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 ...
Then four months ago you accused me of backing out, I corrected you and said I was willing to debate anyone on FR anytime on the subject of Science.
Neither Dr. Carter or Dr. Weiland or Dr. Desuburg have signed on to FR to issue a challenge to me, either in January or in June. Until they do there was nothing for me to “back out” of.
I know that is hard for you to wrap your mind around, that I cannot debate a non-entity. But please realize that I cannot debate someone on FR who hasn't signed on to FR.
No. I am afraid you are mistaken.
I never even flagged anyone for abuse, let alone conspired to have them banned.
I don't know that I either have, or would want to exercise such a power.
Sorry, Allmendream. It doesn’t get any plainer than our last exchange on the thread:
ME: PS First you agree to debate, then you back out. Hmmmmm.....
Allmendream (who, as usual, issues insults when cornered): 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
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941583/posts?q=1&;page=151#155
GGG never came forward with a signed on Scientist who wanted to debate. And now repeatedly says I backed out both now and back in June.
My position in January concluded with “If you have data present it and I will engage it.” My position in May concluded with “That would be “present the data you wish me to debate”.” 236 posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:41:39 PM by allmendream
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2008690/posts?q=1&;page=201
In all that time there has been no debate challenge for me presented on FR. Hard to back away from something that never happened.
Most folks that vehemently reject any evidence to the contrary for a pet theory
usually have some deeper reason for the rejection.
In the case of this issue, recognition of the Creator obviously has some HUGE implications. Many people have some stuff in their life that they feel like they just CAN’T let go of, and that they know they will have to let go of if they allow the possibility of a Creator to seep into their reality.
Sorry but the research on HIV and AIDS has progressed to the point that the Scientists working on it are either correct in their assumption or engaged in fraud on a massive scale. Not the Scientists like me who work in unrelated fields and accept their conclusions, I mean the actual Scientists working on the HIV virus. There is no possibility that they are just mistaken at this point, they are either essentially correct, or engaged in massive fraud.
I am not interested in debating a conspiracy theorist. I am perfectly willing to discuss Science, and debate the implications and meanings of the data. But if you think they are ‘Liars Liars Pants on Fire’ right from the beginning, while your granola eating anti-corporate raw foodist coffee enema having nutters are obviously truth-tellers of the highest order.
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.
(emphasis added for those of you in Rio Linda)
Seems that was my response to your proposed debate.
If you have DATA, you need to PRESENT it, in order for me to ENGAGE or otherwise DEBATE it.
163 posted on Sunday, January 06, 2008 7:35:07 AM by allmendream
So if it was going to be on this forum, how was it supposed to get started? It seems to me that if you propose a public debate with your champion, it's up to you to get your champion registered and introduced to the group--or at least his opponent--under his screen name.
From jas3
Answering AIDS Denialists and AIDS Lies
The Durban declaration states: “The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science.” And also, “HIV causes AIDS. It is unfortunate that a few vocal people continue to deny the evidence. This position will cost countless lives.”
What bona fide AIDS researchers and activists will and will not do when countering AIDS denialists
We will:
Expose the lies and the factual misrepresentations made by the denialists, particularly when these appear in the mainstream media.
Expose individual cases of avoidable illness or death caused by the actions of denialists.
Make supervising authorities or professional organizations aware of conduct by AIDS denialists, particularly scientists, journalists and civil servants, which breaches the normal standards of professional ethics or competence.
Assist investigative journalists in uncovering the financial links between AIDS profiteers and the AIDS denialists who provide mutual support to each other.
Provide factual information on HIV/AIDS to legitimate, mainstream journalists and bona fide members of the public (i.e. not AIDS denialists or agent provocateurs).
We will not:
Engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes. The reasons are:
The debate has been settled: HIV causes AIDS, AIDS kills, and AIDS can be treated with significant success by the use of antiretroviral therapy. These are the facts.
The information proving the above is already in the peer-reviewed science literature. The scientific facts are ignored, misunderstood or willfully misrepresented by the AIDS denialists. However, it is not our role to enlighten denialists as to their inability to understand the available information.
Debating denialists dignifies their position in a way that is unjustified by the facts about HIV/AIDS. The appropriate way for dissenting scientists to try to persuade other scientists of their views on any scientific subject is by publishing research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. For many years now, AIDS denialists have been unsuccessful in persuading credible peer-reviewed journals to accept their views on HIV/AIDS, because of their scientific implausibility and factual inaccuracies. That failure does not entitle those who disagree with the scientific consensus on a life-and-death public health issue to then attempt to confuse the general public by creating the impression that scientific controversy exists when it does not.
Our time is better spent conducting research into HIV/AIDS and/or educating the general public about the facts about this virus and the deadly disease it causes.
This November 2003 Nature article shows why debating denialists is a waste of time.
To help prevent lives from being lost due to ignorance or misunderstanding, we have assembled the content below to address the most common assertions made by AIDS denialists:
HIV, AIDS, and the Distortion of Science – Martin Delaney
Does drug use cause AIDS?
The Consequences of HIV Denialism – Dr. Robert Voigt
Joseph Sonnabend, M.D., makes it clear that denialists are including inappropriate references to him in their literature
AIDS Truth member criticizes AIDS denialists
Several denialist websites proclaim that two—even three—Nobel Prize winners question HIV as the cause of AIDS. Is this true? AIDS Truth investigates.
What our work means: Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-cell decline in untreated HIV infection
HIV causes AIDS: An independent review of the evidence
Debunking the Myths of the AIDS Denialists
Response to the Seven Deadly Deceptions
CD4 Counts and Viral Load
Drugs, Disease, Denial
HIV, AIDS, and the Distortion of Science
AIDS denialism: still crazy after all these years - and still killing people in South Africa
Price of Denial by Mark Heywood
Bad Science: Former Denialists Wake Up
Lies, Damned Lies and Dr. Rath
Nature Medicine Editorial: Denying Science
The Curious Case of AIDS Denialist Roberto Giraldo
Echoes of Lysenko: State-sponsored Pseudoscience in South Africa
Correcting the AIDS Lies
HIV denialists ignore large gap in the study they cite
Denying AIDS and the Rwandan Genocide?
Misrepresentation of the Concorde trial perpetuated by AIDS denialists, particularly Anthony Brink
Words of Dr. Harvey Bialy
165 posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 9:44:27 PM by jas3
==It seems to me that if you propose a public debate with your champion, it's up to you to get your champion registered and introduced to the group—or at least his opponent—under his screen name.
There was no point in signing up my scientists, as Allmendream dropped out of the debate, and I couldn't find any other evos who were willing to take up the challenge on either topic.
This isn’t an AIDS thread Allmendream. But your need to hide behind the skirts of jas3 is duly noted.
BTW, jas3 ran away from a debate with Duesberg too. Are you two related???
ME: jas3 claims to be a scientist, and yet refuses to debate Duesberg.
jas3: No credible scientist will debate Duesberg for the same reason that no credible Republican will debate David Duke.
I am genuinely curious. Have you observed the formation of a new type of bacteria, that is uniquely different from the one you started with, that would not be identified as the same type (Genus, Species, etc.) as the "parent"? For example, billions of mutations and strains of the e. coli still can be identified as e. coli.
How does the apparent evolution of bacteria, with which one can observe hundreds of generations in a short period of time, compare to the reproductive life cyle of mammals, which averages in years, not minutes or hours?
If they can't even develop a 450 horsepower 12 second musclecar, like my 73 Duster with a 408 stroker, they deserve to be extinct!
Regarding you’re post about “some deeper reason for the rejection” of a Creator...
I couldn’t agree more.
I don't believe in micro-evolution. However, genetic variation within kinds and natural selection are intuitively obvious to even the casual observer. The leap from these simple mechanism however, to the rise of a new genus is one of faith, not science. No evidence has been observed that is proff positive. e.coli are still e.coli, and fruit flies are still fruit flies, after thousands of "controlled" mutations and generations.
The crevo debate has forced a differentiation between micro and macro, with the evolutionist keen on defining both.
“there is really no other theory in biology as to where chloroplasts and mitochondria came from other than endosymbiosis”
Since when was a theory (e.g. Endosymbiosis) considered validated because it was the ONLY theory?
This is an example of the “best-in-field” fallacy of logic (or in this case, the “Only-in-field” fallacy).
Being the best, or only, theory doesn’t make it true or good.
“They have their own DNA (similar to bacterial DNA)”
Since when did similarity (e.g. Of DNA) necessitate common ancestry?
Similarities could imply common ancestry OR could imply a common designer using common design principles.
“Do you believe God has no power over random processes? That HIS power stops at the casino door?”
Based on what I know about God and what humanity has observed throughout history, I believe casino slot machines can, and are supposed to, produce random results, but that those random results could never produce a slot machine, let alone the human being pulling the handle.
“This (Creation-Evolution Headlines excerpts) is Science? This is theology? This is good writing? No it is not. No it is not. Not.”
Whoa! Lighten up, Francis. You’re either ignorantly pedantic or have no sense of humor (maybe both).
I happen to think CEH’s editor does a brilliant job. Maybe I just have a more “evolved” sense of substance and style than you. Who are you (or any evolutionist) to say I’m wrong?
I can’t believe that in 2008 we’re still having this ridiculous debate.
That’s been my observation too, and to take it a step further, for some it’s virtually terrifying to turn over your...eternal soul on faith to follow a certain path.
And of course the concept that there’s a dark being that would just as soon it be this way of fear and apprehension and hanging on to independence, is also a very...foreign concept to say the least.
But like so many other things like getting a shot for the first time(cause you don’t remember them as an infant) when you’re 5 yeaqrs old, or speaking in public, once you get your feet wet, you’re like geeeee....I made all that fuss over THAT?
Trusting in Christ was MORE liberating, not less. I gained MORE control, not less. I’m so free it’s not even comparable to the slavery I was living in before I was saved.
I think it will be a very dark day (or perhaps the opposite, or dark for one side bright for the other???) when we’re no longer debating it.
But it’s crystal clear which side is hellbent to sue and censor the other in an effort to end all debate, with incidentally alot in common with the algoreacle emitting “there’s no more debate” about his hot air cult!
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.