Evolution happening before our very eyes? Awesome.

[Cerpin Taxt]

This is your best argument regarding the use of homolgy as evidence for macroevolution?

It is a sufficient refutation of the creationist falsehood you were uncritically parroting.

When "have not been explained" and "may" has been replaced with "has been explained" and the word "may" has been erased, get back to me.

It is a fallacy to suggest that an explanation of a wide variety of phenomena (evolution) is not true because a particular phenomena has yet to be explored and explained to completion. In fact, that very pattern of thinking is a form of self-insulation from truth -- something particularly common to creationists.

Do you accept quantum theory? There are more unexplained phenomena in quantum theory than evolution, you know. Of course, quantum theory (to the best of your obviously miniscule knowledge) doesn't immediately conflict with your religious beliefs, so you don't concern yourself with the fact that you hold an obvious double standard.

What's you your next argument for common ancestry/macroevolution?

You know where the evidence is. You don't want to see it because you are intellectually dishonest. That's what it takes to be a creationist: ignorance and dishonesty.

Do you ever wonder why people have such a low opinion of religious folks like yourself? It is precisely because of this. You are ignorant, and you are dishonest, and it is plain for everyone to see.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

It is a sufficient refutation of the creationist falsehood you were uncritically parroting.

Your opinion.


It is a fallacy to suggest that an explanation of a wide variety of phenomena (evolution) is not true because a particular phenomena has yet to be explored and explained to completion. In fact, that very pattern of thinking is a form of self-insulation from truth -- something particularly common to creationists.

Do you accept quantum theory? There are more unexplained phenomena in quantum theory than evolution, you know. Of course, quantum theory (to the best of your obviously miniscule knowledge) doesn't immediately conflict with your religious beliefs, so you don't concern yourself with the fact that you hold an obvious double standard.

Let's stay on-topic.


You know where the evidence is. You don't want to see it because you are intellectually dishonest. That's what it takes to be a creationist: ignorance and dishonesty.

Do you ever wonder why people have such a low opinion of religious folks like yourself? It is precisely because of this. You are ignorant, and you are dishonest, and it is plain for everyone to see.

Your opinion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

In fact, I've been employed as a scientiest for nearly 30 yrs. What are your scientific credentials.

I'm a PhD, MD, ASTC, MT, JD, RN, and I have been employed as a scientist for 125 years.

 

[destrekor]

Alas, I don't know what the ideal solution is for that problem.

Isn't the solution, for that, a deep and awe-inspiring well?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It is a sufficient refutation of the creationist falsehood you were uncritically parroting.

Your opinion.

Quite not, it is a demosntrated fact. You made a statement that I showed to be false. Follow up on the studies referenced in the article, if you don't believe me. Anybody is welcome to. These aren't secrets.

It's still rather telling that you so hurriedly retreat to this type of response, however.

It is a fallacy to suggest that an explanation of a wide variety of phenomena (evolution) is not true because a particular phenomena has yet to be explored and explained to completion. In fact, that very pattern of thinking is a form of self-insulation from truth -- something particularly common to creationists.

Do you accept quantum theory? There are more unexplained phenomena in quantum theory than evolution, you know. Of course, quantum theory (to the best of your obviously miniscule knowledge) doesn't immediately conflict with your religious beliefs, so you don't concern yourself with the fact that you hold an obvious double standard.

Let's stay on topic.

Oh, this is very much on-topic. You have unreasonably demanded that evolution meet particular criteria which you do not demand of other scientific explanations which you accept. This is not indicative of any fault of evolutionary theory, but rather it clearly exposes your own prejudice.

You know where the evidence is. You don't want to see it because you are intellectually dishonest. That's what it takes to be a creationist: ignorance and dishonesty.

Do you ever wonder why people have such a low opinion of religious folks like yourself? It is precisely because of this. You are ignorant, and you are dishonest, and it is plain for everyone to see.

Your opinion.

Again, this is the best you can do to respond to my claims because they are so obviously true. There are no reasonable rebuttals, so you attempt to hand-wave and guffaw because you have no substantive response.

The ironic thing is that your behavior only continues to bolster my point. I suppose I should thank you.

 

[Born2bwire]

I made an argument against homology. Rather than trying to refute it you are resorting to name calling.

In fact, I've been employed as a scientiest for nearly 30 yrs. What are your scientific credentials.

Yeah, by who? Fucking Nabisco? Jesus Christ...

 

[alkemyst]

maybe this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

 

[Jeff7]

Isn't the solution, for that, a deep and awe-inspiring well?

Nope. That's only for curing madness.

Truly stupid people only believe in Intelligent Falling, but since that's entirely false, they don't fall when given a proper chest-kick.

Dr. Road F. Runner observed this phenomenon during his desert excursions. A feral coyote would often bring injury upon himself by observing his predicament as he hung suspended in mid-air at considerable height. Once the ignorance of his situation was removed by this observation of the fact that he should be falling, his faith in the Intelligent Falling hypothesis was shattered, and he suddenly found himself subjected to the laws of gravitational attraction.
The author proposes that a subject could remain suspended indefinitely in this fashion if observation is suspended as well.

For the complete abstract, visit www.acme.com/r.runner.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I'm a PhD, MD, ASTC, MT, JD, RN, and I have been employed as a scientist for 125 years.

Same here but I've been employed as a scientist for 126 years, so there.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Quite not, it is a demosntrated fact. You made a statement that I showed to be false. Follow up on the studies referenced in the article, if you don't believe me. Anybody is welcome to. These aren't secrets.

It's still rather telling that you so hurriedly retreat to this type of response, however.


Oh, this is very much on-topic. You have unreasonably demanded that evolution meet particular criteria which you do not demand of other scientific explanations which you accept. This is not indicative of any fault of evolutionary theory, but rather it clearly exposes your own prejudice.


Again, this is the best you can do to respond to my claims because they are so obviously true. There are no reasonable rebuttals, so you attempt to hand-wave and guffaw because you have no substantive response.

The ironic thing is that your behavior only continues to bolster my point. I suppose I should thank you.

Your welcome, I guess.

You know that your position on homology as a "proof" of macroevolution is indefensible, so you change the argument to Quantum Theory.

What do you want to discuss, Evolution or Quantum Theory? I'm willing to discuss either, just make up your mind.

 

[Nik]

maybe this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

What do you mean by "Maybe?"

 

[sandorski]

I'm a PhD, MD, ASTC, MT, JD, RN, and I have been employed as a scientist for 125 years.

Uneducated Rookie!!!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Your welcome, I guess.

You know that your position on homology as a "proof" of macroevolution is indefensible, so you change the argument to Quantum Theory.

Are you high? I'm not debating quantum theory with you. I (perhaps erroneously) presumed that you accepted quantum theory, and I used it as an example to illustrate your retarded prejudice.

What do you want to discuss, Evolution or Quantum Theory? I'm willing to discuss either, just make up your mind.

Reading comprehension is obviously not a prerequisite for achieving employment as a "scientist".

...and the stupid religious fundamentalist stereotype grows stronger with every one of your keystrokes....

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Are you high? I'm not debating quantum theory with you. I (perhaps erroneously) presumed that you accepted quantum theory, and I used it as an example to illustrate your retarded prejudice.


Reading comprehension is obviously not a prerequisite for achieving employment as a "scientist".

...and the stupid religious fundamentalist stereotype grows stronger with every one of your keystrokes....

But you digress.. Are you ready to get back to a discussion on macroevolution?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

You are correct that dissent from popular scientific ideas can be a death blow to an academic career...

Bingo.

Since macroevolution is the accepted world view of scientists, and students are exposed to the the idea from the earliest days of training, is there any wonder that most scientists accept the theory?

Sadly, most scientists are influenced by social pressure and many are afraid of what might happen if they don't conform to what is currently perceived as being correct.

"To prove their orthodoxy, many scientists have become unscientific and have embraced the religion of 20th century-naturalism. (Johnson, P., Science without God, Wall Street Journal, p. A10, 1993.). "Belief in evolutionism requires a credulity induced partly by pressure to conform to a world of science that is saturated with naturalism." (TJ (now Journal of Creation) 15(1):26–33)

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

But you digress.. Are you ready to get back to a discussion on macroevolution?

*I* digress? This sidebar only exists because you think that a comparison between your attitudes toward two scientific theories is changing the subject to a different scientific theory.

Now I'm forced to ask: do you accept quantum theory as a useful model of reality's behavior? I have to ask because unless you doubt quantum theory in the way you doubt evolution, then my point has been valid since its presentation, and you're trying to change the subject to divert from that.

What a fuckin' nutjob...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Bingo.

Quote mining? Really? Have you actually come to this? Is there like a creationist playbook out on the net that tell each of you exactly the most disingenuous modes of argumentation? I swear to Christ every single of one of you is exactly the same.

Since macroevolution is the accepted world view of scientists, and students are exposed to the the idea from the earliest days of training, is there any wonder that most scientists accept the theory?

Here's what followed immediately after the ellipses of Gigantopithecus' quote:

You are correct that dissent from popular scientific ideas can be a death blow to an academic career, but it's more likely to propel your career to impressive heights when you can demonstrate that a long-standing idea is either wrong or needs substantial revision to make it work in light of new evidence.

The wonder is that so incredibly many thousands upon thousands of scientists accept the theory when any one of them would absolutely jump at the chance to falsify it.

Sadly, most scientists are influenced by social pressure and many are afraid of what might happen if they don't conform to what is currently perceived as being correct.

You know nothing about it. This is pure straw-grasping because you can't deny the evidence.

"To prove their orthodoxy, many scientists have become unscientific and have embraced the religion of 20th century-naturalism. (Johnson, P., Science without God, Wall Street Journal, p. A10, 1993.). "Belief in evolutionism requires a credulity induced partly by pressure to conform to a world of science that is saturated with naturalism." (TJ (now Journal of Creation) 15(1):26–33)

Oh look, you proved that there are other idiots out in the world as stupid is you! What a surprise!

 

[Gibsons]

Bingo.

Since macroevolution is the accepted world view of scientists, and students are exposed to the the idea from the earliest days of training, is there any wonder that most scientists accept the theory?

Sadly, most scientists are influenced by social pressure and many are afraid of what might happen if they don't conform to what is currently perceived as being correct.

"To prove their orthodoxy, many scientists have become unscientific and have embraced the religion of 20th century-naturalism. (Johnson, P., Science without God, Wall Street Journal, p. A10, 1993.). "Belief in evolutionism requires a credulity induced partly by pressure to conform to a world of science that is saturated with naturalism." (TJ (now Journal of Creation) 15(1):26–33)

Got some quotes from Ray Comfort too?

 

[zinfamous]

Bingo.

Since macroevolution is the accepted world view of scientists, and students are exposed to the the idea from the earliest days of training, is there any wonder that most scientists accept the theory?

Sadly, most scientists are influenced by social pressure and many are afraid of what might happen if they don't conform to what is currently perceived as being correct.

"To prove their orthodoxy, many scientists have become unscientific and have embraced the religion of 20th century-naturalism. (Johnson, P., Science without God, Wall Street Journal, p. A10, 1993.). "Belief in evolutionism requires a credulity induced partly by pressure to conform to a world of science that is saturated with naturalism." (TJ (now Journal of Creation) 15(1):26–33)

I like how you quote from the Journal of creation, and the WSJ (now a right-leaning, anti-science rag from Mr Murdoch).

You really don't even want to try and bring up a valid argument, do you?

There is no debate between macro vs microevolution. The terms are used only by creationists and laymen to create some sort of differentiation in terms that doesn't exist amongst evolutionary scientists.

 

[sandorski]

"Social Pressure": A contrast

A few Centuries ago

Today

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

*I* digress? This sidebar only exists because you think that a comparison between your attitudes toward two scientific theories is changing the subject to a different scientific theory.

Now I'm forced to ask: do you accept quantum theory as a useful model of reality's behavior? I have to ask because unless you doubt quantum theory in the way you doubt evolution, then my point has been valid since its presentation, and you're trying to change the subject to divert from that.

What a fuckin' nutjob...

Quantum theory is irrelevent to this this discussion. Why do you continue to want to change the subject? Let's stay on point.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Homology does not provide evidence of macroevolution for the reasons I've previously stated.

I'm waiting for more "proof".

So far, I've only heard name calling and ad-hominem attacks.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Homology does not provide evidence of macroevolution for the reasons I've previously stated.

Now you're plainly lying.

You said:

If the Darwinian interpretation of homology were correct, homologous structures should be produced by homologius genes and follow homologus patterns of embryological development. That's not the case.

This is a false claim, as I demonstrated. Homologous genes "have been found to participate in the development of homologous structures."

Again, the facts are presented to you, and you pretend that they don't exist.

I'm waiting for more "proof".

Proof, as they say, is for mathematics and beverage alcohol, you gigantic buffoon. If you were a real scientist, you'd know that.

So far, I've only heard name calling and ad-hominem attacks.

That's because you deliberately ignore the evidence which has been supplied to you in spades. You are dumb, and you are dishonest -- a model Christian and a model creationist.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

There is no debate between macro vs microevolution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to believe that given enough time, accumulated microevolutionary changes lead to a macroevolutionary change.

Is that right? And if so, what is your evidence besides homology, as that has already been discredited.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Quantum theory is irrelevent to this this discussion.

You wish it were, because to acknowledge it would be to acknowledge your own hypocrisy.

Why do you continue to want to change the subject? Let's stay on point.

No, let's not. Let's also talk about quantum theory, too. Can't you keep up?

Do you accept quantum theory? For what reasons do you accept it?