On Jan 3, 9:30 pm, Merlin Athrawes flails:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 5:40 pm, Merlin Athrawes idiotises:
>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>> On Jan 2, 8:58 pm, Merlin Athrawes
gbaba.org> makes shit up:>>>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 2, 6:21 pm, Mikail Steiner
vicars.net> wrote:>>>>>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 5:45 pm, Mikail Steiner
vicars.net> wrote:>>>>>>>>> Earth is packed with life so abundant and varied as to stagger the
>>>>>>>>> imagination. How did it all start?
>>>>>>> I read it. It just a Hypothesis. Not even a serious theory.
>>>>>> Yet, the " alternatives " fail to measure up to even that level.
>>>>>> Based on their total lackings of any evidence.
>>>>>> Andre
>>>>> Howabout, terraforming by an advanced civilization?
>>>> Wheres some EVIDENCE for that claim ?
>>>> Uh huh.
>>>> Science uses *facts and evidence*. Invented and unsupported
>>>> bad science fiction doesn't come close to matching that record.
>>>> Andre
>>> And where are the facts of evolution?
>
>> Freely available in any good biology text. Amazon can supply you
>> with plenty of them, but you actually have to READ them.
>
> Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
> doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
> evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
> spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
> and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
> seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
> theme as there are individual biologists."
More quote mining...
> Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy
> among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies in sight
Abiogenesis ISN'T evolution. Are you stupid for a living, or is it a
hobby ?
Whichever it is, you're very good at it.
>>> it doesn't even pass the scientific method.
>
>> It passes it on every level; It is
>> supported by evidence, it predicts well, and it is falsifyable.
>
> what evidence? a few bones?
" few " = " billions ". So, we can now add arithmetic to the growing
list of things that you provably know Jack Shit about.
> The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of
> Natural History pointed out: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always
> been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people
> assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general
> argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
> history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the
> geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated
> chain of slow and progressive evolution."--January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1,
> pp. 22, 23.
Yes, and of course, no work has been done in 29 years...
Oh wait, no work has been done... by the IDiots...
> A View of Life states: "Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and
> extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of
> skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most
> spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet."--(California,
> 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
>
> Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: "Below this [Cambrian period], there
> are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the
> Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older
> beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture
> could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special
> creation at the beginning of Cambrian times."--Natural History, October
> 1959, p. 467.
Well, its abundantly clear that keeping current is NOT among
your
few abilities.
> Zoologist Harold Coffin states: "If progressive evolution from simple to
> complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures
> in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and
> scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On
> the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in
> the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms
> of life were established fits best."--Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.
>
> Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: "The fossil
> evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."--(New
> York, 1980), p. 29.
>> " goddidit " fails all three tests.
>
>>> The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what
>>> happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be
>>> true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and
>>> watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.
>
>> Wrong. It *includes* " observe ", but it also allows " find evidence
>> from
>> the past ". Sometimes, as with stellar astronomy, both parts are
>> necessary, as it is literally impossible to observe what any star
>> aside
>> from Sol is doing in 2008. The light we see today from Alpha Centauri
>> is from 2003.
>
> you were saying about twisting definitions? Professor J. D. Bernal
> offered some insight in the book The Origin of Life: "By applying the
> strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous
> generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at
> several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the
> improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too
> small." He added: "Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on
> Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments
> have to be bent round to support its existence." And the picture has not
> improved.
Well, not for the IDiots, who were shown up at Kitzmiller v. Dover
Area
School District:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of
ID
[intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective
observer,
adult or child" (page 24)
"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is
that
despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as
a
religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID
proponents
reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of
Christianity." (page 26)
"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the
progeny of creationism" (page 31)
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious
view,
a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page
43)
"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court,
Defendants
vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not "teaching"
ID but
instead is merely "making students aware of it." In fact, one
consistency
among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked
by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be
discussed
in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be
knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the
students.
We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we
find that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes
no
position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different
levels, any
one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is
science.
They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science
by
invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of
irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and
illogical
contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3)
ID's
negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific
community."
(page 64)
"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs
students
contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even
the
defense experts in this case." (pages 86-87)
"ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we
have now
determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the
controversy, but
not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at
best
disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to
encourage
critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant
evolutionary
theory with ID." (page 89)
"Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board
amount
to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote
religion in the
public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment
Clause." (page 132)
Lets recap: " not a scientific theory.", " outright lies under oath ",
" ID is not
science ", " refuted by the scientific community ", " outdated
concepts and
flawed science ", " promote religion in the public school classroom
",
" in violation of the Establishment Clause ".
Please: Go to court some more. Its FUN to see you IDiots lose SO
BADLY.
> Consider the underlying import of such reasoning. It is as much as
> saying: 'Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have
> begun by itself. But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility
> that we will consider. So it is necessary to bend the arguments to
> support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously.' Are you
> comfortable with such logic? Does not such reasoning call for a lot of
> 'bending' of the facts?
No, that ID.
> There are, however, knowledgeable, respected scientists who do not see a
> need to bend facts to fit a prevailing philosophy on the origin of life.
> Rather, they permit the facts to point to a reasonable conclusion. What
> facts and what conclusion?
Those of science, which has a record of being the ONLY path to
knowledge.
Ergo, as Judge Jones stated, evolution IS science, and ID is NOT.
>>> Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no
>>> clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing
>>> nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.
>>> Scientists do not know how that happened."--The Enchanted Loom: Mind in
>>> the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
>
>> Ah, quote mining. How... quaint. Now, ask Jastrow is he would like
>> biologists
>> to explain to him how his work in astronomy is wrong ? I doubt that
>> he'd go for that !
>
> Be my guest. Then again I understand that biologist are the only trye
> scientist in the world ...eh?
Whatever " trye " means. But, when it comes to BIOLOGY, yes,
BIOLOGISTS have the credibility on the topic.
>>> Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: "After having chided the
>>> theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in
>>> the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own:
>>> namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved
>>> to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval
>>> past."--The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.
>
>> Wow, a *fifty one year old* quote. COULDN'T get anyone more recent ?
>>
>
> of course.. would quotes from Michael Behe do?
Sure: Michael Behe was the first witness for the defense.
Main article: Michael Behe#Dover testimony
As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the
idea that
intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed
to a number
of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that
"there are
no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design
supported by
pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous
accounts of
how intelligent design of any biological system occurred",[14] and
that the
definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so
loose that
astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[15] His
simulation
modelling of evolution with Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been
listed by
the Discovery Institute amongst claimed "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited
Scientific
Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design",[16] but
under oath he
accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described
could evolve
within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were
rigged to
make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[17] [18]
Lets recap: " there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating
for
intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations
which provide
detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological
system occurred",
that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design
was so loose that
astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[15]
So, YOUR boy ADMITTED that there is NO science behind ID, and that his
definition of " science " INCLUDES ASTROLOGY.
With exploding lunatics like that on your side, enemies, you don't
need...
>>> According to New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most
>>> particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that
>>> Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all.
>>> . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual
>>> credentials."--June 25, 1981, p. 828.
>
>> Well, thats only 26 years old. No author cite, though, or even a
>> title. I can make up stuff like that, too...
>
> what part of news scientist june 25, 1981, p.828 don't you comprehend.
> Look it up and then call me a liar, not before.
No, your support of ANTI science already shows how dishonest you are.
Now, try to read something from THIS millennium...
Andre
