AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Sol3a1

form_srcid: Sol3a1

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.205.236.46

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Sol3a1

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Sol3a1%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2008/07/09 09:37:17, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,07:40)
We keep asking the same questions because your answers are horrifically lame.  I assure you that I've scanned through talkorigins with a fine tooth comb...I even mentioned Theobald's 29+ evidences in my above post.  Those responses don't amount to diddly squat.  It amazing those simple responses is all it takes to convince you folks that the ToE is not a controversial theory.

Here are some more questions for you, and of course Erasmus, since you both seem to also be under the impression that there are no controversial issues surrounding the ToE that should be addressed by students.  Let's test our students on these questions, since they should be easy to answer considering that the ToE is such as solid, unquestionable theory...
Quote
Students can explain in detail how evolutionary theory explains the Cambrian Explosion.

Students can describe the changes in genes and embryological development by which complex biological structures such as the human eye evolved.

Students can delineate the lines of evidence by which evolutionary theory has decisively refuted intelligent design. etc.

Students can explain how inanimate matter spontaneously self-organized into the first living cell with its complex machinery and information-rich DNA molecule, without the need for design.

Students can explain how evolutionary theory solves the problem that DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA.

Students can describe how co-option explains the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. They will identify the naturally selectable functions of all the independent parts prior to co-option, show that they were capable of interfacing with each other, and identify the specific mutations or other random genetic changes that produced the assembly machinery and assembly instructions necessary for the co-option process.

Students can explain how a land-dwelling mammal such as a cow or hippopotamus evolved by random genetic errors and natural selection into a whale. Students will show how the breathing, digestive, vision, hearing, lactation and other critical systems evolved in a step-by-step fashion such that each generation was viable during the transition from a land-dwelling mammal into a mammal that spends its entire life in the open ocean.

Students should be able to explain how random mutation created the symbols used in the universal genetic code.

Howdy all,


Looong time lurker but I just had to register to answer this posting from Ftk.

See Ftk, I'd like to have your typical HS student know most of these things.  Hell, I'd like to have most college students be able to answer these things.

But let me ask you a question.  How many HS students could answer these:

1:  Tell us the Capitols of each State in the US.

2:  Recite the Preamble of the US Constitution.

3:  Describe for us the differences between Federalism, Democracy and Representative Democracy.

4:  Where was the 1st Continental Congress held?

5:  What happened, and which major figures were there, at the Battle of Waterloo?

There's much more.  Now most HS students would choke on the first question.  Hell, I wonder how many of them know how many States are in the US or their own State's capitol.

As for 29 Evidences, I have never seen a more tortured, circular and pathetic explanations used to confuse the issue.

For ID to even be considered, one MUST start looking more into the designers.

See, ID rests on THREE pre-conceived notions and it completely ignores the questions that arise when one wants to put other agents into the equation.  The first notion is that things are designed.  Ok, show us the difference between a designed system and an ad hoc system.

The second is that there was A designer.  Could there ha ve been more designers?

The third is that the designer(s) was intelligent.  Looking at the structure of the human eye, the human lower back and the pathetic way the human heart gets blood, those are from an intelligent designer?

What about a drunk, moronic, mean spirited or just plain lazy?  Could the designer be that as well?  Could the design be based on a committee of piss poor designers?  How do you tell design from non design and if you have shown design, can you show the differences between designers?

Here's the other question, would you even be looking for multiple designers?  You keep harping on "looking into things as real science does" so if you can quantify that something is designed, shouldn't you be looking for different designer signatures?

Another question that needs to be answered is from a science viewpoint, if things need a designer, what designed the designer?

Last question for now, could the designers be mortal?  Could be be going through generations of designers?  Are the original designers around or are dead?

See, real science would try to answer that and not stop on, "We found our god!"

Date: 2008/07/09 09:40:40, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Typo and I have no edit button:

"As for 29 Evidences, I have never seen a more tortured, circular and pathetic explanations used to confuse the issue."

should read

As for 29 Evidences supposedly being already answered by anti-science types (of which ID's at the forefront of BS pseudo science) I've never seen a more tortured, circular and pathetic explanations used to confuse the issue done to explain away that you guys have no clothes

Date: 2008/07/09 10:13:57, Link
Author: Sol3a1
From Ftk:
Quote
Consider this: To claim that something like bacteria evolved into birds and humans, you must consider that the hypothetical series of steps had to traverse hundreds of vital organs. After a new vital organ evolved, one should wonder how the organism had survived before it had that vital organ, because without the newly evolved vital organ, the “critter” is (by the definition of vital) dead! Macroevolution must produce greater complexity which requires large increases in information. New vital organs and irreducible complexity would be examples of greater complexity. Where is the empirical evidence that this has actually occurred? Can you show me any natural process that produces large, nontrivial amounts of information? Natural processes tend to destroy information. All living things contain gigantic amounts of information! Here’s a question for the scientists out there...to date, what are some of the most beneficial mutations to organisms in their natural environments that scientists have observed through the years?
First let me say I've been doing this a long time, I got off boards like these because I found so many "good christians" to be nothing but hypocritical liars.

The thing that you must do deary is first specify what you mean by information.  How do you quantify information as it relates to the genome?  Which has more "information", the gene that produces blue eyes or one that produces hazel eyes?  Seems that IDists conveniently ignore that and pull BS out of their one brown, crusty eye.

I find it so incredulous that Creationists continue to forget the time scales here.  To go from "bacteria" to humanity or birds took almost 4 Billion years.  Hell, the past 7.5 years with da shrub as "Commander in Chief" feels like forever, I can't imagine 4 Billion years.

To go from one "lesser complex" being to a more "complex being", the steps are gradual.

Which parts would you like to discuss first?  For sake of waiting, let's take the wing.

The question I've always heard is "What good is 10% of a wing?"

What you have to do is think about what type of creature would develop a wing.  The most likely creature to develop wings are those where the landscape had tall structures to jump from.  Why?  Oh, things like catch food, escape predators, better mating chances those things that really matter in evolution, the ability to spread your genes around.

Jumping is fine, but what if you augment it a little?  Say with an extra flap of skin that lets the critter jump a little further as that extra skin allows a softer landing as they can glide a bit instead of just falling?  As that mutation gets passed on more frequently, the extra skin becomes more pronounced.  I'll save you the details, but check out "Flying Squirrels".  The extra skin they have allows for quick escapes and accessing better locations for food.

That's it in a nutshell.  If you have problems, perhaps I can try to explain it using monosyllable words.

Date: 2008/07/09 10:25:10, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Ftk,


Could you please, pretty please with sugar on top, please give us a vigorous definition of Information and how it relates to the genome?

Date: 2008/07/09 10:39:32, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,10:29)
lol...dude, you can take your just so stories and shove them where the sun don't shine.  You either provide scientific empirical evidence for your stories or you admit that you're working under assumptions and speculation.  Nothing wrong with that...it just ain't "fact", and our students need to be made aware of the difference.

:)

Hehe,


Yeah, I guess when you have your head shoved so far up your own ass, far enough to see your own tonsils, I would guess you think everyone is like you.  Hmmm, "just so stories", wow, you are seriously deluded by the BS that your masters give you aren't you?

Surprised you have kids as I thought by the way you swallow things you wouldn't have let things go anywhere else.  :)

Speaking of facts, perhaps you can tell us what "Information" is as it relates to the Genome.  Obviously if you're going to talk about it like it exists, you should be able to tell us and quantify it.

Unless of course "it is just a story".

Date: 2008/07/09 10:41:17, Link
Author: Sol3a1
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,10:39)
In the same respect do the lot of you know that all IDists are liars, dishonest, morons, lunatics, Idiots, tard-addled, delusional, etc., etc., etc..?  I'm pretty sure I'm as good at mind reading as the rest of you are.

No mind reading, just reading your lies and hypocritical BS to tell that you are a liar, a fraud and a cheerleader who swallows.

Date: 2008/07/09 11:51:54, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,11:17)
The argument is valid...nothing juvenile about it.  Perhaps you can explain to me how it's invalid?  The conspiracy element is an accusation forwarded by both sides of this debate.

"Oh, my goodness, they're trying to shove religion into the science classroom....they're undermining science!!  Wedgie...wedgie!!111!!"

-or-

"Oh, my goodness, the horsemen are encouraging their adoring masses to use science to eradicate religion.  Seriously...read their books!!!!111!!"

Pick whatever works for you.

Please explain how "Evolutionary Sciences" are upheld only by a conspiracy.

Then tell us how Information is measured in the Genome.  I guess like your "holey book", it is just stories.

As far as Wing Evolution goes, while I am no expert on the subject, I will refer you to others who know more:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/17/6581.abstract

So again, if you continue to banter about the idea that the genome contains Information, which has more info, Blue or Hazel eyes?

Date: 2008/07/09 12:18:57, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,12:12)
Quote
It would help if you would actually do the same, and support your claims with e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.


DITTO, KIDDO.

Then blow us out of the water with you evidence kiddo.

I've already sent some, unless you can't fricken read (being told what to do now?) on how wings come about.  Hint to Ftk, It is tough science and not easy.

If you want fairy tales, by all means ignore what is already there.  If you actually want to learn something, take the blinders off and actually see what is going on around you.

One other thing, you know if Evolution is wrong it doesn't mean ID is correct, right?  If there is a "special creation", why not look at the Vedic to find the Truth?

Date: 2008/07/09 12:32:56, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,12:27)
Quote
If you look really really good, you've seen that there is a simple yet unanswered list of questions. As long as the questions remained dodged, they keep mocking.


Yes, you see, lcd....ftk has to answer every question posed to her. These folks don't have to follow those rules.  

I'm still waiting to be told why common descent must be adhered to in order to do biology.  No one addressed the primary topic of my post.  Although, if I know Bill he's sitting back watching the fireworks while putting together a thoughtful response rather than blurting out in emotional furor like Eramus et. al.

Well ignore us and just show us why ID makes it better.

Like I said, if Evolution is wrong, it still doesn't make ID right or even a theory.  ID must stand on its own and trying and I will say failing to knock out Evolution even if you could would not make ID right.

So I am trying to be respectful to you, as lcd said you might want to try with us - good catch there guy, please show us where ID works and Evolution fails.  Say briefly where evolution got it wrong just a sentence and then show us how ID gets it right and how Information Theory(misnomer) can actually be used to predict a better out come.

Date: 2008/07/09 12:59:02, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Speaking of Conspiraciess Ftk:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html

The "Pentacolagon" is being subverted into making a religious I mean Evangelical Christian Army.

No where again are Christians being persecuted?  Seems the other way around.  Just FYI for FTK.

Date: 2008/07/09 13:00:14, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Ugh.....

Conspiracies

and it's the Pentacostologon

Date: 2008/07/09 13:54:12, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,13:09)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 09 2008,12:58)
lcd:

 
Quote

An Intelligent designer would use things over again that worked.


So, why would a designer use things over that didn't work?

Um.  Are you a deist, Wes?

If I remember from many years ago, from such a person as St. Helen no less.  Paraphrased and while not word for word, nor even close, this sums up why we see "sub-optimal designs":

"Once the fall took place, God's perfect world for His Children fell apart.  The fall caused much more than sin entering the world.  God's creation was ruined.  From docile plant eaters, terrible changes in the T. Rex, Raptors and of dinosaurs occurred.  So it was the fall that caused non-ideal situations and entropy to enter God's perfect creation".

Does that sound about right?

Date: 2008/07/09 14:03:38, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,13:55)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 09 2008,13:39)
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,09:21)
Quote (olegt @ July 09 2008,08:03)
If you're looking for a real fight, why don't you explain to us how ID is different from scientific creationism.  You still have those Henry Morris quotes, don't you?
You can't be serious.  You must know by now that creation science stems from scientific evidence and the biblical account of Genesis.  Flood theology anyone?
sheesh.

Seriously?

(my bold)
ROTFL....I saw that...was hoping no one would notice it!!!!  I did that once before...a couple years ago.


MY BADDDDDDDD!!!!!!11111!!!!

With you is there really a difference?

Date: 2008/07/09 14:04:14, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (lcd @ July 09 2008,14:02)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 09 2008,12:58)
lcd:

 
Quote

An Intelligent designer would use things over again that worked.
So, why would a designer use things over that didn't work?
From what I believe and read it was Original Sin that caused and is causing God's creation to break down.  Micro Evolution is fully supported by ID and indeed it is supported and predicted by it.  The loss of Information is why we get these sub-optimal appearing designs.

God's creation was perfect, our sin destroyed that perfection.

Or again that is what I Postulate.

I think I have a winner here.....

Date: 2008/07/09 14:13:27, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (lcd @ July 09 2008,14:08)
Actually there were no disease causing bacteria.  Yes, there was bacteria, but it was the fall that caused some of them to degenerate and give us what we see today.

Again, there was no death before the fall.  Our sins to God are the cause of all the pain and suffering we see today.

Got to run and I will say the board is becoming more of a who can fling the most right now.


Peace to you all

Wow.  If there were Bacteria and they didn't die, one wonders how long it would have taken for all of Creation to be covered in a slimy ooze made of "non threatening bacteria"?

Oh, oh, oh.  I think I just gave IDists a place to show where Stromatalites came from.

Date: 2008/07/09 14:18:43, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,14:10)
Quote
Actually there were no disease causing bacteria.  Yes, there was bacteria, but it was the fall that caused some of them to degenerate and give us what we see today.

Again, there was no death before the fall.  Our sins to God are the cause of all the pain and suffering we see today.
At least it's all about the science...

If there was no death, what did Adam and Eve eat?

Raw, non-biologic protein with minerals extract?

I guess T Rex wasn't a plant eater either as to be one would cause death of plants.

Um, what could God have fed his creation so they wouldn't starve that has a lot of protein and minerals.....

Ewww.....

Date: 2008/07/09 14:37:21, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 09 2008,14:26)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ July 09 2008,12:18)
I guess T Rex wasn't a plant eater either as to be one would cause death of plants.

Gonna have to disagree with you there big fella. I'd bet anything he ate plants at *some* point.


Vegetables, it's what food eats.....

OBTW, WTF is that?

Date: 2008/07/09 14:41:33, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,14:38)
Quote
God or a lucky blob....make your choice.
Quote
Keep religion out of the discussion folks.
*ahem*

I was about to point out her fellow traveller lcd made several refs to their (they are both Christians right?) god.

She (Ftk - are you XX or XY or some other combo?) didn't seem to mind it then.

But this is better.

There's a word I'm thinking about.

Hypocrite!

Date: 2008/07/09 15:09:21, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,15:02)
Quote
And they lie for Jesus.


Retraction...now.  I do not lie for Jesus.  The point is that ID does not favor any particular religious belief.  There are atheists and agnostics who are sympathetic to ID even if they doubt the theory themselves.

Dembski/Behe/et. al. have always been upfront about who they believe the designer to be (no lying for Jesus there)...but, then so have Islamic ID supporters.  

The point is, once again, that it's irrelevant to the discussion and only brought up by those who are scared shitless of a the conspiracy theory that ID theorists are out to take over the government.  THAT THAR IS JUST CRAZY.

Actually no.

The ID movement is based on the Wedge Document.  That Document is from "Scientific Creationism" and "Scientific Creationism" is "Special Creation".

If ID were truly god/goddess/entity independent, then they would also be looking into the possibility that there are many Designers.  That would actually be better for a Hindu as good, intelligent gods would make good designs while the evil or stupid gods would be making crappy designs.

So, will ID be looking into multiple designers?  It would answer why some designs are "good" while others are pure crap.

Date: 2008/07/09 15:17:08, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,15:13)
Quote (Doc Bill @ July 09 2008,15:02)
OK, FtK, how about fish, frogs and lizards.

Doesn't that solve your problem of vital organ development?
Yeah, okay, so let's say we cut out one of those vital organs...would they live?  Just sayin'.

Cart before the horse.

No Ftk, the lungs developed after they need arose.  Also, evolution does not target specific members but parts of  species.

So there was no need to have lungs until the first fish needed a way to get from mud puddle to mud puddle.  Lungs arose from that.

For those who are more literate lungs are most likely a re-structuring of the swim bladder, correct?

Date: 2008/07/09 16:06:21, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,15:26)
Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,15:02)
And I seem to remember reading this somewhere as a governing goal in some sort of document...

 
Quote
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

And, how would that differ from the four horsemen's plan to use science to erradicate religion?  

I think we're on a level playing field in regard to those who would like to see one ideology replace the other.  If we're all honest, every one of us would be more comfortable if we all held the same worldview.  But, that doesn't mean that that will be decided in the science class.  As long as both sides are fairly considered, neither has anything to fear.  If anyone thinks that one ideology is going to reign supreme and wipe out consideration of the other, they're absolutely delusional.  

Both sides have and always will have a place at the table regardless of whose ideology currently reigns over the science classroom.  We can (and have) try to kill each other off, but it won't change the fact that there will always be those who reject design and those who accept it.  

If both sides were allowed to be considered, the public would be more apt to trust scientists and the incessent bickering and court cases over this bullshit would cease.

One thing Ftk, XY is male and XX is female.

Now, Science can't destroy faith.  A person has it or they don't.  What Science can destroy is literal interpretation, that Adam begat Cain who begat.  That there was a Global Flood.  That the Universe is 6000 years old.  That is what Science can do.

There are many Christians who accept that their God isn't a Moron and a selectively intervening micro-manager who needs to continuously fuck around with their creations.

Personally, my issue with the Fundie god is why does a being feel the need to be worshiped?  Sounds more like a petulant and spoiled child to be mocked than anything else.  And don't get me started on the idea that this god is loving when he commands that some children get their brains smashed and that you take the virgin females of your enemies and make them concubines.  Yeah, nice guy.

But if you think there's really something to ID, please give us what Information is on how it applies to genetics.  Or just answer another question from another poster.

If you're response is, "I'll wait until (insert moving goalposts here) is done", that will be a long time.  Now is the time for you to strike.  Post your answers shows us how stupid you think we are.

Oh yeah, if you want to "teach IDism", what about voodoo?  How about Helio-centrism?  Oh yeah, "scientists believed the Sun went around the Earth" is complete crap.  That was done by the christian church that forbade the other ideas.

The ball is in your court.

Date: 2008/07/09 16:19:45, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 09 2008,16:13)
Yeah, I considered explaining it, but then thought I'd save my breath.

I think we all, save Ftk, saw it.

Just thought it would be a great idea to actually point it out directly though.

Date: 2008/07/10 19:19:19, Link
Author: Sol3a1
From Thunderf00t's video:

Boy did Ben Stein learn me there guys.

I never knew that Darwin was so crappy at explaining gravity and how the Universe of all things evolved.  He sold me!

Snake Oil!

Date: 2010/12/19 06:59:33, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Greetings all,

I see that the DI mill has been running OT despite their continuing to get their butts handed to them.  Good job.  OBTW, kudos to Dr. Wes for helping Dr. Eugene, I didn't know that.

I have a question about Chirality.  Right now, it is my understanding that of course it doesn't matter to Evolution, but the effect it has on Abiogenesis I'm still not clear about.

I know that amino acids are produced in the dust cloud that formed the solar system and that radiation made one selected over the other (and as early Earth was bombarded with comets with these selected Amino Acids) and gave rise to the chirality that we see today.  Oh yes, I forget if we're left or right handed proteins.

Any help or things to read would be appreciated.

Date: 2011/01/26 16:25:28, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Greetings all,

I've been lurking on You Tube a lot and I came across something that I never knew before: Dr. Meyer wrote a peer reviewed paper on ID.

Is that the one where it was rushed through and printed before it was caught by the process?

Where can I look at it?

Date: 2011/01/26 18:38:49, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 26 2011,16:43)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Jan. 26 2011,16:25)
Greetings all,

I've been lurking on You Tube a lot and I came across something that I never knew before: Dr. Meyer wrote a peer reviewed paper on ID.

Is that the one where it was rushed through and printed before it was caught by the process?

Where can I look at it?

Hi

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

I expect this is it.

 
Quote
The Sternberg peer review controversy concerns the conflict arising from the publication of an article supporting the controversial concept of intelligent design in a scientific journal, and the subsequent questions of whether proper editorial procedures had been followed and whether it was properly peer reviewed. One of the primary criticisms of the intelligent design movement is that there are no research papers supporting their positions in peer reviewed scientific journals.[1] On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen C. Meyer (Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture) titled "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", appeared in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[2] The journal's publisher claims the editor, Richard Sternberg, went outside the usual review procedures to allow Meyer's article to be published in his last issue as editor. Sternberg disputes the claims.[3] Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design.

Thank You Sir,

I don't care what that Welsh dude says about you, you're okay

Date: 2011/01/27 09:50:21, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (dvunkannon @ Jan. 27 2011,06:30)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 27 2011,06:26)
StephenB appears to have two seperate people writing his posts:
   
Quote
Those are mere claims for which no evidence is offered, for the simple reason that it isn’t true. Except as a means for punishing criminals and keeping predatory Muslims at bay, the Church has never endorsed slavery. If Mark or Wikipedia would care to support their claims, we can all be witnesses to that fact. I will be happy to provide support for my claims.

The Catholic Church has never condoned slavery. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to make their case. General quotes from an anti-Catholic, anti -Design website called Wikipedia will not suffice.

Duh.

Since the New Testament condones slavery, StephenB should be the one to prvide the evidence of when his church stopped supporting slavery (except for criminals and Muslims).

I've already had a big debate on YouTube on this.  I go to You Tube as there are incredibly fresh veins of TARD that needed to by mined.

But here you go:

Even more christians, especially in the US South, held that slavery was not only biblical but Jesus commanded it

OBTW, my eyes are open to the hatred, injustice and lies of your bible. It's you who can't see what a horrid god that monster is in your book. Reading the bible's all you need? to find it repulsive

Rev Fred Ross "Slavery is of God"

Rev Robert Lewis Dabny "Push the Bible argument constantly, the abolitionists have no choice but to assume an anti-Christian position"

Christian Index "The unlettered Northerner when he? reads scripture for himself or hears it read will know that slavery is upheld in God's word"

Rev Thomas Thornton "Abolitionists endeavor to persuade and delude men from the Bible and its instructions"

Exodus 21:4 - "If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  So the guy has a choice slavery or his family. Oh yeah,? some rights and family values

1Timothy6 - slaves serve your masters well

Matthew 5:17 - Jesus? keeps all of god's laws (which includes slavery)

Exodus 21:20-21 - where the master can't beat their slave to death but close

Read Rev Thomas Stringfellow from 1856 on his treatise why slavery is god's law, straight from the buy-bull

Leviticus 27:3-8 - where we get how much for men, women, boys, girls, etc

Ephesians 6:5 - more on how slaves need to? behave

Luke 12:47 - even more admonishment for the good slave

Leviticus 25:44

Colessians 3:22

Just a few places to show how the BUY-BULL loves slavery and how their god condones, nay, expects it

Date: 2011/01/28 05:43:17, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Mark Frank @ Jan. 28 2011,01:20)
Seversky and Sol3a1

Thanks for your links on slavery and Christianity.  I am feeling a bit weak at the prospect of more debate with Stephenb and will leave it at the brief comment I made on UD.  I hope I didn't put you to too much unnecessary work

No problem at all.

That's how I found out about the very Biblical institution of slavery.

What you're feeling is not that you're not up to debating on the merits but it is more you don't want to get in a pissing match with a prick.

I agree that you did a good job and acquitted yourself very well at that site.

Date: 2011/01/28 08:30:07, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Seversky @ Jan. 28 2011,06:57)
Quote (Mark Frank @ Jan. 28 2011,01:20)
Seversky and Sol3a1

Thanks for your links on slavery and Christianity.  I am feeling a bit weak at the prospect of more debate with Stephenb and will leave it at the brief comment I made on UD.  I hope I didn't put you to too much unnecessary work

Not a problem, and I understand how you feel.

StephenB and others at UD are continually asserting the existence of an objective morality, usually as the sole property of Christianity, but have been unable to justify either claim so far, C S Lewis notwithstanding.

Comments by vjtorley and others about atheists lacking agreed answers to moral questions lose any critical force in light of the vehement and sometimes violent disagreements over theological differences between Christian denominations, even though they are all supposed to be "singing from the same hymn-sheet".

The issue of slavery is a case in question.  Christians both defended it and campaigned against it with both sides claiming scriptural justification for their respective positions.  Apparently, for an omniscient and omnipotent deity, God did a pretty poor job of making his meaning clear.

Don't forget the Amalekites
Kill them all, livestock to. Slice the fetuses, I mean babies, from their mother's wombs.
Oh, but keep the virgin females for your sex slave, er concubine, I mean wives

Date: 2011/01/29 07:57:42, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Why is it that "defense of marriage" is still just to bar smae sex couples but being married 4 or 5 times with kids from 4 or 5 different people (maybe some of them NOT one of those they were married to) acceptable?

Why is Newt Gingrich and Rush Is Reich Limbaugh "model citizens" when both are on 3 or more wives?

In Gingrich's case, he was banging his 3rd wife while his 2nd was in the hospital yet the poor husband of that brain dead lady Terry (name escapes me) was lambasted for not staying around her when it was painfully obvious it was medical technology, not some god, that was keeping her alive?

The hypocrisy of many theists sickens me

Date: 2011/01/29 13:58:13, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 28 2011,16:06)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 28 2011,14:52)
13% of H.S. Biology Teachers Advocate Creationism in Class
Quote
The majority of high-school biology teachers don't take a solid stance on evolution with their students, mostly to avoid conflicts, and fewer than 30 percent of teachers take an adamant pro-evolutionary stance on the topic, a new study finds. Also, 13 percent of these teachers advocate creationism in their classrooms.
This is sad.  Not unexpected, but sad nonetheless
Given my own experiences with my kids' history teachers, I'm only shocked the percentage is so low.

If I'm correct Lou, you live in the south as I do. At least I live by 4 major Universities which helps quell the TARD to Reality Index, TTRI

Date: 2011/01/29 14:33:12, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 29 2011,14:12)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 28 2011,15:34)
What I find mysterious is where all these "moderate" Christians go on election day, and where all the (oddly equal in number) nutjobs suddenly come from.

Prop 8 didn't pass because of a small minority of nutjobs over the will of a vast majority of moderates. Boehner and Palin and Bachman didn't get elected by a small minority of nutjobs in spite of a vast majority of moderates.

Funny how this vast majority of moderate Christians seems to disappear on election day.
Or change their stripes in the privacy of the voting booth?

Nah. Couldn't be. That would mean there are hypocrites amongst them, and that's just not Christian.

I think you're talking about people I know.

The five women I love most in the world, my mom, sister, wife and daughters are all theists more or less Christian (Catholic and Methodist) and believe in the "good things" in god and Jesus.

Of course we often have the discussions,"Why did you stop believing?". "Are you going with us to mass?" and more but not really about the deep philosophical stuff.  At least they have stopped asking me about Pasquale's Wager.

But when I ask them, any of them, deep questions on doctrine and canon, they really don't know the bible very well.  To all of them, Jesus softened god's stance, Jesus is good and nice and kind and pets puppies and would hurt you and will take you with him to heaven, Gays are people too god loves them and it's okay.  So there they are all believing strongly in this god concept but none of them really following that harsh book they claim to live by.

I guess like most people, they don't want to think about their religion. It gives them a "warm fuzzy" kinda the ultimate tranquilizer, "Grandpa's in a better place"

So these moderate Christians aren't being hypocritical, they're just not thinking this whole thing through.

Date: 2011/01/30 05:38:51, Link
Author: Sol3a1
An actual science question:

The Cambrian Explosion.  Was it a "just" the 10 to 15 MY length or does it include the more of the precursors, including the explosion to have started in Ediacaran and lasted the entire Cambrian Period?

Did it last 5 MY?
10-15MY?
40MY?
70 to 80 MY?
Longer?

Date: 2011/01/30 07:29:37, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Why is it the more I read of the tactics and personal of the DI the more I want to punch something?

Oh yes, really, really hard.

Date: 2011/02/06 08:49:53, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Howdy people,


I ran into this: "Trisha Gura, "Bones, Molecules or Both?" and when I typed it in to get a search, holy deep quote mine batman, in addition to the site of the magazine, Nature, that published it, it seems that this is a "major find" for every ID or Creation website out there.

Even though I am not a biologist, after reading what the writer stated and then what the ID sites think she said there's is a reach. I think that the ID and YEC sites are in the words of the great philosopher Inigo Montoya
Quote
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
or am I the one missing something?

Date: 2011/02/09 13:26:29, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Asking a favor from those of you far more edumacated in dat der "evil evilutionism"

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIezfosDNJM

It is on the Discovery Institute's You Tube channel.  I'm engaged with a user known as "toobsucker".  If what I've been told is true, "toobsucker" is a sock used by various DI interns and sometimes even some of the "big boys" come to play.

I'm no bio-anything and while I can go after the blatantly stupid, I don't know where to go to answer some of their questions.

So if you want to go up against some at the Disco Tute, please feel free to do so.

Date: 2011/02/09 15:17:53, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 09 2011,15:11)
d00d that is some hard tard.  send that shitbird here

I'll do my best but I doubt if they'll come over here to play

They can control their own space over there and hate a level playing field

Should I say, "Hey toobsucker, the gang of "AntiEvolution" led by the evil Dr Wesley E. requests your participation at that board"?

Date: 2011/02/09 15:37:28, Link
Author: Sol3a1
I've invited them over here

We'll see if they come

I dropped Dr. Wesley Elsberry's name, not as one who invited, but as one of the founders of this and Talk Origins

"Curse their mothers' wombs"?

I like MILFs

Date: 2011/02/09 15:51:26, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 09 2011,15:47)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 09 2011,15:37)
I've invited them over here

We'll see if they come

I dropped Dr. Wesley Elsberry's name, not as one who invited, but as one of the founders of this and Talk Origins

"Curse their mothers' wombs"?

I like MILFs
I made a thread and invited them too.

They've marked your posts as spam

Actually, there are great big piles of TARD over there

Dig in my brothers and sisters and revel in the TARD that spews from the DI channel

Date: 2011/02/09 15:54:11, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 09 2011,15:51)
The MILFs?  I didn't know this was that kind of forum.

There was talk about cursing their mothers' wombs

I felt the need to protect the moms

:D  :p

Date: 2011/02/09 16:04:23, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 09 2011,15:47)
I made a thread and invited them too.

If you went to the older pages, you'll see even though their argument sucks, it is still better than the sock user who was answering before

Date: 2011/02/09 17:33:10, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 09 2011,17:10)
<Insert comment about carlson's/Louis's/Arden's mom>

Insert what into whose mom?

Date: 2011/02/09 18:14:37, Link
Author: Sol3a1
So 49ui39ude9, did you enjoy your debate?

Funny how wehn pressed to give examples of design and how that was determined, the old talk about "It just looks that way dammit" seemed to come out

Date: 2011/02/09 18:20:38, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Well the good user "toobsucker" won't be back until Monday but there are several other mines with incredible veins that produce freight cars full of TARD

Check out the Atheist Experience Channels, the YEC/IDiots love those channels, NephilimFree's channel (if that doesn't deconvert you into a rational person away from theism, nothing will) or the DI's own DiscoveryChannel

Guaranteed to get you more TARD than you can get here

Date: 2011/02/10 06:48:26, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Sad thing is toobsucker is not the only one

If you want to see TARD in its native form, YouTube is the place to be

I've invited another person to this thread.  They go by the username "karamarouge" and they, and these are there words:
"Will not defend ID as destroying one argument doesn't promote the other" (paraphrase)
"If ur theory is untestable, unfalsifiable & unobservable, it isnt science. It is RELIGION." (actual quote)

Hopefully, he'll come here too

Date: 2011/02/10 07:20:22, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Exciting news, the "Catholic App" for the IPhone to help Catholics remember the sacrament of the confessional!

Don't forget to pick one up but remember, only a priest can give you absolution as it can't be done over the phone

So who's getting their app?

Date: 2011/02/10 12:03:33, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 10 2011,11:54)
I'd rather print them all out in a 10point font, then drop them all on his punkin head in one big mass.

It still won't penetrate the stoopid, but it would at least be entertaining.

I mean, Joe jasn't even figured out what evolution really is yet.

Sun Tzu said (paraphrase) So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

Joe is seriously endangered.  He doesn't even know what Intelligent Design is (religion) and he sure doesn't know what evolution is (not his strawman).

Does this Joe character call evolution a religion, Dawkins the high priest, etc, etc?

Or have the Joes and others who you joust with regularly given up on that approach?

Date: 2011/02/10 17:34:49, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 10 2011,17:14)
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 10 2011,14:36)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2011,11:47)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2011,16:16)
LOL@Joe
Quote
I would say Dr Minnich's numbers stack up very well when compared to those others in the field of evolutionary biology.

How many of those evolutionary biologists have published papers that support their position? Hint- Not one…
I wonder, could we get a paper copy of each journal article on the subject of evolutionary biology and smack Joe around the head with them one at a time.

Oh I grant that being smacked by one paper is not going to be massive, I'm just thinking of the cumulative effect of being whacked with a reasonably sized library verrrrry slowly might help the numbnuts with his clue blindness.

Louis
Not to mention the amazing work that a good bleeding can accomplish.  Paper cuts should work better in this instance than leeches.
You could try ticks.  If you can get them off the watermelons. ;)

Ticks?

Good idea.  There are a few MILFs I'd like to check for ticks

Date: 2011/02/10 17:45:55, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 10 2011,17:06)
I wonder if the precursors to a new type of life have ever started to form, only to be devoured by some passing bacterium?

Actually, that would be my contention on (one of the many reasons) why we don't see "new life" forming

The very base material of "new life" would be "lunch" for so many things

Another is the amount of time it would take to go from the pre-biotic, self replicating cell like o-chem bag of chemicals to actual primitive life forms

Any other things that could stop new life, besides being food and time to do so, that can be used?

Date: 2011/02/11 04:59:43, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Here's another live wire full of themselves, karamarouge.

He(?) keeps spouting out "new lines of reasoning" that destroys Evolution which is actually the same old PRATT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1-Iqt02Asg

Date: 2011/02/11 05:17:02, Link
Author: Sol3a1
After I called him out on Evolution is a religion, even the courts figured it is not but ID is, this was his retort"

"Wait one second!!! Is an evolutionist citing the rules of the? courts that enslaved the blackman, declaring him three fifth a person? Oh wait, darwin and his cronies did argue that the black man was closer to the apes!

Same courts that treated women as second class citizens? And convicted Mr Scopes of the scopes monkey trial himself?

You are citing the rulings of a court because according to you this is where scientific matters are decided and not in a school or lab? REally?"

This is going to be fun

Date: 2011/02/11 06:44:59, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 11 2011,00:09)
[delurk]

I just returned from my annual B-Day ski excursion. Vail this year with consecutive days of 7", 18", 5", and 9" of fresh powder and first runs in the back bowls...but that's not important right now.

While waiting for the shuttle early one morning I picked up the local paper to find the last in a series of articles by one Henry Bornstein, local to the valley, examining the oft-repeated canard of the USA being founded as a Christian nation from both a legal and an historical context.

I searched for the rest of the series online upon my return and thought some of you might enjoy reading the articles and have provided links below in chronological order.

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/2010100909882

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20100913/EDITS/100919960

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20100920/COLUMS/100919755

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20100927/EDITS/100929847

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101004/EDITS/101009971

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101011/EDITS/101019999

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101017/EDITS/101019845

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101220/EDITS/101219812

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101226/EDITS/101229877

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110103/EDITS/110109995

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110110/EDITS/110109873

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110116/EDITS/110119872

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110207/EDITS/110209913

[/delurk]

Thanks for those links

I'm in a battle with many who think that the US should be renamed "Jesusland" and act like those of us who aren't religious don't deserve to be here.

Honestly though, that was what they said before they learned I was an atheist, now that they know there is "an atheist in the midst", I like to think that they now know atheist are really no different but only we just believe in one less god then they

Date: 2011/02/11 07:52:17, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Stanton @ Feb. 11 2011,07:46)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 11 2011,05:17)
After I called him out on Evolution is a religion, even the courts figured it is not but ID is, this was his retort"

"Wait one second!!! Is an evolutionist citing the rules of the? courts that enslaved the blackman, declaring him three fifth a person? Oh wait, darwin and his cronies did argue that the black man was closer to the apes!

Same courts that treated women as second class citizens? And convicted Mr Scopes of the scopes monkey trial himself?

You are citing the rulings of a court because according to you this is where scientific matters are decided and not in a school or lab? REally?"

This is going to be fun
Have you showed this moron Father of Modern Young Earth Creationism George McCready Price's little poem?
Quote
The poor little fellow who went to the south
 Got lost in the forests dank;
His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
 And his mind became a blank.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html

Thanks, I will

I'm hoping for the "bible is good" stuff so I can bring out the slavery stuff

Date: 2011/02/11 09:25:45, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 11 2011,09:19)
Of course, why would he actually attempt to defend his claims when he can say whatever he wants on youtube with no argument?

He's a coward... but we all know that.

There's toobsucker who claims they're out until next week and karamarouge who thinks that this place is a joke:
Quote
people who post nonsense like this?

"How long can his tardgasm go on? Until the pointless waste of his daddy's semen ups and dies.

Still, think happy thoughts, eh."

AND

"100 quatloos he watches this thread and pops in with a tard-a-gram right after any wagered time limit."


"A Joe G-spot tornado"


Seriously this garbage is what you think passes for science?

Are you serious?
He'll use that excuse not to go here as I pointed out, real science can't be done in 500 character blocks that require bot checks and sometimes it looks as if you didn't post anything.

Then I hit him with
Quote
If you don't want to go to the Anti Evolution site and I can understand your reluctance due to you know you have no argument
At least though I got others pointed here even if the little boy decides to "pass up such crass people"

Date: 2011/02/11 10:00:27, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 10 2011,17:02)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2011,11:14)
Quote
and amphibians in the southeast US.
Did you misidentify Newt Gingrich again?
He got better.

I always thought he was a horny toad

Date: 2011/02/11 10:38:00, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 11 2011,10:32)
Just remind him that we say those things because others start with them.  Or that there is no arguement (oh, you did that).  Or they others can't discuss science because they don't understand it (like JoeG).

Tell him, he has a personal challenge from me to discuss science and only science.  I'll happily take care of it, but only here where we can post pictures and links (that he won't read).

Done:

- Howdy bud, I have a person who would like to invite you to the Anti Evolution board

This is from OgreMarkIV:
"Tell him, he has a personal challenge from me to discuss science and only science.  I'll happily take care of it, but only here where we can post pictures and links (that he won't read)"

Here:
/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7217;st=30

If the "meanies" are too much, just telling you that they have no problem slinging BS back at others

Date: 2011/02/11 11:35:16, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (judgmabu7 @ Feb. 11 2011,11:27)
my challenge for sh*t for brains randi

JUDGMENT DAY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMukj31qw1U



http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinkta....708#new

Looks as if something from YouTube joined the fray here.

So which YouTuber are you?

Date: 2011/02/11 12:01:38, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 11 2011,11:57)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 11 2011,12:44)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 11 2011,11:35)
 
Quote (judgmabu7 @ Feb. 11 2011,11:27)
my challenge for sh*t for brains randi

JUDGMENT DAY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMukj31qw1U



http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinkta....708#new
Looks as if something from YouTube joined the fray here.

So which YouTuber are you?
naw, this is what's-his-face from Canada, the crazy guy who thinks he can think.
Denyse?

That was my first thought but the "guy" part threw me as I was under the impression that Denyse was female (or preferred to be thought of that way to drool over Vox) and I always thought of her more of

"what's-her-face from Canada, the crazy girl who thinks she can write"

Date: 2011/02/11 12:25:11, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 11 2011,12:14)
the only real difference i can see is that Tranmaw nees to have a go at her unibrow and Mabus-tard is clearly thinking about blowing a goat, again.  but it could just be the light.

Damn you Erasmus, FCD

I almost got fired at first almost puking followed immediately laughing my damn head off

"Tranmaw" - damn, I'm still having a difficult time with that not cracking up

Mabus-tard and wanting to fuck a got.  Is this the goatse worshipper you were talking about earlier (yes, I've seen the picture and that is preferable over Tranmaw)

Damn you again laughing with my boss wondering WTF

Damn that was a good laugh

Date: 2011/02/11 12:46:46, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (judgmabu7 @ Feb. 11 2011,12:39)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2011,12:38)
Quote (judgmabu7 @ Feb. 11 2011,18:31)
see....


You little fuckers are going to learn SHUT YOUR TRAPS, especially concerning things of a PROPHETIC NATURE....
My prophecy is that we won't though.

Now seriously, David/Dennis, have you checked with your local health care provider about mental health provisions? No one should have to suffer as you clearly are.

Louis
Louis - it is comments like that why we are going to exterminate you...

Exterminate?

Wow, and you're from the DRPC too?

DPRC-Democratic People's Republic of Canuckistan

I thought you're supposed to love the sinner and only laugh AFTER god puts into ever lasting fire because we were to proud to get on bended knee before some holy man and suck it up

Date: 2011/02/11 12:56:23, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 11 2011,12:53)
how come he says "fuckers" but then says "sh*t"

must be "prophetic"

I'd say more prosthetic as in strap on

Date: 2011/02/11 12:58:55, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (judgmabu7 @ Feb. 11 2011,12:46)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 11 2011,12:43)
we who?

i bet this sad sad cunt doesn't have any friends.  "we" indeed.

may i suggest the permanent solution.

erasmus - you DIE today also... you *FORFEIT* your right to live....



you little fuckers think you are safe LYING behind your computers... you are DEADLY WRONG

I got to ask, what are you trying to accomplish?

Is this for you to get brownie points for your god?

Which god o you follow?

If I'm wrong about this for some god, that's fine, so tell me what are you doing and trying to accomplish?

Date: 2011/02/11 13:00:35, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (judgmabu7 @ Feb. 11 2011,12:38)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssFaIhJkLsk&feature=player_embedded

BIG TIME

Okay what does that have to do with anything?

Date: 2011/02/11 13:27:35, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 11 2011,13:22)
I don't know about David/Dennis, but you got me curious.

I don't know if David/Denniss someone I'd like to get curious with.

If I was going to swing that way, it'd be with someone rich, really, really, really wealthy past avarice

Date: 2011/02/11 13:36:47, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 11 2011,13:30)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 11 2011,13:27)
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 11 2011,13:22)
I don't know about David/Dennis, but you got me curious.

I don't know if David/Denniss someone I'd like to get curious with.

If I was going to swing that way, it'd be with someone rich, really, really, really wealthy past avarice


Ooo...bada BING! Veal...Thursday...

Oooo Veal?

Do tell.

I look like my avatar, save all that hair
and the color, little more gray
and the rugged good looks

but other than that, that's me

Do you look like your avatar?

Date: 2011/02/11 13:39:00, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 11 2011,13:31)
Well Sol Rich might play along!  I heard he likes to draw big pink goobers anyway.

goats on fire!

The amount of alcohol that it'll take would be fatal to me

I guess though if the guy was still interested, it would be necrophilia but if I'm dead, have fun!

Date: 2011/02/11 13:43:42, Link
Author: Sol3a1
No longer a reducing atmosphere, excellent, forgot that one

The designer/creator taking an extra long dump, that'll work too

I guess then I can say that the male god has been watching too much porn and spilling his seed in front of some computer instead of doing his duty too

Date: 2011/02/11 14:49:15, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 11 2011,14:46)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2011,12:14)
Quote
and amphibians in the southeast US.
Did you misidentify Newt Gingrich again?
Worse, I failed to identify about 60 species of fish and amphibians. Brain lock at the second station, I began to fixate on the 90 second clock, and it was all bad after that.

Major suckage

As a fellow student (of networking, not biology) I do still know about brain lock and how it can turn a good day into absolute crap

Date: 2011/02/11 14:57:38, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 11 2011,14:48)
New intertubes rule.  If anyone mentions necrophilia, the forum must be immediately shutdown and all computers that accessed it burned.

just ewwww

Only if one is wanting to do the "deed"

Just saying, "If that were to happen....", is not a Grade A offense, just a Grade B+ yuch

Date: 2011/02/12 05:36:33, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Happy birthday to guys who when or if I ever stand beside either of you, there's a chance I could be mistaken for a much younger brother or even a son

(yeah right but I can dream of being carded again, right?)

Date: 2011/02/12 05:55:10, Link
Author: Sol3a1
It seems he doesn't want to come here

From

Here's a few gems if you don't make it over there:
Quote
"3: Hard parts? fossilize better"

here were go again with your ignorance being exposed! The cambrian fossil are both soft bodied and hard bodied animals. Matter of fact the oldest fossils are microscopic soft bodied embryos found by DR Zhang in the hunan province of china!

Stop lying!!!

Stop fucking lying!!!!
-and-
Quote
5:" Evolution "explodes" when there are empty niches to fill, there was a huge niche? starting in the Late Vendian"

This is another dumb argument!!!

HEY YOU IDIOT, IF THIS WERE TRUE THEN WE WOULD NOT BE MISSING THE LARGEST MAJORITY OF ALL LIFE THAT EVER EXISTED ON EARTH!!!

Seriously, there has got to be a limit to the stupidity of the the arguments you make! Right now the world's "niches" are mostly empty! Why didnt evolution "explode" to replace 99% of all dead species?
I can hardly wait to be told I'm going to hell

Date: 2011/02/12 07:36:20, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 12 2011,07:16)
This guy's a complete moron.  Alex, I'll take Strawman Arguments for 8 billion.

We think he's 16 and just completed his the DvD set from "Dr. Dino's and his Hardonyoursoreass talk about Evilution and why it's impossible, praise Jebus" series and wants to go show the world he has the power to vanquish the evil that is evilution to bring about god's second cumming

I just hope the guy can find a virgin like he did the last time

Date: 2011/02/12 08:46:47, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 12 2011,08:20)
Why are creationists so mean, leaving us talking to ourselves?

They don't like playing on a fair and level field where idiocy is left up for all to see and good points remain no matter how devastating it is to the side that doesn't like it

Date: 2011/02/12 12:09:32, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Well I replied to the weasel, even kept as many swear words out as I could but still found time to throw him under his own words

I had nothing better to do today

Date: 2011/02/12 14:24:55, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 12 2011,13:28)
You go Sol!

sarcasm?  :D

Hey, no worries, on a conference call most of the day so what a better, and far more productive waste of my time

Date: 2011/02/13 12:29:33, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 12 2011,06:56)
yall be some moffuckin all stars and shit

Are you still here or are you dead yet?

Don't want to jinx ya or nothing and that guy seems to have an in with his god so ya never know

Date: 2011/02/13 13:41:21, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 13 2011,05:29)

This part:
Quote
The Theory of Intelligent Design – A Briefing Packet for Educators
I actually printed off and I swear that is where of lot of the ID/YEC crowd is using for their "we have evidence that destroy Evilution" crap.

The quote mining in the document, well if it were to be used on anymore trapped Chilean miners, they won't be trapped in a few minutes.

Date: 2011/02/15 14:44:00, Link
Author: Sol3a1
toobsucker is back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIezfosDNJM

A few comments he made to me:
Quote
"As ID declares that something designed life on Earth, then something designed the designer and so on to infinite regression"

Right but why do you start the investigation of the "first life" in the universe on planet earth with the carbon based life form that had to be created via random copying errors. A much more? plausible scenario is the abiogenesis of a "intellect" before the singularity and before? entropy exists. If you have FOREVER for life to arise its chances become 100% or 1
Quote
"We know that evolution is a fact, the details are still being worked on, just like physics"

We know minor changes within? every species is observable. And? we know WHY they are observable, because the information for minor changes exist in every species. However the information for huge dramatic changes are NOT on file in our genome. But you make the LEAP of faith that says HUGE changes are a fact when there is NO evidence for it, either in the fossil record or in molecular biology
Quote
"and there's no reason to assume that the machine was ever designed"

How about the little fact that there? is NO evidence random copying errors + any natural occurrence you want to add to the theory can create the molecular machines

And the little fact that an intelligence CAN AND HAVE designed and created the molecular machines we see in the cell.

So you understand you are not even grounded in basic logical reasoning?
I like the ad hom that I don't have any basic or logical reasoning skills.

It is nice to be loved.

Date: 2011/02/15 14:51:58, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 15 2011,14:33)
Quote (ojustmab @ Feb. 15 2011,14:18)
JUDGMENT DAY


my challenge for sh*t for brains james randi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxmUp9QsNQ


JUST A GAME!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxmUp9QsNQ



visit


http://groups.google.com/group....5b5af6#
I don't think that even 3880 processors and 15 terabytes of RAM can decode this...

There's no intelligence in random misfires of synaptic connections at the moment of brain death to decode, discern or interpret

Date: 2011/02/15 15:05:22, Link
Author: Sol3a1
There's also this gem, to a quote I didn't make
Quote
"Every time I tried to open the door there was a brick wall behind it. If there were something to test."

There is something to? test. the test is a simple one.

To chose the best candidate for the origins the information in DNA & RNA.? Those candidate are natural undirected forces or a pre-existing intelligence.

I have evidence a pre-existing intelligence can write coded information. So now the burden of proof is on the naturalist to prove coded information can arise naturally.

Date: 2011/02/16 06:36:53, Link
Author: Sol3a1
I invited another prolific poster at YouTube "Mekelsior", you can catch his antics here [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U;Mekelsior[/URL] here to give their incredible evidence

Date: 2011/02/16 08:28:48, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 16 2011,08:23)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2011,07:31)
I just gotta say that whoever invented the word tardgasm, and applied it to a thread for Joey, deserves the award for Metaphor of the Year (at least). Maybe mastardbation would actually be more apt, since Joey seems to be lacking any partners in his efforts, but tardgasm just sounds perfect.

Carry on.
he's like a tardkakke

but a "-gasm" or "-kakke" produces something of substance

What has TARD ever produced?

Date: 2011/02/16 12:42:44, Link
Author: Sol3a1
WTF is this guy trying to say?
Quote
""How then do they? get written?" are we going from evolution, change in allele frequency, to abiogenesis now?"

No abiogenesis? is how the single cell naturally came into being. Distantly related species have identical DNA sequences that have not changed since the species made its appearance. Thos means the completed species has a DNA sequence that IS NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

If a DNA sequence CAN NOT change when the only mechanisms for DNA change are introduced, how does it get arranged?

Date: 2011/02/16 13:59:50, Link
Author: Sol3a1
More quotes:
Quote
"ID predicts what?"

You must take into consideration the REAL animosity among naturalists and intelligent designers in science. If an evolutionist conducts tests or submits papers that supports I.D. he is shooting his own theory in the foot. I think many biologists can make predictions based on design engineering. We have many examples in which designs in nature have given us better insights for improving our? own designs.

Look up "Fly Eyes Inspire Better Video Cameras,Kelly Hearn"
and
Quote
"Do you mean? how some DNA stays conserved while other DNA sequences change?"

Yes. Science has determined the "importance" of the sequence from the fact that it has not changed in hundreds of millions of years. This would indicate the sequences (codes) in question are not subject the mechanisms for change proposed by the evolutionary theory.

If a DNA sequence is shown to be 100% static against random copying errors, HGT, frame shifts etc..

It has no mechanism to get written
then
Quote
"Again can or will you give a mechanism that can accurately conclude if a system is Intelligently Designed, Designed (bees and wasps "design" too") or ad hoc (where structures come from changes that give an advantage that is selected for)"

The mechanism is critical thinking. there are so many checks and balances/error correction mechanism in the cells, it would be impossible to build a system like? that without intelligent foresight. DNA has MULTIPLE overlapping codes Trifonov (1989)
finally my favorite, assigning an analogy of a 3d structure to a linear language
Quote
Dr. Sanford gives an example of poly-functional and poly-constraint in? this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy

S A T O R

A R E P O

T E N E T

O P E R A

R O T A S

Which is translated ;

THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.

If we change (mutate) any letter we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation."

Just as with a crossword puzzle in which two words utilize one letter to make both words coherent
They don't dazzle with brilliance, they baffle with bullshit

Date: 2011/02/16 14:23:02, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 16 2011,14:16)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 16 2011,13:59)
finally my favorite, assigning an analogy of a 3d structure to a linear language    
Quote
Dr. Sanford gives an example of poly-functional and poly-constraint in? this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy

S A T O R

A R E P O

T E N E T

O P E R A

R O T A S

Which is translated ;

THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.

If we change (mutate) any letter we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation."

Just as with a crossword puzzle in which two words utilize one letter to make both words coherent
They don't dazzle with brilliance, they baffle with bullshit
Plus it isn't really a grammatical Latin sentence in the first place, so the "message" is at best questionable.  It would in fact be better if you mutated the "S" of ROTAS into an "E" - a point mutation with gain of function.

This non biology type person, me, pointed out that DNA is not a linear language, but a 3d structure that folds, twists, whatever and that the removal of one or more nucleotides (I hope that I got it correct) does not mean that there is any loss of function.

Then I asked if ID has found a way to measure the information in DNA and if so I'd like to see it.

Date: 2011/02/16 15:43:13, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 16 2011,15:34)
Remember that you can change DNA and not change the resulting protein.

RNA 'AGC' and 'UCU' both translate to the same amino acid.

Likewise, you can change the protein without changing the DNA code.  (mistake in tRNA, etc)

Further, you can even change the DNA code and change the amino acid in the protein and have absolutely no effect on the action of the protein.

Finally, you can change DNA or the protein and change the effect of the protein.

DNA only twists and folds in a very specific manner around the time for mitosis or meiosis.  It's the proteins that fold to generate active sites.

I hope that helps.  

This kid couldn't get a clue if his dad bought a night with a clue and a clue hotel room.

It does

I think though that the one answering now is not a student but a "master"

They use a lot of hand waving and try to discredit the very thing they are using to "prove" ID

Date: 2011/02/16 20:11:30, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2011,20:00)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 16 2011,17:15)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 16 2011,12:58)
I like

K L A A T U

B A R A D A

N I K T O

Which translates to "Gort, would you terribly mind retrieving klaatu's corpse and placing it on the resurrection table?" Change just one letter and Gort either uses his ray to prepare a delicious creme brulee or builds the fastest soap box derby racer ever seen in Akron.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

potd. :-)
I don't get it.  Could someone spell it out for me?

ETA actually I'd prefer a subtle hint so I won't feel so stoopid.

Keanu Reeves movie

Date: 2011/02/16 20:35:16, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Acipenser @ Feb. 16 2011,20:24)
1951 The Day the Earth Stood Still.....Michael Remy

"Army of Darkness" ..... Bruce Campbell as Ash

Date: 2011/02/17 04:28:38, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 16 2011,21:39)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 16 2011,20:11)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2011,20:00)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 16 2011,17:15)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 16 2011,12:58)
I like

K L A A T U

B A R A D A

N I K T O

Which translates to "Gort, would you terribly mind retrieving klaatu's corpse and placing it on the resurrection table?" Change just one letter and Gort either uses his ray to prepare a delicious creme brulee or builds the fastest soap box derby racer ever seen in Akron
Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

potd. :-)
I don't get it.  Could someone spell it out for me?

ETA actually I'd prefer a subtle hint so I won't feel so stoopid.

Keanu Reeves movie
Begone, spawn of Satan!

Hey, it was an excellent adventure

Date: 2011/02/17 06:23:28, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 16 2011,22:22)
The Institute for Creation Research's "Museum of Earth Science and History" in Santee, CA

Hey, I'm warning you, don't talk bad about Santee, CA

I lived there for some time and it is not El Cajon nor Lakeside

Show some respect for redneck, pseudo-cowboy, wanna-be rodeo and true trailer park denizens

Date: 2011/02/17 07:03:58, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 17 2011,06:42)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 17 2011,06:23)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 16 2011,22:22)
The Institute for Creation Research's "Museum of Earth Science and History" in Santee, CA
Hey, I'm warning you, don't talk bad about Santee, CA

I lived there for some time and it is not El Cajon nor Lakeside

Show some respect for redneck, pseudo-cowboy, wanna-be rodeo and true trailer park denizens
It's a great place to go hawking for rabbits and the occasional duck, and it was even better before they paved over the big field next to the trolley terminal.

You forgot about the night life that was out there

Not too far from the ICR, I remember when it went up and that is why I got into the Evo vs Creation thing, a large pseudo-country dancing and drinking establishment.  I forget the name but it wasn't a place I went back to after seeing what was there once.

It was famous for all the crystal meth and splotchy-faced, toothless mothers of 3 or more kids that could be had for cheap.  From what I understand, guys went there after letting the medication clear up what they caught there and hanging out at Clay's City Hall.  You don't know how many people went there to Clay's City Hall thinking that was Santee's community center.  They were half right.

It was nearby and I thought it was very fitting as the same people that went to that bar I think also thought ICR was on par with Los Alamos or the Griffith Observatory

Date: 2011/02/17 14:36:56, Link
Author: Sol3a1
This is from one of the human sock puppets of "toobsucker" to another "evilutionist" named CamW30
Quote
Next week I may send you a I.M. with ALL the "peer reviewed" literature that? falsifies your theory as well as your atheistic logic
I can hardly wait.

Date: 2011/02/18 05:16:25, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (ojustmab99 @ Feb. 18 2011,04:56)
Subject: Judgment Day


you talk about wanting to hear and see both sides, but that is all BS... here is the other extreme - the absolute negation of the atheist position

I'm sorry but I'd like to see "both sides" but the side you present seems unhinged.

What do you actually want to talk about that doesn't involve threats of damnation?

Date: 2011/02/18 05:26:24, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 17 2011,18:16)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 17 2011,17:30)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 17 2011,14:36)
This is from one of the human sock puppets of "toobsucker" to another "evilutionist" named CamW30  
Quote
Next week I may send you a I.M. with ALL the "peer reviewed" literature that? falsifies your theory as well as your atheistic logic
I can hardly wait.
I wonder if it would fit in a tweet?
It'd fit inside the spaces between a proton and neutron.

Are you saying it's in a degenerate state?

Or, as it lacks substance, is immune to the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

Date: 2011/02/18 08:24:56, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2011,08:13)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 18 2011,05:26)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 17 2011,18:16)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 17 2011,17:30)
 
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 17 2011,14:36)
This is from one of the human sock puppets of "toobsucker" to another "evilutionist" named CamW30
Quote
Next week I may send you a I.M. with ALL the "peer reviewed" literature that? falsifies your theory as well as your atheistic logic
I can hardly wait.
I wonder if it would fit in a tweet?
It'd fit inside the spaces between a proton and neutron.
Are you saying it's in a degenerate state?

Or, as it lacks substance, is immune to the Pauli Exclusion Principle?
I was going to add something funny about WIMPs, but had to look them up.

It's even funnier than I though.  From the Wikipedia link above:
Quote
These particles interact through the weak nuclear force and gravity, and possibly through other interactions no stronger than the weak force
So they only interact weakly... much like creationists who can't interact with adults and scientists.
Quote
Because they do not interact with electromagnetism they cannot be seen directly
Much like the creationist/ID research program.
Quote
because they do not interact with the strong nuclear force they do not react strongly with atomic nuclei.
So they have absolutely no influence on the real world except as very dense, very heavy particles that may be the invisible, dark matter.
Quote
This combination of properties gives WIMPs many of the properties of neutrinos, save for being far more massive and therefore slower.
Yep, small bus kinda slow.  

I could on with the comparison, but I think the picture is clear.  From now on, I will refer to these people as WIMPs.

Sniff, sniff, so beautiful

Physics has never been more poignant or accurate

Date: 2011/02/18 08:32:19, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 18 2011,08:25)
Willfully Ignorant Misinformation Purveyors?

Woefully Inadequate Mental Posers

Date: 2011/02/18 13:44:55, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 18 2011,13:39)
Wait, Coors is a brew?

Coors (along with Bud, Miller and PBR) are the stuff that they cool, carbonate and serve straight from the men's urinals at any major sporting event

Date: 2011/02/18 15:49:09, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 18 2011,15:30)
proof that he was thinking of you, big guy!

And zucchinis are proof that Teh Deisner was thinking of JoeG's cavernous bung

The way you guys keep reaming him, I think teh Designer made watermelons for that reason

Date: 2011/02/18 15:58:29, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Happy B-Day

Date: 2011/02/19 04:21:08, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 18 2011,22:44)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 18 2011,08:32)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 18 2011,08:25)
Willfully Ignorant Misinformation Purveyors?
Woefully Inadequate Mental Posers
Wouldn't that be "Poseurs"?  Spelt that way, it reeks of "breeding" (or maybe inbreeding...)

Exactly

Date: 2011/02/19 09:09:09, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Seversky @ Feb. 19 2011,07:52)
If there is any justice in this Universe (which there doesn't appear to be) there should be a special Circle in Hell reserved for such people where they are forced to clean out the litter boxes for all Eternity.

I always thought they were the things my cats left "in" the kitty box after "nature's call"

Date: 2011/02/19 14:19:34, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2011,13:50)
So Joe is all about the dick and balls?

I have spoken to the gay community. They object most strenuously. One particularly unhappy member asked if we heterosexuals could take him. I spoke for all of us, I hope you don't mind, and said no. That means Joe is forced to remain in sexual limbo and not get any, despite wanting it very, very badly. I think this will be little change for the yappy junkyard dog. I heard his hand turned him down too.

Louis

If Joe were to get (or give some) to "Tranmaw" (that moniker just lifts the imagination, expands the mind into new dimensions and sickens the hell out of you at the same time) would he be committing an act of:
homosexuality
heterosexuality
bestiality
auto-eroticism
or something far, far darker that even this pervert can't fathom?

Date: 2011/02/20 09:12:24, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Speaking of "Uncommonly Dense", John Boehner:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011....86.html

Date: 2011/02/21 18:37:02, Link
Author: Sol3a1
After several days of absence, a "toobsucker" sock is back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIezfosDNJM

I'm tired but here's something for those who want to go and get entangled with a real DI disciple.

Date: 2011/02/23 06:37:12, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Here's a true gem of a TARD mine for you guys!

It is a list of those studies the DI believes promotes ID.

Consider it my Vernal Equinox present to you:

===========================

genotype/phenotype relationship
Evolutions original predictions are being falsified every day and most all evolutionists do not know their theory is in ruins.

Keep your eyes on ENCODE, they are about to destroy naturalism


===============


UNRELATED LOOKALIKES, J.Z. YOUNG, Prof. of Anatomy, Oxford, "....similar features repeatedly appear in distinct lines. ...Parallel evolution is so common that it is almost a rule that detailed study of any group produces a confused taxonomy. Investigators are unable to distinguish populations that are parallel new developments from those truly descended from each other." LIFE OF THE VERTEBRATES, p.779

==============

NONGENETIC SIMILARITY, SIR GAVIN DEBEER, Prof. Embry., U. London, Director BMNH, "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless." Oxford Biology Reader, p.16, HOMOLOGY AN UNSOLVED PROBLEM

==============

when we look at the genetics of [different but 'similar' organisms]... we find that they do NOT come from common genetics... For example, in the newt we find that the hand develops from segments 2 through 5, in the lizard [it develops] from segments 6 through 9, and in man [it develops] from segments 13 through. Totally different genetics account for this similarity....

We look at... [the] reptile Ichthyosaurus [which is very similar to the] dolphin... or porpoise... not a fish type [but] a mammal, [it] has to breathe... A reptile and a mammal [which both] look like a fish... [And] sometimes the porpoise... is confused for the shark [which is a fish] they're so similar...

[J. Z. YOUNG, Professor of Anatomy, Oxford, LIFE OF THE VERTEBRATES, p.

779]:

============

'If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins.'

[T. H. MORGAN, Professor of Zoology, Columbia University, SCIENCE MONTHLY, 16; 3; 237, p. 216]

===============

'It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless.'

[SIR GAVIN DEBEER, Professor Embryology, University of London, Director BMNH, Oxford Biology Reader, p. 16, HOMOLOGY AN UNSOLVED PROBLEM]

==============

"To infer a genetic relationship between two species [i.e. to infer that species S descended from species R] on the basis of a similarity in appearance...can be deceptive...because similarity of structure does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar [but belong to different family trees]." (Lewin, "Bones of Contention", New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987, p123)

==============

"One of two seemingly very unlikely evolutionary histories must be true [of the arthropods]. Either compound eyes with detailed similarities evolved multiple times in different arthropod groups [which is hard to believe] or compound eyes have been lost in a seemingly inordinate number of arthropod lineages [which is equally hard to believe, for it is difficult to imagine how natural selection could favour the loss of sight]." (Oakley & Cunningham, "Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the independent evolutionary origin of an arthropod compound eye", PNAS, Vol 99, No 3, 2002, p1426-1430)

=================


"In general, the homology of structures [i.e. the fact that different animals share many of the same features] cannot be ascribed to inheritance of homologous genes or sets of genes." (Sattler, "Homology—A Continuing Challenge", Systematic Botany, 1984, 9(4):386)

================


"[Evolution by DNA mutations] is largely uncoupled from morphological evolution." (Raff & Kaufman, "Embryos, Genes, and Evolution", Macmillan, New York, 1983, p67-78)

===============

"About a decade ago,...scientists started analysing a variety of genes from different organisms, [but] found that their relationships to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis." (Lake, Jain & Rivera, "Mix and Match in the Tree of Life", Science 283, 1999, p2027-2028)


================

"Analyses based on different genes (and even different analyses based on the same genes) yield...a diversity of phylogenetic trees." (Lynch, "The Age and Relationships of the Major Animal Phyla", Evolution 53, 1999, p319-325)

=============

"Most protein phylogenies contradict each other—as well as the rRNA tree." (Philippe & Forterre, "The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life Is Not Reliable", Journal of Molecular Evolution, No 49, 1999, p509-523)

=============


"No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced." (Woese, "The universal ancestor", PNAS USA 95, 1998, p6854-6859),

================

"Incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree...[and] are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can neither be overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds." (Woese, Ibid)

================

"It has seldom been possible to piece together ancestor-dependent sequences...that show gradual, smooth transitions between species." (Hickman, Roberts & Hickman, "Integrated Principles of Zoology", Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, St Louis, 1988, p866)

===============

Genetic Phylogeny

Biologists aren't entirely satisfied with the intrinsic subjectivity of classification, and have hoped that molecular biology would yield a more quantitative approach. It was hoped that comparisons of the nucleotides of DNA or RNA sequences would yield quantitative numbers that could be used to classify organisms with a high degree of accuracy. According to an article in the January 1998 issue of Science:

Animal relationships derived from these new molecular data sometimes are very different from those implied by older, classical evaluations of morphology. Reconciling these differences is a central challenge for evolutionary biologists at present. Growing evidence suggests that phylogenies of animal phyla constructed by the analysis of 18S rRNA sequences may not be as accurate as originally thought. (Maley & Marshall, "The Coming of Age of Molecular Systematics," Science, 23 January 1998, page 505)


The article then discusses a figure that shows that mollusks are more closely related to deuterostomes than arthropods when the creatures being compared are a scallop (a mollosk), a sea urchin (a deuterostome), and a brine shrimp (an arthropod). That isn't too surprising. Intuitively, a scallop seems more like a sea urchin than a shrimp, and the 82% correlation between the scallop and sea urchin shown on their diagram isn't surprising.

But when a tarantula is used as the representative of the arthropod, there is a 92% correlation between the scallop and the tarantula. It doesn't seem reasonable that a scallop should be more closely related to a harry, land-dwelling spider than to a sea urchin. This is troubling to the authors of the Science article, which leads them to remark:

The critical question is whether current models of 18S rRNA evolution are sufficiently accurate ... current models of DNA substitution usually fit the data poorly. (Ibid)

==================

Waterstone et al, Nature 420, 520 - 562

"an astonishing 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. Not only that, but great tracts of code are syntenic - that means the genes appear in the same order in the two genomes"

==============

Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA, just one per cent less than chimps and humans.

http://www.newscientist.com/article....en.html

=============

INTERPRETATION OF SIMILARITY, T.H. MORGAN Prof. Zoology, Columbia, Univ., "If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins.", SCI. MO., l6;3;237, p.216

==========================

NONGENETIC SIMILARITY, SIR GAVIN DEBEER, Prof. Embry., U. London, Director BMNH, "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless." Oxford Biology Reader, p.16, HOMOLOGY AN UNSOLVED PROBLEM

=======================

http://darwinspredictions.com/#_4.2_Genomes_of


"Because similar species are thought to share a relatively recent common ancestor, they are assumed to have not had much time to evolve differences between them. That explains why they are similar, and it also predicts that such species do not have significant differences. Their genome differences should be minor. This is because evolution is limited by the rate at which genetic variations can appear and subsequently spread throughout the respective lineages. For instance, consider two species which are supposed to share a common ancestor dating back only a few millions of years, such as the human and chimp. Evolution expected that such cousin species would have quite similar genes. There would be no new genes evolved in such a brief time period. Indeed, for decades evolutionists have cited minor genetic differences between such allied species as powerful evidence for evolution. [1,2,3,4,5]"

"This prediction has been falsified as many unexpected genetic differences have since been discovered amongst a wide range of allied species. Even different variants within the same species have large numbers of genes unique to each variant. Different variants of the Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, each have hundreds of unique genes. And some of these genes have been found to have important functions, such as helping to construct proteins"


"Evolution predicts that more distant species should have greater differences in their genomes. After all, species in distant limbs of the evolutionary tree likely have different evolutionary pressures and have been evolving independently for millions of years. This genome difference should be all the more given that many DNA changes are phenotype-neutral. Such changes can accumulate, independently in the different evolutionary lineages, as they go unchecked by evolution's selection process."

"Even more remarkable are the recently discovered ultra-conserved elements (UCEs). Thousands of these DNA segments, hundreds of base pairs in length, have been found across a range of species including human, mouse, rat, dog, chicken and fish. Evolutionists were astonished to discover these highly similar DNA sequences in such distant species. In fact, across the different species some of these sequences are 100% identical. Species that are supposed to have been evolving independently for 80 million years were certainly not expected to have identical DNA segments. "I about fell off my chair," remarked one evolutionist. [2]"

"It was also found that the relaxin protein was anomalous when compared across different species. The pig, for example, was found to be more closely related to a shark than to a rodent. [9,10] Evolutionists admitted that "The conclusion to be drawn from the relaxin sequence data is that they do not fit the evolutionary clock model." Furthermore, in order to fit the data to the molecular clock hypothesis, one must imagine that different regions of the genome evolve at different rates for a species, and that the same region evolves at different rates in different species. [11] And there is the serum albumin gene family which shows significant deviations from clock-like evolution. [12]"

The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.8

===================


"...with the full genome sequence in hand, for Aquifex and a dozen other microbes, biologists can draw up family trees based on other genes besides the ribosomal RNA gene that provided the original map. And the trees based on other genes show different maps that do not agree with the ribosomal RNA map. "Each picture is different, so there is tremendous confusion," Carl Woese

=============

"The absence of sequences closely related to the slowly changing proteins of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton remains unsettling," Dr. Russell Doolittle

==================

Early Birds Shake Up Avian Tree of Life

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlsci....tre.php

"A fascinating paper was just published by some of my colleagues in the top-tier journal, Science, that analyzes the largest collection of DNA data ever assembled for birds. This analysis effectively redraws avian phylogeny, or family tree, thus shaking up our current understanding of the early, or "deep", evolutionary relationships of birds. For example, one of the most surprising findings of this analysis is that parrots and songbirds are "sister groups" -- each other's closest relatives!

And here's another surprise; falcons are the sister group to the parrots and songbirds. Further, the falcons (Falconidae) include the New World vultures -- but Falcons are not closely related to eagles, hawks and osprey (Accipitridae), as previously thought."

"These analyses reveal two major findings: First, the classifications and conventional wisdom regarding the evolutionary relationships among many birds is wrong. Second, birds that have similar appearances or behaviors are not necessarily related to each other. According to these data;"

"The fossil record strongly suggests that the Charadriiformes should precede Ciconiiformes along with a few other avian orders, and the fossil record for Turnix suggests it predates gulls and alcids. And wow, I thought sandgrouse were located within this clade?? Which gene(s) relocated them?"

"The placement of Tinamous within the ratites instead of being basal to them suggests either that flight was lost and gained several times in the evolutionary history of birds or that flight was lost independently many times, but only within the ratites. Weird!"

Hackett, S.J., Kimball, R.T., Reddy, S., Bowie, R.C., Braun, E.L., Braun, M.J., Chojnowski, J.L., Cox, W.A., Han, K., Harshman, J., Huddleston, C.J., Marks, B.D., Miglia, K.J., Moore, W.S., Sheldon, F.H., Steadman, D.W., Witt, C.C., Yuri, T. (2008). A Phylogenomic Study of Birds Reveals Their Evolutionary History. Science, 320(5884), 1763-1768. DOI: 10.1126/science.1157704.

==================

As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology.

- Patterson et al., "Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol 24, pg. 179 (1993)

================

That molecular evidence typically squares with morphological patterns is a view held by many biologists, but interestingly, by relatively few systematists. Most of the latter know that the two lines of evidence may often be incongruent.(incompatible)

- Masami Hasegawa, Jun Adachi, Michel C. Milinkovitch, "Novel Phylogeny of Whales Supported by Total Molecular Evidence," Journal of Molecular Evolution, Vol. 44, pgs. S117-S120 (Supplement 1, 1997)
=================

"[d]espite increasing methodological sophistication, phylogenies derived from morphology, and those inferred from molecules, are not always converging on a consensus."

- W. W. De Jong, "Molecules remodel the mammalian tree," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol 13(7):270-274 (July 7, 1998).

===================

In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. ... To summarize, biologists have made two discoveries that challenge the argument from anatomical homology. The first is that the development of homologous structures can be governed by different genes and can follow different developmental pathways. The second discovery, conversely, is that sometimes the same gene plays a role in producing different adult structures. Both of these discoveries seem to contradict neo-Darwinian expectations.

Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, and Ralph Seelke, Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism, pgs. 44-45 (Hill House, 2007)."

====================


http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_01.html

Michael Dentons "The Failure of Homology"

Professor Michael Denton: "Evolution is a theory in crisis"
In truth, however, the results of molecular comparisons do not work in favour of the theory of evolution at all. There are huge molecular differences between creatures that appear to be very similar and related. For instance, the cytochrome-C protein, one of the proteins vital to respiration, is incredibly different in living beings of the same class. According to research carried out on this matter, the difference between two different reptile species is greater than the difference between a bird and a fish or a fish and a mammal. Another study has shown that molecular differences between some birds are greater than the differences between those same birds and mammals. It has also been discovered that the molecular difference between bacteria that appear to be very similar is greater than the difference between mammals and amphibians or insects.168 Similar comparisons have been made in the cases of haemoglobin, myoglobin, hormones, and genes and similar conclusions are drawn.169

Concerning these findings in the field of molecular biology, Dr. Michael Denton comments:

Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology... At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives... There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago... the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.170

The "Tree of Life" Is Collapsing

In the 1990s, research into the genetic codes of living things worsened the quandary faced by the theory of evolution in this regard. In these experiments, instead of the earlier comparisons that were limited to protein sequences, "ribosomal RNA" (rRNA) sequences were compared. From these findings, evolutionist scientists sought to establish an "evolutionary tree". However, they were disappointed by the results. According to a 1999 article by French biologists Hervé Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "with more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein pyhlogenies contradict each other as well as the RNA tree." 171

Besides rRNA comparisons, the DNA codes in the genes of living things were also compared, but the results have been the opposite of the "tree of life" presupposed by evolution. Molecular biologists James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera elaborated on this in an article in 1999:

"Scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone." 172

Neither the comparisons that have been made of proteins, nor those of rRNAs or of genes, confirm the premises of the theory of evolution. Carl Woese, a highly reputed biologist from the University of Illinois admits that the concept of "phylogeny" has lost its meaning in the face of molecular findings in this way:

No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various (groups) to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." 173

A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded them. Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn't clarify the picture of how life's major groupings evolved, they confused it. And now, with an additional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten even more confusing.... Many evolutionary biologists had thought they could roughly see the beginnings of life's three kingdoms... When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes, researchers expected that they would simply add detail to this tree. But "nothing could be further from the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, the comparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well...174

In short, as molecular biology advances, the homology concept loses more ground. Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNAs and genes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according to the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates; and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses. Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells sums up the situation in 2000 in this way:

Inconsistencies among trees based on different molecules, and the bizzarre trees that result from some molecular analyses, have now plunged molecular phylogeny into a crisis.175

=================



New DATA on this is comming out all the time. Darwinian evolutionists are constantly changing their failed predictions to keep from embarassment

Date: 2011/02/24 14:04:20, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 24 2011,11:12)
ha!  i once knew some whores that thought bailey's was fine liqueur.  they were also wont to drink jose cuervo and make out with each other.

And where can I meet them?

OBTW, Happy B-Day amadan

Date: 2011/02/25 12:56:18, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2011,11:57)
To celebrate your birthday the entire nation of Great Britain will form a coalition government, make swingeing cuts to our public services and institutions, and throw the country down the shitter just like Ireland did.

No no, there's no need to thank us.

Merry Birthwali.

Louis

Oh yeah?

Look at what we're doing to ourselves here in the States (yeah, I know we've been fucked for sometime)  starting with Wisconsin!

Compared to the US, you guys are only half-assed when it comes to flushing your country down the crapper!

Date: 2011/02/26 11:31:04, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 26 2011,09:14)
So, basically, Dracula could be considered a modern form of a god?  Never thought of it that way, but it fits as the "preventer of death".  I wonder if (a) it is true that vampires are more popular than ever and not just more out in the public (so to speak) and (b) if this has any connection at all with the reduction of people following traditional religion.  I doubt it, but it just struck me as interesting.

(ps - Edward Cullen will never, ever, be associated with a god, even if he is as big a douche as any god created)

I think there are several reasons why they're popular, "eternal love" with some "young (looking) hunky stud" is a major reason.

Perhaps it is a "more real" eternal life scenario as the get old, die and live eternally thing really makes less sense than being a vampire.

But hey, they're both for the lunatic fringe.

Date: 2011/02/27 05:44:46, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Quote (how2debateevolution @ Feb. 27 2011,03:07)
I just registered with the forum and no matter where i try to post i am told that i am not allowed to post there.

is this forum a read-only forum?
i am surprised i can post here.

anyway, i think i'll be moving on elsewhere.



mike
----------------------------
http://howtodebateevolution.com/

Where were you trying to post?

If you're going to move on to say "evo's censor" you're wrong.

Obviously you can post here it is some things are earned, and others are for admins only.

So where are you trying to post that you can't?

Date: 2012/05/21 06:35:11, Link
Author: Sol3a1
Dannyb posted on 8th Comment at UD

and said this:

"The few that are interesting actually seem to be generated from specific mechanisms that are geared towards generating them (i.e. VDJ recombination). Likewise, population genetic models show that natural selection, if it is the main operating force, will not build complexity but destroy it."

That is a new one to me. How does natural selection destroy complexity and what models is he referring to?

 

 

 

=====