(06-04-2009 11:10 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  More science waiting to be disproved

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/92634/?fp=1

clearly the work of the "Intelligent Designer" Space Aliens that Richard Dawkins believes in

(06-04-2009 08:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  See we can show and support evidence that supports evolution.

I'm waiting.

In fact I've been waiting for years.

I've asked for that very thing, but then you and Wildebeest go off on some other tangent. Michael Shermer makes the claim, then he switches to some other ad homenim attack. Eugenie Scott is just a dimwit. Dawkins makes the claim, then he writes childern's books about pandas and thumbs (funny that you insult Asimov). New Scientist discusses the conflicting evidence, and they just shrug their shoulders. Gould at least has the decency to admit his line of work doesn't provide evidence, so he changed the theory.

So now, you made the claim. Where's all your evidence?

The "New World Encyclopedia"? I'll bet those Britannica guys are shaking in their boots.

(06-04-2009 11:12 AM)GGniner Wrote:  

(06-04-2009 11:10 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  More science waiting to be disproved

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/92634/?fp=1

clearly the work of the "Intelligent Designer" Space Aliens that Richard Dawkins believes in

Au contraire! I think it's clear proof that jellyfish are capable of leaving the ocean and communicating via images.

Well, I obviously stand corrected. Who can argue with the scientific rigor presented here? My scoffing laughter as been used against me, and put in its rightful place in the evolutionary family tree.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/ap_o...laughter_3

(06-04-2009 09:24 AM)GGniner Wrote:  he also admits in that clip that he has no idea how life began, and that Darwinian evolution can not account for it.

BINGO!!!!! DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding, DING, Ding, ding.

(06-03-2009 07:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:In 2001, the National Center for Education Statistics reported the average SAT score for intended education majors to be 481 math and 483 verbal. Only those interested in vocational school, home economics and public affairs scored lower.

But while the SAT is considered to be a generally reliable intelligence test, the 2001 SAT is not the same SAT that many of us took prior to attending university. Those 2001 scores on the 1996 SAT, which was replaced this year by the New SAT 2005, are equivalent to pre-1996 SAT scores of 451 math and 403 verbal. In case any education majors are reading this, 451 plus 403 equals a cumulative score of 854.

Examining an SAT-to-IQ conversion chart calculated from Mensa entrance criteria, a combined 854 indicates that the average IQ of those pursuing an education major is 91, nine points lower than the average IQ of 100. In other words, those who can't read teach whole language.

Now, not every would-be education major goes on to complete her degree - 77.4 percent of those who do are women - nor does every college graduate with an education major go on to teach in the public schools. But since teaching's best and brightest so frequently quit upon exposure to the labyrinthine public school system and since most teachers who fail their competency tests are still allowed to teach - in Illinois, 7.8 percent of the teachers who have taken these extraordinarily easy tests since 1988 have failed them - it is not logical to conclude that the average teacher's IQ is any higher than the average would-be education major.

I have to see the Source of this mind polution???????? Is this a WND special feature column? Right next to the burn your child's text book hyper link. Can you back up your points without the constant absurd distortions? I may not have authored any books on biochemistry but I can cite the role the cytochrome C protein plays in the study of evolution. I won't need any liberal equivalent to WND to do it either. I'm very confident you can't do the same. Why? You can only find your mindless dribble at sites of quackery. Here's something to look at Torch. It may serve you better than Stephen E. Jones yahoo sites.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cytochrome_c



Your entitled to your opinion, but that's it. You can't link one credible source. You wouldn't survive in an area where your thoughts are challenged. People with a like mind tolerate you. I showed you how you can't prove a theory. You come back with a semantic argument. You don't get the very basic tenets of the scientific method. I have called you out on this repeatedly. We still run into the same problem about every six months. I can write down your formulary response. You attack the poster not their argument.

Here's another thing Torch. If you could disprove evolution. I'd be fine with that. The only thing I care about is the truth. Can you honestly say the same. Post anything from a credible site. I can't imagine where you can find them, but good luck with that. There's a reason why it's hard to find a credible scientist on an ID book or site. It still boggles my mind you post a Stephen E Jones yahoo site and say there. Hey read these quotes. These quotations prove my side dark knight. I don't know how to deal with someone in such a state of denial or delusion.


"Heaven forbid you actually take the time to learn something before you post on this board...that would be so out of character."

POT please introduce yourself to kettle.

We all have different motivations for posting in the spin room. I like and appreciate different points of view. I find the needling and the gotcha postings the lowest form of communication we can have.

I'm sure if I took the SAT today I wouldn't score as high on the math part since I haven't been doing the math problems on there in the past couple of decades. I guess that means that my (and most other people's) intelligence has dropped significantly since college.

(06-04-2009 09:11 AM)GGniner Wrote:  Even Richard Dawkins, once he sat down with an intellectual superior, admitted to the Possibility of Intelligent Design...just that it must be Space Aliens instead of a Creator God



Atheist says there could be an "Intelligent Designer"

Because Dawkins is bright enough to understand he doesn't know everything. At this point we don't have enough info to preclude the possibility that a giant clown rolled us out of clay and placed us on earth one by one. Can't disprove it at this point. ID proponents on the other hand, seem to discount any possibility of evolution out of hand.

And evolution doesn't have anything to do with how life got started in the first place. It is not an argument against evolution.

last time I checked, Darwin's "Orgin of Species" was in fact an effort to explain the "Origins" of Life, later developed further by atheist like Carl Sagan and his Cosmos theories.

ID's or "Creationist" are confident(though less angry and unhinged) than their counterparts, because their view is consistent with Formal Logic. Of course many would argue Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens(the New Atheist) are pretty 'confident' or atleast arrogant and angry.

the Atheist view violates the Law of Non-Contradiction among other things. For something to come from nothing, it would have to "be before it was", which is highly illogical.

the Creationist view is that their is a Finite(the Creation) and Infinite(the Creator), not only is this logical it is Mathematical...of course the 2 are related.

(06-05-2009 10:14 AM)GGniner Wrote:  last time I checked, Darwin's "Orgin of Species" was in fact an effort to explain the "Origins" of Life...

Then you didn't really check. "On the Origin of Species" was/is an effort to explain the DIVERSITY of life and doesn't address the ORIGIN of life.

edit: I have no doubt that I'm going to regret entering this discussion.

some parts of that book, seized on by Atheist:

Quote:Probably all organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed. There is grandeur in this view of life that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

-- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Quote:When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled.

-- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, quoted from John Stear, No Answers in Genesis

Quote:I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.
-- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man p. 61

Quote:A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learned to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that he required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of his laws."
-- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species p. 422

Quote:I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to show why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower from, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance.
-- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man p. 613

and on and on....and of course modern Atheist have gone much much further with this created worldview.

None of that has Darwin saying anything about how life itself got started.