Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Another big difference between science and creationism pseudoscience

Expand Messages
  • Todd Greene
    The Lancet withdrew the article in January of last year after concluding that several elements of the paper were incorrect. But the journal didn t describe
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 6, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      "The Lancet withdrew the article in January of last year after concluding that 'several elements' of the paper were incorrect. But the journal didn't describe any of the discrepancies as fraud. A British regulator stripped Dr. Wakefield of his medical license last May, citing 'serious professional misconduct' in the way he handled the research."

      "An influential but now-discredited study that provoked fears around the world that childhood vaccinations caused autism was based largely on falsified data, according to an article and editorial published Wednesday in the British Medical Journal."

      Medical Journal Says Autism Study Was a 'Fraud'
      By Ron Winslow (1/6/2011)
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704405704576064590742569026.html

      Check out the history of "scientific creationism" (i.e., creationism pseudoscience). They never do things like that. (They won't even challenge people for pushing bogus Ph.D.'s and pretending to be, say, a geologist despite the fact that they have never published even ONE research article on geology in a professional peer-reviewed science journal in their entire lives, frauds such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton.) Indeed, they do the opposite:

      Discovery Institute's Bill Dembski Recants
      by Laura Lebo
      (Religion Dispatches Magazine, 10/21/2010)
      http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3595/discovery_institute%E2%80%99s_bill_dembski_recants

      Bowing to the Text
      by Adam Lee
      (Daylight Atheism, 11/29/2010)
      http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/11/bowing-to-the-text.html

      Again, this is another example of the "lying for Jesus" principle that is a time-honored tradition, and that thrives well, in the culture of creationism (and fundamentalist Christianity). To these people the important thing is that you're promoting the belief in particular religious dogmas. Getting the facts straight and making sure the logic is correct (not using fallacious argumentation) is not what matters.

      It is not just the basic standards of science that are anathema to creationism, it is also the basic ETHICAL standards of science that are anathema to creationism. The process of science is vastly superior to the methods of fundamentalist religious belief, not just in terms of dealing with empirical reality, but also in terms of the ethical standards that scientists are held to.

      - Todd Greene
    • David Bowman
      ... Eppur si muove. Dave Bowman
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 6, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Regarding:

        > ...
        > Discovery Institute's Bill Dembski Recants
        > by Laura Lebo
        > (Religion Dispatches Magazine, 10/21/2010)
        > http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3595/discovery_institute%E2%80%99s_bill_dembski_recants

        "Eppur si muove."

        Dave Bowman
      • Zack S.
        Seek the truth. Evolution is merely a theory; er, no, it isn t. It is disproven. There is no scientific evidence to support it, just lies from vested-interest
        Message 3 of 15 , Jan 6, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Seek the truth. Evolution is merely a theory; er, no, it isn't. It is disproven. There is no scientific evidence to support it, just lies from vested-interest agenda pushers who would rather present propaganda than facts. These same people would have you believe that abortion isn't murder and that sexual abstinence shouldn't be promoted, even though contraceptives are immoral and ineffective-no clinical evidence to support them. The one thing Darwin got right was his rejecting his own alleged theory.

          On Thu Jan 6th, 2011 9:23 AM EST David Bowman wrote:

          >Regarding:
          >
          >> ...
          >> Discovery Institute's Bill Dembski Recants
          >> by Laura Lebo
          >> (Religion Dispatches Magazine, 10/21/2010)
          >> http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3595/discovery_institute%E2%80%99s_bill_dembski_recants
          >
          >"Eppur si muove."
          >
          >Dave Bowman
        • skrogh
          What s a theory? ... ery_institute%E2%80%99s_bill_dembski_recants ... Post message: creationism@yahoogroups.com Online:
          Message 4 of 15 , Jan 6, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            What's a theory?

            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: creationism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:creationism@yahoogroups.com]On
            > Behalf Of Zack S.
            > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:19 AM
            > To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [creat] Another big difference between science and
            > creationism pseudoscience
            >
            >
            > Seek the truth. Evolution is merely a theory; er, no, it isn't.
            > It is disproven. There is no scientific evidence to support it,
            > just lies from vested-interest agenda pushers who would rather
            > present propaganda than facts. These same people would have you
            > believe that abortion isn't murder and that sexual abstinence
            > shouldn't be promoted, even though contraceptives are immoral and
            > ineffective-no clinical evidence to support them. The one thing
            > Darwin got right was his rejecting his own alleged theory.
            >
            > On Thu Jan 6th, 2011 9:23 AM EST David Bowman wrote:
            >
            > >Regarding:
            > >
            > >> ...
            > >> Discovery Institute's Bill Dembski Recants
            > >> by Laura Lebo
            > >> (Religion Dispatches Magazine, 10/21/2010)
            > >>
            > http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3595/discov
            ery_institute%E2%80%99s_bill_dembski_recants
            >
            >"Eppur si muove."
            >
            >Dave Bowman





            ------------------------------------

            Post message: creationism@yahoogroups.com
            Online: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationismYahoo! Groups Links
          • David Bowman
            ... Good idea. Maybe you could try it. ... I m skeptical of this claim. Please present the proof you claim exists. ... Please support this claim. ... What
            Message 5 of 15 , Jan 6, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Regarding Zack's unprovoked rant:

              > Seek the truth.

              Good idea. Maybe you could try it.

              > Evolution is merely a theory; er, no, it isn't. It is disproven.

              I'm skeptical of this claim. Please present the proof you claim exists.

              > There is no scientific evidence to support it,

              Please support this claim.

              > just lies from vested-interest agenda pushers who would rather
              > present propaganda than facts.

              What "vested-interest agenda pushers"? What propaganda? Are you sure you haven't gotten the professional purveyors of creationism mixed up in your mind with those who support the theory of evolution?

              > These same people would have you believe that abortion isn't
              > murder and that sexual abstinence shouldn't be promoted, even
              > though contraceptives are immoral and ineffective-no clinical
              > evidence to support them.

              Huh? Where did all this come from? Where is the evidence for these claims? What relevance do any of them have to anything pertaining to either the subject matter of the current discussion, or to creationism as the stated topic of the list group?

              > The one thing Darwin got right was his rejecting his own alleged theory.

              Where is the evidence for this claim? Do you know where Jesus says lovers of lies end up? (Hint: Rev 22:15)

              > On Thu Jan 6th, 2011 9:23 AM EST David Bowman wrote:
              >
              >>Regarding:
              >>
              >>> ...
              >>> Discovery Institute's Bill Dembski Recants
              >>> by Laura Lebo
              >>> (Religion Dispatches Magazine, 10/21/2010)
              >>> http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3595/discovery_institute%E2%80%99s_bill_dembski_recants
              >>
              >>"Eppur si muove."
              >>
              >>Dave Bowman

              What relevance does any of your post, Zack, have to the discussion topic of the difference between science and creationist pseudoscience, or to the news that Dembski has recanted his old earth views and approach to the book of Genesis in order to save his job at a fundamentalist seminary (as an example of the MO of the world of fundamentalist creationism), or to my Italian analogical allusion to Galileo's recantation?

              Now, how about if you actually answer my questions?

              Dave Bowman
            • Todd Greene
              ... Of course not. None at all. Evolution Really Is Science http://creationism.outersystem.us/evolutionisscience.html (In other words, I have to thank Zack for
              Message 6 of 15 , Jan 6, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In creationism, "Zack S." <clausen_td@...> wrote (post #70619):
                > Seek the truth. Evolution is merely a theory; er, no, it
                > isn't. It is disproven. There is no scientific evidence
                > to support it,

                Of course not. None at all.

                Evolution Really Is Science
                http://creationism.outersystem.us/evolutionisscience.html

                (In other words, I have to thank Zack for so QUICKLY jumping in to prove my point about creationists' lack of ethical standards. Thanks, Zack!)

                > just lies

                See above. Lies, obvious blatant lies, are the fondue of the creationist cornucopia of pseudoscience propaganda.

                > from vested-interest
                > agenda pushers who would rather present propaganda than
                > facts.

                Evolution is a worldwide atheist conspiracy. Of course, we already knew that. No science.

                Evolution Really Is Science
                http://creationism.outersystem.us/evolutionisscience.html

                Of course, "vested-interest agenda pushers who would rather present propaganda than facts" fits the "religion is science" creationists to a "T".

                > These same people
                > would have you believe that abortion isn't murder

                Right. We should stone them.

                > and that sexual
                > abstinence shouldn't be promoted, even though
                > contraceptives are immoral and ineffective

                Throw out the condoms, put the hormone pills in the trash. They don't work.

                > no clinical evidence
                > to support them.

                NO clinical evidence. None. Not a lick.

                http://www.google.com/#q=birth+control+effectiveness+%22clinical+evidence%22

                By the way, all those millions of Christians who disagree with Zack's religion-motivated anti-evolution beliefs don't exist either.

                > The one thing
                > Darwin got right was his rejecting his own alleged
                > theory.

                On his deathbed no less!

                The Lady Hope Story: A Widespread Falsehood
                http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html

                In other words, that's Zack demonstrating creationist "ethical standards" for us again.

                Thanks again, Zack.

                -Todd Greene

                >
                > On Thu Jan 6th, 2011 9:23 AM EST David Bowman wrote:
                >
                > >Regarding:
                > >
                > >> ...
                > >> Discovery Institute's Bill Dembski Recants
                > >> by Laura Lebo
                > >> (Religion Dispatches Magazine, 10/21/2010)
                > >> http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3595/discovery_institute%E2%80%99s_bill_dembski_recants
                > >
                > >"Eppur si muove."
                > >
                > >Dave Bowman
              • Zack S.
                Kindly try to present proof of YOUR claim of evolution being true. Of course, you can try all you want, but you will have no evidence.   As for
                Message 7 of 15 , Jan 6, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Kindly try to present proof of YOUR claim of evolution being true. Of course, you can try all you want, but you will have no evidence.
                   
                  As for vested-interest agenda-pushers, who do you THINK I'm talking about? Look around! The liberal media, the "educational" system, etc. promote lies on a constant basis. Evolution is one of many. Kids are getting taught that abortion isn't murder, that homosexuality is just a natural alternative lifestyle, that contraceptives are moral and effective (they're neither), that all ideologies are true (how, since they all contradict?), etc.. We live in a satanic world, and all of the above and more are satanic actions.
                   
                  The liberal bias is very overt and subtle. It's no wonder that parents are turning to home-schooling, something that the aforementioned liars would have you think is a bad idea, too.

                  --- On Thu, 1/6/11, David Bowman <David_Bowman@...> wrote:


                  From: David Bowman <David_Bowman@...>
                  Subject: Re: [creat] Another big difference between science and creationism pseudoscience
                  To: "creationism@yahoogroups.com" <creationism@yahoogroups.com>
                  Date: Thursday, January 6, 2011, 12:12 PM


                   



                  Regarding Zack's unprovoked rant:

                  > Seek the truth.

                  Good idea. Maybe you could try it.

                  > Evolution is merely a theory; er, no, it isn't. It is disproven.

                  I'm skeptical of this claim. Please present the proof you claim exists.

                  > There is no scientific evidence to support it,

                  Please support this claim.

                  > just lies from vested-interest agenda pushers who would rather
                  > present propaganda than facts.

                  What "vested-interest agenda pushers"? What propaganda? Are you sure you haven't gotten the professional purveyors of creationism mixed up in your mind with those who support the theory of evolution?

                  > These same people would have you believe that abortion isn't
                  > murder and that sexual abstinence shouldn't be promoted, even
                  > though contraceptives are immoral and ineffective-no clinical
                  > evidence to support them.

                  Huh? Where did all this come from? Where is the evidence for these claims? What relevance do any of them have to anything pertaining to either the subject matter of the current discussion, or to creationism as the stated topic of the list group?

                  > The one thing Darwin got right was his rejecting his own alleged theory.

                  Where is the evidence for this claim? Do you know where Jesus says lovers of lies end up? (Hint: Rev 22:15)

                  > On Thu Jan 6th, 2011 9:23 AM EST David Bowman wrote:
                  >
                  >>Regarding:
                  >>
                  >>> ...
                  >>> Discovery Institute's Bill Dembski Recants
                  >>> by Laura Lebo
                  >>> (Religion Dispatches Magazine, 10/21/2010)
                  >>> http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3595/discovery_institute%E2%80%99s_bill_dembski_recants
                  >>
                  >>"Eppur si muove."
                  >>
                  >>Dave Bowman

                  What relevance does any of your post, Zack, have to the discussion topic of the difference between science and creationist pseudoscience, or to the news that Dembski has recanted his old earth views and approach to the book of Genesis in order to save his job at a fundamentalist seminary (as an example of the MO of the world of fundamentalist creationism), or to my Italian analogical allusion to Galileo's recantation?

                  Now, how about if you actually answer my questions?

                  Dave Bowman









                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • sanantonioriverman
                  Better find a tree or something and hang on, Zack, because gravity is merely a theory. Charles
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jan 7, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Better find a tree or something and hang on, Zack, because gravity is "merely" a theory.

                    Charles

                    --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Zack S." <clausen_td@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Seek the truth. Evolution is merely a theory; er, no, it isn't. It is disproven. There is no scientific evidence to support it, just lies from vested-interest agenda pushers who would rather present propaganda than facts. These same people would have you believe that abortion isn't murder and that sexual abstinence shouldn't be promoted, even though contraceptives are immoral and ineffective-no clinical evidence to support them. The one thing Darwin got right was his rejecting his own alleged theory.
                    >
                    > On Thu Jan 6th, 2011 9:23 AM EST David Bowman wrote:
                    >
                    > >Regarding:
                    > >
                    > >> ...
                    > >> Discovery Institute's Bill Dembski Recants
                    > >> by Laura Lebo
                    > >> (Religion Dispatches Magazine, 10/21/2010)
                    > >> http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3595/discovery_institute%E2%80%99s_bill_dembski_recants
                    > >
                    > >"Eppur si muove."
                    > >
                    > >Dave Bowman
                    >
                  • David Bowman
                    ... A) I did not make the claim you claim I did. Please support your new claim here or apologize. B) There is abundant evidence for evolution having happened.
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jan 7, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Regarding Zack's deflection of the questions asked of him:

                      > Kindly try to present proof of YOUR claim of evolution being
                      > true. Of course, you can try all you want, but you will have no
                      > evidence.

                      A) I did not make the claim you claim I did. Please support your new claim here or apologize.

                      B) There is abundant evidence for evolution having happened. A reasonable person would accept that the evidence indicates that the most reasonable explanation for all that evidence is that evolution has actually happened and is still happening. The fossil record indicates an evolutionary pattern showing a very nice correlation of both stasis and changes in life forms with stratographic depth that screams evolution has happened over the course of earth history. The mechanism of evolution being a joint result of the operation of genetic variation and selection is observed to operate in real time in the present. A reasonable person would expect that that mechanism has also happened in the past without any evidence of some contrary effect that would have prevented it from happening earlier. The pattern of the structures of extant life forms correlates well with the paleontological evidence of earlier life forms in a way that also screams that the present lifeforms are evolutionary descendents of earlier life forms. The current geographic distribution of lifeforms correlates well with the geological history of tectonic motions with the hypothesis that evolution has acted after various geographic isolations and reconnections have happened. The genomes of extant lifeforms show patterns of similarities and differences among each other and exhibit strong correlations with the similarities and differences in sturcture of those life forms in such a way that screams very loudly that evolution is responsible for those nested patterns of similarities and differences. There are other lines of evidence (the efficacy of genetic algorithms, etc.). The overall preponderence of the evidence is so strong that any reasonable person would conclude that evolution has happened, and that the main points of the theory of evolution nicely explain how it happened.

                      But this does not prove that evolution actually did happen. It is conceivable that what happened is that everything we observe falsely suggests what the actual truth is. For instance perhaps the universe was created this morning and you have been preprogrammed with false memories of life from earlier times. Perhaps the outside universe does not exist at all and you are actually a brain in a vat in a universe with a wildly different history than what the evidence suggests. Perhaps everything went down just as indicated in your favorite interpretation of Genesis and that a malevolent god supernaturally planted all that false evidence for evolution as a joke or as a loyalty test for your faith. But regardless, the most reasonable interpretation of the physical evidence of the natural world is the history of the universe, of life on earth, and the history of humankind is along the outlines of the mainstream scientific scenarios provided by the scientists who actually spend their lives making sense of the evidence they gather.

                      > As for vested-interest agenda-pushers, who do you THINK I'm
                      > talking about? Look around! The liberal media, the
                      > "educational" system, etc. promote lies on a constant basis.

                      What lies? Please show the claimed lies actually are lies by demonstrating their falsehood, and that they actually are promoted on a "constant basis" by "the liberal media, the 'educational' system, etc."

                      > Evolution is one of many.

                      Please demonstrate that evolution is indeed one.

                      > Kids are getting taught that abortion isn't murder,

                      Which kids, and by whom? My kids went to public schools and were not taught that. Even if it actually were true, what relevance would such a claimed indoctrination have for the truth or falsehood of evolution or for the discussion topic at hand?

                      > that homosexuality is just a natural alternative lifestyle,
                      > that contraceptives are moral and effective (they're neither),

                      You still have not demonstrated or supported these claims since the last time you made them and I asked you to support them and to indicate their relevance to the topics at hand. What gives?

                      > that all ideologies are true (how, since they all contradict?),

                      Huh? Who makes such a truth claim?

                      > etc.. We live in a satanic world, and all of the above and more
                      > are satanic actions.

                      Then does that excuse the humans? If not, why blame satan for it.

                      > The liberal bias is very overt and subtle.

                      Um, the concepts of 'overt' and 'subtle' are mutually exclusive, yet you claim them simultaneously. Hmm. BTW, did you know that the intersection of mutually exclusive sets is the null set?

                      > It's no wonder that parents are turning to home-schooling,
                      > something that the aforementioned liars would have you think is
                      > a bad idea, too.

                      Whether or not it is a good or a bad idea depends on the situation at hand. The competence of the parents involved, the quality of the available local schools, the resources available to the parents for good educational experiences for the children, the time available, etc, etc all come into play. I don't think one can make a blanket claim here about the goodness or badness of the practice of home-schooling one's kids.

                      Now, Zack, how about if you actually get around to answering my questions? A backlog of unanswered questions is building up on your plate which will only get higher the more new unsubstantiated claims you make without answering the previous requests to support your earlier claims.

                      BTW, if you don't demonstrate your unsubstantiated claims why should anyone conclude that you have even the least concern for truth?

                      BTW, why do you seem to consider the term 'liberal' a dirty epithet?

                      BTW, why do you continue to demonstrate the validity of Todd's analysis about the difference between science and creationism? One would reasonably expect that a supporter of creationism would want to falsify Todd's analysis rather than support it. But maybe you have your reasons. What gives?

                      Another thing, do you know what the First Law of Holes is?

                      >> --- On Thu, 1/6/11, David Bowman
                      >> <David_Bowman@...> wrote:
                      >>
                      >> From: David Bowman <David_Bowman@...>
                      >> Subject: Re: [creat] Another big difference between science
                      >> and creationism pseudoscience
                      >> To: "creationism@yahoogroups.com"
                      >> <creationism@yahoogroups.com>
                      >> Date: Thursday, January 6, 2011, 12:12 PM
                      >>
                      >> Regarding Zack's unprovoked rant:
                      >>
                      >>> Seek the truth.
                      >>
                      >> Good idea. Maybe you could try it.
                      >>
                      >>> Evolution is merely a theory; er, no, it isn't. It is
                      >>> disproven.
                      >>
                      >> I'm skeptical of this claim. Please present the proof you
                      >> claim exists.
                      >>
                      >>> There is no scientific evidence to support it,
                      >>
                      >> Please support this claim.
                      >>
                      >>> just lies from vested-interest agenda pushers who would
                      >>> rather present propaganda than facts.
                      >>
                      >> What "vested-interest agenda pushers"? What propaganda? Are
                      >> you sure you haven't gotten the professional purveyors of
                      >> creationism mixed up in your mind with those who support the
                      >> theory of evolution?
                      >>
                      >>> These same people would have you believe that abortion isn't
                      >>> murder and that sexual abstinence shouldn't be promoted, even
                      >>> though contraceptives are immoral and ineffective-no clinical
                      >>> evidence to support them.
                      >>
                      >> Huh? Where did all this come from? Where is the evidence for
                      >> these claims? What relevance do any of them have to anything
                      >> pertaining to either the subject matter of the current
                      >> discussion, or to creationism as the stated topic of the list
                      >> group?
                      >>
                      >>> The one thing Darwin got right was his rejecting his own
                      >>> alleged theory.
                      >>
                      >> Where is the evidence for this claim? Do you know where Jesus
                      >> says lovers of lies end up? (Hint: Rev 22:15)
                      >>
                      >>> On Thu Jan 6th, 2011 9:23 AM EST David Bowman wrote:
                      >>>
                      >>>> Regarding:
                      >>>>
                      >>>>> ...
                      >>>>> Discovery Institute's Bill Dembski Recants by Laura Lebo
                      >>>>> (Religion Dispatches Magazine, 10/21/2010)
                      >>>>> http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3595/discovery_institute%E2%80%99s_bill_dembski_recants
                      >>>>
                      >>>> "Eppur si muove."
                      >>>>
                      >>>> Dave Bowman
                      >>
                      >> What relevance does any of your post, Zack, have to the
                      >> discussion topic of the difference between science and
                      >> creationist pseudoscience, or to the news that Dembski has
                      >> recanted his old earth views and approach to the book of
                      >> Genesis in order to save his job at a fundamentalist seminary
                      >> (as an example of the MO of the world of fundamentalist
                      >> creationism), or to my Italian analogical allusion to
                      >> Galileo's recantation?
                      >>
                      >> Now, how about if you actually answer my questions?
                      >>
                      >> Dave Bowman

                      Now, how about if you actually answer my questions?

                      Dave Bowman
                    • Todd Greene
                      Zack wrote: Evolution is merely a theory; er, no, it isn t. It is disproven. There is no scientific evidence to support it.... I already pointed this out:
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jan 7, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Zack wrote: "Evolution is merely a theory; er, no, it isn't. It is disproven. There is no scientific evidence to support it...."

                        I already pointed this out:

                        Evolution Really Is Science
                        http://creationism.outersystem.us/evolutionisscience.html

                        Thus proving the FACT that creationists such as Zack who spout remarks like "There is no scientific evidence to support it" or in any way pretending that evolution isn't science are merely demonstrating their love of telling lies, no matter how blatant, to promote their religious beliefs (and attack anything they consider a threat to their religious beliefs). That's the "Lying for Jesus is a virtue, not a vice" principle that has become such a core ethical value in fundamentalist Christian culture.

                        I didn't comment on Zack's "merely a theory" phrase last time. So I'll correct that oversight here, by quoting something I wrote a little over a year ago...

                        From:
                        Religious belief inspires impudent hubris based on ignorant certainty
                        by Todd Greene (12/20/2009)
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/66992

                        | Oh, geeze. Nothing like a creationist following the
                        | time-honored creationist tradition of repeating statements
                        | that have been refuted for decades. "Theory." Look it up
                        | in the dictionary.
                        |
                        | http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
                        |
                        | The colloquial meaning of "theory" is a guess or
                        | speculation ("an assumption based on limited information
                        | or knowledge; a conjecture") The scientific meaning of
                        | "theory", as in "scientific theory of evolution" or
                        | "scientific theory of gravity" is quite the opposite ("a
                        | set of statements or principles devised to explain a group
                        | of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been
                        | repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to
                        | make predictions about natural phenomena."). But
                        | creationists can't even get the meaning of the word right,
                        | because they don't know how it's used in science (as they
                        | demonstrate), and don't want to know, and inspired by
                        | their devotion to empirically false religious dogma and
                        | the attitude of glorifying ignorance that it induces are
                        | just having too much fun using the wrong meaning of the
                        | word for the purpose of misrepresenting evolution to
                        | actually pause for one moment and bother to correct
                        | themselves about so little an error as getting the
                        | contextual meaning of a word wrong.

                        - Todd Greene

                        --- In creationism, Todd Greene wrote (post #70622):
                        > --- In creationism, "Zack S." <clausen_td@> wrote (post #70619):
                        >> Seek the truth. Evolution is merely a theory; er, no, it
                        >> isn't. It is disproven. There is no scientific evidence
                        >> to support it,
                        >
                        > Of course not. None at all.
                        >
                        > Evolution Really Is Science
                        > http://creationism.outersystem.us/evolutionisscience.html
                        >
                        > (In other words, I have to thank Zack for so QUICKLY
                        > jumping in to prove my point about creationists' lack of
                        > ethical standards. Thanks, Zack!)
                        >
                        >> just lies
                        >
                        > See above. Lies, obvious blatant lies, are the fondue of
                        > the creationist cornucopia of pseudoscience propaganda.
                        >
                        >> from vested-interest
                        >> agenda pushers who would rather present propaganda than
                        >> facts.
                        >
                        > Evolution is a worldwide atheist conspiracy. Of course,
                        > we already knew that. No science.
                        >
                        > Evolution Really Is Science
                        > http://creationism.outersystem.us/evolutionisscience.html
                        >
                        > Of course, "vested-interest agenda pushers who would
                        > rather present propaganda than facts" fits the "religion
                        > is science" creationists to a "T".
                        >
                        >> These same people
                        >> would have you believe that abortion isn't murder
                        >
                        > Right. We should stone them.
                        >
                        >> and that sexual
                        >> abstinence shouldn't be promoted, even though
                        >> contraceptives are immoral and ineffective
                        >
                        > Throw out the condoms, put the hormone pills in the trash.
                        > They don't work.
                        >
                        >> no clinical evidence
                        >> to support them.
                        >
                        > NO clinical evidence. None. Not a lick.
                        >
                        > http://www.google.com/#q=birth+control+effectiveness+%22clinical+evidence%22
                        >
                        > By the way, all those millions of Christians who disagree
                        > with Zack's religion-motivated anti-evolution beliefs
                        > don't exist either.
                        >
                        >> The one thing
                        >> Darwin got right was his rejecting his own alleged
                        >> theory.
                        >
                        > On his deathbed no less!
                        >
                        > The Lady Hope Story: A Widespread Falsehood
                        > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html
                        >
                        > In other words, that's Zack demonstrating creationist
                        > "ethical standards" for us again.
                        >
                        > Thanks again, Zack.
                        >
                        > -Todd Greene
                        >
                        >
                        >> On Thu Jan 6th, 2011 9:23 AM EST David Bowman wrote:
                        >>
                        >>>Regarding:
                        >>>
                        >>>> ...
                        >>>> Discovery Institute's Bill Dembski Recants
                        >>>> by Laura Lebo
                        >>>> (Religion Dispatches Magazine, 10/21/2010)
                        >>>> http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3595/discovery_institute%E2%80%99s_bill_dembski_recants
                        >>>
                        >>>"Eppur si muove."
                        >>>
                        >>>Dave Bowman
                      • ochs_matt
                        Zack: Kindly try to present proof of YOUR claim of evolution being true. MATT: Not a problem. Do you understand what the word, hypocrite, means?And, how about
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jan 7, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Zack: Kindly try to present proof of YOUR claim of evolution being true.
                          MATT: Not a problem. Do you understand what the word, hypocrite, means?And, how about you? Have you seen or heard from "god"? First, get busy instead of being lazy and fearful of science (directly because of your low self-esteem in brain power or your religion may crumble), study about DNA, and eat this:
                          The fossil record in chronological order of complexity:
                          first bacteria below
                          first multicellular organism below
                          first shelled organisms below
                          first insects below
                          first amphibians below
                          first reptiles below
                          first dinosaurs below
                          first birds below
                          first placental mammals below
                          first first apes below
                          first hominids

                          Intermediates/Transitionals:

                          Tiktaalik, Triadobatrachus, Ichthyostega, Seymouria

                          Pachyrachis

                          Diarthrognathus, Probainognathus

                          Mesonychids, Indohyus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus,
                          Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Protocetus,
                          Indocetus, Eocetus

                          Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Parahippus,
                          Merychippus, Dinohippus

                          Australopithecus

                          Vampire Squid (Living)

                          The most ancient of fish are the jawless fish, hagfish and lampreys.
                          Instead of a backbone there is a rod-like structure called a
                          notochord. The jawless fish comprise less than one-percent of fish.

                          The cartilagenous fish are sharks, chimaeras (ratfish), rays. The
                          notochord is surrounded by spaced rings of cartilage, the vertebrae,
                          to form the backbone. The remainder of the skeleton is also
                          cartilagenous, not bony, but in many forms the cartilage is partly
                          calcified, and thereby hardened, by the addition of calcareous salts.

                          The primitive bony fish are the coelacanth, bichit, lungfish,
                          sturgeon. They have skeletons of both bone and cartilage.

                          The osteichthyes are the advanced bony fish. The notochord is no
                          longer present.

                          Two fish fossils with arm bones (humurus bones) have been found,
                          within the last three years, in what used to be shallow water.

                          When a certain body type and strategy work well there is virtually
                          no change over millions of years, such as sharks. They have remained
                          unchanged for approximately 400,000,000 years.

                          'Darwinius' 'masillae', 'Ida', transitional form between prosimians and simians, 47 mya.
                          Sahelanthropus tchadensis (320–380cc), ca. 6-7mya.
                          Ardipithecus ramidus (dental and postcranial remains), ca. 5-6mya.
                          Orrorin turgenesis (postcranial), ca. 5mya.
                          Australopithecus anamensis (cranial capacity unknown), ca. 4.9-
                          5.2mya.
                          'Ardipithecus' 'ramidus', 'Ardi', 4,400,000 mya.
                          A. afarensis (mean of 470cc, range 375-540cc), ca. 3.8-2.8mya.
                          A. bahrelghazali (cranial capacity unknown), ca. 2.8-3.2mya.
                          A. africanus (440-480cc), ca. 2.2-2.6mya.
                          A. garhi (c. 450cc), ca. 2.3-2.6mya.
                          A. robustus (c. 475cc), ca. 1.4-1.8mya.
                          A. boisei (c. 450cc), ca. 1.2-1.8mya.
                          A. aethiopicus (c. 410cc), ca. 2-2.4mya.
                          Homo habilis (c. 500-800cc), ca. 1.8-2.1mya.
                          H. georgicus
                          H. ergaster (c. 1100-1434), ca. 1.3-1.8mya
                          H. antecessor.
                          H. erectus (c. 725-1250cc), ca.250kya. - 1.3mya.
                          H. heidelbergensis (c. 1300cc), ca. 300-170kya
                          H. neanderthalensis (c. 1350-1600cc), ca. 200-35kya.
                          H. floresiensis (c. 850cc), ca. 18-13kya.
                          H. sapiens sapiens (c.1300-1500cc), ca. 170kya-present

                          The San Lorenzo Island rattlesnake and the Santa Catalina
                          Island rattlesnake are becoming lighter in weight, and their
                          rattles are degenerating, or in some cases are gone. As food is
                          limited on the ground, they went up trees for birds. Now their
                          primary food item. Hence, being lighter in weight helps against
                          gravity, and no rattles are needed in the absence of predators. It
                          is currently being eyewitnessed as successive generations from
                          hatchlings.
                          Hammerhead sharks are undergoing shortening of their 'hammers'.
                          Acacia trees have, again, increased toxicity to giraffes.
                          Womens' foot size went from 4 in 1900 to 7 in 1980 to 9 in 2000, and
                          the reason is to carry more weight.
                          Venom is modified saliva.
                          A feather is a modified scale.
                          Dimetrodon and others were mammal-like reptiles.
                          COLOR: The peppered moths of Great Britain.
                          SIZE, Horse line:
                          Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Parahippus,
                          Merychippus, Dinohippus.
                          SHAPE, Whale line:
                          Mesonychids, Indohyus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus,
                          Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Protocetus, Indocetus, Eocetus.
                          SIZE & SHAPE, finches' beak variation of the Galapagos Islands discovered by Charles Darwin.
                          And of course do not forget the changing strains of microbes, and
                          why different antibiotics are needed, again proving evolution.
                          Extremophiles are microbes and to a lesser extent multi-cellular
                          organisms capable of withstanding relatively great amounts of
                          pressure, salinity, and temperature. Examples are in Death Valley
                          hot spots in remaining water puddles, and hydrothermal vents at
                          ocean bottoms. These creatures up the odds for life to exist
                          elsewhere because of their tolerance and resiliency.
                          Despite critique of the Miller-Urey experiment, it still
                          proved the constituent parts of protein and DNA can very easily be
                          made (In less than a half hour.), regardless of 'being off' from
                          Earth's early atmosphere.
                          Phytoplankton transformed the atmosphere, and there are organisms
                          that need no oxygen (anaerobic), and there are organisms that
                          switch back-and-forth (facultative).
                          The protein, collagen, provides the scaffolding that binds animal
                          cells together.
                          The amniotic egg enabled reptiles to invade land. The leathery shell kept moisture in.
                          The extinction event of approximately 66.5 million years ago that
                          finished off the dinosaurs, except for birds, paved the way for
                          mammals to grow larger as they no longer needed to remain underfoot
                          to large behemoths.
                          Symbiosis is a key component for evolution as mitochondria (A
                          mitochondrion is one of the organelles of a cell of which there are
                          hundreds in each cell and they provide energy chiefly through the
                          high-energy molecule ATP, and they are dubbed 'The batteries of
                          cells'.) have their own DNA and housed in cells of nuclear DNA. So
                          the mitochondrion and cell benefit from each other (The symbiosis of
                          mutualism.)
                          Competition is a key component for evolution; food and sexual competition. In just only one of many examples peacocks' tails have grown more and more ornate.
                          Vitamin K is produced by bacteria in the gut of humans. As a matter
                          of fact, there are so many microbes on the skin as well as inside of
                          any human that it is feasible to state that they seemingly made us
                          for their transportation.
                          An increase of meat in the diet coincided with a spike in human
                          brain size.
                          Stereoscopic vision came to be due to needing greater depth
                          perception in jumping from one branch to another.
                          Upright walking is explained by peering over tall grass for
                          predators, and/or carrying children across streams.
                          Thus, the hands were freed to make use of surrounding materials that
                          coincides with an increase of thought production.
                          Color variation is due to the interaction between amounts of
                          sunlight versus vitamin D.
                        • Randy C
                          ... Randy C: Kind of like Newton s Theory of gravity. ... Er...Yes it UNDOUBTEDLY is. ... Unsupported assertion noted. ... There is actually a MOUNTAIN of
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jan 7, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > Zack S:
                            > Seek the truth. Evolution is merely a theory...

                            Randy C:
                            Kind of like Newton's "Theory" of gravity.

                            > ...er, no, it isn't.

                            Er...Yes it UNDOUBTEDLY is.

                            > It is disproven.

                            Unsupported assertion noted.

                            > There is no scientific evidence to support it...

                            There is actually a MOUNTAIN of scientific evidence
                            to support it.

                            > j...ust lies from vested-interest agenda pushers who
                            > would rather present propaganda than facts.

                            EXCELLENT description of creationists noted.

                            Thanks.

                            > These same people would have you believe that abortion
                            > isn't murder and that sexual abstinence shouldn't be
                            > promoted, even though contraceptives are immoral and
                            > ineffective-no clinical evidence to support them.

                            Wow! THERE is a clueless, irrelevant rant for you.

                            > The one thing Darwin got right was his rejecting his
                            > own alleged theory.

                            But since Darwin never did that...

                            You are clearly decades behind the times. Even
                            creationists concede that Darwin never disavowed his
                            theories.
                          • Randy C
                            ... Randy C: The word proof isn t really appropriate. Nothing in the natural world can be proven in the same way that mathematics can. But here are
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jan 7, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > Zack S:
                              > Kindly try to present proof of YOUR claim of
                              > evolution being true.

                              Randy C:
                              The word "proof" isn't really appropriate. Nothing
                              in the natural world can be "proven" in the same way
                              that mathematics can.

                              But here are various areas of evidence supporting
                              evolution:

                              1.Unity of life
                              2.Nested hierarchies
                              3.Convergence of independent phylogenies including
                              Statistics of incongruent phylogenies
                              4.Transitional forms
                              Reptile-birds
                              Reptile-mammals
                              ape-humans
                              Legged whales
                              Legged seacows
                              5.Chronology of common ancestors
                              6.Anatomical vestiges
                              7.Atavisms
                              Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs
                              Humans tails
                              8.Molecular vestiges
                              9.Ontogeny and developmental biology
                              Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws
                              Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches
                              Snake embryos with legs
                              Embryonic human tail
                              Marsupial eggshell and caruncle
                              10.Present biogeography
                              11.Past biogeography
                              Marsupials
                              Horses
                              Apes and humans
                              12.Anatomical parahomology
                              13.Molecular parahomology
                              14.Anatomical convergence
                              15.Molecular convergence
                              16.Anatomical suboptimal function
                              17.Molecular suboptimal function
                              18.Protein functional redundancy
                              19.DNA functional redundancy
                              20.Transposons
                              21.Redundant pseudogenes
                              22.Endogenous retroviruses
                              23.Genetic Change
                              24.Morphological Change
                              25.Functional Change
                              26.Stages of speciation
                              27.Speciation events
                              28.Morphological rates
                              29.Genetic rates

                              That's a LOT.

                              In fact, you could call it a MOUNTAIN.

                              > Of course, you can try all you want, but you will
                              > have no evidence.

                              Actually, we DO - and will - have a MOUNTAIN - of
                              ever increasing evidence.

                              > As for vested-interest agenda-pushers, who do you
                              > THINK I'm talking about?

                              Obviously, creationists.

                              > Look around! The liberal media, the "educational"
                              > system, etc. promote lies on a constant basis.

                              Obviously STILL talking about creationists. They can
                              do nothing more than promote lies on a constant basis
                              since evolution is an undeniable scientific fact.

                              > Evolution is one of many.

                              You meant to say that "CREATIONISM" is one of many.

                              > Kids are getting taught that abortion isn't murder...

                              Irrelevant rant noted.

                              > ...that homosexuality is just a natural alternative
                              > lifestyle...

                              Additional totally irrelevant rant noted.

                              > ...that contraceptives are moral and effective
                              > (they're neither)...

                              Actually they are both, but clearly you are a bit
                              delusional.

                              > ...that all ideologies are true...

                              Creationism is one ideology that is untrue.

                              > ...(how, since they all contradict?), etc..

                              Creationism is FILLED with contradictions. After
                              all it is based on the Bible which is a book
                              undeniably filled with myths, contradictions,
                              inconsistencies and failed prophecies.

                              > We live in a satanic world...

                              Except for the fact that satan doesn't exist...

                              > ...and all of the above and more are satanic
                              > actions.

                              All of which may, possibly, be the most delusional
                              rant noted.

                              > The liberal bias is very overt and subtle.

                              It also has NOTHING to do with evolution.

                              > It's no wonder that parents are turning to
                              > home-schooling...

                              Clearly a lot of parents DO INDEED hate their
                              children.

                              Why do you think that they do that?

                              > ...something that the aforementioned liars would
                              > have you think is a bad idea, too.

                              Indeed! Demonstrably so.

                              Thanks very much, Zack. If anyone wanted to know
                              the evils of creationism your post would utterly
                              terrify anyone. Logic and rationality are nowhere
                              to be found.

                              Imagine a society filled with people such as Zack.

                              It send shivers up my spine.

                              Fortunately Zack is (I think and sincerely hope)
                              the exception rather than the rule.
                            • Dave Oldridge
                              ... 1. I always seek truth. So does David as far as I know. 2. Evolution is not MERELY a theory, it is THE central theory in biology. 3. There is a
                              Message 14 of 15 , Jan 7, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 06/01/2011 8:19 AM, Zack S. wrote:
                                > Seek the truth. Evolution is merely a theory; er, no, it isn't. It is disproven. There is no scientific evidence to support it, just lies from vested-interest agenda pushers who would rather present propaganda than facts. These same people would have you believe that abortion isn't murder and that sexual abstinence shouldn't be promoted, even though contraceptives are immoral and ineffective-no clinical evidence to support them. The one thing Darwin got right was his rejecting his own alleged theory.
                                >

                                1. I always seek truth. So does David as far as I know.
                                2. Evolution is not MERELY a theory, it is THE central theory in biology.
                                3. There is a mountain of scientific evidence supporting it.
                                4. The lies are all coming from YOU.
                                5. Abortion is abortion. It can be murder and it can be triage. I do
                                not personally support its use as a method of birth control. How is
                                this in any way relevant to the biology of evolution?
                                6. Darwin never rejected his own theory.

                                Why do you post such egregious lies? Why do you think anyone who knows
                                the truth will be deceived? Does not your cult teach that deceiving the
                                ignorant is sinful? If not, why not?

                                I strongly suggest you try Christianity instead of just aping people who
                                are faking it badly!

                                --
                                Dave Oldridge
                                Skype: daveoldridge
                                Ham Radio: VA7CZ

                                ----------

                                Scanned with AntiVir MailGuard v10.0.1.38 AVE 8.2.4.140 VDF 7.11.1.57

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Dave Oldridge
                                ... Humans and chimps have the same broken GULO gene that all the anthropoids have. In chimps and humans they are nearly identical. So what is YOUR theory s
                                Message 15 of 15 , Jan 7, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On 06/01/2011 1:13 PM, Zack S. wrote:
                                  > Kindly try to present proof of YOUR claim of evolution being true. Of course, you can try all you want, but you will have no evidence.
                                  >

                                  Humans and chimps have the same broken GULO gene that all the
                                  anthropoids have. In chimps and humans they are nearly identical.

                                  So what is YOUR theory's explanation for this? In my estimation, it
                                  proves beyond reasonable doubt that chimps and humans share a recent
                                  (5-7 million years) common ancestor. Of course your mileage may vary.
                                  You may want to resort to blasphemy and claim that an incompetent and/or
                                  malicious deity made them that way.
                                  >
                                  > As for vested-interest agenda-pushers, who do you THINK I'm talking about? Look around! The liberal media, the "educational" system, etc. promote lies on a constant basis. Evolution is one of many.

                                  Since evolution is NOT a lie, I would suggest that your sour grapes over
                                  that are mainly because YOUR LIES are not being taught there.
                                  > Kids are getting taught that abortion isn't murder, that homosexuality is just a natural alternative lifestyle, that contraceptives are moral and effective (they're neither), that all ideologies are true (how, since they all contradict?), etc.. We live in a satanic world, and all of the above and more are satanic actions.
                                  >

                                  Yes and YOU clearly worship the father of all lies. That IS satanic. I
                                  would suggest you repent. Do you have the moral courage for that?
                                  >
                                  > The liberal bias is very overt and subtle. It's no wonder that parents are turning to home-schooling, something that the aforementioned liars would have you think is a bad idea, too.
                                  >

                                  Home schooling can be wonderful. But when it is used as an excuse for
                                  teaching lies to children as you propose here, then it is an abomination.

                                  Your bigotry is showing very clearly. You master in hell must be well
                                  pleased with the work he has done in you.


                                  If you sow hatred do not be surprised if that is what you reap.

                                  --
                                  Dave Oldridge
                                  Skype: daveoldridge
                                  Ham Radio: VA7CZ

                                  ----------

                                  Scanned with AntiVir MailGuard v10.0.1.38 AVE 8.2.4.140 VDF 7.11.1.57

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.