500 PHD-level scientists who refuse to buy into evo-loserism

The stuff of dreams.Sadly carrion is more fitting.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

The stuff of dreams.Sadly carrion is more fitting.

They say you are what you eat.

0 Replies

I'm a vegan old chap so I must be pretty tasty.

0 Replies

Or a vegetable.

Wink

Only kidding ! Laughing

Had to be done. I couldn't waste a feeder line like that now could I ?
Used to go out with a vegan so I know what it's all about.

0 Replies

No Helium.I agree.It was a fine opportunity for you to display yout wit.I can understand you not passing it up.

I once wrote a spoof letter to a newspaper purporting to be from one Harry Cotbean,the General Secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Vegetables and Fruits complaining about the member's rights being violated by being dusted with shite from a helicopter,having to spend their lives in neat little rows and other minor matters like being trained to climb up canes.I threatened that my members would cook up some funny stuff as a thank-you gift if it wasn't knocked off.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

The fear on display is that of the evo-losers who are trying to move heaven and earth to prevent the fact that there is even any sort of a controversy involving evolution from being discussed in public schools.

It's the evos who have things to hide and be afraid of, and not the ID proponents.

Quite the reverse, as is patently obvious from your own posts and from the way you respond to others' posts.
Wanting an off-the-cuff fantasy creation such as a jello-monster for a deity instead of your own rationality is clearly demonstrative of, if you will permit the analogy, a trapped animal backed into a corner with the realisation that the only way out is one that they cannot permit themselves to accept.

There is no question that the laws of evolution may be proven to be incomplete or even incorrect at some future time. This is, after all, what tens of thousands of scientists are doing every day; learning more about the environment and how it works. They may indeed find something that cannot be explained by further advances in the future but the crucial difference is that there is not one single experiment, not one shred of evidence, not a solitary observation one can make, design or conceive of that will verify even the most trivial of the assumptions of so-called "intelligent design".

The fact are these :

1) Evolution is a Theory. It is backed up by millions of observations and experiments. It is consistent and is subject to verification and the potential of disproval. It explains the changes in the animals that are in the fossil record and the speciation observed across the globe from the present day stretching back millions of years.

2) Intelligent Design is at best a conjecture. There are no observations to back it up. There are no experiments that can be performed to verify it.
It is inconsistent and absolutely not subject to the potential for disproval. It provides no explanations for anything whatsoever but merely imposes "explanations" upon the present data and allows no room for data outside it's remit.

When observations and experiments can be performed in a rigorous scientific manner on the basic tenets of ID then it may become part of the usual scientific process.
Until that time it can explain nothing.
Until that time it cannot be be anything more than speculation, supposition or fantasy.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

No Helium.I agree.It was a fine opportunity for you to display yout wit.I can understand you not passing it up.

I once wrote a spoof letter to a newspaper purporting to be from one Harry Cotbean,the General Secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Vegetables and Fruits complaining about the member's rights being violated by being dusted with shite from a helicopter,having to spend their lives in neat little rows and other minor matters like being trained to climb up canes.I threatened that my members would cook up some funny stuff as a thank-you gift if it wasn't knocked off.

Classic !
Well done that man !
Laughing

0 Replies

Your haldane based argument is annoyingly specific about very specific faults (im not sure if their actually valid faults), and because it is atacking an UNFINISHED theory about very specific things, and is therefore weak.
You have to propose a new theory that provides a better explanation, people arent going to decide "oh, gungasnake sez there are some small problems with the evolutionary theory that havent been fixed yet, i guess the jello-god theory is right".
You have decided you agree that microevolution happens (quote "**** happens" whatever the F that means), but do not agree that macroevolution happens.
Would you outline why microevolution is not linked (or does in fact mitigate) macroevolution.

0 Replies

RaceDriver205 wrote:

Your haldane based argument is annoyingly specific about very specific faults (im not sure if their actually valid faults), and because it is atacking an UNFINISHED theory about very specific things, and is therefore weak.
You have to propose a new theory that provides a better explanation....

Like I say, that could be literally anything. In other words, you could not plausibly do worse than a theory like the theory of evolution which requires an infinite sequence of probabilistic miracles and zero-probability events.

EVERYTHING else is better. Catholicism is better, Budhism is better, voodoo is better and, sad to say, even I-slam is better.

You could believe that the great pumpkin said "SHAZAM" and created the universe. That's only one miracle, and hence infinitely better than evolutionism.

0 Replies

Flying Spagetti Monster answers all questions about the pasta chef of creation.

Hee Hee Hee

Rap

0 Replies

Over 55 scientists and medical doctors prefer the Flying Spagetti Monster to ID.

Quote:

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD:

CC:
DOVER SCHOOL BOARD (PENNSYLVANIA)
OHIO STATE SCHOOL BOARD
RIO RANCHO SCHOOL BOARD (NEW MEXICO)
GRANTSBURG SCHOOL BOARD (WISCONSIN)
COBB COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(GEORGIA)
SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(TENNESSEE)
CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(MARYLAND)
NAPERVILLE SCHOOL BOARD(ILLINOIS)
DARBY SCHOOL BOARD (MONTANA)
BLUFFTON-HARRISON SCHOOL BOARD (INDIANA)
TEXAS GOVERNOR RICK PERRY
KENTUCKY GOVERNOR ERNIE FLETCHER
SOUTH CAROLINA SENATOR MICHAEL L. FAIR

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I'm sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don't understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I'm sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don't.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

Rap

0 Replies

raprap wrote:

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design....

Oh, like there's only one version of a theory of evolution floating around? Like "Punctuated Equilibria" doesn't really exist and there never was such a person as Steve Gould, all of that was just fakery, right?

0 Replies

raprap wrote:

A name so nice it has to be posted twice.

Williams still doesn't answer William's questions on the ReMine assumptions of his Haldane Genetic Algorithm model. To wit

1) The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection.

As I noted earlier, without selection there would be animals of every intermediate step between Cheetah and us still walking around. There aren't and that's the reason selective advantage is used in the basic model. If your man is claiming what you say he is, he's an ignoramus. I can see why you like him....

Quote:

2) Many genes would have been linked with genes that are selected and thus would have hitchhiked with them to fixation.

In such a way as to form a totally new creature with new organs, a new basic plan for life, and new requirements for using the new organs, and you're going to do that with hitchhiking?

????????????????????????????????

Quote:

3) Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon.

And despite the fact that in real life nobody's ever seen a "beneficial mutation", and despite the fact that the theory of evolution requires that every step in getting from Alley Oop to us requires beneficial mutations, you claim that all of those mutations caused the way you claim are beneficial?

?????????????????????????????????????????

I mean, in real life, that's a formula for genetic destruction.

Quote:

4) Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference.

Haldane demonstrated that it would take literally quadrillions of years to evolve from an ape-like ancestor to us.

A million is a thousand thousands; a billion is a thousand millions; a trillion is a thousand billions; a quadrillion is a thousand trillions.....

Half of that is still ****ing huge.

Quote:

5) ReMine's computer simulation supposedly showing the negative influence of Haldane's dilemma assumed a population size of only six (Musgrave 1999).

The opening statement in Remine's discourse was that you could start from an ape-like ancestor 10 million years ago and assume a population of 100,000, and suppose that in every generation, two people would appear with a "beneficial mutation(TM)"; that all of the 99,998 others would immediately die of jealousy, and that the two with the good beneficial mutation(TM) would have 100,000 kids to replace themselves and all the losers who just croaked. Assuming also a generation time of 20 years average, that would give you about 500,000 substituted traits.

That would be about .014 of the human genome and a tiny fraction of the two to three percent which separates us from apes.

That's even with a rate of change which is insanely beyond anything which is possible in the real world. That's the mutation rate equivalent of travelling beyond light speed.

Any rational and intelligent person would stop reading right there; that's all he or she would need to know. The fact that evo-losers go on arguing beyond that point indicates that, with evolutionism, you are basically dealing with the irrational.

0 Replies

Punctuated Equilibria is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge explicitly pointed out that Punctuated Equilibria is an expansion on Evolutionary Theory, it is not an exclusive (Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3, 115-151).

Rap

0 Replies

raprap wrote:

Punctuated Equilibria is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge explicitly pointed out that Punctuated Equilibria is an expansion on Evolutionary Theory, it is not an exclusive (Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3, 115-151).
Rap

At some point in the game they had to say a few things like that to appease the evo-losers, who they regarded as idiots.

Evolution was laying like a wet blanket over paleontology to such an extent that paleontologists couldn't publish/perish anymore. They basically devised a new vision of evo-loserism which didn't conflict with paleontology. Kind of like Uncle Don saying "Well, I guess that'll hold the little bastards for another day" when he thought the mike was off.

0 Replies

Whatever--

0 Replies

RE: evolution is nonsense and voodoo spagetti monsters r more probable
Yet the clues point towards evolution dont they?
You say how there is no living intermediates between apes and humans, and yet fossils of many intermediates have been found. (Dont argue, they have).
Does this not imply both an evolution of apes (which share about 98% genetic material) into humans via an intermediate, and does this not imply natural selection of humans over these intermediates?

0 Replies

RaceDriver205 wrote:

RE: evolution is nonsense and voodoo spagetti monsters r more probable
Yet the clues point towards evolution dont they?
You say how there is no living intermediates between apes and humans, and yet fossils of many intermediates have been found. (Dont argue, they have)....

Not really. What you actually have is the neanderthal which was a proto-human of some sort and then every other hominid, which were all basically glorified apes.

Granted the neanderthal causes a few problems for Christians, but for every problem he causes for Christians he causes a thousand problems for evolutionites.

The main problem is that in order to be descended from something, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something, and neanderthal DNA has been described as about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee, meaning that we could no more interbreed with neanderthals than we could with horses. This is accepted science.

The problems is that all other hominids are much further removed from us than the neanderthal. To believe that man evolved on this planet, you would have to come up with some new hominid closer to us in both time and morphology than the neanderthal, and the works and remains of that closer hominid would be all over the place had he ever existed.

In real life, no such has ever been found. That says you've got three or four possibilities as to how modern man got here:

Created recently from scratch.

Genetically re-engineered from the neanderthal.

Brought here from elsewhere in the cosmos.

That third item would be, brought here from elsewhere, after being CREATED elsewhere. Evo-loserism doesn't work any better on other planets than it does here.

0 Replies

Nenderthals were Homo Sapiens (homo sapiens neandtherthalis), so we should have been able to interbreed. Last I read, there were five hominid species living at the same time in different parts of the world, of which we are all that is left.

http://www.biology-online.org/10/15_homo.htm

0 Replies

The fact that nobody had ever turned up any evidence of crossbreeding between modern humans and neanderthals always used to be a big mystery before the DNA studies explained it. Particularly in the levant where modern humans and neanderthals lived in close proximity for long periods of time there should have been much evidence of crossbreeding and nobody could figure out why there wasn't any.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n9_v16/ai_17199047

Like I say, the neanderthal DNA studies explained it:

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA10/neander797.html

Quote:

University Park, Pa. (10 July 1997) New evidence from mitochondrial DNA analyses indicates that the Neanderthal hominid was not related to human ancestors.

Using refined and expensive genetic techniques, U.S. and German researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal bone. These studies showed that the Neanderthal DNA sequence falls outside the normal variation of modern humans.

"These results indicate that Neandertals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans," says Dr. Mark Stoneking, associate professor of anthropology at Penn State. "Neandertals are not our ancestors."

0 Replies

500 PHD-level scientists who refuse to buy into evo-loserism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know