Customer Discussions > Science forum

IDers please stop embarassing yourselves


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 536 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 17, 2012 1:31:08 PM PDT
The Weasel says:
Just stop it. Just say you believe in Creationism as noted in the Bible. Stop trying to make your argument with "facts". No ID argument has ever been shown to be a valid argument against evolution.

The only argument you can make without looking foolish is to say that God intentionally created the earth with fossils in place as a test of your faith, etc.

I can't stand how tortured the ID adherents sound when trying to defend their belief system. Just stick to "God did it". Heck 40% of the nation agrees with you there, but don't try to make Creationism into science it just doesn't work.

Posted on Jul 17, 2012 2:13:33 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 2:23:11 PM PDT
Rev. Otter says:
thank you again for so deftly illustrating the OP's point. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 2:43:56 PM PDT
The Weasel says:
andthehorseirodeinontoo? says:
how can we be embarrassed for telling the truth

it is the moronic illogical evolutionaries that should hang their heads in shame with embarrassment
***
man, you're amazing!

proof of any type at all? show me where ID is more logical than evolution - anywhere at all?

Posted on Jul 17, 2012 3:29:03 PM PDT
The sad fact is that they are --and there is an astounding display of it in the second post in this thread-- far too ignorant to BE embarrassed.

Posted on Jul 17, 2012 3:55:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2012 5:28:36 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 4:35:58 PM PDT
The Weasel says:
Listen to what Dr E V Koonin phd BMOC says
El Doctor Koonin phd es el Guru Numero Uno de Peer Reviwed Molecular Biology de Gravy Train de NIH de Uncle Sam:
Senors y Senoras: Ahem, "The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis has crumbed beyond repair"
****
Did you read his paper at all? He believes that the gene transfer among primative life forms requires a revision of some of the tenets of "Modern Synthesis". This has nothing to do with discounting Evolution at all other than our understanding of how it operated.

Dawkins covers this topic in his "Greatest Show on Earth" as well.

Anyway, leave it to a creationist to read a headline and misunderstand the meaning of, well, everything. Gosh you really can't be embarassed by anything can you?

Abstract here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 4:46:28 PM PDT
The Weasel says:
Its been faslified by horizontal gene transfer guys
And by a boatload of other experiments.
Like them Swedish chickens what Doc Per Jensen phd BMOC rasied fellas.
At Prof Jensen's very Linkoping University right there in Sweden, Europe
Oops.
***
Okay i did some research on the chickens since I wasn't familar with that one -- read the abstract there as well -and guess what? You're wrong again. At most epigenics is likely to create a minor adjustment in the theory of evolution. Here a really good rebuttal from Coyne:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/is-epigenetics-a-revolution-in-evolution/

Seriously, your conclusions are making you look kind of dumb.....

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 4:54:19 PM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hiding from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work. Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:11:45 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:16:05 PM PDT
noman says:
CH is a Poe. He's posting simply to get a reaction. Actually I think all the ID/Creation posts are simply to get attention, but some of the posters actually believe what they're saying. CH doesn't.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:20:16 PM PDT
noman says:
Fossil Evidence

Primate Origins and Evolutionhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/Ifossil_ev.shtml

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:22:06 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:23:05 PM PDT
I have a slightly different take, noman. I think CH believes what he's saying, but I think he's given up on convincing other people, so he formulates his remarks more to get a rise out of people than to persuade.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:25:23 PM PDT
Well, you'll find plenty of people who say fossils are merely an accessory to the "real" evidence for evolution. I wouldn't personally go that far, but it is the case that most scientists who study evolution study something other than fossils. And it is the case that extreeeeemely strong evidence for evolution exists quite aside from fossils. And, anyway, it is the case that extreeeeemely strong evidence for evolution exists in the fossil record. So...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:29:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2012 6:30:54 PM PDT
Consider that On the Origin of Species spends two out of fifteen total chapters on the topic of the fossil record. And this topic arises in the later reaches of the book, as a follow-up to the main argument presented up front.

Posted on Jul 17, 2012 6:34:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2012 6:39:53 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:47:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2012 7:07:34 PM PDT
Hmm. Better tell Koonin, eh?

Once upon a time I read the paper you like to quote wherein is made Koonin's "crumbled beyond repair" remark. The paper, of course, fully endorses evolution. Once upon a time I tried to explain to you what Koonin was actually saying. Tell me, Christopher, have you read that paper yourself? Have you even read the entire paragraph in which your pet comment resides? Or tell me this: have you even read the title of that paper? It's instructive...

-

Anyway, here're a few lines of Koonin's paper you might consider:

"All existing life forms descend from a single ancestral form, the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). [...] comparative genomics leaves no doubt of the common ancestry of all cellular life."

That's fancy talk for "evolution happens -- there's extreeeemely strong evidence".

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:53:22 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Anyone seen the Swedish chickens?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 7:06:56 PM PDT
"Extreeeeeemely Strong Evidence", for the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis?

Uh oh.
Better tell Dr E V Koonin phd BMOC*

Why? He's not a paleotologist

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 4:54:45 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hiding from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work. Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 6:51:52 AM PDT
It's intentional misunderstanding.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 7:32:27 AM PDT
Ryan S. Hupp says:
"Anyone seen the Swedish chickens?"

Ayurr! Firsta den splicey de chikken, bÝrk bÝrk bÝrk.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 7:45:35 AM PDT
Yothgoboufnir said: "Consider that On the Origin of Species spends two out of fifteen total chapters on the topic of the fossil record. And this topic arises in the later reaches of the book, as a follow-up to the main argument presented up front."

Yoth, so what do those two chapters say?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 7:47:09 AM PDT
:)
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 22 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  44
Total posts:  536
Initial post:  Jul 17, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 11, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions