Rejecting evolution with science...

[HapticSimian]

Mod_note: if the term creotards et al is being used in an insulting manner, and I cannot personally see any other possible intention for that term being used, the mods may well have little alternative but to deal with it accordingly in the future.

IOW - knock it off. Play the ball, etc

No back to the regularly scheduled topic of discussion please.

I assume we can expect equally stern treatment of people exhibiting creotard tendencies?

No reason to fret though; it's an exceedingly small club, of which most members are banned anyway.

 

[porchrat]

If the mods' decision is that the term should not be used then I will endeavour to comply. The mods are the authority here.

 

[Swa]

See again you misunderstand the term creotard. There is no such thing as a good natured discussion with a creotard. They will do whatever it takes to push their side including purposefully lying and misquoting. They are dishonest a**holes. These are the sorts of people described under the creotard label.

It looks as though you still have yet to look up the word and how it is used.

No the term is used against anybody you disagree with.

Bizarre conclusion to draw. Your confirmation bias is showing.

And yours not? ROF

Irrelevant. The strength of the 'creation/design hypothesis' isn't measured by how weak the case for evolution is. It has to stand on its own feet, and it's unable to. That's why you're creating this false zero-sum situation where if evolution is false, then Intelligent Design is automatically true.

The creation 'horse' is a crippled, plague-ridden mule that can't even stand, in any case.

That is your opinion. The creation/ID theories have always been strong. You're the one whose crippled deformed mule couldn't even get up at birth and should have been euthanised right there. The only way you can make it seem to be standing is by denigrating other competing theories.

Astronomy is real science, last time I looked. Perhaps you mean astrology.

I'm glad you think you're the only one who knows what real science is, Swa. Just like Ken Ham.

Appears to be the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. It's also amusing that you count Ekstasis as being worthy of teaching people real science, considering his continual inability to grasp the most basic scientific concepts.



Care to make a case for design, then? Swa failed miserably, so I'm curious if you'll be able to do better.

Stop peddling your religious assumptions as real science.

note the bold ... a brilliant mind is an unbiased one, one that can see facts and challenge popular belief. People bad mouth Dawkins because he is at war with religion, perhaps its engulfed him a bit from the celebrity status

As I said the man is simply an idiot. Brilliant also doesn't magically mean unbiased. As for the rest of your ad hominems and misrepresentations not even worth a response as usual.

 

[RiaX]

yes swa and you know more than a professor in biology who is head of school of biology oxford university. You totally smarter than this man LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

swa my dog's poo has more intelligence than you. You dont know what science is by definition, you deluded in everything you say, you use latin based terms as if you know what they mean and you havent got a decent shred of evidence nor have you ever presented anything of value.

Though your stupidity is entertaining I will give you that. I love the way people say you an idiot but it flies over your head and when they realize there is no hope to educate you, you assume you "won" .... there is no winning in scientific debate.

oh well in your mind its argumentum ad populum wrt to his intelligence.

although im not an official expert in evolution, I deal with it. Dawkins is an expert in it and knows more on the subject than everyone in this forum combined. Oh btw Kenneth miller notes evolution as a real process .... is he also an idiot ? the man who single handedly broke intelligent design in pieces

 

[OrbitalDawn]

/snip

Sure thing, Ken. Whatever you say.

 

[copacetic]

So, nearly 450 posts later, and I've not actually seen any science that rejects evolution.

Plenty of people flinging insults around though.

 

[porchrat]

So, nearly 450 posts later, and I've not actually seen any science that rejects evolution.

Plenty of people flinging insults around though.

It is getting a little ridiculous now.

"my dog's poo has more intelligence than you" is a bit much.

I would say lets return to the topic at hand and have Swa produce some actual science falsifying evolution but most of us have him on ignore now so nobody would bother to read it anyway.

 

[DJ...]

@Swa, what these people don't get is that we're not against the fact of evolutionary change in the form of mutations.
It's the common ancestry BS that they somehow proved.

Then explain the vestigial centromere on chromosome two of the human DNA. And when you're done with that, please explain what mechanisms of a 23 base pair chromosome structure prevents these changes but allows for them in all other chromosome combinations? Explain how the nylon-eating bacteria came about? Explain the MRSA virus mutations. Explain vestigial structures altogether.

Why must these questions be repeated to you constantly? You simply refuse to read the posts by the looks of things...

 

[Ekstasis]

Then explain the vestigial centromere on chromosome two of the human DNA. And when you're done with that, please explain what mechanisms of a 23 base pair chromosome structure prevents these changes but allows for them in all other chromosome combinations?

Maybe you can explain it to me since you understand it so well. Are you educated in genetics or are you just throwing these terms around. I'm not at all clued up on these matters in detail, but if you're going on about the fusion of 2 apelike chromosomes to form chromosome 2 in humans, there's quite a few discrepancies found by scientists on the other side of the evolution camp. For one, why is the purported fusion location so far from the predicted fusion location? Also the purported location looks nothing at all like a fusion ??? Secondly, the purported fusion site is in an area almost completely degenerated with nothing representing intact fused telomeres.

 

[Ekstasis]

T. Chapman (Genetics) did her own analysis of the various Base Pair ranges of the purported and predicted fusion sites and found these discrepancies. So did the ICR.

 

[Ekstasis]

From the ICR:

According to the evolutionary interpretation, this fusion took place at some point after humans and great apes split into different evolutionary branches. Figure 1 presents a pictorial depiction of this hypothetical event. A majority of the data for the fusion model is based on indirect laboratory techniques that were commonly used prior to the revolution in genomics, before DNA sequencing became routine and cost-effective. A key article published in 2002 actually analyzed the DNA sequence evidence at the key chromosomal fusion sites in humans and produced more questions than answers.2

Nevertheless, the scientific dogma surrounding the fusion model, which is based more on ambiguous data than solid evidence, persists to this day. In fact, the whole issue is considered to be settled, despite the preliminary DNA sequence evidence that remained inconclusive. As a result of the scientific dogma and the taboo nature of the topic, a silent message of “don’t touch this” is perceived by the secular research community. As a result, the errant dogma remains unchallenged by definitive DNA data…until now.

This author and Dr. Jerry Bergman, a professor at Northwest State College in Ohio, recently completed a new analysis of the scientific literature and available DNA sequence data that seriously calls into question the validity of the fusion model and human evolution in general.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

From the ICR:

According to the evolutionary interpretation, this fusion took place at some point after humans and great apes split into different evolutionary branches. Figure 1 presents a pictorial depiction of this hypothetical event. A majority of the data for the fusion model is based on indirect laboratory techniques that were commonly used prior to the revolution in genomics, before DNA sequencing became routine and cost-effective. A key article published in 2002 actually analyzed the DNA sequence evidence at the key chromosomal fusion sites in humans and produced more questions than answers.2

Nevertheless, the scientific dogma surrounding the fusion model, which is based more on ambiguous data than solid evidence, persists to this day. In fact, the whole issue is considered to be settled, despite the preliminary DNA sequence evidence that remained inconclusive. As a result of the scientific dogma and the taboo nature of the topic, a silent message of “don’t touch this” is perceived by the secular research community. As a result, the errant dogma remains unchallenged by definitive DNA data…until now.

This author and Dr. Jerry Bergman, a professor at Northwest State College in Ohio, recently completed a new analysis of the scientific literature and available DNA sequence data that seriously calls into question the validity of the fusion model and human evolution in general.

Can you post the link to the studies backing this up?

Here is an entire article that relates to your above passage: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/l...ally-the-hounding-duck-can-rest/#.UVyWvZDc5YI

It contains links to actual studies that were done.

 

[Ekstasis]

You will have to concentrate on this video by Chapman. Gets interesting from 6:20
[video=youtube;x-RWG6lawaM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=x-RWG6lawaM[/video]

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

You will have to concentrate on this video by Chapman. Gets interesting from 6:20
[video=youtube;x-RWG6lawaM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=x-RWG6lawaM[/video]

And still no references to any papers actually refuting the fact that haven't come from the lovely discovery institute.

 

[Swa]

/snip

So, nearly 450 posts later, and I've not actually seen any science that rejects evolution.

Plenty of people flinging insults around though.

And take a look at who's flinging those insults. Says a lot to anybody reading about their position.

Then explain the vestigial centromere on chromosome two of the human DNA. And when you're done with that, please explain what mechanisms of a 23 base pair chromosome structure prevents these changes but allows for them in all other chromosome combinations? Explain how the nylon-eating bacteria came about? Explain the MRSA virus mutations. Explain vestigial structures altogether.

Why must these questions be repeated to you constantly? You simply refuse to read the posts by the looks of things...

Already explained here
Really man why must the ANSWERS constantly be repeated to you people. No need to answer that, standard tactic around these parts in order to keep to your religion: ignore answers, start derailment with insults hoping no one has seen the answers, repeat answered questions again.

As for your chromosomal fusion argument here's why it doesn't quite wash:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-the-chromosomal-fusion-argument-doesnt-wash/
Oh and this one is actually referenced since I see Zoidberg is demanding references refuting what he has just accepted as fact without actually providing references himself.

 

[porchrat]

From the ICR:

You mean the Institute for Creation Research?

Oh for goodness sake Ekstasis.

 

[Ekstasis]

You mean the Institute for Creation Research?

Oh for goodness sake Ekstasis.

You think their scientists will be allowed to publish their findings in evolution based & driven scientific journals?

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

You think their scientists will be allowed to publish their findings in evolution based & driven scientific journals?

What is stopping them? Have they tried?

 

[RiaX]

im a troll ? :wtf:

 

[Swa]

What is stopping them? Have they tried?

Yes many have, and get met with the same intolerant attitude you are displaying here.