Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
The error in your logic is that their political opinions negate their admissions wrt science. That is a non sequitur.
Taking your position to it's logical conclusion, you would need to identify exactly the proper political opinions that a scientist must hold before we can rely on their admissions wrt science. Further, your political beliefs may negate your informed admissions in any area that a liberal would disagree with for the same reason. This is simply a fallacious position.
I know you don't understand, but you put yourself in a position that basically invalidates your own arguments.
So how DO you reconcile enforcing your godless liberalism, and/or somehow assert that it’s conservative to silence those that disagree with you through censorship, not based on science, but mere disagreement?
I mean first we heard it “wasn’t science” or they weren’t “REAL scientists” thewn these REAL SCIENTISTS came along...
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
It is well known that some DNA sequences are more subject to change than others.
For example the active domain of hemoglobin is highly conserved between species. Almost any change in that active domain will impair the proteins ability to properly bind oxygen and is thus a fatally deleterious mutation, thus any mutation in that region does not persist in the population. As a result almost every species of red blooded animal has the same Amino Acid sequence for this region (although not always the same DNA sequence to code for it, the code being redundant).
So if a bacteria increases its mutation rate while under stress in order to survive, WHAT IS IT ABOUT AN INCREASED MUTATION RATE that would confer a survival advantage?
According to the creationist paradigm ANY mutation is a deviation from the eternal and immortal and perfect being that the organism was created to be, and a symptom of our fallen universe. Why would deviating even more from the sequence it was created with confer a survival advantage?
How about the conservative poll where we agree God should be stomped out of science class with lawsuits?
I’d like to see that poll myself.
Well good for you, so you truly think evolution could stand up all by itself if creation/ID was presented in science class?
And I’m not even talking about spending oodles of time on it, much less at the exclusion of evolution; but merely telling children the truth:
A. evolution is THEORY, not fact.
B. There are legitimate scientists that espouse a competing theory called ID: www.dissentfromdarwin.org
You’re OK with that and wouldn’t recommend lawsuits or censorship from keeping this to pass in U.S. public schools?
Evolutionists typically confuse cause and effect. They point to an effect and immediately fall into the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent for their naturalistic 'cause'.
The fallacy of Affirming the Consequent draws a conclusion by assuming that B uniquely implies A because A generally implies B. This generally expresses itself in this manner. 'Evolution' generally implies 'change', I observe 'change' therefore 'evolution' is uniquely supported.
Unfortunately, naturalists generally lack the critical-thinking skills to recognize the fallacy and actually believe it a logical argument.
Except God is outside of nature, scientists are not.
God CREATED nature, so I suspect HE could be inside it, outside it, within it, in....out....back in...back out before a small human mind knew what hit it.
The future is Private Christian schools, charter schools, and home schooling.
Nope, the future is for citizens to retake their govt, their schools and indeed get govt out of schools, that much I agree with.
UNobjective godless liberals have attempted to stomp Christianity out of the public realm to “put it where it belongs” and have succeeded to a great degree, but they’ve simply gone way too far.
IF ANYTHING, godless lunatic liberals offended and/or angry at God should be the ones paying for both public and private schools.
The Michael Newdow’s angry at God are in the vast minority and their days of hijacking our legal system are no longer going unchallenged.
It’s not at all about “mandated” public Christianity, it’s about freedom from censorship. Period.
When God was welcomed in schools, etc., we didn’t have these problems.
Coaches freely prayed before football games,
and the mere word ‘Christmas’ wasn’t sooooo terribly “offensive” that the Georgia ACLU threatend our school board to remove it from the school calendar or be sued.
It’s preposterous, Americans know it and a few are now putting a stop to such nonsense:
www.thomasmore.org
www.aclj.org
Actually, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this misrepresentation.
I suppose that's why you didn't quote me back, but cut out what I did say. I didn't say you didn't understand that genetic variation is constrained, now did I?
Here's what I said, "Evolutionists ignore the fact that genetic variation (and mutation) is constrained. Mostly because they don't understand the implications."
Now, did I say that you didn't understand that genetic variation is constrained? Is that what I said? What did I say? It's quite clear to someone who can read and think clearly. Try real hard to comprehend and repeat it back.
If you don't have a point without misrepresenting what people say, perhaps it would be better not to say anything at all.
GGG remains ignorant of....ignorance. :)
Do you really want the Genesis story debated in science class?
Why would it need to be?
I wouldn’t bother wasting your time on JS. He tried to wage a backhanded campaign to get me banned, and he has gone out of his way to get a number of my threads pulled. The mods have told us to stay away from each other. Rather than complying, he is waging a new campaign of responding to my posts and replies without pinging me.
And for the record, I had never heard of the arguments the evos were using with respect to ERVs and pseudogenes until Allmendream came along and issued a challenge involving both of them with respect to common descent. It took me a little while to get up to speed, but once I looked into the matter, I found that not only were pseudogenes and ERVs not evidence for common descent, but could in fact be used as evidence against the same. Apparently, Allmendream never recovered, and is now back for round two.
Yeah man... Over the years I’ve been all sorts of liberal, satanic, stupid, wolf in sheeps clothing, anti-christian, democrat, socialist, commie, nazi... on and on.
All because I studied biology and don’t believe the literal interpretation of the bible. Sad.
Awwwwwww........
Well, no one can say you didn’t have a chance in correcting your thinking you’re somehow “conservative”! ;)
Once again, you may have entirely convinced YOURSELF that ERV’s and Pseudogenes are evidence against common descent, but stating that you DEMONSTRATED such, without evidence, is ludicrous. But about what I have come to expect from you.
You’re just upset because you were shown up by a total novice. LOL
Once again, saying something is worthless, especially considering your negligible credibility, DEMONSTRATING something is a different kettle of fish.
What evidence do you have that ERV’s will always insert into identical locations in similar species, and then hyper-mutate to the exact difference one would expect based upon its likely incorporation time into a common ancestor?
If retroviral insertion was predictable then gene therapy wouldn't be so much of a problem.
You have no answer for why a bacteria would increase its mutation rate in response to stress.
You have no answer for how ERV’s show up in nested hierarchies.
You have no answer for why any animal would have pseudogenes at all, let alone why similar species would have identical disabling mutations in the same pseudogene.
You have no answer for how epigenetics somehow makes animals immune to DNA changes.
You have no answer for how these epigenetic markers are not themselves subject to mutation and selection (such as in lactose persistence).
Maybe you should spend more time learning the subject and less time giving yourself delusional congratulatory pats on the back.
You said that a bacteria increased its mutation rate in order to increase its chance of survival. That is absolutely correct!
So what is it about a high mutation rate that would confer a survival advantage to a bacteria under stress?
==I admit that you are a total novice, but shown up?
Actually, you got so tired of being shown up that you once accused me of being one of the science writers over at Creation-Evolution Headlines. What a laugh!
And there’s a reason why it’s relatively easy for creationist laymen to defeat the arguments issued by the high priests (or in your case, the low priests) of Darwinism—WE HAVE THE TRUTH ON OUR SIDE.
I will look into your into your new batch of evo-challenges when I find some spare time.
Have a great weekend—GGG
Still no answers for my questions.
Why not?
I answer your questions, yet you cannot answer mine, and yet you conclude that I have been “shown up”. You must have different evidentiary standards than thinking people.
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.