real lifeQuote: Q. How did these organisms continue to accidentally gather additional genetic information and complexity against the known laws of science, becoming higher and higher forms of life by sheer chance?
A. We're really not sure.
You have anice way of writing really preposterous positions and handing them off to others as doctrine.
Im beginning to believe that your entire points are made without ever having attempted to read any technical journal. If it werent for the web, youd have nothing from which to draw your pablum.
For any kiddies listening in, the above member has posted a conditional "set up" proposition wherein all his statements are patently false
eg
Organisms gather additional genetic material by generations of adaptation and evolution.(They dont "accidently" gather complexity, in fact complexity isnt even a correct conclusion) The genomes of animals for which decoding has been completed provide overwhelming evidence of this conclusion. These evidence are only consistent with all laws of science. A single piece of evidence is the environmental catastrophe that removed up to 90% of human genomic variation about 70000 years BP can be easily seen to cooincide with the largest volcanic eruption with attendant global wide climate change.
This environmental catastrophe is recorded in , ice cores, sediment varves with tiny worldwide layers of bentonite that correspond to the eruption . The human genome, at that moment, lost a huge portion of genomic variety from evidence that has been, (and is continuing) to be gathered for populational variety studies and forensic information
All laws of science have been followed to nicely corroborate an evolution conclusion in all cases without having any inserted "fairy tales"
Real Life gets his sources from "predigested" Creationist sites that dont allow individual thought.
Earlier RL complained to CI that "Creationists" have such tiny resource pools from which to draw and compare their meager resources to worldwide money spent on research. What a crock of ****. The Legions of "Old ladies" and well meaning but gullible philanthropic societies that fund the religious "Institutes like "Discovery" or CRI or Answers In Genesis, have only ONE MISSION, to try to discredit science --period. They spend resources honing slick huicksters in shiny suits and pompadour haircuts to meet with and preach to the over 15 million Fundamentalist Christians in the country. These fundamnetalists (including fringe Baptists, 7th Day Adventists, E United Bretheren etc etc)Are eager to blow their tax deductible dollars to fund this mumbo jumbo and rape of science. Now, these well funded organizations want to intrude in our already dysfunctional school systems to teach a myth based series of doctrine that they call "Intelligent Design", which, is, as any moron can see, nothing more than the same old Creationist crap under a new name. The proponents and leaders of the ID movement are a bunch of mission oriented folks who havethis ONE GOAL in mind, to insert their limited worldview into schools by iusing poor logic and trying to foist a total misrepresentation of scientific principals and theories.
The very arguments that Real Life presented above are taken off a web site that contains "resources" for Creation minded folks.
We dont provide equivalent FAQs pages for science. We just hope that schools are doing their jobs and that guys like me dont have to weed out university students who are ill prepared for undergrad and grad work in my science. Perhaps we should spend as much time to inculcate and "mind meld" our students with the same mindless drivvel as real lifes compadres. We , instead, rely upon the word of science getting through and being UNDERSTOOD. Apparently weve failed because the obvious and simplest of responses are not available to real Life that he must engage in skating on the fringes of science and gathering his "truths" from pre coached sources that dont encourage individual thought, they only reward blind adherance to poorly researched doctrine.
NExt time we enteretain Creationist teachings we must remember to ask real life( and the many others who pop in and out) , from where he gets his provable science. How does he understand the "laws ofscience " that he feels are broken .Also, every time he responds with an example from real science, where does he think that evidence came from because it ceratinly hasnt come from the mind of a Creationist. Ive asked him to identify one piece of valid science that has been developed using Creationist methods. Hes merely tried to dodge the entire question hoping Id forget it , but since hes posting really lame propositions that dont even follow how we know what we know( let alone the fact that they dont represent the knowledge bank that exists), I think real life ought to respond to my original question or else admit that theres not one piece of valid science that Creation researchers or data miners have added to our talley board of human accomplishments. In fact, most Creationist views that are touted by the "true believers" are preposterous fairy tales and have no scientific merit worthy of any consideration.Cmon real life name something.
Creationists have a pat conclusion.They dont need no steenkeng evidence .
Now all the Creationists want to do is cast doubt on well proven science and, while theyre involved in doing this, they want your kids to be taught this junk and to accept it based upon the well tested principle of science that" God said it so its gotta be true"
