tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post6086133649927797533..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-32346561858314965462014-04-02T17:59:16.695-04:002014-04-02T17:59:16.695-04:00Dicky,
Thanks for your elaborate rants in reply t...Dicky,<br /><br />Thanks for your elaborate rants in reply to my reply. You confirmed my suspicion that your 'understanding' of current evolutionary biology has entered your brain almost exclusively via creationist websites (UD most likely, where that most untalented of writers Denise O'Leary wastes no opportunity to promote that Kiwi 'journalist'. Are you Denyse?). I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate the likes of you. I'm here to get entertained - I teach enough in daily life.<br /><br />cheers<br /><br />troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36784833719985459582014-04-02T09:00:36.623-04:002014-04-02T09:00:36.623-04:00You can quote Hitler as much as you want; it doesn...You can quote Hitler as much as you want; it doesn't make whatever he says true. I guess that when you're an atheist desperate to blame Christianity for all the world's problems, even dictators' comments will suffice.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36066976147446307022014-04-02T08:53:52.482-04:002014-04-02T08:53:52.482-04:00It's one thing to call yourself Christian and ...It's one thing to call yourself Christian and another to live as a Christian.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56638071573478778092014-04-02T08:34:44.359-04:002014-04-02T08:34:44.359-04:00The Constitution protects religious liberty, not s...The Constitution protects religious liberty, not so-called "sexual liberty." Lest people forget, the Constitution doesn't *grant* people rights -- rather, it serves to restrain government from infringment upon any of them. Thus, any law enacted or judicial verdict which infringes upon our inalienable rights constitutes a direct violation of Constitutional law and no American should feel obligated to comply. We didn't win our independence just so that some unscrupulous activist-dictator wearing a black robe could one day decide to throw liberty under the bus, least of all for the sake of the lavender mafia's feelings.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-15302634366119866782014-04-02T08:02:23.199-04:002014-04-02T08:02:23.199-04:00Big Rich,
No - 16 prominent scientists didn't...Big Rich,<br /><br />No - 16 prominent scientists didn't meet to reformulate neo-Darwinism. I had heard of Susan Mazur's book before (several years ago - also recommended by a creationist, and a young earth creationist at that, so I didn't feel the urge to read it).<br /><br />Random mutation isn't the only mechanism of producing variation in populations. There's also gene duplication and chromosomal translocations which affect the amount but not kind of gene product. And once you've got variation you need mechanisms to change their frequency; besides natural selection, there's also sexual selection and neutral drift.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66401578208339560322014-04-02T07:52:57.181-04:002014-04-02T07:52:57.181-04:00Now that you’ve added natural selection to random ...Now that you’ve added natural selection to random mutation your more than halfway home. Symbiogenesis, the merging of two or more separate organisms, and horizontal gene transfer, the incorporation and expression of genes from a different organism, have also played important roles in evolutionary history. I’m not sure if these are strictly “Darwinian”, but they are important.<br /><br />-KW<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12561689130333724682014-04-02T07:24:37.375-04:002014-04-02T07:24:37.375-04:00You guys always like to equivocate on some random ...You guys always like to equivocate on some random irrelevant point as if that mattered to the truth of the issue. Did 16 prominent scientist meet to reformulate evolutionary theory or not? Did you even read the book or had you even heard of it before I mentioned it? If you didn't, you're ignorant. Not attacking your personally but this is what I always find with Darwinists who are the first to call everyone who doesn't agree, "crazy," or "uneducated," or "unread," but it always turns out that it is them who are blissfully smug in their ignorance. <br /><br />Oh and please, by all means, expound on what other Darwinian mechanism there is besides natural selection acting on random mutations but first let me get my popcorn. This is gonna be good. Big Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222433855783705707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-29208293838328682922014-04-02T04:03:56.828-04:002014-04-02T04:03:56.828-04:00Big Rich,
I've looked I into a little more. ...Big Rich,<br /><br />I've looked I into a little more. Apparently, Susan Mazur just got the meeting wrong. You're relying on the reporting of a self claimed journalist.<br /><br />Anyway. Most evolutionary biologists would agree with you that random mutations don't build complex machines because random mutations isn't the only mechanism involved.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-35909911777440377952014-04-02T00:20:39.747-04:002014-04-02T00:20:39.747-04:00Right KW. Random mutations building novel, super-c...Right KW. Random mutations building novel, super-complex, apparently designed organs and structures is completely documented and proven by science and anyone who questions it is a flat-earther. Got it! If you could only hear poor little self. You are a true believing, never questioning, cultist -- more religious than the most religious creationist ever was. <br /><br />Bach, have you read the book? There's plenty more than these 16. In fact, I would bet most scientists realize that the neo-Darwinian mechanism (random mutations building complex machines) is complete bull shite but keep quiet out of fear of the DarwiNazis like KW and Troy who would happily destroy their careers for the blasphemy of questioning St Charlie, but even if it was only those 16, they happened to be some of the most prominent Darweenies in the world and they realized that they needed a new theory because the old one is laughable. Their sabotage would have never come out had science journalist Susan Mazur not gotten wind of it and decided it warranted a book. Guess all the rank and file Darwinists are too busy kissing Richard Dawkins ring or something else to actually keep up with what is happening in their religion. Anyway, its a big deal. Big Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222433855783705707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-14301505064411005082014-04-01T22:37:28.382-04:002014-04-01T22:37:28.382-04:00Good response to KW there Little John.
KW, you...Good response to KW there Little John.<br /><br />KW, you're up. KW? KW??Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652227699197953483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4431228108010637902014-04-01T22:02:07.167-04:002014-04-01T22:02:07.167-04:00Big Rich, I'm happy to be of service. You'...Big Rich, I'm happy to be of service. You'll find the same reasoning applies to flat-earthers, astrologers, Homeopaths, and anyone else that makes claims counter to all evidence. Their positions have been so well debunked that without the presentation of substantial new evidence they can simply be dismissed.<br /><br />-KW Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56508196378786550352014-04-01T20:30:27.547-04:002014-04-01T20:30:27.547-04:00Big Rich,
They're '16'. You can alwa...Big Rich,<br /><br />They're '16'. You can always find a very small minority of scientists who will be contrarian for non-science reasons.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-85146209850416115112014-04-01T20:06:05.430-04:002014-04-01T20:06:05.430-04:00Oh I see KW. All scientists believe in Neo-Darwini...Oh I see KW. All scientists believe in Neo-Darwinism and the scientists who don't, we just label them crazy creationists, and then we can go on saying with a straight face that all scientists are Darwinists. Got it! Thanks for clearing that up. Why didn't little Troy Boy just explain how you think. I guess he was trying to conceal the, "heads I win, tales you lose," tactics. BTW KW, there were a few more scientist at the symposium besides Sanford. He just wrote the summary of their discussions and his writing certainly doesn't sound like a lunatic but I'm sure you've already given yourself an excuse not to consider any point of contention. Would want to confuse yourself, right? <br /><br />Not appealing to authority, Bach. Just telling you blissfully ignorant Darweenies what's been going down. So how do you explain the Altenberg 16, Bach? Big Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222433855783705707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-23736200419061027972014-04-01T18:41:59.156-04:002014-04-01T18:41:59.156-04:00Big Rich, did you bother to do a little research o...Big Rich, did you bother to do a little research on Dr John Sanford? He's a Courtesy Associate Professor of Horticulture and Christian young earth creationist, who says “we are created by a special creation, by God”. In other words, he's crazy.<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-65452641159544198392014-04-01T18:36:39.251-04:002014-04-01T18:36:39.251-04:00Big Rich,
I've noticed that creationists (and...Big Rich,<br /><br />I've noticed that creationists (and conservatives too) love to appeal to authority - either choosing someone who agrees with their previously established beliefs ( no matter how extreme their position is) or choosing someone who disagrees, and then attacking that person for other opinions hold.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18704657163030673222014-04-01T18:27:06.740-04:002014-04-01T18:27:06.740-04:00Big Richard,
The 'Darwin was wrong' cover...Big Richard,<br /><br />The 'Darwin was wrong' cover on New Scientist was referring to horizontal gene transfer in bacteria, which Darwin didn't know about (obviously, because he was ignorant of genetics and bacteria).<br /><br />HGT makes the Tree of Life matted rather than branching in areas.<br /><br />Whenever people offer odds against something happening, then they usually have forgotten to account for something in their calculations - including the known knows, unknown knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns (actually, that covers all the possibilities).<br /><br />We don't know how life arose on Earth. We do know that it arose 3.8 billion years ago (within 200 million years of the Earth being cool enough for it to happen) based on the carbon isotope ratios in rocks reflecting a 'Life' caused pattern of deposition.<br /><br />As an analogy, you're extremely unlikely to exist - your parents had to meet at precisely the right time (and your grandparents too, and all your ancestors too). But you do exist.<br /><br />Anyway - the optimism about fracking is misplaced. The evidence is that the recovery rates from individual wells drops off much faster than claimed by proponents - and they pick the best sites to drill first.<br /><br />Coal has problems besides SO2 and nitrogen oxides - because it's a 'sponge' it absorbs heavy metals such as uranium, lead and mercury. Coal is burnt in such large amounts that a coal powered generator releases more radiation into the atmosphere than a similarly sized nuclear reactor.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-2884349340738198642014-04-01T18:23:59.069-04:002014-04-01T18:23:59.069-04:00http://www.amazon.com/The-Altenberg-16-Evolution-I...http://www.amazon.com/The-Altenberg-16-Evolution-Industry/dp/1556439245<br /><br />Ever hear of the Altenberg 16, Troy Boy? I know your comfortable with your head stuck up your ass or someone else's but here we have what was supposed to be a secret meeting to reformulate evolutionary theory by 16 of the most prominent evolutionary scientists in the world. Why did they feel the need to do that, Troy Boy? Maybe, just maybe it was because they understood that the old Darwinist paradigm was completely inadequate in light of modern science. <br /><br />"The book grew out of a story Mazur broke online in March 2008—titled "Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?"—about the now famous meeting at Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria in July 2008, where 16 scientists discussed expanding evolutionary thinking beyond outdated hypotheses. (MIT will publish the proceedings in April 2010.) Science magazine noted that Mazur’s reporting "reverberated throughout the evolutionary biology community." <br /><br />So there you go, Troy Boy. You've got a little reading to do if you can put down the gay porn long enough. Big Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222433855783705707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79283750117895613862014-04-01T18:20:32.170-04:002014-04-01T18:20:32.170-04:00Just as I'm sure you haven't a clue what h...Just as I'm sure you haven't a clue what he said.<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74161681347147597202014-04-01T18:09:35.269-04:002014-04-01T18:09:35.269-04:00http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Information-Persp...http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Information-Perspectives-Synopsis-Commentary-ebook/dp/B00IKTVD2C/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395349056&sr=1-1&keywords=biological+information<br /><br />Hey Troy, above is a link to the book, “Biological Information - New Perspectives A Synopsis and Limited Commentary.” Here’s Amazon’s summary of the book: <br /><br />“This booklet is a synopsis and limited commentary on the 563 page proceedings of the symposium Biological Information - New Perspectives. The author of this synopsis was the organizer of that symposium and was one of the editors of the proceedings. At this symposium a diverse group of scientists gathered to critically re-examine neo-Darwinian theory, in light of major new evidences that relate to the nature of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. <br /><br />This synopsis summarizes a milestone book. For over 100 years, it has been very widely believed that the mutation/selection process is sufficient to explain virtually everything within the biological realm. The 29 contributors to this volume bring into serious question this neo-Darwinian paradigm. They use their wide-ranging expertise to carefully examine a series of very fundamental theoretical problems that are emerging. These problems all relate to the exploding field of biological information. Biological information is becoming the primary focus of 21st century biological research. Within each cell there are information systems surpassing the best human information technologies. These systems create what is essentially a biological Internet within each cell. The authors, although holding diverse philosophical perspectives, unanimously agree that the mutation/selection process is not adequate to explain the labyrinth of informational networks that are essential for life. “<br /><br />Since you won’t read it anyway, here are author Dr John Sanford’s concluding remarks: <br /><br />“Many scientists who are committed to the standard neo-Darwinian model of life may find these proceedings disturbing – which is unfortunate. I do not think any of the contributing authors to the proceedings had any intention to offend anyone. It is just that it is increasingly clear that the long-reigning neo-Darwinian paradigm is collapsing – and despite many efforts to deny what is obvious – clearly “the emperor has no clothes.” The extremely sophisticated hardware and software systems that enable life simply cannot be built by any trial and error system. In particular – it is very clear that software can never be developed one binary bit at a time. Apart from a fully functional pre-existing hardware/software system, a single bit has absolutely no meaning. I feel that if we are to preserve our scientific integrity, we must acknowledge that we have a major explanatory problem, and we need to go back to the drawing board in terms of understanding the origin of biological information.”<br /><br />Catch that Troy? <br /><br />"It is just that it is increasingly clear that the long-reigning neo-Darwinian paradigm is collapsing…" <br /><br />Should read "has collapsed," but I can live with "collapsing." What about you, Troy? <br /><br />Big Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222433855783705707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-15471000109669399392014-04-01T17:55:41.156-04:002014-04-01T17:55:41.156-04:00The Torch,
From what I understand, Obamacare requ...The Torch,<br /><br />From what I understand, Obamacare requires employers to pay for insurance for their employees that allows them to get contraceptives - not that they're directly required to buy their contraceptives.<br /><br />That said, I regard Obamacare as bad policy. Australia would never adopt it in preference to its health insurance system. Our pharmaceutical system exists to insure individuals against the cost of very expensive approved medications, which may cost thousands of dollars per month. Most prescriptions are paid in full by the patient (including OCs).<br /><br />Naidoo, <br /><br />You have (or should have) the right to object to your children being taught subjective opinion, which includes the benefits of homosexuality.<br /><br />You shouldn't have the right to object to your children being taught reasonably established facts and reality.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-61596474883894647352014-04-01T17:54:11.223-04:002014-04-01T17:54:11.223-04:00@ Hoo: Chai Feldblum, one time head of the Equal O...@ Hoo: Chai Feldblum, one time head of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission under BHO was asked what should happen when religious liberty (a genuine right guaranteed under the constitution) should come into conflict with sexual liberty (notably absent from the constitution). She replied:<br /><br />“I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”<br /><br />She continued:<br /><br />“Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”<br /><br />So don't tell me that Christians aren't oppressed in this country or that our government is run by devout Christians like (don't make me laugh) Barrack Obama and (you've got to be kidding me) Sonya Sotamayor. The woman whose job it is to ensure that we all have "equal" opportunities has already admitted that when it comes to homosexuals and religious people, there's really no equality at all. The homosexuals win because they have delicate feelings and they need to have their "dignity" "affirmed." <br /><br />What about my dignity? She doesn't care.<br /><br />If she were honest she would admit that they need to have their BEHAVIOR affirmed. That's what homosexuals want and they are never happy until they get it. <br /><br />The TorchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-45002619014844449992014-04-01T17:52:04.525-04:002014-04-01T17:52:04.525-04:00Boy Toy Troy: “Probably less than what priests spe...Boy Toy Troy: “Probably less than what priests spend on kiddy porn and prostitutes per year.”<br /><br />Now now, Boy Toy Troy, keep your fantasies to yourself. Not interested in your predilections with pedophilia nor your thinking of my dick. It may be tiny but it does not swing your way, got it? <br /><br />Boy Toy: “everything known indicates that the probability of such is beyond human comprehension If by that you mean we currently can't accurately estimate the probability that life arises naturally on an earth-like planet - then yes, that's true. But I suspect that's not what you mean.”<br /><br />I meant exactly what I said, Boy Toy. You have it backwards (not surprising considering your tendencies) I even quoted Francis Crick. He accurately estimated that the probability that life arose by chance was greater than all the individual atoms in the universe (actually its worse – he actually said that the chance that a simple polypeptide chain arose by chance was greater than all the atoms in the universe but didn’t want to confuse your little brain especially when it was preoccupied with little dicks). Greater than all the atoms would be about 10 to the 80 but others have estimated that the number is 10 to the thousands. We can estimate fine but those numbers are beyond comprehension unless you can comprehend the magnitude of 10 with 80 zeros after it much less a 10 with a thousand zeros after it. The math is easy – its how many variables that go into the calculation that presents the problem, but in any case, they are beyond comprehension and to succeed would need several iterations per second to have a chance in 4 billion years. So not good for your side, boy toy? <br /><br />Boy Toy Troy: “Scientists themselves are the least ignorant of the latest science and they tend to disagree with your claim.” <br /><br />Actually, no they don’t, Boy Toy. Do you not read? How about the cover of the New Scientist a few years ago? It was “DARWIN WAS WRONG.” Remember that one? Practically every aspect of Neo-Darwinism is in dispute and crumbling faster than Humpty Dumpty. It might be called Darwinism in a few years but you won't recognize it. From the Tree of Life to core of Darwinism – the ability of random mutations to create novel new organs. Science is putting it out to pasture. It is grazing next to alchemy. The only proponents are the vocal atheists for whom it is their creation myth and who have no alternative, but Darwinism is dead and Darwinists are the Walking Dead. Get used to it. <br /><br />Boy Toy Troy: “But how would you know? You probably copied and pasted it like a good little Christian soldier from a creationist website.” <br /><br />Whatever helps you sleep at night, Boy Toy. What you gonna to do when you have no creation myth? From the Big Bang to bacteria -- everything in science is confirming my belief and denying yours. That’s got to feel pretty bad when you let your little mind actually think, doesn’t it? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Big Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222433855783705707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-78809611008997276092014-04-01T17:27:53.400-04:002014-04-01T17:27:53.400-04:00bachfiend, if teaching my child that homosexuality...bachfiend, if teaching my child that homosexuality is good and that homosexuals are brave, do is still retain the right not to have my captive children inculcated with beliefs that conflict with those of my family? <br /><br />naidooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-33144897469926000792014-04-01T17:25:43.684-04:002014-04-01T17:25:43.684-04:00my government lumps my religion in with the kkk an...my government lumps my religion in with the kkk and al-qaeda, denies my first amendment rights, and you think my claims of prosecution rings hollow? <br /><br />naidoo Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-29586700868524777982014-04-01T15:36:47.841-04:002014-04-01T15:36:47.841-04:00Pop-Tard, I have no doubt you have many Hitler quo...Pop-Tard, I have no doubt you have many Hitler quotes at your fingertips.Commissar Boggs, Ministry of Truthnoreply@blogger.com