Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?

CreationEvolutionHeadlines ^ | September 10, 2008

[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?...

[GodGunsGuts]

==Still no answers for my questions.

Unlike you, I don't dodge debates. I told you I will be back with answers when I find some time to look into your so-called evidence. But of one thing I'm supremely confident: virtually every point you made will end up favoring Creation/ID.

[allmendream]

Still accusing me of dodging a debate? Your credibility went down even lower, if that is possible.

You challenged me to debate your “expert” on the HIV AIDS link, I said ‘sure why not, but there is really no point to it if your “expert” thinks that all the evidence I will cite is fraudulent’. You never produced an expert and a couple months later claimed I ‘ran off with my tail between my legs’ and are now once more claiming FRAUDULENTLY that I avoid debates.

I had to find the thread to show that once again you have no factual basis for your claims.

[allmendream]

And if you do indeed ever produce an “expert” on virology who denies that HIV causes AIDS I WILL debate them.

Just to be clear about who is running off ‘tail betwixt the legs’; you challenged and I accepted and you have yet to produce your “expert” who thinks HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I didn't think to mention this yesterday, but the conditions of this experiment which Deamer uses to demonstrate that self-organisation is possible are wildly out of all proportion to anything even remotely likely to have contributed to "the appearance of life on an early earth". 250ºC at 0.2 GPa? Does anyone realise that 0.2 GPa (200 MPa) is roughly TWICE the pressure (~116 MPa) found at the bottom of the ocean in the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench, the deepest point anywhere on earth? His experiments have no relevance to any conditions, realistic or long-shot, likely to have ever existed on the earth. Further, even if we are to suppose that at some point way, way back in the misty past of the mythological evolutionist "millions and millions of years" there was a subduction trench deep enough to yield this sort of pressure, it would almost certainly have been ice cold, just as Challenger Deep is, despite being an area of tectonic activity.

This work is no evidence for self-organisation as a possible explanation for how life could have appeared in a purely naturalistic manner. All he's shown is that, under very extreme conditions having little relevancy to anything occurring naturally on this planet, he can make some fatty molecules self-organise since he's made it thermodynamically favourable for them to do so.

[GodGunsGuts]

You agreed to take the debate and then backed away. You also backed out of our debate re: Dr. Humphreys/Starlight and Time. And I think you backed out of a third debate, but I can’t recall what it was about. I’ll search the threads to see if I can find it. In short, you are known for backing out of debates with laymen. God only knows what you would do against a real scientist.

[Fichori]

“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.” [excerpt]

I'll clarify.

What I intended to say originally was that God is outside of the confines of nature...
(And the afore mentioned scientists are not)

“Nope, the future is for citizens to retake their govt, their schools and indeed get govt out of schools, that much I agree with.” [excerpt]

And until that happens, Private Christian schools, charter schools, and home schooling are the answer.
(Oh wait, that falls under the heading of getting the govt out of schools...)

The fact is, public education is a dangerous machine.

As long as it exists, there will be communists and fascists trying to figure out how to game it.

Government sanctioned and funded public education is one of the pillars of socialism.

I'm not surprised that our public education system is chock full of communists/socialists.

Its their playground.

Considering that private schools and homeschooling outperforms public school, why should we keep a system that attracts people whose ideals are contrary to what this nation was founded on?

The public school system is like a bug infested swamp.

Perhaps its time to drain the swamp.

(It sure would be a lot easier than swatting at individual bugs.)

[Fichori]

I would be thrilled if 85% of the electorate would clean up the government.

They haven’t yet, and I’m not going to hold my breath.

If they do, it’ll be a nice surprise.

In the meantime, Christians need to pull their kids out of public school and either put them in private school or home school.

If 85% of the electorate pulled their kids out of public school...

Now that would be change you can believe in.

[tpanther]

Couldn’t agree more! Thanks for squaring me away!

I’m disappointed we’ve gotten to the point we’re at, but encouraged that things have seemed to slow down a bit and in some cases actually opened some eyes.

[allmendream]

I have never backed down from a single debate. I said “sure why not” to debate your “expert” that you never produced; only to hear from you several months later that I “ran off with my tail between my legs”. I found the post and corrected you. Obviously you have no shame because now, a year later, you are retelling your lie and have added to it the subject of Astronomy and something else you think you remember. You are delusional.

[Fichori]

I though the mod told you to stop that...

[Fichori]

Glad were on the same page. ;)

[GodGunsGuts]

You are delusional by definition. Your “thoughts” are nothing more than the random collocations of atoms bouncing around in your brain. There is no design or purpose to who you are or anything you do. At least that is what the Temple of Darwin (who you keep shilling for) would have us think. And I stand by my statement. You have backed out of multiple debates, both with me and with bonafide scientists. If you see it differently, feel free to prove me wrong.

[tpanther]

Seems so! I’m not yet in that position, but I stay involved.

And it’s not just school...Americans should speak up to political correctness wherever and whenever it rears it’s ugly head.

[allmendream]

I call shenanigans.

First off I can't prove a negative about something you think you remember and something else that doesn't exist. But I am looking for the posts where you vilely accused me of backing down from a debate several months ago and I had to track back to find my “sure why not” acceptance. Clearly it didn't have the pay off I thought it would because here you are again with your baseless accusations of backing down from an expert you never produced.

Still no answers, still no expert.

I am ready and willing to debate anytime.

[allmendream]

You still have not produced your expert who is going to “debate” me. This post is from 6th of May. You have had four months. I have not backed down, backed away, or gone anywhere. I am here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2008690/posts?q=1&;page=201

Sure why not?” is me agreeing to multiple debates? and “I have limited interest” is backing out?
So bring it on. Is the subject to be HIV and AIDS or “cdesign proponentist”? What are the “rules” of this “debate”? Your pedigreed pet Scientist is free to post anything they want and invite me to critique it. I am not standing in anyones way and am not afraid to present what I know on the subject; but as I pointed out I am not an expert on either virus or HIV and would be relying entirely upon the body of knowledge that your “expert” has already rejected.

[allmendream]

Also from the same thread.....

I await, as ever, the presentation of the data you wish me to debate.

I was left with a rather favorable impression of our past exchanges, which made your coming onto this thread both barrels blazing in my direction a bit curious to me. I guess that particular exchange did end with me taking exception to you wanting to see Scientists frog marched off to prison and you taking exception to my characterization of the AIDS deniers being granola eating anti-corporate coffee enema having Luddites.

But what is that little disagreement between FRiends?

Anyway I tend to remember our previous exchanges which were more civil and dealt with the Science of ERV’s and pseudogenes; rather than what I would characterize as the “wild eyed conspiracy theories” about HIV Scientists being in collusion with drug companies to make people sick taking “unnecessary” anti-retroviral medications and the need to “frog march” Scientists off to prison.

Hopefully we can keep this more of the latter and less of the former; however I am not encouraged that the last one who agreed to “debate” your “Pedigreed” Scientist is no longer on speaking terms with you by decree of the Moderators.

[GodGunsGuts]

BTW, you narrowly dodged a bullet when you backed out of the debate re: AIDS. And believe me, if you had not put your tail between your legs and ran, Dr. Duesberg was indeed standing by to tear your lame arguments limb from limb:

Email exchange between Peter Duesberg and myself (12/28,2007):

Hi Peter,

Did you get my emails re: coming onto FR and conducting a debate or online chat re: AIDS?

All the best—

---

Yes, I got your call for action and I still stand by our young principles, not to avoid a war if ever possible!

So what is FR? How does it work? Who debates? Do you have an example?

Best,

Peter

—

Peter Duesberg
Dept. Mol. & Cell Biol.
Donner Lab
UC Berkeley
BERKELEY CA 94720

[allmendream]

I await.

[GodGunsGuts]

Oh, and thanks for refreshing my memory. You also backed out of a Creation-Evolution debate at the same time. So that makes three debates you backed out of. And as in the case of AIDS, I had a scientist lined up to destroy your arguments in favor or Darwin’s discredited creation myth:

---

OK, thanks - I have already contacted Dr Carter, who has already indicated his willingness to participate. I have copied him on this email, so you can communicate with him directly, though I would be pleased to be kept in the loop.

Kind regards, Carl

Dr Carl Wieland
Managing Director
Creation Ministries International Ltd (Australia)
www.CreationOnTheWeb.com

[allmendream]

Once again with the lie that I backed out or am backing out. Four months ago I answered your accusation that I backed out of a debate with a challenge to have your expert come forth.

Four months later you accuse ME of backing out.

You are deluded.