Blackjack and Design

[essentialsaltes]

If we look to the telos, it's clear you were meant to win, and this sign of providence is evidence of design.

Just kidding, it was shuffled cards.

 

[Loudmouth]

that "if" clause is the stumbling block.
IF it can be explained by natural means.
so far, abiogenesis hasn't been able to do that.

Has religion explained it? Nope. "God did it" is not an explanation, and never has been. Has anyone produced evidence that supports the claim that God did it? Nope.

the current theory of evolution is not complete either.
there are some that say darwin needs a rewrite:

Every theory in science is incomplete, and the vast majority of biologists disagree that the theory of evolution needs to be rewritten.

Mazur says she was punished for getting out in front of the story and banned from the symposium but realized the story was bigger than Altenberg (which covered events beginning 500 million years ago) and spoke to scientists who were not invited, including those investigating pre-biotic evolution.

False claims of persecution can not cover up your lack of evidence.

She came to the conclusion that evolutionary science suffers because many in the scientific establishment refuse to acknowledge that the old science has served its purpose and there is disagreement about what the new evolution paradigm is. She thinks the dam is now breaking because the public (who funds science) has become a party to the discourse via the Internet and seeks answers to fundamental questions about evolution that scientists so far can’t definitively answer.
www.amazon.com/The-Altenberg-16-Evolution-Industry/dp/1556439245

She is in the minority, for reasons already discussed.

 

[Loudmouth]

i can't remember the exact title but i believe it was evolutionary theory under fire.
Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887

A news article from 1980 where the parties involved have clearly stated that they were misquoted. When are ready to focus on the science that has been written in the intervening 35 years, let us know.

 

[Loudmouth]

yes, i have considered all of it.
and it simply doesn't add up crjmurray.
the letters, the retraction, the original, the involvement of NAIG.
all of it.
it simply doesn't add up.

there is simply no way ayala would write to an anti religious agenda site about something he said in a respected science journal without contacting that journal.
you might buy such stuff, so just go for it.

You accept a quote third hand, yet refuse to accept the direct words from the person who was misquoted. Go figure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

there seems to be a petition that has been signed by almost 1000 scientists that are calling for a reexamination of darwinism.
are they wrong too?

No, first off that petition was dishonestly worded and distributed. Second most of the signers of it were outside of their fields of expertise. This YouTube video pretty much blows it out of the water:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

 

[Loudmouth]

there seems to be a petition that has been signed by almost 1000 scientists that are calling for a reexamination of darwinism.
are they wrong too?

Are the vast majority of scientists who disagree with them wrong in some way?

 

[bhsmte]

You accept a quote third hand, yet refuse to accept the direct words from the person who was misquoted. Go figure.

The third hand accounts fit the agenda, the first hand accounts don't.

For some, easy choice which one they cling to.

 

[Loudmouth]

is this an attempt at character assassination?
it was a simple question to you if you believed it or not.
yes or no, you can't get any simpler than that.

You have been trying to assassinate the character of Ayala from the start.

 

[crjmurray]

you shouldn't be confused.
the answer is simply ridicule, maybe even a damaged and/or lost career.

it's definitely an ugly mess.
i don't buy evolution due to its fraudulent nature.

i'm not saying evolution isn't true, but i AM saying there is some very ugly fraud associated with it.
fraud that continues to this very day.

You keep throwing the word fraud around without backing it up. This is the third time I've seen you do it. Fraud is a word with a specific meaning. If you're gonna go around accusing people of fraud you better have something to support it.

 

[whois]

You keep throwing the word fraud around without backing it up. This is the third time I've seen you do it. Fraud is a word with a specific meaning. If you're gonna go around accusing people of fraud you better have something to support it.

yes, fraud is a deliberate act aimed specifically to deceive.
i have already pointed out the fraudulence on the part of NAIG.

here i point out the fraud of the peer review process AND on the part of the scientists themselves:
www.christianforums.com/t7874999-6/#post67355580

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes, fraud is a deliberate act aimed specifically to deceive.
i have already pointed out the fraudulence on the part of NAIG.

here i point out the fraud of the peer review process AND on the part of the scientists themselves:
www.christianforums.com/t7874999-6/#post67355580

A quote without a source is of no value in a debate. You proved nothing in that post.

 

[whois]

A quote without a source is of no value in a debate. You proved nothing in that post.

sorry, this is one source i must protect.
the source will be made available to any moderator you choose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

sorry, this is one source i must protect.
the source will be made available to any moderator you choose.

Then it is of no value in a debate. Why would you think that a moderator would have any value in attesting to your source?

 

[bhsmte]

sorry, this is one source i must protect.
the source will be made available to any moderator you choose.

Then your claim, is meaningless.

 

[crjmurray]

yes, fraud is a deliberate act aimed specifically to deceive.
i have already pointed out the fraudulence on the part of NAIG.

here i point out the fraud of the peer review process AND on the part of the scientists themselves:
www.christianforums.com/t7874999-6/#post67355580

You haven't proven that NAIG has committed fraud.

You have not proven that horse fossils are a fraud.

You haven't shown that the theory of evolution is a fraud.

The only fraud that has been proven is the fraud committed by you and creationist websites by continuing to misquote Ayala.

 

[whois]

Then it is of no value in a debate. Why would you think that a moderator would have any value in attesting to your source?

the method i offered is perfectly acceptable.
you have no desire at all to clarify this, none.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the method i offered is perfectly acceptable.
you have no desire at all to clarify this, none.

No, it is not. You would need to be able to put that in front of an unbiased judge. To be a moderator here you have to admit to a bias. A bias that makes them unacceptable in these matters.

 

[crjmurray]

sorry, this is one source i must protect.
the source will be made available to any moderator you choose.

You have to protect an Italian ornithological website?

The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal: Introduction

[Birds - Oiseaux] SCRICCIOLO: Italian Ornithological Web Site by Alberto Masi since 1996

 

[bhsmte]

the method i offered is perfectly acceptable.
you have no desire at all to clarify this, none.

This has become quite to clear to me and likely others on this board.

You are quite skilled at making claims, but not so skilled at supporting your claims.

 

[whois]

No, it is not. You would need to be able to put that in front of an unbiased judge. To be a moderator here you have to admit to a bias. A bias that makes them unacceptable in these matters.

i really don't know what to tell you.
i will not divulge this source on the open board.

if you don't want to believe what i've posted that's fine.
you should also consider the fact your assumptions about the piece are most likely wrong.

the piece itself names quite a few people.
i'm quite sure this little debacle can be verified with a little research.
have fun.