Free Republic

The gravity of the “rest of the universe” couldn't possibly move the Sun, without also causing motion of the Earth. The galactic core doesn't circle the Earth with a 365 day orbit, neither could its gravity move the MASSIVE Sun while leaving the Earth motionless. F=m*a. Basic physics. Nothing “philosophical” about it.

And I supported my claims about chromosomes, with a scientific source that said pretty much exactly what I had said. You said ‘wasn't peer reviewed’. I pointed out to your obtuseness that there were peer reviewed references backing up their claims. You pulled “putative” and paraded it around, displaying your own ignorance.

But go ahead and take the subject back to chromosomes, as you couldn't possibly embarrass yourself further with physics.

You aren't trying to drag this discussion into a rehash or refutation of heliocentrism are you?

Could it not be said these 'climate-warmers' are in fact heliocentricts?.... I posted Solomon's words NOT because of heliocentrism but rather to point out the vanities of flesh man. Solomon says what is, has already been of *OLD* time, of which there is no retrieval memory in the flesh body.

Except the moths don’t usually land on tree trunks in nature

You don't suppose the rest of the trees were affected by the soot of the coal age do you? And yes, birds for which the camo would matter, are not the only predator that east moths, but they do eat them.

By chance this evening we watched Ben Stein’s documentary on Intelligent Design.

It is amazing the similarities between scientific supporters of Darwinism and Global Warming with respect to their both claiming “concensus” and blacklisting scientists who do not tow the line.

Perhaps the increasing the velocity of your descent into lunacy is an attempt to get more airflow over your control surfaces. It doesn't matter what the majority of the American public says on this subject. That is the same majority who gave us Obama, Pelosi, Reid and a filibuster proof Senate. The merits of one scientific theory versus another will not be solved by consensus, science doesn't work that way (which brings into question your attempts at consensus building via crack pot books and web aliases, but that another story).

No.

Science has a MAGICSTERICAL, too.

It’s a toss up as to whether the RC’s or Science’s MAGICSTERICAL
is more . . . outrageously silly, obtuse, laughable, distorting of reality, !!!!TRADITION!!!! bound, twisted by narrow power mongering bias . . . etc.

First Francis O’Conner and now Jennifer Connolly. The Evilution Conspiracy is determined to sell Emma Darwin as a stone fox. It is verily our most eeevile deception yet, and the key to all our plots!

There are rulz

There is no unbiased science because there are no unbiased scientists.

Likewise there are no unbiased buyers and sellers. Does this mean there are no unbiased markets?

Of course not. Markets (properly realized) are unbiased setters of prices even though, in that particular case, ALL marketeers are biased, and markedly so.

Your logic is flawed. (Fallacy of Composition/Division) It is not the case that, in order for an institution to be unbiased, that all (or even any) individual participants be unbiased.

While some Canadians snear at US their society is crumbling. They are having only about 1.2 babies per couple. They’ve already passed the point of no return.

If I understand the article correctly, the movie distributors concluded there was no market for it. Which makes sense, as the vast majority in the movie business are lefty-Darwinists who would like nothing better than put out something that attacks the Christian Right in way or another.

Moi?

I fail to see how you might consider me a problem. I am an unwavering advocate of logic and clear thinking.

I support investigating phenomena to discover the truth, no matter whose ox may get gored.

I endeavor to seek truth and to speak truth against the purveyors of false truths and delusions.

I ...

Oh, wait a minute.

...

I see what you mean.

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

You aren't trying to drag this discussion into a rehash or refutation of heliocentrism are you?

Ping!

BTW, I watched the other movie mentioned in the article (The Voyage that Shook the World) and it is excellent! It bought it, but it can also be rented through the mail via Netflix, Blockbuster, etc.

All the best—GGG

It sounds like a very dull movie. Although, I’m not sure whose religious freedom you think you’re defending here. If anyone’s viewpoint is being squelched in this case, it’s the Temple of Darwood evilutionists. Don’t they deserve the right to have their films distributed?

For the record, this post is being posted in News/Activism by the express permission of Jim Robinson, founder and owner of Free Republic:

“Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR....They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but I’ll be damned if they’re gonna ban Him or it from FR!”

—Jim Robinson

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2203455/posts?page=78#78

"I trust science without reservation - I’m not too trusting of some scientists or their conclusions though!"

Me too. Figures don't lie, but liars do figure. The problem is when any agenda driven entity, whether YEC or AGW begins to decide what the figures are saying.

Recommend that anyone who is interested should Bing “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.”

Oh my, YES!!!!

By all means people, please do check out The Embarrassing Second Amendment by Yale law professor Sanford Levinson.

It's a "classic" of modern Second Amendment jurisprudential thinking....

Fabulous essay/post, dear YHAOS! Thank you ever so much!!!

We have a problem in common? I would not have thought that you would speak so of this thread's creator.

I wasn't speaking of this thread's creator. I was speaking of you.

Lots of guesses and conjecture. If it satifies you, fine.

I would hardly call that science though, would you?

Still, it’s very much like, “evolutionary science.” I think you can see why I do not find it convincing. It’s much like the global warming religion, those who believe in it will grab at any conjectural straws to defend their “position.” If they are right, they do not need to. Those who know they are right are never desperate to convince others.

Hank

Yes but..... once the effect is developed it is not really to hard to find another cause

The late S.J. Gould’s model was “diastrophe” — diastrophe was the punctuation mark in the punctuated equilibria.

I’d consider the national security stuff more technology related.

There is, however, the meteorology related stuff. :)

The NWS was started during the war to provide information for the military and has expanded due to the impact weather has on the citizenry.

Very useful information, that weather stuff. Even then, the research on storm development could be contracted out.

"I don't even want a cell phone!!! "

LOL!!!! ..and I thought I was unique in my "blasphemy"... '-)

When I retired, I also retired my Daytimer, cell phone and wristwatch. My professional life had been so dominated by structured time, far-flung and closely-timed appointments -- and "having my chain yanked" via cell phone -- that I simply rebelled.

"Free" life is wonderful -- except I do tend to forget what day it is out here in the boondocks...

...and some times that ain't so bad... '-}

Slight differences in appearances may be due to the in-utero environment. One twin might might be taking more nutrients than the other when a feature started developing, changing the expression of the genes a little, enough for a subtle change. Things like moles and birthmarks may be due to mutations that change expression when that specific area was developing.
A boss I had had fraternal twins (a boy and a girl). She said the girl was larger when born and bossed her brother around even as infants.

"And this bears on our common problem — how???"

We have a problem in common? I would not have thought that you would speak so of this thread's creator.

No two organisms are identical, even identical twins. They may appear identical, but there can be differences in their DNA. DNA mutations are not always deleterious. They can be neutral or beneficial.

The DNA Polymerases that copy the DNA have a known error rate. Cosmic rays pass through your body all the time.

If they happen to hit your DNA (rare since you and everything else are mostly empty space)they can mutate a base pair.

This is the way science is supposed to work: scientists throwing rocks at each others theories. The problem with the global warming crowd was that they managed to get hold of the publication process and prevent publication of any rebuttal.

Just keep saying to yourself
“the religion is settled”
“the religion is settled”
“the religion is settled”

Don’t know. They just showed that Uracil could be produced in conditions present in space. Maybe they are working at it.

Finding the answer to one small step can take a long time.
I had to change about 10 DNA bases of a gene to get it to be expressed in the organism I wanted it to be expressed in -the organism had a quirk in it’s genetic code. A certain amino acid was coded by a different codon than normal. It took two of us about three weeks to do it and verify the sequence we wanted was correct. Add that to deciding what promoter (switch) to use to turn it on and what DNA vector was needed to introduce it into the organism. Took about 3-4 months.

"Vanity of vanities," saith the Preacher, "vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

What profit hath a man of all his labour which he take under the sun?

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, 'See, this is new?' it has been already of *old* time, which was before us.

There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Ecclesiastes 1:2-11

“Random mutations from the environment. Cosmic rays. These can occur after the zygote has split into the twins. If it happened in a gene relating to features, they could look slightly different.”

Since no identical twins are ever identical, are you saying this always happens? ...and your evidence for that would be what? Or is this more evolutionary conjecture and story-telling?

Hank

Except the moths don’t usually land on tree trunks in nature. So yeh, the entire experiment is flawed. Its still makes the cut for being some of the best evidence for decent from a common ancestor despite being meaningless.

It would seem more sane to me to believe that your single posting could assemble itself coherently over “billions and billions” of years, than atoms and molecules randomly forming fully-functional organisms.
BTW, “Agamemnon” appears in an Al Stewart song called “Helen and Cassandra”. Common knowledge, I assume? Bob

Random mutations from the environment. Cosmic rays. These can occur after the zygote has split into the twins. If it happened in a gene relating to features, they could look slightly different.

“Since they aren’t perfectly identical, then it is obvious some of their DNA is different.

If NONE of their DNA was different, how could they not be exactly identical?”

That is called “begging the question,” a fallacious argument that assumes the conclusion in the premise. You have assumed that DNA is the total determiner of an organisms characteristics. But that is the question. Your question, “If NONE of their DNA was different, how could they not be exactly identical?” assumes without a DNA difference there could be no morphological difference. But that has never been established and the very thing I doubt.

As for junk DNA (which I agree is more important than is currently assumed), there is still no explanation of why or how it could be different in identical twins.

Hank

Very cool.

I worked for an environmental consulting firm. Several people had “environmental scientist” on their business cards. I always got a laugh out of that. They collected samples for laboratory analysis, and mapped plumes of groundwater contamination, but conducted no real research. They had bachelor degrees, and one of them had no degree.

That’s because you have integrity. It speaks well of you.

Unfortunately that is not a universal practice.

Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565120/posts

It May Look Authentic; Here’s How to Tell It Isn’t
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563746/posts

Most scientific papers are probably wrong
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1473528/posts

Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1896333/posts

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&ct=1

One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2264439/posts

You Can Trust a Scientist – Can’t You?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2262237/posts

You are right about one thing, scientists do have opinions. Many people can look at the same data and draw different conclusions based on their own personal biases.

BUT, that is not the same as taking raw data and secretly changing it to meet an end (destroying the original data that was painstakingly collected) and then distributing that knowingly false manipulated data to others who think they are getting original data. Who then do research based on the falsified data that reinforces a falsehood and perpetuates a lie.

Manipulating data in that way is akin to scientific heresy, and those responsible should be thrown out of the scientific community, lose their teaching and research positions, have all of their grants retracted, and be shunned for life from the scientific community.

” There is no unbiased science because there are no unbiased scientists.

Your failure to recognize that is demonstrating bias in itself. “

That is precisely why you judge the credibility of the science by what is published - it’s methods, means, and data, as well as any relevant disclosures on funding. That way everyone can look at it through the lens of their own biases - and if the science is good more often than not the conclusions are validated despite biases inherent in the human condition.

This is precisely why “creation science” is just like “global warming science” neither publish their full methods means and data, nor do they disclose other relevant facts - like pre-determined conclusions.

Your anti-science bias is clearly visible, thank you for making it so apparent so we may judge your comments accordingly.

If and when the day comes when essentially everyone has to simply take someone elses word on what the truth is without the ability to reason it out for oneself we are all in big, big trouble.

But it doesn’t show evolutionary change. While there is an advantage to being one color or another, the trait to be white or black never left the species. In other words, the information was already there.

I am a scientist, I have both a bachelors and master degree in science.

I have researched 100's of things never once did I manipulate the data. In fact, on my masters thesis the facts actually disproved my original hypothesis (I actually found that interesting). Never once was I tempted to manipulate the data to make it turn out how I expected it to before hand.

Capital idea! To a degree that already happens as companies finance research to improve their products and processes. And those costs are passed on to the consumer who can decide whether to pay the costs or not.

But how many us would pull out our check books for a Super-Duper Collision Collector? Not very many just to provide jobs and prestige for the users and not even a hadron for our money.

You extremist you! J/K. The only reason I said “vast bulk” is because of national security related science. But then again, I suppose most of that could be contracted out as well!

Every DNA test to date indicates identical DNA for identical twins.

Of course, that is based on comparisons of a small amount of the DNA. The so-called JUNK DNA has not been compared, as it was considered junk, and of no importance.

Where exactly would different DNA come from in identical twins?

Since they aren't perfectly identical, then it is obvious some of their DNA is different.

If NONE of their DNA was different, how could they not be exactly identical?

I beg to differ. Make and *all* instead of the *vast bulk*.

Seems to me that science worked pretty well for a long time before the government grant money provided the living.

I am saying saying nothing of the kind. Reproduction even in setient creatures need not be a conscious act. The primary objective of living organisms is to reproduce.

Conciousness of action is the definition of sentience. My question regards the title of this article about which we discuss the matter. 'Purpose' implies intent toward an end. How does a non-sentient entity 'purpose' an end. Scientific materialism does not allow for sentience, and by implication, a teleological plan sought. ONly sentient beings do that.

I know when you and I were in undergraduate school we were taught that an organism is 'successful' if it completes a life-cycle and generates another of its kind. As a trained botanist, you know that is an artificial assignment of classification. It is, in fact, a tautology and therefore meaningless. It is like the moniker, "survival of the fittest". Of course the fittest survive, by definition. It is a tautology. As a trial lawyer you would not go before the court and say "this man is innocent because he is innocent." The judge would look at you out of the corner of his/her eye. I am simply trying to understand the arguement a darwinist materialist would profer to support this assertion.

“Creation/ID is being constantly validated by science,”

Your hallucinations are not real, my friend. There is no validation of creation from science, at least not so far. I don’t fault anyone for trying - as long as they are legit - and none of the outfits you post articles from are legit, scientifically speaking. You know this, but you are uncommonly stubborn and won’t admit it.

“yet the evos keep giving the Darwinian notion of nature selecting from among random processes all the credit.”

As you know, any credit given to Darwin’s theories is backed up by research from his time until now - until and unless it is proven incorrect. Your outfits can’t do it.

“language of design and purpose” is never used as a scientific basis EVER. You mistake your guys that do this for actual researchers.

So do you see the difference between “Creation science” and the religious view of Creation yet? Do you understand how opposing “creation science” is not opposing religion?

Interesting the keywords spammed into the keyword list on a topic that does not address religion from a source that is not religious.

Then why does someone think that it *belongsinreligion*?

Or that it’s *notasciencetopic*?

Or whatever........