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 ...
Mitch - you can feel better knowing that there is no real debate at all in the real world. The only “debate” is predicated on the false hopes and dreams of bible literalist nutbags and know-nothings. I suppose I should include the Koran literalist nutbags too, and random indigenous peoples around the world as those populations also believe in this creationist foolishness.
Mitch - you can feel better knowing that there is no real debate at all in the real world. The only “debate” is predicated on the false hopes and dreams of bible literalist nutbags and know-nothings. I suppose I should include the Koran literalist nutbags too, and random indigenous peoples around the world as those populations also believe in this creationist foolishness.
LOL...yeah there’s “no debate” in algoreacle’s REAL world either Mitch.
Like others, whattajoke might think there’s no culture war or backlash against his fellow godless liberals for hijacking law to silence and censor Christians across the board, but the tipping point is already realized: enter Sarah Palin.
Finally the sane people that founded this country now have a voice again. To put a screeching halt to the Michael Newdow’s of the world.
And by all means, keep ignoring these people too:
www.aclj.org
www.thomasmore.org
You see, it used to be the ACLU would either sue or threaten to sue with impunity, but those days are slowly but most assuredly fading.
Atheists don’t own our culture, the law or science, never have and never will.
If there were truly no debate, I suspect when you google “lawsuit” and “Intelligent Design” you wouldn’t get some 2.2 MILLION plus hits ????????
Ya think ??????
Drink the koolaid if you must, I promise it’s the very least of my worries as I’m sure the debate will very much indeed continue without you!!!!!! (and the algoreacle)
Like the one set up by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il?
Rather than the Bible literalist nutbags? Creationist foolisnness? Like Newton? Like Faraday? The men who gave us the Constitution? Like this....?
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Sure, see where that belief in God will land you?
Let me know if you get an answer.
There was a thread some time back that was posted about an article that discussed that DNA tends to resist mutating.
All I remember from the thread was that e-s pointed out that it supported the creationist viewpoint of God creating kinds of animals and stating the they would reproduce *after their kind*.
editor-surveyor, do you remember that thread or have any idea when it was?
See, Mitch, they like to quickly go from the biology aspect of it all to comparing folks like you and me to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. At least Metmom left out Hitler this time, so that was a touch of class.
Sir Isaac Newton was a creationist! That’s always one of my favorite ones. The fact that he lived 200 years before Darwin somehow doesn’t factor in. Psst, he also believe the moonwalk was a hoax.
Oh yeah, and then we get the T Jefferson as literalist stuff.
It’s a pattern. A very boring pattern.
blah blah blah.
But you’re right... there IS a debate on the science that was settled 100+ years ago and is made clearer every day through research.
right here on FR.
Go get ‘em boys.
Believing that theory in scientific debate was ever “settled”, much less 100+ years ago ilustrates your helplessness better than anything I could come up with just now.
TWO THUMBS UP!
“I suspect when you google “lawsuit” and “Intelligent Design” you wouldn’t get some 2.2 MILLION plus hits”
— Wait. I’ve been (no joke) out of the loop on this stuff for a while but I thought the last (and biggest) court case was the Dover case which was brought by the ID crowd?
And I thought that the ID book was shown to be a creationist book and that some of the AiG folks committed perjury and Behe said under oath that ID was on equal footing with astrology?
And also funny is that - again, you are right - there IS debate now among the YECs, OECs, creationists, ID’ers, etc. It always seems that once those who thought they were ID’ers learn that Father ID, Michael Behe, accepts evolution almost entirely, they are lost once again.
I am merely pointing out with evidence the GGG is a liar. He stated that ERV evidence was new to him, and I cited the fact that he spent a week debating ERV evidence.
Are you suggesting that presentation of evidence is forbidden?
SO far NOTHING from you but lies and accusations of backing away from something you never put forward. Despicable behavior, but typical.
Absolutely. E.coli is defined as a species by several criteria, one is the inability to digest citrate. Recently in the lab E.coli evolved the ability to digest citrate and is now a new species; citrate plus e.coli.
Nylon digesting bacteria lives entirely differently and upon an entirely different food source than its ancestral bacteria. It is known, as a species, by its ability to digest nylon.
How does the “apparent” evolution of bacteria compare with the reproductive life cycle of mammals? It is comparable once you account for generation time (20 minutes versus 20 years). In fact the 2% genetic difference and 6% genomic difference between humans and chimps is estimated to have taken some six to seven million years to accumulate, while one could generate a 6% genomic difference in bacteria quite rapidly, especially if you put them under stress and as part of their stress response they increased their mutation rate.
Now why again would a bacteria under stress want to increase its mutation rate?
Another poster suggested it gave them a survival advantage to do so and then let the subject drop. I wonder why.
Isn’t it obvious? The increased mutation rate in response to stress is front loaded.
:)
Endosymbiosis of mitochondria and chloroplasts is supported by several independent lines of research.
DNA similarity denotes common ancestry in paternity tests across the nation every day. But yes, if mitochondria and chloroplasts were created by God inside all eukaryotes at the moment of their own creation, God designed them to look exactly as if they were formerly symbiotic bacteria in terms of size, structure, DNA sequence, types of proteins, and ribosomes.
So if God is under complete control of random processes in a slot machine determining if you win or lose, why then is God supposedly unable to control the “random processes” that are involved in generating genetic variability, as well as the non random processes whereby this variability is selected for or against?
You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper, Allmendream. A debate on the science is precisely what you were offered (see below). Then you tried to weasel out of the debate by pretending that I wanted you to debate a “conspiracy theorist.” I, of course, called you on it, and then, as is your practice, you fled the scene. Talk about your dispicable behavior!:
Allmendream: I am not interested in debating a conspiracy theorist.
Me: I offered a debate between you and one of the thousands of scientists who officially question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. The debate was going to be focused on the science of AIDS alone. You accepted the debate and then backed out. Furthermore, I cited paper after paper, written by your fellow evos, every one of which stated that there are indeed codes upon codes. Your issue is with them, not me. And in this connection, I also floated a debate between you and a creation scientist. As per usual, you failed to rise to the challenge. Thus, it is you who are running away, not me...In short, put up or shut up...
Allmendream: NO RESPONSE
— Wait. I’ve been (no joke) out of the loop on this stuff for a while but I thought the last (and biggest) court case was the Dover case which was brought by the ID crowd?
Nope. Brought by people mad at God for Christians that dared teaching their own kids their ideas in public schools.
You don’t find Christians or creationists suing to stomp out evolution.
I guess if you’re unaware of what’s really going on you also wouldn’t know that lunatics are suing to have crosses removed form town logos...and Michael Newdow hijacking his own daughter to get “Under God” removed from the pledge and so on.
And then there’s:
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Your post #was 162 PS “First you agree to debate, then you back out. Hmmmmm” GGG
In my post #163 posted on Sunday, January 06, 2008 7:35:07 AM by allmendream
If you have data present it and I will engage it.
YOU HAVE YET TO PRESENT YOUR EXPERT FOR DEBATE. Dr. Deusburg Dr. Carter or Dr. Whoever or Dr. Anybody has not signed on to FR to issue me a debate challenge. I did not ever back out. The debate challenge ended with me telling you to present the data you wished me to debate. in post #163 of the thread you claim there was no response to from your post #155 or #162. You are deluding yourself but I doubt your fooling anyone else with your repeated claims that your challenge in post #155 went without answer.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941583/replies?c=162
Actually, Mitch, notice how quickly the evos go from biology to comparing creationists to “nutbags, know-nothings, Koran literalist nutbags, random indigenous peoples around the world as those populations also believe in this creationist foolishness” (post 401); and then notice how they act like the creationist started it when the creationist responds (post 406).
Evos like tout their alleged intellectual superiority by making fun of anyone who doesn’t agree with their pet theory, no matter what the level of education they possess, despite the fact that many evos don’t even have a degree in science to begin with, it’s just a hobby for many. It has nothing to do with the actual fact of one’s intelligence, it has everything to do with adhering to a belief system. It has everything to do with stroking one’s ego at the expense of the reputation of another. Gauging one’s intellectual capabilities based on a nonintellectual criteria is absurd. I sure hope that that’s not an example of the kind of intellectual muscle used to do science.
They also like to presume that greats like Newton would believe in the ToE if only it had been around when they were alive. Presuming that someone dead would think like you is just wishful thinking. Well, if we’re going to speak for dead people, we can raise them a “Darwin recanted”. I sure hope that that’s not an example of the kind of intellectual muscle used to do science,either.
Evos also like to misrepresent what people say and play the victim card. I did not compare anyone to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Kim Jung Il. I merely questioned the view of the *real* world. Presuming that belief in the supernatural makes some people out of touch with reality has no basis. Those who have no belief system concerning God are not more in touch with *reality* than anyone else. Those who refuse to acknowledge the supernatural have imposed on the world some of the most hideous regimes known to man. For that matter, I have yet to see that any atheistic regime has produced any good at all.
If the real world is the one without God, and those governments are an example of where man is without God, then we have a moral obligation to resist with everything within us the imposition of a Godless society with every ounce of strength we have. Just look at Soviet Russia, Communist China, Viet Nam when it fell, the current situation in NK. Scientists and evos who think that they’d be better off under a godless society need to realize that science has never fared well under those conditions. It will come back to bite them.
But the truth isn’t going to stop some people. After all, science isn’t about truth anyway. I guess that’s because they have no experience with it.
Well said, and it’s not about the science but just assuming for a moment it was, what kind of science needs to censor and sue others into silence to enforce their worldview of science?
I keep hearing that science isn’t interested in the supernatural, so what are they afraid of?
Darwinism can only survive if enforced with legal action?
Doesn’t exactly sound like survival of the fittest to me!
That must explain all the legislative initiatives attempting to allow creationism to be taught as an alternative.
Laws like the one in Louisiana are the work of ?Darwinists, aren't they? Enforcing teaching through legal action?
By the way, how's Louisiana doing at coming up with alternatives to evolution, now that teaching alternatives is legal? What do you suppose they'll teach as an alternative to Darwinism?
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.