ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags evolution , biopoiesis , abiogenesis , evolutionary science , geology

Reply
Old 26th October 2010, 09:00 PM   #721
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Are you a creationist?
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2010, 09:01 PM   #722
JonathanQuick
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Nope, I haven't done so, nor shall I, I shall ask instead the standard questions, I am not seeking consensus, I am asking for discussion.
Bravo. One of you in a house of, how many? Several hundred?

Please name for me members here who you deem to be scholarly and who do not embrace Darwinism with all their heart and soul.

Quote:
1. What about antibiotic resistance, does that not demonstrate natural selection ?
Theodosius Dobzhansky coined the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" as everyone here SHOULD know, but unfortunately does not.

Micro-evolution, such as that you cited, is not disputed.

Quote:


2. Then there is the confusing issue of the fused chromosome, humans have one less chromosome pair than the other great apes and a chromosome pair that has telomeres in the middle and an extra centomere, as though it was made from the fusing of two chromosomes.
3. Then there are the strange traits like the peacock's tail.

So please let us talk about those three Mr. Quick shall we?
What alternative explanation do you offer , as that is what theories are approximate models. So I say that these three data points are possibly explained by the process of natural selection through reproductive success.

What say you.
What I say is, why did you fail to address my many questions?
What I say is, why did you permit your many friends to do what you claim not to have done?
You mean you don't have any problem with ad hominem attacks against dissenters? Or is it that you just don't want to get involved? Let the "discussions," such as they are, proceed without a semblance of balance or intellectual honesty.

Now, please address why it took Haeckel's fraud 129 years AFTER its expose, to wend its way through the scientific community, so that biology books as recent as 1997 continued to prattle this egregious lie?

You said nothing about this, so far.
JonathanQuick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2010, 09:19 PM   #723
DallasDad
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 805
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
DallasDad, you have read post after post after post CALLING me a "creationist" and you did not think to ask ONE of those people the basis for such an assumption.
I wasn't curious about them. I was curious about you. The rest of the posters in this thread seem to be forthright about their opinions and positions. You're disagreeing with them, but not stating your own position.

So ... are you a creationist?
DallasDad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2010, 11:13 PM   #724
pnerd
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
Micro-evolution, such as that you cited, is not disputed.
Neither is macroevolution. Evidences for macroevolution
.
pnerd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 02:41 AM   #725
Mahaha
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 121
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
Now, please address why it took Haeckel's fraud 129 years AFTER its expose, to wend its way through the scientific community, so that biology books as recent as 1997 continued to prattle this egregious lie?

You said nothing about this, so far.
Well, not to take sides, but he asked questions about evolution, the topic of this thread, while you are asking why a particulr fraud wasn't found to be true? Even if one answers that, how is it useful for debating evolution?

Plus, sticking to the failings of a man who lived more than 100 years ago isn't that useful. Darwin was wrong about some stuff too, I mean we are all human.

Let's stick to facts about evolution. Do you know what a selex is? Do you know how cancer proceeds? Do you know about the evolution of the pigments in scimian and human eyes?

These are reasonable questions, and I'm asking them politley (and I'm saying this explicitly so that my tone isn't misunderstood). If not with evolution, how do you explain such things?
Mahaha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 02:49 AM   #726
nvidiot
Botanical Jedi
 
nvidiot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,121
Goddidit.

See? It's so easy to become a Phd in creation science!
nvidiot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 04:23 AM   #727
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
Bravo. One of you in a house of, how many? Several hundred?

Please name for me members here who you deem to be scholarly and who do not embrace Darwinism with all their heart and soul.
derail, off the track.
Quote:



Theodosius Dobzhansky coined the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" as everyone here SHOULD know, but unfortunately does not.

Micro-evolution, such as that you cited, is not disputed.
And that is fine, so you do acknowledge that in principle traits can become dominant in a population through reproductive success.
Quote:



What I say is, why did you fail to address my many questions?
What I say is, why did you permit your many friends to do what you claim not to have done?
I did address those you presented in the thread at the time I returned to it. I do not control others.
Quote:
You mean you don't have any problem with ad hominem attacks against dissenters? Or is it that you just don't want to get involved? Let the "discussions," such as they are, proceed without a semblance of balance or intellectual honesty.
My stance on incivility is in my posts.
Quote:

Now, please address why it took Haeckel's fraud 129 years AFTER its expose, to wend its way through the scientific community, so that biology books as recent as 1997 continued to prattle this egregious lie?

You said nothing about this, so far.
I did. So your accusation is false. And as stated at the time, there is better evidence than Haekels drawings and theory, which was disputed at the time, and since. Science is not homogenous.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 27th October 2010 at 04:26 AM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 05:18 AM   #728
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,925
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
DallasDad, you have read post after post after post CALLING me a "creationist" and you did not think to ask ONE of those people the basis for such an assumption. Not ONE.

Think about that for a few seconds.

I will answer in a day or two, but doesn't it appear quite obvious to you that
I have NEVER claimed to be a "creationist"?

Nor have I made any claims about the Bible trumping science.
Darwinists consistently jump to baseless conclusions which are anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, and then - THEN they have the temerity, the galling arrogance to claim that THEY are paragons of science, and the object(s) of their enmity are ignorant hillbillies.
Are you a politician?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 09:13 AM   #729
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
Theodosius Dobzhansky coined the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" as everyone here SHOULD know, but unfortunately does not.
As I said, the fact that few if any researchers who study evolution use those terms is telling. It's predominantly Creationists that use the terms micro- and macro-evolution. (One exception I know of is the use of the term macroevolution to denote evolution above the species level, but I'm not a fan of that and it's fairly rare to hear it at any rate.)

Quote:
Now, please address why it took Haeckel's fraud 129 years AFTER its expose, to wend its way through the scientific community, so that biology books as recent as 1997 continued to prattle this egregious lie?

You said nothing about this, so far.
Well, science screws up sometimes. We caught it. No one in science claims it's perfect, just that it's better than any alternatives we have.

Quote:
You mean you don't have any problem with ad hominem attacks against dissenters? Or is it that you just don't want to get involved? Let the "discussions," such as they are, proceed without a semblance of balance or intellectual honesty.
The problem is that discussions about the validity of the theory of evolution cannot be both ballanced and intellectually honest. The evidence for the theory is overwhelming--it overwhelmed the objections to Darwin's work when it was new, it overwhelmed the objections to Soviet biology (by the way, the fact that evolution leads to better agriculture and better standards of living while rejection of evolution leads to mass starvation, as seen in the Soviet Union, is something Creationists tend to refuse to consider), and any intellectually honest examination of the evidence of any single field which deals with evolution necessarily leads to the conclusion that evolution is true. The only way to ballance this is to either refuse to admit valid evidence, or to admit blatant falsehoods as evidence (yes, yes, science screws up sometimes; but once we catch it we don't use false data anymore).

Either you're looking at the data objectively and honestly, or you're ballancing the discussion between support of evolution and opposition to it.

Quote:
DallasDad, you have read post after post after post CALLING me a "creationist" and you did not think to ask ONE of those people the basis for such an assumption. Not ONE.
This is flat-out false. I gave my reasoning, yesterday at 5:17 pm California time. You may reject my reasoning, but it's a simple fact, available to anyone who simply looks at the previous page, that I have presented an argument for my assessment.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 10:40 PM   #730
JonathanQuick
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
As I said, the fact that few if any researchers who study evolution use those terms is telling. It's predominantly Creationists that use the terms micro- and macro-evolution. (One exception I know of is the use of the term macroevolution to denote evolution above the species level, but I'm not a fan of that and it's fairly rare to hear it at any rate.)
The claim that such terms are the creation of "Creationists" is a lie. Science should not traffic in lies, but as I have shown repeatedly, it does.
It is shameful, but rather than acknowledge such events, people excuse such conduct. It is "telling" that you do so.

Quote:
Well, science screws up sometimes. We caught it. No one in science claims it's perfect, just that it's better than any alternatives we have.
Nobody claims otherwise, EXCEPT Darwinists.
Among many other outrageous claims, and inexcusable lies, Darwinists have said that:

"if evolution goes, all of science goes."
"Creationists want to reject science"
"Young earth creationists..... _______ (fill in the blank)"

The list of hatefulness and pejorative remarks by your side would require days to list. That is NOT science, it is anti-science.
You should deride such conduct. When have you done so?


Quote:
The problem is that discussions about the validity of the theory of evolution cannot be both ballanced (SIC) and intellectually honest.
1. Yes they can.
2. They are NEITHER.
I did not say that your side must present no more arguments than my side.
I did not make a fraction of the remarks that have been attributed to me, from being a "Creationist" to being a "YEC" to citing the Bible.

Let's leave the Bible out of this, shall we? Your friends can't seem to do so. When did an intellectually honest proponent of evolution call ANYONE on his side about such tactics? Please show me a few such interventions.

Quote:
The evidence for the theory is overwhelming--it overwhelmed the objections to Darwin's work when it was new, it overwhelmed the objections to Soviet biology (by the way, the fact that (micro) evolution leads to better agriculture and better standards of living while rejection of (micro) evolution leads to mass starvation, as seen in the Soviet Union, is something Creationists tend to refuse to consider), and any intellectually honest examination of the evidence of any single field which deals with evolution necessarily leads to the conclusion that evolution is true.
Once again, you mesh and blend microevolution with macroevolution.
Do not argue the meanings of each term. They were CREATED by Theodosius Dobzhansky, an eminent evolutionist.
I agree. I believe it is extremely powerful. But consensus does not drive science. Dissent and questions do.
Peter Medawar said as much, and he was quite emphatic. Nobody here seems to give a rat's gluteus what Medawar said.


Quote:
The only way to ballance (SIC) this is to either refuse to admit valid evidence, or to admit blatant falsehoods as evidence (yes, yes, science screws up sometimes; but once we catch it we don't use false data anymore).
Not exactly. Haeckel was "caught" in 1868. Yet the falsehoods persisted until 1997. Blatant falsehoods.

Now let me give you some thoughts on BALANCE and INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.

1. One person attempting to respond to 50 or 100 others is patently unfair and UNBALANCED. You refuse to recognize much less acknowledge this.
Nowhere is such a one-sided debate ever attempted.

2. Intellectual honesty would RECOGNIZE that someone making the salient points, and using the terms of art I have employed is NOT the ignoramus your many friends have attempted to portray me as.

But lacking both intellectual honesty and common decency, the imbalance and personal attacks continue.

Although your post is far superior to the average I see here, you still make egregious errors in forcing your own point, while dismissing and slighting my own.

I quite agree. Darwinism has much to commend it. But to dismiss my questions by posting a link, and claiming all my questions are "answered here" is not remotely adequate.

Fact: Despite claiming to know so very much about evolution, many of your associates were unfamiliar with Darwinism, as used by Richard Dawkins, Michael Ruse in his book by that title, and others whose reputation and credentials would never be questioned by anyone here who has so eagerly and arrogantly dismissed me.

Fact: Despite claiming to know so very much about evolution, many of your friends pretended, and claimed, that the terms microevolution and macroevolution were invented by "Creationists" when in fact they were the produce of Dobzhansky.

Fact: Haeckel's fraud persisted from 1868 to 1997, in stark contradiction to the mantra of "self-correcting" science.

Fact: Biochemical synthesis is not trivial, and yet it is endlessly trivialized because of its complexity, and the difficulty if not impossibility of addressing it through the mechanism of random mutation followed by selection.

Fact: Information theorists have published many papers describing the insuperable difficulty of accumulating useful information to produce a compact, coherent repository (DNA) complete with the means of interpreting it, reproducing it, all from hopeful hypotheticals. With all our sophistication, we cannot today begin to interpret the language of life, viz. what the various amino acid sequences mean. But somehow, somehow because bacteria can lose information and thereby gain resistance, this means that proteins and DNA all synthesized themselves by repeating this mechanism. In other words, microevolution means macroevolution.

It does not follow.

Last edited by JonathanQuick; 27th October 2010 at 10:43 PM.
JonathanQuick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 10:50 PM   #731
JonathanQuick
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 228
Speaking of Peter Medawar, Richard Dawkins said in an e-mail to me:

"I am reminded of a lovely quote by Peter Medawar."

(It is tragic that so many have gotten a university education but still cannot think.) paraphrased

I replied to Dawkins that Medawar's observation was not remotely "lovely."

It was tragic. It was unfortunate. It was a black mark against educators everywhere, and Dawkins is of course, an educator.

Dawkins didn't respond to my take on what HE thinks is "lovely".

"An elephant consists of a trillion colonies of bacteria." (paraphrased) - Richard Dawkins

What ignorance that is.
JonathanQuick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 10:57 PM   #732
nvidiot
Botanical Jedi
 
nvidiot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,121
Do you think name dropping will help your cause?
nvidiot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 11:01 PM   #733
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,033
Originally Posted by nvidiot View Post
Goddidit.

See? It's so easy to become a Phd in creation science!
Let me try! Apparent grossly extended recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes - mysterious divine wisdom!

Apparent fusion in human chromosome two - mysterious divine wisdom!

Though that doesn't actually explain anything, does it?
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 12:40 AM   #734
pnerd
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 157
Many people keep repeating the incident of Haeckel's fraud. Is that even relevant to a discussion of evidences for (or against) the theory of evolution?
pnerd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 02:41 AM   #735
subterranean1
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
Speaking of Peter Medawar, Richard Dawkins said in an e-mail to me:

"I am reminded of a lovely quote by Peter Medawar."

(It is tragic that so many have gotten a university education but still cannot think.) paraphrased

I replied to Dawkins that Medawar's observation was not remotely "lovely."
A quote can be 'lovely' if it is making a true and pertinent observation, even if the observation is about something unfortunate.

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
Dawkins didn't respond to my take on what HE thinks is "lovely".
Why on earth should he, even if he actually read your email, rather than having someone junk it before it even got to him?
You seem to be giving a pretty good impression here of someone with a dislike of science. If you gave the same impression in your email, it's quite likely to have been filed under 'internut' and left at that.

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
"An elephant consists of a trillion colonies of bacteria." (paraphrased) - Richard Dawkins

What ignorance that is.
Quote:
"For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria." - (actual quote) Richard Dawkins
Jonathan, if you don't actually understand what someone is saying, it's probably best not to call them ignorant, especially when they're actually very well qualified to talk about what they're talking about (and, judging from your performance here so far, you aren't).

If you actually had anything to say about scientific problems with evolution, I guess you wouldn't be trying to attack Dawkins by the futile method of ascribing malice to him where it clearly wasn't intended or manifestly misunderstanding what he says.

What you've written here says far more about you than it does about Dawkins.
subterranean1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 04:02 AM   #736
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,504
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
"An elephant consists of a trillion colonies of bacteria." (paraphrased) - Richard Dawkins

What ignorance that is.
The ignorance is yours.

There are more bacteria, by the count, but not the mass, in an elephant, human etc than there are cells of that animal. Bacteria are much smaller cells than the ones in your body. And most are in your gut, and you can find out why.

Paul

__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing
Paulhoff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 06:16 AM   #737
JonathanQuick
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Paulhoff View Post
The ignorance is yours.
Paulhoff, you SHOULD be ashamed of yourself. Unfortunately you are not.

Nota bene: Not ONE of the exceedingly self-styled *intellectuals* here condemned your hateful, intolerant attack, calling me ignorant.
Not one.

Quote:
There are more bacteria, by the count, but not the mass, in an elephant, human etc than there are cells of that animal. Bacteria are much smaller cells than the ones in your body. And most are in your gut, and you can find out why.

Paul



Dawkins made no reference to the gut. He stated that the elephant is COMPOSED, meaning its cells. You DO understand the difference between LIVING CELLS and excrement in the intestines, don't you?

It's really not that difficult.

You see, sir, a colony of bacteria INSIDE the BODY (not the intestine) is called an INFECTION.
JonathanQuick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 06:27 AM   #738
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,925
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
Nota bene: Not ONE of the exceedingly self-styled *intellectuals* here condemned your hateful, intolerant attack, calling me ignorant.
Not one.
How is it an attack to call you ignorant if people provide evidence of your ignorance regarding the subject being discussed? You do realize that "ignorant" is not intrinsically derogative, yes?


By the way, I'm still interested in learning the proper interpretation of Exodus 21.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 06:34 AM   #739
JonathanQuick
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by subterranean1 View Post
A quote can be 'lovely' if it is making a true and pertinent observation, even if the observation is about something unfortunate.
"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one. - Milton Friedman

Lovely

"On average, education majors score lower on the SAT test than any other major." - Professor Walter Williams

Lovely, absolutely divine.


Quote:
Why on earth should he, even if he actually read your email, rather than having someone junk it before it even got to him?
You seem to be giving a pretty good impression here of someone with a dislike of science.
I have a profound contempt for people who pretend to know a great deal more than they really do. You should pay more attention to what I say, and almost none to the hateful and intolerant pejoratives which follow my every comment. Take your own hateful pejorative below:

Quote:
If you gave the same impression in your email, it's quite likely to have been filed under 'internut' and left at that.
So you dismiss ME as an "internut" who "dislike(s) science."

Time and again I have met such inane remarks as yours with the simplest of challenges, and time and again, the one so challenged skittles away like a cockroach.

So my challenge to you is this:

What well-known law in physics expresses a proportionality based on the fourth power of the respective variable?

(No help from outside.)

What is the space of hemoglobin?

Give some probabilistic value to the precision of the gravitational constant.






Quote:
Jonathan, if you don't actually understand what someone is saying, it's probably best not to call them ignorant, especially when they're actually very well qualified to talk about what they're talking about (and, judging from your performance here so far, you aren't).
You traffic in generalities, and pejoratives. "Internut" is but one example.
Now you claim that I "don't actually understand what" others are saying, and that I "dislike science." Such distortions as yours, and theirs, are extremely irresponsible and dishonest.

Quote:
///
What you've written here says far more about you than it does about Dawkins.
This shows how very little you know about the socialist.

He is a malicious atheist. Even a fellow biologist and atheist said of his recent book, "It makes me ashamed to be an atheist."

That Dawkins is celebrated, almost WORSHIPED by atheists speaks volumes.
There is even a hateful group so malicious and intolerant as to ridicule Christians everywhere by calling themselves worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They replace the picture of God in Michelangelo's famous work of the Creation of Man with their spaghetti monster.

Are you a Christian? Do you know any? Any at all?

Is that the way you treat them?
JonathanQuick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 06:37 AM   #740
JonathanQuick
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
How is it an attack to call you ignorant if people provide evidence of your ignorance regarding the subject being discussed? You do realize that "ignorant" is not intrinsically derogative, yes?


By the way, I'm still interested in learning the proper interpretation of Exodus 21.
The subject I originally introduced was polypeptides.

Tell me what you know about them from off the top of your head.

What is a polypeptide bond?

How many amino acids were discovered inside the Murchison Meteorite?

How many amino acids are there in the human body?

How many were synthesized in the Miller-Urey experiment, and in what concentrations?

Your failure to answer these questions will demonstrate your own ignorance, notwithstanding your arrogant claims to the contrary.
JonathanQuick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 06:40 AM   #741
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,925
Originally Posted by Jonathan Quick
"An elephant consists of a trillion colonies of bacteria." (paraphrased) - Richard Dawkins

What ignorance that is.
But that isn't actually what he wrote now, is it?

Let's look at the actual quote:

Quote:
An elephant is a colony of about 1,000 trillion cells (1015) cells, and each of those cells is itself a colony of bacteria.

Dawkins - Climbing Mount Improbable p.287
So what is your objection to Dawkins' actual statement?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 06:47 AM   #742
JonathanQuick
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 228
Evolution: the Facts.

Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
///

I did. So your accusation is false. And as stated at the time, there is better evidence than Haekels drawings and theory, which was disputed at the time, and since. Science is not homogenous.
Edited by Locknar:  Edited, breach of Rules 0, 11, 12 removed.


There are so many of you challenging ME and debate is never one-sided when done in a scholarly venue. This most certainly is not. All of you so pretentious in your scholarship SHOULD recognize as much, but clearly not one of you has remarked on it, only I have.

Edited by Locknar:  Edited, breach of Rules 0, 11, 12 removed.


Moreover, you misspelled homogeneous.

It is not necessary that I refute every sentence by every one of you, but all of you seem to think it is.

That you continue with the absurd idea of defending Haeckel's drawings, which were used, and which argument was advanced for over 100 years when it was FRAUDULENT, bespeaks the reprehensible neglect of those ever eager to claim "scientific" foundations.

Science ought not be nearly so lazy and careless for more than one century.

Edited by Locknar:  Edited, breach of Rules 0, 11, 12 removed.

Last edited by Locknar; 28th October 2010 at 07:35 AM.
JonathanQuick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 07:14 AM   #743
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
 
UnrepentantSinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 26,835
Originally Posted by pnerd View Post
Many people keep repeating the incident of Haeckel's fraud. Is that even relevant to a discussion of evidences for (or against) the theory of evolution?
It's not. It's instead a pathetic straw man by Creationists who can't argue against the overwhelming fossil, genetic and molecular evidence for evolution. It's slightly worse than mentioning Piltdown since that was an out and out fraud (though the source and impetus for creating the fossils is still unknown) and the evidences for evolution from embryology and EvoDevo are so powerful, but slightly better than weak appeals to incredulity like "this process takes X steps so it much have been designed" or "Y gene contains Z proteins so it forming spontaneously" - despite the fact that we have loads of evidence that said enzyme, gene, molecular process existed millions of years and millions of generations before humans evolved that particular gene - "is unpossible."

Oh, and Cdesign proponentists objections to Haeckel are highly overstated.
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis...eckels-embryos
__________________
I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.
UnrepentantSinner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 07:31 AM   #744
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
Nota bene: Not ONE of the exceedingly self-styled *intellectuals* here condemned your hateful, intolerant attack, calling me ignorant.
Not one.
Um, saying someone is ignorant, i.e. lacking knowledge is not a forum infraction, as opposed to saying someone is stupid , which is a forum infraction.


So you agree that micro-evolution exists, now, do you think it is possible that in two separate populations of a species that enough traits could change through micro-evolution that they two populations could no longer breed (between members of the separate populations) ?

Still pending chromosomal fusions and the peacock's tail.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 07:37 AM   #745
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
The subject I originally introduced was polypeptides.

Tell me what you know about them from off the top of your head.

What is a polypeptide bond?

How many amino acids were discovered inside the Murchison Meteorite?

How many amino acids are there in the human body?

How many were synthesized in the Miller-Urey experiment, and in what concentrations?

Your failure to answer these questions will demonstrate your own ignorance, notwithstanding your arrogant claims to the contrary.
And your point is?
That the amino acids were not recreated as they exist or that it is not possible to do so?

Abiogensis is a seperate set of theories from the ToE.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 28th October 2010 at 07:38 AM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 07:42 AM   #746
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
Edited by Locknar:  Edited, breach of Rules 0, 11, 12 removed.


There are so many of you challenging ME and debate is never one-sided when done in a scholarly venue. This most certainly is not. All of you so pretentious in your scholarship SHOULD recognize as much, but clearly not one of you has remarked on it, only I have.

Edited by Locknar:  Edited, breach of Rules 0, 11, 12 removed.


Moreover, you misspelled homogeneous.

It is not necessary that I refute every sentence by every one of you, but all of you seem to think it is.

That you continue with the absurd idea of defending Haeckel's drawings, which were used, and which argument was advanced for over 100 years when it was FRAUDULENT, bespeaks the reprehensible neglect of those ever eager to claim "scientific" foundations.

Science ought not be nearly so lazy and careless for more than one century.

Edited by Locknar:  Edited, breach of Rules 0, 11, 12 removed.
As stated, the evidence that is considered to support the theory of Evoultion is more than the drawings of someone whose name I mis-spelled.

Do you care to engage in discussion or just rhetorical confrontation?

I am asking you to engage in discussion, since that is the purpose of teh JREF.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 08:12 AM   #747
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,925
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
The subject I originally introduced was polypeptides.

Tell me what you know about them from off the top of your head.

What is a polypeptide bond?
I know that they are properly referred to as "peptide bonds". A polypeptide is a polymer of amino acids. A peptide bond is a chemical bond formed between molecules of amino acid that involves the loss of a water molecule. That is about the extent of my personal knowledge of the subject.

Quote:
How many amino acids were discovered inside the Murchison Meteorite?
Off the top of my head: Several amino acids, some common on Earth and some rare. Also Also alkanes like those synthesized in the Urey-Miller experiment.

Quote:
How many amino acids are there in the human body?
Twenty, as I recall.

Quote:
How many were synthesized in the Miller-Urey experiment, and in what concentrations?
This I do not know off the top of my head. Looking it up I see that twenty two amino acids were synthesized in one of their vessels. "Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, liquids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed."

Quote:
Your failure to answer these questions will demonstrate your own ignorance, notwithstanding your arrogant claims to the contrary.
As you can see I am not completely ignorant of this subject. I also understand that ignorance is not something shameful. We are all ignorant of a great many things. Ignorance is the driving motivation behind the conduct of scientific investigations of the universe around us. When ignorance is accepted and taken as a challenge then it is not an indicator of weakness. Ignorance and curiosity are perfect counterparts. Ignorance is only a failing when it is maintained willfully.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 01:22 PM   #748
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
Your failure to answer these questions will demonstrate your own ignorance, notwithstanding your arrogant claims to the contrary.
Never claimed otherwise. In fact, I don't like what I call "squishy biology" (if you poke your specimen and any part of it squishes, it's squishy biology; if you poke it and break your finger, it's paleobiology ). I don't really know why; it just never clicked with me.

That said I ahve four books on my shelf 2' from my head right now (an important consideration on the 9th floor straddling the San Andreas) that outline not one or two but dozens of fossil lineages. "Fossil Treasures of het Anza-Borrego Desert" is perhaps my favorite, and deals with sloths, elephant taxa, bears, rodents, etc. "Bringing Fossils to Life" and "On The Origin of Phyla" are also two very good ones.

My point is that you're looking at this from one perspective--biochemistry. And it has good evidence, your comments not withstanding. The problem with evolution, however, is that it is supported by EVERY science which studies biology, from ecology to paleontology to paleobotany to embryology to biochemistry to epidemiology to parasitology, and so on. So while you can claim that I'm ignorant of any one of those fields--and with a single exception, I will gladly agree with you--the people in all the REST of the fields will pounce you. Someone once said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution", and he was right.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 01:53 PM   #749
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,777
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
.... Someone once said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution", and he was right.
Yeah, but since he also came up with terms which are predominantly used by Creationists, I think he just got lucky on that one.
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 01:56 PM   #750
JonathanQuick
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
And your point is?
That the amino acids were not recreated as they exist or that it is not possible to do so?

Abiogensis (SIC) is a seperate (SIC) set of theories from the ToE.
The subject is "IGNORANCE." YOU made the comment:

Quote:
Um, saying someone is ignorant, i.e. lacking knowledge is not a forum infraction, as opposed to saying someone is stupid , which is a forum infraction.
So, on the topic of IGNORANCE and LACKING KNOWLEDGE, I reiterated material in the domain of SCIENCE, and you skittle away from such material, asking what MY "point" is.

How incredibly disingenuous of you.

One simply cannot reply without people like you spinning and twisting in the most anti-intellectual manner.

ciao

I'll add you to my Ignore List. You're clearly a waste of time, like many others here.
JonathanQuick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 05:24 PM   #751
JonathanQuick
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
I know that they are properly referred to as "peptide bonds". A polypeptide is a polymer of amino acids. A peptide bond is a chemical bond formed between molecules of amino acid that involves the loss of a water molecule. That is about the extent of my personal knowledge of the subject.
Look, Foster, we're having a discussion, "in a friendly and lively way," you and me.

Why can't anyone else conduct themselves civilly, as you are doing with me?

There are two reasons:

1. Because they do not wish to. They have absolutely no intention of being friendly with someone like me, whom they hate.

2. Because they know nothing about the science of biochemistry, which is, after all, the foundation of evolution.

We continue, you and I.



Quote:
Off the top of my head: Several amino acids, some common on Earth and some rare. Also Also alkanes like those synthesized in the Urey-Miller experiment.
There were about seventy. Moreover, the experiment to which you refer is almost always called the "Miller-Urey" experiment.


Quote:
Twenty, as I recall.
Bravo. Thank you.

I have always found chirality to be fascinating, haven't you?
How it is that the "primordial ooze" managed to do what you and I cannot, without a fine chemistry laboratory, has eluded evolutionary theorists. The only answer I have gotten to such questions is that "SOME" reactions "result in a slight imbalance in D and L forms."


And from a slight imbalance, we get all L forms in life?

This does not follow. Not remotely.


Quote:
This I do not know off the top of my head. Looking it up I see that twenty two amino acids were synthesized in one of their vessels. "Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, liquids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed."
Only two or three of those simplest amino acids were in significant quantity, which is to say more than a trace. The papers I have read didn't list nearly as many as twenty-two, but even so, I accept your figure.

You see, rather than call someone "stupid" or a "liar" for citing facts with which I disagree, it is much simpler to find some sort of compromise so we can continue on to things even more interesting.

Your pals cannot countenance such a thought.


Quote:
As you can see I am not completely ignorant of this subject. I also understand that ignorance is not something shameful. We are all ignorant of a great many things. /// Ignorance is only a failing when it is maintained willfully.
Tell that to your pals, who call me "ignorant" with dozens and dozens of posts, directly and indirectly. Maybe they will listen to you.

I believe I will concentrate on responding to thoughtful people like you in the future. It's far more productive and interesting than trying to relate to chimpanzees, who do little more than shake their ears wildly and make loud noises.
JonathanQuick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 05:29 PM   #752
JonathanQuick
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
But that isn't actually what he wrote now, is it?

Let's look at the actual quote:

An elephant is a colony of about 1,000 trillion cells (1015) cells, and each of those cells is itself a colony of bacteria.

Dawkins - Climbing Mount Improbable p.287


So what is your objection to Dawkins' actual statement?
Each cell in an elephant is NOT "a colony of bacteria."

You mean you didn't know that?

A colony of bacteria inside a living cell is called an "infection."
A quadrillion infected cells would of course be fatal.
JonathanQuick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 05:59 PM   #753
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
I have always found chirality to be fascinating, haven't you?
How it is that the "primordial ooze" managed to do what you and I cannot, without a fine chemistry laboratory, has eluded evolutionary theorists. The only answer I have gotten to such questions is that "SOME" reactions "result in a slight imbalance in D and L forms."


And from a slight imbalance, we get all L forms in life?

This does not follow. Not remotely.
Except when we start to consider the number of ways chirality CAN emerge in non-living systems.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../409797a0.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/1065625v1


Crystalline structures are interesting that way. As is many clay systems, which can also induce chirality through molecular orientation.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 06:09 PM   #754
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Quote:
I have always found chirality to be fascinating, haven't you?
How it is that the "primordial ooze" managed to do what you and I cannot, without a fine chemistry laboratory, has eluded evolutionary theorists. The only answer I have gotten to such questions is that "SOME" reactions "result in a slight imbalance in D and L forms."


And from a slight imbalance, we get all L forms in life?
That's not even true. Glycine is achiral, and D amino acids are found in some living organisms.

How many amino acids do you think are found in living organisms? If you already numbered them, would you kindly repeat the answer?

Thanks,
John Jones
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 06:52 PM   #755
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,690
How is this still going on? Why in the world are the mods tolerating this off-topic mythocrap in a thread that's supposed to be about the facts of evolution? The so-called "debate" between reality and religio-liars belongs in ITS OWN SEPARATE THREAD, not this one!
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 07:05 PM   #756
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,925
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
I have always found chirality to be fascinating, haven't you?
How it is that the "primordial ooze" managed to do what you and I cannot, without a fine chemistry laboratory, has eluded evolutionary theorists. The only answer I have gotten to such questions is that "SOME" reactions "result in a slight imbalance in D and L forms."

And from a slight imbalance, we get all L forms in life?

This does not follow. Not remotely.

Only two or three of those simplest amino acids were in significant quantity, which is to say more than a trace. The papers I have read didn't list nearly as many as twenty-two, but even so, I accept your figure.

You see, rather than call someone "stupid" or a "liar" for citing facts with which I disagree, it is much simpler to find some sort of compromise so we can continue on to things even more interesting.

Your pals cannot countenance such a thought.
It this point I must defer to Joobz. He has a Ph.D in ChemE and his research involves cellular biology. You'll find a lot of people on this forum who are genuine experts in a variety of fields. I know that there are a number of other biologists on this forum who will be happy to explain the present state of evolutionary biology.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 07:13 PM   #757
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,925
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
Each cell in an elephant is NOT "a colony of bacteria."

You mean you didn't know that?

A colony of bacteria inside a living cell is called an "infection."
A quadrillion infected cells would of course be fatal.
In a very real evolutionary sense, a eukaryotic cell is a colony of bacteria. Dawkins may have been writing a bit poetically in reference to the history of eukaryote evolution, but he is not incorrect to write what he did.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

Last edited by Foster Zygote; 28th October 2010 at 07:56 PM.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2010, 04:49 AM   #758
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick View Post
The subject is "IGNORANCE." YOU made the comment:



So, on the topic of IGNORANCE and LACKING KNOWLEDGE, I reiterated material in the domain of SCIENCE, and you skittle away from such material, asking what MY "point" is.

How incredibly disingenuous of you.

One simply cannot reply without people like you spinning and twisting in the most anti-intellectual manner.

ciao

I'll add you to my Ignore List. You're clearly a waste of time, like many others here.
And so your point is only rhetorical, now we can't actually discuss the ToE is you put me on IGNORE.

I asked what your point is to understand it.

Funny, you did not answer the question about micro-evolution that was the next step in discussion.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2010, 04:51 AM   #759
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
How is this still going on? Why in the world are the mods tolerating this off-topic mythocrap in a thread that's supposed to be about the facts of evolution? The so-called "debate" between reality and religio-liars belongs in ITS OWN SEPARATE THREAD, not this one!
Did you report it?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2010, 04:57 AM   #760
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,369
The futility of the attempt of explaining geology to flood explains all supporters is shown in the 2010 crocoduck award. Watch the video at Youtube. Someone can fix the link, but it is at Youtube here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UyQs8Q6fuQ
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.