Customer Discussions > Science forum

Why are Darwinists here so scientifically illiterate?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 4:28:07 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 23, 2011 4:28:40 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 Mar 23, 2011 5:31:54 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
I foresee the day when Brent will have no one to talk to but, apparently, Babak Sakendari, John Smith and God.

Of course, he never really puts anyone on ignore. I know this because he's put me there at least 3 times now and yet, still can't resist the urge to engage me. That's when he uses his famous, "I peaked," excuse.

So, actually, he's a loon AND a liar.

Posted on Mar 23, 2011 5:39:54 PM PDT
MrBooks says:
The "Who" behind ID is hardly just a philosophical question. If ID predicts that an intelligence is actually involved in creating / changing lifeforms then it is a physical entity, it interacts with the physical world through some method.

Further if complex systems need a designer, and as we see designers are very complex, then who designed that designer?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 5:44:56 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 Mar 23, 2011 6:30:06 PM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Brent A. Mortimer: D.Thrower, Irish Lace and A.Caplan are also on ignore.
>Thank you. I guess my logic was too much for your lack of same.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 6:49:58 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 Mar 23, 2011 7:00:16 PM PDT
SinSeeker says:
I'll have to come back to your other posturings later, as I'm a bit pressed for time the moment, but....
Design is detectable ...
depending on how you define "design" and "detectable."

Clarify those concepts with some scientific precision, then we'll move on.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 7:03:12 PM PDT
Fargone: oh please...............wiki as a source? Again? Pfffffffffft!

Nice refutation, Fargone. Tell you what: read the wiki article and compare it to the sources below and tell me how they differ in content and accuracy. Buffoon.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 8:54:06 PM PDT
:-)

Posted on Mar 24, 2011 3:10:30 AM PDT
David Félix says:
Hi Brent,

"I am not a geneticist, but geneticists who have used Mendel's Accountant believe that it accurately portrays population genetics as it demonstrates the processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow."

I am a geneticist. Say, have you tried applying Mendel's Accountant to E.coli? The software predicts an extintion event for E. coli every week (assuming the observed doubling time of 20 minutes). The problem is that I'm pretty sure there were E. coli in my lab two weeks ago. I'll even risk saying that there were E. coli as early as 1880's when the species was discovered (I was not there, of course, but there are historical records). So either the model is wrong or reality is wrong... Hmmmm......... Which one could it be.......

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 4:03:55 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 5:59:48 AM PDT
A customer says:
Babak Sekandari - "Perhaps those who don't understand your argument do so because they are unfamiliar with coding and complexity."

Working as I have for 25 years in software and the last 15 with a grown-up language (C++) I can confidently say that I disagree with Brent's "argument" because it's wrong. So's yours - a total non-sequitur. You've just used an example of the FAILURE of intelligence in engineering a complex system to conclude that it must always require intelligence.

Duh.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 4:05:15 AM PDT
A customer says:
John A. Gerling - "Being placed on "ignore" is good when the ignoring party also ignores evidence. "

Nice of Amazon to provide a button specially designed for the thinking patternd of creationists, isn't it? Now THAT's intelligent!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 4:12:25 AM PDT
A customer says:
John - "although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species."

Well, no. It explains the similarities. The point is that the differences are not inconsistent with common descent.

Very far from it.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 4:20:49 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 4:22:42 AM PDT
A customer says:
Brent A. Mortimer - "Sinseeker, don't make me do your homework, you should be able to do some homework on your own to find out how these articles disprove NDE."

Ah, the usual snivelling retreat from one who knows his "evidence" doesn't actually show what he pretends it shows. Don't make Brent actually come up with arguments, people - do your homework and come up with your own.

Idiot.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 4:24:02 AM PDT
A customer says:
Brent A. Mortimer - "Here's the complete list:"

You forgot to add all the professional journals and the evidence reported in them. They're on your "ignore" list, as well.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 5:02:55 AM PDT
Brent: I'm impressed! You seem very organized. I see many good choices here, of the 15 that I recognize, and only one that I might question. Just out of curiosity, do you also have a list of those you have found it worth talking to?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 7:16:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 9:11:58 AM 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 Mar 24, 2011 9:04:24 AM PDT
Seeker says:
Swingin that high and mighty, I'm the expert mallet................

and yet you still don't get the point. Why not use a credible source to begin with?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 10:44:53 AM PDT
Fargone: Swingin that high and mighty, I'm the expert mallet................

No problems with ego, I see...

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 11:21:39 AM PDT
Seeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 12:00:20 PM PDT
See, that''s ANOTHER thing B.A.Mortimer can't understand. He thinks we post to him!

We reply to him when he makes those awful groaners due to a total misunderstanding of, well, just about everything!

But we do that so that they won't be unchallenged.

We certainly don't imagine there's any point to addressing HIM!

Because if people can't understand something, there's a good chance that with a bit of application, it can become clear and intellligible to them.

But in B.A.M.'s case, not so much.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 12:04:13 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 12:07:16 PM PDT
And as has been pointed out before, once we use the word "who", which signifies a person, then we are well and truly out of the range of science, and into metaphysics -- a division of philosophy.

We might go back to Aristotle, the pagan who spoke of an Unmoved Mover; and that Unmoved Mover was who was a First Cause.

Though some would argue that an Uncaused Cause is implicitly contradictory and therefore non-existent; because of the underlying premise: all things that exist have a cause.

But that belongs in the Philosophy board.

Not in science. Thank Zeus.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 12:12:29 PM PDT
bpva says:
@ Brent A. Mortimer- please shut up. Just because you study science (radiation in your case apparently), it doesn't make you qualified to discount the factual evidence in support of evolution. How much cell biology and population genetics have you studied?

Evolution as a process is a fact (see: pathogen resistance to antibiotics; comparative genomics). We may never know whether we humans evolved unaided by some higher power, but thus far I think it's safe to conclude that involvement of a higher power would not be required for us to evolve.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 12:30:27 PM PDT
Seeker says:
Some people just don't get the time frame involved.........

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 12:41:00 PM PDT
Fargone: I'll always question a self proclaimed expert................

Who is the expert you were supposedly questioning? If you are speaking of me, let us get our facts straight. You didn't criticize the "expert," you criticized the source and ignored the point. I answered the question. You evaded.
[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
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  289
Total posts:  9027
Initial post:  Mar 13, 2011
Latest post:  Jun 25, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions