly aren't. I've only argued that creation or ID are possible in some form, and I have also stated that I believe evolution has occurred and does occur.

You think too highly of yourself. Most of your arguments are empty claims, including personal attacks on people here who don't bow down to your claims without question, that mean nothing here.

Not everyone thinks like the people you keep referring to and not everyone thinks like you do. I'm sure that comes as a big surprise to you, but it's true.

We see the way you think, and it stinks worse than a dead skunk.

Joe G said: Well your ignorance is not a refutation, that is for sure. ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution. That much is clearly spelled out in most, if not all, pro-ID literature. Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID. Ogre- just because you are ignorant doesn’t mean I am attacking a straw man. And you haven’t pointed out anything that also has a valid reference to support it. OTOH I have supported my claims about the theory of evolution. Also I have never said nor implied that if the blind watchmaker tesis was refuted that ID would win. IOW once agin you are lying. Just read a biology text book- you will find things like "proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing etc." all of those require knowledge, just as all computer programs require knowledge.

BTW JoeG... you never did comment on my reply to your blog post about me.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said: Cheater! You'd know, if you studied basic logic, that negative statements can never be proven. YOU are the ones who must prove your claims that there is a Designer of life. And you never have. All you have is dogmas and fallacies like that you just spit out.

I've never said or claimed or implied that there "is" a designer of life. Claiming that abiogenesis did happen is a positive claim, and I have seen that claim strongly made here. I also see that most people here constantly attack any claim of a creator or ID, or even an implication of a creator or ID, or even a suggestion that a creator or ID (in some form) are or may be possible. You guys/gals even attack when legitimate questions are asked about abiogenesis and/or evolution. It's abundantly clear that most of you believe that abiogenesis is a fact. I'm waiting for someone(s) here to defend those claims and attacks. Let's see the proof of abiogenesis. Take a calm-down pill Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist wackjob.

Joe G said:

ben said:

Joe G said:

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said: Yes there is plenty of evidence to support the design inference.

...not one speck of which you will ever show anyone. Every member of your cult CLAIMS to have evidence, but when called upon to actually support their claims, they run away. Really, what does it take for IDiots to put their alleged evidence on the table? An engraved invitation carved by no man of woman born, on a tree felled with a herring, using a knife without a point, delivered by a man who is already dead, on the thirtieth of February?

Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID.

Link?

Just read a biology text book- you will find things like "proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing etc." all of those require knowledge, just as all computer programs require knowledge.

Dale Husband said: What a nice bunch of empty statements.

Joe G said: Well your ignorance is not a refutation, that is for sure. ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution. That much is clearly spelled out in most, if not all, pro-ID literature. Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID. Ogre- just because you are ignorant doesn’t mean I am attacking a straw man. And you haven’t pointed out anything that also has a valid reference to support it. OTOH I have supported my claims about the theory of evolution. Also I have never said nor implied that if the blind watchmaker tesis was refuted that ID would win. IOW once agin you are lying. Just read a biology text book- you will find things like "proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing etc." all of those require knowledge, just as all computer programs require knowledge.

Where is the evidence for ID? Mere asserting that something looks designed, therefore there must be an Intelligent Designer of life, doesn't go anywhere.

OgreMkV said: BTW JoeG... you never did comment on my reply to your blog post about me.

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said:

ben said:

No word games and still no positive evidence for your position. Go figure... Joe G said:

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said: Yes there is plenty of evidence to support the design inference.

...not one speck of which you will ever show anyone. Every member of your cult CLAIMS to have evidence, but when called upon to actually support their claims, they run away. Really, what does it take for IDiots to put their alleged evidence on the table? An engraved invitation carved by no man of woman born, on a tree felled with a herring, using a knife without a point, delivered by a man who is already dead, on the thirtieth of February?

Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID.

Link?

Just read a biology text book- you will find things like "proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing etc." all of those require knowledge, just as all computer programs require knowledge.

Oh, word games! A sure sign you're full of shit.

Joe G said: Or you can start here: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008/02/supporting-intelligent-design.html The theory of evolution posits blind, undirected chemical processes- an easy refutation of the Ogre: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/11/blind-undirected-chemical-processes.html

Observation: The Universe Question Is the universe the result of intentional design? Prediction: 1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters. 2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability. 3) Also if the universe was designed for scientific discovery I would expect it to be comprehensible. Test: 1) Try to determine if the same laws that apply every place on Earth also apply throughout the universe. 2) Try to determine the correlation between habitability and measurability. 3) Try to determine if the universe is comprehensible. Potential falsification: 1) Observe that the universe is chaotic. 2) A- Find a place that is not habitable but offers at least as good of a platform to make scientific discoveries as Earth or B- Find a place that is inhabited but offers a poor platform from which to make scientific discoveries. 3) Observe that we cannot comprehend the universe, meaning A) what applies locally does not apply throughout or B) what applies in one scenario, even locally, cannot be used/ applied in any similar scenario, even locally. Confirmation: 1) Tests conducted all over the globe, on the Moon and in space confirm that the same laws that apply here also apply throughout the universe. 2) All scientific data gathered to date confirm that habitability correlates with measurability. 3) “The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible.” Albert Einstein Observation: Living organisms Question Are living organisms the result of intentional design? Prediction: If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. IOW I would expect to see an intricacy that is more than just a sum of chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic). Further I would expect to see command & control- a hierarchy of command & control would be a possibility. Test: Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism. Try to determine if that minimal functionality is irreducibly complex and/or contains complex specified information. Also check to see if any subsystems are irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. Potential falsification: Observe that living organisms arise from non-living matter via a mixture of commonly-found-in-nature chemicals. Observe that while some systems “appear” to be irreducibly complex it can be demonstrated that they can indeed arise via purely stochastic processes such as culled genetic accidents. Also demonstrate that the apparent command & control can also be explained by endothermic and/or exothermic reactions. Confirmation: Living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain irreducibly complex subsystems. The information required to build and maintain a single-celled organism is both complex and specified. Command & control is observed in single-celled organisms- the bacterial flagellum not only has to be configured correctly, indicating command & control over the assembly process, but it also has to function, indicating command & control over functionality. Conclusion (scientific inference) Both the universe and living organisms are the result of intention design. Any future research can either confirm or refute this premise, which, for the biological side, was summed up in Darwinism, Design and Public Education page 92: 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

OgreMkV said: Make all replies to ATBC closes please. Just shut them down here... let them fight at ATBC. Yes, I know... I'm guilty too. I was under the temporary delusion that they were interested in conversation.

Dale Husband said: What a nice bunch of empty statements.

Joe G said: Well your ignorance is not a refutation, that is for sure. ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution. That much is clearly spelled out in most, if not all, pro-ID literature. Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID. Ogre- just because you are ignorant doesn’t mean I am attacking a straw man. And you haven’t pointed out anything that also has a valid reference to support it. OTOH I have supported my claims about the theory of evolution. Also I have never said nor implied that if the blind watchmaker tesis was refuted that ID would win. IOW once agin you are lying. Just read a biology text book- you will find things like "proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing etc." all of those require knowledge, just as all computer programs require knowledge.

Where is the evidence for ID? Mere asserting that something looks designed, therefore there must be an Intelligent Designer of life, doesn't go anywhere.

Dale Husband said:

Joe G said: Or you can start here: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008/02/supporting-intelligent-design.html The theory of evolution posits blind, undirected chemical processes- an easy refutation of the Ogre: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/11/blind-undirected-chemical-processes.html

I do a little digging and find this: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2007/12/intelligent-design-design-hypothesis.html

Observation: The Universe Question Is the universe the result of intentional design? Prediction: 1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters. 2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability. 3) Also if the universe was designed for scientific discovery I would expect it to be comprehensible. Test: 1) Try to determine if the same laws that apply every place on Earth also apply throughout the universe. 2) Try to determine the correlation between habitability and measurability. 3) Try to determine if the universe is comprehensible. Potential falsification: 1) Observe that the universe is chaotic. 2) A- Find a place that is not habitable but offers at least as good of a platform to make scientific discoveries as Earth or B- Find a place that is inhabited but offers a poor platform from which to make scientific discoveries. 3) Observe that we cannot comprehend the universe, meaning A) what applies locally does not apply throughout or B) what applies in one scenario, even locally, cannot be used/ applied in any similar scenario, even locally. Confirmation: 1) Tests conducted all over the globe, on the Moon and in space confirm that the same laws that apply here also apply throughout the universe. 2) All scientific data gathered to date confirm that habitability correlates with measurability. 3) “The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible.” Albert Einstein Observation: Living organisms Question Are living organisms the result of intentional design? Prediction: If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. IOW I would expect to see an intricacy that is more than just a sum of chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic). Further I would expect to see command & control- a hierarchy of command & control would be a possibility. Test: Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism. Try to determine if that minimal functionality is irreducibly complex and/or contains complex specified information. Also check to see if any subsystems are irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. Potential falsification: Observe that living organisms arise from non-living matter via a mixture of commonly-found-in-nature chemicals. Observe that while some systems “appear” to be irreducibly complex it can be demonstrated that they can indeed arise via purely stochastic processes such as culled genetic accidents. Also demonstrate that the apparent command & control can also be explained by endothermic and/or exothermic reactions. Confirmation: Living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain irreducibly complex subsystems. The information required to build and maintain a single-celled organism is both complex and specified. Command & control is observed in single-celled organisms- the bacterial flagellum not only has to be configured correctly, indicating command & control over the assembly process, but it also has to function, indicating command & control over functionality. Conclusion (scientific inference) Both the universe and living organisms are the result of intention design. Any future research can either confirm or refute this premise, which, for the biological side, was summed up in Darwinism, Design and Public Education page 92: 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Happy reading!

Joe G said:

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said: Yes there is plenty of evidence to support the design inference.

...not one speck of which you will ever show anyone. Every member of your cult CLAIMS to have evidence, but when called upon to actually support their claims, they run away. Really, what does it take for IDiots to put their alleged evidence on the table? An engraved invitation carved by no man of woman born, on a tree felled with a herring, using a knife without a point, delivered by a man who is already dead, on the thirtieth of February?

Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID.

Joe G said: The evidence for ID is in biology text books, physics text books, chemistry text books- well all over the world. But anyway Dale if you don't like the design inference your position has the power to refute it just by stepping up and demonstrating that blind, undirected chemical processes can account for living organisms and their diversity.

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said:

phantomreader42 said:

Joe G said: Yes there is plenty of evidence to support the design inference.

...not one speck of which you will ever show anyone. Every member of your cult CLAIMS to have evidence, but when called upon to actually support their claims, they run away. Really, what does it take for IDiots to put their alleged evidence on the table? An engraved invitation carved by no man of woman born, on a tree felled with a herring, using a knife without a point, delivered by a man who is already dead, on the thirtieth of February?

Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID.

...again, not one speck of which you've actually shown here.

Dale Husband said:

Joe G said: The evidence for ID is in biology text books, physics text books, chemistry text books- well all over the world. But anyway Dale if you don't like the design inference your position has the power to refute it just by stepping up and demonstrating that blind, undirected chemical processes can account for living organisms and their diversity.

Oh, so now you resort to the old, stupid Creationist claim, "We look at the exact same evidence that evolutionists do, we just come to different conclusions." Wrong! Two lawyers may present opposing cases in a court of law, but a jury or judge must still weigh the evidence and make a ruling on which side is right. And ID has been consistently shown to be baseless and evolution shown to be right for over 150 years. What you, Kris, IBIG, and other bigots do is refuse to accept the results of scientific methods as they are done, and whine, whine, and whine some more about your DOGMAS not being put in the same level as science without going through all the same tests that real scientific ideas do. And your blog is a laughingstock. That's why I copied and pasted your "test" of ID here, so everyone can see for themselves your lame standards of evidence.

Dale Husband said: What a nice bunch of empty statements.

Joe G said: Well your ignorance is not a refutation, that is for sure. ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution. That much is clearly spelled out in most, if not all, pro-ID literature. Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID. Ogre- just because you are ignorant doesn’t mean I am attacking a straw man. And you haven’t pointed out anything that also has a valid reference to support it. OTOH I have supported my claims about the theory of evolution. Also I have never said nor implied that if the blind watchmaker tesis was refuted that ID would win. IOW once agin you are lying. Just read a biology text book- you will find things like "proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing etc." all of those require knowledge, just as all computer programs require knowledge.

Where is the evidence for ID? Mere asserting that something looks designed, therefore there must be an Intelligent Designer of life, doesn't go anywhere.

Joe G said: And what do YOU have?

Your position doesn't have any positive evidence- just a bunch of equivocations, speculations and promissory notes.

Kris said: And merely asserting that abiogenesis did happen, and/or that creation and/or ID (in any form) didn't, doesn't, and couldn't happen, and/or that the theory of evolution answers all questions about abiogenesis and/or the diversity of life, and/or that undirected chemistry explains abiogenesis and/or evolution, doesn't go anywhere either. Ya know, the more I read on this site, the less confident I feel about evolution and the hypotheses and theories applied to it. Before I came here I strongly defended it. By the way, which particular version of the theory of evolution or abiogenesis is the correct one?

Dale Husband said:

Kris said:

Dale Husband said: Cheater! You'd know, if you studied basic logic, that negative statements can never be proven. YOU are the ones who must prove your claims that there is a Designer of life. And you never have. All you have is dogmas and fallacies like that you just spit out.

I've never said or claimed or implied that there "is" a designer of life. Claiming that abiogenesis did happen is a positive claim, and I have seen that claim strongly made here. I also see that most people here constantly attack any claim of a creator or ID, or even an implication of a creator or ID, or even a suggestion that a creator or ID (in some form) are or may be possible. You guys/gals even attack when legitimate questions are asked about abiogenesis and/or evolution. It's abundantly clear that most of you believe that abiogenesis is a fact. I'm waiting for someone(s) here to defend those claims and attacks. Let's see the proof of abiogenesis. Take a calm-down pill Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist wackjob.

We don't make any specific claims about abiogenesis, you liar. Abiogensis is simply the acknowledgement that life developed from non-life billions of years ago. The opposing claim is that life did NOT develop from non-life, therefore life must have existed forever. Do YOU think that life existed forever? If so, why? If not, you believe in abiogensis too. The only alternative to abiogenesis is Creationism. So where is the Creator? If there is a Creator, show the proof of it! If you can't, then we must continue doing research on the abiogenesis question. Telling us that we don't have all the answers yet, therefore Creationism might be valid, is itself a fallacy that shows your true allegiance.

Awright, which one of you jokers asked Santa for three lying sacks o' tard? *shakes fist*

Wolfhound said: Awright, which one of you jokers asked Santa for three lying sacks o' tard? *shakes fist*

Dale Husband said:

Joe G said: And what do YOU have?

For evolution, we have the fossil evidence, DNA sequences, the geographical distribution of organisms around the world, and the actual mechanism for evolution, natural selection, which is consistent with all known laws of chemistry and physics. What else should anyone need? And that makes your next statement an outright lie:

Your position doesn't have any positive evidence- just a bunch of equivocations, speculations and promissory notes.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Joe G said: And what do YOU have?

For evolution, we have the fossil evidence, DNA sequences, the geographical distribution of organisms around the world, and the actual mechanism for evolution, natural selection, which is consistent with all known laws of chemistry and physics. What else should anyone need? And that makes your next statement an outright lie:

Your position doesn't have any positive evidence- just a bunch of equivocations, speculations and promissory notes.

With an attitude like yours it's a wonder that we're not all still living in caves and making fire by rubbing sticks together. I'm glad you're not in charge of the world, or science. "all known laws of chemistry and physics" Yeah, all KNOWN. Do you really believe hunmans know everything and that there's nothing else to discover and learn? The fossil evidence tells us some things and some of those things support some aspects of the theory of evolution, but it doesn't prove abiogenesis or that there isn't, wasn't, or couldn't possibly be a designer or creator in some form. DNA also tells us some things but it does not prove a damn thing about abiogenesis so far, and it may never, and it is very questionable and debatable as to its accuracy and reliability when it comes to figuring out the history of life.

Kris said: Typo alert: hunmans should be humans.

Joe G said:

Dale Husband said: What a nice bunch of empty statements.

Joe G said: Well your ignorance is not a refutation, that is for sure. ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution. That much is clearly spelled out in most, if not all, pro-ID literature. Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID. Ogre- just because you are ignorant doesn’t mean I am attacking a straw man. And you haven’t pointed out anything that also has a valid reference to support it. OTOH I have supported my claims about the theory of evolution. Also I have never said nor implied that if the blind watchmaker tesis was refuted that ID would win. IOW once agin you are lying. Just read a biology text book- you will find things like "proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing etc." all of those require knowledge, just as all computer programs require knowledge.

Where is the evidence for ID? Mere asserting that something looks designed, therefore there must be an Intelligent Designer of life, doesn't go anywhere.

And BTW assface, if something looks designed we have to be allowed to check into the possibility it was designed. However your position just sez it ain't designed no matter what...

Stuart Weinstein said:

Joe G said:

Dale Husband said: What a nice bunch of empty statements.

Joe G said: Well your ignorance is not a refutation, that is for sure. ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution. That much is clearly spelled out in most, if not all, pro-ID literature. Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID. Ogre- just because you are ignorant doesn’t mean I am attacking a straw man. And you haven’t pointed out anything that also has a valid reference to support it. OTOH I have supported my claims about the theory of evolution. Also I have never said nor implied that if the blind watchmaker tesis was refuted that ID would win. IOW once agin you are lying. Just read a biology text book- you will find things like "proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing etc." all of those require knowledge, just as all computer programs require knowledge.

Where is the evidence for ID? Mere asserting that something looks designed, therefore there must be an Intelligent Designer of life, doesn't go anywhere.

And BTW assface, if something looks designed we have to be allowed to check into the possibility it was designed. However your position just sez it ain't designed no matter what...

Thats not our position. Our position is, is that we don't have a testable hypothesis for ID. Until we have one, it ain't science. 3000 years ago, nobody knew why it rained, why the Sun rose and set, why the moon went through phases. How did "Design Theory" fare as a explanation for those phenomena? 120 years ago, nobody knew what powered stars. How did Design Theory fare with an explanation for that? In fact the historical record is quite clear. Attempts to apply a design hypothesis as an explantion for natural phenomena has always failed spetacularly. And in each case science succeeded spetacularly. SO you'll forgive us if we don't waste our time on a proven failure. Come up with a testable theory of design and then we have something to talk about.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

Joe G said:

Dale Husband said: What a nice bunch of empty statements.

Joe G said: Well your ignorance is not a refutation, that is for sure. ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution. That much is clearly spelled out in most, if not all, pro-ID literature. Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID. Ogre- just because you are ignorant doesn’t mean I am attacking a straw man. And you haven’t pointed out anything that also has a valid reference to support it. OTOH I have supported my claims about the theory of evolution. Also I have never said nor implied that if the blind watchmaker tesis was refuted that ID would win. IOW once agin you are lying. Just read a biology text book- you will find things like "proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing etc." all of those require knowledge, just as all computer programs require knowledge.

Where is the evidence for ID? Mere asserting that something looks designed, therefore there must be an Intelligent Designer of life, doesn't go anywhere.

And BTW assface, if something looks designed we have to be allowed to check into the possibility it was designed. However your position just sez it ain't designed no matter what...

Thats not our position. Our position is, is that we don't have a testable hypothesis for ID. Until we have one, it ain't science. 3000 years ago, nobody knew why it rained, why the Sun rose and set, why the moon went through phases. How did "Design Theory" fare as a explanation for those phenomena? 120 years ago, nobody knew what powered stars. How did Design Theory fare with an explanation for that? In fact the historical record is quite clear. Attempts to apply a design hypothesis as an explantion for natural phenomena has always failed spetacularly. And in each case science succeeded spetacularly. SO you'll forgive us if we don't waste our time on a proven failure. Come up with a testable theory of design and then we have something to talk about.

Aren't scientists attempting to create new manmade life in a lab? Wouldn't that be proof of a type of ID? If science attempting to recreate Abiogenesis is a way of testing to see if Abiogenesis is possible, then science attempting to create a new manmade life form would also demonstrate that ID is possible. You can't have your cake and eat it:)

Kris said:

OgreMkV said: You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.

I'm so glad you said that. :) Now, since you and/or other scientists and most people here state that abiogenesis occurred, and since most of the people on Earth don't agree, let's see you defend it. Remember now; only actual, testable, duplicable, verifiable evidence will do. Here's your chance to PROVE that creation and/or ID are NOT POSSIBLE under any circumstances or by any definition, and that chemistry, mutation, natural selection or other strictly natural processes are the ONLY way life could and does exist, here and elsewhere in the universe.

Hmmmmm.....still waiting ogre! Are you checking out all of those papers so you can answer the questions I posted here.

All your questions will be answered on ATBC, when you provide the author and date of Genesis.

*Actually, all your questions were answered previously, but you didn't like the answers. But do check out ATBC. Still answering there.

OgreMkV said: All your questions will be answered on ATBC, when you provide the author and date of Genesis. *Actually, all your questions were answered previously, but you didn't like the answers. But do check out ATBC. Still answering there.

IBelieveInBearingFalseWitness said:

OgreMkV said: All your questions will be answered on ATBC, when you provide the author and date of Genesis. *Actually, all your questions were answered previously, but you didn't like the answers. But do check out ATBC. Still answering there.

LOL!!! You can't answer my questions! So much for Abiogenesis, and so much of evolution by common descent! As far as Genesis what does the date or who wrote it have to do with anything? Now this is supposedly a site defending the integrity of science, but there appears a real lack of integrity on this site. Now either answer my questions or just admit that they can't be answered.

phantomreader42 said:

IBelieveInBearingFalseWitness said:

OgreMkV said: All your questions will be answered on ATBC, when you provide the author and date of Genesis. *Actually, all your questions were answered previously, but you didn't like the answers. But do check out ATBC. Still answering there.

LOL!!! You can't answer my questions! So much for Abiogenesis, and so much of evolution by common descent! As far as Genesis what does the date or who wrote it have to do with anything? Now this is supposedly a site defending the integrity of science, but there appears a real lack of integrity on this site. Now either answer my questions or just admit that they can't be answered.

Of course, just as I said, the instant someone answers your questions, you lie about it and falsely declare victory. You're such a predictable fraud. Get back to me when you've made a living human out of dirt and magic and gotten your imaginary friend to cure every disease in the world. You have one week.

IBelieveInGod said:

phantomreader42 said:

IBelieveInBearingFalseWitness said:

OgreMkV said: All your questions will be answered on ATBC, when you provide the author and date of Genesis. *Actually, all your questions were answered previously, but you didn't like the answers. But do check out ATBC. Still answering there.

LOL!!! You can't answer my questions! So much for Abiogenesis, and so much of evolution by common descent! As far as Genesis what does the date or who wrote it have to do with anything? Now this is supposedly a site defending the integrity of science, but there appears a real lack of integrity on this site. Now either answer my questions or just admit that they can't be answered.

Of course, just as I said, the instant someone answers your questions, you lie about it and falsely declare victory. You're such a predictable fraud. Get back to me when you've made a living human out of dirt and magic and gotten your imaginary friend to cure every disease in the world. You have one week.

Really? Then post the links to the answers all of the recent questions that were posted here. Let me post the questions and you post the links. Here are the questions again: How did bacteria evolve? What did bacteria evolve from? How many generations are necessary for bacteria to evolve into a completely different life form? When did life go from using only photosynthesis for it’s nutrition and energy, to using other lifeforms for it’s nutrition? How did all of the necessary machinery evolve at once to allow that life to be able to use other lifeforms for it’s food supply, including the ability to ingest food, digest food, and eliminate waste? Post the links where every one of these questions were answered!

IBelieveInGod said:

OgreMkV said: All your questions will be answered on ATBC, when you provide the author and date of Genesis. *Actually, all your questions were answered previously, but you didn't like the answers. But do check out ATBC. Still answering there.

LOL!!! You can't answer my questions! So much for Abiogenesis, and so much of evolution by common descent! As far as Genesis what does the date or who wrote it have to do with anything? Now this is supposedly a site defending the integrity of science, but there appears a real lack of integrity on this site. Now either answer my questions or just admit that they can't be answered.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

OgreMkV said: All your questions will be answered on ATBC, when you provide the author and date of Genesis. *Actually, all your questions were answered previously, but you didn't like the answers. But do check out ATBC. Still answering there.

LOL!!! You can't answer my questions! So much for Abiogenesis, and so much of evolution by common descent! As far as Genesis what does the date or who wrote it have to do with anything? Now this is supposedly a site defending the integrity of science, but there appears a real lack of integrity on this site. Now either answer my questions or just admit that they can't be answered.

So, you're saying that you know more and you know better about science than actual scientists. All because you're playing very stupid wordgames, and refusing to listen to what we're saying. Tell us again why you're not supposed to be a liar, a bigot and a moron, even though you behave exactly like a liar, a bigot and a moron.

link to both answers above.

And a few questions that you can't answer either.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

OgreMkV said: All your questions will be answered on ATBC, when you provide the author and date of Genesis. *Actually, all your questions were answered previously, but you didn't like the answers. But do check out ATBC. Still answering there.

LOL!!! You can't answer my questions! So much for Abiogenesis, and so much of evolution by common descent! As far as Genesis what does the date or who wrote it have to do with anything? Now this is supposedly a site defending the integrity of science, but there appears a real lack of integrity on this site. Now either answer my questions or just admit that they can't be answered.

So, you're saying that you know more and you know better about science than actual scientists. All because you're playing very stupid wordgames, and refusing to listen to what we're saying. Tell us again why you're not supposed to be a liar, a bigot and a moron, even though you behave exactly like a liar, a bigot and a moron.

No, I just saying that evolution from common descent didn't happen, and abiogenesis didn't happen. I'm asking you to answer very simple questions that you can't answer.

OgreMkV said: link to both answers above. And a few questions that you can't answer either.

OgreMkV said: link to both answers above.

And a few questions that you can't answer either.

Just make all replies to ATBC the IBelieveInGod Thread. Everything has been asnwered there.

He won't like it, but then, no one really cares if he likes it or not. He doesn't know enough about science (or theology for that matter) to effectively make any points at all. But the stuff is there.

My point is that there is no more evidence of evolution from common descent and abiogenesis, then for creation or intelligent design.

I just saying that evolution from common descent didn’t happen

IBelieveInGod said: Hmmmm...funny you posted "A bunch of nonsensical questions whose answers WILL NEVER EXIST". Can you tell me why my questions are any more nonsensical as the questions you have asked me?

IBelieveInGod said: My point is that there is no more evidence of evolution from common descent and abiogenesis, then for creation or intelligent design.

OgreMkV said: Just make all replies to ATBC the IBelieveInGod Thread. Everything has been asnwered there. He won't like it, but then, no one really cares if he likes it or not. He doesn't know enough about science (or theology for that matter) to effectively make any points at all. But the stuff is there.

Really? Then post the links to the answers all of the recent questions that were posted here. Let me post the questions and you post the links.

Here we go again. A bunch of nonsensical questions whose answers WILL NEVER EXIST. Don't you get it yet IBIG? I really don't know if you don't actually understand or if you think this is somehow a telling argument. 1) Even if you disprove evolution, it doesn't make ID (or the Bible) correct. 2) These questions are meaningless because, even we scientists know that there will never be an answer for them. We can accept that. 3) You are a hypocrite by requiring so much more information from science than you require for your own pet notion. Tell me again who the writer of Genesis is and when exactly he wrote it... I'll wait AND I'll continue to ask this every time you ask these nonsensical question.

Here are the questions again: How did bacteria evolve?

Define bacteria first. Archea or Eubacteria? Phototrophic or heterotrophic.? Or do you really want to talk about the earliest life forms? You could at least do enough research to ask sensible questions.

What did bacteria evolve from?

See above... which bacteria do you want to talk about? There are some 1,000,000,000 species of extant bacteria... probably 10-500 times that number of extinct species... You're going to need to learn some stuff before asking valid questions.

How many generations are necessary for bacteria to evolve into a completely different life form?

Technically, 1... unless you don't want to talk about clines and ring species. Define 'different life form'. There's about 400 million years between prokaryotes developing and eukaryotes developing. If we assume a generation time of 24 hours (taking into account things like harsh periods where the organisms formed endospores etc), then we're talking 400 million * 365 generations.

When did life go from using only photosynthesis for it’s nutrition and energy, to using other lifeforms for it’s nutrition?

Who knows? I suspect and have evidence to support that it wasn't so cut and dried as that. In fact, my guess, based on current research, is that the earliest living things were heterotrophs and photosynthesis came much later. But they weren't eating other organisms at first either. Think mineralvores.

How did all of the necessary machinery evolve at once to allow that life to be able to use other lifeforms for it’s food supply, including the ability to ingest food, digest food, and eliminate waste?

This is just so pathetic a picture of what you think may have happened I don't even know where to begin. Any organism with a cell membrane (which forms easily in prebiotic conditions) has homeostasis. It's one of the primary functions of the cell membrane. So again, the processes of absorption and elimination predated photosynthesis by a considerable margin. Again, this is based on what I've read. Keep in mind that your simplistic view of things is preventing you from seeing some major issues. For example, chemosynthesis and organisms that have lived near black smokers. These have never, ever had a photosynthetic organism in their environment, so there's no way that a photovore came first. Again, please, at least, learn enough to ask a coherent question.

Post the links where every one of these questions were answered!

IBelieveInGod said: (barf)

Then why don't you explain to us at AtBC about how and why it's more logical and more scientific to assume that God magically poofed all the bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, while leaving absolutely no evidence, than assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years?

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: (barf)

As predicted, you dodge, weave, and deny everything to the end. Get back over to ATBC, coward. The MadPanda, FCD

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: (barf)

As predicted, you dodge, weave, and deny everything to the end. Get back over to ATBC, coward. The MadPanda, FCD

Stanton said: Then why don't you explain to us at AtBC about how and why it's more logical and more scientific to assume that God magically poofed all the bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, while leaving absolutely no evidence, than assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years?

IBelieveInGod said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: (barf)

As predicted, you dodge, weave, and deny everything to the end. Get back over to ATBC, coward. The MadPanda, FCD

I'm not the one doing the dodging here.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Then why don't you explain to us at AtBC about how and why it's more logical and more scientific to assume that God magically poofed all the bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, while leaving absolutely no evidence, than assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years?

There you said it, assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years:) no real evidence that it did, just an assumption!

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: (barf)

As predicted, you dodge, weave, and deny everything to the end. Get back over to ATBC, coward. The MadPanda, FCD

Stanton said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: (barf)

As predicted, you dodge, weave, and deny everything to the end. Get back over to ATBC, coward. The MadPanda, FCD

IBelieve is too cowardly to go back to AtBC. He much prefers to stay here and lie and spew nonsense, and preen about how he knows more about science than all of the scientists of the world, while denouncing everyone who disagrees with him as being evil, devil-worshiping atheists who hate God and puppies.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: (barf)

As predicted, you dodge, weave, and deny everything to the end. Get back over to ATBC, coward. The MadPanda, FCD

IBelieve is too cowardly to go back to AtBC. He much prefers to stay here and lie and spew nonsense, and preen about how he knows more about science than all of the scientists of the world, while denouncing everyone who disagrees with him as being evil, devil-worshiping atheists who hate God and puppies.

Actually I have posted on AtBC 3 times today, anyone can go there and see that I posted there 3 times today. I'm not afraid of any of you, it appears that you are afraid of me, because you keep trying to get me to only post on AtBC, and not on your precious site to defend the integrity of science (I prefer the phrase protect the lack of integrity in the pseudo science of evolution, abiogenesis, etc...)

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Then why don't you explain to us at AtBC about how and why it's more logical and more scientific to assume that God magically poofed all the bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, while leaving absolutely no evidence, than assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years?

There you said it, assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years:) no real evidence that it did, just an assumption!

And yet, you deliberately ignore the fact that I made the assumption that bacteria evolved over the course of 3 + billion years due to fossil and genetic evidence. WHILE you simultaneously deliberately refused to explain why assuming that God magically poofed bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, with no evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be logical and scientific. SO, please explain why God magically poofing bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, with no evidence whatsoever is supposed to be the superior assumption. At After the Bar Closes. Oh, wait, you can't because you're a coward on top of being a bigoted, lying hypocrite.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Then why don't you explain to us at AtBC about how and why it's more logical and more scientific to assume that God magically poofed all the bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, while leaving absolutely no evidence, than assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years?

There you said it, assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years:) no real evidence that it did, just an assumption!

And yet, you deliberately ignore the fact that I made the assumption that bacteria evolved over the course of 3 + billion years due to fossil and genetic evidence. WHILE you simultaneously deliberately refused to explain why assuming that God magically poofed bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, with no evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be logical and scientific. SO, please explain why God magically poofing bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, with no evidence whatsoever is supposed to be the superior assumption. At After the Bar Closes. Oh, wait, you can't because you're a coward on top of being a bigoted, lying hypocrite.

Here is the problem, I admit that I BELIEVE BY FAITH that God created the universe and all life, but many here make the claim that they base everything on the evidence an only on the evidence, yet when I ask for the evidence, all I get is an assumption. Assumption is not evidence.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Then why don't you explain to us at AtBC about how and why it's more logical and more scientific to assume that God magically poofed all the bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, while leaving absolutely no evidence, than assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years?

There you said it, assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years:) no real evidence that it did, just an assumption!

And yet, you deliberately ignore the fact that I made the assumption that bacteria evolved over the course of 3 + billion years due to fossil and genetic evidence. WHILE you simultaneously deliberately refused to explain why assuming that God magically poofed bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, with no evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be logical and scientific. SO, please explain why God magically poofing bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, with no evidence whatsoever is supposed to be the superior assumption. At After the Bar Closes. Oh, wait, you can't because you're a coward on top of being a bigoted, lying hypocrite.

Here is the problem, I admit that I BELIEVE BY FAITH that God created the universe and all life, but many here make the claim that they base everything on the evidence an only on the evidence, yet when I ask for the evidence, all I get is an assumption. Assumption is not evidence.

So how is this supposed to explain that saying that God magically poofed the Universe into existence 10,000 years ago, without any evidence, is supposed to be more scientific than actual science? How come you refuse to explain how your FAITH gives you the privilege to ignore evidence, and lie about it not existing, simply because it offends your religious bigotry? In other words, IBelieve, why does your FAITH trumps all of the science in the world, and why do you insist that we worship you because you claim that your FAITH magically trumps science?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Then why don't you explain to us at AtBC about how and why it's more logical and more scientific to assume that God magically poofed all the bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, while leaving absolutely no evidence, than assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years?

There you said it, assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years:) no real evidence that it did, just an assumption!

And yet, you deliberately ignore the fact that I made the assumption that bacteria evolved over the course of 3 + billion years due to fossil and genetic evidence. WHILE you simultaneously deliberately refused to explain why assuming that God magically poofed bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, with no evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be logical and scientific. SO, please explain why God magically poofing bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, with no evidence whatsoever is supposed to be the superior assumption. At After the Bar Closes. Oh, wait, you can't because you're a coward on top of being a bigoted, lying hypocrite.

Here is the problem, I admit that I BELIEVE BY FAITH that God created the universe and all life, but many here make the claim that they base everything on the evidence an only on the evidence, yet when I ask for the evidence, all I get is an assumption. Assumption is not evidence.

So how is this supposed to explain that saying that God magically poofed the Universe into existence 10,000 years ago, without any evidence, is supposed to be more scientific than actual science? How come you refuse to explain how your FAITH gives you the privilege to ignore evidence, and lie about it not existing, simply because it offends your religious bigotry? In other words, IBelieve, why does your FAITH trumps all of the science in the world, and why do you insist that we worship you because you claim that your FAITH magically trumps science?

What evidence? You have no evidence of abiogenesis. You have never observed the evolution of an entirely new life form. You don't even know what the very first bacteria was, and how it evolved. You don't even know how first life could have had all of the necessary metabolic processes to exist.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Then why don't you explain to us at AtBC about how and why it's more logical and more scientific to assume that God magically poofed all the bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, while leaving absolutely no evidence, than assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years?

There you said it, assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years:) no real evidence that it did, just an assumption!

And yet, you deliberately ignore the fact that I made the assumption that bacteria evolved over the course of 3 + billion years due to fossil and genetic evidence. WHILE you simultaneously deliberately refused to explain why assuming that God magically poofed bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, with no evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be logical and scientific. SO, please explain why God magically poofing bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, with no evidence whatsoever is supposed to be the superior assumption. At After the Bar Closes. Oh, wait, you can't because you're a coward on top of being a bigoted, lying hypocrite.

Here is the problem, I admit that I BELIEVE BY FAITH that God created the universe and all life, but many here make the claim that they base everything on the evidence an only on the evidence, yet when I ask for the evidence, all I get is an assumption. Assumption is not evidence.

So how is this supposed to explain that saying that God magically poofed the Universe into existence 10,000 years ago, without any evidence, is supposed to be more scientific than actual science? How come you refuse to explain how your FAITH gives you the privilege to ignore evidence, and lie about it not existing, simply because it offends your religious bigotry? In other words, IBelieve, why does your FAITH trumps all of the science in the world, and why do you insist that we worship you because you claim that your FAITH magically trumps science?

What evidence? You have no evidence of abiogenesis. You have never observed the evolution of an entirely new life form. You don't even know what the very first bacteria was, and how it evolved. You don't even know how first life could have had all of the necessary metabolic processes to exist.

So how do your evidence-free assertions explain why saying God magically poofing bacteria into existence 10,000 years is supposed to be scientific and logical? If you're not dodging, then how come you keep refusing to answer this question? Isn't it hypocritical and dishonest of you to claim you're not dodging while refusing to answer a direct question?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Then why don't you explain to us at AtBC about how and why it's more logical and more scientific to assume that God magically poofed all the bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, while leaving absolutely no evidence, than assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years?

There you said it, assuming that bacteria evolved over the course of 3+ billion years:) no real evidence that it did, just an assumption!

And yet, you deliberately ignore the fact that I made the assumption that bacteria evolved over the course of 3 + billion years due to fossil and genetic evidence. WHILE you simultaneously deliberately refused to explain why assuming that God magically poofed bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, with no evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be logical and scientific. SO, please explain why God magically poofing bacteria into existence 10,000 years ago, with no evidence whatsoever is supposed to be the superior assumption. At After the Bar Closes. Oh, wait, you can't because you're a coward on top of being a bigoted, lying hypocrite.

Here is the problem, I admit that I BELIEVE BY FAITH that God created the universe and all life, but many here make the claim that they base everything on the evidence an only on the evidence, yet when I ask for the evidence, all I get is an assumption. Assumption is not evidence.

So how is this supposed to explain that saying that God magically poofed the Universe into existence 10,000 years ago, without any evidence, is supposed to be more scientific than actual science? How come you refuse to explain how your FAITH gives you the privilege to ignore evidence, and lie about it not existing, simply because it offends your religious bigotry? In other words, IBelieve, why does your FAITH trumps all of the science in the world, and why do you insist that we worship you because you claim that your FAITH magically trumps science?

What evidence? You have no evidence of abiogenesis. You have never observed the evolution of an entirely new life form. You don't even know what the very first bacteria was, and how it evolved. You don't even know how first life could have had all of the necessary metabolic processes to exist.

So how do your evidence-free assertions explain why saying God magically poofing bacteria into existence 10,000 years is supposed to be scientific and logical? If you're not dodging, then how come you keep refusing to answer this question? Isn't it hypocritical and dishonest of you to claim you're not dodging while refusing to answer a direct question?

Why do you think that your assumptions of what happened, are any more true then my belief that God created the universe and all life. Why do you keep posting magically poofing into existence, do you have evidence for this, or is it just another assumption? Most of creation was created by God speaking it into existence, when God speaks the natural laws He created obey Him, therefore if natural laws in our universe obey Him, what special evidence would you expect to find? There would be no special evidence, other then any evidence currently available. The difference is you assume no involvement of a Creator, you assume everything happened without a Creator.

In other words, IBelieve, why do you insist that your FAITH, which is based on deliberate ignorance, magically trumps science?

AND, why do you always accuse everyone who doesn't mindlessly agree with your evidence-less claims to be evil atheists who hate God?

IBIG: Why do you think that your assumptions of what happened, are any more true then my belief that God created the universe and all life.

Because the word "God" is essentially undefined and thus claims that "God" did anything are without meaning. Meaningless claims cannot be true. Sorry.

What is this "God" thing? I don't what to hear what you think it did, but what is it as an object? What is it that you think created the universe and all life?

Achrachno said: IBIG: Why do you think that your assumptions of what happened, are any more true then my belief that God created the universe and all life. Because the word "God" is essentially undefined and thus claims that "God" did anything are without meaning. Meaningless claims cannot be true. Sorry. What is this "God" thing? I don't what to hear what you think it did, but what is it as an object? What is it that you think created the universe and all life?

IBelieveInGod said: What evidence? You have no evidence of abiogenesis.

You have never observed the evolution of an entirely new life form.

You don't even know what the very first bacteria was, and how it evolved.

You don't even know how first life could have had all of the necessary metabolic processes to exist.

Stanton said:

Achrachno said: Because the word "God" is essentially undefined and thus claims that "God" did anything are without meaning. Meaningless claims cannot be true. Sorry. What is this "God" thing? I don't what to hear what you think it did, but what is it as an object? What is it that you think created the universe and all life?

This is exactly why I refer to IBelieve's position as "God magically poofing everything 10,000 years ago" I mean, why does IBelieve think saying that God "spoke the natural laws into existence" makes sense?

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: What evidence? You have no evidence of abiogenesis. You have never observed the evolution of an entirely new life form. You don't even know what the very first bacteria was, and how it evolved. You don't even know how first life could have had all of the necessary metabolic processes to exist.

So how do your evidence-free assertions explain why saying God magically poofing bacteria into existence 10,000 years is supposed to be scientific and logical? If you're not dodging, then how come you keep refusing to answer this question? Isn't it hypocritical and dishonest of you to claim you're not dodging while refusing to answer a direct question?

Kris said: With an attitude like yours it's a wonder that we're not all still living in caves and making fire by rubbing sticks together. I'm glad you're not in charge of the world, or science. "all known laws of chemistry and physics" Yeah, all KNOWN. Do you really believe humans know everything and that there's nothing else to discover and learn? The fossil evidence tells us some things and some of those things support some aspects of the theory of evolution, but it doesn't prove abiogenesis or that there isn't, wasn't, or couldn't possibly be a designer or creator in some form. DNA also tells us some things but it does not prove a damn thing about abiogenesis so far, and it may never, and it is very questionable and debatable as to its accuracy and reliability when it comes to figuring out the history of life.

Kris said: Well well, you've really stepped in it now. How about a little analysis of what you said, eh? You said: "We don't make any specific claims about abiogenesis, you liar." THAT is a LIE, and grossly hypocritical to boot.

No, it's NOT, Kris. We make a clear distinction between a hypothesis (that an asteroid killed off the dinosaurs) and a claim (I have healing powers that no one else can study). That you do not shows you have no right to be called a scientist. You are a fraud.

You said: "Abiogensis is simply the acknowledgement that life developed from non-life billions of years ago." In other words, it's a positive claim.

No, it's NOT, Kris. We make a clear distinction between a simple statement of clear logic and/or a straightforward observation (like 2+2=4 or the sky in daytime is blue) and a claim (like there is a population of spirit being inhabiting the Sun). That you do not shows you have no right to be called a scientist. You are a fraud.

You said: "The opposing claim is that life did NOT develop from non-life...." So, you admit yours is a claim. There can't be an opposing claim unless there's a claim.

Wow! ANOTHER failure of basic logic!

You said: "If not, you believe in abiogensis too." So, you believe "in" abiogenesis, eh? I don't. I don't believe "in" abiogenesis or evolution or any religious beliefs.

We all believe in something, @$$hole, so you just lied again. And there are various levels and forms of "belief". We merely do not have BLIND faith in evolution like you claim. If you think all belief is blind, you are an idiot. No wonder you are so confused!

You said: "The only alternative to abiogenesis is Creationism." Really? Which version of creationism? Which version of abiogenesis? What about all the possible particulars of either? Is it simply and only black and white?

More useless trolling. You really need to get out of your Mommy's basement.

And there you go admitting that abiogenesis is a positive claim again. Since it's obvious that you and others here (and elsewhere) believe that ID or creation is a positive claim, and that the "only alternative" is abiogenesis/evolution, they must be considered equal by you and those others in the sense that if one is a positive claim the "only alternative" is too. You're not doing your side any favors.

So where is the Creator? If there is a Creator, show the proof of it! If you can’t, then we must continue doing research on the abiogenesis question. Telling us that we don’t have all the answers yet, therefore Creationism might be valid, is itself a fallacy that shows your true allegiance.

Back to the OP? Sort of any way.

Flint,

OOC, if we put a bacterium in a petri dish and feed it glucose, it will multiply rapidly, correct?

If so, what happens, lets say when we let the population replicate for one week, and now we have millions of bacteria. Then the glucose runs out. Grant money dries up so we can't offer further gumdrops to the starving colony. What will happen to the bacteria? It seems there will just be a rapid depletion in the bacterial population until the last one dies.

What I am driving at is, if this is what we observe in a simple lab experiment now, how do we hold on to the idea that in the distant past, single-celled organisms that replicated themselves and at first absorbed nutrients from their environment, were able to overcome this selective pressure by suddenly switching from direct absorption of nutrients to taking a bit of nutrients from its neighbors? Anticipating your response of a slow, gradual step-by-step transformation over a long period of time doing the trick, I would say that early organisms most likely replicated as rapidly as single-celled organisms do today so deep time would not solve the dilemma.

Also, according to your idea that some organisms would find a way to raid a neighbor's fridge so to speak, wouldn't that accelerate the depletion of resources? If some organisms keep having their food stolen, they die faster. But since they are the new source of food for the smarter organisms, this new resource will run out (probably even faster than the original nutrients taken directly from the environment). It seems like an ever decreasing pool of resources for the survivors; a strategy of diminishing returns. Raiding a neighbor's fridge seems like a counterproductive strategy in a scarce resource scenario.

It therefore cannot be that selective pressure caused organisms to become food raiders or cannibals and thus even further unlikely that a double dose of selective pressure (no nutrients AND attacking neighbors) would cause organisms to develop a defense mechanism, since you cannot fight on an empty stomach. Raiding and cannibalism can only take place when other resources are available, not when they are scarce.

So it seems a defense mechanism must have been present in life either before or at the very least, at the same time that organisms learned they could turn to other organisms for nutrients.

Has endosymbiosis ever been observed?

IBelieveInGod said: Has endosymbiosis ever been observed?

Steve P. said: Back to the OP? Sort of any way. Flint, OOC, if we put a bacterium in a petri dish and feed it glucose, it will multiply rapidly, correct? If so, what happens, lets say when we let the population replicate for one week, and now we have millions of bacteria. Then the glucose runs out. Grant money dries up so we can't offer further gumdrops to the starving colony. What will happen to the bacteria? It seems there will just be a rapid depletion in the bacterial population until the last one dies. What I am driving at is, if this is what we observe in a simple lab experiment now, how do we hold on to the idea that in the distant past, single-celled organisms that replicated themselves and at first absorbed nutrients from their environment, were able to overcome this selective pressure by suddenly switching from direct absorption of nutrients to taking a bit of nutrients from its neighbors? Anticipating your response of a slow, gradual step-by-step transformation over a long period of time doing the trick, I would say that early organisms most likely replicated as rapidly as single-celled organisms do today so deep time would not solve the dilemma. Also, according to your idea that some organisms would find a way to raid a neighbor's fridge so to speak, wouldn't that accelerate the depletion of resources? If some organisms keep having their food stolen, they die faster. But since they are the new source of food for the smarter organisms, this new resource will run out (probably even faster than the original nutrients taken directly from the environment). It seems like an ever decreasing pool of resources for the survivors; a strategy of diminishing returns. Raiding a neighbor's fridge seems like a counterproductive strategy in a scarce resource scenario. It therefore cannot be that selective pressure caused organisms to become food raiders or cannibals and thus even further unlikely that a double dose of selective pressure (no nutrients AND attacking neighbors) would cause organisms to develop a defense mechanism, since you cannot fight on an empty stomach. Raiding and cannibalism can only take place when other resources are available, not when they are scarce. So it seems a defense mechanism must have been present in life either before or at the very least, at the same time that organisms learned they could turn to other organisms for nutrients.

Dale Husband said:

Steve P. said: Back to the OP? Sort of any way. Flint, OOC, if we put a bacterium in a petri dish and feed it glucose, it will multiply rapidly, correct? If so, what happens, lets say when we let the population replicate for one week, and now we have millions of bacteria. Then the glucose runs out. Grant money dries up so we can't offer further gumdrops to the starving colony. What will happen to the bacteria? It seems there will just be a rapid depletion in the bacterial population until the last one dies. What I am driving at is, if this is what we observe in a simple lab experiment now, how do we hold on to the idea that in the distant past, single-celled organisms that replicated themselves and at first absorbed nutrients from their environment, were able to overcome this selective pressure by suddenly switching from direct absorption of nutrients to taking a bit of nutrients from its neighbors? Anticipating your response of a slow, gradual step-by-step transformation over a long period of time doing the trick, I would say that early organisms most likely replicated as rapidly as single-celled organisms do today so deep time would not solve the dilemma. Also, according to your idea that some organisms would find a way to raid a neighbor's fridge so to speak, wouldn't that accelerate the depletion of resources? If some organisms keep having their food stolen, they die faster. But since they are the new source of food for the smarter organisms, this new resource will run out (probably even faster than the original nutrients taken directly from the environment). It seems like an ever decreasing pool of resources for the survivors; a strategy of diminishing returns. Raiding a neighbor's fridge seems like a counterproductive strategy in a scarce resource scenario. It therefore cannot be that selective pressure caused organisms to become food raiders or cannibals and thus even further unlikely that a double dose of selective pressure (no nutrients AND attacking neighbors) would cause organisms to develop a defense mechanism, since you cannot fight on an empty stomach. Raiding and cannibalism can only take place when other resources are available, not when they are scarce. So it seems a defense mechanism must have been present in life either before or at the very least, at the same time that organisms learned they could turn to other organisms for nutrients.

If your statement made any sense, then lions should have starved in Africa long ago after killing the last herbivores. Are you not familiar with the concept of "balance of nature"? Top predators often have slow reproductive rates and/or often kill each other in battles over territory and social rank, which limits their numbers, while their prey items reproduce faster and do not kill each other. Bacteria living billions of years ago probably reproduced a lot slower than those of today. Also, since natural selection is a blind process that does not take possible future trends into account, your statement that "It therefore cannot be that selective pressure caused organisms to become food raiders or cannibals and thus even further unlikely that a double dose of selective pressure (no nutrients AND attacking neighbors) would cause organisms to develop a defense mechanism, since you cannot fight on an empty stomach," is total nonsense. Consider cuckoos and their habit of laying their eggs in the nests of other birds to make them raise the offspring. If the cuckoos do this so much that the adoptive birds become extinct, so will the cuckoos.

IBelieveInBabblingNonsense said:

Dale Husband said:

Steve P. said: Back to the OP? Sort of any way. Flint, OOC, if we put a bacterium in a petri dish and feed it glucose, it will multiply rapidly, correct? If so, what happens, lets say when we let the population replicate for one week, and now we have millions of bacteria. Then the glucose runs out. Grant money dries up so we can't offer further gumdrops to the starving colony. What will happen to the bacteria? It seems there will just be a rapid depletion in the bacterial population until the last one dies. What I am driving at is, if this is what we observe in a simple lab experiment now, how do we hold on to the idea that in the distant past, single-celled organisms that replicated themselves and at first absorbed nutrients from their environment, were able to overcome this selective pressure by suddenly switching from direct absorption of nutrients to taking a bit of nutrients from its neighbors? Anticipating your response of a slow, gradual step-by-step transformation over a long period of time doing the trick, I would say that early organisms most likely replicated as rapidly as single-celled organisms do today so deep time would not solve the dilemma. Also, according to your idea that some organisms would find a way to raid a neighbor's fridge so to speak, wouldn't that accelerate the depletion of resources? If some organisms keep having their food stolen, they die faster. But since they are the new source of food for the smarter organisms, this new resource will run out (probably even faster than the original nutrients taken directly from the environment). It seems like an ever decreasing pool of resources for the survivors; a strategy of diminishing returns. Raiding a neighbor's fridge seems like a counterproductive strategy in a scarce resource scenario. It therefore cannot be that selective pressure caused organisms to become food raiders or cannibals and thus even further unlikely that a double dose of selective pressure (no nutrients AND attacking neighbors) would cause organisms to develop a defense mechanism, since you cannot fight on an empty stomach. Raiding and cannibalism can only take place when other resources are available, not when they are scarce. So it seems a defense mechanism must have been present in life either before or at the very least, at the same time that organisms learned they could turn to other organisms for nutrients.

If your statement made any sense, then lions should have starved in Africa long ago after killing the last herbivores. Are you not familiar with the concept of "balance of nature"? Top predators often have slow reproductive rates and/or often kill each other in battles over territory and social rank, which limits their numbers, while their prey items reproduce faster and do not kill each other. Bacteria living billions of years ago probably reproduced a lot slower than those of today. Also, since natural selection is a blind process that does not take possible future trends into account, your statement that "It therefore cannot be that selective pressure caused organisms to become food raiders or cannibals and thus even further unlikely that a double dose of selective pressure (no nutrients AND attacking neighbors) would cause organisms to develop a defense mechanism, since you cannot fight on an empty stomach," is total nonsense. Consider cuckoos and their habit of laying their eggs in the nests of other birds to make them raise the offspring. If the cuckoos do this so much that the adoptive birds become extinct, so will the cuckoos.

I like how you assume that bacteria living billions of years ago PROBABLY reproduced a lot slower than those of today. How do you know that? Can you explain how natural selection created balance in nature? How could natural selection alone produce "top predators with slow reproductive rates and/or often kill each other in battles over territory and social rank, which limits their numbers, while their prey items reproduce faster and do not kill each other"

Dale Husband said: "Actually abiogensis and evolution are two different things."

phantomreader42 said: It's only the fact that you live in a society with the scientific knowledge to produce enough food to supply even useless lying sacks of shit like you that's saved YOU from that fate. So since you despise science so much, go starve yourself.

it’s scary to know that people like him exist.

...essentially in numbers undiminished for at least the last 2 generations.

they just have the ability to make themselves heard more gratingly these days; well, at least wherever they are given room to spew, anyway.

To answer Steve P, his scenario isn't unrealistic. It may very well have happened that there were numerous arms races very early in the advent of life, which were resoundingly won by the "predators". Result: reset, start over.

Steve P. said: Back to the OP? Sort of any way. Flint, OOC, if we put a bacterium in a petri dish and feed it glucose, it will multiply rapidly, correct? If so, what happens, lets say when we let the population replicate for one week, and now we have millions of bacteria. Then the glucose runs out. Grant money dries up so we can't offer further gumdrops to the starving colony. What will happen to the bacteria? It seems there will just be a rapid depletion in the bacterial population until the last one dies.

What I am driving at is, if this is what we observe in a simple lab experiment now, how do we hold on to the idea that in the distant past, single-celled organisms that replicated themselves and at first absorbed nutrients from their environment, were able to overcome this selective pressure by suddenly switching from direct absorption of nutrients to taking a bit of nutrients from its neighbors?

Anticipating your response of a slow, gradual step-by-step transformation over a long period of time doing the trick, I would say that early organisms most likely replicated as rapidly as single-celled organisms do today so deep time would not solve the dilemma.

Also, according to your idea that some organisms would find a way to raid a neighbor's fridge so to speak, wouldn't that accelerate the depletion of resources? If some organisms keep having their food stolen, they die faster. But since they are the new source of food for the smarter organisms, this new resource will run out (probably even faster than the original nutrients taken directly from the environment).

It seems like an ever decreasing pool of resources for the survivors; a strategy of diminishing returns. Raiding a neighbor's fridge seems like a counterproductive strategy in a scarce resource scenario.

It therefore cannot be that selective pressure caused organisms to become food raiders or cannibals and thus even further unlikely that a double dose of selective pressure (no nutrients AND attacking neighbors) would cause organisms to develop a defense mechanism, since you cannot fight on an empty stomach.

Raiding and cannibalism can only take place when other resources are available, not when they are scarce.

So it seems a defense mechanism must have been present in life either before or at the very least, at the same time that organisms learned they could turn to other organisms for nutrients.

Steve P. said: What I am driving at is, if this is what we observe in a simple lab experiment now, how do we hold on to the idea that in the distant past, single-celled organisms that replicated themselves and at first absorbed nutrients from their environment, were able to overcome this selective pressure by suddenly switching from direct absorption of nutrients to taking a bit of nutrients from its neighbors?

Here you’ve driven into a ditch. The nutrients in question would have been continuously generated by the same (geothermal?) processes that generated them in the first place. So instead of a situation of early life eating its way through a limited primeval source of food and then degenerating into an Archaean Donner Party you get life reaching an equilibrium with the nutrient generating processes. This has great potential for evolution. The only other ingredient needed is protolife having the capacity to make more copies of itself than can be supported by the environment. Organisms that can more efficiently metabolize nutrients will have an advantage, organisms that can exploit an energy source to synthesize nutrients from precursors will have a place at the table and organisms that can metabolize other organisms (and really the distinction between nutrient and organism is going to pretty blurry) will have their niche.

SteveP.said Anticipating your response of a slow, gradual step-by-step transformation over a long period of time doing the trick, I would say that early organisms most likely replicated as rapidly as single-celled organisms do today so deep time would not solve the dilemma.

Not really an issue. Once you have a basic metabolism you have most of what you need to metabolize other organisms. In fact it’s very likely to have been a part of life from the very beginning.

Predators and prey reach an equilibrium; so much prey biomass can support so much predator biomass. If predators eat too much prey, prey becomes scarce and predators starve.

Your premise of a limited one time only supply of primeval food is faulty.

Once again the premise is wrong.Think of the early nutrients as analogous to the grass of the savanna. It’s continually replenished but limited in supply. You get “grazers” which are under selection pressure for their ability to take advantage of the “grass” AND their ability to avoid being eaten, predators which are selected for their ability to metabolize the grazers and scavengers which evolve the ability to exploit the losers.

Steve P. said: In this case, what other circumstance aside from lack of an energy supply would activate a mutation that would fundamentally change the physio-chemical characteristics of the single-celled organism to develop a defense mechanism?

phantomreader42 said:

Steve P. said: In this case, what other circumstance aside from lack of an energy supply would activate a mutation that would fundamentally change the physio-chemical characteristics of the single-celled organism to develop a defense mechanism?

Do you actually have any idea what a mutation IS? Here's a hint, mutations are NOT the result of organisms wishing or praying for their DNA to change. Mutations happen, and have been observed to happen, without any intention or desire at all on the part of the mutant. You don't seem to comprehend that. Not really a surprise, creationists tend to avoid all comprehension of everything at all costs.

Here is an example of design and evidence of a designer:

http://www.infj.ulst.ac.uk/~pnic/HumanEar/Andy's%20Stuff/MScProject/workingcode_Local/EarChapter.html

The human ear is incredibly designed, How did all of the necessary parts evolve in precisely the right location for it to function properly? Keep in mind that natural selection can only act on the current fitness of a mutation, and not the future fitness.

Here is an example of design and evidence of a designer:

http://www.infj.ulst.ac.uk/~pnic/HumanEar/Andy's%20Stuff/MScProject/workingcode_Local/EarChapter.html

The human ear is incredibly designed, How did all of the necessary parts evolve in precisely the right location for it to function properly? Keep in mind that natural selection can only act on the current fitness of a mutation, and not the future fitness.

Creation of primordial life by natural means has already been patented. It's a US Patent. Go look it up for yourself and stop whining.

IBelieveInGod said: Here is an example of design and evidence of a designer: http://www.infj.ulst.ac.uk/~pnic/HumanEar/Andy's%20Stuff/MScProject/workingcode_Local/EarChapter.html The human ear is incredibly designed, How did all of the necessary parts evolve in precisely the right location for it to function properly? Keep in mind that natural selection can only act on the current fitness of a mutation, and not the future fitness.

DS said:

IBelieveInGod said: Here is an example of design and evidence of a designer: http://www.infj.ulst.ac.uk/~pnic/HumanEar/Andy's%20Stuff/MScProject/workingcode_Local/EarChapter.html The human ear is incredibly designed, How did all of the necessary parts evolve in precisely the right location for it to function properly? Keep in mind that natural selection can only act on the current fitness of a mutation, and not the future fitness.

Yea right. The ear couldn't have evolved, because I can't understand how it possibly could have. All you have to do is ignore all of the evidence that it actually did evolve. Unfortunately for IBIGOT, we know how the ear evolved. We have even discovered intermediate forms: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossil-reveals-ear-evolution-in-action Of course, the same is also true of the immune system. Behe proved in court that all you have to do is ignore all of the evidence and you can make up any bullshit you want with no evidence whatsoever. Of course he also proved that his bullshit wasn't science and no one paid any attention, even the judge. If IBIGOT wants to continue the discussion, he can do it on the bathroom wall. Until then he can piss off.

IBelieveInLyingAboutTheEvidenceForEvolution said: Nothing but conjecture and speculation. Not real evidence of how the human ear evolved. Is that the best you can do? I find it amazing how ridiculous the claims for evolution are.

Steve P. said:

Steve P. said: What I am driving at is, if this is what we observe in a simple lab experiment now, how do we hold on to the idea that in the distant past, single-celled organisms that replicated themselves and at first absorbed nutrients from their environment, were able to overcome this selective pressure by suddenly switching from direct absorption of nutrients to taking a bit of nutrients from its neighbors?

tresmal said: Here you’ve driven into a ditch. The nutrients in question would have been continuously generated by the same (geothermal?) processes that generated them in the first place. So instead of a situation of early life eating its way through a limited primeval source of food and then degenerating into an Archaean Donner Party you get life reaching an equilibrium with the nutrient generating processes. This has great potential for evolution. The only other ingredient needed is protolife having the capacity to make more copies of itself than can be supported by the environment. Organisms that can more efficiently metabolize nutrients will have an advantage, organisms that can exploit an energy source to synthesize nutrients from precursors will have a place at the table and organisms that can metabolize other organisms (and really the distinction between nutrient and organism is going to pretty blurry) will have their niche.

Actually, it seems you have taken hold of the steering wheel and insist we go right when I was clearly heading left. My question was based on a scenario of diminishing resources to the point that the colony of organisms would die unless it found an alternate sourcing method. Your comment above changes the scenario to a 'limited but continual supply of nutrients'. Different animal.

If IBIGOT wants to continue the discussion, he can do it on the bathroom wall. Until then he can piss off.

John Vanko said: Creation of primordial life by natural means has already been patented. It's a US Patent. Go look it up for yourself and stop whining.

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInLyingAboutTheEvidenceForEvolution said: Nothing but conjecture and speculation. Not real evidence of how the human ear evolved. Is that the best you can do? I find it amazing how ridiculous the claims for evolution are.

You clearly didn't read or understand the article in Scientific American. Typical Creationist bigotry. Ignore the fact, just repeat the lies.

Dale Husband said:

Steve P. said:

Steve P. said: What I am driving at is, if this is what we observe in a simple lab experiment now, how do we hold on to the idea that in the distant past, single-celled organisms that replicated themselves and at first absorbed nutrients from their environment, were able to overcome this selective pressure by suddenly switching from direct absorption of nutrients to taking a bit of nutrients from its neighbors?

tresmal said: Here you’ve driven into a ditch. The nutrients in question would have been continuously generated by the same (geothermal?) processes that generated them in the first place. So instead of a situation of early life eating its way through a limited primeval source of food and then degenerating into an Archaean Donner Party you get life reaching an equilibrium with the nutrient generating processes. This has great potential for evolution. The only other ingredient needed is protolife having the capacity to make more copies of itself than can be supported by the environment. Organisms that can more efficiently metabolize nutrients will have an advantage, organisms that can exploit an energy source to synthesize nutrients from precursors will have a place at the table and organisms that can metabolize other organisms (and really the distinction between nutrient and organism is going to pretty blurry) will have their niche.

Actually, it seems you have taken hold of the steering wheel and insist we go right when I was clearly heading left. My question was based on a scenario of diminishing resources to the point that the colony of organisms would die unless it found an alternate sourcing method. Your comment above changes the scenario to a 'limited but continual supply of nutrients'. Different animal.

Then you shouldn't have been driving left in the first place, since evolution of bacteria billions of years ago would have occurred in the conditions tresmal described. Your argument is worthless. Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have no predators and therefore reproduce very slowly so as to not out breed their food supply. Rodents have many predators and reproduce very fast and prolifically to maintain their numbers even as most of them are killed and eaten. Both strategies are equally successful. Evolution billions of years ago, before predation evolved, would have been much slower. Once predation arose, the resulting arms race between predator and prey items would have accelerated evolution of all lines of organisms. That you don't seem to understand this and throw up roadblocks to evolution that simply are not real is laughable.

DS said: If IBIGOT wants to continue the discussion, he can do it on the bathroom wall. Until then he can piss off.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Steve P. said:

Steve P. said: What I am driving at is, if this is what we observe in a simple lab experiment now, how do we hold on to the idea that in the distant past, single-celled organisms that replicated themselves and at first absorbed nutrients from their environment, were able to overcome this selective pressure by suddenly switching from direct absorption of nutrients to taking a bit of nutrients from its neighbors?

tresmal said: Here you’ve driven into a ditch. The nutrients in question would have been continuously generated by the same (geothermal?) processes that generated them in the first place. So instead of a situation of early life eating its way through a limited primeval source of food and then degenerating into an Archaean Donner Party you get life reaching an equilibrium with the nutrient generating processes. This has great potential for evolution. The only other ingredient needed is protolife having the capacity to make more copies of itself than can be supported by the environment. Organisms that can more efficiently metabolize nutrients will have an advantage, organisms that can exploit an energy source to synthesize nutrients from precursors will have a place at the table and organisms that can metabolize other organisms (and really the distinction between nutrient and organism is going to pretty blurry) will have their niche.

Actually, it seems you have taken hold of the steering wheel and insist we go right when I was clearly heading left. My question was based on a scenario of diminishing resources to the point that the colony of organisms would die unless it found an alternate sourcing method. Your comment above changes the scenario to a 'limited but continual supply of nutrients'. Different animal.

Then you shouldn't have been driving left in the first place, since evolution of bacteria billions of years ago would have occurred in the conditions tresmal described. Your argument is worthless. Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have no predators and therefore reproduce very slowly so as to not out breed their food supply. Rodents have many predators and reproduce very fast and prolifically to maintain their numbers even as most of them are killed and eaten. Both strategies are equally successful. Evolution billions of years ago, before predation evolved, would have been much slower. Once predation arose, the resulting arms race between predator and prey items would have accelerated evolution of all lines of organisms. That you don't seem to understand this and throw up roadblocks to evolution that simply are not real is laughable.

Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have no predators???? Apparently you've never heard of lions, crocodiles, and humans, and in the past there were other predators, like cave bears, saber tooth cats, cave lions, dire wolves, and many others.

Kris said:

John Vanko said: Creation of primordial life by natural means has already been patented. It's a US Patent. Go look it up for yourself and stop whining.

I hope you're joking.

Kris the asshole said: Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have no predators???? Apparently you've never heard of lions, crocodiles, and humans, and in the past there were other predators, like cave bears, saber tooth cats, cave lions, dire wolves, and many others.

IBelieveInBeingAnAsshole said: Yes, I thought elephants were endangered, because they were hunted and killed for their tusks? I thought rhinos were hunted also for their horns? and babies are killed by lions, hyenas, crocodiles, but hey if Dale says they aren't it must be true:):):) because Dale is a super intelligent person who knows everything, and he never lies either, he is so full of integrity:)

phantomreader42 said:

Steve P. said: In this case, what other circumstance aside from lack of an energy supply would activate a mutation that would fundamentally change the physio-chemical characteristics of the single-celled organism to develop a defense mechanism?

Do you actually have any idea what a mutation IS? Here's a hint, mutations are NOT the result of organisms wishing or praying for their DNA to change. Mutations happen, and have been observed to happen, without any intention or desire at all on the part of the mutant. You don't seem to comprehend that. Not really a surprise, creationists tend to avoid all comprehension of everything at all costs.

IBelieveInGod said: Yes I read the article. Explain how it is conclusive evidence of ear evolution? It is a creature with a somewhat different ear design. Tell me what is the probability that the human eye, or ear evolved by random mutations? How many mutations would be required for such incredibly designed structures such as the human eye, or ear to evolve. Why would any individual mutations be favored by natural selection? Yet it would be necessary for there to be an incredible series of fortuitous mutations to evolve a human ear for eye. Explain how that would be possible, and why natural selection would have favored any intermediate mutational increments.

Dale Husband said:

Kris the asshole said: Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have no predators???? Apparently you've never heard of lions, crocodiles, and humans, and in the past there were other predators, like cave bears, saber tooth cats, cave lions, dire wolves, and many others.

IBelieveInBeingAnAsshole said: Yes, I thought elephants were endangered, because they were hunted and killed for their tusks? I thought rhinos were hunted also for their horns? and babies are killed by lions, hyenas, crocodiles, but hey if Dale says they aren't it must be true:):):) because Dale is a super intelligent person who knows everything, and he never lies either, he is so full of integrity:)

I meant what I said. Humans do hunt and kill those animals which are normally not hunted by predators (show me actual examples of lions and other predators killing such giant creatures, if you can. They do eat their bodies after they die of disease, accidents, or old age, but that's scavenging, not the same as predation), and that is why they are nearly extinct and will be so for centuries to come, even if the poaching of them ends.

IBelieveInGod said: Here is an example of design and evidence of a designer: http://www.infj.ulst.ac.uk/~pnic/HumanEar/Andy's%20Stuff/MScProject/workingcode_Local/EarChapter.html The human ear is incredibly designed, How did all of the necessary parts evolve in precisely the right location for it to function properly? Keep in mind that natural selection can only act on the current fitness of a mutation, and not the future fitness.

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Kris wrote:

"Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?"

Why don't you explain it to us Kris? You do know the definition of a mutation don't you? You do have a theory don't you? You do have a definition of the term theory don't you?

Dale Husband said:

Kris the asshole said: Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have no predators???? Apparently you've never heard of lions, crocodiles, and humans, and in the past there were other predators, like cave bears, saber tooth cats, cave lions, dire wolves, and many others.

IBelieveInBeingAnAsshole said: Yes, I thought elephants were endangered, because they were hunted and killed for their tusks? I thought rhinos were hunted also for their horns? and babies are killed by lions, hyenas, crocodiles, but hey if Dale says they aren't it must be true:):):) because Dale is a super intelligent person who knows everything, and he never lies either, he is so full of integrity:)

I meant what I said. Humans do hunt and kill those animals which are normally not hunted by predators (show me actual examples of lions and other predators killing such giant creatures, if you can. They do eat their bodies after they die of disease, accidents, or old age, but that's scavenging, not the same as predation), and that is why they are nearly extinct and will be so for centuries to come, even if the poaching of them ends.

IBelieveInGod said: You haven't heard of lions, crocodiles, etc... killing baby elephants, baby hippos, baby rhinos? So humans aren't considered a predator when they hunt and kill animals? I thought you were such and Expert, I'm disappointed:)

ADULT Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have no NON-HUMAN predators and therefore reproduce very slowly so as to not out breed their food supply. Rodents have many predators and reproduce very fast and prolifically to maintain their numbers even as most of them are killed and eaten. Both strategies are equally successful. Evolution billions of years ago, before predation evolved, would have been much slower. Once predation arose, the resulting arms race between predator and prey items would have accelerated evolution of all lines of organisms. That you don’t seem to understand this and throw up roadblocks to evolution that simply are not real is laughable.

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: Yes I read the article. Explain how it is conclusive evidence of ear evolution? It is a creature with a somewhat different ear design. Tell me what is the probability that the human eye, or ear evolved by random mutations? How many mutations would be required for such incredibly designed structures such as the human eye, or ear to evolve. Why would any individual mutations be favored by natural selection? Yet it would be necessary for there to be an incredible series of fortuitous mutations to evolve a human ear for eye. Explain how that would be possible, and why natural selection would have favored any intermediate mutational increments.

So you move the goalposts to ignore the evidence. Nice! Darwin talked about the evolution of the eye in the Origin of Species. Read that? Why are you asking such dumb questions you must know already we do not have exact answers to? And how does us not having exact answers to them invalidate evolution? And even if we DID have the exact answers to most of your questions, that would prove nothing to you, IBIGOT.

Kris said: You're a moron, and since what you're saying about elephants, rhinos, and hippos having no predators is FALSE, you're a LIAR according to your OWN standards. Of course your 'standards' don't apply to YOU, do they? Lions, crocodiles, tigers, and hyaenas (thanks IBIG), are all capable of bringing down elephants, rhinos, and hippos, especially young, old, injured, or sick ones, AND it is KNOWN to happen. Leopards may take one too at times. Humans, of course, can bring down any elephant, rhino, or hippo and have been doing so for a very long time.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

I thought you were a real scientist. Clearly, you lied to us! Since DNA is a polymer and like all molecules can be subjected to chemical and radiative forces, its sequences can be changed and even disrupted by such forces. And real scientists with basic knowledge of chemistry would know that. What a fake you are! Your harassment just gives your anti-evolution bigotry away.

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Kris wrote:

"I didn’t ask you, dumbass.

Just because I ask questions, it doesn’t mean I don’t know anything. I ask questions because I want to see what the answers are according to the person or persons asked. Get it stupid?"

Well I did ask you, dumbass.

Just because I ask questions, it doesn’t mean I don’t know anything. I ask questions because I want to see what the answers are according to the person or persons asked. Get it stupid?

IBelieveInGod said: I thought you had all the answers! If the human eye couldn't have evolved then evolution from common descent couldn't have happened!

Kris said: I didn't ask you, dumbass. Just because I ask questions, it doesn't mean I don't know anything. I ask questions because I want to see what the answers are according to the person or persons asked. Get it stupid?

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: You're a moron, and since what you're saying about elephants, rhinos, and hippos having no predators is FALSE, you're a LIAR according to your OWN standards. Of course your 'standards' don't apply to YOU, do they? Lions, crocodiles, tigers, and hyaenas (thanks IBIG), are all capable of bringing down elephants, rhinos, and hippos, especially young, old, injured, or sick ones, AND it is KNOWN to happen. Leopards may take one too at times. Humans, of course, can bring down any elephant, rhino, or hippo and have been doing so for a very long time.

What a nice set of (baseless) assertions. Let's see pictures of non-human predators hunting and killing elephants, rhinos, and hippos, please. You do know what a red herring is, don't you?

ADULT Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have no NON-HUMAN predators and therefore reproduce very slowly so as to not out breed their food supply. Rodents have many predators and reproduce very fast and prolifically to maintain their numbers even as most of them are killed and eaten. Both strategies are equally successful. Evolution billions of years ago, before predation evolved, would have been much slower. Once predation arose, the resulting arms race between predator and prey items would have accelerated evolution of all lines of organisms. That you don’t seem to understand this and throw up roadblocks to evolution that simply are not real is laughable.

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: You haven't heard of lions, crocodiles, etc... killing baby elephants, baby hippos, baby rhinos? So humans aren't considered a predator when they hunt and kill animals? I thought you were such and Expert, I'm disappointed:)

No, I haven't and I doubt that you have either. If you can, show me the proof. Humans are indeed the ultimate predators, thanks to their guns. That is common knowledge. When I said elephants, rhinos, and hippos have no predators, I wasn't aware I had to clarify that statement to satisfy trolls like you and Kris. My bad! Nice of you to go off like that and ignore my actual point. I'll repeat it:

ADULT Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have no NON-HUMAN predators and therefore reproduce very slowly so as to not out breed their food supply. Rodents have many predators and reproduce very fast and prolifically to maintain their numbers even as most of them are killed and eaten. Both strategies are equally successful. Evolution billions of years ago, before predation evolved, would have been much slower. Once predation arose, the resulting arms race between predator and prey items would have accelerated evolution of all lines of organisms. That you don’t seem to understand this and throw up roadblocks to evolution that simply are not real is laughable.

Now, try to respond directly to my actual point there. Or can you?

eric said:

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Have you never studied organic chemistry? DNA strands are just a type of polymer built on well-characterized subunits. They undergo chemical reactions for the same "reasons" other molecules undergo reactions. No magic needed, only chemisty.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

I thought you were a real scientist. Clearly, you lied to us! Since DNA is a polymer and like all molecules can be subjected to chemical and radiative forces, its sequences can be changed and even disrupted by such forces. And real scientists with basic knowledge of chemistry would know that. What a fake you are! Your harassment just gives your anti-evolution bigotry away.

I didn't ask you, dumbass. Just because I ask questions, it doesn't mean I don't know anything. I ask questions because I want to see what the answers are according to the person or persons asked. Get it stupid?

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Dale Husband said: One more time:

ADULT Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have no NON-HUMAN predators and therefore reproduce very slowly so as to not out breed their food supply. Rodents have many predators and reproduce very fast and prolifically to maintain their numbers even as most of them are killed and eaten. Both strategies are equally successful. Evolution billions of years ago, before predation evolved, would have been much slower. Once predation arose, the resulting arms race between predator and prey items would have accelerated evolution of all lines of organisms. That you don’t seem to understand this and throw up roadblocks to evolution that simply are not real is laughable.

Why do Kris and IBIG not address the issue I raised? Perhaps they already know they can't answer it and fear that Steve P cannot either. Maybe NO Creationist can! That would certainly explain their nitpicking at me about the fact that humans do kill those giant animals and that predators have been seen scavenging off those giant animals' bodies. But I've never seen those predators actually hunt and kill them.

Kris said: You must be one of the dumbest and most dishonest humans who has ever lived. Tell you what, moron and liar, turn off your computer and go watch the Discovery channel or Animal Planet, or Nature on PBS, or the Science channel, or any other channel with nature programs. Or, you could try a little thing called Google, or a library. A dog turd has way more brains and integrity than you do.

IBelieveInGod said: You really are losing it aren't you. http://www.elephant-world.com/elephant-predators.html Here is information for predators for rhinos: Predators In the wild, adult rhinoceros have few natural predators other than humans. Young rhinos can fall prey to predators such as big cats, crocodiles, wild dogs, and hyena. It has also been reported that a large Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) was seen taking a black rhino while it was drinking from a river; whether other species of rhino may fall prey to these large reptiles is unknown. Although rhinos are of large size and have a reputation of being tough, they are actually very easily poached. Because it visits water holes daily, the rhinoceros is easily killed while taking a drink. As of December 2009 poaching has been on a "global" increase whilst efforts to protect the rhinoceros are being considered increasingly ineffective. The worst estimate, that only 3% of poachers are successfully countered, is reported of Zimbabwe. Rhino horn is considered to be particularly effective on fevers and even "life saving" by traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, which in turn provides a sales market. Nepal is apparently alone in avoiding the crisis while poacher-hunters grow ever more sophisticated.[19] South African officials are calling for urgent action against rhinoceros poaching after poachers killed the last female rhinoceros in Krugersdorp Park near Johannesburg.[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros How about Hippos: PREDATORS Unprotected calves may become meals for lions, hyenas, and crocodiles. Staying close to mother is good security since hippo jaws are capable of biting a 10-foot crocodile in two. Trampling is probably the main danger to calves, during fights, chases, and stampedes, usually involving bulls. Mothers will mob bulls that create a disturbance in their midst. http://www.nature-wildlife.com/hipptxt.htm You really are a poor excuse for a scientist, if that is what you are, or you would have done more research before making your statement that none of these animals have predators. Wow what a major mistake!!!

ADULT Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have ALMOST NO NON-HUMAN predators and therefore reproduce very slowly so as to not out breed their food supply. Rodents have many predators and reproduce very fast and prolifically to maintain their numbers even as most of them are killed and eaten. Both strategies are equally successful. Evolution billions of years ago, before predation evolved, would have been much slower. Once predation arose, the resulting arms race between predator and prey items would have accelerated evolution of all lines of organisms. That you don’t seem to understand this and throw up roadblocks to evolution that simply are not real is laughable.

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

I thought you were a real scientist. Clearly, you lied to us! Since DNA is a polymer and like all molecules can be subjected to chemical and radiative forces, its sequences can be changed and even disrupted by such forces. And real scientists with basic knowledge of chemistry would know that. What a fake you are! Your harassment just gives your anti-evolution bigotry away.

I didn't ask you, dumbass. Just because I ask questions, it doesn't mean I don't know anything. I ask questions because I want to see what the answers are according to the person or persons asked. Get it stupid?

And yet, YOUR post was in response to a question that I didn't ask YOU. Why are you such a hypocritical asshole that you whine about people responding to your posts without your invitation, while you do exactly the same thing?

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

I thought you were a real scientist. Clearly, you lied to us! Since DNA is a polymer and like all molecules can be subjected to chemical and radiative forces, its sequences can be changed and even disrupted by such forces. And real scientists with basic knowledge of chemistry would know that. What a fake you are! Your harassment just gives your anti-evolution bigotry away.

I didn't ask you, dumbass. Just because I ask questions, it doesn't mean I don't know anything. I ask questions because I want to see what the answers are according to the person or persons asked. Get it stupid?

And yet, YOUR post was in response to a question that I didn't ask YOU. Why are you such a hypocritical asshole that you whine about people responding to your posts without your invitation, while you do exactly the same thing?

Kris said:

Dale Husband said: One more time:

ADULT Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have no NON-HUMAN predators and therefore reproduce very slowly so as to not out breed their food supply. Rodents have many predators and reproduce very fast and prolifically to maintain their numbers even as most of them are killed and eaten. Both strategies are equally successful. Evolution billions of years ago, before predation evolved, would have been much slower. Once predation arose, the resulting arms race between predator and prey items would have accelerated evolution of all lines of organisms. That you don’t seem to understand this and throw up roadblocks to evolution that simply are not real is laughable.

Why do Kris and IBIG not address the issue I raised? Perhaps they already know they can't answer it and fear that Steve P cannot either. Maybe NO Creationist can! That would certainly explain their nitpicking at me about the fact that humans do kill those giant animals and that predators have been seen scavenging off those giant animals' bodies. But I've never seen those predators actually hunt and kill them.

What issue? That you're a moronic liar? That issue has been addressed.

Kris:

That doesn’t answer my questions. Try again.

I don’t mind if someone with a at least a little bit of a clue responds to my questions but Kris has neither a clue nor any integrity and is only being an asshole. Plus, it’s sometimes pretty obvious that someone, not just me, would like a response from a particular person (the person they asked).

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: You must be one of the dumbest and most dishonest humans who has ever lived. Tell you what, moron and liar, turn off your computer and go watch the Discovery channel or Animal Planet, or Nature on PBS, or the Science channel, or any other channel with nature programs. Or, you could try a little thing called Google, or a library. A dog turd has way more brains and integrity than you do.

So instead of just answering me directly to correct me, you engage in insults. Thanks.

IBelieveInGod said: You really are losing it aren't you. http://www.elephant-world.com/elephant-predators.html Here is information for predators for rhinos: Predators In the wild, adult rhinoceros have few natural predators other than humans. Young rhinos can fall prey to predators such as big cats, crocodiles, wild dogs, and hyena. It has also been reported that a large Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) was seen taking a black rhino while it was drinking from a river; whether other species of rhino may fall prey to these large reptiles is unknown. Although rhinos are of large size and have a reputation of being tough, they are actually very easily poached. Because it visits water holes daily, the rhinoceros is easily killed while taking a drink. As of December 2009 poaching has been on a "global" increase whilst efforts to protect the rhinoceros are being considered increasingly ineffective. The worst estimate, that only 3% of poachers are successfully countered, is reported of Zimbabwe. Rhino horn is considered to be particularly effective on fevers and even "life saving" by traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, which in turn provides a sales market. Nepal is apparently alone in avoiding the crisis while poacher-hunters grow ever more sophisticated.[19] South African officials are calling for urgent action against rhinoceros poaching after poachers killed the last female rhinoceros in Krugersdorp Park near Johannesburg.[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros How about Hippos: PREDATORS Unprotected calves may become meals for lions, hyenas, and crocodiles. Staying close to mother is good security since hippo jaws are capable of biting a 10-foot crocodile in two. Trampling is probably the main danger to calves, during fights, chases, and stampedes, usually involving bulls. Mothers will mob bulls that create a disturbance in their midst. http://www.nature-wildlife.com/hipptxt.htm You really are a poor excuse for a scientist, if that is what you are, or you would have done more research before making your statement that none of these animals have predators. Wow what a major mistake!!!

What took you so long? Now that you have shown something to satisfy my demand for evidence, unlike Kris, shall we move on? Now, how does what you just presented disprove my earlier point?

ADULT Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have ALMOST NO NON-HUMAN predators and therefore reproduce very slowly so as to not out breed their food supply. Rodents have many predators and reproduce very fast and prolifically to maintain their numbers even as most of them are killed and eaten. Both strategies are equally successful. Evolution billions of years ago, before predation evolved, would have been much slower. Once predation arose, the resulting arms race between predator and prey items would have accelerated evolution of all lines of organisms. That you don’t seem to understand this and throw up roadblocks to evolution that simply are not real is laughable.

Are you EVER going to address that?!

Kris said:

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

I thought you were a real scientist. Clearly, you lied to us! Since DNA is a polymer and like all molecules can be subjected to chemical and radiative forces, its sequences can be changed and even disrupted by such forces. And real scientists with basic knowledge of chemistry would know that. What a fake you are! Your harassment just gives your anti-evolution bigotry away.

I didn't ask you, dumbass. Just because I ask questions, it doesn't mean I don't know anything. I ask questions because I want to see what the answers are according to the person or persons asked. Get it stupid?

And yet, YOUR post was in response to a question that I didn't ask YOU. Why are you such a hypocritical asshole that you whine about people responding to your posts without your invitation, while you do exactly the same thing?

I don't mind if someone with a at least a little bit of a clue responds to my questions but Dale has neither a clue nor any integrity and is only being an asshole. Plus, it's sometimes pretty obvious that someone, not just me, would like a response from a particular person (the person they asked).

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: You must be one of the dumbest and most dishonest humans who has ever lived. Tell you what, moron and liar, turn off your computer and go watch the Discovery channel or Animal Planet, or Nature on PBS, or the Science channel, or any other channel with nature programs. Or, you could try a little thing called Google, or a library. A dog turd has way more brains and integrity than you do.

So instead of just answering me directly to correct me, you engage in insults. Thanks.

IBelieveInGod said: You really are losing it aren't you. http://www.elephant-world.com/elephant-predators.html Here is information for predators for rhinos: Predators In the wild, adult rhinoceros have few natural predators other than humans. Young rhinos can fall prey to predators such as big cats, crocodiles, wild dogs, and hyena. It has also been reported that a large Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) was seen taking a black rhino while it was drinking from a river; whether other species of rhino may fall prey to these large reptiles is unknown. Although rhinos are of large size and have a reputation of being tough, they are actually very easily poached. Because it visits water holes daily, the rhinoceros is easily killed while taking a drink. As of December 2009 poaching has been on a "global" increase whilst efforts to protect the rhinoceros are being considered increasingly ineffective. The worst estimate, that only 3% of poachers are successfully countered, is reported of Zimbabwe. Rhino horn is considered to be particularly effective on fevers and even "life saving" by traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, which in turn provides a sales market. Nepal is apparently alone in avoiding the crisis while poacher-hunters grow ever more sophisticated.[19] South African officials are calling for urgent action against rhinoceros poaching after poachers killed the last female rhinoceros in Krugersdorp Park near Johannesburg.[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros How about Hippos: PREDATORS Unprotected calves may become meals for lions, hyenas, and crocodiles. Staying close to mother is good security since hippo jaws are capable of biting a 10-foot crocodile in two. Trampling is probably the main danger to calves, during fights, chases, and stampedes, usually involving bulls. Mothers will mob bulls that create a disturbance in their midst. http://www.nature-wildlife.com/hipptxt.htm You really are a poor excuse for a scientist, if that is what you are, or you would have done more research before making your statement that none of these animals have predators. Wow what a major mistake!!!

What took you so long? Now that you have shown something to satisfy my demand for evidence, unlike Kris, shall we move on? Now, how does what you just presented disprove my earlier point?

ADULT Elephants, rhinos, and hippos have ALMOST NO NON-HUMAN predators and therefore reproduce very slowly so as to not out breed their food supply. Rodents have many predators and reproduce very fast and prolifically to maintain their numbers even as most of them are killed and eaten. Both strategies are equally successful. Evolution billions of years ago, before predation evolved, would have been much slower. Once predation arose, the resulting arms race between predator and prey items would have accelerated evolution of all lines of organisms. That you don’t seem to understand this and throw up roadblocks to evolution that simply are not real is laughable.

Are you EVER going to address that?!

DS said: Kris wrote: "Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?" Why don't you explain it to us Kris? You do know the definition of a mutation don't you? You do have a theory don't you? You do have a definition of the term theory don't you?

Curious how Kris and IBIG seem to support each other, yet never debate each other. Curiouser and curiouser.

At risk of being banished to the BW, I will repost:

Ten Reasons Why “Kris” Is Not “IBIG”

1) “Kris” said so.

2) “IBIG” said so.

3) “Kris” uses profane language. “IBIG” refrains from profanity, so far (though he might tell you you’re going to Hell).

4) “IBIG” copiously quotes bible verses and posts a 6,000-word Spurgeon sermon copied from AiG evidently. “Kris” has not quoted the bible (so far) nor copied a sermon (so far).

5) “Kris”, despite thousands of words posted, has yet to make a major point or to write anything of major substance. “IBIG” has difficulty posting his own thoughts, but once in a while makes a point (he says, “The point I was trying to make was …”)

6) “Kris” says “Sure doesn’t sound scientific!” “IBIG” says “NOT SCIENTIFIC!”.

7) “IBIG” claims to ‘understand evolution’ and says “Common Descent IS A LIE!!!!!!!!”. “Kris” claims to ‘believe’ in evolution but has ‘doubts’ about the ‘gaping holes’ in evolutionary theory.

8) “Kris” replies to responses posters make to “IBIG”. “IBIG” replies to responses posters make to “Kris”.

9) “IBIG” has flooded a forum with his provocative posts. “Kris” floods forums with his provocative posts.

10) “IBIG” often makes one-sentence and one-question replies to long, thoughtful responses. “Kris” often makes one-sentence and one-question replies to long, thoughtful responses.

Curious indeed. (I'm just sayin'.)

Why do you guys have such a problem with just saying “I don’t know.”?

Kris wrote:

"I don’t know the answers to those questions, and neither do you nor anyone else."

Actually I do know Kris. And you could know to, if you took a course in Introductory Biology and a course in Genetics and a course in Molecular Biology.

Now Kris, since you have admitted that you don't know the answers you will have to accept whatever answer I, or any one else, gives you, right? After all you don't know the answers remember. So you can't claim that the answers aren't goods enough for you. You can't claim that the answers are wrong. You can't play any more pointless word games, right? As soon as you agree to this, I will answer the questions for you. Until then, you can remain in ignorance.

By the way, how is it that you have come to accept the theory of evolution if you don't know the first thing about mutations? They are kind of important to the theory don't you know.

phantomreader42 said:

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

I thought you were a real scientist. Clearly, you lied to us! Since DNA is a polymer and like all molecules can be subjected to chemical and radiative forces, its sequences can be changed and even disrupted by such forces. And real scientists with basic knowledge of chemistry would know that. What a fake you are! Your harassment just gives your anti-evolution bigotry away.

I didn't ask you, dumbass. Just because I ask questions, it doesn't mean I don't know anything. I ask questions because I want to see what the answers are according to the person or persons asked. Get it stupid?

And yet, YOUR post was in response to a question that I didn't ask YOU. Why are you such a hypocritical asshole that you whine about people responding to your posts without your invitation, while you do exactly the same thing?

Of course, if "Kris" is a sockpuppet of "SteveP", then the above is invalid, and in that case "Kris" would NOT be doing the exact same thing he's whining about in the same damn post. Still, sockpuppeting while whining about being accused of same is the act of a lying asshat, and I suspect admitting to such behavior is a good way to earn a permanent ban from this site. Worked for Larry Farfromsane.

Kris said:

phantomreader42 said:

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

I thought you were a real scientist. Clearly, you lied to us! Since DNA is a polymer and like all molecules can be subjected to chemical and radiative forces, its sequences can be changed and even disrupted by such forces. And real scientists with basic knowledge of chemistry would know that. What a fake you are! Your harassment just gives your anti-evolution bigotry away.

I didn't ask you, dumbass. Just because I ask questions, it doesn't mean I don't know anything. I ask questions because I want to see what the answers are according to the person or persons asked. Get it stupid?

And yet, YOUR post was in response to a question that I didn't ask YOU. Why are you such a hypocritical asshole that you whine about people responding to your posts without your invitation, while you do exactly the same thing?

Of course, if "Kris" is a sockpuppet of "SteveP", then the above is invalid, and in that case "Kris" would NOT be doing the exact same thing he's whining about in the same damn post. Still, sockpuppeting while whining about being accused of same is the act of a lying asshat, and I suspect admitting to such behavior is a good way to earn a permanent ban from this site. Worked for Larry Farfromsane.

The hypocrisy in your post is beyond comprehension.

I said: Here you’ve driven into a ditch. The nutrients in question would have been continuously generated by the same (geothermal?) processes that generated them in the first place. So instead of a situation of early life eating its way through a limited primeval source of food and then degenerating into an Archaean Donner Party you get life reaching an equilibrium with the nutrient generating processes. This has great potential for evolution. The only other ingredient needed is protolife having the capacity to make more copies of itself than can be supported by the environment. Organisms that can more efficiently metabolize nutrients will have an advantage, organisms that can exploit an energy source to synthesize nutrients from precursors will have a place at the table and organisms that can metabolize other organisms (and really the distinction between nutrient and organism is going to pretty blurry) will have their niche.

Steve P:Actually, it seems you have taken hold of the steering wheel and insist we go right when I was clearly heading left.

Steve P:My question was based on a scenario of diminishing resources to the point that the colony of organisms would die unless it found an alternate sourcing method.

Your comment above changes the scenario to a ‘limited but continual supply of nutrients’. Different animal.

In your scenario, the colony of organisms would be reduced in number according to the limited resource.

However, there would be no selective pressure to search out a new method of sourcing nutrients; namely seeking out other organisms.

So there would be no pressure to make contact with other organisms and consequently no pressure to develop a defense mechanism.

What I am trying to establish here is a realistic scenario where a diminishing resource supply...

...causes...

a mutation in an organism which in turn modifies its physio-chemical structure, allowing it to modify its established nutrient importing method (i.e. absorbing nutrients directly from the environment by now having an ‘affinity’ for like organisms.

This affinity would thus allow it to ‘borrow some milk from the fridge’ while visiting another organism,...

...and this ‘borrowing’ would conceivably simultaneously stimulate a physical and/or chemical reaction in the organism with the full fridge to lock the fridge door shut on the next visit,...

...thus putting increased pressure on the starving organism to unlock the combination just put on the fridge on its next visit.

This theoretical cascade of events should be elucidated in order to support a linear, step-wise approach to the problem of developing an immune system.

BTW, you make an assumption that the distinction between nutrient and organism will be blurry. How do you arrive at this assumption?

The nutrients in the environment are free molecules. The nutrients in organisms are separated from the environment by a membrane.

SteveP.said Anticipating your response of a slow, gradual step-by-step transformation over a long period of time doing the trick, I would say that early organisms most likely replicated as rapidly as single-celled organisms do today so deep time would not solve the dilemma.

I said:Not really an issue. Once you have a basic metabolism you have most of what you need to metabolize other organisms. In fact it’s very likely to have been a part of life from the very beginning.

An organism’s metabolism is not the issue. Previously, the organism, through diffusion, absorbed nutrients directly from the environment. Now is has an obstacle - the membrane of other organisms (alluded to above).

When it bumps up against another organism, it has to be able to draw out nutrients from the other organism and import it through its own membrane simultaneously.

It has an already established mechanism for drawing through only one membrane. This means it would have to increase its energy consumption to increase the vacuum pressure in order to draw through two membranes.

Its energy consumption would need to be considerably more than what it used before. But it is already starved for energy.

I said: Predators and prey reach an equilibrium; so much prey biomass can support so much predator biomass. If predators eat too much prey, prey becomes scarce and predators starve.

Yes, but this is a description of what happens now. I am interested in what happened at the time there was no defense mechanism.

What were the circumstances in which a defense mechanism became possible and necessary and how did it happen in a step-wise fashion.

Flint says by simply dropping the chicken/egg problem, I can get over this logical hill. But I can’t see a step-by-step change overcoming the chicken/egg problem. It has to make logical sense. I have pointed out above how one organism taking just a bit of nutrients from another organism (small step) doesn’t solve the problem.

Imagine each starving organism under the same pressure. The smarter ones each in turn take a small piece of nutrient from weaker organisms. This would already be a monumental task but let go with it for the sake of the scenario. Each weak organism would be repeatedly visited by the minority of stronger organisms making the weak organisms even weaker. So the replicates of the weak organisms would not have the opportunity to mutate into a stronger defensive posture. Likewise the stronger organisms, after step-wise poaching of nutrients from the weaker organisms, would find an ever decreasing pool of weak organisms, thus causing their own demise.

I said: Your premise of a limited one time only supply of primeval food is faulty.

Can you elaborate?

As well, if my scenario is highly unlikely, it leaves us with your scenario where there is always a supply of nutrients in the environment albeit a varying one.

In this case, what other circumstance aside from lack of an energy supply would activate a mutation...

...that would fundamentally change the physio-chemical characteristics of the single-celled organism to develop a defense mechanism?

Again, if there is no attack, there is no need for a defense.

I said: Once again the premise is wrong.Think of the early nutrients as analogous to the grass of the savanna. It’s continually replenished but limited in supply. You get “grazers” which are under selection pressure for their ability to take advantage of the “grass” AND their ability to avoid being eaten, predators which are selected for their ability to metabolize the grazers and scavengers which evolve the ability to exploit the losers.

But again, if the grazers are so good at grazing and there is always grass, there is no pressure to avoid being eaten, since there are no predators.

How and why would these grazer start to see other grazers as blades of grass? You assume winners and losers, predators and scavengers were there from the get go. But from a step-wise development of life, they cannot emerge simultaneously.

Kris said:

“Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?”

I don't know the answers to those questions, and neither do you nor anyone else. Why do you guys have such a problem with just saying "I don't know."?

Flint said:

Why do you guys have such a problem with just saying “I don’t know.”?

Because "I don't know" isn't a very good approach for developing a testable hypothesis. Much better to say "Let's see if it's X. Now, how would I test that? How about if I tried THIS?" Now, let's say those who do not know but are curious about mutations, perform, oh, a few hundred thousand experiments. They still won't know FOR SURE, and they still won't know EVERYTHING, but they will know a great deal more than when they started. And as a result, truly excellent approximations to answsers to your questions are available. Many sources of mutations have been recognized and verified. Models based on what we do know, which are excellent predictors, allow researchers to test various mutation types and rates (including no ability to mutate at all), and these models allow optimum (for survival) rates to be calculated. THEN those rates can be compared with what is observed in nature. Really, these sorts of approaches aren't magical. They are FAR more effective than just saying "I don't know, you don't know, nobody will ever know." Admitting ignorance isn't the same thing as wallowing in ignorance.

John Vanko said:

Kris said:

“Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?”

I don't know the answers to those questions, and neither do you nor anyone else. Why do you guys have such a problem with just saying "I don't know."?

Gamma rays! Gamma rays! Why is that not an answer? Gamma rays. Gosh darn it.

phantomreader42 said: Because the only answer Kris will accept is "magic".

phantomreader42 said: Because the only answer Kris will accept is "magic".

John Vanko said:

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Gamma rays colliding with DNA molecules.* Gamma rays colliding with DNA molecules.* Gamma rays colliding with DNA molecules.* Gamma rays colliding with DNA molecules.* (* - Also include other factors like the randomness of organic chemistry, especially during meiosis and mitosis.) P.S. - Nope. No joke, despite my many failed attempts at humor. SWT found it. You can too. Abiogenesis has been patented, IBIG's complaints notwithstanding.

Kris wrote:

"Some things about mutations are known, but the ultimate reasons or origins behind them are not known and likely will never be."

Well I guess that depends on what you mean by "ultimate reasons or origins" now doesn't it? Perhaps you should take those courses I recommended, learn what is actually known about mutations, then look for answers to your questions yourself. Unless of course you think there are no answers and can never be any answers to these questions. In that case, why did you ask?

phantomreader42 said:

John Vanko said:

Kris said:

“Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?”

I don't know the answers to those questions, and neither do you nor anyone else. Why do you guys have such a problem with just saying "I don't know."?

Gamma rays! Gamma rays! Why is that not an answer? Gamma rays. Gosh darn it.

Because the only answer Kris will accept is "magic".

Kris said:

anything just poofed into existence ... because of magic

a god or creator or designer does exist

evolution does not happen

I know how life came to be

all the scientific hypotheses or theories about abiogenesis or evolution are and must be completely wrong

I'll take quotemining for the win!

seriously, you argue so dishonestly, it's exactly the level of response you deserve.

I really hate that PT doesn't have a better way to manage asinine trolls like yourself.

DS said: Kris wrote: "Some things about mutations are known, but the ultimate reasons or origins behind them are not known and likely will never be." Well I guess that depends on what you mean by "ultimate reasons or origins" now doesn't it? Perhaps you should take those courses I recommended, learn what is actually known about mutations, then look for answers to your questions yourself. Unless of course you think there are no answers and can never be any answers to these questions. In that case, why did you ask?

Kris said: Humans have not created primordial life by natural means. There is nothing "natural" about humans mixing ingredients in a lab.

Ichthyic said: Kris said: anything just poofed into existence ... because of magic a god or creator or designer does exist evolution does not happen I know how life came to be all the scientific hypotheses or theories about abiogenesis or evolution are and must be completely wrong I'll take quotemining for the win! seriously, you argue so dishonestly, it's exactly the level of response you deserve. I really hate that PT doesn't have a better way to manage asinine trolls like yourself.

John Vanko said:

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Gamma rays colliding with DNA molecules.* Gamma rays colliding with DNA molecules.* Gamma rays colliding with DNA molecules.* Gamma rays colliding with DNA molecules.* (* - Also include other factors like the randomness of organic chemistry, especially during meiosis and mitosis.) P.S. - Nope. No joke, despite my many failed attempts at humor. SWT found it. You can too. Abiogenesis has been patented, IBIG's complaints notwithstanding.

The author has been working on this subject for some time in his spare time during evenings and weekends.

John Vanko said:

Kris said: Humans have not created primordial life by natural means. There is nothing "natural" about humans mixing ingredients in a lab.

I'm sorry IBIG. You have failed. Go read the patent, if you can. You have failed.

Kris said:

phantomreader42 said:

John Vanko said:

Kris said:

“Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?”

I don't know the answers to those questions, and neither do you nor anyone else. Why do you guys have such a problem with just saying "I don't know."?

Gamma rays! Gamma rays! Why is that not an answer? Gamma rays. Gosh darn it.

Because the only answer Kris will accept is "magic".

Maybe you can show when or where I've ever said that? Go ahead, show that I've ever said that magic or anything like it is the "answer". Show that I've ever said that anything just poofed into existence, whether because of magic, a creator, a god, ID, abiogenesis, evolution, or any other form of poofing. Show that I've ever said that a god or creator or designer does exist or ever has existed. Show that I've said that evolution does not happen and never has happened. Show that I've ever said that I know how life came to be. Show that I've ever said that all the scientific hypotheses or theories about abiogenesis or evolution are and must be completely wrong.

Kris wrote:

"If you really don’t know what I mean by “ultimate reasons or origins” you should open your mind a bit."

Alright asshole, then the origin of mutations is the first replicating system which lacked fidelity and the ultimate reason for mutations is that they produce variation which can be adaptive in a changing environment. If you would open your mind a bit you would see that these are the correct answers to the questions that you refuse to explain. Since you stated that you don't know the answers, you cannot argue. SInce you refused to explain, you can't claim that those weren't the questions. If you don't like the answers, that's too bad. If you don't think the answers are good enough, no one cares. If you want any other answers, find them yourself.

Now do you have any point to make? Any point at all? If your point is that science doesn't have all the answers, who gives a shit? If you have any other point to make, spit it out. No one can ever tell what you are talking about, except perhaps IBIGOT.

Kris said:

DS said: Kris wrote: "Some things about mutations are known, but the ultimate reasons or origins behind them are not known and likely will never be." Well I guess that depends on what you mean by "ultimate reasons or origins" now doesn't it? Perhaps you should take those courses I recommended, learn what is actually known about mutations, then look for answers to your questions yourself. Unless of course you think there are no answers and can never be any answers to these questions. In that case, why did you ask?

I asked to see if any of you would be honest enough to say 'I don't know.' If you really don't know what I mean by "ultimate reasons or origins" you should open your mind a bit.

DS said: Kris wrote: "I don’t know the answers to those questions, and neither do you nor anyone else." Actually I do know Kris. And you could know to, if you took a course in Introductory Biology and a course in Genetics and a course in Molecular Biology. Now Kris, since you have admitted that you don't know the answers you will have to accept whatever answer I, or any one else, gives you, right? After all you don't know the answers remember. So you can't claim that the answers aren't goods enough for you. You can't claim that the answers are wrong. You can't play any more pointless word games, right? As soon as you agree to this, I will answer the questions for you. Until then, you can remain in ignorance. By the way, how is it that you have come to accept the theory of evolution if you don't know the first thing about mutations? They are kind of important to the theory don't you know.

No, you don’t know the answer to those questions.

...says Kris by fiat.

phht.

you're a moron, pretending to be a scientist, pretending to be intelligent.

If it were me, I would have reported you as "being abusive" to your ISP by now.

run along, kiddie.

OK asshole. The first replicating system was named Charles. We were on very good terms, so I called him Chuck. He made mutations happen whenever he needed them, that was the ultimate cause. Happy now?

Why don't you tell us the whats whys and whens and hows? What you don't know? So you have no point after all. All you want to do is demand answers that you can ignore. Obviously you enjoy mental masturbation.

It is obvious that you will never accept any answer as good enough, just like a good creationist. It is just as obvious that absolutely no one cares. You can demand proof until the sun explodes and the only thing it will prove is that you have no clue how science works. Wallow in ignorance.

Ah, good ol' Chuck. What a happy little replicator he was. It's a shame he didn't make it through the Oxygen Catastrophe.

DS said: OK asshole. The first replicating system was named Charles. We were on very good terms, so I called him Chuck. He made mutations happen whenever he needed them, that was the ultimate cause. Happy now? Why don't you tell us the whats whys and whens and hows? What you don't know? So you have no point after all. All you want to do is demand answers that you can ignore. Obviously you enjoy mental masturbation. It is obvious that you will never accept any answer as good enough, just like a good creationist. It is just as obvious that absolutely no one cares. You can demand proof until the sun explodes and the only thing it will prove is that you have no clue how science works. Wallow in ignorance.

tresmal said: Steve P. | December 29, 2010 5:29 AM

I said: Here you’ve driven into a ditch. The nutrients in question would have been continuously generated by the same (geothermal?) processes that generated them in the first place. So instead of a situation of early life eating its way through a limited primeval source of food and then degenerating into an Archaean Donner Party you get life reaching an equilibrium with the nutrient generating processes. This has great potential for evolution. The only other ingredient needed is protolife having the capacity to make more copies of itself than can be supported by the environment. Organisms that can more efficiently metabolize nutrients will have an advantage, organisms that can exploit an energy source to synthesize nutrients from precursors will have a place at the table and organisms that can metabolize other organisms (and really the distinction between nutrient and organism is going to pretty blurry) will have their niche.

Steve P:Actually, it seems you have taken hold of the steering wheel and insist we go right when I was clearly heading left.

Which would have driven you into the ditch. You're analogy of the early Earth as a petri dish with a onetime supply of glucose was terrible and everything that followed from it was worthless.

Steve P:My question was based on a scenario of diminishing resources to the point that the colony of organisms would die unless it found an alternate sourcing method.

An unrealistic and irrelevent scenario.

Your comment above changes the scenario to a ‘limited but continual supply of nutrients’. Different animal.

But much more realistic.

In your scenario, the colony of organisms would be reduced in number according to the limited resource.

No, protolife increases to the carrying capacity of the Earth.There it reaches an equilibrium, but not a peaceful one. If, like rabbits, proto-organisms produce more offspring than can survive evolution kicks in. The proto-organisms would have been under huge selective pressure to take advantage of whatever resources the environment offered them. This includes other proto-organisms.

You'll notice that some of my terminology is different from yours. There appears to be a couple of unspoken premises in your thinking. One, that first life was something like a modern prokaryote and two that there is a fairly distinct line between life and really interesting chemistry. Both are wrong. You seem to think of these events happening much much later in the development of life than is likely.

However, there would be no selective pressure to search out a new method of sourcing nutrients; namely seeking out other organisms.

This is wrong, in fact the opposite is true. I'm not sure what you mean by searching, the relevent mutations would have been occurring regardless of selective pressure. What matters is the degree to which a given mutation is rewarded or punished.

So there would be no pressure to make contact with other organisms and consequently no pressure to develop a defense mechanism.

Odds are the early proto-organisms were living cheek by jowl near the sources of nutrients, so the issue of seeking each other out is moot.

What I am trying to establish here is a realistic scenario where a diminishing resource supply...

An unrealistic scenario.

...causes...

Causes? Wrong. ...

a mutation in an organism which in turn modifies its physio-chemical structure, allowing it to modify its established nutrient importing method (i.e. absorbing nutrients directly from the environment by now having an ‘affinity’ for like organisms.

This is not nearly as radical a change as you seem to imagine.Early life was just so many bundles or bags of polypeptides, polysaccharides and lipids, in other words nutrients. A proto-organism that encounters a lipid molecule attached to another proto-organism is going to treat it the same way it would if that lipid was unattached. From there it's just a matter of accumulating mutations that allow it to specialize in metabolizing other organisms.

This affinity would thus allow it to ‘borrow some milk from the fridge’ while visiting another organism,...

Ummm... OK.

...and this ‘borrowing’ would conceivably simultaneously stimulate a physical and/or chemical reaction in the organism with the full fridge to lock the fridge door shut on the next visit,...

No. This would provide a selective advantage to proto-organisms that were somehow less digestible than others.

...thus putting increased pressure on the starving organism to unlock the combination just put on the fridge on its next visit.

Yes, an arms race.

This theoretical cascade of events should be elucidated in order to support a linear, step-wise approach to the problem of developing an immune system.

What?

BTW, you make an assumption that the distinction between nutrient and organism will be blurry. How do you arrive at this assumption?

This gets back to the distinction I was making between protolife and modern life. As I said earlier the distinction between life and really interesting chemistry is not nearly as clear as you seem to think.

The nutrients in the environment are free molecules. The nutrients in organisms are separated from the environment by a membrane.

A. Not necessarily. Not at first. B. That membrane is going to be made of lipids, a very valuable resource.

SteveP.said Anticipating your response of a slow, gradual step-by-step transformation over a long period of time doing the trick, I would say that early organisms most likely replicated as rapidly as single-celled organisms do today so deep time would not solve the dilemma.

I said:Not really an issue. Once you have a basic metabolism you have most of what you need to metabolize other organisms. In fact it’s very likely to have been a part of life from the very beginning.

An organism’s metabolism is not the issue. Previously, the organism, through diffusion, absorbed nutrients directly from the environment. Now is has an obstacle - the membrane of other organisms (alluded to above).

I dealt with this point above.

When it bumps up against another organism, it has to be able to draw out nutrients from the other organism and import it through its own membrane simultaneously.

Assuming it has a membrane. And even then that membrane is going to be the first part metabolized. It is a very valuable resource in its own right.

It has an already established mechanism for drawing through only one membrane. This means it would have to increase its energy consumption to increase the vacuum pressure in order to draw through two membranes.

No. Just no.

Its energy consumption would need to be considerably more than what it used before. But it is already starved for energy.

This assumes the nonplausible running out of food scenario.

I said: Predators and prey reach an equilibrium; so much prey biomass can support so much predator biomass. If predators eat too much prey, prey becomes scarce and predators starve.

Yes, but this is a description of what happens now. I am interested in what happened at the time there was no defense mechanism.

The presence of "predators" gave a selective advantage to "grazers" that by luck of the genetic draw happened to be less digestible than others.

What were the circumstances in which a defense mechanism became possible and necessary and how did it happen in a step-wise fashion.

Variation due to random mutation makes it possible. Natural selection makes it favored, if not necessary.

Flint says by simply dropping the chicken/egg problem, I can get over this logical hill. But I can’t see a step-by-step change overcoming the chicken/egg problem. It has to make logical sense. I have pointed out above how one organism taking just a bit of nutrients from another organism (small step) doesn’t solve the problem.

A chicken/egg problem is usually the result of faulty premises. You are trying to solve a problem that didn't exist.

Imagine each starving organism under the same pressure. The smarter ones each in turn take a small piece of nutrient from weaker organisms. This would already be a monumental task but let go with it for the sake of the scenario. Each weak organism would be repeatedly visited by the minority of stronger organisms making the weak organisms even weaker. So the replicates of the weak organisms would not have the opportunity to mutate into a stronger defensive posture. Likewise the stronger organisms, after step-wise poaching of nutrients from the weaker organisms, would find an ever decreasing pool of weak organisms, thus causing their own demise.

This scenario is completely irrelevant and this is your problem.

I said: Your premise of a limited one time only supply of primeval food is faulty.

Can you elaborate?

Yes the original processes that generated the nutrients in the first place didn't stop as soon as life was up and running they would have continued running and may well be still running in some corner of the world.

As well, if my scenario is highly unlikely, it leaves us with your scenario where there is always a supply of nutrients in the environment albeit a varying one.

Limited is a better word than varying, though they may may varied as well.

In this case, what other circumstance aside from lack of an energy supply would activate a mutation...

You seem to think that mutations are adaptive responses to some sort of stress or threat to the organism. They're not. Mutations are the result of mutagenic events e.g. a bit of ionizing radiation hitting the DNA in just the right way. They happen regardless of need.

...that would fundamentally change the physio-chemical characteristics of the single-celled organism to develop a defense mechanism?

This isn't how it works. Even before there is predation there is going to be, as a result of sheer dumb luck, variation in the "digestibility" of organisms. Those that are, once again through sheer dumb luck, more resistant to predation than their more digestible cousins will have a reproductive advantage and leave more descendants.

Again, if there is no attack, there is no need for a defense.

Why wouldn't there be an attack? Predation doesn't have to be a response to a food shortage, it can be a response to an opportunity.

I said: Once again the premise is wrong.Think of the early nutrients as analogous to the grass of the savanna. It’s continually replenished but limited in supply. You get “grazers” which are under selection pressure for their ability to take advantage of the “grass” AND their ability to avoid being eaten, predators which are selected for their ability to metabolize the grazers and scavengers which evolve the ability to exploit the losers.

But again, if the grazers are so good at grazing and there is always grass, there is no pressure to avoid being eaten, since there are no predators.

Why wouldn't there be predators?

How and why would these grazer start to see other grazers as blades of grass? You assume winners and losers, predators and scavengers were there from the get go. But from a step-wise development of life, they cannot emerge simultaneously.

Sure they can. Imagine something not a whole more complicated than self replicating ribozyme. It bumps into another ribozyme and it does to it what it does to any other polynucleotide it runs into. Predation or taking nutrients from the environment?

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

phantomreader42 said:

John Vanko said:

Kris said:

“Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?”

I don't know the answers to those questions, and neither do you nor anyone else. Why do you guys have such a problem with just saying "I don't know."?

Gamma rays! Gamma rays! Why is that not an answer? Gamma rays. Gosh darn it.

Because the only answer Kris will accept is "magic".

Maybe you can show when or where I've ever said that? Go ahead, show that I've ever said that magic or anything like it is the "answer". Show that I've ever said that anything just poofed into existence, whether because of magic, a creator, a god, ID, abiogenesis, evolution, or any other form of poofing. Show that I've ever said that a god or creator or designer does exist or ever has existed. Show that I've said that evolution does not happen and never has happened. Show that I've ever said that I know how life came to be. Show that I've ever said that all the scientific hypotheses or theories about abiogenesis or evolution are and must be completely wrong.

Well, since you instinctively reject any non-magical answer, magic is the only thing left. Though I suppose you could be so stupid that you'll insist that an event with known and observed causes is fundamentally, inherently, and eternally unknowable, even when the reality is right in front of your eyes. In which case the only thing that would convince you to accept the facts would be magic.

Kris wrote:

"There’s an awful lot of guesses, speculation, inferences, or assumptions in what you said, under the guise of actual evidence."

And yet, somehow it;'s still nearly ten times as much evidence as you have ever presented. Imagine that.

You don't have all the answers. Ha ha ha. Big difference is, you don't try to find any answers. So you still lose.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to exactly what parts of evolutionary theory you accept, seeing as how you don't know the first thing about mutations. Do you accept only those parts of evolution that don't require mutations? Do you accept only those parts accepted by creationists? Exactly why do you think that you are qualified to judge? Exactly why do you think that anyone cares what you think?

Well, since neither you nor anyone else here, nor anywhere else) also don’t know the whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations, life and everything in the universe,...

...you must have no point and must only be enjoying mental masturbation when you expect and demand that ID-ists and creationists (or anyone else) provide all the detailed, testable, duplicable, verifiable whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations, life and everything in the universe.

Before we can answer a why question of this nature, we first have to establish that there is a why. Do you know of any way of doing this? Do you think it makes sense to answer a question before we know there is a question to answer?

So here is the Kris schtick:

Claim to be a scientist because you collect butterflies in your backyard. Claim to belIeve in evolution because you accept some small things that no reasonable person could ever deny, but actually don;t accept most of the actual theory of evolution. Ignore all of the things that science actually has discovered. Then ask stupid, irrelevant, undefined questions that have no real answers. Ignore all the answers that you do get and then claim that science doesn't have all the answers. Then claim that no one should ask creationists any questions and ignore the fact that they have absolutely no answers at all. Then claim that science is really no better than creationism.

Now who would do such a thing? Who makes a big deal of the fact that science doesn't have all the answers? Who obsesses endlessly over the supposed problems with abiogenesis? Who else claims to really love science but actually rejects almost all of the findings of science without ever providing any viable alternative? Who else is displays such an obnoxious combination of arrogance and ignorance?

There’s an awful lot of guesses, speculation, inferences, or assumptions in what you said, under the guise of actual evidence.

DS said: Now who would do such a thing? Who makes a big deal of the fact that science doesn't have all the answers? Who obsesses endlessly over the supposed problems with abiogenesis? Who else claims to really love science but actually rejects almost all of the findings of science without ever providing any viable alternative? Who else is displays such an obnoxious combination of arrogance and ignorance?

Kris said:

DS said: OK asshole. The first replicating system was named Charles. We were on very good terms, so I called him Chuck. He made mutations happen whenever he needed them, that was the ultimate cause. Happy now? Why don't you tell us the whats whys and whens and hows? What you don't know? So you have no point after all. All you want to do is demand answers that you can ignore. Obviously you enjoy mental masturbation. It is obvious that you will never accept any answer as good enough, just like a good creationist. It is just as obvious that absolutely no one cares. You can demand proof until the sun explodes and the only thing it will prove is that you have no clue how science works. Wallow in ignorance.

Well, since neither you nor anyone else here, nor anywhere else) also don't know the whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations, life and everything in the universe, you must have no point and must only be enjoying mental masturbation when you expect and demand that ID-ists and creationists (or anyone else) provide all the detailed, testable, duplicable, verifiable whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations, life and everything in the universe. No one cares? Really? Seems to me that you and a lot of other people care about what I think and/or will accept and what the whole world thinks and/or will accept. You guys and gals are absolutely obsessed with what others think and/or will accept and especially what religious people think and/or will accept. If you don't care, then why are you and this website even here? For pointless mental masturbation perhaps? LMAO!

Kris said: 'r nt gttng ff tht s, lr. dmt 'r LR. Cme n, d t. 'r th n wh ss tht whn prsn ss smthng fls th'r lr. sd smthng fls. Vr fls. 'r LR thn, ccrdng t . dd addrss drctl LR nd DD crrct . Jst bcse 'r t fckng lz t lk p th sl btnbl nfrmtn yrslf r wtch sm TV shws dsn't mn ddn't crrct r ddrss drctl, LR. 'r brn-dd, lng, gnrnt, lng, ndctd, lng, chcknsht, lng, hpcrtcl, lng, rrgnt, lng, tw fcd, lng, psch rlgn nvntng, lng, pc f lng trsh.

Kris the damned hypocrite said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Kris said: Well, since neither you nor anyone else here, nor anywhere else) also don't know the whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations,

No one cares? Really? Seems to me that you and a lot of other people care about what I think and/or will accept and what the whole world thinks and/or will accept.

It is fascinating to watch Kris lose again and again and then come back for more. He is clearly a fool.

phantomreader42 said:

Steve P. said: In this case, what other circumstance aside from lack of an energy supply would activate a mutation that would fundamentally change the physio-chemical characteristics of the single-celled organism to develop a defense mechanism?

Do you actually have any idea what a mutation IS? Here's a hint, mutations are NOT the result of organisms wishing or praying for their DNA to change. Mutations happen, and have been observed to happen, without any intention or desire at all on the part of the mutant. You don't seem to comprehend that. Not really a surprise, creationists tend to avoid all comprehension of everything at all costs.

Dale Husband said:If your statement made any sense, then lions should have starved in Africa long ago after killing the last herbivores. Are you not familiar with the concept of “balance of nature”? Top predators often have slow reproductive rates and/or often kill each other in battles over territory and social rank, which limits their numbers, while their prey items reproduce faster and do not kill each other. Bacteria living billions of years ago probably reproduced a lot slower than those of today. Also, since natural selection is a blind process that does not take possible future trends into account, your statement that “It therefore cannot be that selective pressure caused organisms to become food raiders or cannibals and thus even further unlikely that a double dose of selective pressure (no nutrients AND attacking neighbors) would cause organisms to develop a defense mechanism, since you cannot fight on an empty stomach,” is total nonsense. Consider cuckoos and their habit of laying their eggs in the nests of other birds to make them raise the offspring. If the cuckoos do this so much that the adoptive birds become extinct, so will the cuckoos.

Steve P. said:

Dale Husband said:If your statement made any sense, then lions should have starved in Africa long ago after killing the last herbivores. Are you not familiar with the concept of “balance of nature”? Top predators often have slow reproductive rates and/or often kill each other in battles over territory and social rank, which limits their numbers, while their prey items reproduce faster and do not kill each other. Bacteria living billions of years ago probably reproduced a lot slower than those of today. Also, since natural selection is a blind process that does not take possible future trends into account, your statement that “It therefore cannot be that selective pressure caused organisms to become food raiders or cannibals and thus even further unlikely that a double dose of selective pressure (no nutrients AND attacking neighbors) would cause organisms to develop a defense mechanism, since you cannot fight on an empty stomach,” is total nonsense. Consider cuckoos and their habit of laying their eggs in the nests of other birds to make them raise the offspring. If the cuckoos do this so much that the adoptive birds become extinct, so will the cuckoos.

Dale, you cannot use observations of present life and apply it to life 1~2bya. The whole purpose of my comments is to consider the state of the environment and life at that time. What were the conditions at the time the first single-cell organism came into being? It is assumed that these cells first method of sourcing energy was directly from the environment. What happeded to change that? We cannot talk about rhinos, and hippos, and all because they were not there then. There were only single-celled organisms. Modern single-celled organisms have defense mechanisms. So presumabley from a step-wise development perspective, early single-celled organisms didn't have it but developed it somewhere, somehow on the road to complexity. So let's discuss how it happened with the environmental and biological conditions of 2bya.

Steve P. said:

Dale Husband said: If your statement made any sense, then lions should have starved in Africa long ago after killing the last herbivores. Are you not familiar with the concept of “balance of nature”? Top predators often have slow reproductive rates and/or often kill each other in battles over territory and social rank, which limits their numbers, while their prey items reproduce faster and do not kill each other. Bacteria living billions of years ago probably reproduced a lot slower than those of today. Also, since natural selection is a blind process that does not take possible future trends into account, your statement that “It therefore cannot be that selective pressure caused organisms to become food raiders or cannibals and thus even further unlikely that a double dose of selective pressure (no nutrients AND attacking neighbors) would cause organisms to develop a defense mechanism, since you cannot fight on an empty stomach,” is total nonsense. Consider cuckoos and their habit of laying their eggs in the nests of other birds to make them raise the offspring. If the cuckoos do this so much that the adoptive birds become extinct, so will the cuckoos.

Dale, you cannot use observations of present life and apply it to life 1~2bya. The whole purpose of my comments is to consider the state of the environment and life at that time. What were the conditions at the time the first single-cell organism came into being? It is assumed that these cells first method of sourcing energy was directly from the environment. What happeded to change that? We cannot talk about rhinos, and hippos, and all because they were not there then. There were only single-celled organisms. Modern single-celled organisms have defense mechanisms. So presumabley from a step-wise development perspective, early single-celled organisms didn't have it but developed it somewhere, somehow on the road to complexity. So let's discuss how it happened with the environmental and biological conditions of 2bya.

Kris said: You'll never get a reasonable response to your legitimate questions or comments here Steve. You must obediently agree with the obsessive haters here and blindly worship them and 'science' or you're deemed the 'enemy' and will be relentlessly attacked over and over and over. It's that simple.

Dale Husband said: The same laws of physics, chemistry, and even biology would have been applicable billions of year ago on the early Earth and among single-celled organisms, so your objection is pointless. Unless, of course, you seriously think there were completely different such laws back then. Where is the evidence for that?

Then Kris will probably say: What laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are you referring to? What is the evidence for YOUR claim that those laws were the same billions of years ago?

Steve P. said: What were the conditions at the time the first single-cell organism came into being? It is assumed that these cells first method of sourcing energy was directly from the environment. What happeded to change that?

Dale Husband said: A good way to say almost nothing with a lot of words, IBIG (who I'm now convinced is indeed "Kris"). A liar is a person who makes a knowingly false statement with intent to decieve. My original statement about elephants, hippos, and rhinos having no predators was based on my never seeing top predators ever hunting and killing them. So how was I a liar? If my statement is inaccurate, it should be enough for a person more knowledgeable than me to say, "Actually, aside from humans killing many rhinos for their horns and elephants for their ivory tusks, there are indeed rare cases of baby elephants, rhinos, and hippos being killed by predators. Here is proof of this, [link], [link], [link]." And then I would have said, "I stand corrected. Thank you." Kris, on the other hand, proves himself to be a liar every time he claims to be a scientist, since he has clearly been shown by his own words to be ignorant about how science works, or even of basic scientific terminology. And his motives for disrupting the Panda's Thumb blog with his filth is obvious.

Kris said: 'r nt gttng ff tht s, lr. dmt 'r LR. Cme n, d t. 'r th n wh ss tht whn prsn ss smthng fls th'r lr. sd smthng fls. Vr fls. 'r LR thn, ccrdng t . dd addrss drctl LR nd DD crrct . Jst bcse 'r t fckng lz t lk p th sl btnbl nfrmtn yrslf r wtch sm TV shws dsn't mn ddn't crrct r ddrss drctl, LR. 'r brn-dd, lng, gnrnt, lng, ndctd, lng, chcknsht, lng, hpcrtcl, lng, rrgnt, lng, tw fcd, lng, psch rlgn nvntng, lng, pc f lng trsh.

Oh, by the way, did you notice Kris (aka IBeleiveInTrolling) asking really dumb questions about mutations?

Kris the damned hypocrite said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Couldn't he have looked up what causes them himself? Same difference!

Kris said:

Steve P. said:

Dale Husband said:If your statement made any sense, then lions should have starved in Africa long ago after killing the last herbivores. Are you not familiar with the concept of “balance of nature”? Top predators often have slow reproductive rates and/or often kill each other in battles over territory and social rank, which limits their numbers, while their prey items reproduce faster and do not kill each other. Bacteria living billions of years ago probably reproduced a lot slower than those of today. Also, since natural selection is a blind process that does not take possible future trends into account, your statement that “It therefore cannot be that selective pressure caused organisms to become food raiders or cannibals and thus even further unlikely that a double dose of selective pressure (no nutrients AND attacking neighbors) would cause organisms to develop a defense mechanism, since you cannot fight on an empty stomach,” is total nonsense. Consider cuckoos and their habit of laying their eggs in the nests of other birds to make them raise the offspring. If the cuckoos do this so much that the adoptive birds become extinct, so will the cuckoos.

Dale, you cannot use observations of present life and apply it to life 1~2bya. The whole purpose of my comments is to consider the state of the environment and life at that time. What were the conditions at the time the first single-cell organism came into being? It is assumed that these cells first method of sourcing energy was directly from the environment. What happeded to change that? We cannot talk about rhinos, and hippos, and all because they were not there then. There were only single-celled organisms. Modern single-celled organisms have defense mechanisms. So presumabley from a step-wise development perspective, early single-celled organisms didn't have it but developed it somewhere, somehow on the road to complexity. So let's discuss how it happened with the environmental and biological conditions of 2bya.

You'll never get a reasonable response to your legitimate questions or comments here Steve. You must obediently agree with the obsessive haters here and blindly worship them and 'science' or you're deemed the 'enemy' and will be relentlessly attacked over and over and over. It's that simple.

Steve P. said: In your scenario, the colony of organisms would be reduced in number according to the limited resource.

tresmal said: No, protolife increases to the carrying capacity of the Earth.There it reaches an equilibrium, but not a peaceful one. If, like rabbits, proto-organisms produce more offspring than can survive evolution kicks in. The proto-organisms would have been under huge selective pressure to take advantage of whatever resources the environment offered them. This includes other proto-organisms.

You’ll notice that some of my terminology is different from yours. There appears to be a couple of unspoken premises in your thinking. One, that first life was something like a modern prokaryote and two that there is a fairly distinct line between life and really interesting chemistry. Both are wrong. You seem to think of these events happening much much later in the development of life than is likely.

SteveP.said:However, there would be no selective pressure to search out a new method of sourcing nutrients; namely seeking out other organisms.

This is wrong, in fact the opposite is true. I’m not sure what you mean by searching, the relevent mutations would have been occurring regardless of selective pressure. What matters is the degree to which a given mutation is rewarded or punished.

SteveP. said:a mutation in an organism which in turn modifies its physio-chemical structure, allowing it to modify its established nutrient importing method (i.e. absorbing nutrients directly from the environment by now having an ‘affinity’ for like organisms.<

This is not nearly as radical a change as you seem to imagine.Early life was just so many bundles or bags of polypeptides, polysaccharides and lipids, in other words nutrients. A proto-organism that encounters a lipid molecule attached to another proto-organism is going to treat it the same way it would if that lipid was unattached. From there it’s just a matter of accumulating mutations that allow it to specialize in metabolizing other organisms

The presence of “predators” gave a selective advantage to “grazers” that by luck of the genetic draw happened to be less digestible than others.

A chicken/egg problem is usually the result of faulty premises. You are trying to solve a problem that didn’t exist.

Steve P. said: In your scenario, the colony of organisms would be reduced in number according to the limited resource.

tresmal said: No, protolife increases to the carrying capacity of the Earth.There it reaches an equilibrium, but not a peaceful one. If, like rabbits, proto-organisms produce more offspring than can survive evolution kicks in. The proto-organisms would have been under huge selective pressure to take advantage of whatever resources the environment offered them. This includes other proto-organisms.

In the context of the question of when life developed a defense mechanism, your use of the word protolife suggests you believe it started before single-celled organism came into being. Yet, step-wise selection can only take place once a complete single-cell has formed. Proto-life in the form of protein microspheres do not have a metabolic system in place. The work of Sidney Fox is inconclusive regarding the ability of these microspheres to transport isotopes from outside to inside. So it seems my focus on single-celled organisms as the very first possible scenario where a defense mechanism could develop is correct.

You’ll notice that some of my terminology is different from yours. There appears to be a couple of unspoken premises in your thinking. One, that first life was something like a modern prokaryote and two that there is a fairly distinct line between life and really interesting chemistry. Both are wrong. You seem to think of these events happening much much later in the development of life than is likely.

See above. Evolution does not work on interesting chemistry. The earliest selection could take place is in the first completed single cell, which has a metabolic cycle and an outer lipid membrane.

Which brings us back to the difficulty of this first cell to modify itself cell machinery in response to environmental stimuli when it has no sensory mechanism to do any sensing. While transporting nutrients from outside to inside the cell wall is doable with the simple chemical reactions going on, taking nutrients from another cell is real game changer.

My focus is how did this game changing event happen? It would seem sense mechanisms must be in place before a defense mechanism could develop. It seems logical to conclude that early life did not do any attacking or stealing or borrowing as it did not have the proper machinery in place. So we have to push the timing forward.

So predation would have to wait until the first-cell differentiated, the original cell staying relatively unchanged, but the daughter lineage experiencing a significant amount of change. Then that would bring us to the question of why the original stayed the same but the offspring changed significantly.

Kris (AKA IBIGOT) wrote:

"You’ll never get a reasonable response to your legitimate questions or comments here Steve. You must obediently agree with the obsessive haters here and blindly worship them and ‘science’ or you’re deemed the ‘enemy’ and will be relentlessly attacked over and over and over. It’s that simple."

Then why don't you just leave and not come back. You can accomplish nothing here but displaying your own ignorance.

By the way, just in case you are too dense to realize it, the fact that everyone her is convinced that there is substantially no difference between you and the lying heap of crap creationist who was banned from decent society is the worst insult that anyone could ever even imagine. If I were you I would think long and hard about why people have come to this conclusion.

Speaking of not answering questions, we're all still waiting for Kris to tell us everything he knows about how and why mutations occur. All you have to do Kris, is define the term mutation and name five different mechanisms by which they occur. If you can do that, I think that it will become obvious why mutations occur.

Now you can claim you don't know if you want to, but that will just be another admission of ignorance. What you can't do is claim that no one knows, because that is just plain wrong. Of course you can always refuse to answer or just ignore the question again, but then you will have to stop whining about how no one answers questions now won't you?

Now we know that IBIGOT hasn't got the faintest clue about mutations, so here is a golden opportunity for Kris to prove to us once and for all that he is not IBIGOT. Of course, it really doesn't matter now does it? Peas in a pod and all that. Man, how humiliating to be compared to a guy who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said: A good way to say almost nothing with a lot of words, IBIG (who I'm now convinced is indeed "Kris"). A liar is a person who makes a knowingly false statement with intent to decieve. My original statement about elephants, hippos, and rhinos having no predators was based on my never seeing top predators ever hunting and killing them. So how was I a liar? If my statement is inaccurate, it should be enough for a person more knowledgeable than me to say, "Actually, aside from humans killing many rhinos for their horns and elephants for their ivory tusks, there are indeed rare cases of baby elephants, rhinos, and hippos being killed by predators. Here is proof of this, [link], [link], [link]." And then I would have said, "I stand corrected. Thank you." Kris, on the other hand, proves himself to be a liar every time he claims to be a scientist, since he has clearly been shown by his own words to be ignorant about how science works, or even of basic scientific terminology. And his motives for disrupting the Panda's Thumb blog with his filth is obvious.

Kris said: 'r nt gttng ff tht s, lr. dmt 'r LR. Cme n, d t. 'r th n wh ss tht whn prsn ss smthng fls th'r lr. sd smthng fls. Vr fls. 'r LR thn, ccrdng t . dd addrss drctl LR nd DD crrct . Jst bcse 'r t fckng lz t lk p th sl btnbl nfrmtn yrslf r wtch sm TV shws dsn't mn ddn't crrct r ddrss drctl, LR. 'r brn-dd, lng, gnrnt, lng, ndctd, lng, chcknsht, lng, hpcrtcl, lng, rrgnt, lng, tw fcd, lng, psch rlgn nvntng, lng, pc f lng trsh.

Oh, by the way, did you notice Kris (aka IBeleiveInTrolling) asking really dumb questions about mutations?

Kris the damned hypocrite said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Couldn't he have looked up what causes them himself? Same difference!

I'm am not Kris, and your believing that I am Him/Her demonstrates your lack of being able to look at the evidence, and properly interpreting it. Just goes to show how stupid and inept you really are! It's evidently hard for you to believe that there could be other people in the world who oppose your view.

IBelieveInGod said: I'm am not Kris, and your believing that I am Him/Her demonstrates your lack of being able to look at the evidence, and properly interpreting it. Just goes to show how stupid and inept you really are! It's evidently hard for you to believe that there could be other people in the world who oppose your view.

IBelieveInGod said: And those of us who have problems with the theory of evolution from common descent, are claimed to be the same person, by these so-called brilliant scientific minds on this site. They can't even properly examine the evidence, writing styles, argument styles, and tone of argument, claims by the poster, location of the poster, IP of the poster, name of poster, clearly this demonstrates that if they can't even determine correctly, that we are all different individuals even though we are posting in the here and now, this clearly draws into question their ability to interpret any events that supposedly happened billions, millions, or even thousands of years ago. Heck they can't even accurately determine that we are actually all different people! SAD!!!

Hygaboo Andersen said: You will find evolutionistic thinking, I mean actually thinking rather than simply asserting their gnostic wisdom of "science" that allegedly trumps all, relies on two tacks--Vulgar Marxism and Vulgar Freudianism. They either accuse Christians of being agents or dupes of a conspiracy orchestrated by Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch or whoever the right-wing villain du jour happens to be, or else they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of having some kind of psychological disorder. This is what they appear to be doing now with regard to Kris and yourself. They seem to be accusing you all of having multiple personality disorder with their accusations you are the same person. This, in their minds refutes your arguments

Dale Husband said:

Hygaboo Andersen said: (falsehoods)

Wow! You are so wise and wonderful! Should we give you a Nobel Prize?

Incidentally, there is a pride of lions in Botswana that has recently (in the last couple of decades) learned how to take down adult elephants. A large number of them will work together to separate out a single member of the herd and mob all over it until they eventually wear it down.

http://www.go2africa.com/africa-travel-articles/elephant-eaters-of-the-savuti

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/risk/lion_elephant_predation_2006.html

Of course, the fact that there are indeed occasional predators for big animals like this makes little difference to the point Dale Husband made, but latching onto such a relatively minor error like that is certainly a good way to deflect the conversation away from uncomfortable topics.

Anyway, although I haven't been participating myself, I've been watching from the sidelines, and I think it's about time to give PT a rest from the travails of IBIG and Kris. Unfortunately, a good number of posters seem to lack the willpower to resist them.

So, in the hope that others will follow my example (and since it's time for our New Year's resolutions anyway), I thought I'd start the ball rolling with the following:

I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster I Believe In God. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the thread at After The Bar Closes set up for him.

I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster Kris. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the Bathroom Wall thread at After The Bar Closes.

I do reserve the right to re-post this pledge from time to time as necessary, to serve as an example to others.

*Note that I myself am not currently a member at ATBC, although I do lurk there. While I don't personally have any plans to join at this time, I will consider doing so if and when it should become necessary.*

Altair IV said: Anyway, although I haven't been participating myself, I've been watching from the sidelines, and I think it's about time to give PT a rest from the travails of IBIG and Kris. Unfortunately, a good number of posters seem to lack the willpower to resist them. So, in the hope that others will follow my example (and since it's time for our New Year's resolutions anyway), I thought I'd start the ball rolling with the following: I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster I Believe In God. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the thread at After The Bar Closes set up for him. I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster Kris. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the Bathroom Wall thread at After The Bar Closes. I do reserve the right to re-post this pledge from time to time as necessary, to serve as an example to others. *Note that I myself am not currently a member at ATBC, although I do lurk there. While I don't personally have any plans to join at this time, I will consider doing so if and when it should become necessary.*

Altair IV said: Incidentally, there is a pride of lions in Botswana that has recently (in the last couple of decades) learned how to take down adult elephants. A large number of them will work together to separate out a single member of the herd and mob all over it until they eventually wear it down. http://www.go2africa.com/africa-travel-articles/elephant-eaters-of-the-savuti http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/risk/lion_elephant_predation_2006.html

Of course, the fact that there are indeed occasional predators for big animals like this makes little difference to the point Dale Husband made, but latching onto such a relatively minor error like that is certainly a good way to deflect the conversation away from uncomfortable topics.

Altair IV said: Anyway, although I haven't been participating myself, I've been watching from the sidelines, and I think it's about time to give PT a rest from the travails of IBIG and Kris. Unfortunately, a good number of posters seem to lack the willpower to resist them. So, in the hope that others will follow my example (and since it's time for our New Year's resolutions anyway), I thought I'd start the ball rolling with the following: I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster I Believe In God. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the thread at After The Bar Closes set up for him. I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster Kris. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the Bathroom Wall thread at After The Bar Closes. I do reserve the right to re-post this pledge from time to time as necessary, to serve as an example to others. *Note that I myself am not currently a member at ATBC, although I do lurk there. While I don't personally have any plans to join at this time, I will consider doing so if and when it should become necessary.*

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolution.html

http://news.ufl.edu/2009/10/15/neotropical/

Interesting reading:)

Altair IV said: Anyway, although I haven't been participating myself, I've been watching from the sidelines, and I think it's about time to give PT a rest from the travails of IBIG and Kris. Unfortunately, a good number of posters seem to lack the willpower to resist them. So, in the hope that others will follow my example (and since it's time for our New Year's resolutions anyway), I thought I'd start the ball rolling with the following: I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster I Believe In God. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the thread at After The Bar Closes set up for him. I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster Kris. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the Bathroom Wall thread at After The Bar Closes. I do reserve the right to re-post this pledge from time to time as necessary, to serve as an example to others. *Note that I myself am not currently a member at ATBC, although I do lurk there. While I don't personally have any plans to join at this time, I will consider doing so if and when it should become necessary.*

IBelieveInGod babbled: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolution.html http://news.ufl.edu/2009/10/15/neotropical/ Interesting reading:)

Altair IV said: Anyway, although I haven't been participating myself, I've been watching from the sidelines, and I think it's about time to give PT a rest from the travails of IBIG and Kris. Unfortunately, a good number of posters seem to lack the willpower to resist them. So, in the hope that others will follow my example (and since it's time for our New Year's resolutions anyway), I thought I'd start the ball rolling with the following: I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster I Believe In God. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the thread at After The Bar Closes set up for him. I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster Kris. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the Bathroom Wall thread at After The Bar Closes. I do reserve the right to re-post this pledge from time to time as necessary, to serve as an example to others. *Note that I myself am not currently a member at ATBC, although I do lurk there. While I don't personally have any plans to join at this time, I will consider doing so if and when it should become necessary.*

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolution.html http://news.ufl.edu/2009/10/15/neotropical/ Interesting reading:)

Explain to us how these articles support your claim that saying God magically poofed everything 10,000 years ago because you have "FAITH" is magically more scientific than actual science. Or, explain to us how these articles specifically state that Abiogenesis and Evolution are somehow magically not sciences because the idea of understanding science offends your religious bigotries. If you can, please explain at your thread in AtBC. If you can't, please take your shiftless, lying asshole for Jesus schtick somewhere else.

Dale Husband said: A good way to say almost nothing with a lot of words, IBIG (who I'm now convinced is indeed "Kris"). A liar is a person who makes a knowingly false statement with intent to decieve. My original statement about elephants, hippos, and rhinos having no predators was based on my never seeing top predators ever hunting and killing them. So how was I a liar? If my statement is inaccurate, it should be enough for a person more knowledgeable than me to say, "Actually, aside from humans killing many rhinos for their horns and elephants for their ivory tusks, there are indeed rare cases of baby elephants, rhinos, and hippos being killed by predators. Here is proof of this, [link], [link], [link]." And then I would have said, "I stand corrected. Thank you." Kris, on the other hand, proves himself to be a liar every time he claims to be a scientist, since he has clearly been shown by his own words to be ignorant about how science works, or even of basic scientific terminology. And his motives for disrupting the Panda's Thumb blog with his filth is obvious.

Kris said: 'r nt gttng ff tht s, lr. dmt 'r LR. Cme n, d t. 'r th n wh ss tht whn prsn ss smthng fls th'r lr. sd smthng fls. Vr fls. 'r LR thn, ccrdng t . dd addrss drctl LR nd DD crrct . Jst bcse 'r t fckng lz t lk p th sl btnbl nfrmtn yrslf r wtch sm TV shws dsn't mn ddn't crrct r ddrss drctl, LR. 'r brn-dd, lng, gnrnt, lng, ndctd, lng, chcknsht, lng, hpcrtcl, lng, rrgnt, lng, tw fcd, lng, psch rlgn nvntng, lng, pc f lng trsh.

Oh, by the way, did you notice Kris (aka IBeleiveInTrolling) asking really dumb questions about mutations?

Kris the damned hypocrite said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Couldn't he have looked up what causes them himself? Same difference!

tresmal said:

There’s an awful lot of guesses, speculation, inferences, or assumptions in what you said, under the guise of actual evidence.

Actually I didn't present any evidence at all.

Malchus said:

Kris said: Well, since neither you nor anyone else here, nor anywhere else) also don't know the whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations,

I will merely comment in passing that this is an outright lie: many people do know, including most of the posters here. You are deliberately lying, since the information has been given to you.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said: A good way to say almost nothing with a lot of words, IBIG (who I'm now convinced is indeed "Kris"). A liar is a person who makes a knowingly false statement with intent to decieve. My original statement about elephants, hippos, and rhinos having no predators was based on my never seeing top predators ever hunting and killing them. So how was I a liar? If my statement is inaccurate, it should be enough for a person more knowledgeable than me to say, "Actually, aside from humans killing many rhinos for their horns and elephants for their ivory tusks, there are indeed rare cases of baby elephants, rhinos, and hippos being killed by predators. Here is proof of this, [link], [link], [link]." And then I would have said, "I stand corrected. Thank you." Kris, on the other hand, proves himself to be a liar every time he claims to be a scientist, since he has clearly been shown by his own words to be ignorant about how science works, or even of basic scientific terminology. And his motives for disrupting the Panda's Thumb blog with his filth is obvious.

Kris said: 'r nt gttng ff tht s, lr. dmt 'r LR. Cme n, d t. 'r th n wh ss tht whn prsn ss smthng fls th'r lr. sd smthng fls. Vr fls. 'r LR thn, ccrdng t . dd addrss drctl LR nd DD crrct . Jst bcse 'r t fckng lz t lk p th sl btnbl nfrmtn yrslf r wtch sm TV shws dsn't mn ddn't crrct r ddrss drctl, LR. 'r brn-dd, lng, gnrnt, lng, ndctd, lng, chcknsht, lng, hpcrtcl, lng, rrgnt, lng, tw fcd, lng, psch rlgn nvntng, lng, pc f lng trsh.

Oh, by the way, did you notice Kris (aka IBeleiveInTrolling) asking really dumb questions about mutations?

Kris the damned hypocrite said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Couldn't he have looked up what causes them himself? Same difference!

Ah, I see now. A liar is a person who knowingly makes a false statement with intent to deceive. Well, I guess that means you know the intentions of anyone who says anything that you don't agree with, eh Dale? It also must mean that when you make a false statement, it simply couldn't be knowingly and intentionally deceiving, right Dale? After all, you're perfect and your opponents aren't. In fact, your opponents are just a bunch of liars who knowingly make intentionally false statements to deceive. They could never just be mistaken or have a different opinion than you. They are absolutely, positively liars, eh? What's it like to be perfect Dale? Maybe you should write a book about it? I'm sure it would be a best seller. You could title it "I'm perfect in every way, and everyone I disagree with is a knowingly intentional deceiving LIAR!"

John Vanko said:

DS said: Now who would do such a thing? Who makes a big deal of the fact that science doesn't have all the answers? Who obsesses endlessly over the supposed problems with abiogenesis? Who else claims to really love science but actually rejects almost all of the findings of science without ever providing any viable alternative? Who else is displays such an obnoxious combination of arrogance and ignorance?

Incredible coincidence, isn't it? Who else claims abiogenesis has no evidence (even though the Earth shows the record of the emergence of life perfectly well)? Who else hasn't acknowledged the US Patent for "creation of primordial life"? (Not my words, but a direct quote from the patent.)

Kris said:

Malchus said:

Kris said: Well, since neither you nor anyone else here, nor anywhere else) also don't know the whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations,

I will merely comment in passing that this is an outright lie: many people do know, including most of the posters here. You are deliberately lying, since the information has been given to you.

No, the "information" hasn't been given to me. No one on Earth has that information. That makes you a liar.

Kris said:

Malchus said:

Kris said: Well, since neither you nor anyone else here, nor anywhere else) also don't know the whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations,

I will merely comment in passing that this is an outright lie: many people do know, including most of the posters here. You are deliberately lying, since the information has been given to you.

No, the "information" hasn't been given to me. No one on Earth has that information. That makes you a liar.

Kris said:

John Vanko said:

DS said: Now who would do such a thing? Who makes a big deal of the fact that science doesn't have all the answers? Who obsesses endlessly over the supposed problems with abiogenesis? Who else claims to really love science but actually rejects almost all of the findings of science without ever providing any viable alternative? Who else is displays such an obnoxious combination of arrogance and ignorance?

Incredible coincidence, isn't it? Who else claims abiogenesis has no evidence (even though the Earth shows the record of the emergence of life perfectly well)? Who else hasn't acknowledged the US Patent for "creation of primordial life"? (Not my words, but a direct quote from the patent.)

The Earth shows the record of the emergence of life perfectly well? Perfectly? In that case, tell me and show me ALL the particulars in perfect detail.

Malchus said:

Kris said:

Malchus said:

Kris said: Well, since neither you nor anyone else here, nor anywhere else) also don't know the whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations,

I will merely comment in passing that this is an outright lie: many people do know, including most of the posters here. You are deliberately lying, since the information has been given to you.

No, the "information" hasn't been given to me. No one on Earth has that information. That makes you a liar.

Kris said:

Malchus said:

Kris said: Well, since neither you nor anyone else here, nor anywhere else) also don't know the whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations,

I will merely comment in passing that this is an outright lie: many people do know, including most of the posters here. You are deliberately lying, since the information has been given to you.

No, the "information" hasn't been given to me. No one on Earth has that information. That makes you a liar.

I see that you also have some difficulty with reading comprehension. Apparently, you have been reading neither your own posts, nor the responses made to them. You have lied. Several times. Given that, nothing you say can be trusted - and given that your posts are generally content free, that's no hardship.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said: A good way to say almost nothing with a lot of words, IBIG (who I'm now convinced is indeed "Kris"). A liar is a person who makes a knowingly false statement with intent to decieve. My original statement about elephants, hippos, and rhinos having no predators was based on my never seeing top predators ever hunting and killing them. So how was I a liar? If my statement is inaccurate, it should be enough for a person more knowledgeable than me to say, "Actually, aside from humans killing many rhinos for their horns and elephants for their ivory tusks, there are indeed rare cases of baby elephants, rhinos, and hippos being killed by predators. Here is proof of this, [link], [link], [link]." And then I would have said, "I stand corrected. Thank you." Kris, on the other hand, proves himself to be a liar every time he claims to be a scientist, since he has clearly been shown by his own words to be ignorant about how science works, or even of basic scientific terminology. And his motives for disrupting the Panda's Thumb blog with his filth is obvious.

Kris said: 'r nt gttng ff tht s, lr. dmt 'r LR. Cme n, d t. 'r th n wh ss tht whn prsn ss smthng fls th'r lr. sd smthng fls. Vr fls. 'r LR thn, ccrdng t . dd addrss drctl LR nd DD crrct . Jst bcse 'r t fckng lz t lk p th sl btnbl nfrmtn yrslf r wtch sm TV shws dsn't mn ddn't crrct r ddrss drctl, LR. 'r brn-dd, lng, gnrnt, lng, ndctd, lng, chcknsht, lng, hpcrtcl, lng, rrgnt, lng, tw fcd, lng, psch rlgn nvntng, lng, pc f lng trsh.

Oh, by the way, did you notice Kris (aka IBeleiveInTrolling) asking really dumb questions about mutations?

Kris the damned hypocrite said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Couldn't he have looked up what causes them himself? Same difference!

I'm am not Kris, and your believing that I am Him/Her demonstrates your lack of being able to look at the evidence, and properly interpreting it. Just goes to show how stupid and inept you really are! It's evidently hard for you to believe that there could be other people in the world who oppose your view.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolution.html http://news.ufl.edu/2009/10/15/neotropical/ Interesting reading:)

Explain to us how these articles support your claim that saying God magically poofed everything 10,000 years ago because you have "FAITH" is magically more scientific than actual science. Or, explain to us how these articles specifically state that Abiogenesis and Evolution are somehow magically not sciences because the idea of understanding science offends your religious bigotries. If you can, please explain at your thread in AtBC. If you can't, please take your shiftless, lying asshole for Jesus schtick somewhere else.

IBelieveInGod said:

Kris said:

Steve P. said:

Dale Husband said:If your statement made any sense, then lions should have starved in Africa long ago after killing the last herbivores. Are you not familiar with the concept of “balance of nature”? Top predators often have slow reproductive rates and/or often kill each other in battles over territory and social rank, which limits their numbers, while their prey items reproduce faster and do not kill each other. Bacteria living billions of years ago probably reproduced a lot slower than those of today. Also, since natural selection is a blind process that does not take possible future trends into account, your statement that “It therefore cannot be that selective pressure caused organisms to become food raiders or cannibals and thus even further unlikely that a double dose of selective pressure (no nutrients AND attacking neighbors) would cause organisms to develop a defense mechanism, since you cannot fight on an empty stomach,” is total nonsense. Consider cuckoos and their habit of laying their eggs in the nests of other birds to make them raise the offspring. If the cuckoos do this so much that the adoptive birds become extinct, so will the cuckoos.

Dale, you cannot use observations of present life and apply it to life 1~2bya. The whole purpose of my comments is to consider the state of the environment and life at that time. What were the conditions at the time the first single-cell organism came into being? It is assumed that these cells first method of sourcing energy was directly from the environment. What happeded to change that? We cannot talk about rhinos, and hippos, and all because they were not there then. There were only single-celled organisms. Modern single-celled organisms have defense mechanisms. So presumabley from a step-wise development perspective, early single-celled organisms didn't have it but developed it somewhere, somehow on the road to complexity. So let's discuss how it happened with the environmental and biological conditions of 2bya.

You'll never get a reasonable response to your legitimate questions or comments here Steve. You must obediently agree with the obsessive haters here and blindly worship them and 'science' or you're deemed the 'enemy' and will be relentlessly attacked over and over and over. It's that simple.

And those of us who have problems with the theory of evolution from common descent, are claimed to be the same person, by these so-called brilliant scientific minds on this site. They can't even properly examine the evidence, writing styles, argument styles, and tone of argument, claims by the poster, location of the poster, IP of the poster, name of poster, clearly this demonstrates that if they can't even determine correctly, that we are all different individuals even though we are posting in the here and now, this clearly draws into question their ability to interpret any events that supposedly happened billions, millions, or even thousands of years ago. Heck they can't even accurately determine that we are actually all different people! SAD!!!

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolution.html http://news.ufl.edu/2009/10/15/neotropical/ Interesting reading:)

Explain to us how these articles support your claim that saying God magically poofed everything 10,000 years ago because you have "FAITH" is magically more scientific than actual science. Or, explain to us how these articles specifically state that Abiogenesis and Evolution are somehow magically not sciences because the idea of understanding science offends your religious bigotries. If you can, please explain at your thread in AtBC. If you can't, please take your shiftless, lying asshole for Jesus schtick somewhere else.

"Researchers from the Smithsonian Institution and UF, among others, found that many of the dominant plant families existing in today’s Neotropical rainforests — including legumes, palms, avocado and banana — have maintained their ecological dominance despite major changes in South America’s climate and geological structure." "The new study provides evidence Neotropical rainforests were warmer and wetter in the late Paleocene than today but were composed of the same plant families that now thrive in rainforests. “We have the fossils to prove this,” Herrera said. “It is also intriguing that while the Cerrejón rainforest shows many of the characteristics of modern equivalents, plant diversity is lower.” http://news.ufl.edu/2009/10/15/neotropical/ You don't see a problem with this?

Kris said:

Malchus said:

Kris said:

Malchus said:

Kris said: Well, since neither you nor anyone else here, nor anywhere else) also don't know the whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations,

I will merely comment in passing that this is an outright lie: many people do know, including most of the posters here. You are deliberately lying, since the information has been given to you.

No, the "information" hasn't been given to me. No one on Earth has that information. That makes you a liar.

Kris said:

Malchus said:

Kris said: Well, since neither you nor anyone else here, nor anywhere else) also don't know the whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations,

I will merely comment in passing that this is an outright lie: many people do know, including most of the posters here. You are deliberately lying, since the information has been given to you.

No, the "information" hasn't been given to me. No one on Earth has that information. That makes you a liar.

I see that you also have some difficulty with reading comprehension. Apparently, you have been reading neither your own posts, nor the responses made to them. You have lied. Several times. Given that, nothing you say can be trusted - and given that your posts are generally content free, that's no hardship.

Are you Dale? If not, you're certainly as fucked up as he is. You two make a lovely couple.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: You'll never get a reasonable response to your legitimate questions or comments here Steve. You must obediently agree with the obsessive haters here and blindly worship them and 'science' or you're deemed the 'enemy' and will be relentlessly attacked over and over and over. It's that simple.

Like you attack US? You get back what you dish out. It's really that simple.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: You'll never get a reasonable response to your legitimate questions or comments here Steve. You must obediently agree with the obsessive haters here and blindly worship them and 'science' or you're deemed the 'enemy' and will be relentlessly attacked over and over and over. It's that simple.

Like you attack US? You get back what you dish out. It's really that simple.

Right back at you Dale. You and others here really should try to see that you and they attack FIRST and constantly, even when your imagined 'opponents' are being decent. Of course you and your fellow haters have different standards for yourselves than for your 'opponents' so I'm sure you'll continue to be the massive hypocrites you are.

Malchus said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolution.html http://news.ufl.edu/2009/10/15/neotropical/ Interesting reading:)

Explain to us how these articles support your claim that saying God magically poofed everything 10,000 years ago because you have "FAITH" is magically more scientific than actual science. Or, explain to us how these articles specifically state that Abiogenesis and Evolution are somehow magically not sciences because the idea of understanding science offends your religious bigotries. If you can, please explain at your thread in AtBC. If you can't, please take your shiftless, lying asshole for Jesus schtick somewhere else.

"Researchers from the Smithsonian Institution and UF, among others, found that many of the dominant plant families existing in today’s Neotropical rainforests — including legumes, palms, avocado and banana — have maintained their ecological dominance despite major changes in South America’s climate and geological structure." "The new study provides evidence Neotropical rainforests were warmer and wetter in the late Paleocene than today but were composed of the same plant families that now thrive in rainforests. “We have the fossils to prove this,” Herrera said. “It is also intriguing that while the Cerrejón rainforest shows many of the characteristics of modern equivalents, plant diversity is lower.” http://news.ufl.edu/2009/10/15/neotropical/ You don't see a problem with this?

Kris said:

Malchus said:

Kris said:

Malchus said:

Kris said: Well, since neither you nor anyone else here, nor anywhere else) also don't know the whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations,

I will merely comment in passing that this is an outright lie: many people do know, including most of the posters here. You are deliberately lying, since the information has been given to you.

No, the "information" hasn't been given to me. No one on Earth has that information. That makes you a liar.

Kris said:

Malchus said:

Kris said: Well, since neither you nor anyone else here, nor anywhere else) also don't know the whats, whys, whens, and hows that are ultimately behind mutations,

I will merely comment in passing that this is an outright lie: many people do know, including most of the posters here. You are deliberately lying, since the information has been given to you.

No, the "information" hasn't been given to me. No one on Earth has that information. That makes you a liar.

I see that you also have some difficulty with reading comprehension. Apparently, you have been reading neither your own posts, nor the responses made to them. You have lied. Several times. Given that, nothing you say can be trusted - and given that your posts are generally content free, that's no hardship.

Are you Dale? If not, you're certainly as fucked up as he is. You two make a lovely couple.

Again, you lie.

Altair IV said: Incidentally, there is a pride of lions in Botswana that has recently (in the last couple of decades) learned how to take down adult elephants. A large number of them will work together to separate out a single member of the herd and mob all over it until they eventually wear it down. http://www.go2africa.com/africa-travel-articles/elephant-eaters-of-the-savuti http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/risk/lion_elephant_predation_2006.html Of course, the fact that there are indeed occasional predators for big animals like this makes little difference to the point Dale Husband made, but latching onto such a relatively minor error like that is certainly a good way to deflect the conversation away from uncomfortable topics.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22722

Some more interesting reading about scientists who have dissented from Darwinism!

Altair IV said: Anyway, although I haven't been participating myself, I've been watching from the sidelines, and I think it's about time to give PT a rest from the travails of IBIG and Kris. Unfortunately, a good number of posters seem to lack the willpower to resist them. So, in the hope that others will follow my example (and since it's time for our New Year's resolutions anyway), I thought I'd start the ball rolling with the following: I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster I Believe In God. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the thread at After The Bar Closes set up for him. I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster Kris. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the Bathroom Wall thread at After The Bar Closes. I do reserve the right to re-post this pledge from time to time as necessary, to serve as an example to others. *Note that I myself am not currently a member at ATBC, although I do lurk there. While I don't personally have any plans to join at this time, I will consider doing so if and when it should become necessary.*

http://www.pssiinternational.com/

Another great read for everyone here!

Darwinism is on it's last leg. I don't believe it will be long before it will be rejected.

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

Malchus said: Which makes you a liar. You present claims that have been shown to be false. That is called "lying".

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Malchus said:

Altair IV said: Anyway, although I haven't been participating myself, I've been watching from the sidelines, and I think it's about time to give PT a rest from the travails of IBIG and Kris. Unfortunately, a good number of posters seem to lack the willpower to resist them. So, in the hope that others will follow my example (and since it's time for our New Year's resolutions anyway), I thought I'd start the ball rolling with the following: I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster I Believe In God. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the thread at After The Bar Closes set up for him. I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster Kris. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the Bathroom Wall thread at After The Bar Closes. I do reserve the right to re-post this pledge from time to time as necessary, to serve as an example to others. *Note that I myself am not currently a member at ATBC, although I do lurk there. While I don't personally have any plans to join at this time, I will consider doing so if and when it should become necessary.*

I also agree to oblige to agree by this pledge. IBIG shows a level of dishonesty and un-Christian behavior that can be best dealt with there.

Steve P. said:

Steve P. said: In your scenario, the colony of organisms would be reduced in number according to the limited resource.

tresmal said: No, protolife increases to the carrying capacity of the Earth.There it reaches an equilibrium, but not a peaceful one. If, like rabbits, proto-organisms produce more offspring than can survive evolution kicks in. The proto-organisms would have been under huge selective pressure to take advantage of whatever resources the environment offered them. This includes other proto-organisms.

In the context of the question of when life developed a defense mechanism, your use of the word protolife suggests you believe it started before single-celled organism came into being. Yet, step-wise selection can only take place once a complete single-cell has formed. Proto-life in the form of protein microspheres do not have a metabolic system in place. The work of Sidney Fox is inconclusive regarding the ability of these microspheres to transport isotopes from outside to inside. So it seems my focus on single-celled organisms as the very first possible scenario where a defense mechanism could develop is correct.

You’ll notice that some of my terminology is different from yours. There appears to be a couple of unspoken premises in your thinking. One, that first life was something like a modern prokaryote and two that there is a fairly distinct line between life and really interesting chemistry. Both are wrong. You seem to think of these events happening much much later in the development of life than is likely.

See above. Evolution does not work on interesting chemistry. The earliest selection could take place is in the first completed single cell, which has a metabolic cycle and an outer lipid membrane. Which brings us back to the difficulty of this first cell to modify itself cell machinery in response to environmental stimuli when it has no sensory mechanism to do any sensing. While transporting nutrients from outside to inside the cell wall is doable with the simple chemical reactions going on, taking nutrients from another cell is real game changer. My focus is how did this game changing event happen? It would seem sense mechanisms must be in place before a defense mechanism could develop. It seems logical to conclude that early life did not do any attacking or stealing or borrowing as it did not have the proper machinery in place. So we have to push the timing forward.

SteveP.said:However, there would be no selective pressure to search out a new method of sourcing nutrients; namely seeking out other organisms.

This is wrong, in fact the opposite is true. I’m not sure what you mean by searching, the relevent mutations would have been occurring regardless of selective pressure. What matters is the degree to which a given mutation is rewarded or punished.

OK forget the word search. Whenever I talk to people that accept step-wise development of biological organisms, they always talk in terms of strategies, innovation, etc. I would readily accept to drop any descriptive words that have a whiff of purpose in them. Lets talk strictly in terms of changes in chemical configurations. The question in my mind here is if there is any single change in a chemical configuration, how can those chemicals react in the correct manner to maintain the ever-increasing complexity if it is continually bombarded with radiations that undoes what those chemical reactions just accomplished. It would seem that in early life, the organism had to be highly resistant to mutational change. Therefore, complexity could not have come from mutation.

SteveP. said:a mutation in an organism which in turn modifies its physio-chemical structure, allowing it to modify its established nutrient importing method (i.e. absorbing nutrients directly from the environment by now having an ‘affinity’ for like organisms.<

This is not nearly as radical a change as you seem to imagine.Early life was just so many bundles or bags of polypeptides, polysaccharides and lipids, in other words nutrients. A proto-organism that encounters a lipid molecule attached to another proto-organism is going to treat it the same way it would if that lipid was unattached. From there it’s just a matter of accumulating mutations that allow it to specialize in metabolizing other organisms

In this case, the playing field is level. If an organism's lipid layer is treated as a nutrient and can easily be degraded, then bothorganisms would exchange nutrients at the same time, degrading their respective structures simultaneously into a chemical soup. It would be a free-for-all in a colonial battle. This scenario seems highly unlikely. Each cell would have to have structural integrity that is not easily degraded. Therefore, adversarial activity could not take place in early organisms. So it seems the origin of the immune system has to be pushed further of the complexity ladder.

The presence of “predators” gave a selective advantage to “grazers” that by luck of the genetic draw happened to be less digestible than others.

But we can see that predation could not happen at the time when there was only one type of single-celled organism. It would be a zero-sum game. There was not enough differentiation of organismal complexity to provide a selectable advantage. So predation would have to wait until the first-cell differentiated, the original cell staying relatively unchanged, but the daughter lineage experiencing a significant amount of change. Then that would bring us to the question of why the original stayed the same but the offspring changed significantly.

A chicken/egg problem is usually the result of faulty premises. You are trying to solve a problem that didn’t exist.

But so far, neither Flint or yourself has provided details of just how does step-wise change get around the chicken/egg problem. You seem to be gliding right over the difficulties in the logical progression of events. I am trying to work this out and am obviously not averse to rolling up my sleeves as I myself have been trying to visualize a series of detailed events that would provide logical grounds for the origin of a defense mechanism. One of the main reasons I am skeptical of a step-wise progression of events built upon random mutation is the amount of assumptions that have to be made to get it to work. It reminds me of the parable of the seed. I need some logically fertile ground to work with.

Dale Husband said:

Malchus said: Which makes you a liar. You present claims that have been shown to be false. That is called "lying".

There is no need to say the obvious over and over, Malcus. I busted Kris completely at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/12/the-immune-syst.html#comment-243812 and that's enough. It should always be enough. Indeed, the moment he asked his asinine questions about mutations, that totally proved his dishonest trolling for all to see:

Kris said: Why do mutations happen? In other words, what is the reason they happen? Why do mutations have the ability to happen? From what and/or where did or do they get this ability, and when and why did the ability to mutate start in the first place?

Since mutations are simply changes in the sequences of DNA, and such changes can be caused by ANYTHING that causes chemical changes on molecules in general, his questions didn't need to be asked. Any real scientist with a grade school level knowledge of chemistry would already know. And that is why Kris cannot be a scientist. He has claimed to be one, so he is indeed a liar. I have not claimed to be scientist, and I certainly lack detailed knowledge about African wildlife. But I know fraud when I see it. What does Kris claim to have detailed knowledge of? Nothing that I've ever seen from him. He acts totally like a spoiled brat.

Malchus said:

Altair IV said: Anyway, although I haven't been participating myself, I've been watching from the sidelines, and I think it's about time to give PT a rest from the travails of IBIG and Kris. Unfortunately, a good number of posters seem to lack the willpower to resist them. So, in the hope that others will follow my example (and since it's time for our New Year's resolutions anyway), I thought I'd start the ball rolling with the following: I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster I Believe In God. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the thread at After The Bar Closes set up for him. I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster Kris. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the Bathroom Wall thread at After The Bar Closes. I do reserve the right to re-post this pledge from time to time as necessary, to serve as an example to others. *Note that I myself am not currently a member at ATBC, although I do lurk there. While I don't personally have any plans to join at this time, I will consider doing so if and when it should become necessary.*

I also agree to oblige to agree by this pledge. IBIG shows a level of dishonesty and un-Christian behavior that can be best dealt with there.

Let's see you keep the pledge now. We can talk ABOUT Kris and IBIG for the benefit of others who may be unfamiliar with them, but addressing them directly is pointless.

Though I must admit that watching one ignorant fool trying to hold a meta-conversation with another ignorant fool is... amusing.

IBelieveInGod said: Darwinism is on it's last leg. I don't believe it will be long before it will be rejected. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

Malchus said: Though I must admit that watching one ignorant fool trying to hold a meta-conversation with another ignorant fool is... amusing.

IBelieveInGod said:

Malchus said: Though I must admit that watching one ignorant fool trying to hold a meta-conversation with another ignorant fool is... amusing.

Are you referring to yourself and Dale Husband?

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: Darwinism is on it's last leg. I don't believe it will be long before it will be rejected. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

If you don't like it when people point out how you're a bald-faced liar who hates the Truth even more than you hate atheists and Catholics, why do you continue repeating repeatedly debunked lies?

For those interested in further conversation with either Kris or IBIG, it can be found at ATBC.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolution.html http://news.ufl.edu/2009/10/15/neotropical/ Interesting reading:)

Explain to us how these articles support your claim that saying God magically poofed everything 10,000 years ago because you have "FAITH" is magically more scientific than actual science. Or, explain to us how these articles specifically state that Abiogenesis and Evolution are somehow magically not sciences because the idea of understanding science offends your religious bigotries. If you can, please explain at your thread in AtBC. If you can't, please take your shiftless, lying asshole for Jesus schtick somewhere else.

"Researchers from the Smithsonian Institution and UF, among others, found that many of the dominant plant families existing in today’s Neotropical rainforests — including legumes, palms, avocado and banana — have maintained their ecological dominance despite major changes in South America’s climate and geological structure." "The new study provides evidence Neotropical rainforests were warmer and wetter in the late Paleocene than today but were composed of the same plant families that now thrive in rainforests. “We have the fossils to prove this,” Herrera said. “It is also intriguing that while the Cerrejón rainforest shows many of the characteristics of modern equivalents, plant diversity is lower.” http://news.ufl.edu/2009/10/15/neotropical/ You don't see a problem with this?

Hey IBIG, due to their "pledge", they're ignoring us, because they're not responding directly to us, but they're talking about us, so they're not really ignoring us, except by not responding directly to us, but by talking about us, they're not really ignoring us, so they are talking to us, just not directly, or something like that. LMAO!

The word 'coward' comes to mind.

Malchus said: For those interested in further conversation with either Kris or IBIG, it can be found at ATBC.

Stanton said:

Malchus said: For those interested in further conversation with either Kris or IBIG, it can be found at ATBC.

That would require the assumption that the trolls Kris and IBelieve can be convinced to stop coming here in favor of going to the AtBC. And the only things Kris and IBelieve have ever been convinced of is the idea that they can somehow magically browbeat everyone here into worshiping them.

Stanton said:

Malchus said: For those interested in further conversation with either Kris or IBIG, it can be found at ATBC.

That would require the assumption that the trolls Kris and IBelieve can be convinced to stop coming here in favor of going to the AtBC. And the only things Kris and IBelieve have ever been convinced of is the idea that they can somehow magically browbeat everyone here into worshiping them.

Kris said: Hey IBIG, due to their "pledge", they're ignoring us, because they're not responding directly to us, but they're talking about us, so they're not really ignoring us, except by not responding directly to us, but by talking about us, they're not really ignoring us, so they are talking to us, just not directly, or something like that. LMAO! The word 'coward' comes to mind.

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Malchus said: For those interested in further conversation with either Kris or IBIG, it can be found at ATBC.

That would require the assumption that the trolls Kris and IBelieve can be convinced to stop coming here in favor of going to the AtBC. And the only things Kris and IBelieve have ever been convinced of is the idea that they can somehow magically browbeat everyone here into worshiping them.

Have you learned anything about sharks yet? ROFLMAO!

Dale Husband said: Then, of course, they will continue to call us cowards and declare victory, like trolls are known to do. No matter what we say, they will ALWAYS bash us for not being Creationists like them, so stuck are they in the persistent delusion that Creationist views have ANYTHING to offer modern science.

Stanton said:

Kris said: Hey IBIG, due to their "pledge", they're ignoring us, because they're not responding directly to us, but they're talking about us, so they're not really ignoring us, except by not responding directly to us, but by talking about us, they're not really ignoring us, so they are talking to us, just not directly, or something like that. LMAO! The word 'coward' comes to mind.

Then do you agree and condone what IBelieve is saying, in that, science is wrong and evil because understanding science is a direct threat to his FAITH? Or do you agree with IBelieve's claims that a) Evolutionary Biology is somehow magically threatened by all scientific discoveries, especially those that confirm it, or that Evolution is "on its last legs" because people have been repeating that mantra for the last 150 years? Or, could you explain why people don't want to talk directly to you is cowardly because people are tired of you alternating between constantly spewing invectives and insults, and being deliberately vague?

Dale Husband said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: Darwinism is on it's last leg. I don't believe it will be long before it will be rejected. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

If you don't like it when people point out how you're a bald-faced liar who hates the Truth even more than you hate atheists and Catholics, why do you continue repeating repeatedly debunked lies?

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Stanton, ANY responsible scientist would agree with that! That does not at all imply allegiance to any form of Creationism. So that petition is misleading in its implications. May I sign that phony petition?

Dale Husband said:

Stanton said:

Malchus said: For those interested in further conversation with either Kris or IBIG, it can be found at ATBC.

That would require the assumption that the trolls Kris and IBelieve can be convinced to stop coming here in favor of going to the AtBC. And the only things Kris and IBelieve have ever been convinced of is the idea that they can somehow magically browbeat everyone here into worshiping them.

Good point. Let's just stop posting here at all and wait for those bastards to come to us on more recent comment threads. Then, of course, they will continue to call us cowards and declare victory, like trolls are known to do. No matter what we say, they will ALWAYS bash us for not being Creationists like them, so stuck are they in the persistent delusion that Creationist views have ANYTHING to offer modern science.

Stanton said:

Kris said: Hey IBIG, due to their "pledge", they're ignoring us, because they're not responding directly to us, but they're talking about us, so they're not really ignoring us, except by not responding directly to us, but by talking about us, they're not really ignoring us, so they are talking to us, just not directly, or something like that. LMAO! The word 'coward' comes to mind.

Then do you agree and condone what IBelieve is saying, in that, science is wrong and evil because understanding science is a direct threat to his FAITH? Or do you agree with IBelieve's claims that a) Evolutionary Biology is somehow magically threatened by all scientific discoveries, especially those that confirm it, or that Evolution is "on its last legs" because people have been repeating that mantra for the last 150 years? Or, could you explain why people don't want to talk directly to you is cowardly because people are tired of you alternating between constantly spewing invectives and insults, and being deliberately vague?

Stanton said:

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Malchus said: For those interested in further conversation with either Kris or IBIG, it can be found at ATBC.

That would require the assumption that the trolls Kris and IBelieve can be convinced to stop coming here in favor of going to the AtBC. And the only things Kris and IBelieve have ever been convinced of is the idea that they can somehow magically browbeat everyone here into worshiping them.

Have you learned anything about sharks yet? ROFLMAO!

If you're not here to troll, then why do you think you can convince people of your positions if you constantly insult people, spew invectives, and launch into childish rants whenever people ask you to clarify your deliberately vague platitudes?

Why do you have such a problem with careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory? Are you afraid the theory won’t hold up?

Why is the petition “phony”?

Simply because you say so? Do you have equal to or better credentials than all the people who have signed the petition? Are you just jealous because you’re not qualified to sign the petition?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

Kris said: Hey IBIG, due to their "pledge", they're ignoring us, because they're not responding directly to us, but they're talking about us, so they're not really ignoring us, except by not responding directly to us, but by talking about us, they're not really ignoring us, so they are talking to us, just not directly, or something like that. LMAO! The word 'coward' comes to mind.

Then do you agree and condone what IBelieve is saying, in that, science is wrong and evil because understanding science is a direct threat to his FAITH? Or do you agree with IBelieve's claims that a) Evolutionary Biology is somehow magically threatened by all scientific discoveries, especially those that confirm it, or that Evolution is "on its last legs" because people have been repeating that mantra for the last 150 years? Or, could you explain why people don't want to talk directly to you is cowardly because people are tired of you alternating between constantly spewing invectives and insults, and being deliberately vague?

When did I say that science is wrong and evil? There are those who use science for evil, but there are also who use religion for evil. Now you are lying and putting words in my mouth!!! How can you expect to convince people of your position if you constantly lie about them, insult them, belittle them, etc... There are many scientists who don't hold your view of evolution, do you also think they think science is evil? you are a silly person.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: Darwinism is on it's last leg. I don't believe it will be long before it will be rejected. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

If you don't like it when people point out how you're a bald-faced liar who hates the Truth even more than you hate atheists and Catholics, why do you continue repeating repeatedly debunked lies?

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Stanton, ANY responsible scientist would agree with that! That does not at all imply allegiance to any form of Creationism. So that petition is misleading in its implications. May I sign that phony petition?

Why do you have such a problem with careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory?

Why is the petition "phony"? Simply because you say so?

Do you have equal to or better credentials than all the people who have signed the petition? Are you just jealous because you're not qualified to sign the petition?

Flint said:

Why do you have such a problem with careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory? Are you afraid the theory won’t hold up?

After a few milliion experiments over well over a century, there's really little chance anymore that the theory "won't hold up". The issue isn't with careful examination of anything. The issue is with the implication (and let's be honest, what's trumpeted about with this statement is the implication, not the words themselves) is that the entire theory is bogus.

Why is the petition “phony”?

Because it is being misrepresented as something it is not. As Dale said, ANY scientist would agree with that statement in principle. ALL scientific theories are regarded as being in principle imperfect or incomplete in some ways. But in signing on to this statement, the scientist is being represented as saying that he doubts that evolution happens AT ALL. This representation is phony.

Simply because you say so? Do you have equal to or better credentials than all the people who have signed the petition? Are you just jealous because you’re not qualified to sign the petition?

Imagine if you were an astronomer asked to sign a petition saying you are skeptical that Einstein's theory of gravity COMPLETELY accounts for the earth revolving around the sun, and that careful examination and testing of Einstein's equations should be encouraged. Now, if you were an ivory tower astronomer, you'd gladly sign on to such a statement, on the grounds that Einstein's theory may well be imperfect or incomplete, and careful examination of EVERYTHING is ALWAYS acceptable. But if you were untrustworthy, you MIGHT use such a petition as part of the argument for a geocentric universe, to fit some religious doctrinal requirements. And if you created the petition with the goal of tricking unsuspecting astronomers into LOOKING like they supported your religious idiocy, then your petition would be bogus. The astronomers would in no way even remotely agree with you, but you would be REPRESENTING them as agreeing with you. And that's dishonest. And so when you read how creationists position this petition, they DO NOT say that scientists favor careful examination of all theories. They instead say that the signatories DOUBT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ITSELF. Which most of them do not, and which the statement signed onto doesn't say anyway.

Cubist said:

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: Darwinism is on it's last leg. I don't believe it will be long before it will be rejected. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

If you don't like it when people point out how you're a bald-faced liar who hates the Truth even more than you hate atheists and Catholics, why do you continue repeating repeatedly debunked lies?

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Stanton, ANY responsible scientist would agree with that! That does not at all imply allegiance to any form of Creationism. So that petition is misleading in its implications. May I sign that phony petition?

Why do you have such a problem with careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory?

Personally, I don't know of anyone who has any problems with careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory. I'm also unsure what point you're trying to make here, inasmuch as Darwinian theory is really just a subset of modern evolutionary theory; we do, after all, have a lot more data/evidence than was available in Darwin's day, and we do, after all, know of rather more evolutionary processes than Darwin had any notion of. I do, however, think that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory" does not include exhuming old, long-resolved disagreements about (various aspects of) Darwinism as if those old, long-resolved disagreements are valid reasons to doubt modern evolutionary theory. Similarly, I don't think that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory" includes presenting a gross misinterpretation of scientific theory as if said misinterpretation actually did present any kind of valid challenge to modern evolutionary theory. Nor do I think that any person who leaves out relevant data which contradicts their own position, can justly be credited with "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory".
Do you think it's scientifically valid to leave out relevant data, Kris? Do you think it's scientifically valid to argue against a misrepresentation of a theory, and not against the actual theory itself? Do you think it's scientifically valid to revive ancient disagreements that have long since been resolved, as if those ancient disagreements constituted good reasons to doubt a current theory?

Why is the petition "phony"? Simply because you say so?

One could argue that the petition itself is not phony... but that petition has been exploited by the Discovery Institute, for PR purposes, in a way which definitely is phony. Personally, I'm not just "skeptical" that "random mutation and natural selection" can account for "the complexity of life". Rather, I know that at best, "random mutation and natural selection" are only able to account for part of "the complexity of life", and the reason I know this is because I'm aware of other relevant factors, including founder effect and genetic drift, which can affect the course of evolution in addition to the two factors (those being "random mutation" and "natural selection") which are explicitly mentioned in the statement.
One can be "skeptical" of the proposition that hydrogen atoms account for the properties of water, without doubting the validity of chemistry; anyone who presented a petition in support of the notion that chemistry is not regarded as valid by people who are "skeptical" of the proposition that hydrogen atoms account for the properties of water, would be acting in a deceitful manner. Similarly, anyone who presents a petition in support of the notion that modern evolutionary theory is not regarded as valid by people who are "skeptical" of the proposition that random mutation and natural selection account for the complexity of life, would be acting in a deceitful manner.
Do you think the DI uses this petition in a manner which is not deceitful, Kris?

Do you have equal to or better credentials than all the people who have signed the petition? Are you just jealous because you're not qualified to sign the petition?

Since you've decided to argue on the basis of credentials: Inasmuch as the petition deals with biological science, it follows that any of its signatories who are lawyers, dentists, plumbers, farmers, or generally not scientists should be disregarded, on the basis of their lack of credentials.
I, myself, would acknowledge that it's possible for a person to be knowledgeable about evolutionary biology even if they don't happen to have any sort of 'official' certification to that effect... but you did explicitly speak of "equal or better credentials", Kris, as opposed to "equal or better knowledge". So obviously, you wouldn't accept "hey, credentials or not, I do know as much as some of the signatories" if Dale used that as a response to your questions here... because you aren't a flaming hypocrite, right?
Anyway, 'lack of credentials' should be sufficient reason to disregard any of the petition's signatories who are scientists in fields unrelated to biology. And since the petition is a statement about the validity of evolutionary theory, surely you'd agree that those biologist-signatories who lack background in evolutionary science should, because of their lack of credentials, be disregarded, shouldn't you?
Kris, if you're going to bring up 'credentials' as a reason to dismiss criticism of the petition, it would only be logical and consistent for you to also dismiss those signatories to the petition who are neither scientists, nor biologists, nor yet evolutionary biologists. I'm sure that a truth-seeking person like yourself would not demonstrate yourself to be a hypocrite by putting any value on any non-scientist, non-biologist, and non-evolutionary-biologist signatories to that petition... so could you please tell us how many signatories to that petition are, themselves, evolutionary biologists?

Kris said: Oh, so Darwinian theory is just a "subset" of "modern" evolutionary theory. Nice try, but that is one of the most flagrant acts of bullshit word games I've ever seen. I stopped reading after that. If I need another good laugh I may read the rest of it later.

Kris said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

Kris said: Hey IBIG, due to their "pledge", they're ignoring us, because they're not responding directly to us, but they're talking about us, so they're not really ignoring us, except by not responding directly to us, but by talking about us, they're not really ignoring us, so they are talking to us, just not directly, or something like that. LMAO! The word 'coward' comes to mind.

Then do you agree and condone what IBelieve is saying, in that, science is wrong and evil because understanding science is a direct threat to his FAITH? Or do you agree with IBelieve's claims that a) Evolutionary Biology is somehow magically threatened by all scientific discoveries, especially those that confirm it, or that Evolution is "on its last legs" because people have been repeating that mantra for the last 150 years? Or, could you explain why people don't want to talk directly to you is cowardly because people are tired of you alternating between constantly spewing invectives and insults, and being deliberately vague?

When did I say that science is wrong and evil? There are those who use science for evil, but there are also who use religion for evil. Now you are lying and putting words in my mouth!!! How can you expect to convince people of your position if you constantly lie about them, insult them, belittle them, etc... There are many scientists who don't hold your view of evolution, do you also think they think science is evil? you are a silly person.

Stanton, like most others here, loves to lie, insult, belittle, attack, distort, misinterpret, misrepresent, and put words in people's mouths; at least the people who don't instantly and obediently kiss his ass and agree with everything he says. I think it's funny that they think you and I are the same person, especially when they virtually all act like clones of each other.

mplavcan said:

Kris said: Oh, so Darwinian theory is just a "subset" of "modern" evolutionary theory. Nice try, but that is one of the most flagrant acts of bullshit word games I've ever seen. I stopped reading after that. If I need another good laugh I may read the rest of it later.

Given the profound ignorance of that statement, I suspect that you rarely start reading at all. But what ever makes you feel good about yourself -- some people wear foil under their hates, some people have imaginary friends, some people shuffle around Central Park at night sneering at the world and talking about how they know more than anyone else.

Kris said:

mplavcan said:

Kris said: Oh, so Darwinian theory is just a "subset" of "modern" evolutionary theory. Nice try, but that is one of the most flagrant acts of bullshit word games I've ever seen. I stopped reading after that. If I need another good laugh I may read the rest of it later.

Given the profound ignorance of that statement, I suspect that you rarely start reading at all. But what ever makes you feel good about yourself -- some people wear foil under their hates, some people have imaginary friends, some people shuffle around Central Park at night sneering at the world and talking about how they know more than anyone else.

Darwin's name is ALL OVER the ToE no matter who says otherwise. Trying to call it modern evolutionary theory, or the modern synthesis, or any of the other bullshit names is just a game to get out of admitting that virtually everyone sees and accepts it as Darwin's theory. You simply can't take Darwin out of the ToE. You guys sure do like to lump anything related to the terms creation, creationism, and ID into the same basket, no matter who says there can be various interpretations of those terms, but when it comes to the ToE, all of a sudden it can be conveniently split into what ever 'subsets', versions, interpretations, or titles you game players want.

Stanton said:

Malchus said: For those interested in further conversation with either Kris or IBIG, it can be found at ATBC.

That would require the assumption that the trolls Kris and IBelieve can be convinced to stop coming here in favor of going to the AtBC. And the only things Kris and IBelieve have ever been convinced of is the idea that they can somehow magically browbeat everyone here into worshiping them.

mplavcan said:

Kris said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

Kris said: Hey IBIG, due to their "pledge", they're ignoring us, because they're not responding directly to us, but they're talking about us, so they're not really ignoring us, except by not responding directly to us, but by talking about us, they're not really ignoring us, so they are talking to us, just not directly, or something like that. LMAO! The word 'coward' comes to mind.

Then do you agree and condone what IBelieve is saying, in that, science is wrong and evil because understanding science is a direct threat to his FAITH? Or do you agree with IBelieve's claims that a) Evolutionary Biology is somehow magically threatened by all scientific discoveries, especially those that confirm it, or that Evolution is "on its last legs" because people have been repeating that mantra for the last 150 years? Or, could you explain why people don't want to talk directly to you is cowardly because people are tired of you alternating between constantly spewing invectives and insults, and being deliberately vague?

When did I say that science is wrong and evil? There are those who use science for evil, but there are also who use religion for evil. Now you are lying and putting words in my mouth!!! How can you expect to convince people of your position if you constantly lie about them, insult them, belittle them, etc... There are many scientists who don't hold your view of evolution, do you also think they think science is evil? you are a silly person.

Stanton, like most others here, loves to lie, insult, belittle, attack, distort, misinterpret, misrepresent, and put words in people's mouths; at least the people who don't instantly and obediently kiss his ass and agree with everything he says. I think it's funny that they think you and I are the same person, especially when they virtually all act like clones of each other.

No.....no, you are definitely NOT the same person as IBIG. I never thought I would see the day, but there is actually someone even worse. So tell me, honestly, have you EVER gotten laid?

mplavcan said:

Kris said:

mplavcan said:

Kris said: Oh, so Darwinian theory is just a "subset" of "modern" evolutionary theory. Nice try, but that is one of the most flagrant acts of bullshit word games I've ever seen. I stopped reading after that. If I need another good laugh I may read the rest of it later.

Given the profound ignorance of that statement, I suspect that you rarely start reading at all. But what ever makes you feel good about yourself -- some people wear foil under their hates, some people have imaginary friends, some people shuffle around Central Park at night sneering at the world and talking about how they know more than anyone else.

Darwin's name is ALL OVER the ToE no matter who says otherwise. Trying to call it modern evolutionary theory, or the modern synthesis, or any of the other bullshit names is just a game to get out of admitting that virtually everyone sees and accepts it as Darwin's theory. You simply can't take Darwin out of the ToE. You guys sure do like to lump anything related to the terms creation, creationism, and ID into the same basket, no matter who says there can be various interpretations of those terms, but when it comes to the ToE, all of a sudden it can be conveniently split into what ever 'subsets', versions, interpretations, or titles you game players want.

Silly troll. No one said that Darwin was being removed. Natural selection is just one part of the Modern Synthesis. Go read about it. When you get to High School, you might read about it (if you are lucky enough to go to a High School that actually teaches evolutionary biology).

Malchus said:

Stanton said:

Malchus said: For those interested in further conversation with either Kris or IBIG, it can be found at ATBC.

That would require the assumption that the trolls Kris and IBelieve can be convinced to stop coming here in favor of going to the AtBC. And the only things Kris and IBelieve have ever been convinced of is the idea that they can somehow magically browbeat everyone here into worshiping them.

Kris is only trying to get a rise out of you. He has provided no content, no argument, no indication that he has any knowledge of the field - he is a troll, deliberately trying to provoke a response. Ignore him or continue to let him manipulate you, but as you have already properly assessed: he will not hold a rational or even reasonable discussion. I've prodded him myself a few times, just to watch his response and catalog his invectives, but he has become boring and repetitive. Someday I would actually like to have a discussion of evolutionary theory with a creationist who actually displayed a modicum of intelligence and a familiarity with the science more profound than can be gleaned from a skimming creationist websites. Neither Kris, nor IBIG, nor Steve P, nor Johan, nor any of the current crop appear capable of doing much more than repeating "talking points" they don't understand. Again, I would welcome an intelligent challenge to evolutionary theory. I would welcome discussion with someone who could provide it. This current crop of trolls? They can't even show creativity in their insults.

The real problem that you and others obviously have is that many scientists don’t accept the ToE as gospel and would like to encourage close examination of it. If the ToE is credible, and based on actual evidence, neither you nor anyone else should have any problem with a continuing close examination of it, no matter who encourages it.

Darwin’s name is ALL OVER the ToE no matter who says otherwise. Trying to call it modern evolutionary theory, or the modern synthesis, or any of the other bullshit names is just a game to get out of admitting that virtually everyone sees and accepts it as Darwin’s theory. You simply can’t take Darwin out of the ToE.

when it comes to the ToE, all of a sudden it can be conveniently split into what ever ‘subsets’, versions, interpretations, or titles you game players want.

Kris said: More times and by more women than you can imagine. Seriously and honestly. You guys are really running out of ammunition. You might as well ask me if I've ever had a chocolate milkshake. It would have as much relevance to this argument.

mplavcan said:

Malchus said:

Stanton said:

Malchus said: For those interested in further conversation with either Kris or IBIG, it can be found at ATBC.

That would require the assumption that the trolls Kris and IBelieve can be convinced to stop coming here in favor of going to the AtBC. And the only things Kris and IBelieve have ever been convinced of is the idea that they can somehow magically browbeat everyone here into worshiping them.

Kris is only trying to get a rise out of you. He has provided no content, no argument, no indication that he has any knowledge of the field - he is a troll, deliberately trying to provoke a response. Ignore him or continue to let him manipulate you, but as you have already properly assessed: he will not hold a rational or even reasonable discussion. I've prodded him myself a few times, just to watch his response and catalog his invectives, but he has become boring and repetitive. Someday I would actually like to have a discussion of evolutionary theory with a creationist who actually displayed a modicum of intelligence and a familiarity with the science more profound than can be gleaned from a skimming creationist websites. Neither Kris, nor IBIG, nor Steve P, nor Johan, nor any of the current crop appear capable of doing much more than repeating "talking points" they don't understand. Again, I would welcome an intelligent challenge to evolutionary theory. I would welcome discussion with someone who could provide it. This current crop of trolls? They can't even show creativity in their insults.

Luskin came to my University last winter. It was sad. He would not allow any discussion or debate. The talk that he gave (after showing the movie "Expelled") went on so long that half the audience was gone by the time he finished. Most of what he said was the same old canned stuff. The only striking thing was the way he complained about how irrelevant the Dover case was, and then spent 45 minutes railing against Judge Jones. After finishing, he allowed only one person at a time at a microphone, with only one question each, and literally went on for 15 minutes "answering" each question (and failing to answer a single question in the process). I stuck around through 3 questions. Most of the audience left when I left, effectively giving up on engaging in anything meaningful. So even the "Big Guns" of the ID camp refuse to engage in meaningful discussion.

Sigh. Paul suggested that Kris, IBIG and some other trolls are Dembski's students working hard for extra credit. Could be.

Maybe they're just student lawyers honing their skills. You know, the kind of lawyers who don't care about right or wrong, truthfulness or falsehood. All they care about is arguing, and winning the argument. Nothing else matters.

That's how these ignorant know-nothing trolls come across to me. They think that because they question evolutionary theory that science must stop and re-assess all the conclusions of the last 150 years - and justify it all to them. How self-important they are.

Real, working scientists have no time for their foolishness. No arguments here will change anything.

It reminds me that Mankind's greatest achievement, by one measure, is the science and technology of modern civilization. That's one way to look at it.

But another way to look at it, another facet on the crystal if you will, is that religion and God are Mankind's greatest achievement (greatest invention). It's all depends upon your perspective.

I like Gould's NOMA which represents different faces on my many faceted crystal. I just don't like it when devotees of one facet say that I can't have my facet, that they want to take my facet away and make it theirs, so that I have to view the world through their eyes. That rubs me the wrong way.

I like my facet and want to keep it. They can have theirs. Non-overlapping Magisteria. What's wrong with these people?

mplavcan said:

Kris said:

mplavcan said:

Kris said: Oh, so Darwinian theory is just a "subset" of "modern" evolutionary theory. Nice try, but that is one of the most flagrant acts of bullshit word games I've ever seen. I stopped reading after that. If I need another good laugh I may read the rest of it later.

Given the profound ignorance of that statement, I suspect that you rarely start reading at all. But what ever makes you feel good about yourself -- some people wear foil under their hates, some people have imaginary friends, some people shuffle around Central Park at night sneering at the world and talking about how they know more than anyone else.

Darwin's name is ALL OVER the ToE no matter who says otherwise. Trying to call it modern evolutionary theory, or the modern synthesis, or any of the other bullshit names is just a game to get out of admitting that virtually everyone sees and accepts it as Darwin's theory. You simply can't take Darwin out of the ToE. You guys sure do like to lump anything related to the terms creation, creationism, and ID into the same basket, no matter who says there can be various interpretations of those terms, but when it comes to the ToE, all of a sudden it can be conveniently split into what ever 'subsets', versions, interpretations, or titles you game players want.

Silly troll. No one said that Darwin was being removed. Natural selection is just one part of the Modern Synthesis. Go read about it. When you get to High School, you might read about it (if you are lucky enough to go to a High School that actually teaches evolutionary biology).

mplavcan said:

Malchus said:

Stanton said:

Malchus said: For those interested in further conversation with either Kris or IBIG, it can be found at ATBC.

That would require the assumption that the trolls Kris and IBelieve can be convinced to stop coming here in favor of going to the AtBC. And the only things Kris and IBelieve have ever been convinced of is the idea that they can somehow magically browbeat everyone here into worshiping them.

Kris is only trying to get a rise out of you. He has provided no content, no argument, no indication that he has any knowledge of the field - he is a troll, deliberately trying to provoke a response. Ignore him or continue to let him manipulate you, but as you have already properly assessed: he will not hold a rational or even reasonable discussion. I've prodded him myself a few times, just to watch his response and catalog his invectives, but he has become boring and repetitive. Someday I would actually like to have a discussion of evolutionary theory with a creationist who actually displayed a modicum of intelligence and a familiarity with the science more profound than can be gleaned from a skimming creationist websites. Neither Kris, nor IBIG, nor Steve P, nor Johan, nor any of the current crop appear capable of doing much more than repeating "talking points" they don't understand. Again, I would welcome an intelligent challenge to evolutionary theory. I would welcome discussion with someone who could provide it. This current crop of trolls? They can't even show creativity in their insults.

Luskin came to my University last winter. It was sad. He would not allow any discussion or debate. The talk that he gave (after showing the movie "Expelled") went on so long that half the audience was gone by the time he finished. Most of what he said was the same old canned stuff. The only striking thing was the way he complained about how irrelevant the Dover case was, and then spent 45 minutes railing against Judge Jones. After finishing, he allowed only one person at a time at a microphone, with only one question each, and literally went on for 15 minutes "answering" each question (and failing to answer a single question in the process). I stuck around through 3 questions. Most of the audience left when I left, effectively giving up on engaging in anything meaningful. So even the "Big Guns" of the ID camp refuse to engage in meaningful discussion.

Malchus said: My observation is that they avoid debate because they have no way to address the various counter-arguments. Consider the fact that nothing "new" has come from the entire ID movement in over a decade. Nothing. A tiny handful of articles in far from respectable journals that must be twisted to fit ID; no prominent scientists defecting to their position; no research facilities working on ID projects; etc.

John Vanko said: Sigh. Paul suggested that Kris, IBIG and some other trolls are Dembski's students working hard for extra credit. Could be. Maybe they're just student lawyers honing their skills. You know, the kind of lawyers who don't care about right or wrong, truthfulness or falsehood. All they care about is arguing, and winning the argument. Nothing else matters. That's how these ignorant know-nothing trolls come across to me. They think that because they question evolutionary theory that science must stop and re-assess all the conclusions of the last 150 years - and justify it all to them. How self-important they are. Real, working scientists have no time for their foolishness. No arguments here will change anything. It reminds me that Mankind's greatest achievement, by one measure, is the science and technology of modern civilization. That's one way to look at it. But another way to look at it, another facet on the crystal if you will, is that religion and God are Mankind's greatest achievement (greatest invention). It's all depends upon your perspective. I like Gould's NOMA which represents different faces on my many faceted crystal. I just don't like it when devotees of one facet say that I can't have my facet, that they want to take my facet away and make it theirs, so that I have to view the world through their eyes. That rubs me the wrong way. I like my facet and want to keep it. They can have theirs. Non-overlapping Magisteria. What's wrong with these people?

Flint said:

The real problem that you and others obviously have is that many scientists don’t accept the ToE as gospel and would like to encourage close examination of it. If the ToE is credible, and based on actual evidence, neither you nor anyone else should have any problem with a continuing close examination of it, no matter who encourages it.

ALL scientists encourage close examination of ALL theories. Why single out evolutionary theory for special treatment, if not to try to create the false impression that evolutionary theory doesn't rest on an enormous amount of consistent evidence just as other theories do, or is in any way qualitativey different from any other scientific theory? Also, there's a difference between saying the earth is not perfectly spherical, and saying it's flat. Dishonest critics keep trying to create the false impression that it's all-or-nothing, that if something is 99% understood, that's no better than 0%. No scientist accepts ANY theory as gospel, but that does NOT mean that scientists entirely reject the fundamental understandings embodied in theories that have withstood many tests.

Darwin’s name is ALL OVER the ToE no matter who says otherwise. Trying to call it modern evolutionary theory, or the modern synthesis, or any of the other bullshit names is just a game to get out of admitting that virtually everyone sees and accepts it as Darwin’s theory. You simply can’t take Darwin out of the ToE.

But nobody is trying to deny Darwin's role in the development of evolutionary theory. His role is fully understood and fully appreciated. And what's considered remarkable is that although a vast amount has been learned since Darwin's time, and Darwin's theory is seen as increasingly incomplete as more is learned that Darwin never knew, nonetheless that portion of the theory that he originated remains valid. You can't take Newton's name out of the development of the theory of gravity either. But there's a reason gravity is not called "Newtonism". Can you guess what that reason might be?

when it comes to the ToE, all of a sudden it can be conveniently split into what ever ‘subsets’, versions, interpretations, or titles you game players want.

No, Darwin's understanding was as incomplete as ANY scientist's understanding of ANY current theory was 150 years ago. Darwin's portion of the theory was a subset of current theory much as Newton's theory of gravity was a subset of current theories. This isn't a game in any way, this is a reflection of the fact that continuing research results in continuing increases in knowledge. (And in case it hasn't been explained to you, the objection to referring to the current and MUCH more complete theory as "Darwinism" is more than just inaccurate and misleading. Current theory is the result of many tens of thousands of scientists doing many tens of millions of experiments and studies for well over a century since Darwin died. It's religions who worship individuals. The attempt to tar science with that brush is understandably resisted.)

Malchus said:

John Vanko said: Sigh. Paul suggested that Kris, IBIG and some other trolls are Dembski's students working hard for extra credit. Could be. Maybe they're just student lawyers honing their skills. You know, the kind of lawyers who don't care about right or wrong, truthfulness or falsehood. All they care about is arguing, and winning the argument. Nothing else matters. That's how these ignorant know-nothing trolls come across to me. They think that because they question evolutionary theory that science must stop and re-assess all the conclusions of the last 150 years - and justify it all to them. How self-important they are. Real, working scientists have no time for their foolishness. No arguments here will change anything. It reminds me that Mankind's greatest achievement, by one measure, is the science and technology of modern civilization. That's one way to look at it. But another way to look at it, another facet on the crystal if you will, is that religion and God are Mankind's greatest achievement (greatest invention). It's all depends upon your perspective. I like Gould's NOMA which represents different faces on my many faceted crystal. I just don't like it when devotees of one facet say that I can't have my facet, that they want to take my facet away and make it theirs, so that I have to view the world through their eyes. That rubs me the wrong way. I like my facet and want to keep it. They can have theirs. Non-overlapping Magisteria. What's wrong with these people?

I am always puzzled why creationists demand that science support their position. I suspect that it is because they recognize that science alone confers genuine respectability of a position in the modern world. After all, science has produced our technology, our health, our transportation systems, our tools that surround us constantly. Religion, in the same period of time, has produced nothing of value for Man. Nothing except endless rehash of thousand year-old points. I suspect the failure is galling to them.

Conveniently splitting.

mplavcan said:

Malchus said:

John Vanko said: Sigh. Paul suggested that Kris, IBIG and some other trolls are Dembski's students working hard for extra credit. Could be. Maybe they're just student lawyers honing their skills. You know, the kind of lawyers who don't care about right or wrong, truthfulness or falsehood. All they care about is arguing, and winning the argument. Nothing else matters. That's how these ignorant know-nothing trolls come across to me. They think that because they question evolutionary theory that science must stop and re-assess all the conclusions of the last 150 years - and justify it all to them. How self-important they are. Real, working scientists have no time for their foolishness. No arguments here will change anything. It reminds me that Mankind's greatest achievement, by one measure, is the science and technology of modern civilization. That's one way to look at it. But another way to look at it, another facet on the crystal if you will, is that religion and God are Mankind's greatest achievement (greatest invention). It's all depends upon your perspective. I like Gould's NOMA which represents different faces on my many faceted crystal. I just don't like it when devotees of one facet say that I can't have my facet, that they want to take my facet away and make it theirs, so that I have to view the world through their eyes. That rubs me the wrong way. I like my facet and want to keep it. They can have theirs. Non-overlapping Magisteria. What's wrong with these people?

I am always puzzled why creationists demand that science support their position. I suspect that it is because they recognize that science alone confers genuine respectability of a position in the modern world. After all, science has produced our technology, our health, our transportation systems, our tools that surround us constantly. Religion, in the same period of time, has produced nothing of value for Man. Nothing except endless rehash of thousand year-old points. I suspect the failure is galling to them.

Their options are limited. Unless they can reconcile science with religion (which many indeed do) they can 1) give up their religion 2) deny the science outright and declare it invalid if it conflicts with their tenets 3) try to claim that the science actually supports their tenets

I think there’s a fourth option [or maybe it’s 1a)], and that is to modify their religious beliefs.

Flint said:

I think there’s a fourth option [or maybe it’s 1a)], and that is to modify their religious beliefs.

I'm convinced that neither option 1 nor 1a really IS an option at all. The beliefs are totally intractable, non-negotiable, rigidly fixed. The problem as I see it is, science's explanations are largely correct, usually obvious once understood, and extremely useful. Chances are, therefore, that scientific explanations are RIGHT. And of course, creationist doctrine is also RIGHT. Therefore, science (properly understood) MUST support creationist doctrine. QED.

Creationists, as far as I can tell, sincerely believe that scientists start with foregone conclusions and simply keep researching until they find sufficient support, because that's the only way creationists are able to think. And therefore, where science is in error (that is, where it refutes creationism), it MUST be the case that those who did the science started with wrong conclusions.

Once again, it's necessary to understand the nature of evidence. To a creationist, evidence is anything that supports his foregone conclusions whether or not observations are involved, or refute him, or if it has to be fabricated. Conversely, anything NOT supporting his needs is not evidence. People here simply don't EVER seem to grasp this. They continue to demand evidence, the creationist continues to provide evidence (that is, they SAY what they believe, which is good sound solid creationist "evidence"), and both sides are frustrated.

Flint said: Creationists, as far as I can tell, sincerely believe that scientists start with foregone conclusions and simply keep researching until they find sufficient support , because that's the only way creationists are able to think. {Bold added for emphasis}

Altair IV said: Anyway, although I haven't been participating myself, I've been watching from the sidelines, and I think it's about time to give PT a rest from the travails of IBIG and Kris. Unfortunately, a good number of posters seem to lack the willpower to resist them. So, in the hope that others will follow my example (and since it's time for our New Year's resolutions anyway), I thought I'd start the ball rolling with the following: I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster I Believe In God. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the thread at After The Bar Closes set up for him. I hereby pledge to never again directly respond on the Panda's Thumb to any comment by the poster Kris. Should he wish to continue a dialog, he may do so on the Bathroom Wall thread at After The Bar Closes. I do reserve the right to re-post this pledge from time to time as necessary, to serve as an example to others. *Note that I myself am not currently a member at ATBC, although I do lurk there. While I don't personally have any plans to join at this time, I will consider doing so if and when it should become necessary.*

John Vanko said: Sigh. Paul suggested that Kris, IBIG and some other trolls are Dembski's students working hard for extra credit. Could be. Maybe they're just student lawyers honing their skills. You know, the kind of lawyers who don't care about right or wrong, truthfulness or falsehood. All they care about is arguing, and winning the argument. Nothing else matters. That's how these ignorant know-nothing trolls come across to me. They think that because they question evolutionary theory that science must stop and re-assess all the conclusions of the last 150 years - and justify it all to them. How self-important they are. Real, working scientists have no time for their foolishness. No arguments here will change anything. It reminds me that Mankind's greatest achievement, by one measure, is the science and technology of modern civilization. That's one way to look at it. But another way to look at it, another facet on the crystal if you will, is that religion and God are Mankind's greatest achievement (greatest invention). It's all depends upon your perspective. I like Gould's NOMA which represents different faces on my many faceted crystal. I just don't like it when devotees of one facet say that I can't have my facet, that they want to take my facet away and make it theirs, so that I have to view the world through their eyes. That rubs me the wrong way. I like my facet and want to keep it. They can have theirs. Non-overlapping Magisteria. What's wrong with these people?

Many people who lived or live in more basic/primitive ways were or are often happier than many people who have the latest science and technology available to them.

Doc Bill said:

Many people who lived or live in more basic/primitive ways were or are often happier than many people who have the latest science and technology available to them.

I didn't read any further than this comment which reflects an undereducated mind that is childishly, stereotypically, ignorant bordering on pathological stupidity. A mind housed in a plump little body that has always enjoyed clean, potable hot and cold running water, sanitary living conditions, never too hot nor too cold, never too dry nor too wet, always clean, always fed, always well, always comfortable. And those are just the basics provided by science and technology. The closest a mind like this gets to the "happier native" is National Geographic, but only by looking at the pictures. I can't imagine having a mind of such narrow, superficial, spoiled arrogance. It must be a very cold, dark terrifying place.

Kris said: "The real problem is overpopulation of humans. ... What we humans really should be working on is worldwide birth control ..."

I went to the "I Believe In God" thread to respond to Kris' latest. Kris, it's under "forum" in the top menu. That's where people are trying to steer you so we can have our conversation without continuously going off on tangents on these threads.

Please don't go off about who's to blame for the derailing, just be part of the solution and go there, ok? Thanks.

Ah, sorry, it's to the bathroom wall in the forum, not IBIG. thank you.

Malchus said: I am always puzzled why creationists demand that science support their position. I suspect that it is because they recognize that science alone confers genuine respectability of a position in the modern world. After all, science has produced our technology, our health, our transportation systems, our tools that surround us constantly. Religion, in the same period of time, has produced nothing of value for Man. Nothing except endless rehash of thousand year-old points. I suspect the failure is galling to them.

DNFTT

mrg said: DNFTT

fnxtr said: I went to the "I Believe In God" thread to respond to Kris' latest. Kris, it's under "forum" in the top menu. That's where people are trying to steer you so we can have our conversation without continuously going off on tangents on these threads. Please don't go off about who's to blame for the derailing, just be part of the solution and go there, ok? Thanks.

If anyone wants to respond to Kris they can do so on the Bathroom Wall. He is too much of a coward to go there, so if no one responds to him here, this is the end for him.

Malchus said: The sole difficulty I see with this position is that occasionally - very occasionally - a troll might throw up a point (deliberate word choice, I'm afraid) worth discussing. Even more occasionally, discussing that point might involve followup questions to the troll. It hasn't happened yet with any of the more recent trolls: Kris, IBIG, Johann, etc. but it might. As a Christian, I live in eternal hope.

Malchus said:

fnxtr said: I went to the "I Believe In God" thread to respond to Kris' latest. Kris, it's under "forum" in the top menu. That's where people are trying to steer you so we can have our conversation without continuously going off on tangents on these threads. Please don't go off about who's to blame for the derailing, just be part of the solution and go there, ok? Thanks.

The sole difficulty I see with this position is that occasionally - very occasionally - a troll might throw up a point (deliberate word choice, I'm afraid) worth discussing. Even more occasionally, discussing that point might involve followup questions to the troll. It hasn't happened yet with any of the more recent trolls: Kris, IBIG, Johann, etc. but it might. As a Christian, I live in eternal hope.

Mike Elzinga said: Once such a profile has been established, the troll should be starved no matter what it does.

Kris said: So ...

mrg said:

Kris said: So ...

DNFTT

Mike Elzinga said:

Malchus said: The sole difficulty I see with this position is that occasionally - very occasionally - a troll might throw up a point (deliberate word choice, I'm afraid) worth discussing. Even more occasionally, discussing that point might involve followup questions to the troll. It hasn't happened yet with any of the more recent trolls: Kris, IBIG, Johann, etc. but it might. As a Christian, I live in eternal hope.

But the profiles are unmistakable. And part of that profile is the fact that some of these trolls dangle a carrot just to draw people in where they can be sucker-punched again. Once such a profile has been established, the troll should be starved no matter what it does.

Mike Elzinga said: Q.E.D.

Speaking of off topic, trolling, or irrelevant points, did any you see or participate in the "In Defense of Philosophy of Science" thread?

Here's what John M. Lynch, the starter of the thread said:

"Indeed. This has turned into the same tired old science/religion, atheist/accomodationist wankfest that so many threads here and elsewhere turn into. Sometime I wonder whether you all that think about anything else! For the simple reason that you’ve gotten off the topic of the post, I’m closing comments."

Neither I, nor IBIG, nor Johan, etc. posted anything in that thread.

You all were saying?

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: Q.E.D.

Wanna join the Troll Patrol, ME? Every time a troll posts, just reply: DNFTT. It's kind of fun, actually. I would suggest this not be done to any Pandas who FTT because it's a troll objective to get the targets arguing among themselves. But any response a troll makes is fair game.

DNFTT

Kris said: Speaking of off topic, trolling, or irrelevant points...

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: Q.E.D.

Wanna join the Troll Patrol, ME? Every time a troll posts, just reply: DNFTT. It's kind of fun, actually. I would suggest this not be done to any Pandas who FTT because it's a troll objective to get the targets arguing among themselves. But any response a troll makes is fair game.

I’m not on the board often enough to follow every discussion; and I decided to get some other things done after the troll storm we have had here recently. I don’t mind profiling when I have the time; but I would think by now that most of the regulars here could start making these profiles themselves (and some have) and then taking appropriate action. I suspect most of the monitors of this board are pretty busy and don’t have time to ship these trolls off to the Bathroom Wall on a regular basis. So I would hope that these instances of well-profiled behaviors on the part of trolls would elicit the shunning they deserve. There is nothing more miserable than a starving troll. The alternative is that they succeed at what they set out to do.

Science Avenger said:

Kris said: Speaking of off topic, trolling, or irrelevant points...

DNFTT A great idea mrg, but a little context always helps.

Science Avenger said: A great idea mrg, but a little context always helps.

Kris said: Hmm, I don't think ...

mrg said: I would give people grossly imbalanced deliberate vandalism. No problem there.

Science Avenger said:

Kris said: Speaking of off topic, trolling, or irrelevant points...

DNFTT A great idea mrg, but a little context always helps.

Malchus said: Does it?

mrg said:

Malchus said: Does it?

Since new postings can overlap, it's useful to make sure that the DNFTT is properly targeted.

After a few milliion experiments over well over a century, there’s really little chance anymore that the theory “won’t hold up”. The issue isn’t with careful examination of anything. The issue is with the implication (and let’s be honest, what’s trumpeted about with this statement is the implication, not the words themselves) is that the entire theory is bogus.

Steve P. said: *SNIP*

mrg said:

Steve P. said: *SNIP*

DNFTT

Steve P. said:

After a few milliion experiments over well over a century, there’s really little chance anymore that the theory “won’t hold up”. The issue isn’t with careful examination of anything. The issue is with the implication (and let’s be honest, what’s trumpeted about with this statement is the implication, not the words themselves) is that the entire theory is bogus.

Sorry there, Flint. It looks like the people at Genome Life Sciences don't see it that way. It really does appear like gradual step-wise development of the biological diaspora from a LUCA conceptual framework is on its way out. Just a matter of time (thought): http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5384/version/1/files/npre20105384-1.pdf Happy New Year people and make way for the Year of the Rabbit!

Kris said: What's the matter mrg, are you afraid your precious theories won't hold up?... Is anyone who doesn't kiss your arrogant, ignorant ass a 'troll'? Just STFU.

What’s the matter mrg, are you afraid your precious theories won’t hold up?

stevaroni said: Well, I think we can safely assume have found this trolls hot button.

mrg said:

stevaroni said: Well, I think we can safely assume have found this trolls hot button.

Keep pushing it: "DNFTT".

Flint said: [FTT]

mrg said:

Flint said: [FTT]

Flint, if you want to FTT, nobody is going to try to stop you, but why not use the BW? If there's a reason why not, just say so, no need to even say what it is, and I won't make the suggestion again. Besides, that comment was addressed to me. I don't pay it any mind, no need for anyone else to.

stevaroni said:

Kris said: What's the matter mrg, are you afraid your precious theories won't hold up?... Is anyone who doesn't kiss your arrogant, ignorant ass a 'troll'? Just STFU.

Well, I think we can safely assume have found this trolls hot button.

To the moderators:

This has gone on long enough. This is a Troll's troll who has succeeded in derailing every thread here that it has crawled onto. In my years of following PT, I have NEVER seen such in obnoxious, intemperate, insulting, ignorant diatribe allowed to continue in this way outside of the bathroom wall. I have largely given up even browsing threads where this troll's name comes up, because the signal/noise ratio has become so skewed.

"As a place to meet and share opinions, the Panda’s Thumb encourages a wide range of comments. In order to be clear about what patrons may expect concerning comment text they leave here, we state the following policies: As far as possible, the integrity of comments will be respected, with the following exceptions.

1. Illegal, offensive, and spam comments may be removed in their entirety. The management has the sole privilege of determining whether a comment requires removal and whether a repeat offender should be banned.

2. Superfluous comments may be removed without notice, as in talk between contributors concerning board layout, duplicate comments, or other meta-site issues.

3. Broken links or other formating problems may be revised by the management to improve the utility of a comment, at the management’s sole discretion.

4. Entry post authors and the management may move comments that are deemed inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary to the Bathroom Wall. Repeat offenders may have their comments restricted to the Bathroom Wall or disemvoweled.

5. The management is not responsible for factors beyond their control that may interfere with comment integrity, such as software glitches, hardware failure, and problems with Internet connectivity.

6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management.

Simply put, don’t make a jerk out of yourself. This policy may be revised as future conditions warrant."

Given this policy (especially #4), I am at a loss to see how this individual should be allowed to continue to post, at least on anything other than the bathroom wall. You have banned others for far less than this troll. We can have fun kicking it there and watching it spit and yell and call names, but there is simply no reason to allow someone to simply hurl insults over and over and over and over on the regular threads.

mplavcan said: To the moderators: This has gone on long enough. This is a Troll's troll who has succeeded in derailing every thread here that it has crawled onto. In my years of following PT, I have NEVER seen such in obnoxious, intemperate, insulting, ignorant diatribe allowed to continue in this way outside of the bathroom wall. I have largely given up even browsing threads where this troll's name comes up, because the signal/noise ratio has become so skewed. "As a place to meet and share opinions, the Panda’s Thumb encourages a wide range of comments. In order to be clear about what patrons may expect concerning comment text they leave here, we state the following policies: As far as possible, the integrity of comments will be respected, with the following exceptions. 1. Illegal, offensive, and spam comments may be removed in their entirety. The management has the sole privilege of determining whether a comment requires removal and whether a repeat offender should be banned. 2. Superfluous comments may be removed without notice, as in talk between contributors concerning board layout, duplicate comments, or other meta-site issues. 3. Broken links or other formating problems may be revised by the management to improve the utility of a comment, at the management’s sole discretion. 4. Entry post authors and the management may move comments that are deemed inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary to the Bathroom Wall. Repeat offenders may have their comments restricted to the Bathroom Wall or disemvoweled. 5. The management is not responsible for factors beyond their control that may interfere with comment integrity, such as software glitches, hardware failure, and problems with Internet connectivity. 6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management. Simply put, don’t make a jerk out of yourself. This policy may be revised as future conditions warrant." Given this policy (especially #4), I am at a loss to see how this individual should be allowed to continue to post, at least on anything other than the bathroom wall. You have banned others for far less than this troll. We can have fun kicking it there and watching it spit and yell and call names, but there is simply no reason to allow someone to simply hurl insults over and over and over and over on the regular threads.

Kris said:

Malchus said:

Kris said:

DNFTT

mplavcan said: To the moderators: This has gone on long enough. This is a Troll's troll who has succeeded in derailing every thread here that it has crawled onto. In my years of following PT, I have NEVER seen such in obnoxious, intemperate, insulting, ignorant diatribe allowed to continue in this way outside of the bathroom wall. I have largely given up even browsing threads where this troll's name comes up, because the signal/noise ratio has become so skewed. "As a place to meet and share opinions, the Panda’s Thumb encourages a wide range of comments. In order to be clear about what patrons may expect concerning comment text they leave here, we state the following policies: As far as possible, the integrity of comments will be respected, with the following exceptions. 1. Illegal, offensive, and spam comments may be removed in their entirety. The management has the sole privilege of determining whether a comment requires removal and whether a repeat offender should be banned. 2. Superfluous comments may be removed without notice, as in talk between contributors concerning board layout, duplicate comments, or other meta-site issues. 3. Broken links or other formating problems may be revised by the management to improve the utility of a comment, at the management’s sole discretion. 4. Entry post authors and the management may move comments that are deemed inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary to the Bathroom Wall. Repeat offenders may have their comments restricted to the Bathroom Wall or disemvoweled. 5. The management is not responsible for factors beyond their control that may interfere with comment integrity, such as software glitches, hardware failure, and problems with Internet connectivity. 6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management. Simply put, don’t make a jerk out of yourself. This policy may be revised as future conditions warrant." Given this policy (especially #4), I am at a loss to see how this individual should be allowed to continue to post, at least on anything other than the bathroom wall. You have banned others for far less than this troll. We can have fun kicking it there and watching it spit and yell and call names, but there is simply no reason to allow someone to simply hurl insults over and over and over and over on the regular threads.

"As a place to meet and share opinions, the Panda’s Thumb encourages a wide range of comments."

That's a laugh. The only things encouraged here are ID/creationist bashing and the hypocrisy of those doing that bashing.

Malchus said:

mplavcan said: To the moderators: This has gone on long enough. This is a Troll's troll who has succeeded in derailing every thread here that it has crawled onto. In my years of following PT, I have NEVER seen such in obnoxious, intemperate, insulting, ignorant diatribe allowed to continue in this way outside of the bathroom wall. I have largely given up even browsing threads where this troll's name comes up, because the signal/noise ratio has become so skewed. "As a place to meet and share opinions, the Panda’s Thumb encourages a wide range of comments. In order to be clear about what patrons may expect concerning comment text they leave here, we state the following policies: As far as possible, the integrity of comments will be respected, with the following exceptions. 1. Illegal, offensive, and spam comments may be removed in their entirety. The management has the sole privilege of determining whether a comment requires removal and whether a repeat offender should be banned. 2. Superfluous comments may be removed without notice, as in talk between contributors concerning board layout, duplicate comments, or other meta-site issues. 3. Broken links or other formating problems may be revised by the management to improve the utility of a comment, at the management’s sole discretion. 4. Entry post authors and the management may move comments that are deemed inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary to the Bathroom Wall. Repeat offenders may have their comments restricted to the Bathroom Wall or disemvoweled. 5. The management is not responsible for factors beyond their control that may interfere with comment integrity, such as software glitches, hardware failure, and problems with Internet connectivity. 6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management. Simply put, don’t make a jerk out of yourself. This policy may be revised as future conditions warrant." Given this policy (especially #4), I am at a loss to see how this individual should be allowed to continue to post, at least on anything other than the bathroom wall. You have banned others for far less than this troll. We can have fun kicking it there and watching it spit and yell and call names, but there is simply no reason to allow someone to simply hurl insults over and over and over and over on the regular threads.

And again, I have no particular issue with trolls per se; on occasion they can be the stimulus to an interesting side-track. But the more recent trolls, such as Steve P, IBIG, and Kris, aren't offering any points of actual discussion. I would welcome a troll/creationist/anti-science commenter who actually understood enough of the science to raise legitimate concerns. But when we are confronted with the standard claim that a single data point invalidates hundreds of thousands of experiments and theories, without any viable explanation offered, then the troll are simply noise. Unimaginative, in many cases, and lacking style, but noise nonetheless.

Malchus said: And again, I have no particular issue with trolls per se; on occasion they can be the stimulus to an interesting side-track.

mrg said:

Malchus said: And again, I have no particular issue with trolls per se; on occasion they can be the stimulus to an interesting side-track.

If they just want to come in and have their say, that's fine -- even if its undisguised sillinesss as per Hygaboo Andy, he's just clowning around and doesn't really cause any trouble. But that's not the same as obvious exercises in vandalism.

Kris said: *SNIP*

nrg said:

Kris said: *SNIP*

DNFTT

In the larger sense, I feel that trolls have value; any forum without dissenters fails to stimulate its participants in any meaningful way. But the degree to which a troll is disruptive clearly depends on the level at which the forum participants engage that troll. A simple engagement with genuine content, rather than invective, would starve most trolls within a dozen or so posts.

But some of the posters here - and I confess myself as guilty as any - react too quickly and too easily to form rather than content.

The moderators have work elsewhere; it behooves those of us who choose to post here to patrol our own behavior as well as that of the trolls.

Given the admirable occasion of a new year, I pledge myself to do this. Legitimate points, not arguments from ignorance or illogic will be addressed; everything else - and I do mean everything else - will be ignored.

Given the low bar currently set by our trolls, I don't expect to have to respond to many of their posts.

Have a blessed (or blissful, as you choose) New Year, everyone.

Malchus said: In the larger sense, I feel that trolls have value; any forum without dissenters fails to stimulate its participants in any meaningful way. But the degree to which a troll is disruptive clearly depends on the level at which the forum participants engage that troll. A simple engagement with genuine content, rather than invective, would starve most trolls within a dozen or so posts. But some of the posters here - and I confess myself as guilty as any - react too quickly and too easily to form rather than content. The moderators have work elsewhere; it behooves those of us who choose to post here to patrol our own behavior as well as that of the trolls. Given the admirable occasion of a new year, I pledge myself to do this. Legitimate points, not arguments from ignorance or illogic will be addressed; everything else - and I do mean everything else - will be ignored. Given the low bar currently set by our trolls, I don't expect to have to respond to many of their posts. Have a blessed (or blissful, as you choose) New Year, everyone.

mrg said:

Malchus said: And again, I have no particular issue with trolls per se; on occasion they can be the stimulus to an interesting side-track.

If they just want to come in and have their say, that's fine -- even if its undisguised sillinesss as per Hygaboo Andy, he's just clowning around and doesn't really cause any trouble. But that's not the same as obvious exercises in vandalism.

Malchus said: Given the admirable occasion of a new year, I pledge myself to do this. Legitimate points, not arguments from ignorance or illogic will be addressed; everything else - and I do mean everything else - will be ignored.

nrg said:

Malchus said: Given the admirable occasion of a new year, I pledge myself to do this. Legitimate points, not arguments from ignorance or illogic will be addressed; everything else - and I do mean everything else - will be ignored.

An online forum is an anarchy and so it is not possible (and really not desireable) to police the behavior of others who feel the need to FTT ... but I think we can provide reminders, and polite suggestions that FTTs should be performed in the BW -- the FTT Zone. I don't believe any reasonable person would have any reason to refuse to do so. If they do, then we just stop making the suggestion to them.

Malchus said: Have a blessed (or blissful, as you choose) New Year, everyone.

nrg said:

Malchus said: Have a blessed (or blissful, as you choose) New Year, everyone.

And a fine Year of the Rabbit to all. Let Bugs be your spiritual guide. "Kitsune, what are you doing wearing a bunny girl costume?!" "Well, duh, it's the Year of the Rabbit, isn't it?" And they say the Japanese have no sense of humor.

Malchus said:

nrg said:

Malchus said: Given the admirable occasion of a new year, I pledge myself to do this. Legitimate points, not arguments from ignorance or illogic will be addressed; everything else - and I do mean everything else - will be ignored.

An online forum is an anarchy and so it is not possible (and really not desireable) to police the behavior of others who feel the need to FTT ... but I think we can provide reminders, and polite suggestions that FTTs should be performed in the BW -- the FTT Zone. I don't believe any reasonable person would have any reason to refuse to do so. If they do, then we just stop making the suggestion to them.

But are you making any distinction in the content of the trolls' posts? Between pure insult and SPAM-like behavior (as so unimaginatively and childishly exemplified by Kris in his recent posts) and actual points of interest? Or is it your assessment that, given an understanding of a troll, we should try to shut off all meaningful response to them? I'm not quarreling with your suggestion, mind: I'm just looking for clarification.

Kris said: *SNIP*

mrg said:

Kris said: *SNIP*

DNFTT

mplavcan said: To the moderators: This has gone on long enough.

John Vanko said: Can't the moderators do anything to stop it?

John Vanko said:

mplavcan said: To the moderators: This has gone on long enough.

Every clean surface in PT has been spray-painted by hoodlums. It renders PT forums useless - the real desire of the vandals, I suppose. Can't the moderators do anything to stop it?

Kris said: *SNIP*

mrg said:

John Vanko said: Can't the moderators do anything to stop it?

I don't place any weight on the moderators doing anything. I think the problem is going to have to be addressed by the community as best it can.

mrg said:

John Vanko said: Can't the moderators do anything to stop it?

I don't place any weight on the moderators doing anything. I think the problem is going to have to be addressed by the community as best it can.

Malchus said: As I said earlier, the moderators are otherwise occupied, and rightfully so. I am interested in seeing what we can do here; I moderate at other sites where trolls are sometimes an issue. In this case, I am intrigued by how quickly and easily Kris has been reduced to impotence and four year-old behavior.

mrg said:

John Vanko said: Can't the moderators do anything to stop it?

I don't place any weight on the moderators doing anything. I think the problem is going to have to be addressed by the community as best it can.

To anyone thinking of posting: I suggest we regard this thread as closed.

mrg said: To anyone thinking of posting: I suggest we regard this thread as closed.

Malchus said: In the larger sense, I feel that trolls have value; any forum without dissenters fails to stimulate its participants in any meaningful way. But the degree to which a troll is disruptive clearly depends on the level at which the forum participants engage that troll. A simple engagement with genuine content, rather than invective, would starve most trolls within a dozen or so posts.

SWT said:

Malchus said: In the larger sense, I feel that trolls have value; any forum without dissenters fails to stimulate its participants in any meaningful way. But the degree to which a troll is disruptive clearly depends on the level at which the forum participants engage that troll. A simple engagement with genuine content, rather than invective, would starve most trolls within a dozen or so posts.

I have tried, multiple times, to engage several of our trolls in actual discussion. My experience after doing so is that the trolls do not appear to be interested in any sort of discussion; rather, they respond selectively to those who attack rather than to those who attempt conversation. They are not even worth the effort of posting a "do not feed" notice.

SWT said:

Malchus said: In the larger sense, I feel that trolls have value; any forum without dissenters fails to stimulate its participants in any meaningful way. But the degree to which a troll is disruptive clearly depends on the level at which the forum participants engage that troll. A simple engagement with genuine content, rather than invective, would starve most trolls within a dozen or so posts.

I have tried, multiple times, to engage several of our trolls in actual discussion. My experience after doing so is that the trolls do not appear to be interested in any sort of discussion; rather, they respond selectively to those who attack rather than to those who attempt conversation. They are not even worth the effort of posting a "do not feed" notice.

you're going to have to get rid of Kris, or hand the blog over to it.

of course, I'd bet that was its intention all along.

ATTN:

Reed Cartwright!

you need to make it easier to block out trolls on this blog.

otherwise, it will continue to lose value as a place for discussion.

Ichthyic said: you're going to have to get rid of Kris, or hand the blog over to it. of course, I'd bet that was its intention all along. ATTN: Reed Cartwright! you need to make it easier to block out trolls on this blog. otherwise, it will continue to lose value as a place for discussion.

Kris said: *SNIP*

mrg said:

Kris said: *SNIP*

DNFTT

Malchus said: After all, I'm smarter than the trolls: they are reasonably easy to manipulate. Look how easily Kris has been to provoke.

Kris said: *SNIP*

Ichthyic said: you're going to have to get rid of Kris, or hand the blog over to it. of course, I'd bet that was its intention all along. ATTN: Reed Cartwright! you need to make it easier to block out trolls on this blog. otherwise, it will continue to lose value as a place for discussion.

mrg said:

Kris said: *SNIP*

DNFTT

Ichthyic said: you're going to have to get rid of Kris, or hand the blog over to it. of course, I'd bet that was its intention all along. ATTN: Reed Cartwright! you need to make it easier to block out trolls on this blog. otherwise, it will continue to lose value as a place for discussion.

Malchus said: Indeed. Lightly moderated sites often degenerate into various kinds of "troll wars". It's even more amusing, and more than a trifle sad, when the trolls begin responding to each other. At that point there is little more that one can do beyond closing the door on the children and retiring to the library to finish the brandy. But some dissension is necessary in a healthy society. Surely we can find a workable balance between banning and anarchy? What about a dedicated thread? If the trolls have something to actually discuss, we could confine it there?

Ichthyic said: you're going to have to get rid of Kris, or hand the blog over to it. of course, I'd bet that was its intention all along. ATTN: Reed Cartwright! you need to make it easier to block out trolls on this blog. otherwise, it will continue to lose value as a place for discussion.

But some dissension is necessary in a healthy society. Surely we can find a workable balance between banning and anarchy?

Kris doesn't represent a dissenting viewpoint.

Kris represents anarchy and inanity, and has no place in any thread attempting a rational discourse.

banning IS the only solution in such instances.

you KNOW this.

This is not "society"; this is a blog.

if you want to generalize, imagine this:

you're having a conversation on the street with a buddy about whether the local river should be dammed or not, and a random stranger butts into your conversation to claim you're both idiots and you're "doing it rong!", claiming expertise in engineering, while obviously not knowing the slightest thing about it.

you find a need to allow this person a place in your conversation, do you?

I thought not.

Ichthyic said: But some dissension is necessary in a healthy society. Surely we can find a workable balance between banning and anarchy? Kris doesn't represent a dissenting viewpoint. Kris represents anarchy and inanity, and has no place in any thread attempting a rational discourse. banning IS the only solution in such instances. you KNOW this. This is not "society"; this is a blog. if you want to generalize, imagine this: you're having a conversation on the street with a buddy about whether the local river should be dammed or not, and a random stranger butts into your conversation to claim you're both idiots and you're "doing it rong!", claiming expertise in engineering, while obviously not knowing the slightest thing about it. you find a need to allow this person a place in your conversation, do you? I thought not.

Kris said: *SNIP*

mrg said:

Kris said: *SNIP*

DNFTT

Flint said:

Steve P. said:

After a few milliion experiments over well over a century, there’s really little chance anymore that the theory “won’t hold up”. The issue isn’t with careful examination of anything. The issue is with the implication (and let’s be honest, what’s trumpeted about with this statement is the implication, not the words themselves) is that the entire theory is bogus.

Sorry there, Flint. It looks like the people at Genome Life Sciences don't see it that way. It really does appear like gradual step-wise development of the biological diaspora from a LUCA conceptual framework is on its way out. Just a matter of time (thought): http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5384/version/1/files/npre20105384-1.pdf Happy New Year people and make way for the Year of the Rabbit!

You do not seem to understand what's being discussed. The link you provide does not in any way suggest rejecting the entire theory of evolution. It suggests the NATURE of the small step that led to eukaryotic genes. It supports exactly what I was saying. Maybe I should make another attempt to be clear. There is no magic here. Nothing happened due to some external indetectible entity poofing life or evolution. Instead, a plausible mechanism for producing a single evolutionary step is being proposed. Do you seriously think the theory of evolution will be discarded if our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution is improved in some small way? Do you think there is a single evolutionary biologist anywhere who would look at this paper and doubt the basis of the underlying theory? If you think so, kindly point to the deep concerns these results have caused. I haven't seen any, and neither has anyone else. And if nobody knowledgeable in the field has any such concerns, do you think it's possible that your understanding might be incomplete? (Incidentally, do you know what a eukaryote is? Do you know what it evolved from? Do you know the differences?) (And recall, the topic from which you extracted my comment concerned a petition carefully worded to create the false impression that knowledgeable people were rejecting the basis of evolutionary theory. Which had nothing to do with the nature of any particular incremental step of the evolutionary process, and everything to do with deceiving people unfamiliar with the subject.)

Ichthyic said: But some dissension is necessary in a healthy society. Surely we can find a workable balance between banning and anarchy? Kris doesn't represent a dissenting viewpoint. Kris represents anarchy and inanity, and has no place in any thread attempting a rational discourse. banning IS the only solution in such instances. you KNOW this. This is not "society"; this is a blog. if you want to generalize, imagine this: you're having a conversation on the street with a buddy about whether the local river should be dammed or not, and a random stranger butts into your conversation to claim you're both idiots and you're "doing it rong!", claiming expertise in engineering, while obviously not knowing the slightest thing about it. you find a need to allow this person a place in your conversation, do you? I thought not.

Steve P. said: *SNIP*

This is an internet website with commenting open to anyone.

...until someone bans your trolling ass, you less than worthless pissant.

funny, how nobody seems to be defending your "right" to post here now, ain't it?

it would be one thing if you actually had something cogent to contribute, disagreeable or not, but you don't. You're nothing but a waste of space; a distraction from an otherwise productive place; a fly in the soup; a puddle of grease on the floor....

and a perfect example of why PT will NEVER be a good place to host discussion from invited speakers.

this could all be solved by simply adding a moderator to the place, but evidently it isn't even worth that to the people who actually contribute OP's here.

*shrug*

Steve P. said:

Flint said:

Steve P. said:

After a few milliion experiments over well over a century, there’s really little chance anymore that the theory “won’t hold up”. The issue isn’t with careful examination of anything. The issue is with the implication (and let’s be honest, what’s trumpeted about with this statement is the implication, not the words themselves) is that the entire theory is bogus.

Sorry there, Flint. It looks like the people at Genome Life Sciences don't see it that way. It really does appear like gradual step-wise development of the biological diaspora from a LUCA conceptual framework is on its way out. Just a matter of time (thought): http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5384/version/1/files/npre20105384-1.pdf Happy New Year people and make way for the Year of the Rabbit!

You do not seem to understand what's being discussed. The link you provide does not in any way suggest rejecting the entire theory of evolution. It suggests the NATURE of the small step that led to eukaryotic genes. It supports exactly what I was saying. Maybe I should make another attempt to be clear. There is no magic here. Nothing happened due to some external indetectible entity poofing life or evolution. Instead, a plausible mechanism for producing a single evolutionary step is being proposed. Do you seriously think the theory of evolution will be discarded if our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution is improved in some small way? Do you think there is a single evolutionary biologist anywhere who would look at this paper and doubt the basis of the underlying theory? If you think so, kindly point to the deep concerns these results have caused. I haven't seen any, and neither has anyone else. And if nobody knowledgeable in the field has any such concerns, do you think it's possible that your understanding might be incomplete? (Incidentally, do you know what a eukaryote is? Do you know what it evolved from? Do you know the differences?) (And recall, the topic from which you extracted my comment concerned a petition carefully worded to create the false impression that knowledgeable people were rejecting the basis of evolutionary theory. Which had nothing to do with the nature of any particular incremental step of the evolutionary process, and everything to do with deceiving people unfamiliar with the subject.)

Ah, the standard evolutionary spin, Flint. I didn't think you would resort to that. You know, like "Oh, that in no way affect the ToE". or "That's nothing for the ToE". Or the condescending "you don't understand evolution". If you could resist the temptation to view the article in a partisan fashion, you would see that the split gene theory does in fact debunk common descent from a simple, single LUCA and branching out incrementally from there. Not only that, the split gene theory, conforming to the actual evidence, provides an explanation for why there are multiple abrupt appearances of disparate organisms and also shows complexity as a starting point, again conforming to the evidence, and debunking the idea of a simple beginning with small incremental step-wise change increasing complexity. The split gene theory is a radical departure from the current Darwinian narrative. Yes, I know you wish to take comfort that the authors never felt a need to assert the supernatural. You seem to be under the impression that if science does not mention God, then oh there go the creationist claims. Yet, science never speaks to the question either way. That is philosophy's job. However, yes IMO the philosophical implications of the split gene theory does in fact favor an intelligent origin, rather than purposelessness.

Ichthyic said: "You're nothing but a waste of space;"

Kris said: DNFTT

Ichthyic said: This is an internet website with commenting open to anyone. ...until someone bans your trolling ass, you less than worthless pissant. funny, how nobody seems to be defending your "right" to post here now, ain't it? it would be one thing if you actually had something cogent to contribute, disagreeable or not, but you don't. You're nothing but a waste of space; a distraction from an otherwise productive place; a fly in the soup; a puddle of grease on the floor.... and a perfect example of why PT will NEVER be a good place to host discussion from invited speakers. this could all be solved by simply adding a moderator to the place, but evidently it isn't even worth that to the people who actually contribute OP's here. *shrug*

It’s just the same old shit over and over and over and over

you would certainly be the expert on spewing the same shit over and over again.

The split gene theory is a radical departure from the current Darwinian narrative.

Flint said:

The split gene theory is a radical departure from the current Darwinian narrative.

How very odd, then, that those currently working within the "current Darwinian narrative" (aka ALL THE EVIDENCE) don't seem the least bit disturbed or threatened by the split gene paper. Are you saying they're all ignoring it because it's too great a threat to their convictions? Or because it suggests the possible injection of magic where the "current narrative" disallows any such possibility? Could it be possible that this paper doesn't say anything particularly interesting, except perhaps to those unable to understand both its claims and its context? I'm going to suggest that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I'm curious why none of those who devote their lives to this material are somehow able to grasp how important you seem to think this paper ought to be. However, I will leave analysis of your link to anyone qualified to do so. I don't think that's you, and it's certainly not me. And it's possible that those who ARE qualified to understand this paper, are not qualified to discuss the "philosophical implications...in favor of intelligent design." For that, you'd probably need a clinical psychologist who specializes in wishful thinking.

steve P. said: *SNIP*

steve P. said: Alright, Flint. You get the last word. Well, almost. Just a quick note. The split gene theory is write off the presses so of course it will take time before there are serious reactions/critiques/refutations etc.

Steve P. said: The split gene theory is a radical departure from the current Darwinian narrative.

This study presents evidence that split genes coding for highly complex proteins could have occurred indigenously in a small amount of pre-biotic random genetic sequences, possibly solving the enigma of the origin of biological complexity.

However, yes IMO the philosophical implications of the split gene theory does in fact favor an intelligent origin, rather than purposelessness.

SWT said: I have tried, multiple times, to engage several of our trolls in actual discussion. My experience after doing so is that the trolls do not appear to be interested in any sort of discussion; rather, they respond selectively to those who attack rather than to those who attempt conversation.