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 ...
As you can see, my scientists were lined up and ready to rumble. The debates never happened because YOU backed out. Until I made the mistake of relying on YOUR word, I had a solid reputation of delivering on every single debate/lecture I have ever set up. I don’t know if I will be able to get Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Carter back, but if you write an apology for your fickle and unreliable behavior, I will take it back to my scientists and see if they are willing to start the process all over again.
Its funny how certain people here on FR like to bash scientists who don’t agree with them, but when offered the opportunity to debate those very scientists, they get all, um, bashful.
(Ok, that was lame, but I thought it was funny)
So the stressed-out bacteria furiously mutate but remain bacteria. (As I pointed out above, apparently no irrefutable evidence exists for their even becoming mitochondria or chloroplasts. Your statement to the contrary was...how do they say in political discourse... “disingenuous”.)
You’re reading this with eyes which mutated from a sunburn. And you’re thinking about this assuming you can trust a rationality which resulted from an “irrational” (random) process. You’re beautiful.
No need to respond to this post. Your statement to GGG: “Only someone completely clueless could take the statement that I thought you might be a writer for “creationsafari” as a compliment. That site is a joke of bad writing and worse theology and the complete absence of science” speaks volumes.
For those of you who haven’t yet done so, please consider frequenting Creation-Evolution Headlines
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200809.htm
FOUR MONTHS AGO I said I was ready.
where are they? “ready to rumble” or not?
You have yet to present your expert, so how in any good conscience can you say I backed away from debating an expert?
You are deluded.
nothing in science is irrefutable. there is really no other theory in biology as to where chloroplasts and mitochondria came from other than endosymbiosis. They have their own DNA (similar to bacterial DNA) they have their own ribosomes (similar to bacterial ribosomes) and make many of their own proteins from their DNA.
Do you believe God has no power over random processes? That HIS power stops at the casino door? That because something is random it is not part of God's plan?
This is Science? This is theology? This is good writing?
No it is not. No it is not. not.
“thinking Darwinly”? Wow. Someone buy that guy a thesaurus.
Read the emails, Allmendream. Four months ago was five months too late. I had my scientists lined up to debate YOU in December 2007/January 2008. That's when you backed out and we lost them to other commitments. So it is you who are delusional. But that goes without saying. For you have joined the crusade to use Darwin's discredited fairytale to separate God from His creation in the minds of His children.
LOL...and then tries to pretend that they were willing to debate all along. Do the Darwinists have no shame? (I think we both know the answer to that question).
You have nothing but baseless accusations of me “backing out” of something that you never put forward.
If you have data present it and I will engage it. Otherwise it is YOU who first backed down from defending the ASININE and IDIOTIC article at the head of this thread that cannot even keep translation and transcription differentiated to chase a red herring of HIV AIDS which has nothing to do with the subject.
163 posted on Sunday, January 06, 2008 7:35:07 AM by allmendream
Now here we are again, nine months later, and you still have not produced your “expert”.
Sad and sick. No shame. No honor.
I understood and accepted the theory of evolution. Then I learned more and doubted.
Allmendream: You have nothing but baseless accusations of me “backing out” of something that you never put forward.
ME: Wrong. First, as demonstrated above, I had two scientists who were ready to officially debate you. Then you backed out and I lost them to other commitments.
Fri, 4 Jan 2008 5:48 pm
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
Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:26 pm
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
Now, who do you suppose I had Dr. Carter and Dr. Duesberg lined up for, Allmendream? I went to a lot of trouble to get the debate set up, and YOU BACKED OUT:
Allmendream: I believe it was js### who agreed to debates with conditions that could not be met (closed thread or some such).
ME: Actually, you agreed to a debate, and then backed out
Allmendream: I think any “Scientist” on your side (who you haven’t frog marched off to prison) would be far too busy debating the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY including the vast majority of those who study retrovirus, to have the time to debate us.
Me: I found one that isn’t tied up. Are you game?
Allmendream: Sure, why not? I am not an expert on virus’s or HIV, nor would I represent myself as such (although no doubt you will), but I know enough to read the literature on the subject of a virus that reproduces within helper T cells in immune compromised patients with low helper T counts and high viral counts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945222/posts?q=1&;page=151#167
Me: Let’s work out this debate thing first, and then we can return to codes upon codes.
Me: What happened to the debate re: AIDS? Creation vs. Evolution? Etc? You have suddenly gone silent. What gives?
Allmendream (who resorts to insults when cornered): Really not that interested in the granola eating anti corporate fringe that believe the FDA and Biologists are in cahoots to kill people. I know it agrees with your conspiracy fantasies of cabals of Scientists up to no good, but it doesn’t comport to any reality I know so I have limited interest.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941583/posts?q=1&;page=151#155
MORE FROM THE SAME THREAD
Me: Which means you are not at all confident in your point of view and depend on force to uphold the same. So much for being willing to let the evidence lead where it may.
Allmendream: It is not my point of view, it is the point of view of the vast majority of virologists. It is not your view that they are incorrectly interpreting their results, but that they are engaged in fraud and conspiracy. As such you will not be convinced by their data, so what would be the point in me presenting it to you?
Me: You are very mistaken. I do think the HIV-AIDS hypothesis is based on fraud, but the vast majority of scientists have no clue and just accept the fraud on authority without asking questions. You fall in that category IMHO...PS First you agree to debate, then you back out. Hmmmmm.....
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
Feel free to ping anyone you like to review the evidence and cast their vote. I think the record is clear, Allmendream backed out of the debate when faced with the prospect that he might actually have to debate bonafide scientists.
==I understood and accepted the theory of evolution. Then I learned more and doubted.
Careful, they might feed you to the lions.
I believe that it has been well established here for quite some time that the dreamer is not an honest debator, nor a scientist.
He is a propagandist that has studied biology, but rejects the basic princilpes of science: objective research, and honest reporting of data.
He does seem to have a very selective memory. Maybe it helps him forget the mountain of evidence falsifying Darwin’s creation myth.
I’m going to concur with editor-surveyor.
This aside, I have reason to believe that allmendream had a hand in the banning of a scientist as a ‘troll’.
Some people appear to be terrified of open scientific debate with professionals.
For the life of me, I cannot see why he continues to deny the obvious. First he gives me the green light to set up the debates. Then he says he’s not going to debate. Back and forth, back and forth. I’m thinking of building a grandfather clock and using him as the pendulum.
It seems clear to me that allmendream assumed you were proposing a “debate” in this forum and was waiting for someone to show up, while you expected him to debate them in private communication and let you report back what happened or something. That misunderstanding doesn’t mean either of you “backed out,” but at least he’s not running around making an issue of it.
Actually, he knew it was going to be in public, and he knew it was going to be on this forum. Nice try, though.
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.