Russell

Plympton, Australia

#502 Nov 18, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
A paper from 1873??? Are you shitting me? Next it'll be quotes from the old testament.
So a quote from Maxwell offended your refined scientific sensibilites?

Well, let's see...

A S Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays commented:

"Evolution would appear to be the indispensible unifying idea, and at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

Wilkins A S, Evolutionary processes: a special issue, BioEssays 22:1051-1052, 2000

And that is not from the Old Testament, in case you are unable to differentiate.

Also, the leading chemist Philip Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, said this in a column he wrote for The Scientist:

"Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive, except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed--except when if prefers men who are faithful providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."

Skell, P S, Why do we invoke Darwin? Evolutionary Theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 29 Aug 2005.

Skell also wrote a similar article: The Dangers of Overselling Evolution: Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn't further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, www.forbes.com , 23 Feb, 2009.

Again, neither of these articles appear in the Old Testament.

Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School stated:

"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionay biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."

Quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 Oct 2005.

Also not in the Old Testament.

Russell

Plympton, Australia

#503 Nov 18, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummmm.....this helps my case in that it refutes YOUR case.
You said that Levinton claimed:
<quoted text>
Now please go to the actual article you referenced:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100080685/Levinton-...
...and tell us all where Levinton says that there were no animals(soft-bodied or otherwise) ancestral to the Cambrian organisms.
Kong, Kong

Don't embarrass yourself, mate
C'mon man, don't beg for drip feeds.

I like Man Vs Wild
This forum is like Man vs marshmallows

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#504 Nov 18, 2012
More quote mining and other lies from Russell. In other words, he has nothing.
Russell

Plympton, Australia

#505 Nov 18, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
More quote mining and other lies from Russell. In other words, he has nothing.
Hey, Subby
Where have you been?
Don't tell you were sleeping.
You!re half asleep all day
What do you have to sleep at night for?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#506 Nov 19, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
More quote mining and other lies from Russell. In other words, he has nothing.
C'mon
Git yer mitts on!
Whatchu got?

Something?

Anything?

What about LGT?
Tiktaalik?

Throwing you some bones....

Ever since Archie got knocked off his perch, things have gotten so.......
....quiet....

Why is that?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#507 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing from Readers Digest?
Nope. Donít use it, Is that where you get your info from?

I see you have no creationist counter arguments so all I can suggest if you have nothing else is that you have lost.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#508 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatttt....?
Used in agriculture, medicine and geology???
This is precisely the oooey, gooey nonsense I stringently object to.
How is evolutionary thinking helpful in ..say for example, medicine?
Advances in science have progressed entirely without reliance on evolutionary thinking, and perhaps despite it.
A vague feeling about there being heaps of evidence and the general sense that it must be true
D-O-E-S N-O-T C-U-T I-T
If you have great evidence as you have alluded to
Post it again
Don't disappoint me
I've never disappointed you. You've only disappointed yourself because you are too terrified to read it. After all it may lead to a cascade reaction where you would actually have to question your entire belief system which ultimately revolves around the Dark Age superstition that the universe was made by an invisible magic wizard. The rest of us are in the 21st century.

It's still there, page 1.

Still waiting bub.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#509 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Change is insufficient evidence for evolution.
Rapid changes occur in the hypervariable regions of immunoglobulins. Well accepted. Verifiable. And, not evolution.
Bacteria change...in terms of antibiotic resistance...not evolution.
Variable expression of genes occurs in human populations...not evolution.
People have variable ability to metabolise various drugs based on induction of various hepatic enzymes...not evolution
The sad mantra that change equals evolution does not fulfill requirements for evidence for the GTE.
Actually change IS evolution. Your ONLY barrier is that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Without that there is nothing to prevent further change. Since the Earth ISN'T 6,000 years old then you're kinda screwed with zilch left but denial. Oh well.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#510 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "knowing" anything counts for nothing
EVIDENCE?
Why do you keep asking for something which everyone knows you have no interest in? Isn't lying for Jesus against the 9th Commandment?

It HAS been provided. It HASN'T yet been addressed by your good self.

I wonder why that is?

Remember, God is watching...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#511 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
we'll see and I'll be the judge of that
No you won't. You're nobody important.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#512 Nov 19, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Things are actually getting better and better for me since you are so afraid of our sources that you will not even look at them.
They've been getting better and better since page 1.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#513 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree about it having no bearing on the validity of evolution.
What fine words...no bearing on the validity of evolution...
Just that, a nice glass of wine, at the beach watching the sunset, after a hard day of surfing...
But that is not my question
I am refering to the uniformity of temperature throughout the universe as shown by CMB to within 1 part in 100,000. This would indicate that heat transfer occurred faster than the speed of light. At the alleged age of the universe light could only have traversed a tenth of the distance needed to equilibrate the temp. This horizon problem has not be solved.
Unless mathemathical fudges like 'inflation' are invented.
Can't say I'm an expert on the nitty-gritty of high end astrophysics, but if you're interested seek a guy on these forums called Polymath. He's a mathematician and half way through his physics degree. If I recall he pointed out there was good reasons and evidence to think the inflation period took place. But even without that the simple fact of the matter is that even without the inflationary period, the universe is still (much) older than what you YEC's say it is. In fact all you mooks can do is say "Well science doesn't know everything yet therefore GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!" (shrug)

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#514 Nov 19, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep asking for something which everyone knows you have no interest in? Isn't lying for Jesus against the 9th Commandment?
It HAS been provided. It HASN'T yet been addressed by your good self.
I wonder why that is?
Remember, God is watching...
Christianity teaches that satan is the father of lies. It seems that our beloved russ must be a secret satan worshipper.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#515 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
Testing testing....
I'll bet since I'm winning, someone has colluded with the Mod to stymie my posts just so Evo-god whining looks unopposed and unchallenged.
Yeah, the evil atheist world-wide Darwinist conspiracy is everywhere. It runs the scientific community, the courts, the Governments, heck it even runs these forums. Must suck to be you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#516 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Your evidence equates scraping the bottom of the barrel
As I have said previously, you, and others on this forum who will remain nameless, scream science, and then produce the most lacklustre weak and easily critiqued nonsense.
And the ducking and weaving leaves me incredulous
Well if it's that easy to critique then I guess you'll be getting around to that any day now. It's only been 25 pages and about 6 weeks. Or does it just so happen that you have in fact addressed each and every one of our posts with great scientific detail, and not only have the Mods made sure that not only have those particular posts of yours, but also coincidentally not one of us has managed to even see them before the Mods had chance to delete 'em?

Most impressive posts they must have been, especially when one considers your "scientific alternative" is just GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#517 Nov 19, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity teaches that satan is the father of lies. It seems that our beloved russ must be a secret satan worshipper.
I've often wondered if creationists are all secretly atheists. After all, they all lie their azzes off and have a bad habit of ignoring God's Commands.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#518 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
PART 1
Hold your horses Kong
One thing at a time..
Lets talk evo-god worship stuff first.
I still have to chat about the Cambrian explosion
... which only means that everything you just said you cannot accept, as you have already denied the science involved to maintain your position.

So you're saying the Cambrian Explosion, which according to you took longer than the universe has even been here, could not have been due to mutations because the time-period is too quick - therefore Goddidit MUCH faster than that - by a VERY liberal application of Jewmagic? BRILLIANT!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#519 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
Another point I would very much like to make in regard to the universe, well at the smaller end of the universe, is the amazingly consistent size of the sub-atomic particles. All electrons have the same mass and charge. And the exact opposite charge to all protons.
Maxwell, the great Scottish physicist, rather a famous man, a cretard, as you would lovingly refer to him... in a hopeless attempt to dilute the fright that scientists who defy your beliefs and produce magnificant science without evolution, induce in you.... said,
"No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change....The exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it..the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent."
Maxwell J C Discourse on Molecules, a paper presented to the Bristish Association at Bradford in 1873.
But what would he know? Right?
Exactly. What WOULD he know? A physicist. About biology. In 1873.

Turns out it was those VERY molecules (called DNA) which enable evolution. But since he didn't even KNOW about DNA then...

(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#520 Nov 19, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha! You say "One thing at a time", then trot out a half-dozen half-baked, and previously-refuted concepts of your own....WITHOUT answering my earlier question, might I add.
Can you say "Gish Gallop"?
There IS no "Evo-god" as you so ignorantly put it. Merely established SECULAR (note: Not "ATHEIST") science that threatens your weak Judeo-Christian faith.
Furthermore, your link to Susumu Ohno's "The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome" is NOT a refutation of the Theory of Evolution. It is discussion WITHIN the accepted science of the theory about some of the details.
"The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can't possibly be explained by mutual divergence of individual gene functions. Rather, it is more likely that all animals involved in the Cambrian explosion were endowed with nearly the identical genome, with enormous morphological diversities deisplayed by multituedes of animal phyla being due to differential usages of the identical set of genes. This is the very reason for my proposal of the Cambrain pananimalia genome. This tenome must have necessarily been related to those of Ediacarian predecessors, representing the phyla Porifera and Coelenterata, and possibly Annelida."
"The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome"
http://www.pnas.org/content/93/16/8475.full.p...
Your sources are LYING to you, because they know you don't have the nerve to check out the source for yourself.
You got NUTHIN'.
So you mean (GASP) that the ACTUAL source did NOT support Russel's contentions? Therefore he LIED?!?

Again?

Shocked. Shocked I say.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#521 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How does this link help your case?
Because it showed what the ACTUAL scientific consensus, and that you lied by using that info then inserting your own *baseless* conclusion in the place of that of the actual scientists.

But keep going Russ. Remember we WANT you to lie. We WANT you to do exactly what a good little creationist should do. We get to point out how and why evolution works. Fundie come along and say "No!" We then point out how and why they're wrong. Fundie acts dishonestly. We point out how and why they're dishonest. Fundie doesn't bother to address our posts with anything of substance and relies on mostly posturing and spam. Cycle begins all over again. Result is creationist hypocrisy is exposed.

Any new fundies can come along and object on your behalf and if they wish bring up any point that has been discussed that they wish. We can then provide relevant linkys in the thread and point out how and why you're wrong and then ask them to point out where you addressed that particular point - which they won't be able to find. Or if the thread is too long then we can simply address the point again. I mean it's not like you fundies are capable of bringing up anything new.

It's win-win for us either way.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 23 min MikeF 463
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 38 min Subduction Zone 131,848
How would creationists explain... 1 hr Chimney1 290
What you should know about Tuesday's vote on ev... (Feb '08) 10 hr IAMIOOWAN 516
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 14 hr Brian_G 13,614
Science News (Sep '13) 17 hr positronium 2,939
sea-dwelling dinosaur found alive (Apr '10) 19 hr The Dude 87
More from around the web