Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[AV1611VET]

So we can hear more lies? No thanks.

Are you going to present evidence or not?

Evidence of what? life?

If no life exists, where did this come from?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

You know, for a guy on a discussion forum, you don't seem particularly apt to discuss anything.

This is true, I do not want to sound like a parrot, just parroting what is so abundantly available. I would be more inclined to discussion if it appeared that the opposition understood both sides of the issue; though, this does not appear to be the case.

 

[lasthero]

This is true, I do not want to sound like a parrot, just parroting what is so abundantly available. I would be more inclined to discussion if it appeared that the opposition understood both sides of the issue; though, this does not appear to be the case.

So why are you here, exactly?

Edit: And on another note, it doesn't even seem like YOU understand both sides. You've posted things, but you I don't see where you actually dealt with any of the rebuttals. You keep retreating behind the 'two sides, different viewpoints' shield. You keep saying that it's just a matter of interpretation, but you don't show how your interpretation stands up. You say you don't want to parrot, but all you've done so far is parrot creationist talking points.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

So we can hear more lies?

This is a loaded question, are you implying that Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero are lairs?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

So why are you here, exactly?

This is a great question, do we have purpose or are we just the result of random unguided mutations?

 

[Loudmouth]

This is a loaded question, are you implying that Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero are lairs?

Sternberg flat out lied about what happened at the Smithsonian. He tries to pretend that he lost his editor position because of his actions. That is a lie. He had already resigned his position as editor before anyone knew about the Meyers paper. He wasn't even a paid employee at the Smithsonian. Sternberg's story is nothing but false claims.

That is the foundation of ID, a bunch of lies. These false claims of persecution are nothing more than a smoke screen to cover up the complete absence of science in ID.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is true, I do not want to sound like a parrot, just parroting what is so abundantly available.

Then don't. Discuss it instead.

I would be more inclined to discussion if it appeared that the opposition understood both sides of the issue; though, this does not appear to be the case.

I have forgotten more about ID than you have learned, and I still know more about it than you do.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have forgotten more about ID than you have learned, and I still know more about it than you do.

That reminds me.

I need a new pair of boots.

 

[bhsmte]

If you say so, not sure what the Dover trial has to do with anything, Stephen Meyer's official position is that he declined to testify at the Dover trial, that the courts are not the appropriate forum for scientific debate.

Maybe he declined because he didn't want to be exposed under oath like Michael Behe was.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

And on another note, it doesn't even seem like YOU understand both sides.

I thought the position was made pretty clear:

So we can hear more lies?

It's all lies!!!

 

[Loudmouth]

It's all lies!!!

Notice that you won't defend any of the specific claims. Why is that?

 

[whois]

Boyce Rensberger is not an evolutionary biologist. He is a journalist. Want to try again? Why don't you use quotes from the material that the scientists write themselves?

ah yes, my bad, sorry.
boyce is indeed educated and proficient in the field, a science writer for over 32 years.
read some about boyce:
web.med.harvard.edu/healthcaucus/bg_rensberger.html

so yes, boyce does indeed carry some weight in this matter

 

[Loudmouth]

ah yes, my bad, sorry.
boyce is indeed educated and proficient in the field, a science writer for over 32 years.
read some about boyce:
web.med.harvard.edu/healthcaucus/bg_rensberger.html

so yes, boyce does indeed carry some weight in this matter

The actual scientists carry more weight, and it is their material that you avoid like the plague.

"Darwin surely would have been pleased by the enormous accumulation of paleontological evidence, including the discovery of fossils of organisms transitional between major groups, such as Archaeopteryx, intermediate between reptiles (dinosaurs) and birds, and Tiktaalik, intermediate between fish and tetrapods (4), and the numerous fossils and diverse species of hominins, intermediate between apes and Homo sapiens (e.g., refs. 5–,7)."--Francisco Ayala
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/8/2475.full

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Maybe he declined because he didn't want to be exposed under oath like Michael Behe was.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN WILL SURVIVE KITZMILLER V. DOVER

Three other Discovery Institute Fellows—Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and John Angus Campbell—were initially willing to testify but ultimately did not do so because of disagreements with TMLC attorneys.

As it became clear that the plaintiffs planned to focus their case on the “intelligent design movement” (which Judge Jones calls the “IDM”) rather than simply on the actors in Dover, and as it became increasingly clear that TMLC would not represent those interests, the publisher of Pandas, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), sought to intervene as co-defendant. FTE filed a motion to intervene on May 23, 2005, but after hearing the motion, Judge Jones denied it on July 27, 2005.

When the testimony at trial revealed the religious motives and questionable conduct of the individual school board members and the poor impression the board members had made upon Judge Jones, it became increasingly clear that the school board would lose. However, the Discovery Institute maintained that there was no reason for the judge to conflate the actions of the school board with those of the “IDM.” There was also no reason for the judge to try to resolve the scientific controversy over whether a theory that pointed to intelligence as a possible explanation for a scientific phenomenon should be recognized as scientific. In support of this view, the Discovery Institute filed an amicus brief urging the court to decline the invitation to employ demarcation criteria so as to arbitrarily exclude intelligent design from science. In addition, eighty-five scientists—including professors from the University of Georgia, the University of Michigan, and the University of Iowa, as well as a member of the National Academy of Sciences— filed an amicus brief imploring the court not to assume that scientific questions could be resolved by judicial decree. Despite his listing of these briefs in a footnote, there is no evidence from the text of Judge Jones’s opinion that he ever considered the arguments made in either brief. By contrast, “90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’s 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.”

That's what we need, the ACLU mandating what is and what is not science.

 

[whois]

yes indeed, boyce is another educated fool lying his butt off about evolution.
:rolleyes.

and you wonder why people have serious questions about this stuff.

 

[whois]

and about ayala:
"we would never have guessed stasis from population dynamics, but i now believe what the paleontologists say, that small changes do not accumulate"
-

 

[bhsmte]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN WILL SURVIVE KITZMILLER V. DOVER



That's what we need, the ACLU mandating what is and what is not science.

No one is stopping the ID folks from showing it is real science.

 

[AV1611VET]

No one is stopping the ID folks from showing it is real science.

If ID is science, then Bill Gate's diary is a computer manual.

 

[RickG]

No one is stopping the ID folks from showing it is real science.

The ID folks say: well, it looks like a design, therefore it must have been done by a designer. And some how they call dating geologic strata circular reasoning. Zeeeeeshhhhhhhh!

 

[bhsmte]

The ID folks say: well, it looks like a design, therefore it must have been done by a designer. And some how they call dating geologic strata circular reasoning. Zeeeeeshhhhhhhh!

I guess, you cling to whatever you have.