tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post7626383780906690344..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: 'Denying Darwin is like denying the Holocaust!'mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-31675228066800011602013-02-11T02:35:09.638-05:002013-02-11T02:35:09.638-05:00A typical and traditional way of becoming a Neuros...A typical and traditional way of becoming a Neurosurgeon takes about more or less 15 years, but is there an alternate and quicker way? I'm currently going to be a senior in high school with good grades. Thanks<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://phlebotomytrainingpro.net/louisiana/" rel="nofollow">phlebotomy training louisiana</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06106007750484567313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68757313981403265832012-12-15T11:00:51.841-05:002012-12-15T11:00:51.841-05:00References? You're doing it right here in this...References? You're doing it right here in this thread! You've already been called out on your nonsense of trying to claim that ENCODE vindicates the claim that there is no junk DNA, but you ran away and then continued to make the same disproven claim right here. You do this all the time. You make a claim, we point out evidence that you are wrong, you run from it. Try reading your own blog now and then. Would you care to tell us exactly what function ENCODE found for junk DNA? <br /><br />Boo<br /><br />PS- Why has ID never come up with a single testable hypothesis or any research program?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-26314601689019455092012-12-14T16:19:42.907-05:002012-12-14T16:19:42.907-05:00"proven wrong"?
References. Do tell."proven wrong"?<br /><br />References. Do tell.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-41887111488840433742012-12-14T12:55:33.023-05:002012-12-14T12:55:33.023-05:00"Says the anonymous commentor to the guy who ..."Says the anonymous commentor to the guy who begins the conversations and blogs daily in his own name."<br /><br />And then runs away when he is proven wrong. Our identities do not change that fact.<br /><br />"ID predicted that most DNA wouldn't be junk. Darwinists used junk DNA as a crucial buttress for their theory."<br /><br />Wrong on both counts. Junk DNA having function is not a prediction of ID. ID posits a completely unknown "designer" who may or may not be omnipotent, may or may not be incompetent, and whose purposes and methods ID itself says we have no way of knowing. ID is perfectly compatible with a "designer" whose design methods involved junk DNA as a byproduct, or as a consequence of the "designer's" incompetence, or for a purpose we simply cannot comprehend. <br /><br />As others have pointed out, junk DNA was actually a surprise to evolutionary biologists when it was discovered. And as I have pointed out to you before, junk DNA which is transcribed is still junk. <br /><br />Care to try again? And maybe while you're at it tell us why ID has never established a research program? It's not like they don't have the resources. They complain about the "Darwinists" not letting them publish in scientific journals, but it would be a simple matter for them to put papers up on their websites and trumpet that here is the research all the "Darwinists" don't want anyone to see. Yet they never do this. Why do you suppose that is?<br /><br />BooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-92072877385556529962012-12-14T11:17:48.089-05:002012-12-14T11:17:48.089-05:00ID predicted that most DNA wouldn't be junk.
...<i>ID predicted that most DNA wouldn't be junk.</i><br /><br />Then show us, step by step, how it follows logically from ID that most DNA wouldn't be junk.<br /><br /><br /><i>Darwinists used junk DNA as a crucial buttress for their theory.</i><br /><br />Who did? References and quotes please.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, the presence of junk DNA, i.e. functionless DNA, was inferred from evolutionary models. Simply put, given the measured rate of deleterious mutations, the amount of functional DNA had to be much smaller than the amount of DNA present in the genome, or else, according to calculations from the models, the mutational load would have killed us all a long time ago. <br /><br />Would you care to point out the flaws in this reasoning?<br /><br />troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72407498529331385082012-12-14T10:18:44.242-05:002012-12-14T10:18:44.242-05:00ID predicted that most DNA wouldn't be junk.
...<i>ID predicted that most DNA wouldn't be junk.</i><br /><br />No, actually it didn't. Any amount of Junk DNA would have been consistent with design. That's why "design" has never come up with a testable hypothesis. <i>Anything</i> would have been consistent with design.<br /><br /><i>Darwinists used junk DNA as a crucial buttress for their theory.</i><br /><br />Except they didn't, which has been pointed out many times to you. But actual facts don't matter to you. Only your ancient ideology.<br /><br />The ID "community" has provided exactly zero contributions to science thus far. Even the ENCODE data that you keep fraudulently insisting is evidence for design was done by non-ID researchers. ID is a parasitical group leeching off of and misrepresenting the scientific research of actual scientists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74951863092293640012012-12-14T10:12:12.936-05:002012-12-14T10:12:12.936-05:00He said that it comes close to being a violation o...<i>He said that it comes close to being a violation of the separation of church and state.</i><br /><br />Yes he did. Close does not mean he thinks there is a violation. He just thinks it is close to the line. As I said before, whether it is actually close or not is beside the point. He says this particular activity is permissible under the law. Which makes your shrieking and wailing silly.<br /><br /><i>Schools are a God free zone.</i><br /><br />Except that in this school, and every other school in the U.S., where optional student-led religious activities are clearly permitted by the administration. For you to claim that schools are a God-free zone when the very article you are commenting upon has religious activity happening at this very minute is the height of hypocritical hysteria.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-43237029280319656992012-12-14T09:38:02.320-05:002012-12-14T09:38:02.320-05:00[Why has ID never come up with a single testable h...[Why has ID never come up with a single testable hypothesis or any research program?]<br /><br />ID predicted that most DNA wouldn't be junk. Darwinists used junk DNA as a crucial buttress for their theory. <br /><br />How's that workin' out for ya?<br /><br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12729141395079748582012-12-14T09:35:39.555-05:002012-12-14T09:35:39.555-05:00"... given how many times you've run away..."... given how many times you've run away from your opponents."<br /><br />Says the anonymous commentor to the guy who begins the conversations and blogs daily in his own name. <br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-19709049503712454282012-12-14T09:32:41.678-05:002012-12-14T09:32:41.678-05:00[Your views are out of date by a century or two, M...[Your views are out of date by a century or two, Mike.]<br /><br />Teleology is so... yesterday.<br /><br />I'm not fashionable. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36287338307528705572012-12-14T00:47:41.656-05:002012-12-14T00:47:41.656-05:00Theory of evolution is no more about denying desig...Theory of evolution is no more about denying design than theory of gravity is about proving that planets are not kept in their orbs by angels. In both cases there is <i>positive</i> theory that makes the old views obsolete. <br /><br />Your views are out of date by a century or two, Mike. This train has left the station and you are left standing on the platform. Too bad, I guess. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-73112331918041645522012-12-14T00:43:43.021-05:002012-12-14T00:43:43.021-05:00"Let me get this right: you assert that Darwi..."Let me get this right: you assert that Darwinism "is not about denying design in nature"? So all of nature could be designed-- God with his big chisel and paintbrush working away feverishly, designing everything, and that would be entirely consistent with Darwinism?"<br /><br />The theory of evolution is not about denying design in nature. Regarding whether or not "Darwinism" is about denying design in nature, you would first have to mean what your strawman of "Darwinism" means today. Even then, it would still be totally irrelevant since I'm talking about evolutionary biology as practiced by evolutionary biologists, not creationists strawmen. It's certainly possible for life to have been designed. The point is we have no scientific evidence that it is. <br /><br />"Are the innumerable atheists who tout that Darwin made them "intellectually fulfilled atheists" just making it up?"<br /><br />The theory of evolution is not responsible for how atheists feel about the theory of evolution. Hitler breathed oxygen, that doesn't make the theory that humans need oxygen to live responsible for Hitler. Personally, what I know about evolution fills me with awe at the awesome power of God's creative majesty. But that doesn't make evolution a religious theory either. <br /><br />"Bullshit. Darwinism explicitly and emphatically denies design in biology. That's the whole f*cking point. <br /><br />The point of the theory of evolution, Mr. Potty Mouth, is to provide an accurate model of the data on the history of the diversity of life. Again, you're confusing the theory itself with the implications some people happen to want to draw out of the theory. <br /><br />"Per Dawkins: "biology is the study of things that appear designed, but aren't".""<br /><br />Per Boo: "what I know about evolution fills me with awe at the awesome power of God's creative majesty" <br /><br />"One of the most frustating things about dealing with you losers is that you haven't a shred of rhetorical integrity. You'll say anything to get yourself out of a hole."<br /><br />Right. The "hole" that just happens to drive all biological research. While the IDists with their supposedly superior understanding just sit there twiddling their thumbs. And I really don't think you are in any position to question anyone else's intellectual integrity, given how many times you've run away from your opponents. <br /><br />Why has ID never come up with a single testable hypothesis or any research program?<br /><br />BooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18430972114252069452012-12-13T19:34:14.012-05:002012-12-13T19:34:14.012-05:00Michael,
Why don't you answer the comments in...Michael,<br /><br />Why don't you answer the comments instead of making the same incorrect statements?<br /><br />And, anyway, Christianity is an ideology. Your 'brilliant' argument has just disproved Christianity.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-37044486546034695012012-12-13T19:16:01.308-05:002012-12-13T19:16:01.308-05:00All theories in science have evidence against them...All theories in science have evidence against them.<br /><br />Only ideology and tautologies have all of the evidence on their side. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-44209869751432196522012-12-13T18:38:58.544-05:002012-12-13T18:38:58.544-05:00Michael,
'All theories in science have eviden...Michael,<br /><br />'All theories in science have evidence against them'.<br /><br />No, no, no, no ...<br /><br />All INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT (I use capitals to emphasise the correction) theories in science have evidence against them.<br /><br />Scientists love to find unexpected results. You'll never win a Nobel Prize for confirming someone else's theory. But you will, possibly, if you disprove it, and come up with a better one.<br /><br />Many scientists were actually hoping that the Large Hadron Collider wouldn't show evidence of the Higgs boson at the mass where it was predicted and with the properties it was predicted, because it meant that the Standard Model of particles was correct (or rather, not disproved) and that there's nothing further to discover, at least with the available technology (if only you Americans hadn't canceled the SSC to fund the useless International Space Station - a waste of over 500 billion dollars...)bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-75638817922357911702012-12-13T18:25:58.812-05:002012-12-13T18:25:58.812-05:00You anonymous: If it's optional and student le...You anonymous: If it's optional and student led, why did he even bring it up? Eh...the Constitution doesn't even say anything about that anyway. It talks about Congress establishing an official religion, that's all. <br /><br />JoeyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-15764429865621022122012-12-13T18:21:26.534-05:002012-12-13T18:21:26.534-05:00Michael,
Biology is capable of being studied not ...Michael,<br /><br />Biology is capable of being studied not because there's the presumption of design, but because structures have function. Function is being studied, not design.<br /><br />'Junk' DNA wasn't a prediction of evolutionary biology, or even genetics. The human genome was initially assumed to be lean and mean (rather like the bacterial genome) because anything wasteful would be ruthlessly stripped out.<br /><br />But 'junk' DNA is still a viable hypothesis. The size of the genome across species shows enormous differences. The marbled lungfish has a genome 40 times greater than humans, for example.<br /><br />'Junk' DNA didn't delay research. The human genome was sequenced when the technology and computers had developed sufficiently to do the task economically - and even then it cost a billion dollars. The geneticists were predicting that many more genes would be demonstrated, as many as 100,000. The actual figure is not much more than 20,000.<br /><br />I've challenged you many times to state what percentage of junk DNA would be consistent with your assertion that almost all of the human genome is functional. But you keep on refusing to do so.<br />bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-69033882754748590002012-12-13T18:20:13.418-05:002012-12-13T18:20:13.418-05:00[The theory of evolution by natural selection, on ...[The theory of evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, has been tested and has held up every time.]<br /><br />All theories in science have evidence against them. No theory-- not Newtonian physics, not Relativity, not Quantum Mechanics-- "holds up all the time".<br /><br />Only tautologies and ideology hold up all the time. <br /><br />Your science is crap. Just atheism, in a lab coat. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-29836701351991928902012-12-13T18:15:28.640-05:002012-12-13T18:15:28.640-05:00So which country do you live in?
JoeySo which country do you live in?<br /><br />JoeyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-44769947277819337432012-12-13T17:54:21.140-05:002012-12-13T17:54:21.140-05:00But I still believe that an image is worth a thous...But I still believe that an image is worth a thousand words!<br /><br /><a href="https://dl.dropbox.com/u/302357/pinup2.jpg" rel="nofollow">If God made anything better than woman, He kept for Him</a>!<br />Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-70886840539977824312012-12-13T17:54:18.121-05:002012-12-13T17:54:18.121-05:00"Whether or not it is true that it is close t..."Whether or not it is true that it is close to the line, he's not saying it is not allowed. In fact, he says the exact opposite when quoted in the article."<br /><br />The exact opposite of saying that there is a church state issue here would be to say that there is obviously none. He hedged his bet by saying that it comes close. That is not the exact opposite.<br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-20084124543309823412012-12-13T17:47:58.152-05:002012-12-13T17:47:58.152-05:00bachfiend sees suboptimal design when he looks at ...bachfiend sees suboptimal design when he looks at himself in the mirror. Here is a text (cut-and-pasted from UCD) to help him vanquish his problem!<br /><br /><i>It seems to me that there are several flaws with the argument from ‘suboptimal design’ in nature. For one thing, the ability to detect design does not require that the design be optimal. Windows operating systems have many design flaws – but that doesn’t make them any less designed. The argument carries the assumption that the only candidate for designer is an omnipotent and benevolent deity, but this doesn’t necessarily follow. I happen to believe in such a deity (for, in my judgment, good reasons), but I don’t believe that it logically follows from the evidence of design in biology. Even if one is a theist, I see no problem with the position that God may have acted through secondary causes. Perhaps there is some sort of intrinsic teleology built into the world, for instance, that produces the sort of complex specified information we find so abundantly in living systems.<br /><br /> A second problem with the argument is that it assumes that an intelligent cause would have to produce each living thing de novo. But, again, this doesn’t necessarily follow. The theory of ID (as applied to biology) asserts that there are certain features of living systems that bear hallmarks of an intelligent cause, but this does not necessarily entail a rejection of common ancestry. Perhaps there are constraints on design placed by an organism’s evolutionary history. I happen to be skeptical of universal common ancestry, for reasons that I have articulated in my writings. But it isn’t at all incompatible with ID – in fact, many of my colleagues (e.g. Michael Behe) subscribe to common descent. I’m ambivalent on the issue. I can see some defensible arguments for the idea of hereditary continuity, but I can also see severe scientific problems with it. In my opinion, many evolutionary theorists fall victim to confirmation bias here.<br /><br /> Third, the theory of ID does not require that everything in biology be designed. Indeed, designed artifacts may exhibit evidence of weathering – an example of this would be the once-functional vestigial lenses of marsupial moles which are hidden under the skin.<br /><br /> Fourth, the argument often commits what one might describe as an “evolution-of-the-gaps” fallacy. Whereas the “god-of-the-gaps” fallacy states that “evolution can’t explain this; therefore god must have done it,” the converse “evolution-of-the-gaps” fallacy states that “God wouldn’t have done it that way; therefore evolution must have done it.” It is curious that this dichotomous mode of thinking is precisely what ID proponents are often accused of. Much like “god-of-the-gaps” arguments, the “evolution-of-the-gaps” argument has to retreat with advances in scientific knowledge, as biologists uncover important reasons for the way these features have been designed. One example of this would be the once-thought-to-be-prevalent “junk DNA” in our genomes, for which important function is constantly being identified. I would argue that such design reasons or “trade-offs” are plausible for the recurrent laryngeal nerve that you mention (as well as many of the other examples that are traditionally cited). On this subject, I would invite you to read this article (and the links contained therein) by my colleague Casey Luskin.<br /><br /> I hope this answers your question. Feel free to respond to these remarks.<br /><br /> Kind regards,<br /><br /> Jonathan<br /></i>Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-92084050710430856552012-12-13T17:45:45.644-05:002012-12-13T17:45:45.644-05:00That's incorrect, Anonymous. He said that it c...That's incorrect, Anonymous. He said that it comes close to being a violation of the separation of church and state. No, it doesn't. The reason he's saying that is because he either believes it's a close call (which it isn't) or he wants others to believe that it's a close call. Otherwise, he would say, "Clearly this is constitutional" or "obviously there is no church-state issue here." To use a cursed double negative, he is NOT saying that there is NOT an issue here. <br /><br />Either you can't read well or you're just lying. Which is it?<br /><br />"They even like to tell you that optional, student-led religious functions are permissible, although anyone who has ever attended a public school in the past twenty-five years knows that this isn't true."<br /><br />I stand by that comment. Schools are a God free zone. That is how many teachers and students understand it. I made the mistake of talking about God when I was young enough not to know better and uncomfortable teachers let me know that we don't talk about that in school because not everyone believes (so what?) and some people might get offended (the bigots) and yada yada yada. <br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64178638044809019102012-12-13T17:31:13.942-05:002012-12-13T17:31:13.942-05:00One prediction is that most DNA is not junk. That ...<i>One prediction is that most DNA is not junk. That prediction has been verified in spades</i><br /><br />Only if one ignores the actual evidence. A year or two from now when it is so painfully obvious that you're claim about "junk" DNA is bullshit that you can't even deny it, you'll be desperately trying to claim that a foundational prediction of ID is that DNA is mostly junk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-85744580703829512552012-12-13T17:29:27.698-05:002012-12-13T17:29:27.698-05:00But you just said the design can't be tested s...<i>But you just said the design can't be tested scientifically, and yet you are proposing the superiority of Darwinism based on it's superior power in scientific tests.</i><br /><br />No. I said you haven't come up with any method of demonstrating design. There is no "theory of design", because you haven't actually come up with anything to test whether design is true.<br /><br />The theory of evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, has been tested and has held up every time. But it says absolutely nothing one way or the other about whether there is design in nature. That's a separate question. You have to establish that there is support for design before you can assert design.<br /><br />But of course, your brain can't seem to grasp that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com