One could say the same about you! If you had self-perception then you'd see yourself as the Black Knight, someone who doesn't know when he's been utterly beaten:
Posted on 12/01/2007 12:39:07 PM PST by Alter Kaker
AUSTIN, Tex., Nov. 29 (AP) — The state’s director of science curriculum said she resigned this month under pressure from officials who said she had given the appearance of criticizing the teaching of intelligent design.
The Texas Education Agency put the director, Chris Comer, on 30 days’ paid administrative leave in late October, resulting in what Ms. Comer called a forced resignation.
The move came shortly after she forwarded an e-mail message announcing a presentation by Barbara Forrest, an author of “Creationism’s Trojan Horse.” The book argues that creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Ms. Comer sent the message to several people and a few online communities.
Ms. Comer, who held her position for nine years, said she believed evolution politics were behind her ousting. “None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses,” she said.
Education agency officials declined to comment Wednesday on the matter. But they explained their recommendation to fire Ms. Comer in documents obtained by The Austin American-Statesman through the Texas Public Information Act.
“Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that T.E.A. endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral,” the officials said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Ah, yet more examples of the same pitiful pattern...
I believe it is you that have asserted that The Discovery Institute is incompetent, along with every other scientist who ever studied genetics or evolution. Not to mention all the computer scientists who have built useful systems for solving otherwise intractable problems by modeling variation and selection. And not to mention information theorists like Yockey who have specifically studied evolution and found it to be perfectly workable.
I think when someone comes to a forum declaring that everyone else in the world is stupid, it is resonable to call such a person a crank.
Hey, even cranks are right occasionally, but I haven't seen any evidence from you that you even understand the basic elements of evolution, much less that you are qualified to replace it with something more useful. You are the one who built and entire line of reasoning on the premise that humans are descended from modern fish. Remember code skipping?
At least code skipping is valid, with solid evidence to support it. Your non-stop personal attacks on me, however, are not valid.
You’ve lost the debate. You can’t carry on without insults.
Assuming that humans are descended from modern fish.
But I digress. You seem unable to notice that declaring yourself to be smarter than every scientist and information theorist is just a wee bit insulting to them.
Add self-perception to your resume.
Yet another post in which you show (without admitting) that you've lost the argument by being insulting rather than engaging in facts.
Your pattern continues...
One could say the same about you! If you had self-perception then you'd see yourself as the Black Knight, someone who doesn't know when he's been utterly beaten:
This woman siad, “None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses.”
What were those other reasons? I suspect she was indeed fired for “other reasons,” but is drawing attention to her anti-ID activities because many people agree with her anti-ID stance.
Dear child, I am not an expert, although I have read on the subject of evolution for about 50 years. Finding an error in something I say is no more significant than finding an error in a newspaper account of science.
I merely point out that you have unilaterally declared yourself smarter than tens of thousands of PhD biologists, not to mention scads of information theorists and computer scientists who make a good living modelling, as best they can, the Darwinian version of evolution.
When I Google phrases like “DNA code-skipping” I find only one expert who thinks it is worth mentioning, and that expert would be someone calling himself southhack and publishing on FreeRepublic. Perhaps southhack is using an idiosyncratic term for something real scientists call by another name. Or maybe code-skipping is bullshit. If not, it would be interesting to know why folks like Behe, Dembski, Yockey, and Denton haven’t gone public with this devastating rebuttal to evolution.
Perhaps they don’t believe humans are descended from modern fish.
As I say, I am not an expert, but I have read widely on the history of science. It is worth noting that nearly all of the crushing criticisms of evolution were widely discussed a hundred years ago, most of them two hundred years ago.
Isn't that the ID arguement? We don't know how it happened so someone magically created it? An 'intelligent designer' made it, like the Black Muslim leader Elijah Muhammed's claim that the white race was created in a test tube by black scientists 10,000 years ago. So I guess that would be a valid theory to be taught in school? Or do you have a better theory on who the designer in ID is?
The missing genetic functions (e.g. immune systems common to coral and humans) have not been found in either ancient or modern fish. Thus, even with your "modern" disclaimer, Evolution is still debunked by physical, tangible, in-hand examples of scientific evidence.
"As I say, I am not an expert, but I have read widely on the history of science. It is worth noting that nearly all of the crushing criticisms of evolution were widely discussed a hundred years ago, most of them two hundred years ago." - js1138
Information Theory debunks Evolution (e.g. information from nothing!), and I doubt your claim that you have somehow read nearly all such century-old (or older!) criticisms...especially since some of the complaints against Evolution have only been possible post-Crick.
It's DNA code that wipes out Evolutionary theory. Stored data. Processing data. Hard-coded programming commands. The list goes on.
Nope. In the cases of transgeneic species, we *do* know who scientifically created it. Man.
Likewise, the DNA evidence points to an intelligent sequencing of data, of an intelligent genetic data processing engine, intelligent genetic programming, data storage, etc.
Attempts to go beyond what the above evidence points to (e.g. great leaps to what the designers were wearing on any given day) not only exceed the scope of available evidence, but serve no useful scientific purpose. Such attempts merely attempt to strangle a debate.
The question of who the designer is serves no useful purpose? So in other words your science extends to a certain point then, like in the comic flow chart, you draw a cloud and write in "Here a miracle occurs" and leave it at that. That's ridiculous and that certainly isn't science. Science is all about trying to find answers, not purposely ignoring the questions. It would seem to me that looking at the ultimate mystery, who the intelligent designer is, and saying, "I'm not interested" would strangle debate far more than trying to find the answer.
Maybe I am not catching your drift. Your evolutionary compatriots do not agree with you about the use of the “tree of Life”. Nova has the Penn. school board matter evolutionary experts displaying the tree of life during court. TalkOrigins has also has it clearly displayed on their website and they argue that it is the thing which most graphically depicts the central point of evolution.
My point... although you may say Common Descent is science, it is not reproducable by scientific experimentation and yet seems to qualify as science based upon the inferential speculation evolutionists do. Is this alright when it agrees with their inferences, but a defect when you see it done by the ID crowd. It seems evolutionists want it both ways. When they need to infer (outside of reproducable experimentation), that’s fine science. When anyone else infers, that’s religion.
And the argument that gravity is a theory (which evolutionists mockingly note when anyone questions Common Descent as a “theory”) is nonsequitor. Gravity is reproducable, but Common Descent is not. Evolutionists hold that Common Descent postulates all life originated from One living thing at the base (or root) of the tree of life (their words not mine or yours). Of course, they hold off saying where this One living thing came from, calling this last “little” step, abiogenisis. And, you see all of this as rock solid science (even though you do not dabble in the discussion of abiogenesis)? Please correct me here.
Well, duh.
We don't have the DNA from ancient fish, nor any ancient species.
And yet, the entire Theory of Evolution *depends* on ancient Fish having an immune system that no fish DNA on hand supports.
Pity...
The prokaryotes were doing just fine, until the Eukaryotes came along, with their ‘cell nucleus’.
These ‘advanced’ Eukaryotes then went about ‘evolving’ and are responsible for creating all the diversity of life that is and has been on Earth.
The prokaryotes have been protesting this for billions of years, fighting back, trying to destroy the Eukaryotes, but those darn Eukaryotes are pretty smart.
Prokaryotes: “We are not just a Virus!”
Eukaryotes: “You’re just jealous because you have no nucleus”
Will it never end????
If you mean a common ancestor of humans and modern fish, perhaps. But loss or modification of function is not code skipping.
Indeed. However, genetic functionality in one ancestor, not in any intermediary, but found again in a child species *is* code skipping.
And unless coral/human immune systems are ever found in Fish DNA, Evolutionary Theory will be forever dead in the water.
Atheism is a vicious doctrine that offers zero hope.
Who’s an atheist?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.