Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

"Critics attempt to smear Meyer by claiming he's doing "pseudoscience" or not doing science at all.

Which of course is true.

Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.

Amen.

 

[Hollie]

"Critics attempt to smear Meyer by claiming he's doing "pseudoscience" or not doing science at all.

Which of course is true.

Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.

Some things never change. You cut and paste a few sentences from one of your creation ministries and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Hollie]

Which of course is true.

Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.

Amen.

How many more of your falsified, edited, parsed and purged "quotes" do I have to expose before we come to the conclusion that you're a pathological liar?

 

[UltimateReality]

Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.

Amen.

How many more of your falsified, edited, parsed and purged "quotes" do I have to expose before we come to the conclusion that you're a pathological liar?

I know you are but what am I?

 

[Hollie]

Amen.

How many more of your falsified, edited, parsed and purged "quotes" do I have to expose before we come to the conclusion that you're a pathological liar?

I know you are but what am I?

Rather than address the lies and falsehoods that must be used to prop up the claims of the hyper-religious, we’re faced by the hyper-religious with tacit acceptance of those lies and falsehoods. Creationists don’t even bother with damage control at this point. Window dressing for a building on fire.

Even the rabid Meyer groupies don’t even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. The House of Shame, otherwise known as the Disco’ tute which Meyer shills for, is so unethical and dishonest as to put one of their “scientists” in front of a “green screen”. The background for this bit of chicanery was a stock photo of a real lab. Not all that surprising in the sense that hyper-religious creationists don’t do any actual research.

A critical component of the science surrounding evolutionary science is the process of observation and testing. Those attributes defining science consist of gathering evidence and testing which can be peer reviewed. And evidence is the only tool we have to distinguish between claims in which we can have confidence and claims in which we cannot.

That ID’iot creationist consider observation and testing to hold no merit in regard to demands for them to support their claims to magic and supernaturalism. That goes some length to explain the general disconnect between so much of the ID’iot creationist “reasoning" and the evidence of the natural world.


So once again, let’s bring it on home for the intellectually impaired and the religiously addled:

1) The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.

2) The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particular rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.

3) Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the “ring species” demonstrate so elegantly.

4) There are several competing explanations for abiogenesis, and the current research in the field is on-going. But the point remains, what research is being undertaken by ID'iot creationist to support their claims to gawds? It does not matter whether the first DNA boiled out of primordial soup, was seeded on Earth by space aliens, or created by Zeus. Humans still evolved from Apelike ancestors. The evolution of all living things since that original DNA is established scientific fact.

 

[daws101]

"Critics attempt to smear Meyer by claiming he's doing "pseudoscience" or not doing science at all.

Which of course is true.

Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.

salient points? now that is funny!!!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

How many more of your falsified, edited, parsed and purged "quotes" do I have to expose before we come to the conclusion that you're a pathological liar?

I know you are but what am I?

Rather than address the lies and falsehoods that must be used to prop up the claims of the hyper-religious, we’re faced by the hyper-religious with tacit acceptance of those lies and falsehoods. Creationists don’t even bother with damage control at this point. Window dressing for a building on fire.

Even the rabid Meyer groupies don’t even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. The House of Shame, otherwise known as the Disco’ tute which Meyer shills for, is so unethical and dishonest as to put one of their “scientists” in front of a “green screen”. The background for this bit of chicanery was a stock photo of a real lab. Not all that surprising in the sense that hyper-religious creationists don’t do any actual research.

A critical component of the science surrounding evolutionary science is the process of observation and testing. Those attributes defining science consist of gathering evidence and testing which can be peer reviewed. And evidence is the only tool we have to distinguish between claims in which we can have confidence and claims in which we cannot.

That ID’iot creationist consider observation and testing to hold no merit in regard to demands for them to support their claims to magic and supernaturalism. That goes some length to explain the general disconnect between so much of the ID’iot creationist “reasoning" and the evidence of the natural world.


So once again, let’s bring it on home for the intellectually impaired and the religiously addled:

1) The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.

2) The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particular rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.

3) Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the “ring species” demonstrate so elegantly.

4) There are several competing explanations for abiogenesis, and the current research in the field is on-going. But the point remains, what research is being undertaken by ID'iot creationist to support their claims to gawds? It does not matter whether the first DNA boiled out of primordial soup, was seeded on Earth by space aliens, or created by Zeus. Humans still evolved from Apelike ancestors. The evolution of all living things since that original DNA is established scientific fact.

How totally ignorant is it to judge something you have not read? But that is what the tools at Panda's thumb and the drooling troll thumb disciple Hollie continually do.

 

[UltimateReality]

Which of course is true.

Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.

salient points? now that is funny!!!!!

Funny ha ha or funny like a grown man in tights?

 

[UltimateReality]

 

[Hollie]

I know you are but what am I?

Rather than address the lies and falsehoods that must be used to prop up the claims of the hyper-religious, we’re faced by the hyper-religious with tacit acceptance of those lies and falsehoods. Creationists don’t even bother with damage control at this point. Window dressing for a building on fire.

Even the rabid Meyer groupies don’t even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. The House of Shame, otherwise known as the Disco’ tute which Meyer shills for, is so unethical and dishonest as to put one of their “scientists” in front of a “green screen”. The background for this bit of chicanery was a stock photo of a real lab. Not all that surprising in the sense that hyper-religious creationists don’t do any actual research.

A critical component of the science surrounding evolutionary science is the process of observation and testing. Those attributes defining science consist of gathering evidence and testing which can be peer reviewed. And evidence is the only tool we have to distinguish between claims in which we can have confidence and claims in which we cannot.

That ID’iot creationist consider observation and testing to hold no merit in regard to demands for them to support their claims to magic and supernaturalism. That goes some length to explain the general disconnect between so much of the ID’iot creationist “reasoning" and the evidence of the natural world.


So once again, let’s bring it on home for the intellectually impaired and the religiously addled:

1) The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.

2) The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particular rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.

3) Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the “ring species” demonstrate so elegantly.

4) There are several competing explanations for abiogenesis, and the current research in the field is on-going. But the point remains, what research is being undertaken by ID'iot creationist to support their claims to gawds? It does not matter whether the first DNA boiled out of primordial soup, was seeded on Earth by space aliens, or created by Zeus. Humans still evolved from Apelike ancestors. The evolution of all living things since that original DNA is established scientific fact.

How totally ignorant is it to judge something you have not read? But that is what the tools at Panda's thumb and the drooling troll thumb disciple Hollie continually do.

I thought so. The best remedy for countering fear and ignorance as promoted by religious extremists is to confront their I'D'iosy with facts.

That leaves them slack-jawed and impotent.

 

[Hollie]

Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.

salient points? now that is funny!!!!!

Funny ha ha or funny like a grown man in tights?

Funny like an ID'iot who is a groupie for charlatans at the Disco'tute.

 

[daws101]

Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.

salient points? now that is funny!!!!!

Funny ha ha or funny like a grown man in tights?

false comparison ..

 

[daws101]

Peer review controversy[edit]

Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy

On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[25] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[26] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[27]

The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[28] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[29] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[30]

Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[31] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[32] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."[33] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that:


According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work.[34]
Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[UltimateReality]

Peer review controversy[edit]

Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy

On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[25] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[26] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[27]

The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[28] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[29] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[30]

Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[31] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[32] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."[33] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that:


According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work.[34]
Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daws, you would think that after all this time you wouldn't be so stupid as to post an ad hominem attack instead of responding to the points presented. I mean, really, haven't you learned anything in over 1000 pages?? All you do is make yourself look like an ass because it is clear to everyone you can't argue the points, just like your buddy Hollie (get it-Buddy Hollie), and you are pathetically forced to resort to biased ad hominem gobblygook. Truly pathetic and you are without excuse. Maybe your tights are too small and its choking the oxygen to your brain.

 

[Hollie]

Peer review controversy[edit]

Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy.

Much like the other Flat Earther, you're reduced to floating silly conspiracy theories to account for the chuckles and sneering that greets the false claims of ID'iots.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Peer review controversy[edit]

Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy.

Much like the other Flat Earther, you're reduced to floating silly conspiracy theories to account for the chuckles and sneering that greets the false claims of ID'iots.

Speaking from ignorance once again hollie ?

 

[Hollie]

Peer review controversy[edit]

Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy.

Much like the other Flat Earther, you're reduced to floating silly conspiracy theories to account for the chuckles and sneering that greets the false claims of ID'iots.

Speaking from ignorance once again hollie ?

No. "Speaking" from experience. I used to be surprised at the lies and goofy conspiracy theories emanating from the creationist. Now, I've come to learn that lies and conspiracy theories are the only things that maintain the religious extremist.

 

[UltimateReality]

Just read the prologue from Darwin's Doubt. This is going to be a great book!!!

 

[newpolitics]

Peer review controversy[edit]

Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy

On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[25] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[26] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[27]

The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[28] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[29] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[30]

Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[31] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[32] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."[33] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that:


According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work.[34]
Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daws, you would think that after all this time you wouldn't be so stupid as to post an ad hominem attack instead of responding to the points presented. I mean, really, haven't you learned anything in over 1000 pages?? All you do is make yourself look like an ass because it is clear to everyone you can't argue the points, just like your buddy Hollie (get it-Buddy Hollie), and you are pathetically forced to resort to biased ad hominem gobblygook. Truly pathetic and you are without excuse. Maybe your tights are too small and its choking the oxygen to your brain.

There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.

 

[Hollie]

There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.

As we see with regularity, the creationist agenda has been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The "support" for supernaturalism is postured in terms of rhetorical statements such as "among the many problems with the theory of evolution are the questions it is unable to answer."

If someone were to state that, because the current theory of Gravity is incomplete in some instances that gravity does not exist, then that person would be a fool. Such are the tactics of religious extremists.

How fortunate we are to be able to view any of the many peer reviewed science journals and be able to read of new discoveries in science. Almost every issue includes notes on how the discovery addresses a particular question related to science. And very often, we find that if the evidence is confirmed, it will require a modification or change in a certain part of the current theory.

And Science will accommodate change! After all, the goal of science is to progress, to study and to learn. That is totally unlike religious extremists who (on religious grounds) are convinced that their bibles contain all knowledge and that no new knowledge can conflict with their dogma.