Who wrote this?

[wattsr1]

**************************************************

Last waste of time .....................

I have stated often that there is a SCIENTIFIC evolution : allele frequencies in populations
do indeed change in time. This is verifiable true science. But molecules-to-man,
dino-to-bird, cow-to-whale, slime-to-Tiggy ... is NOT verifiable true science.
It is a religious belief system meant to take God out of the picture. One day you
will grasp what that means. Will you ever accept it? God only knows.

Okay ... enough time wasted. Don't bother to reply.

Jorge

So who has actually directly observed an allele frequency change in a wild population Jorge? I don't know of anyone who has. Can you point me to a paper written by a person who has sat down and seen an allele frequency change, as they watch?

As far as I can tell, it's always something that's happened in the past. That, is, by your own standard, it cannot be true science.


And given that AiG accepts that speciation happens, do you admit to accepting it as well?

[wattsr1]

**************************************************

Last waste of time .....................

I have stated often that there is a SCIENTIFIC evolution : allele frequencies in populations
do indeed change in time. This is verifiable true science. But molecules-to-man,
dino-to-bird, cow-to-whale, slime-to-Tiggy ... is NOT verifiable true science.
It is a religious belief system meant to take God out of the picture. One day you
will grasp what that means. Will you ever accept it? God only knows.

Okay ... enough time wasted. Don't bother to reply.

Jorge

True science does not seem to have progressed much, does it Jorge.

Probably the result of you thinking that God agrees with your own specific take on some cherry picked verses of the bible.

Here, let me show you some real science. The fin to limb transition:-

1) An article published in 1988 - http://nature.berkeley.edu/~goster/pdfs/EvoDevo1.pdf

2) An article published in 2012 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...2.01491.x/full

Because both are online, open them up and see if you can spot the difference. I'll help, but not too much, because it's real easy to see.

In 1988 they had plenty of good evidence that tetrapod limbs evolved from fins. But they were really groping to make the evidence definite and to understand the mechanics of this transition. In 2012 you should be able to see that while there is a long way to go still, researchers are getting a handle on the scope of the problem, and they are beginning to understand where they need to point their research. This is because they are starting to understand the mechanics of fin/limb formation in model organisms.

What do you think has brought about this difference? It's easy to see even if you skimp read the articles.

True science versus real science. I'll go with the real science any day because I tend to find that those who brandish the words "true" and "God" around in the same context, are generally lousy at the former and so make one wonder about the latter.

Anyway, after that last sentence, I guess you are not going to talk to me for a bit, given that it would have miffed you. Which is a pity, just when I thought you were beginning to like me too. :)

[rogue06]

***************************************************

Bwahahahaha This is soooooo funny!

Anyone not bowing to the Sacred Cow of Darwinism gets
booted out of the Evo-Faithful Flock even if he happens
to be a "fellow Atheist".

Equally funny is your remark, "... doesn't know biology
from Beethoven". Indeed, anyone (Creationist, Atheist,
whatever) that doesn't worship at the Evo-Altar, MUST
not know any biology. WOW - incredible 'logic' !!!

If it weren't for the fact that the attitude of you people is
tragically pathetic, it would be an unending joke. Alas,
the "joke" will undoubtedly end for you one day.

Jorge

I think the point is that someone can have a PhD in one area and not know diddly squat in another. For instance, the opinion of a cosmologist in the area of cancer research just doesn't carry a whole lot of weight like it would if he was discussing star formation.

Moreover, your oft made claim that all atheists must accept evolution has just been falsified.

[Jorge]

I think the point is that someone can have a PhD in one area and not know diddly squat in another.

That is true but in no way does it necessarily imply that being trained (PhD or whatever)
in one area excludes that person from being well informed in other areas.
Yet, to you people, anyone not bowing at the Evo-Altar immediately implies that the
person "does not know / understand evolution". You've missed the point again, R06.

For instance, the opinion of a cosmologist in the area of cancer research just
doesn't carry a whole lot of weight like it would if he was discussing star formation.

Again, that MAY be true but it is not necessarily true. You need to do some studying, kiddo.
History is chock-full of examples of people that have made significant contributions in fields
well outside of their own. Besides, it is certainly possible (and fairly common) to have a
good, perhaps even an excellent, grasp of multiple fields of study. Academic snobs usually
deny that fact but that's because they are insecure, pompous jackasses.

Moreover, your oft made claim that all atheists must accept evolution has just been falsified.

Atheists MUST accept Evolution - no "falsification" has occurred here as you claim.
Atheists - ALL Atheists - are spiritually blind and, as such, they make the stupidest
claims and errors imaginable. One of these errors is not realizing that they must
accept some form of Evolution in order to retain their Materialism. This guy wants
to be an Atheist yet reject Evolution. What he proposes (some kind of far-out
version of quantum theory) is grasping at invisible straws. But anything is better
for him than to bow to the Creator God. The fool hath said in his heart, "there is no God."

My point in this thread was to point out that even amongst Atheists there is an
"inner voice" telling them that Darwinism is a dead end holding minds in a death grip.

Jorge

[rogue06]

That is true but in no way does it necessarily imply that being trained (PhD or whatever)
in one area excludes that person from being well informed in other areas.
Yet, to you people, anyone not bowing at the Evo-Altar immediately implies that the
person "does not know / understand evolution". You've missed the point again, R06.


Again, that MAY be true but it is not necessarily true. You need to do some studying, kiddo.
History is chock-full of examples of people that have made significant contributions in fields
well outside of their own. Besides, it is certainly possible (and fairly common) to have a
good, perhaps even an excellent, grasp of multiple fields of study. Academic snobs usually
deny that fact but that's because they are insecure, pompous jackasses.

But nothing in this article (all I have to go on) shows that his is an informed opinion in matters of biology.

Atheists MUST accept Evolution - no "falsification" has occurred here as you claim.
Atheists - ALL Atheists - are spiritually blind and, as such, they make the stupidest
claims and errors imaginable. One of these errors is not realizing that they must
accept some form of Evolution in order to retain their Materialism. This guy wants
to be an Atheist yet reject Evolution. What he proposes (some kind of far-out
version of quantum theory) is grasping at invisible straws. But anything is better
for him than to bow to the Creator God. The fool hath said in his heart, "there is no God."

My point in this thread was to point out that even amongst Atheists there is an
"inner voice" telling them that Darwinism is a dead end holding minds in a death grip.

Jorge

If Barham is an atheist and he doesn't accept evolution then the premise that all atheists must accept evolution is falsified.

[wattsr1]

If Barham is an atheist and he doesn't accept evolution then the premise that all atheists must accept evolution is falsified.

I can hear the gears in Jorge's brain, grinding, all the way over here in Oz.

Norty rogue06, for throwing the spanner in.

[Ansgar Seraph]

****************************************************

Hi Roland ... look, as nicely and as concisely as I can put it : you simply don't
know what you're talking about. More specifically, you are mixing apples with
bazookas. There are reasons why "genetic / evolutionary" algorithms yield
some successes. But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the religious
belief in "molecules-to-men". You should know better (but you don't) than to
try to fool an old war horse like me. Try again next year.

Jorge

There's always a little bit of variance in Jorge's OPs but his first responses are almost always a cut-and-paste affair.

I'd say welcome back, Jorge, but for all I can tell, you just programmed a robot to handle your posts.

—Sam

[magellan004]

Golly, a graduate student in history and philosophy, who doesn't know biology from Beethoven, has decided that somehow the "philosophy of biology" doesn't make sense to him, and THEREFORE biology must be wrong! (Oh yeah, almost forgot. Praise Jesus!)

And his introspective, uninformed blathering can be found at (drumroll...) a CREATIONIST WEBSITE! Who would'a thunk?

I take it you dismiss Karl popper as an appropriate person (a philosopher) to comment on the conceptual framework of science?

Magellan

[rogue06]

Look m004! A bright shiny quarter! Go get it!
toningQuarter.gifXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXtoningQuarter.gif

toningQuarter.gifXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXtoningQuarter.gif



Hopefully that'll distract him.

[magellan004]

Look m004! A bright shiny quarter! Go get it!

Aren't I allowed in your 'Bull' ring?

Dinosaur-Fights-35745.jpg


Magellan

[Jorge]

But nothing in this article (all I have to go on) shows that his is an informed opinion in matters of biology.

You miss the point, again ... while what you say above is true, your automatic default
is that he does NOT know anything about Darwinism because of his stance against it.

Such is the case with you people ALL THE TIME - whomever rejects Darwinism "must
not know or understand it". It's pure circular reasoning - very bad reasoning.

If Barham is an atheist and he doesn't accept evolution then
the premise that all atheists must accept evolution is falsified.

Point missed again ... whew !!!

The fact that Barham is too ignorant, blind or stupid to not realize that
in his Atheistic, Materialistic worldview he MUST accept evolution
is besides the point. Eventually, he will have to do one of two things:
(1) Accept that Evolutionism is an inescapable part of his Atheism or,
(2) Concoct some imaginary scenario sans any rational or empirical support

Right now Barham is engaging in option (2). I do applaud his honesty when
he admits that Darwinism is a "death trap" for the mind but his spiritual
blindness prevents him from seeing that he cannot avoid it in his worldview.
That is what I mean when I say that, "All Atheists must accept Evolution."
Try getting it right.

Jorge

[rogue06]

The fact that Barham is too ignorant, blind or stupid to not realize that
in his Atheistic, Materialistic worldview he MUST accept evolution
is besides the point.

Jorge

"too ignorant, blind or stupid to not realize that in his Atheistic, Materialistic worldview he MUST accept evolution"

[Jorge]

I take it you dismiss Karl popper as an appropriate person (a philosopher)
to comment on the conceptual framework of science?

Magellan

*********************************************

Mags, in case you did not catch me the last time : these people will accept things / people
when it suits them and they will dismiss things / people when it suits them - period, end of
story, go home. Karl Popper is no exception - they will praise Popper when it suits them
and dismiss him when he does not. I have seen this thousands of times in my many
years at this. Then, when you point out this blatant intellectual dishonesty, you get
banned for using the term "dishonest" against them. Don't try to win, you can't ...

Jorge

[Jorge]

"too ignorant, blind or stupid to not realize that in his Atheistic, Materialistic worldview he MUST accept evolution"

**********************************************

R06, I believe you will find your meds in the middle drawer. Hurry, before it's too late.

Jorge

[MooseOnTheLoose]

The future of Victorian storytelling.

540px-Genesis_expo_dioramagrave.jpg