Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Well, I meant, of course, the results of new discovers and testing that, especially in any detail, the Fundies and Behe will not read. The choir will be singing the right song beautifully but the Creationuts and IDiots will have turned it into something by Spike Jones.

One needn't know anything about anything to make statements like that LW. It's worthless foam from the mouth.

The more I read your stuff, the more Im convinced that you make it up from a point of complete ignorance of scientific literature starting ith "The Origin..."

Foam from the mouth again effemm. You could say that stuff about anything. Do you really think it answers the point there. Do you think it means anything at all. It has no beef.

I can't understand an educational system which leads people to say that sort of thing and believe in doing so they have imparted some objective truth.

Youve never proven me wrong. WHile you say that you are a scientist whos taught chemistry, your views are potently anti science with a pre 1940's Catholic lean. Your assertions re Darwin and Lamark are unfounded fairly shallow statements from the pool of historical knowledge.

Everytime you make one of your assertions someone always shoves it back in your pie hole and you then go off to a totally different assertion. You dont seem to want to back up anything you say and its gets tiring to revisit your statements like one of those of our past esteemed Creationist "Real Life"

If you've nothing to say effemm why do you bother. Viewers can make their own minds up from my posts and not from your repetitive and trite assertions about them.

I've proved that you can't discuss social consequences nor any of that vast body of science which deals with the psychosomatic realm.

I really haven't ever come across the style of debate you use except on A2K. It's alien to me. It's pathetic. If it has an influence on anybody they have my utmost sympathy.

How can anybody prove you wrong? I'm not even trying to.

You did not set the topic for this thread spendi, so waht are you even referring to?
Ive more than once proved that you cannot begin to discuss the technical points of science without reverting to fibbery and fairy tale.

Which technical points? Science is so specialised now and needs so much focus that most scientists hardly know anything about what other scientists are doing.

But once again your post is contentless. Stick to dipshit. It's shorter and means the same.

with the work being done to uncover the relatioships between the genome and epigenome, is the actual relationship between a disease and its imprinting in our chromosomes, a mere gene or two away?

The epigenome seems to function as a switch wherein the genome encodes the environmental stresses and LAmarckian effects . Id read this week that, several diseases, like certain cancers are prevelant among the descendents of a grandfather who was a heavy smoker, or children whose grandmothers were garment workers.

No doubt one could find such correlations from deep-sea diving, welding, eating peanut butter, having a name beginning with S, living in a city and being nourished on the breast.

At the age at which the sample of grandfathers sired their children they are unlikely to have been a heavy smoker for very long.

Such statements, while they may reinforce your determination to stop smoking, are much too oversimplified and likely to be misleading.

Thats the problem with you, you seem to spend more time on developing a snarky opinion than you do on understanding the issue.
Trying to be a comedian takes talent, of which , I believe that, you were at the end of the line when it was handed out.

There was no understanding of the issue in the post in which you raised the matter. I wasn't even saying that the point you raised about hereditary cancer was invalid. It had no beef, as usual. Just what you had read somewhere.

I've seen stuff on the matter. How do we know it was smoking? What do we say to those whose grandfathers were heavy smokers? As many were. You might be giving them anxiety attacks about something they can do nothing about. It is a matter to create anxiety. And how many non- smokers are there now who were heavy smokers when they did the deed.

If you are so concerned about our grandchildren why are you not out campaigning to reduce the debts we are piling on to them and which they can justifiably refuse to pay. Don't you think there should be a screening programme whereby grandchildren of heavy smoking grandfathers at the time of the deed can be tested early.

What do the grandchildren of non-smoking grandfathers get? We all get something or other. Possibly they get higher marks in exams. Nicotine is a known brain stimulant.

I believe that grandchildren and children of grandfathers with long, thin noses are more prone to artereosclerosis. But I haven't read it anywhere. I think arteries are as likely to show physical differences as external features do. ( The long, thin nose was a metaphorical flight of fancy--don't read it literally.) Liquids passing through convoluted pipes. Thousandths of an inch.

On the subject of nails in the ID/Creationist coffin:



Fossil Skeleton From Africa Predates Lucy

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: October 1, 2009

Lucy, meet Ardi.

Ardi, short for Ardipithecus ramidus, is the newest fossil skeleton out of Africa to take its place in the gallery of human origins. At an age of 4.4 million years, it lived well before and was much more primitive than the famous 3.2-million-year-old Lucy, of the species Australopithecus afarensis.

Since finding fragments of the older hominid in 1992, an international team of scientists has been searching for more specimens and on Thursday presented a fairly complete skeleton and their first full analysis. By replacing Lucy as the earliest known skeleton from the human branch of the primate family tree, the scientists said, Ardi opened a window to “the early evolutionary steps that our ancestors took after we diverged from our common ancestor with chimpanzees.”

Balance of article link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/science/02fossil.html?_r=2&ref=science

I can't see many fundies being persuaded to change their ways with that Wiz.

Can you?

Sunday, October 11 -- Discovery Channel's exclusive documentary coverage of the find.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/ardipithecus/ardipithecus.html?sicontent=0&sicreative=3333915104&siclientid=3578&sitrackingid=100542839&campaign=GGL|missing+link+evolution|Evolution+-+Missing+Link|GGL+DA+-+Evolution+-+General

A lot of the ads on the Discovery Channel purvey blatant and obvious lies.

"I think it’s very important to say that this supports the long-held idea that we did not evolve from things that look like modern apes.’’ -- DONALD JOHNSON, founding director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, on “Ardi,’’ the skeleton of the earliest prehuman ever discovered

What a great idea. An Institute of Human Origins. To spend one's life studying a subject which can never be known must be very much like a continuation of the playpen mode into adulthood.

And they say there's a recession.

Has there been any unemployment in those industries Wiz or is it just the primary and secondary industries where that spectre stalks the land?

What a job it must be. Are there any other Institutes of Human Origins besides the one the workers are paying for in Arizona?

Is the idea that we did not evolve from things that look like modern apes the total output of a year's efforts or does it take longer than that?

I can see why it is "very important to say that" mind you.

Each new fossil discovery eventually gets installed in the great jigsaw puzzle and complements the whole. Why people like spendi get their panties in a knot over it is the great mystery to me.

Why you get your tampax sticky Ed over each new fossil discovery eventually getting installed in the great jigsaw puzzle to complement the whole is a mystery to me. After all, it can't have much influence on your daily doings. I hope.