AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: evopeach

form_srcid: evopeach

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: evopeach

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 = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'evopeach%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2005/07/25 16:32:43, Link
Author: evopeach
The subject of my first post is to simply inquire what is lost or worse feared by admitting as Dr. Shapiro does that the origin of life underpinning of evolutionary theory is virtually no-existant, that none of the current approaches have any real scientific, experimentally demonstrated credibility, that this is a known major failing of the theory and that the discovery of yet unknown physical laws or properties of matter or an alternative explanation is necessary to set evolutionary theory on a firm foundation regarding origins.

I see nothing weak or defeatest in his argumentation, research, methods or conclusions and he is a world reknown scientist in the field.



Date: 2005/08/18 13:01:43, Link
Author: evopeach
I would guess responding to my own first post is against the rules, but I did not really expect any replies..... my point is thus made.

Being 61 and a retired person who worked in several technical and business positions I observed a lot about human behavior, debate and discussion techniques, human personality and how one's training and experiences impact the techniques employed in such daily activities.

I can assure the mainstream posters here that you side is losing the public policy debate, will start to lose the legal battle quickly and as a result public funding priorities for research will be redirected.

One has only to examine the current polls, articles, media interest and several legal challenges to understand that such is the state of affairs. It is empirically true.

1) The average well educated Joe or Jill over a large age range has an instant dislike for peole who display the arrogance, elitism and self congratulatory attitudes and behaviors exhibited daily here and throughtout the evolutionist community. It hurts the cause of your team when people demean, attack and belittle people who they disagree with and discredit their credentials,abilities and accomplishments in outrageous and demonstrably inaccurate polemics. No one of even slightly above average intelligence will agree with or appreciate such utter nonsensical methods directed at Dembski and other D.I. types or their gifted supporters who have identified themselves openly with their ideas.

Your open, unreasoned, vitriolic hostility toward anyone, no matter how credible their credentials, work and experience who disagrees the slightest bit with the standard evolutionary dogma is, I asure you,  anathema to the great majority of fair minded, well reasoned Americans.

Your refusal to publically acknowledge the wide ranging debate about many aspects of darwinian theory within your community, often outright rejection of basic tenets by various schools of thought and the seeming inability to publicallly jettison concepts and ideas long ago discredited by your own community is cause for peole to have grave reservations about your intellectual and personal, not just credibility but basic honesty.

Robert Shapiro's book on Origins is a delightfully candid and refreshing exception to the rule and is enlightening to many and is presented in an engaging and scientifically sound prose.

The term reasonable compromise coupled with honest admission of the current troubled state of the theory of evolution would go a long way toward establishing some credibility with the public.

Yet the ongoing persecution of honest, upstanding and well educated scientists and others who dare to disagree on even the most minor points in a systematic and  vicious assult contunues.

No one who has lived into adulthood and has significant life experience believes or tolerates people who have all the right answers, permits no dissent and uses deplorable tactics against decent established opponents. Americans have never supported for long such attitudes and behaviors.

Such positions as "every living thing is a transitional form and thus we have no real need for or concern about the fossil record" or "abiogenesis is removed from evolutionary theory and has no identifiable impact on evolutionary concepts, thinking or theory" are just such rediculous behaviors as to cause intelligent people in large, large numbers to simply shake their heads in disbelief, bordering on derision. These are the same people who have been bombarded with these exact tenets all their adult lives in school, in college, in the media and print as being facts of evolution and parts of an all encompassing explanation for all we are and observe in an unbroken chain of rigerous scientific reasoning and experimentation.

If your team is to maintain the support through their tax dollars for your vital and important work then you'd best take a close look at your approach and behavior and perhaps decide that after all, honesty, respect, self discipline and a little humility are vital to any rational debater.


Date: 2005/08/22 10:36:58, Link
Author: evopeach
It depends on what is met by the terms. In this case the questions that remain unanswered are those asked and unanswered for a hundred years...some of which were Darwin's own questions.

If questions at the most basic, fundamental, cogent and sound level are dismissed, defined away, ignored, trivialized and other common practices by the evolutionary community then the theory is suspected of being intellectually fragile, untrue, unfalsifiable and likely erroneous in one or more of its major corresponding tenets.

Perhaps the evolutionary proponents should just publish an appropriate version of the 5th amendment and then see how the jury reacts.

In time the only version of this theory will be one which limits itself to change within kinds or types strictly bounded by the quite wide spectrum adaptability of the DNA itself and the evident reproductive facilites and methods. It will be a limited explanation of observed biological change and diversity concerned only at the margins with mutational aspects likewise the selection circular reasoning will be scarcely mentioned as explanatory.

The quagmire of unexplained and dramatically unexplainable subject of origins and abiogenesis will remain a major failing of all naturalistic explanations of life and all we observe.

The ID movement and allied communities will display for the citizenry the voo doo, imaginary, unsubstantiated and purposefully fraudently science force fed young people for 75 years and display alternative approaches to all things scientific that are efficient, robust , wide-spectrum and respectful of decent that deserves respect.

This weekend in my states letters to the editor five very credible scientific persons wrote letters in support of the equal consideration of ID in public education and their utter distain for the hight-hat egocenterd rudeness and implausiblity of the current stand taken by the evolutionisty community.

Very predictable as I have suggested,


Date: 2005/08/22 16:11:47, Link
Author: evopeach
It may come as big shock but I suspect people would be about as impressed with Lennys questions as with Lenny himself. As in not at all. I mean this person Lenny is an unknown,in every respect, a sort of little tin god who has gathered a cult of followers who hang on his every words.. as insipid as they may be.

Goodness, the intellectuals of the ID and IC movement simply consider him a wantabe "back-bencher". A small pain perhaps, but nothing more. I mean whoever heard of the guy outside this warm fuzzy nest he opines in.

I would be a little more worried about the 400 Phds at the D.I., Denton, Behe and the historical disputations of Morrison, Whittington,Barnes,Axelrod,Simpson,Grasse, Agaziz and a few hundred others than people answering Lenny.. goodness.

For years professionals have labored with real work in science ... just letting the hysterical true believers of Darwinian thought (could be an oxymoron) race around with thumbs in the dike postering and threatening in real ways anyone stepping outside the cult publically. Yeah Yeah I swear allegiance to the cult ... now can I get back to work on some real science.

Now at last the crystalized faults in the steel of this ripe Titanic are failing, the rivets are popping quite loudly and the waters are rushing past even the most powerful waterproof doors.

Actually I would prefer the Lenny(s) would have a visible voice ... it would hasten the day when we will emerge from the dark ages of darwinism and see a renewed committment to real science freed of the dogmatic burden of proving the Invicta of darwinism. "I AM THE MASTER OF MY FATE, I AM THE CAPTAIN OF MY SOUL"

Date: 2005/08/23 09:32:49, Link
Author: evopeach
Henry J,

Frankly I have yet to see a lucid definition of evolution which is rational, non-tautalogical and mathmatically credible. Is it slow and gradual, is it punctuated, it is by saltation..... does it account for origins .... is it complete or just hang on skyhooks and a strange sort of pseudo-religious faith.

I believe the major proponents of ID and IC are well known and the "theory" has been well stated by them.

I think beginning in 1973 and continuing to the present my fairly extensive reading on both sides of the issue persuaded me that:

1) Anyone who hangs their hat on an undefined singularity, cosmic egg, etc. and believes that the universe and all that we observe is the result of hydrogen gas chaotically swirling around, combining with minor constituents under the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them results in the human brain is so far removed from rational thinking, critical thinking, sound analytics and such that it engenders incredulity in the trained and reasoning mind.

2) The text books on biology and other evolutionary biased sciences have contained so many totally discredited ideas, experiments, hypotheses and never corrected that it becomes crystal clear that the evolutionary community is untruthful, incapable of self disclipline, engaged in purposeful fraud for financial and power gain and is deeply flawed in principle as the evidence has shown.

3) The hostility toward all things metaphysical and of faith is so rabid and ill founded that it renders any attempt at mutual respect and transparency in the debate essentially impossible. The adherents are so dedicated to the agnostic, atheistic and egocentric philosophies of humanism and such that every thought and action are saddled indeed burdened by the baggage and continues the  hinderance of  effective, efficient,open and expansive approaches to true science.

For me ID and IC are rather straight straight forward scientific propositions, hypotheses and theories that offer an alternative approach to the investigation of life and the observable universe. It is one which focuses on the logos, informational and systematic functionality of such. It encourages an entirely different emphasis in tools, techniques and thought regarding observation, investigation and inquiry and objects of persuit.


Pure chemistry and the evolutionary paradigm lead to radiation, chemotherapy and readical surgery for treatment of cancer.

Radical information and systematics lead to Herceptin a non-poisonous smart information based treatment.

Further the entire genomic science is entirely concerned with information systems , codes, systematics and the application of information systems techniques with evolutionary biological thought of minor, minor importance.

So long as disproving the existance of God and the elevation of humanistic self elevation are at the heart of a theory, its proponents and its methods there will be failure, inefficiencies, frauds and misdirected resources.

I suggest we can no longer afford the origin of life and ETSI sort of wastral diversions... lets do some real science.

Date: 2005/08/23 09:37:28, Link
Author: evopeach
Alan Fox,


Also the book Origins by the author.

Date: 2005/08/23 09:53:59, Link
Author: evopeach
Toe Jam assertions without evidence, references, supporting documentation and specifics are called sophistry ... not rhetoric.

I don't have to paint a contrived world as the pseudo-scientific members of the evo community have for 100 years.. I have the advantage of seeking truth in observation of  the universe and without self elevation and egocentricity explore the universe for the purpose of understanding, enlightenment and betterment of the human experience.

Date: 2005/08/23 12:19:45, Link
Author: evopeach

I know.. I know.. all these people are not real scientists, uninformed buffoons because they didn't run it by Lenny I suppose. Guffaw!

1) The Penguin Dictionary of Biology. The authors: "M.
Abercrombie...was Professor of Embryology and then Professor of
Zoology at University College London..."; "C.J. Hickman was Professor of
Plant Sciences at the University of Western Ontario"; "M.L.
Johnson..taught zoology at Birmingham University." (Abercrombie M.,
Hickman C.J., & Johnson M.L., "The Penguin Dictionary of Biology,"
1985, reprint, p1)

2) The Oxford Concise Science Dictionary: does not have biographical
details about the authors but lists them as "Alan Isaacs BSc, PhD, DIC",
"John Daintith BSc, PhD" and "Elizabeth Martin MA." (Isaacs A., Daintith
J. & Martin E., eds., "Concise Science Dictionary," 1991, pvi)

3) The Collins Reference Dictionary of Biology: authors are Professor
W.G. Hale, B.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc., F.I.Biol., is Dean of the Faculty of Science
and Head of the Department of Biology at Liverpool Polytechnic;" and "Dr
J.P. Margham, B.Sc., Ph.D., Dip.Gen., M.I. Biol., is Principal Lecturer and
Course Leader for the B.Sc. Honours Applied Biology Degree at Liverpool
Polytechnic." (Hale W.G., & Margham J.P., "Collins Reference Dictionary
of Biology," Collins: London, 1988 reprint, p.i)

I was present at a debate between Duane Gish and Doug a number of years ago and watched Gish systematically destroy Doug to the point that I was concerned for Doug's mental well being... it was indeed pitiful to behold. I think one can even buy a video or transcript of the debate (evolution butt whipping)

This is the same old argument from superior intellect and hubris people can't tolerate: " People simply don't understand evolution because it is so comlex and esoteric and complicated that the american citizenry simply cannot grasp it in full ... the're too dumb. Then our attempts to explain evolution to the ignorant masses and intellectual buffons require we superior high IQ evolutionist types to put it into easy to understand terminology .. that the backward, fundamentalist, religious, unscientific, unsophisticated American populace could comprehend while still accurately portraying the essence of the theory, have been inadequate." (the morons who don't accept what we feed them at face value as fact may have to simply be ignored and eliminated by any means necessary from public discourse)

Not if, but when the bright light of ID and IC analysis is focused on the details of evolution and the real historical evidence of same is made clear we believe that same population will readily understand and comprehend the greatest hoax, fraud and conspiracy in scientific circles in modern history. We have great faith in the intelligence and common sense reasoning power of the American people.

When they understand the mindset of people wo can look at a old world wolf skeleton and see it is really a whale ancestor ...... and hundreds more examples, they might ask if there is anything more to this complex subject than diagrams filled with dashed lines (no evidence extant) and figurines made from 5% bone and 95% plaster of paris.

As for me such an intellect will have no trouble discerning transitional forms in the leaves of of an empty te cup.

Date: 2005/08/23 14:41:47, Link
Author: evopeach

I reply to cover several coments on the thread not just one individual ... see one of me ... lots of you. Its called efficiency of purpose.

Yes there are theistic evolutionists about 1-2% and they are mostly silent as to their reasoning for such.

1) They have faith in scripture, revelation, purpose.
That puts them in the camp of the psychologically disturbed according to the Lennyites.

2) Their God is powerless, harmless, inept, removed and a sort of pacifer. (not the God of the bible)

But hey for most people of faith this subject is less than an essential to a common understanding.

Date: 2005/08/23 16:16:31, Link
Author: evopeach
I looked really hard at your FIVE YR OLD poll and never did see the term "theistic evolution" appear let alone be defined.

Try Harder .. you're not gettin any traction

Date: 2005/08/24 10:09:19, Link
Author: evopeach

That is your assertion from a survey that doesn't even mention the term.

Try any one of 100 H.S. Biology texts or even 1st yr College texts from 1940 through today.

1) Embronic recapitualtion ( totally a lie and misrepresentation for two decades after being shown false)

2) Miller Fox demonstrating the efficacy of chemical predestination and abiogenesis in pre-biotic conditions. ( a total fabrication failing to mention lack of optical purity, racemate results always, zero separation of L&D forms of amino acids critical to molecules of life or that even if such were the result its a dead end for several reasons not the least of which is the next step chemically has the rather unfortunate problem of directionally impossible free energy comsiderations. These are never, never mentioned though known absolutely by every organic chemist in the world.

3) Total misrepresentation of the fossil record results which is totally unsupportive of the theory .... a scam made possible by plaster of paris and dashed lines on charts , nothing more. Consider the several major fossil frauds in the last century.. undeniable dishonesty.

4) Purposefully blurring the differences between a priori and as posteriori probability arguments time and again with the stiupid and irrelevant (perfect bridge/poker hand demonstration of unlikely events and other such baloney)

5) Misstating the definitions of open, closed, isolated and constrained systems in thermodynamic discussions... trotting out the old snowflake, salt crystal and other rediculous and irrelevent processes to illustrate local violations of SLOT... knowing better all the while.

6) Denying in the face of crystal clear evidence real codes and  systematics in the genome of living organisms as in the genetic code and the operations of the cell. Utter fraud and misrepresentation.

7) Dismissing abiogenesis and the fossil record as irrelevent and unimportant to the evolutionary paradigm.

8) All origin of proposals and experiments have ended in utter failure for 100 years  but are presented in texts, documentaries and all public forums as success is just around the corner.

The public record is clear and unambiguous and undeniable by an honest observer

Date: 2005/08/24 17:12:51, Link
Author: evopeach
The answers to poll questions often reflect the way the question is asked and certainly on the definition of terms. Since your term theistic-evolution does not appear in the poll the logical option is th e 1-2 % other.

But I do understand why you can't follow the reasoning,, oops mymom always told me to be kind.

You restated the history of recapitulation.. is that supposed to be an answer as to why it was included as evidence of evolution (macro-evolution) through the 90's. It was fraudulent, purposefully misleading to young impressionable minds all to support an erroneous world view.

There are no uncontested transitional fossils yet even Dawin predicted there would be myriads of such yet worm tracks in mud and holes in he ground connect an unknown unimaginable first life forms to the complex invertebrates nothiong over a billion year span, then from invertibrates to vertebrates without a single transitional fossil... should be millions upon millions.

The angiosperms appear de novo without a single predecessor.

Where are the precursors and transitional forms for the fishes... na da.

Yet pretty little pictures with 90% dashed lines connecting major phylum blah blah blah... every new major species ends up being placed in a completely separate widely branched twig of the supposed tree of life.. without exception.

Any one can read these facts if they will studey the words of the most prominent scientists since 1890.. you have to read the dissenters .. not the sychophantic true believers.

Miller to Fox to Urey all were 100 % failures in the origin of life experiments.

Get real.

Date: 2005/08/25 11:23:00, Link
Author: evopeach
Since you place so much faith in polls and the assuredness of peoples devining your definition of theistic evolution then I am sure you will support the same populations view that evolution should not be taught as a fact and alternative views of origins and biological life should also be taught. Or is that where the population becomes stupid, uniformed, bigoted, flat earthers, clueless as to science and needful of guidence from the superior evolutionisy community.


God created humans in present form
All Americans
Kerry voters
Bush voters

Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans
Kerry voters
Bush voters

Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans
Kerry voters
Bush voters

Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.

More than half of Kerry voters want creationism taught alongside evolution. Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included.


Creationism and evolution
All Americans
Kerry voters
Bush voters

Creationism instead of evolution
All Americans
Kerry voters
Bush voters

60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.


This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 885 adults interviewed by telephone November 18-21, 2004. There were 795 registered voters. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus three percentage points for results based on all adults and all registered voters.

Your assertion is preposterous on its face... anyone can walk through a library of text books and see ER persented as anargument for evolution. Your statements carefully prepared and edited after the fact by EVOLUTIONISTA doing their CYA act is laughable.

Darwin did predict transitional fossils and stated that early on his excuse for not seeing them was the lack of exploration and such would be cured by time and thatif such did not emerge that would be a great difficulty to his theory. I have read the materials  and commentaries on all those finds and my statement stands uncontradicted..... Try Gould, Roemer, Grassee, Goldsmidt, Morowitz, despite being evolutionists they at least admit the utter lack of anything being an undisputed transitional form in the record.

Don't point me to purely evolutionist propaganda sources... I have read the crap and it is written as though I was Kate in Taming of the Shrew.. see that bright orb up there that is actually the moon no matter how it actually appears..

No not the bible just detailed and honest reading of your own camps materials will do nicely.

Boy its great to have 3-4 of those Microsoft actives and retirees on the board at D.I. along with we lesser folks.. no money problems there. Of course they are only bright in segregated areas .. in science all of us are stupid.

Anyone who can see or imagine any origin experiments that give a scintilla of demonstrable support for abiogenesis step forward and claim the Nobel prize. This is after 100 years of evolutionist activity now stated to be totally unrelated to evolution and unimportant to the debate by your team.... which is it dude?

Your ship is sinking fast .... Charles Titanic Darwin.

Date: 2005/08/25 15:54:42, Link
Author: evopeach
Guess you missed those 55% who believe God created man in his present form and the 65% who think both views should be taughtin public schools.

Evolutionist filtering and claimed superiority and selective reading as usual...why am Inot surprised by your hubris and intellectual dihonesty... because I've seen it in action for 30 years.

The Bible has not entered into this discussion ... are you wishing to go down that road.. its not pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Abiogenesis is part and parcel of the spectrum of all life existing or you are guilty of placing your FAITH in nothing explanatory even in theory.

This is the same recent ploy put forth that says since everything living is a transitional form we don't need any fossil record of transitional forms.

Are you familiar with the term RETREAT!!

I always wondered how you could tell when Darwin's writings were done when he was in one of his extended manic depressive periods or when he was somewhat lucid and communicative.

I guess you weren't familiar with that short list of luminaries who are on record concerning the non-existance of any robust transitional forms. Shall I list a few more for you?

Oh and those are all extinct apes, tree climbers, knuckle walkers .... again you need to read more widely.

Date: 2005/08/29 06:16:35, Link
Author: evopeach
Once again,

The issue actually is resolved without even delving into the fossil record, genetic code, irreducible complexity, intelligent design all of which has enormous intellectual appeal if you do not come from a naturalist, humanist, God is a psychological distortion of the human brain perspective.

Once the American people focus on the undeniable fact that there are two choices only: either God created the universe and all that is extant de novo or the universe arose from a quantum mechanical quiff popping of an all encompassing wave function (See Fred Wolff) and from there came the big bang and a universe of hydrogen gas which over billions of years by unknowable evolutionary chaotic processes resulted in the first living replicator of some undefined sort which then evolved over additional billions of years into the HUMAN BRAIN the most complex and orderly six pounds of matter in the universe.

See almost all of us had that little experiment where you have little bottles of that colorless, orderless flamible gas and they can focus right in on the highly scientific evolutionary theory of how that simplest of all atoms and the laws of nature conjured up those 6 trillion neurons. What with allowance for the unknown process, laws, demonstrable resultants or anything other than mathmatical formulas and imaginings ... maybe they'll conclude that it's somewhat unusual to start from such a preposterious set of premises, absent of any connective or demonstratively supportive evidence and by the Eureka method declare it a proven fact beyond disputation.

So I intend to support all efforts to bring this highly simplified , tightly focused analysis or examination of claims right to the front door of the American people of all walks. How will the newspeak of biology, palentology, geology and string theory play in that approach... when you can't resort to big words, authoritive assertions and strained rhetoric .... its going to be very interesting.

Even Harvardites can't bail this boat out.

Date: 2005/08/30 04:34:34, Link
Author: evopeach
If it impedes your ability to continue rational thought then I agree that on a national poll my 2% under the general definition of "Theistic Evolution" they hold the number is larger.

But I stick to the numbers if you are talking about the so called evolutionary scientists, posters on such as this forum, writers in the field, debaters, office holders, etc. that is what has driven the education and public funding effort for 50 years or more and that I stick to 2%.

You have a terrible blind spot when its comes to reviewing material submitted. The poll showed the overwhelming sentiment by people that the ID and IC etc. should be taught , that its good to have some debate and open controvesy, that  kids and adults do have brains and can sort it out and that ther is merit in the ID and IC schema. My quotes about open dissenters from mutationa nd natural selection were a small sample of some very respected people (Grassee was French I believe)..... more upon demand once you grasp the names given.

Oh no not for you... science is not run by polls... you can't have it both ways and remain honest.

As for my approach that one need only consider the logical premises of evolution in toto ... dead silence or another denial I suppose.

Simplicity at the detail level will prove rather effective I think.

Example: Behe was quite effective with the mousetrap thing... your origin people moronically missed the point in their rebuttal that reuse and portability are vital assets of the trap and if you remove the base and glue it or nail it to the floor that minor feature is lost. Laughable!!

Or take the 100 yr old standard flyswatter; a length of wire twisted into a 30 inch handle with a 4x5 wire or plastic mesh stuck on the end. Now lets see how one could kill flys without the handle and only the mat... pretty tricky. Or maybe try to spear them with the wire absent the mesh.

Could one start with a one inch handle and gradually grow it to 30 inches... oh yeah super smart.

Maybe you start with a 1 sq in mesh and grow it to 4x5... flys are very safe I'd say.

Is a back scratcher an intermediate form?

Now about that hydrogen to brain trick???

Date: 2005/08/30 10:00:43, Link
Author: evopeach
First you don't stop me from anything, you are a nobody back bencher in this debate and your assersions of winning this or that are laughable.... of course anything to save face with the hoard you would punish you severly if you demonstrated an ounce of intellectual integrity.. same old party line (infinitely flexible).

The 2% I speak of is the percentage of those who ascribe to the Biblical God of Abraham Issac and Jacob, the creation account therein though not literally in every case, those evolutionary scientists who hold to the God not some god. That is why anyone with a brain larger than a turnip would understand why I insist on definition of terms. See theistic implies a foundational acceptance of a diety , but what diety with what authority, power, interest, ability. These people you quote are talking about any one of 100 imaginary self made gods whose attributes just happen to fit their evolutionary beliefs...a compartmentalized sort of semi-god not the God of the Bible, one who doesn't interfere with anything or anyone.. just a nice warm fuzzy feeling sort of diety.

I don't give a darn whether you understand the merits of the Bible as history, poetry, philosophy, reality or even scientific matters in laymans terms because your groups opinion is based on non-examination, self will, ignorance and eogoism. Mine is based on twenty-five years of scholarship, knowing a few Harvard Phds in linquistics, semitics, hebrew, latin, old testament archeology reading the papers & books, listening to their lectures (yes sermons), actually having several of them into my home. Would you care to match intellectual credentials with some of them in their academic pursuits.. ha!!

Your hatred of such people does not impact the reality of say several million hours of scholarship regarding the truths of the scriptures and these people and their fellow believers are not mentally ill or ignorant thay are the equal of anyone in this forum intellectually and a heck of a lot broader in their reading and studies.

And yes your fossils are knuckle walkers.... see I understand that if you are to survive as a bone polisher and get published, get grants write books give lectures and make money you have to FIND SOMETHING BIG.

Eckhardt: Amid the bewildering array of humanioid fossils, is there one whose morphology marks it as man's humanoid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered, the answer appears to be no." Scientific American 226 (1):94

Further ibid Neither is there any compeling evidence for any humanoid species in the interval unless such is defined by any ape having small teeth and a small face."

Gould:Nat. Hist. 85:30 "What has become of our ladder if we have three coexisting lineages of huminoid  A. africanis, robust australopithecines, and H. Habilis none of which are derived from theother. None show any evolutionary change during their tenure , none brainer nor more erect as they approach the present day".

I really don't have time to correct the thousands of misconceptions, disagreements, fabrications and illusions of your team... just know this.. your own experts are constantly in such disarray , betraying each others conclusions, having disparate views etc. that it requires little to conclude that the entire scene is a hypothetical self biased delusional science at best.

So keep pounding your chest to impress your silly cohorts.. but don't even intertain the thought that you have somehow shown somthing other than the typical hypnotic trance talk of the true believers.. you haven't dared an original thought in this century and I hold you in derision.

Date: 2005/08/31 05:15:28, Link
Author: evopeach
Hello Mr Know it all ... you are the intellectual joke of the last decade ..I have seen much better than you in these climes.

As to quote mining.. if you can prove the statements and quotes are incorrectly attributed, false, not to the point or otherwise go for it. Unfortunately for you I have read most of these articles either before or after the fact and they are 100% legitimate and supposedly authoritive.. peer reviewed and all that .. you know.

If you wish to discredit these pillars of evolutionary thought please do so .. I always welcome additional cannibal activity among the hordes.. its so commonplace you know.

But the old switch aroo tactic is one that I attribute to 1st graders trying to use logic.

Take a look at New Orleans and environs if you don't think water can change a landscape ... that was as in one day... and yes I think a global flood is well evidenced in history, tradition, geology and quite explanatory.

By the way I can give you chapter and verse of a well documented case of a black ape who learned to walk biped extraordinarily well.. much better than the supposed hominoids and ape-like so called human ancestors ever are credited with. Many apes are biped in some degree.. just not very good at it.

By the way what's the latest opinion.. are we closer to chimps or orangs... pretty important thing to decide.. isn't it a shame that depending on the analysis used you get equal support for either, clearly impossible.

Now about that hydrogen gas to human brain.. oh yeah we don't want to talk about that.. right?

See hydrogen gas ... black magic... wand waving... chaos,,, then poof the human brain... and then the fairy god mother said what wish do you evos want today.

You really have to be mentally incapacitated to swallow this evo stuff.

If this is science lets include voo doo in your mix.

Date: 2005/08/31 05:46:53, Link
Author: evopeach
I just focused on your atatement that evolution had nothing to do with SLOT.

I guess that qualifies as the most scientifically illerate statement I have read in about fifty years.

Truly, I don't think it is possible to converse with a person who doesn't recognize the universal role of slot in every process yet observed in the universe., let alone biology, chemistry, physics all of which are foundational to any theory of so called evolution.

It is just sad to think anyone that scientifically illiterate could actually be posting in a public forum. How embarrassing!!

And you want me to establish the facts of thermodynamics for you so you can decide if the're real and applicable to such things as chemical reactions.. which seem in most peoples minds to have something to do with evolutionary biology.

I guffaw at the pitiful understanding of SLOT evidenced by evos... can't even define systems properly, snowflakes and salt crystals and ram pumps... yessiree real experts.

Come back when you have even a scintilla of scientific credibility... now run along junior and wash some bones.

Is there anyone up to a sensible literate discussion in the evo camp.. please no more sophmoric wantabees!

Date: 2005/08/31 08:52:15, Link
Author: evopeach
Actually I don't think God did it by some billions of years process; he created it period. Thats what we mean by a God ... capable of effectng results we can't, using capabilites we do not have and are not currently in operation.

To say that acts of intellectually based conceptual thought hybridized onto matter to make it behave in ways it would never do on its own is a not a form of  creation is to deny the precise activities of science. Of course every scientific act by scientists does precisely that, it takes the intellectually based plans,schema, flowsheets, equations, expereiences and knowhow and from outside the matter itself hybridizes all of the above onto the matter to achieve the results.

So when you deny the possibility that such can be done in an original act by God you deny your very own abilities and planned actions to create.

Not a very logical position to hold is it?

Again if you are so illiterate as to dismiss SLOT from biology or any area of science as the controlling law over all processes chemical or physical then I have no interest in discussing things technical with you.

The mere fact that all life eventually becomes lifeless, completely disordered, completely at equilibrium is the precise prediction and result of the operation of  SLOT. The inefficiency of every process, the waste heat and material produced by every reaction, the less than perfect replication of the cell, the shrinking of the telemere, the weakening of the heart and other organs are all the result of the goverance of the second law which insists on slightly less or much less order in the entirety of any system or process including the effects on the surroundings as time progresses.

Thus we have life sustained by directed and transduced energy flows from the sun, biomass,etc. maintaining life in a constrained open system state far from equilibrium internally and yet inextricably drifting along the arrow of time toward equilibrium, disorder and death with all the universe always forever.

Every reaction in life support and activity is constrained in direction, rate, result and such by SLOT or equivalently the free energy consideration.

Evolution is in principle only possible by these chemical  reactions and their so called modifications over time coupled with the physical processes and reactions also controlled by SLOT.

Please tell me there is someone in this forum with the intellect to get past agruing the reality of one of the most fundamental and well proven laws of nature.

Please don't tell me this illteracy is representative of your communites understanding of all things scientific and the governing laws.

Date: 2005/09/01 05:32:25, Link
Author: evopeach
Your response is precisely the intellectual dishonesty I am speaking to. Do you really think that you can persuasively deny the teaching and promotion of ER for several decades to our student population and the public at large by referencing a 2000 vintage book? Typical, when shown to be totally dishonest and fraudulent in your work you retreat and rewrite history as though it never happened; whether fossil fraud or any subject.

I thought you people had quit trying to promote those Fox soap bubbles as precursors.. totally dismissed by serious people. There is not one viable characteristic of precursor cell structure or activity in any of those pipe dreams. My grandson has a soap bubble pipe that generates the same degree of characteristic including , "budding" but I have not considered him for a Nobel prize.

Yes, we have some grasp of thermo with real credit hours from the engineering perspective and the physics/stat mech formulation and some process engineering experience.

Funny you should mention your school expereince.. it is of interest to note that man is th eonly creature that eats carrots and fish et al and converts those calories into conceptual thought and consciousness through a series of quite intricate processes. Yes somewhere there is the addition of logos, codes, storage and retrieval of information and the inexplicable concept of consciousness and conceptual thought... oh yeah it all came about simply by chance rearrangement of carbon, hydrogen,phosphorus, etc. Purely chemistry... inorganics differ from organics and life simply by arangement.

How any sane person can hold such opinions is beyond me.

Date: 2005/09/01 05:41:36, Link
Author: evopeach
By the way by reading this thread and those on other forums I can direct you to you would discover your camp distinctly saying the genetic code is not a code, there is no informational aspect to the cells replicative operations in DNA or otherwise its just chemistry. But such is typical ..four evolutionists and five opinions none of which is internally consistant or sensible.

Date: 2005/09/01 09:35:48, Link
Author: evopeach

Ok now that you have hung yourself out to dry with your cynical stupidity here's a result from your peer reviewed Nature of their survey among 500+ scientists.

The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5% (the moron crowd)

Surely whether 5 or 7% among scientists and life scientists even believe in God as a metaphysical being,....not even the Judeo Christian God of the bible one could reason that no more than a fraction of that percentage would associate God's creative and guiding activity with their evolutionary views thus 2% is more than generous.

I wonder if you can tell which is closer to this  poll result my 2% or your 37%. Hint: subtraction is involved.

Your sincere apology is accepted.

Example of the reason anyone with a brain holds your theory in contempt:

No matter how contradictory the evidence is to tightly grasped theories, no matter how destructive to pryor claims there is no finding that cannot be accomodated by the plasticity of this so called theory. Just another demonstration of the impossibility of falsifying evolution.

By the way you have amplified the crystal clear picture of your complete scientific illiteracy ( by the way "not illogical" is a third grade grammatical error, so you might watch that sort of display) as in SLOT not being connected to evolution and then admitting your error in the next post.

See F does not equal MA as in your stupid remarks. F is proportional to MA and the formula requires the addition of a constant which varies with the system of units, usually written F=ma/gsubc  and in the engineering system the constant of proportionality is 32.2 lb mass ft/lb force sec**2

You should really ask someone to check your posts for scientific literacy before hitting the submit button... it might let you continue to pretend to be knowledgeable.

Now once again is there someone a little more challenging to joist with.. don't tell me these luddites are your first team.

Date: 2005/09/02 05:10:13, Link
Author: evopeach
I don't expect you to really appreciate suffering complete humiliation in public but it really was enjoyable letting you bloviate about polls and your superiority  for a while just so I could ram the Nature poll of some 650 evolutionary scientists up your b--- and watch you wallow in pain.

F=MA is not the generic form itd F=ma/gsubc to make sure the difference between equality and proportionality are properly understood. Did that concept not come across in third grade for you?

And you're right you surely could not be the A.B.C.D  ad finitum team because none of them are so iliterate as to suspend SLOT as the controlling mechanism in chemical and physical processes in evolutionary theory.

SLOT does apply to evolution as to every process in the universe so far as has ever been theorized or observed.

See these two examples of your complete incompetence in these matters render it meaningless to joist with you further.

You can easily enough check the posts at or this thread to see the position that the genetic code is not really a code , there is no real information content in the human cell and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I haven't the time to do your homework for you.

I have no doubt you think SLOT is inoperative reguarding the physical mechanisms of Evolution.... you probably think gravity is a temporary law, FLOT is ripe for violation and the third law is superfluous because no one lives in a place where the temperature aproaches absolute zero.

The only closed system I see is the mindset of the evo community railing at people for daring to challenge their hynotically induced thought processes.

I'm sure you will anyday now be sending me peer reviewed papers showing naturally separated levo form optically pure amino acids spontaneoulsly forming polypeptides and proteins from simple diamers powered by sunlight on the side of a volcano or maybe R. Dawkins hot tub. Whats a little thermodynamic barrier like free energy  (alternately entropy) when you have raw sunlight in prebiotic conditions (no photosynthesis or any imaginable rectification /conversion mechanism).

Oops forgot we don't consider SLOT in evolution.

Date: 2005/09/02 06:02:20, Link
Author: evopeach
Just to name one who wrote extensively as to SLOT being the controlling physical law in operation over all time and in throughout the universe you might make your brain acquainted with the writings of Azimov on the subject but really if you're that ignorant of physics and chemistry et al I consider it demeaning to even be in contact with you.

And while your sticking my trojan horse survey  (which you lapped up like a little tired puppy) up you b---- you might also pick somewhere else to post or at least another thread... I am tired of trying to teach you 5th grade chemistry and physics..  go get your whippings else where.

Date: 2005/09/02 06:07:53, Link
Author: evopeach
Dear Russy,

Schwartz, J.H. (1984) The evolutionary relationships of man and orang-utans.
Nature 308, 501-505.

Schwartz, J.H. (1984) Hominioid evolution: a review and a reassessment. Current
Anthropology 25, 655-672.

Schwartz, J.H. (1988). The Red Ape: Orang-utans and Human Origins. Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston.

After you stick this up your butt you fart brained moron you might consider an aopolgy

Date: 2005/09/02 11:39:10, Link
Author: evopeach
Hyper, Now is this supposed to be the a team coming to the fore?? Yuk!

Wiipedia or any of 100 sites

Newton's Second Law: Fundamental law of dynamics

Alternative formulations:

   * The rate of change in momentum is proportional to the net force acting on the object and takes place in the direction of the force.
   * The acceleration of an object of constant mass is proportional to the resultant force acting upon it.

See the word proporational its part of our common language. It means that in order to actually say predict a bodies acceleration given a known force applied one must have a system of units otherwise the numbers are meaningless. In this case the constant of proportionality is referred to as gsubc always and everywhere across all systems of units.

In the engineering system this is 32.2 lbm ft /lbf sec** 2 and in the metric its 9.8 kilogm meter/newton sec**2

You are correct that m and a are vectors.

Idiot just read this thread and you will see the precise statement by tour team that SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.

I never equated free energy and entropy you liar. I stated what antone with a brain knonws and that is that the reactions I referenced will not spontaneously occur because the products are in a lower entropy state than the reactants  and one may also say they will not occur because the products are in a higher free energy state. Thus they require a usuable form of energy.. not just energy from the sun in a raw form but energy transduced and made usable by a coupled mechanism.. say for example photosynthesis (which unfortunately for your team did not exist in the prebiotic world) in the plant kingdom.

If you want to argue that one cannot predict whether a reaction will occur spontaneously and what direction it will go if at all using either entropy considerations or alternately free energy considerations.. go ahead .. it crystalizes your ignorance.

Entropy clearly does not prevent the  processes of lifew occuring now because the entire system of proceeses and reactions are in place simultaneously and systemactically. It is a constrained, open , flow-through system with a series of mechanisms for (in our case) transducing biomass energy into atp via metabolism and from there electrical voltage potentials for the CNS.

The problem is how did such a system arise incrementally, from non-life to life and so up the entropy latter or down the free energy latter prior to any transducing mechanisms in place neither photosynthesis or metabolism nor any imaginable rational mechanism to harness the raw energy available. An orchid plucked from the ground an laid in the sunlight gets hot ,,, it willl never bloom.

Again the arrangement of the GC letters into sequences of very substantial length in the case of a protein has been claculated many, many times by good scientists, Shapiro in the subject book works out the best possible case of a simple replicator sequence of twenty code letters at 1/10**20 and that is one such entity in a hostile prebiotic sea  with no chance to survive reproduce be selected  etc.

As to the source it comes from reading Shapiro, various texts, Denton et al everyone knowns the problem of  diamers to amino acids of the correct form for proteins, in optically pure concentrations never occurring naturally in any experiment with prebiotic conditions. You always get 50/50 L&D forms .... racemic mixtures. Are you denying that??

It wouldn't be wise to attempt some money-whipping exercise with me ... I'd say don't go there.

Date: 2005/09/06 05:26:43, Link
Author: evopeach
Well congratulations you are the oly known person who still clings to the totally discarded theories of Urey Miller Fox and such regarding origin of life experiental results.

No one sees any ... repeat any correlation between racemic mixtures of amino acids in a "tar" mixture created by contrived conditions (little things like cold traps) or coacervates or protenoids as even remotely demonstrative of abiogenesis. Soap bubbles and shaving creme has many of the same characteristics.

This is to say nothing of the free energy considerations which for amino acids to more complex life required molecules is directionally prohibited. See that is a thermodynamic problem at the time of origin.

Not one of the mechanisms you mentioned have a shred of experimental evidence in pre-biotic science to confirm them as remotely likely.

The author of the subject book Dr. Shapiro at least had the honesty to confess all of the above and oh that little gap you mention ... he calculates the simplest replicator as being possible in the pre-biotic conditions as at best 10**-20 to 10** -10000 depending on the assumed replicator. He is only one of several "evolutionists" not IDers or creationists who conclude the same numbers.

RNA first being very nearly the most unlikely / impossible proposal.

But laughably as usual your team of dishonest demigogs have conveniently established the position that whatever is impossible, non-demonstrable, mutually exclusive from rationality, observation or experimental result is declared unimportant, disconnected or on the verge of being resolved.

What a shame that your darling Carl Sagan, primo cult evolutionist for 30 years, lived a fruitless, non-contributing life since his entire work was just a waste of time in the new evolution team's view.

One problem..  hundreds of biology and life science textbooks, articles, tax payer sponsored projects, tv documentaries,, etc. all concentrating on the continuous process necessity and certainty of big bang to abiogenesis to humanity and all we see.

No little sweety pies we won't let that idiocy go unnoticed by the American populace so don't even dream of putting that intellectual scam over on anyone.

Now about that hydrogen gas to the human brain problem.

See.. if my friend tellme one morning he got to work by jumping from a hot air baloon into the parking lot wearing a parachute.. I would question that, even though possible, knowing there were an infinite number of ways or paths available to him or her.

But if the next day they tell me they jumped from the top of a neighboring mountain with a Superman suit on and glided to the office.... well I would likely get them some medical attention.

Moral:  Just because your team can imagine possible just so stories without a scintilla of evidence to back them up ...  many patently rediculous on their face... does not mean rational people have to accept any of them.

We are just warming to the task so buckle on your helmet kids its going to be a bumpy ride.

Date: 2005/09/06 08:49:37, Link
Author: evopeach

Now that you have firmly established yourself as the resident moron herein, you might note that the M is a constant involving the mass adjusted by the porportionality constant gsubc but since anything beyond long divisiom is over your dense head .. well lets just say you're a mental clown.

Oh and if you're not familiar with units try plugging in say: For a exercise remember the acceleration of gravity is 32.2 ft/sec/sec (3rd grade science) defines what a 1 bl force is.

1 lb force =1 lb mass * 32.2 ft /sec/sec

What goodness Mr Moron poster thinks 1 = 32.2 ?? What a pitiful level of understanding.

Now lets go back to me alias  Mr. Genius and plug in 1/gsubc = 32.2 lbm ft/lb ft sec**2 and what do you know the fundamental equation actually works and gives the correct answer.

Hint: It works the same way in other unit systems.

Please tell me you have some educational credential beyond Jr. Hi.

Date: 2005/09/06 10:56:00, Link
Author: evopeach
Of course you care as your continuing line of BS about F=MA continues, blah blah blah. What you can't abide is my ability to expose your total incompetence and ignorance of the most basic scientific facts.

Weight is the element of force dummy as in lb force and mass is lb mass as I have elucidated in kids language just for you.

Newton is force, Kilogram is mass, acceleration is 9.8 m/sec/sec and our old friend gsubc is ... you guessed it 9.8 kg m/newton sec**2

See then the gravitational force equation works in that system as well.

You might try reading Origin's by Dr. Shapiro before commenting further as that was the subject reference material.

Date: 2005/09/06 11:15:48, Link
Author: evopeach

I rather understand the direct and uncontestable stupidity of your team once you leave the bone cleaning theatre or perhaps move up from dissecting a frog.

Here is an exact quote from GCT in the thread:

5.  SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.  If you think it does, then state your case.

Now is that one of those statements so nuanced and esoteric we can't understand it.

Your distortions, half-truths, Alice In Wonderland just so stories and outright misrepresentations are typical and ample evidence of why the DI and its supporters will indeed get the facts on the table concerning this pseudo science of macroevolution, natural origins in front of the American people.

NOTHING  TO DO WITH ... get it goober brain.

Date: 2005/09/07 05:23:09, Link
Author: evopeach
Yes, I suspect it will be as I demonstrated clearly that your team precisely stated what stated I said they did ... and left with no way out you chose the typical canibalism of that person and assertive dismissal.

I have not stated that SLOT makes the current life processes impossible.. show me where I have.

What is apparent is that the underpinnings of evolution are at odds with SLOT in the origins of life and that all attempts to bridge the enormous chasm between non-life and life, first replicator, step by step development of the cell and on up to the human brain including self awareness of mortality and congnitive thought remain totally unsupported by any proposed evolutionary explanation to date.

There were no energy conversion mechanisms performing metabolism or photosynthesis to permit the energy flow through open constrained far from equlibrium systems that characterize life as we know it to be and to have been.

There is no explanation for self organization and separation of L&D forms of life molecules never not ever in pre-biotic conditions.

The free energy  or alternately entropy directional constraints on just the chemistry is well known to be opposed to self organization once we leave the monomer to biomer activity. This is not even debatable.. its "black letter law".

So is SLOT making life impossible today .. of course not just inexorably moving it all toward death and equilibrium at a pace very much slowed by the complex processes we observe.

My argument from day one is that your own experts say all of the above in their singular moments of honesty.. I give you Dr. Shapiro whose thrust is after exploring all the alternatives ...Although none of the proposals have any remotely convincing evidence or argument, as a scientist I cannot embrace a metaphysical explanation (of origins) but rather await some as yet unknown laws which support a natural explanation.

Yet here I see post after post rehearsing discarded proposals, experiments, hypotheses and such that its as though people have attempted to stop the clock, rewrite history, assert reality of their choosing rather than what is observed.

As I started unless there are more Robert Shapiros and far fewer Dawkins and his ilk herein you will be just another crowd of Phlogistonites grasping to the mast and yelling at people as your ship sinks.

But that may be not all bad.... so stay the course "true believers".

Date: 2005/09/07 07:55:03, Link
Author: evopeach

You're coming late to the game and having 12 hours of  "A" in classical mechanics, statics, dynamics and such I throughly understand Newton's Laws.

The constant of proportionality which in my textbooks and engineering work is always called gsubd can indeed be  one in some systems, though as illustrated previously not in the engineering system.

Of course as I previously stated weight is a force and mass is a derived quantity and a constant classically. In the case of gravity the weight varies with position relative to the dominant body and its mass..

As to SLOT you're position remains untenable as every chemical reaction and physical process which enable your evolution is constrained by SLOT directionally, energetically and in relation to the surroundings.

If slot were not acting living things would essentially operate at near 100% efficiency, not deteriorate and live forever begging accidents and  physical attack..... never be driven inexorably to disorganization, maximum entropy, equilibrium and death.

If you can demonstrate that one chemical or physical reaction in life processes and thus evolution is exempt from SLOT please do so.

The world awaits your solution to the perpetual motion machine or the fountain of youth.

Date: 2005/09/07 08:26:20, Link
Author: evopeach

Please that propaganda is rewriting history and attempting a big CYA because of the enormous flaw in the evolutionary paradigm.

Standard biology books and other natural science texts always have extensive chapters and references to origin of life theories and they are directly linked in one continuous presentation to the way life emerged and evolved.

If the two are divorced why are they so presented and linked .... one might as well have a presentation of basketball rules or any other truly unrelated matter but such is not the case .. always origins, abiogenesis, Urey Miller, Fox, Oparin, et al Prigorine, all devoted to showing that evolution is absolute and predestined etc.

I never said Shapiro was anything other than an evolutionist but an honest one in his total disregard for all theories of life origins to date. Not just inadequate  but rather so impossible as to elicit intellectual distain.

But he has at least admitted to the true state of affairs.. he just expresses his "religious faith" as believing that one day the new laws of nature will be revealed and be explanatory.

See if you can't get life naturally then evolution never existed because it has to have life to operate.

"Elementary my dear Watson... first one eliminates all the impossible explanations and whatever is left must be the truth"

Evolution as currently presented is impossible because it cannot explain its beginnnings nor demonstrate its operation from life to the world we see by its stated but inadequate operative.

When one encounters a prediction with a likelihood on the order of 1/ 10** 1000 or such as Shapiro and other evos have themselves pointed out in every endeavor known to man we should attribute those events happening even once as a suspension of natural law.. a miracle.

This applies not just to the first replicator but to the supposed millions of steps up to the first complex invertebrate of which we have not a whit of explanation, other than worm holes and fairy tales.

Date: 2005/09/07 09:42:23, Link
Author: evopeach
You mischacteized my statement... typical intellectual dishonesty.

1 lb force = 1 lb mass * 32.2 ft/sec/sec was my showing that one must use a constant of proportionality to get equality and correct answers.

That was your incorrect result in engr units.

So we need a gsubc term in the denominator to get correct units and numbers, its that simple.. why does it evade you?  

1 lb f = 1 lbm * 32.2 ft/sec*2/32.2 lbm ft/lbf sec*2

1 lbf = 1 lbf looking good

now in other sytems one can define the force unit such that gsubc becomes unity and dimensionless as with the newton.

Newton's quoted definition in Sears and Zemansky pg 75 clearly says F is proportional to a ...., the equality can only be inserted when the units are defined and included, period.

1 newton= 1 kg* 1 m/sec*2

Date: 2005/09/07 09:56:17, Link
Author: evopeach

I never said I knew Shapiro or claimed he was even an acquaintance... what are you talking about.

If He in his utter discouragement with evolutionary theories or explanations for life wants to appeal to Theosophy and the Occult so called Life Force so be it.

It has no basis in fact, no data, no evidence and is just a man-made mystical philosophy.

I has equal creibility with the entirity of evolution... from hydrogen gas to synapse remember?

Date: 2005/09/07 10:28:09, Link
Author: evopeach
Four elements O,N,C,H are considered essential to all life forms on earth. Certainly c12 or carbon twelve amounts to 98% of all life giving carbon. In fact the only difference between a number of non-organic molecules with the same atoms is the way they are combined and spacially oriented. Which causes one to wonder at what point did life enter in?

System Definition:

A system may be defined as a group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole. Complex will be distinguished from ordered though not mutually exclusive by the presence of sensible information content most commonly in the form of sequences or codes that can be and are readily understood to convey actionable messages or signals.

At the atomic level every living cell depends on a physical combination of the elements C,N,O, H in building molecules and assemblies of molecules to carry out the tasks that define life from non-life.

A living cell is a conjunction of these four elements at the atomic level in many special physical arrangements which make life possible with the addition of properly directed energy and information based codes and sequences.

A living cell is then a system as defined above whose components at the atomistic level are the operative "elements".

Life at the cell level is irreducibly complex because one cannot remove any of the subsystems/elements C,N,O,H where a subsystem is the entire collection of atoms of a particular type and still have a functioning cell capable of meeting the life process of self replication.

In any extant life form from abiogenesis plus one genetic change to life at present there is no substitute atom which can be used instead of any of the four listed and have replication proceed, stay alive whether the C, the N, the O or the H cell component sets comprising a sub-sysytem.

The cell is then irreducibly complex because none of the four may be removed and the cell remain alive and capable of replication. Neither can the cell be accounted for by gradual steps or changes in which any one of the subsystems is absent in a prior state of evolution and alive capable of replication and capable of evolving into a state where all four subsystems are present and functioning in replicative processes.

Evolution is thus falsified by its own definition of same for surely Darwin himself stated that if any complex "entity" should be shown as impossible to arise by small incremental steps by natual selection and mutation his theory would be falsified. Certainly we can define any and all organs and entities of being made of cells and cells of molecules and molecules of atoms. Thus the chosen level of examination and system definition are logically sound in the context of Darwin's statement.

Since the cell is IC and cannot be accounted for by any probable or demonstrable process that is abiogenesis has not ever been demonstrated or made imaginatively probabilistic producing an entity of replication in any sense that would ever give rise to the cell we conclude the cell must have been designed; the cell has been IDed.


Date: 2005/09/08 04:53:43, Link
Author: evopeach
I have tried to protect your waning intellectual credibility by gently nudging you toward a basic understanding of certain elementary scientific laws. But in your evolutionary hypnotic state, self centered egomania and pitiful ignorance it is sigh perhaps impossible. So in the interest of your colleagues and your community  I must expose your stupidity and apparent dishonesty by posting from one of many possible authoritative sources, in this case Michigan State University and their very fine chemical engineering engineering school.


Weight - Weight is the force exerted on an object by gravitational attraction.  The weight of an object can be determined using Newton's second law, as shown below:

W = m . g/gc
Here W represents the weight of the object of mass m, and g represents the acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2 or 32.174 ft/s2).  Based upon this equation, it is easy to see that the weight of a 1 kg mass is 9.81 N, and the weight of 1 lbm is 1 lbf.

Thus the Phd types at MSU confirm absolutely my position and destroy your position in two ways:

gsubc is indeed the term used for porportionality and the units normalization in the equation.

your statement:  "one lb mass  actually weighs 32.2 lbs force" is shown to be utter stupidity and summarily dismissed by the URL material.

Force - Newton's second law of motion states that the force exerted on an object is proportional to the mass of the object times the acceleration produced by the force.  In the SI system of units, the proportionality constant is unity if the applied force is expressed in Newtons, the mass is expressed in kilograms, and the acceleration is expressed in meters per second per second.  In the American Engineering System of units, this proportionality constant is 1/gc.

100% confirmatory of my position and diametrically opposed to yours.... get it moron.

g - The quantity g is the acceleration of gravity.  It has a value of 9.81 m/s2 (32.174 ft/s2) at sea level on Earth.  Its value changes slightly as you change elevation on Earth, and would change dramatically if you were to travel to the moon or to a different planet (for example, g has a value of 5.36 ft/s2 on the moon, and 38.6 ft/s2 on Saturn).

gc - The quantity gc is a constant conversion factor.  Its value does not change as you change locations, it has the same value on the moon as it does on Earth (however 1 lbm will not weigh 1 lbf on the moon).  The quantity gc is best viewed as a conversion factor between two different units for force.

Thats a dagger in you guts you're feeling just now... idiot

Mass - Mass is a simple dimension that describes the quanity of matter in a substance or object.  The units for mass are pound-mass, gram, and kilogram in the American Engineering, CGS, and SI systems of units, respectively

Since this idiot will not apologize, admit his ignorance and persists in calling me a liar while demonstating his incredible stupidity and hubris I urge other hopefully more competent posters to get him off the forum as he is a total embarrassment to the already intellectually vacuous arguments advanced in behalf of evolution.

And you wonder why Phillip Johnson, Behe, Myers, and 400 others publically doubt your theory when its backed up by a team who simply has no grasp of basic scientific laws such as Newton's Laws and SLOT.

A formal apology and a lot of groveling would be in order  for this clown

Date: 2005/09/08 05:10:39, Link
Author: evopeach
To Whom It May Concern:

If you don't like MSU try this from the Univeristy of Texas Petroleum Engineering school.

Although different people look on the force units conversion problem differently, it is perhaps easiest and simplest to consider that we should always write Newton’s Second Law should be written as

F=M*A/gsubc  get it always
where   is a units conversion factor to convert units of mL/t2 to the desired force unit. (i.e.,   it effectively has units of mL/t2F, even though force is not a fundamental unit.)
In English units, there are two units of mass: the slug and the pound-mass (lbm). There are also two units of force: the pound-force (lbf) and the poundal (pdl). If one pound-mass is accelerated in a standard gravity (a=g=32.1740 ft/s2), the resulting force is one pound-force (lbf). This, in fact, is the definition of the pound-mass.
Therefore, for this case, gc=32.1740 lbm•ft/s2•lbf. If mass is in slugs, then gc=1 slug•ft/s2•lbf. If force is in poundals, gc=1 lbm•ft/s2•pdl or 0.0310810 slug•ft/s2•pdl (0.0310810=1/32.1740). Pounds-mass and poundals are sometimes referred to as a fundamental set of units since gc has a numerical value of one. Slugs and pounds-force are also a fundamental set of units.  

Want more its available

Date: 2005/09/08 07:27:25, Link
Author: evopeach
Captain Midnight,

Nice dodge... but no content just vacuous jargon.

I wouldn't come out in the daylight either if I were you.. just keep whistleing past the GRAVEYARD with your phlogistonite brethren.

Date: 2005/09/08 08:01:58, Link
Author: evopeach
The substanceof molecular motors or evolution falsified

Four elements O,N,C,H are considered essential to all life forms on earth. Certainly c12 or carbon twelve amounts to 98% of all life giving carbon. In fact the only difference between a number of non-organic molecules with the same atoms is the way they are combined and spacially oriented. Which causes one to wonder at what point did life enter in?

System Definition:

A system may be defined as a group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole. Complex will be distinguished from ordered though not mutually exclusive by the presence of sensible information content most commonly in the form of sequences or codes that can be and are readily understood to convey actionable messages or signals.

At the atomic level every living cell depends on a physical combination of the elements C,N,O, H in building molecules and assemblies of molecules to carry out the tasks that define life from non-life.

A living cell is a conjunction of these four elements at the atomic level in many special physical arrangements which make life possible with the addition of properly directed energy and information based codes and sequences.

A living cell is then a system as defined above whose components at the atomistic level are the operative "elements".

Life at the cell level is irreducibly complex because one cannot remove any of the subsystems/elements C,N,O,H where a subsystem is the entire collection of atoms of a particular type and still have a functioning cell capable of meeting the life process of self replication.

In any extant life form from abiogenesis plus one genetic change to life at present there is no substitute atom which can be used instead of any of the four listed and have replication proceed, stay alive whether the C, the N, the O or the H cell component sets comprising a sub-sysytem.

The cell is then irreducibly complex because none of the four may be removed and the cell remain alive and capable of replication. Neither can the cell be accounted for by gradual steps or changes in which any one of the subsystems is absent in a prior state of evolution and alive capable of replication and capable of evolving into a state where all four subsystems are present and functioning in replicative processes.

Evolution is thus falsified by its own definition of same for surely Darwin himself stated that if any complex "entity" should be shown as impossible to arise by small incremental steps by natual selection and mutation his theory would be falsified. Certainly we can define any and all organs and entities of being made of cells and cells of molecules and molecules of atoms. Thus the chosen level of examination and system definition are logically sound in the context of Darwin's statement.

Since the cell is IC and cannot be accounted for by any probable or demonstrable process that is abiogenesis has not ever been demonstrated or made imaginatively probabilistic producing an entity of replication in any sense that would ever give rise to the cell we conclude the cell must have been designed; the cell has been IDed.


Date: 2005/09/08 08:59:11, Link
Author: evopeach
Poor baby is your little ego so diminished that you can't rationally defend your stupidity any more in the face of the entire US University level of engineering instruction disagreeing 100% with your diatribes?

I mean when 100 percent of my presentation is true and your's is so uncommonly ignorant it must hurt a lot.. though by now I'll bet you're used to losing in any intellectual discussion.

Did it hurt getting it crammed so unequivacably from recognizably irrefutable sources?

Poll from your big time Nature peer reviewed magazine survey to your population as I had suggested was perfectly in line with 2% in context and about 500% different from your estimates.

Nothing vague about SLOT except you haven't the vaguest understanding of the concepts of thermodynamics , physics, math or... come to think of it is there an area of science you understand?

I know how about we play tic tac toe and see if you can manage a tie.

Oh yeah! I teach introduction to logic online at my colllege and I could get you in free as an act of charity.

Date: 2005/09/08 15:44:53, Link
Author: evopeach
GCT and Midnight

I wondered how long it wold take you two, having lost every debate point to date, to resort to blasphemy; as though I would be surprised.

The ignorant, usually resort to the lowest common denominator in even less time.

Fun after 25 years in this debate I just expect the heathen of your movement to behave just that way .. as ignorant heathen.

Looks like you and the other piglets need some time to lick your wounds and regroup af such a through butt kicking as I have delivered.

As for Shapiro, my supposed enemy, his appeal "The Life Force" just puts in good company with Crick, Hoyle and others who having run the numbers (order 10**-40000) on evolutionary hypotheses turn to the occult, science fiction, cultic religious beliefs and such.

I'm with Patterson and Grasse you know... " tell me just one thing that evolution has claimed that has been  demonstrated to be true... just one"

Imagine spending your entire life on a fruitless quest to prove God doesn't exist... what a laughable waste.

Date: 2005/09/09 04:32:15, Link
Author: evopeach

Thanks for the enlightened, stimulative, mature and clearly well reasoned post.

I always wondered what happened to those kids you grew up breathing the fumes from yellow spray paint.

Now I know.

Of course if you had read The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris ( a Phd who also wrote a few text books used at places like Rice where he also taught, etc.) then we could give you opinion more credibility than the message in a Chinese fortune cookie.

Go home little boy!!!!!!!!!

Date: 2005/09/09 06:52:30, Link
Author: evopeach
Tiny Tim,

In what forum would like me to arrange a debate ay my 100% expense between Dr. Morris and you on geology, hydrology or the correct interpretation of scriptural comment?

Yes turd head I'll pay for it gladly.

Give me the exact textual references to your assertions or stick them up your b___and please stick to the subject which was evidence for a global flood.. red herrings  are logical fallicies.. oops that's you sewer peoples stock in trade.. fallacies and personal attacks.

Go home before you get thumped little boy

Date: 2005/09/14 11:48:38, Link
Author: evopeach
How revealing,

The egomaniacs who make up the evolutionary community are of course primarily interested in demonstrating the superiority of their intellect by whatever means whether friend or foe the name of the game is

I am the master of my fate... blah blah blah

God is a figment of your imagination

Look at me ... I am so smart

I assure you my interest is about the issue at hand and I don't care about having gained anyones approval.

Date: 2005/09/16 10:52:05, Link
Author: evopeach
You make my point exquisitely, evolutionists never argue from substance and logic just personal attacks and diatribes.

If you had read the first paragraph with you may have noticed that I posed the question  since the same atoms arranged chemically and spacially different give rise to quite different molecules just when does life enter into the transformation and how?

There is nothing wrong with defining the atoms of each type of element as sub-systems since the properties that are expressed in chemical bonding do arise from the structure of the bonding atoms and the type of bonding occurring.

The point is the absolute uniqueness of the particular atoms especially carbon that make life as we know and observe it. There is no known life form that is not carbon based.

Further if one considers molecules as the lowest level of componentry in the living cell that is rather arbitrary since the molecules are themselves made of the atoms of the several elements.

When you can present a logical line of reasoning rather than a diatribe of insults  you will perhaps command my attention.

Date: 2005/09/16 11:10:13, Link
Author: evopeach
PLease enlighten me as to a few people in the ID or IC movement who hold that the earth is flat, etc.

Otherwise I might conclude you are just another clown throwing up meaingless red herrings.

Just waht is the LAW of evolution since its never been described as a such before.

Date: 2005/09/20 07:46:01, Link
Author: evopeach
Tim and Shaun et al

For the record I have two engineering degrees which included classes in Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Thermodynamics, 35 hours of advanced physics, twenty hours of advanced math (statistics, information theory, pertubation analysis,OR and SYSTEMS ENGINEERING).

It amazes me that people believe a degree in paleontology (bone polishers), geology (rock hounds) and biology actuall belief themselves in some way to be intellectually superior to other technical discliplines. I took one course in Biology every engineer did it was the easiest way to get some grade points. I would have taken another one but it was always filled up with football players and other jocks trying to do the same.

When confronted with an altogether novel analysis of a problematic issue wirehead one subject morons like this group always resort to emotional diatribes and never to logical argument.

If I were a member of a group who believed that helium gas became the human brain by random processes undirected and unplanned and could not offer a scintilla of demonstrable evidence for such I would be looking for a brain transplant.

Date: 2005/09/20 07:52:21, Link
Author: evopeach
Actually you were shouting nonsense. If you think every one in the ID and IC movement are without scientific credentials then you are totally ignorant and apparently can't even read your own literature.

I suggest a good read of Doubting Darwin might enlighten you to the calliber of people who have grave problems with evolution and particularly mutation and natural selection.

Date: 2005/09/21 10:16:37, Link
Author: evopeach
No line of argument or debate is sustainable and is by definition falsified if it cannot offer a defensible and evidentiary based foundation for its major and minor premises and conclusions.

The Neodarwinian theory based primarily on random mutation and natural selection with some arguable nuances is the universal explanation for life as we see it, life as observed in the recent past and as projected from the fossil record in all its magnificence and complexity.

It does, has and must of course be based on an underlying belief in ultimate origins of space, time and matter and on abiogenesis, life from non-life by natural processes and phenomenon. This is known as the Big Bang, pre-biotic chemical predestination and evolution.

Endless argument about various aspects of the theory dealing with mathmatical probability, fossil record gaps, thermodynamic considerations, information theory... etc. continue.

I see no need to debate these various problematical and sometimes fuzzy sub-topics when one can easily illustrate the falsification of the theory and its complete separation from logic, common sense and scientific credibility by simply observing that its proponents to be logically consistent must accept and defend the proposition that helium gas over billions of years transformed itself through trillions of chaotic and random unguided, undirected and non-purposeful changes, iteration upon iteration, resulting in the human brain, its network of neurons, synapses, nerves and its capabilities of conscious cognitive thought, memory and self awareness.

Anyone who can believe such on blind faith and no demonstrable or historically proclaimed evidence is capable of believing anything, is beyond the reach of logic and philosophically committed to a form of cultism of the most addictive sort.... a kind of intellectual black magic and superstition veiled by abstruce mathmatics.

The American public deserves to be fully cognizant of this rather dangerous intellectual cultism since it is the current propaganda of the pseudointellectual, self-absorbed, left leaning scientific and education communities having great influence over young impressionable minds.

Date: 2005/09/22 04:00:54, Link
Author: evopeach

Gee! I've never replied to a wirehead that openly advertised having sex with horses.

Well evos are a wierd lot.

You people are so ignorant of your own position it is laughable. I hold you in derision actually.

For you and the other bubble brains that responded you might try plugging the chasm that Eric Chaisson at Tufts and that entire organization open,as they:

Insist on the total continuous logical argument of stellar evolution through right now and into the future.. without any doubts.

He happens to have about 100 peer reviewed papers and reviews of well recognized scientists work in the field...
Paul Davies , etc.

While you morons are busy retreating from prebiotic evolution after fifty years of abject failure in explaining such via the logical fallacy of "exclusion of primary contra-evidence"  you have an entire body of suburbly qualified scientists like Chaisson who insist that the entire theory rests on the predicate of big bang to mankind by evolution.

Now if you're not familiar with that theory then you might not have sufficient grey matter to comprehend that if at an early stage the majority matter was helium gas then everything came from that stage.

Now you can't shoot Chaisson, he's too important and powerful to dismiss so what are you do .. meatball.

Oh I know ,more form over substance attacks.

Date: 2005/09/22 04:12:07, Link
Author: evopeach

First I think you meant Carl Sagan not Dawkins but ignorance of your own position is commonplace with your crowd.

What you mean is that someone could spin a just so story totallt fictional without a scintilla of observed or experimentally demonstrated evidence that chemical predestination or some variant is the way it happened.

Of course when one of your team tells us we can't understand the processes at the time of the big bang because all the known laws of math and physics break down at a singularity point.. that's just hunky dory... yet you insist on a detailed explanation of the Creative Processes of God at the beginning of time, space and matter.

Your psychobabble is rather boring.

Date: 2005/09/22 08:48:34, Link
Author: evopeach

Intelligent design or special creation postulates that the creation required the injection of logos, information, cognitive thought, purposeful consciousness from outside the rhealm of time and space by a God or an Intelligent source of immence capabilities.

If that is the case we would be studying the universe from a different perspective:

1) What can one learn from a roulette wheel other than the results are mindless, unpredictable and without purpose.

2) All substantial progess in understanding life at the molecular level has come since the discovery of the DNA molecule and the genetic CODE,, CODE,, CODE.

3 The application of information theory, IT, systematics, systems engineering approaches to problem solving etc. would become and to some degree have become the paradigm for success in biological and related medical research in the last decade and should be the primary paradigm.

Example:  Evolution and pure chemistry gives us chemotherapy ( poison) while information theory and logos gives us Herceptin II ( intelligent drug)for cancer treatments.

4) Don't waste taxpayers dollars on origin of life experiments by the billions trying to prove there is no God, which after 100 years are 100% failures.

5) Don't waste taxpayers dollars on ETSI or anything related to it.

Date: 2005/09/22 09:11:25, Link
Author: evopeach
Once again your posts are just spittle and dribble from an illogical mind.

First the overlap between most so called science degrees and engineering degrees is about 90% in any college catalog you care to examine. For my part I have more math and physics than 95% of the Biology Phd's in the universe.

You might try examining the credentials of Phillip Johnson  ( a lawyer) which according to  Monod and other honest evolutionists has prepared himself to the 99%th percentile in evolutionary principals.

Of course the idea that only specialists in a narrow field can be knowledgeable and have the right to debate comes from the far left union mentality... I'll bet you're a Gore Man... the most counter-productive mentality in the history of the country.

I suppose that guy Da Vinci should have stuck to one area like painting or architecture and not ventured off into those other fields of science .... what a moron.

Now before you grade my paper .. try thinking of a logical statement instead of form over substance and pure newspeak.

Date: 2005/09/22 09:33:55, Link
Author: evopeach

The point is why does anyone care in the context of scientific progress?

All of those issues are curiousity issues and have little or nothing to do with helping people, coping with the human condition, illness, hunger, etc.

I am hard pressed to see how knowing the age of a broken pile of bones helps resolve any real worthwhile problems yet billions have been spent on grants to do just that ... rediculous.

Most medical breakthroughs have come from observing how biology works as it is found right now and then synthesizing a drug or therapy based on such. No one says let's look at all the so called junk DNA sequences, supposedly left over evolutionary useless stuff, to find the cure to diseases... they look at the right now genes and learn from them.

The most authoratative view of the when regarding the injection of logos onto matter is at the time when creation occurred when time, space, matter, energy  and most everything else was created.

Who cares when it was .. it is of no material significance beyond curiousity... just take things as they are, study them empirically and do science that solves real problems that plague humanity.

No I don't think chimps and humans have a common ancestor but what does it matter. Not a whit of real problem solving depends on it.

We have spent 100 years off track wasting money and time and brainpower on useless non-productive efforts to show that the biblical story is false and unscientific and nothing else worthwhile.

Does evolution build better bridges, better air planes, even better food or anything else that depends on mutations being induced  ... I think not.

Radiation therapy is horribly debilitating and most often ineffective.. just a stop over to death.

All those questions may be of curiousity and even interesting but lets not pretend they solve or resolve anything except the desire of man to be the master of his fate not dependent or in recognition of his Creator.

Date: 2005/09/22 10:29:01, Link
Author: evopeach
Unfortunately, I have to correct your erroneous impression of Genesis because there is no statement concerning the actual possibility that the tower would have given the Sinarians an ability to discover God's thoughts or actions... though they might have had such vain imaginings.

If you were to spend say fifteen minutes at the following website you would discover two perspectives on the passage in context:

One by Lambert Dolphin a retired physicist and senior scientist at SRI in Menlo Park and another by a respected theologian and teacher Ray Stedman.

Of course despite their academic credentials in science and the bible you will judge them idiots and morons... but maybe just maybe for once your camp would at least have a modicum of understandng that there is considerable scholarship behind certain positions taken by such and once the cartoon vision of such people is dispensed with one can see a logical point of view.

Date: 2005/09/23 03:59:31, Link
Author: evopeach
Alan and Saddle,

AS I said when you or Sagan or Chaisson can elucidate anything less than a thinly veiled form of mysticism without even a shread of evidence of any kind explaining how helium became the human brain by chance and/or chemical predestination then we have a basis for a rational discussion.

Your ignorance concerning evidence for a global flood is appalling but then I forgot you wouldn't read broadly of other peoples academically based views .. it might prove unsettling to learn you don't have all the answers.

Try "The Genesis Flood" by Dr. Henry Morris for one source. Of course he only has a Phd in Civil Engineering and Geology/Hydrology, wrote the textbook on same for Virginia Poly and taught at Rice Univ for many years etc. But then what would he know compared to two banana heads like you.

As for people who think the bible is a fairy tale it actually helps to have scholars who master the original language to elucidate the most factual understanding.

Again anyone who believes helium is tranformed to the human brain by some form of magic has gall to attack alternate explanations.

Remember your entire theory rests on the efficacy of just that proposition.


Date: 2005/09/27 05:44:22, Link
Author: evopeach
Wow I'll bet the probability of getting RNA to do both functions, to form spontaneously to some minimum length, to spin off DNA as a minor side issue and Trna as well is up from 10**-10000 to say 10**-5000 see its twice as likely LOL LOL !!!

You really ought to get in the real world sometime by reading Origins by Shapiro or Crick or any of the other 100 scientists of renown who walked away from this absolute impossibility a decade ago.

The little green man in the flying saucer or panspermia is a better choice.

And remember heluim gas to the human brain is still out there.

Date: 2005/09/27 06:07:40, Link
Author: evopeach

Which Church of Satanic Worship did you pastor?

As for your obvious multiple psychoses I can only recommend years of intense therapy as you obviously don't have any mental stability jumping from some form of ministry into atheism.

The world of evolution when confronted with abysimal failure in explaining anything experimentally or by evidence has retreated from origins, abiogenesis and pre-biotic evolution for survival.

The most prominent scientist I am aware of is Chaisson at Tufts, an unquestioned scientific giant in the field with a library of publications and books on the subject.
If you think he fails to believes that a cogent and uncompromised holding to big bang to right now as the specturm of evolution then you sir are a moron.

If you can't follow the logic from the big bang to the human brain by reading just that source among hundreds then you are too mentally deficient to be permitted out in public.

You sir are a whore and a shill for the evolutionist sewer people  so I leave it to God to judge between those who hate the Scripture, His revelation and pervert the truth to fit their humanistic self centered egocentrism and people who defend it.

In fact it would be interesting to know who wrote your anathema to truth as what bothers this tribe the most is that they can't logically and persuasively counter my arguments .. so they just attack me and my belief system while committing every logical fallacy known to man.

You need not be ashamed of my faith et al just go back to Pastor Anton and kill a few goats and drink their blood, have sex with some dogs and you'll feel you usual fine self.

Date: 2005/09/27 07:44:53, Link
Author: evopeach
Do not cast pearls before swine lest they turn and rend your flesh.

After 25 years of insults from the evolutionary community against me and anyone else who dares to disagree with sacred evolutionry theory I simply expect pagqans to act like pagans and I have no respect of any kind for them. They have spent their lives attempting to destroy peoples faith in everything religious and Christian by undermining the efficacy of the Scriptures.

Their position is so ludicrous and without foundation that it takes 10,000 people a day monitoring their apostates and redefining terms and reinterptreting the record and monitoring the opposition  just to keep this tub afloat.


Date: 2005/09/27 08:10:55, Link
Author: evopeach
Was this written specifically to describe the phlogiston brothers herein.

Date: 2005/09/27 09:01:57, Link
Author: evopeach
Hyperbole and humor are pretty legitimate methods of argumentation, but you wireheads and squirrels wouldn't recognize either.

On the other hand the point is that Origins author Robert Shapiro has analyzed this "unimportant and unrelated separate and dismissed non-evolutionary area of abiogenesis" from a to z including the dna first, rna first, protein first and as usual has degreed that no matter how you dice it the odds of obtaining even the simplest, crude, least error prone replicator from the "soup" or any other habitat on the early earth requires considerably more time than the age of the earth itself ,(and the solar system for that matter).

Funny how this "unimportant and unrelated separate and dismissed non-evolutionary area of abiogenesis" keeps getting million of grant dollars, papers published, books written and is supported in full by Chaisson at Tufts and many,many others yet not a shred of believable evidence can support it.

I think I'll suggest IDers just be satisfied to have Shapiros book in every biology class for two weeks in every semester and be presented openly. He is a great scientist, researcher, biologist, author and theorist of signifficance. When he concludes that every theory is impossible and we must await new laws of the universe to explain how life came to be.. it will be most enlightening to the students of America.

That should just about pound the last nail in the coffin of Dawinism.

Date: 2005/09/27 11:59:03, Link
Author: evopeach
Yes since that book was published Shapiro has published books bordering on cultic religion such as Life Force joining other discouraged evolutionists Crick and otheres  in psuudo sciences such as panspermia because every rational analysis of origins and abiogenesis is so nearly infinitely impossible it engenders such nonsense.

As for ribozymes they are a form of RNA and only in carefully prepared experiments in a controlled environment under the design and watchcare of scientists was any replication successful and it required guess what an RNA template, hardly the conditions of the prebiotic earth... without a scientist I suspect. Oh and a whopping 14 molecule chain was replicated as I recall... now what does that compare to.....nothing involved in life.

Shapiros work stands the test of time.

I recommend a little read of this web page and a brief review of Chaisson's writings and reputation before you try that revisionist baloney on me about  "little to do with Darwinism".

Your team is stuck with evidenceing "helium gas to the human brain by random processes" and you can count on it being well known.

Date: 2005/09/28 03:37:26, Link
Author: evopeach
Abrax and Saddle

First if you can point out one error in my analysis of Shapiros book that might make your rediculous statement have some congency. The sub-title is "A Skeptics Guide...." Seems like he was intent on laying out the facts with both pro and con expressed .. see thats what is called "Intellectual Honesty".

Lets see I have a library on the subject that has some 20 year old books largely still acurate and written by your preeminent scientists.... and you complain.

Your theory rests on the writings from a 120 year old book by a mentally deranged manic depressive without an earned doctorate, a theological drop-out, no math training, no physics training, pre-molecular biology, pre-atomic theory, pre-genetic code and when protoplasm was the height of the knowledge of the cell.

And you think my reading is out of date... LOL.

Abiogenesis has been an active area for 100 years without a single hint of success and made mathmatically laughable by the best and brightest in your own camp.

Oh! I have a reproduction of Mathmatica Principia also ... should we toss it as well.

Tell me three things you think evolution has predicted that have been proven true experimentally and are without dispute in your own community that depend on a world view excluding the creation of life by an intellegent designer adequate to explain life as we see it with identified ranges of variation in form and feature within kinds.

Get a new bookie who understands that one time special creation affords no cogent calculation of probabilities.

Unlike the trillion step process from helium gas to the human brain where your own camp makes calculations of improbability that stagger the imagination, cannot be appreciated and are beyond the reach of the time since the big bang as in the simplest imaginable replicator in consensus beinging about 10**-50 under the best scenario.

Can't you two do any better than this child's pratter?

Date: 2005/09/28 04:13:02, Link
Author: evopeach
You accuse me of lying without a scintilla of factual presentation just assertions.. laughable.

Your ignornace of Chaisson and Sagan and even Darwin ( remember the warm little pond was his statement on abiogenesis in his book) is pathetic. See to dismiss that makes you a big,big liar and your heros words are undeniable, period.

Chaisson is Director of the Wright Institute a scientific consortium with international reach involving colleagues in every scientific disclipline imaginable and perhaps the foremost guiding agency directing public science education in the country.

Chaissons encyclopedic grasp of the life sciences,physics, math, biology in addition to astophysics is well known and his many national and international awards are testamony to that.

You're just the typical cannibal eating your own when they fail to tow the mark of revisionism.. typical.

Of course your claim of one man's views are laughable since Crick, Grassee, Shapiro, Hubble and many others have spent years trying to make a continuous spectrum of logic from origin of life to right now.. all without success.

Thank God there are people in varied fields of science which have wide ranging knowlwdge and intellects capable of making significant contributions to same rather than the myopic biologists who bluster without foundation.

Biology is one of the narrowest of all fields of study except for the psuedo science of paleontology which of course is so important to the evolution myths.

Shame on you for being such an inverterate liar.. probably congenially.

Heluim to Cerebral Cortex by a random walk ... I'd hate to have that intellectual disconnect as the basis of my world view... pitiful.

Date: 2005/09/28 11:55:57, Link
Author: evopeach
Please, I just reviewed the standard curriculum at a major 4-yr university in Micro Biology:

Highest Math required  Calulus I for Business and Social Humanities

Physics 4 hours of Intro to physics

Chemistry General and Organic  7 hrs

Micro biology and BbIology and Zoology  35 hrs

History Poly Science, English History of Science etc 60 hrs

Arts and Science and Engineering Degrees require in my case math past Diff Eq through Complex Var and Vector Analysis, 30 hrs of physics, Gen Chem and PhyChem, Thermo, Heat Trfr, Fluid Mech, Electrical Science, Electronics, Material Science on and on in additio to the soft stuff.

85 percent of Biology is one narrow focus on plants and animals from a hueristic non mathmatical view.

For a group who have egos that fill the solar system their technical training outside of dissecting frogs is quite elementary.

Date: 2005/09/29 04:39:40, Link
Author: evopeach
Actually the 2% is quite a good figure since it was about 500% closer as shown by the survey I presented from Science magazine than the some 37% your team presented. And if you had any mathmatical training beyond grammer school you would know that the survey had a statistical uncertainty of +- 3% which coincidentally includes my number and theirs.

Your stupidity is illustrative of biologists who think they know it all when they are neophytes outside their limited area of expertise.

If Darwins own words are not part of his theory, written as an absolute precursor to his theory, then why have billions been spend in the last 100 years on the agiogenesis/origin of life investigation by some of the most prominent biologists, all of whom were/are evolutionists.

AS for Chaisson your denigration of his work and saying he is a dedicated evolutionist but not a real one because he is not a biologist is laughable... you are a clown you know. Of course he is an evolutionist from A to Z and thats the point moron. He knows it is a logical disconnect and an intellectually untenable position to attempt to disassociate the origin of life from non-life from the argument.

You people are temporarily trying to revise history until you think you have resolved the origin of life problem and then you will jump in with both feet yelling the final problem has been solved.. God is Dead.

If evolution works only on life then why was Kenyon's book on Chemical Predestination the classic text used in Biology curriculum for a decade? Of course Kenyon himself has long given up on the posssibiity of abiogenesis as a possibility.

Your position:

I have no idea how life was started and it doesn't matter because it had to be naturalistic ... I just assume it happened without a scintilla of evidence to support it and a great deal against it. (And you call that science)

I have no basis for my theory of evolution as to the enabling mechanism of replication, the genetic code, the complex molecules necessary for the simplest imaginable life form on which my theory and its mechanism of random mutation and natural selection could act. I just don't think about that .. I just assume somehow it happened.

My kind of science mostly rests on unproved assumptions without experiemental evidence, in the face of phantasmagorically negative mathmatical probability because once that is assumed I can then extrapolate the assumption to explain the entire natual world and its operations.

I have no problem with a scientific world view whose entire foundation is unproved, undemonstrated, mathmatically impossible and rails against established scientific laws. In fact I embrace it against all odds and vehemently oppose any explanation other than mine which is no explanation at all but just an assumption.

I would rather have any answer than one which was not completely naturalistic.

Now go away wirehead and get at least an elementary understanding of math, science and logic  before you come back for another round of me kicking your butt and publically exposing you as an incompetent moron.

I feel badly at times that I have had to shove your arguments up your nose and so totally disgrace you that you have to whimper and sob and beg for support from your backbenchers.

Date: 2005/09/29 06:14:47, Link
Author: evopeach
I too am bored but only because it is boring to present a silver bullet agrument that is countered by:

We don't have to deal with that. We just DEFINE it as unimportant and unnecessary and not pertinent.

We don't have to have a sound logical basis for our bedrock assumptions, demonstrate efficacy, scientifi experimental results that support our assumptions or question the compatibility of our assumtions with mathmatical reality and known physical laws.

When an entire body of true believers is in a state of dysfunction and denial its simply impossible to carry on an intellectual discussion.

In your case there must be a lot helium in your head than grey matter... is that what you mean by differential rates of evolution.

Time to move on and continue my search for someone in some evo forum who's up to the task of a challenge ... because they're sure not in this preschool forum.

Date: 2005/09/29 07:03:43, Link
Author: evopeach
Hey looky ;looky major disruption to  "established" evolution common decent numer 99,978.

Guess its back to the drawing board for the pseudoscience crowd regarding humans and chimps common ancestor.

I'm sure another fairy tale will quickly take the old one's place.. they always do.

Date: 2005/09/29 09:51:11, Link
Author: evopeach
I suggest history records that spontaneous generation, phlogiston and other theories equally as absurd as evolution have come and gone, not without their Priestleys, but gone just the same, while biblical faith has been sustained and covered the globe for 2,000 years without the slightest sign of being diminished.

In due course the the American people will insist on a broader view of the possible explanations of life and the approach to development of new scientific advances that is most efficient and is forward looking rather than one which expends half its effort examing the past and attemping to destroy the "cult" of Christianity and religious faith in general.

I know the evolutionary tribe of wireheads and squirrels think they have a handle on all knowledge, being so superior to everyone else but history records a noted lack of success from such .. a little while and they are silenced.

You keep right on believing that helium gas became a human brain by "a random walk through animal space" - R. Dawkins............very sound thinking.

As for teh rest of the world if you read widely you would know that Darwinian evolution is even less believed by scientists outside the USA than inside... but that would be over your head.

Date: 2005/09/29 10:03:01, Link
Author: evopeach
Wonder and Midnight,

I see the intellectual content of your replies is up to evolutionist standards...totally void.

Of course my entry referred to and quoted an article in a peer reviewed journal announcing the discovery and its implications for the formerly held explanations of the divergence of chimps and human ancestors, etc. namely the former explanation was ruled out and an entire new explanation has to be developed. As usual the overturning of evolutionary explanations by messy facts in no way diminishes the theory since it can accommodate any occurrence or finding imaginable being completely plastic, having no quantitiative aspects of consequence and being founded upon sky hooks hanging upon nothing.

You kids need to get back to class the buzzer just sounded.

Date: 2005/09/29 10:28:21, Link
Author: evopeach
If one accepts that the universe, solar system, earth itself, its atmosphere, biosphere, chemical makeup etc. preceeded life and I think there is common agreement on that premise; then what life forms could be created except those who had to successfully inhabit a world with an atmosphere and food source common to them all in large part and governed by the same physical laws of gravity, thermodynamics, chemistry, atomic theory etc.

Thus within limited variation a purposeful designer would by necessity and as a consequence of prior creative choices preceeding life have to have common design elements for respiration, energy conversion, metabolism, waste elimination, sensory perception, movement and motion in a gravitational field.

The only other boundaries on such a designer would be his own character and sovereign intentions, that would be sufficient.

Of course one can choose the ultimate in inefficiency, the most unintelligent approach to design ,, but that would be evolution by random mutation and natural selection.

Clearly no one serious about accomplishment in finite time and finite cost ever chose that method.. it simply could never create anything of any modest complexity... we can be sure of that by our use of mathmatical statistics and many have done so.

Date: 2005/09/30 04:43:02, Link
Author: evopeach
Midnight Cowboys

As usual your nonsensical, vacuous responses contain no chain of logic, no critical thinking elements just blather and invective.

I printed off your last half dozen posts and had the prof who  teaches Elements of Critical Thinking at our college read them in context.

He just chuckled and said you two people were just untrained and largely uninformed zealots and I was probably wasting my time trying to discuss things requiring considerable intellect.

I guess I should allow you the opportunity to prove him wrong, so do you have anything with intellectual content to say that supports your theory.

In passing, the article on the huge problem for common decent between chimps and people was taken directly from the various peer reviewed journal abstracts I subscribe to and only published in the last ten days.

Now if you care to address the prior post on common design elements in a logical fashion or better the helium to brain issue ... well its your chance boys .. prove my prof wrong.

Date: 2005/09/30 05:17:39, Link
Author: evopeach
Saddle let me help you. its true I lose my temper with posters who are committed to evolution and not to the faith.

Until age 25 I was just complacent and ignorant of the depth, scholarship, untimate truths and absolute importance of the scriptures for revelation, guidance and practical living in addition to the salvation and evangelical aspects.

Then I began attending a series of studies on Proverbs by Dr. Bruce Waltke Phd in Hebrew and Senitic Studies Harvard Divinity School. After that I spend many hours under similar distinguished teachers and a lot of my personal time.

I made a conscious informed choice to take scripture literally except of course where it clearly and explicitly allegorical, metaphorical etc. and it is my expereince that this is made clear by the scripture itself.

I do not know except the "rich man" anyone who is in #### for sure thats not my decision or I don't have a need to know.

I am curious how one deals with the words of Jesus and continues to be able to have faith and confidence  in His proclamations and His message of atonement and salvation or why one would be an evangelical if He was sometimes truthful and sometimes not.

"As is was in the days of Noah they were marrying and giving in marriage and the flood came and took them all away".

"So as sin entered into the world by one man and by death by sin...."

He talks in many passeages about the reality of eternal punishment as the penalty for rejection of Him and Hiis salvation.

If I had a friend who sometimes told the truth , sometimes lied and misrepresented, was often untruthful I would consider it an irrational position for me to try to guess what to believe and what not to believe and still put my full confidence on matters of life and death in their pronouncements.

I believe against the words of men who are almost always changing, wavering, unsubstantial and motivted by various human fraility and failure no matter how so called smart they are that unless they are consistent with the scriptural revealed truth they will be proven incorrect.

Now will come the spewing of invective but I expect it; its alway from people who have never made a serious and scholarly examination with the input from qualified teachers of the scriptures.

I would appreciate knowing how you reconcile clear and unambiguous teaching with your committment to evolution which is always in opposition to the Word and among its majority true believers belittles and held in derision.

What persentage of the evolutionary community believes in the God of the Bible, the Apostle's Creed, the essential tenets of Biblical faith?

I know why I believe as I do and its not some leap of irrational faith.. its the result of 25 years of scholarly study and instruction by Phd level teachers from prominent universities and my own reading. In the context of these posts I will put my academic training in the broad spectrum of things scientific, mathmatical and technical up against any of these know it all biologists, zoololgists and paleontologists ... I've examined their curricula and its both narrow and lacking in many many of the core classes I have taken.

"The survival of the fittest" isn't exactly a precise mathmatical, quantitative, measurable theoretical statement in the category of E=MC**2 now is it.

Date: 2005/09/30 06:49:13, Link
Author: evopeach
Lisa,  your not a baboon .. they're a lot more intelligent than you are.

Your psychobabble about Jesus is unrelated to my comments and nonsensical.

Now lets see if we can make sense out of the quoted material.

Progress: development or improvement

Empirically Driven Improvement Of Generic Process Models (PDF)
... Empirically Driven Improvement Of. Generic Process Models ... els), and their continuous improvement and evolution. towards prescriptive generic models [9]. Moreover, - 110k - View as html - More from this site - Save - Block
Evolution: Change: Life's Grand Design
... night vision. One improvement at a time. The pathway by which evolution can produce complex structures ... eye. However slight that improvement, as long as it is genuine - 29k - Cached - More from this site - Save - Block

... What is Evolution? Biological evolution consists of change in the hereditary characteristics of groups ... common consequence of natural selection is adaptation, an improvement in the - 101k - View as html - More from this site -

There are about 10,000 references to improvement and evolution on Google. How can a species organism et al be more fit and thus more likely to survive if it not an improvement relative to its prior state within the context of its environment and surroundings.

What does Dawkins mean when he says " an eye that is only able see well enough to detect a blurly preditor and escape extinction is "better" than a sensitive light spot or no eye at all."

As usual the evos have utter confusion over what their theory means, its core definitions and implcations. Is there any tenet of evolution that your camp agrees on ... just one please.

"modified with decent to adapt to their environment" another statement at 100% conflict with any number of statements by leading evolutionists. Evolution has no direction, no purpose, no plan it is the product of random mutation at the genetic level giving rise to totally unplanned changes in the organisms form and function. The environment then is either hostile to or supportive of those changes and the organism is either as a species more reproductively successful or it is made extinct. In no sense does the organism "adapt to the environment" in fact the environment adapts it either to continued life or to death, as a species.

Every extant species is as "fully modern" as we are. Are modern cars, appliances or anything tangible not better or improved in form and function relative to the older outdated versions? Laughable inconsistency.

I dont know one person who thinks we are decended from an extant life form... strawman as usual.

You know I actually feel sorry for you.. so ignorant.. clinging to a pseudoscience that is logically vacuous,, intellectually barren... based on untenable and unproveable gross and rediculously impossible assumptions and fraught with internal inconsistancies  on even the most basic of your tenets.

Were you just too dumb to get a degree in a field requiring extensive study in the hard sciences and took the easy way out?

I mean math goes a little farther than long division.

Of course you never have answered a single point of debate just gibberish and invective.... very impressive ... LOL

Date: 2005/09/30 07:40:25, Link
Author: evopeach
First the post was dierected to Saddle and I await her answer.

There is of course some internal debate as to the six day creation and its a friendly one without rancor and its sometime considered a non-essential among the faithful.

For me to be consistant I except it as literal within my understanding of the meaning of the original language definitions as best understood by respected scholars.

I have no problem with a God who has the capibility to perform such creative acts through processes which have no counterpart in our experience or understanding.. that's one characteristic of God which He actually claims for Himself as part of His character. He has no obligation to share the how or why ... it may well be beyond our ability to even comprehend such abilities with our present limitations.

The issue is that since no one was around to observe His work of creation we are left with His words of description
so you either believe Him or not... that's freedom of choice.

All the evidences against my position assumes a uniformitarian approach to every law of nature and a certain knowledge of initial conditions and/or boundary values mathmatically speaking and we know such is not the case.

People look at the same data and get entirely different views and interpretations because they come to them with a established world view and bias... scientists are not exempt. Thats why there are perfectly respectable scientific types on both sides of the debate whether you people admit it or not.

In fact the real indicator of your weakness is the dogmatic, unrelenting, egocentric, uncompromising attachment to your theory in the face of the most incredulous inconsistencies and conflicting evidences.

Couple that with your vicious personal attacks not just on you opponents but on your own camp members who fail in the slightest to toe the mark; the documented lies and misrepresentations of findings and experimental results, the secretetive and selective presentations of known severe inconsistencies and conflictive findings and the blatant hostility to all things religious, especially Christianity by your primary writers and spokes people and you have all the evidences of "A Theory in Crises".

A little faith is necessary in all world views and that is very much the case with evolution. That is why abiogenesis is not a problem because you trust it will be shown and demonstrated true, resolved, in the future and all the other myriad problems in the theory will as well. That I suggest is a form of religious faith in a naturalistic process that cannot even be adequately illustrated or defined ... essentially unknown.

You may laugh about the helium to human brain argument but it is a logical imperative of your belief system there is no other path of reasoning available to you in the natural view and you are completely aware of that. It is the view of the majority of evolutionists and they choose to hide it because it exposes the tenuousn nature of their position. That alone should make the rationally thinking person question the entireity of the theory, it has no logical underpinnings, it rests on nothing but "thin air".

The very organism you depend on as the first life form had to come from non-life no other choices are acceptable to you... and its chemical precursors were formed from yet simpler arrangements and so back to the majority element after the particle epoch and that was altogether helium gas. So whether you admit it with a degree of "Intellectual Honesty" or stay in denial, that's your inherent position.

What a basis for a belief system... pitiful.

Date: 2005/09/30 08:48:14, Link
Author: evopeach

Omnipetence is just one characteristc among many as with human personality. God is also consistently logical in His actions and would have a plan of action which in this case was the creation sequence from ex nihilo to the 7th day. He pronounced it good as in mature and perfect (prior to corruption and fall) as to operation and completeness. Thus any limitations or boundaries are self imposed so that for instance He cannot act to conflict with any of his characteristics. He cannot make imperfect plans which of His own choosing are flawed as opposed to results of actions permitted under free will which clearly cause enourmous problems and difficulties.

Thus the creation is logically consistent as portrayed and certain design choices naturally have to be consistent and complimentary it is actually a system of minimum complexity, maximum efficiency and remarkable reliability compared to our own creative efforts.

If your chief car designer made one line to burn wood, another coal, another diesel, another gasoline and another plutonium; one with three wheels , another with four, etc. would he be you designer for long.

Wasn't it Einstein who sad the universe is as simple as it can be and not one ounce less complex than it has to be.

Date: 2005/09/30 09:10:54, Link
Author: evopeach
You ask the question and I don't do simplistic soundbites like evos do. I understand logic, critical thinking and rhetoric... you deal with sophistry.

I don't know how old the earth is because as far as I can tell the scriptures are silent on that.. there are several equally efficacious views.

But I would have no problem with the less than 100,000 years argument because the creation was clearly performed so as to be fully functional in an operating state that permitted a high degree of stability, maturity  and thus would easily have been diagnosed as having age consistent with the normal growth to maturity. Adam and Eve weren't babies but rather young adults.

The sun would have the characteristics of temperature, size, field strengths etc. which just balance the needs of the creation on earth. Thus our methods of uniformitarian calculations would estimate greatly exaggerated ages for all sorts of processes.

This has always made perfect sense to me as I understand how sensitive such math is to uniformity and initial conditions as  to answers resulting from their solution.

Do know I'm right? Nope! But I do know the logic is consistent with the Biblical presentation as some interpret it and it is consistent with mathmatics depending on the assumptions.

I choose to take this approach because I choose to agree with the biblical presentation as a matter of faith... not blind faith... reasoned faith.

Date: 2005/09/30 10:59:53, Link
Author: evopeach
When the bible says, "do not eat the sacred raisin cookies"  what am I to do?

I am unaware of that statement but the cardinal rule of interpretation is to do it within the context and by comparison with other passages which relate to the same or similar teachings. There is a historical context and a chronology to scripture in which God declares that He deals with people differently in the old and new testament..,. law vs grace for instance. An entire host of health, diet and behavioral issues were in play in the OT that are disposed with under grace. Some so called commands were declared bythe Jewish leaders apart from revelation and God permitted them to err  "rules of divorcement which Jesus declared God hates but permits only for reason of unfaithfulness".

The bible is unique in the sense that it reports both the greatness and the foolishness of humanity... not all is degreed or ordered.. just permitted.

When the bible gives me two different orders in which God created life, which am I to believe?

It does not but only different views from different perspectives... I do not have my library at work but that argument has been disposed of many times over. Besides do you really think that people and God were so stupid as to make an egregious error in logic within the same small section? Really!

When Jesus said, "If you pray with a love of God in your heart, you can make mountains leap into the sea" does that make him a liar?  Or just make everyone one of the unfaithful?

Neither it makes you a game player. I suggest that is obviously metaphorical for two reasons. No miracle ever recorded in Jesus works was superficial or without purpose and certainly not destructive or for entertainment.

When Genesis 6 says "there were giants in the earth those days"  are they dinosaurs or are they Nephilum like Og?  If they were like Og, where are their bones?

Real giants like Goliath I suggest or like the Watusi whose average height averages almost 7 feet. If we start looking for bones in one local that were limited in number and remembering that they were driven out of the land to an unspecified location and that we have no record of their burial habits etc. that a pretty tall order.

Unlike the fossil record where there should be billions of transitional forms across the millions of extinct and extant species throughout the globe and where there might be 100 highly speculative such fossils available in toto.

When I am told, "do not say to your neighbor let me help you with the speck in your eye when you have a plank in your own" what if I see that plank and speck as sin, does that mean we aren't meant to evangelize?

Evangelize is to tell the Good News of Gods saving grace through Christs life, death, burial and resurrection and NOT to point out peoples faults because we all have them and we all sin. It actually relates to fellow believers and not to an unbeliever. Believers are not to be primarily critics and judges of each others behavior except in extreme and clearly harmful practices.

When I pray, I pray to the Christian God, I was raised Christian.  I can only percieve the nature of God as being that which I had learned in the scriptures.  But when I look at the glaring errors and contradictions in the Bible, I ask myself, does God write books?

I commend you to any number of authors who clearly expose the faulty reasoning of those who find glaring errors Henry Morris, Bruce Waltke and many other scholars. probably has books that answer your concerns. I have seen most of these so called glaring errors and the answer is...... NOT!

There is a growing amount of agreement among Biblical scholars that Genesis and Job are the two oldest books in the Bible, yet nobody would percieve that from its organization.

So what? The four Gospels are not in any particular chronological order, encyclopedias are ordered alphabetically and collectons of poems and short stories by subject matter. In my Bible Genesis is the first book actualyy; however, Job is the oldest book I believe. It is part of the knowlwdge books I suggest Psalms, Proverbs, Eclesiastes and Job perhaps.

EL or Elohim, means "gods" in Hebrew.  WTF?

Yes there is a triune God who is one ... a mystery but stated as such many times in scripture. I fail to see why that bothers anyone.. its actually a comfort.

Date: 2005/09/30 11:40:04, Link
Author: evopeach
To those so inclined the attached is a rather completew treatment of the so called two Genesis creation accounts.

Date: 2005/10/03 03:27:24, Link
Author: evopeach

Is there a point?  Other than it seems to confirm my view that we understand very little about the inferent designed in capabilities of the genome for adaptation based on sensory information. Mutations play an insignificant and mostly harmful role when closely examined.

Date: 2005/10/03 03:43:30, Link
Author: evopeach
Saddle Bred,

If that statement is so laughable to you, take it up with Chris Colby over at talkorigins.

No you quote him as someone you are in agreement with, reference, an appeal to authority, that makes it yours to defend... moron.

I think you need serious psychotherapy, or have yourself hooked up to the Super VII Neural Pathomizer or whatver invention that whackjob L. Ron Hubbard invented.

I hardly think my lifetime as a protestant believer would leads anyone top conclude I an in any way tied to Scientology. Just more illogical claptrap.. you are ptitful you know.

You love to talk about spontaneous generation.  Those creationist scientists responsible for almost all of science (which is true from a certain point of view) also thought eels were spontaneously generated if a horse hair was dropped overboard into the sea.  Then we discovered the Sargasso Sea, and baby eels weren't made by horse hairs anymore.

Never once made mention of that term as you place it historically. Nice try but just another dishonest illogical fallacy on your part.

Just like we found the Sargasso Sea, we found evolution. Suddenly everything made sense, the geologic column,
( doesn't exist any where ; no worldwide non-conformity ever found)

the fossil record,

( the greates t failure and least conformatory of any non-biological evidence)

the large concentrations of marsupials in Austrailia.  If you say continental drift (which AiG supports) isolated the marsupials it makes sense.  If you tell me people departed post-Babel with a koala in one arm and a wallaby in the other, that doesn't.

(rediculous straw man and you know it)

If you tell me insects survived the Noahic Flood by building rafts, that doesn't make sense either.

I didn't but they easily could and its seen all teh time in rivers and local floods; not buildoing but simply catching a ride.

Evolution provides answers that the Bible can't even touch on.  The Bible is a finished work and doesn't change. The Bible's answers are based on truth , evolution on lies and distortions.

There is religion.  There is science.  If your God insists on living only within the margins of science, I see why you want to keep those margins wide.  Furthermore, what kind of geek prints his arguments on the internet to show to his professor?  Get a wife kid.

I have no profs I am an employee and have peers and the prof doesn't read I gave them to him to read.

What kind of weirdo get her jollies watching horses have sex?

You never answered any of my posts... as usual.

Date: 2005/10/03 08:42:50, Link
Author: evopeach
When tallying the data I'd stay away fromm the "bad designer" argument, especially regarding the so called poorly designed mammalian eye.

This months ICR journal contains an analysis of this issue in the context of rebutting the sophmoric analysis of one of you Dover boys, Miller I believe.

By the time the two "superemely qualified" writers fininsh with that goathead he should stick to dissecting frogs for a HS biology class.

Really its pitiful the lack of analytical ability and real in depth knowlwdge in the evo community... laughable.


Date: 2005/10/03 09:20:25, Link
Author: evopeach
Engrs          Biologists

Math                   35 hrs          Biologist/Evolutionist
Chemistry              7
Physics                25
Materials                3
Dynamics               3
Statics                   4
Strength Of Mat's    4
Electrical Science     3
Electronics              3
Classical Mechanics  3
Arcs and Plasmas     3
Thermo Physics        3
Physical Phemistry    4
Biology                    0
Zoology                   0    
Geology                   0    
Palenotology            0
Modern Physics         3
Electrical Circuits      3
Electronics               3

Could the evos fill the blanks as representative to their HARD sciences. Please impress me but remember the cirricula are all on line at various colleges.

Date: 2005/10/04 05:05:37, Link
Author: evopeach

First the  flaws in all those chimp to human comparisons at the molecular level were exposed years ago by Denton's book.

Second a harmful mutation is only harmful if the environment declares it so in the natural selection process. Any mutation that is older than the current populations life time cannot be judged because:

If it were so bad as in harmful why is it still extant and not totally disgarded from the genome after all those eons.

How can you judge whether it is harmful if its not being expressed and you have no idea of the natural selection conditions of the environment at the time the mutation may have occurred... clearly impossible.

If as your theory claims mutations are random copying errors etc. and therefore by definition come from a uniform distribution where any alelle is equally likely to mutate then it is impossible that over time two species would not have similar numbers of mutations good or bad given the design has common elements of operation and construction.

Look if two casinos have a 30,000 side dice game and 28,000 of the numbers are same and they roll 1 million times at each place recording the outcomes each time the true frequencies of each possible outcome has to emerge from both genomic casinos.... it proves not one darn thing except reconfirming the strong law of large numbers .. not exactly a breakthrough.

As for Creationists they have been around a long time before evos and many of them are responsible for major scientific advancements as history records.

The helium gas to human brain is the logical imperative and the only conclusion that can can reach which intellectually honest people like Shapiro, Crick and Hoyle et al admit. Thus comes forth panspermia and Life Force as their explanations. You can run but you can't hide from this embarrassing and unsupportable logical disconnect from reality.

Gasheads like you two are examples of an incomplete process.


Date: 2005/10/04 05:14:52, Link
Author: evopeach

I am convinced you have a firm grasp of biology and such chemistry as relates thereto. My purpose is that in the current arena the more robust and wide spectrum studies of the advanced degreed engineer is more likely to have a realistic grasp of all the science, math, physical laws etc, regarding evolution than the most outspoken, most committed evolutionists. Yet the credentials of engineers are insultingly belittled regarding math, physics, chemistry , thermo, materials in addition to the life science where they ARE the least trained as though thats all that matters.

Thanks for your Intellectual Honesty.

Date: 2005/10/04 05:24:48, Link
Author: evopeach
Just so people know the two Phd's with impeccible scientific credentials wrote in response to an article written by Dr. Miller one of the Evos expert witnesses in the Dover trial and  a proponent of bad design as a primary argument against Intelligent Design... the eye being the one most prominently presented.

And of course to illustrate the decepetion, lies, distortions and misrepresntations of Midnight who lives with his head up his ----.

Please do read the article..... learn something.

Date: 2005/10/04 07:44:11, Link
Author: evopeach
By Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. and Joseph Calkins, M.D.*
* Jerry Bergman is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio. Joseph Calkins is an Ophthalmologist in private practice, formerly Professor of Ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University.

I know its not as impressive as BS in Biology from Fresno State but it will do for this discussion.

They are Phds because an M.D. is considered a Phd. for academic purposes by all acrediting committees in the USA.

As usual no one comments on the gross distortions of the evo poster or the content and logical analysys of the paper.


Date: 2005/10/04 10:30:39, Link
Author: evopeach
Ultimately the ability of anyone including science teachers to present the ID argument will win because the fundamental principle is that of Free Speech and not the separation of church and state. The case of most merit is the Scopes Trial where it was not the separation argument but rather the denial of information and free speech that won the day.

People in America understand that our strength lies in free speech because that is the critical tool that enables the marketplace of ideas to function in the public square.

If the ideas of ID are not meritorius in the eyes of the entirety of the student and adult population it will fade and die quickly, much more quickly than scientific theories which become intellectual protectorates, escounced and enthroned despite their faults and failings for reason of money (grant funding to study origins, for instance: rna first, protein first and enzyme first and dna first and clay first and silicon first, ad finitum); prestiege, tenure and textbook royalties to name a few.

If ID proves meritorius and practical upon application over time it deserves the full and complete attention of the scientific community as a superior explanation of the natural world.

The American people, the wisest and best in all the world, understand these things very well and that (not stupidity , ignorance, and religion) is the reason polls always and forever show that the great majority prefer that alternative explanations of the natrual world be given in science classes, by 2:1 margins.

The American people and their duly elected representatives and the courts are divided here but a strict constructionist supreme court , now an absolute certainty, will certainly take the view that free speech a clear and unmistakable right trumpts the recent and questionable hyperleft separation of state interpretation of the Warren oriented courts.

Maybe not at Dover but soon,very soon the elitest misquided dogmatic majority element of the scientific education community will be humbled by the will of the American people, their common sense, their experience with free speech and the open debate of ideas and on that day the Supreme Court will set the nation on a course to return to just such a preeminently important state of affairs.

There is always an argument against the presentation of alternatives ideas that oppose deeply held views by some powerful and well placed elite minority and they prevail at great expense to the majority in many ways for a while; but, it simply cannot be maintained in the face of the will of the people in our system forever and forever is one more confirmed appointment away.

I wouldn't bet on the next generation being quite so easily brainwashed as the last few have, they are familiar with snobbery, egomania, herding and such and they think quite well for themselves, thank you. All they need is access and a level playing field and they'll figure it out in a New York Minute.

That's why your team is whistleing past the graveyard as we speak... in desperate tones.

Date: 2005/10/04 11:05:26, Link
Author: evopeach

Yes all you want to do is help the poor, ignorant, uneducated, redneck, fundamentalist Evopeach and all those who might take the view of IDers or Creationists or IC to see the true light of the day through the perfected lens of Darwinism. Urp!!!!!!!!

I have seen your teams posts and such for thirty years ,your vicious invective filled personal attacks on people of intellect, decency and conviction based on well reasoned analysis of hard facts. Now is not the time to claim some moral high ground while attempting to  shut the door to the freedom of speech and close down the marketplace of ideas in the interest of grant money, tenure and text book royalties or worse, pure egotism.

I think this quote from the Scopes trial says it all.

The following statement of Dr. E.N. Reinke, Professor of Biology in Vanderbilt University, is repeatedly quoted in briefs of counsel for the defense:

"The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach astronomy without the law of gravitation or physics without assuming the existence of the ether."

Which two of those two referenced theories are no longer valid in their own disclipline and no longer taught as the best explanation of the natural universe being overturned in their entirety.

Date: 2005/10/04 11:12:36, Link
Author: evopeach
I think this quote from the Scopes trial says it all.

The following statement of Dr. E.N. Reinke, Professor of Biology in Vanderbilt University, is repeatedly quoted in briefs of counsel for the defense:

"The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach astronomy without the law of gravitation or physics without assuming the existence of the ether."

Which two of those two referenced theories are no longer valid in their own disclipline and no longer taught as the best explanation of the natural universe being overturned in their entirety

Date: 2005/10/04 11:16:44, Link
Author: evopeach
I think this quote from the Scopes trial says it all.

The following statement of Dr. E.N. Reinke, Professor of Biology in Vanderbilt University, is repeatedly quoted in briefs of counsel for the defense:

"The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach astronomy without the law of gravitation or physics without assuming the existence of the ether."

Which two of those two referenced theories are no longer valid in their own disclipline and no longer taught as the best explanation of the natural universe being overturned in their entirety

Date: 2005/10/05 03:29:21, Link
Author: evopeach
First despite the ID distancing themselves from NEC and holding to a purely unnamed designer in word, text and now under oath, you're paranoia and rediculous illogical fears ( setting up a theocracy.. how stupid can you be)  you now commit another illegality, the assumption that people are guilty of your accusations by some form of mind reading ... that they are conspiritorial liars willing to purjure themselves in print and before the courts without a scintilla of evidence to support your claims.

Your straw men are laughable and clearly fallacious. You mischaracterize ID which alters things only to the extent that life was designed by intelligence and not by chance mutations.. I can honestly say there is nothing to support the idea that any scientist would alter activity of observation, innovation, copying. altering one whit under the alternative approach of assumed original design.

If the American people are so uneducated, ignorant and behind the rest of the world is it God's providence that we are the most developed, generous, wealthy, advanced in science and technology the world has ever seen. Is the puny, starving, begger, backward and obscenely immoral old Europe or moslem mid-east or North Korea or Russia your ideal model for America. Is the 46% of Americans who want ID taught  the minority cult you speak of... laughable.

One thing is for sure, America will reject a technocratic band of wire headed, egomaniacal atheists and agnostics as the representing the official philosophy of our country.

Keep whistleing.. but it won't help,


Date: 2005/10/05 03:41:42, Link
Author: evopeach
Beautiful and Devastating to the Evos

I think this quote from the Scopes trial says it all.

The following statement of Dr. E.N. Reinke, Professor of Biology in Vanderbilt University, is repeatedly quoted in briefs of counsel for the defense:

"The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach astronomy without the law of gravitation or physics without assuming the existence of the ether."

Which two of those two referenced theories are no longer valid in their own discipline and no longer taught as the best explanation of the natural universe being overturned in their entirety.

Watch what happens when this is admitted,


Date: 2005/10/05 03:46:21, Link
Author: evopeach
Beautiful and Devastating to the Evos

I think this quote from the Scopes trial says it all.

The following statement of Dr. E.N. Reinke, Professor of Biology in Vanderbilt University, is repeatedly quoted in briefs of counsel for the defense:

"The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach astronomy without the law of gravitation or physics without assuming the existence of the ether."

Which two of those two referenced theories are no longer valid in their own discipline and no longer taught as the best explanation of the natural universe being overturned in their entirety.

Watch what happens when this is admitted,


Date: 2005/10/05 05:34:13, Link
Author: evopeach

Now that I see you're just another pitiful, jealous, butt head from outside the USA why don't you stay the #### out of our internal affiars and fix your own horrible problems.

Are you a socialist, a communist, a neo-nazi, a facist or some other equally admirable true believer.

Good Bye Sewer Pig

Date: 2005/10/05 07:01:42, Link
Author: evopeach
No you can take it that your arguments are so specious and you have zero credibility and I don't thow pearls to swine.

Now go marry two women, start a brothel, shoot some senior citizens or whatever fun thing turns you on today.

Bye Bye Pig Barf

Date: 2005/10/05 07:40:23, Link
Author: evopeach
Dear Wirehead,

Inheritance is particulate, not blending.

A nonsense statement, void of meaning without a clear definition of terms. Inheritance is by definition the passing of expressed genes through substantial proportions of a populationwhich differ in one or more locations from prior generations. The mixing and shuffling of same in reproduction though surely one at a time results in blending, dominance and dormancy.

Inheritance is not perfect. Changes can and do happen in heritable information.

Yes it is always observed to be less and not more in respect to the bits of information and not to increased complexity and order. ((.9% of the time it leased to dysfunction and death by all measures unless the cause is built in adaptive ability.. an ever growing discovery.

More organisms are produced than can be sustained under prevailing ecological conditions.

So every species has individually and collectively has always decreased in population size including the insect world.   Moronic on the face.

Those heritable variations which correlate with differential survival of organisms tend to have higher proportional representation in the population.

Quiote possibly the dumbest statement yet written.

Differential survival is known by seeing and counting the percentage of those who have survived. The traits that thay have will necessarily be those that assist survival. Those who go extinct wont be counted and won't be around to be examined as to any traits. The distribution of traits in a population can be influenced by chance effects, such as population bottlenecks and sampling from a limited pool of variant.

Fossils are the traces of organisms that were once alive.

Fossil forms show that extinction of species happens.

Amazing a Nobel prize winning idea. LOL

Certain fossils represent organisms common enough, large enough, and distributed in areas where if they were present through the present day could not have been overlooked.

Name a few and so what... if they are so ubiquitious why are there not a jillion transitional forms with the same characteristics instead of perhaps fifty of doubtful efficacy.

Fossils are distributed in a stratigraphic pattern indicating change in fossil assemblages over time.

Except the large number of exceptions which are very well documented.

Fossil assemblages show that mass extinctions have happened at widely different times in the earth's history.

Nearly all are well correlated with rapid burial, alluvial and indicative of hydrologic dposition..period.

The canonical genetic code is consistent with the theory of common descent.  

Short skirts always precede a Republican President shown over the last 75 years.

Patterns of differences in sequences of proteins and heritable information support the idea that these differences have accrued since the time of a last common ancestor.

Except that the possibiity of perfectly synchonized molecular clocks between widely divergent species would have to be maintained over eons.. Rediculous.

Evolutionary interrelationships have been used to advantage in medical research.

Common design amd functionality have been used to advantage in molecular research.

The principles of natural selection have been used to advantage in computational optimization and search.

Meaningless since brainpower and knowhow and design made it happen not chance.

Species have been observed to form, both in the laboratory and in the wild.

A novel symbiotic association has been observed in the laboratory.

And in most bedrooms... so what.

Date: 2005/10/05 07:45:26, Link
Author: evopeach
Civilized has a Z in it.

It must be a word you sewer people are not used to dealing with since it has no place in your culture.

And since when did you Neanderthals start wearing shoes?

Now go away before we cut off your foreign aid and you people starve to death.

Date: 2005/10/05 08:21:04, Link
Author: evopeach
Discovery Institute News
1511 3rd Ave Suite 808 - Seattle, WA 98101 - (206) 292-0401 x107  

85 Scientists Join Together in Urging Court to Protect Academic Freedom and Not Limit Research into Intelligent Design Theory  

By: Staff
Discovery Institute
October 4, 2005  


Harrisburg, PA – Eighty-five scientists have filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial asking the Judge to “affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead” and not limit research into the scientific theory of intelligent design. Not all the signers are proponents of intelligent design, but they do agree “that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge.”

The signers of the brief, identified as “Amici curiae” include such notable scientists as Dr. Philip Skell of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Lyle H. Jensen a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Dr. Russell W. Carlson Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Executive Technical Director, Complex Carbohydrate Research Center at the University of Georgia

Prediction:  These people will be attacked personally in every venue imaginable by the evolutionist pitbulls for the next 20 years as pseudo-cientists, crackpots, fundies, etc.  Intellectual honesty, ethical, moral and logical thought when expressed by an evo scientist is grounds for the death penalty... no grants, no tenure and no publications and probably no job.

Date: 2005/10/05 08:25:20, Link
Author: evopeach

Yes ever since you began posting and it became common knowledge that no member of any extant species would consider having sex with you.

Date: 2005/10/05 12:02:56, Link
Author: evopeach
I just looked up the aid to developing countries as a percenmtage of GNP equivalent and per capita and gross dollars and USA leads in every category for the last 25 years at least. Try it yourself meatball.

Facts please not assertions... you read like an evolutionist.. oh thats right you are one.

Date: 2005/10/06 03:11:25, Link
Author: evopeach
Easy GCT,

Bacteria and virus micro-evolution is a fact everyone excepts... period. That is light years away from macromutation, common decent, abiogenesis and such.. not even mathmatically comparable.

I do criticize so called stellar evolution, cosmology, etc. to teh degree it proclaims evolution.

The life sciences and biology in particular are the most agressive, insulting, insistent and have commandered the education system in every niche possible to proclaim evolution and resist any alternate ideas no matter.

Take Hawkings, certainly an evolutionist but rarely does he go out of his way to insult, belittle and proclaim absolute certainty about his arguments. He was quite curteous when he vivited the Pope for instance.

Date: 2005/10/06 03:21:49, Link
Author: evopeach
So you think the theory of electomagnetic wave propagation in the ether context was part of Newton's law of gravitation.

Yep!  You're as dumb as a post.

Devastating as in the current and recurrent theme from evos that teaching biology et al from an ID point and not evolution is impossible because evolution is proven without a doubt to be the ultimate bioogical thuth yet both of the previous theories from the quote ... similarly used in Scopes have been totally discarded in theoretical science.

Date: 2005/10/06 03:27:53, Link
Author: evopeach

Please remember that the total giving includes ALL forms of charity not just government programs but that given directly from companies, individuals and faith based groups to include the dollar value of volunteered time etc., direct investment in infrastructure, etc.

I would take another look from a non-socialist perspective.

Date: 2005/10/06 03:32:12, Link
Author: evopeach

No but do you know about false comparisons, red herrings, strawmen etc. or is it just bad luck that all of your posts are such fallacies.

And I strongly urge you not to continue teaching those sorts of lies in all of your classes. I do not give you permission to do so.

Date: 2005/10/06 03:41:15, Link
Author: evopeach
The Law of Cause and Effect is pretty well established for most of the population except for evos I guess.

If after the big bang the majority of all matter overwhelmingly was helium and through stellar processes formed the precursor molecules (carbon for instance, the basis of all biological life) for abiogenesis and all that followed then helium is the prenultimate source of the human brain.

Please just read Eric Chaissons web page on epochs and then tell me the piece that says there is no connection between epoch 1,2,3, etc. and 4,5,6,7... the common understanding fopr fifty years is his.

Date: 2005/10/06 05:01:49, Link
Author: evopeach
Zotster = Moron

Please tell me how the design by a team of intelligent engineers and scientists acting from outside of all the matter involved which of itself could never make anything resembling a TV set of any kind, hybridizing their conscious, planned, directed and organized thoughts, talents and experiences with the aid  of a host of tools and devices similarly produced by others bears any remote resemblance to the unplanned, uncaring, undesigned, random process of "random mutation" and natural selection.

Why is it that dunderheads like you can't see that the idea of a designer acting exactly like the above TV designers is entirely consistent with human experience, the only way things are designed and manufactured and never by the evolutionary method which is completely at odds with our own observations and practice is precisely what ID predicts ... as in Man thinks God's thoughts after Him being designed in His image.

How so called intelligent people can propose explanations that are totally at odds with observation, practice, common sense and even their own methods in doing science is purely illogical and irrational.

If concepts and devices and methods  were developed by evolutionary processes fire wouldn't even have been harnessed for cooking and such.

Your head is so far up your ---- you are starving for air.

Date: 2005/10/06 05:16:05, Link
Author: evopeach
Was there by necessity an irreducibly complex living entity at the beginning of life?

Is there anything unneeded in the organism to be alive?

No? Then its irreducably complex and it must be the product of design because by definition any precursor absent that extra was not alive.

Yes? Discard that extra part ... and repeat step one.. absolutely one will reach a state of irreducible complexity

For instance the first replicator or life form would likely have had no extra parts... thus it is irreducibly complex and alive while any previous step is not alive, can
not by evolutionary means reach stage two.

Is was designed.

Date: 2005/10/06 06:12:16, Link
Author: evopeach
What I did not say was to use only foreign aid as the calculus so please review the money given in total from all American sources not just the government allocation.

GDP is a great measure of economic activity for the denominator but the numerator has to include all sources of giving because Americans are the most personally cheritable in the world.... except Al Gore of course.

Date: 2005/10/06 06:19:00, Link
Author: evopeach
Most textbooks I have read estimate bacterial mutation rates as about 1 in every 1000 replications and of those 99% are either neutran or harmful and only 1 in 10,000 is beneficial to the survival of the population. Who knows for sure how many mutations are required to achieve some added invulnerablity to a med.

Date: 2005/10/06 08:00:06, Link
Author: evopeach

The context is the cause effect time history and the logical imperative that demands evos agree or disagree with the entire origins theory and not cherry pick the replicator forward period. Either they have no plausable explanation or they adopt the prevalent one as Chaisson and the community of scientists lay out.

In that case the cause is the predominent element after the big bang helium gas... period.. beyond dispute.

We are not talking about today.

Date: 2005/10/06 12:03:07, Link
Author: evopeach
The debate is that the US is stingy and ranks last in giving... the operative term is U.S. that is the entire citizenry and all gi9ving by all means countable. I never once said only foreign aid from the government.

Carol Adleman's article should suffuce... in fact you can go back another twenty years if you like.

International giving by American citizens, the private sector and nongovernmental groups is an important measure of U.S. foreign assistance and reveals that Americans are generous when it comes to helping others, says Carol Adelman, a specialist in foreign aid and development with the Hudson Institute in Washington.

In terms of official government foreign assistance, “the U.S. gives the most in absolute amounts, more than twice what the second ranked donor, Japan, gives,” said Adelman during a global Internet chat July 27.

But this number does not include substantial private foreign assistance, such as aid that comes from private donations, charities, religious associations and other nonprofit groups.

“Private international giving by Americans is over three and one-half times that of U.S. government foreign assistance,” Adelman told participants in the Internet chat. “When you take into account this U.S. private giving, our foreign assistance far exceeds other countries by any measure.”

A former presidential appointee at the U.S. Agency for International Development in charge of foreign aid programs to Asia, the Middle East and Central and Eastern Europe, Adelman specializes in international development, foreign aid, trade and global health issues. She has estimated that U.S. private international giving to the developing world exceeds $62 billion.

Addressing questions concerning American giving abroad, Adelman called the standard measure of U.S. foreign assistance “outdated” and “flawed.” The standard measure of foreign aid, which ranks the United States last in terms of the percentage of its Gross National Income, grossly underestimates the total amount of U.S. foreign assistance, she said.

Additionally, no standard measure of private foreign assistance exists, making it difficult to calculate a comprehensive total aid figure. To address this shortcoming, Adelman said, the Hudson Institute is developing the “Index of Global Philanthropy,” a new measuring tool to calculate private foreign aid "first from the United States, and hopefully soon from all countries.”

She said that in 2003, at least $7.5 billion worth of overseas aid came from Protestant, Catholic and Jewish organizations in the United States. “We do not have numbers for all religious organizations, and we believe that the $7.5 billion per year is grossly underestimated,” she said. “Our goal is to get these numbers over the coming years.”

Of course if partial truth, defining the terms of the debate and slander is permitted the evos can make their lies standup... but if the actual facts are logically and truthfully presented then evos lose

In this case do all the dollars count or do can you mystically differentiate between one dollar and another as to doing good to hurting people.

I counted all of them regardless of your assertions.

Simple as that.

Date: 2005/10/06 12:13:39, Link
Author: evopeach
Dan If a frog had wings he would not bump his butt on the ground... so what.

There has not been after 100 years of effort by your best people a single demonstration of abiogenesis that remotely resembles the situation you describe and you know it.

Why else has Crick, Hoyle, Morowitz and many many others including Shapiro gave up on abiogenesis years ago and started panspermia and other science fiction.

Date: 2005/10/07 03:18:12, Link
Author: evopeach
The literate and the bookshelves are replete with hundreds of papers and chronicles on the millions spent on origin of life experiments.

Do you consider Kornfield, Crick, Hoyle, Cairne-Smith, Chaisson,Fox, Miller, Prigorine and a plethora of otheres many Noble prize winners for their research in origin of life theories as just run of the mill odd balls?

See this is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty by evos.. rewriting history in the case of abject failure absolutely in the face of empirical and documented facts then having the unmitigated gaul to claim it never happened and to the small degree that it did it was and is unimportant. You people have a disconnect from reality.

Yes abject failure after millions of dollars and 100 years of effort with every mathmatical calculation made by your own camp admitting to near statistical impossibility for the reational world would indicate one is on a worthless, impossible and unmeaningful quest.

I know of no way to falsify any theory like evolution because no result of any kind could ever dissuade evos its so plastic and undefinable circular tautalogical and soft. If events that occur with probabilities that are clearly indicative of impossibilities have zero effect on the theory then its simply a mythology.

Date: 2005/10/07 03:56:02, Link
Author: evopeach

Your ignorance is appalling of your own theory.

The Universe's light-element abundance is another important criterion by which the Big Bang hypothesis is verified. It is now known that the elements observed in the Universe were created in either of two ways. Light elements (namely deuterium, helium, and lithium) were produced in the first few minutes of the Big Bang, while elements heavier than helium are thought to have their origins in the interiors of stars which formed much later in the history of the Universe. Both theory and observation lead astronomers to believe this to be the case.

In fact, it is observed that upwards of 25% the Universe's total matter consists of helium---much greater than predicted by theory! A similar enigma exists for the deuterium. According to stellar theory, deuterium cannot be produced in stellar interiors; actually, deuterium is destroyed inside of stars. Hence, the BBFH hypothesis could not by itself adequately explain the observed abundances of helium and deuterium in the Universe.

The net result of the early nuclear reactions Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is to transform all of the neutrons, along with the necessary protons, into Helium nuclei plus traces of 2H (deuterium), 3He, 7Li, 6Li, 7Be.

gold--were forged in repeating cycles of starbirth and death. And, although stars continue to produce helium, scientists believe that 98% of the helium in the universe today was produced in those first few seconds
    During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons—the building blocks of atoms—formed when photons collided and converted their energy into mass, and the four forces split into their separate identities. The temperature of the universe also cooled during this time, from about 1032 (100 million trillion trillion) degrees to 10 billion degrees. Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium.

So helium was first, 90% formed then prior to hydrogen according to the several incontrovertable sources.

Please tell me one subject you have a basic knowledge of ... just one.

Date: 2005/10/07 04:43:15, Link
Author: evopeach

This is a forum for debate about evolution and alternative theories of life etc.

Did you want to go to a forum on optics, relativity theory, materials science, music or what is it your ignorant gibberish is attempting to communicate.?

Please tell me you're not a member of the "A" team.

Date: 2005/10/07 04:53:21, Link
Author: evopeach
Liar Liar Pants on Fire Midnight,

There is no factual error unless I adopt you definition of aid to developing countries as meaning only those dollars allocated by the feds as foreign aid. That is a convenient socialist U.N. sort of definition to support the view expressed here that we are stingy compared to Denmark.

Of course when direct charitable giving from people and companies is added the US swamps the field and that destroys your argument in toto so you have to resort to evo tricks like defining the terms absolutely to fit your position arbitrarily and then attacking those who don't except it. Just like defining science arbitrarily so no other approach to explanations is judged valid.

You are a liar, a cheat, a deceiver and an arrogant ass and I am not prepared to give any credibility to such people... period.

Date: 2005/10/07 07:23:02, Link
Author: evopeach

Because I have a highly intelligent mind that is schooled in logical, rational and supurb critical thinking skills. Thus I would never make the schoolboyish fallacious error of attacking an entire science branch just because I disagreed on the interpretation of results and opinions in one narrow field. (Illicit major , minor and categorization fallacies).

You see I might say that the poisson distribution is quite good as a fundamental predictor of radio-active decay rates in general; but disagree with the premise that the decay "constant" lambda has remained the same for a billion years, as that is unprovable and there is some bonifide evidence to the contrary.

I might agree with the form and general solution to the differential equations for some phenomenon but not the assumptions on initial conditions or boundary values that determine the final answer in large part.

Finally, I would be amazed if  you conclude that God is bound to creating a universe that had to actually go through a billion year transformation in order to function. Why? Just because the design and operation from creation forward is time bound, uniform,such is no issue at all. It is declared and is common sense that all of creation was working and operational. Based on analysis from a continium perspective everything would appear older than it was. How could it be any other way?

Questions like "Since God is limited to the same physical laws, methods etc. as we are I want to know exactly how He did what He claims to have done in terms that fit the current state of mans knowledge and can be replicated by me in my lab tomorrow morning" are evos stock and trade but are merely examples of their egomaniacal thinking, "If I can't do it God can't either".

God is the ultimate scientist, designer and as such He used precesses and abilities we can neither perform,understand, duplicate or comprehend presently. That's why He's God and you're not.

Date: 2005/10/07 07:29:58, Link
Author: evopeach
Your error is maifold in world view, philosophy, logic, ignorance and egomania.

My conclusions are backed up by the Hudson Institute and simply require that one consider the total dollars given by all Americans both through taxes and personal giving.

Your's is a narrow and inaccurate figure that doen't even consider the facts on the ground reality and actual effects.

Again its just the same old evo illogical mind and intellectual dishonesty we have seen for decades.

Date: 2005/10/07 07:37:30, Link
Author: evopeach
Had a hard time holding a job huh?

Actually, my experience is just a might broader and my education sweeping by comparison.

Bur then that's obvious to anyone reading your sophmoric posts and watching me cram them up your nose continually... and please stop whining its so unbecoming to a grownup.

Date: 2005/10/07 09:15:51, Link
Author: evopeach
The Poisson distribution is a decent predictor of radio active decay activity as in geiger counter clicks etc. for a given lamda or prob per sec of a decay occuring.

N=Nsub0 e**-lamda t/Tsub1/2life  lambe is assumed to be 0.693 over the entire decay period, not necessarily true.

Date: 2005/10/07 09:37:41, Link
Author: evopeach
Here is a good reply you can copy and publish to demonstrate some capacity for honesty.


I understand the context of the debate was my assertion that the US is one of the stingiest nations and peoples among all civilized nations when their support of developing nations is measured by aid to developing nations/GNP.

That of course in socialist countries and most others is 99% of their giving in total while in the USA it is only about 1/4th of the giving according to the Hudson Institute research (and other sources as well).

I agree that if one counts all giving as aid and not assume that unless it comes from the government its not aid and can't really help anyone then you are 100% right and I am 100% wrong.

I guess its true that your post never said let's be incomplete and inaccurate and not include charitable dollars in fact foreign aid was never even mentioned.

I guess if we want  the actual true numbers and have some feel for the actual good that is done in those countries rather than just making the US look bad compared to Denmark and puff up my left leaning socialist ego while championing atheism around the world and denigrating the religious community in the USA so I can continue to claim that atheist evos are morally superior and smarter than USA people of faith... well I suppose I owe you an apology for my intellectual dishonesty and I'll really try to debate from a position of truth telling from this point forward.

It will be difficult since half-truths, omission, misrepresentation, character assination, vitriolic personal attack, vendettas and blackmail are stock in trade for the evo community and such are built-in reactions from years of training and mind control ... but I will try.



Date: 2005/10/07 09:56:34, Link
Author: evopeach
Because I have a highly intelligent mind that is schooled in logical, rational and supurb critical thinking skills.

So, you find it completely logical to throw out evolution and biology because it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible, but not physics, cosmology, etc. that also conflict with your interpretations of the Bible.  Got it.

Never through out biology because 99% of biology has to do with understanding how things work today and how to make use of that knowledge to better life for humanity and for the biological kingdom. It has almost nothing to do with evolution other than the small modest contribution from micro-evolution. Every day more builtin adaptive capacity is being discovered which has nothing to do with evolution but rather original design. Only people whose mission is to deny God, destroy religion, particularly Christianity and the Bible spend their time in macro-evolutionary activites and origin of life activities.

Finally, I would be amazed if  you conclude that God is bound to creating a universe that had to actually go through a billion year transformation in order to function.

This is jibberish.  The universe was functioning from its beginning, regardless of whether it was god who started it or not.  You are making the very unscientific assumption that humans were inevitable products of this universe and a goal, and thus you think it would be ridiculous to have the universe exist for billions of years before the goal of the arrival of humans.  Then, you have the gall to turn around and accuse us of not being scientific.

God created the universe and everything in it and did not declare it finished and good until he created "man".

What fool other than an evolutionist would suppose God would use the least efficient physical method imaginable namely random processes to accomplish anything since there would be no purpose, no meaning and no accomplishment. No scientist or engineer ot thinking person would attempt to accomplish a project by random processes but rather and always by design and planning and direction.

Questions like "Since God is limited to the same physical laws...

Didn't you not too long ago make the argument that god was constrained into making a common design?  I submit that it is YOU who puts limits on god, not I.

Gods character is such that  he cannot disagree with His own attributes so once he made a common design decision He carried it out to remain consistent and true to Himself. He further would not plan to have a billion years of blood and guts , death and destruction just to realize the capstone of His creation .. Man. That is not in any regard the character of the Biblical God. After the fall man has acted in that manner in free will to the horror of all.

Date: 2005/10/07 11:22:18, Link
Author: evopeach
One hundred days ago I started the post on Intellectual Honesty based on the book by Shapiro wherein he showed the utter failure of every theory of how life could have started  and thus made evolution even possible in the first place. Unless one can demonstrate that life started there is no reason to believe the evolutionary story because it has no basis in fact, no underpinnnings... it is just a troubled at best, highly implausible just so story which flies in the face of any approach people in any industry, task or activity take to real accomplishment.. no one would ever use random processes to accomplish their lifes work.

A significant number of people have discovered the absolute fruitlessness of even engaging in this Quixotic venture true enough .. why .. because its already proven to be absolutely barren of  any believable chance of success. So yes there are fewer people engaged in the field because the hordes of the past were utter failures, money for fairy tale adventures is scarce these days.

As to impossibilities you might read Herbert Yockey, Morowitz, Shapiro, Denton, Zuckercandl,Crick,Hoyle,Grasse, Schutzenburger, Eden. Wouse,Monod; but the real problem is you're just committed, no matter what, to your theory.

In statistics any probability that is less likely that 10**-50 will never occur .. its impossible .. I believe mathmaticians and scientists are in agreement there.

Yet the chance of life starting and many aspects of early evolutionary event are far less likely accoring to the authors listed.

At least I attribute my theories to processes that occurred once, never to be repeated and were supernatural in origin and documented as such.

Once that occurs I don't need natural law miracles to understand the universe and its operations like you do.

Date: 2005/10/07 12:05:26, Link
Author: evopeach
I couldn't agree more so we have the choice of believeing either the thoughts , actions, words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth or those of Charles Darwin a man who was known to be a diagnosed manic depressive whose episodes were so severe tha he could not communicate with anyone in his familty or circle of friends for weeks on end.

to Christ,A person who has convinced some billion or more people in two thousand years to commit themselves to His philosophy of selflessness, compassion and humility in return for eternal rewards and relationship with Him.

Or to Darwin whose advocates promote mans centrality in the universe, the denial of eternal matters, deny God as a reality, power, survival of the fittest, claw and tooth and the abolition of the ignorant cult of Christians from any participation in public policy.

I know who I believe and I feel really good about it.

Date: 2005/10/08 04:47:28, Link
Author: evopeach
The RATE project including the work on poloium halos is a four year academic and field project performed by quite qualified Phd Scientists who yes happen to be YECs.

I have not read the technical book or papers in great detail but I understand it to indicate that many of the aging techniques are found wanting.

I believe they have presented the work results to accepted journals and to professional societies.

I suspect they will be belittled, never published, attacked,laughed at and the work will receive zero actual reading and study by evos.

Changes in neutrino flux could affect decay constants and improper assumptions about leaching or a host of other reasons could affect aging results.

This was a four year project with qualified people involved and paid for by private funds not the taxpayers like all evos federal grants.

I am not a genius as my IQ is only 144 and genius I believe is about 160. I am smart enough to know a "Theory in Crisis" for all the right reasons.

Date: 2005/10/08 05:02:16, Link
Author: evopeach
Henry the moron speaks,

An event that is certain to occur will occur. Egads the Genius Henry speaks!!!  Its about on par with the premise of evolution the "the fittest will survive because they are the most fit".

The reason math people and all intelligent people say 10-**50 is an event that will not have occurred over the history of the universe is because the number of possible trials and the rate of trials is insufficient to reach any remote possibility of success in the context of abiogenesis and early stage evolution. Again I won't do your homework the calculations have been donw many times by your own peop[le so read it yourself.

For a 10**50 side unbiased coin the expected number of flips to get the number x is greater than the number of flips performed in 12 billion years... it dubbed as impossible.

If you have an infinite amount of time you might get the chance formation of a so called simple DNA/RNA etc replicator but not in 3 billion years or 12 for that matter.

If you want to base your world view and your lifes work on believeing such... have a party.. just don't claim its a dead certainty and any other explanation is unscientific etc.

Date: 2005/10/08 05:20:41, Link
Author: evopeach
Apparently none of you can read the the posts from the several major university physics profs who take the 100 percent opposite view to your own.

Helium, duterium and lithium were the first to be created and that is the concensus of these people and the entire field.

When you examine the graphs of percentage by weight at that time, Heluim dominates the other two and its real helium not an isotope like duterium and lithium was a trace element at best.

If you want to argue your stupidity with Cal Berkley, Cal Tech and Rice go ahead but to me you have zero credibility compared to the entire world community of physics Phds.

Gosh I can't believe I'm arguing a point that has been universally excepted for three decades with you egomaniac idiots.

I guess your point is that every element in the universe is essentially  hydrogen because they have protons in their nucleus. Lets just rewrite the periodic table so only elements without protons are really elements because the're really all hydrogen in various forms.

Up your's you are the idiots who need to apologize.

Date: 2005/10/08 05:28:23, Link
Author: evopeach
Oh mister holyman of charity riding on the taxpayers back as I supposed.

Go get a banner and wear it.

Date: 2005/10/10 03:17:32, Link
Author: evopeach

If you were to go to DI and read their books and papers I believe they have laid out falsifiable statements in their tenets.

Anyway I gave you one which you chose to attack and bluster about not being evolution and all that illogical crap about orgins not being part of evolution. blah blah blah.

Wonder why the old and revered post evo forum was named by its proponents ORIGINS and Hmmmmmmmm????

If you can't read the literature or follow crystal clear examples.. Writing in two syllable word won't help. Systems, IT and such are making enormous contributions since the genome project first started and biologists sure as he-- didn't start that path.. they went out and found the talent when iot became apparent they were dealing with a real coding, decoding and highly integrated system in the cellular  operations.

Date: 2005/10/10 03:30:43, Link
Author: evopeach

Its a funny thing about courts and ruling s and such. For 200 years people of faith were the cornerstone of public policy in this country and since the liberals , atheists and evos have had their way for while you think its all settled.

Hold on tootsie... we'll see in the next year or so whether George Soros replaces George Washington or not.

Hey!! I'll settle for giving every kid the opportunity to take a one semester class using Michael Denton's book on your "Theory in Crises". Just reading it again for the fourth time and I forget how totally devastating it is for every aspect of your fairy tale ideas. And to think he a biologist and Medical doctor ahould have been the one exposing most vividly the abuse and misuse of Darwin's original thought's and to paper over his misgivings and concerns over the validity of his own claims. He just might have been the only true scientist and intellectually honest evo ever.

Thats it lead a campaign to get your man Denton into every classroom and let the kids sort it out.

Promise me you won't have he or his family destroyed if this works our. Your mafia has beaten this guy enough already.

Date: 2005/10/10 03:42:08, Link
Author: evopeach
Wow Julie,

You have taken every course in evowork known all biased 100% toyour world view and your brain is surely as washed as they get.

Thermodynamics does in deed war againt certain aspects of evolution if some honesty could prevail in your camp.

1) No on claims that flowthrough systems cannot be kept far from equiblrium by continually supplying energy which has been transduced from say the sun's light energy... so long as all the conversion, rectification etc. mechanisms are in place. It turns out such systems/processes are extremely involved and complex as in photosynthesis which was sure as #### not around when life and evolution were started or anything remotely like it.


Date: 2005/10/10 04:18:37, Link
Author: evopeach
Julie continued,

2) Evos have finally figured out the proper definitions of open, closed, isolated and flowthrough systems after three decades so its almost possible to talk to them about thermo.

3) See its still stupidity to make the ever continuing argument from evos that as long as the entropy of the universe gets larger because of star formation or some totally disconnected activity in a galaxy far far away.

4) You might as well tell me that the probability of a beach ball flying up because all the air molecules moved up simultaneously. But its ok because simultaneously a supernove exploded somewhere it all balanced out.

4) Try this pick a rose from your garden, lay in the sun. Now with all that sun energy will it grow and bud and live,or just get hot, wither and be dead as a door nail.


Date: 2005/10/10 04:27:10, Link
Author: evopeach

Caltech huh ! Great, ask them about Dr. Harry Lass who was my stat and info teacher in the late 60's at grad school. I think he was rather legondary having written all of the relativistic correction equations for the venus deep space probes trajectory analysis group.

And you're still wrong mixing then and now in the same sentence. Its just no good Dan you have fallen overboard and can't swim.

Everyone knows that hydrogen is the primary matter now but thats not the discussion. Rehearse please... helium gas to the human brain not protons to the human brain.. helium, lithium and the isotope of hydrogen duterium was first and of those helium was dominent  IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES IDIOT.

The dookey bird meter is peged with your posts Dan... get a life.

Date: 2005/10/10 04:49:15, Link
Author: evopeach

The briefs and transcript from the appeal to the Tennessee Supreme court. So shove it butthead.

Your stupid bat bird example is typical of the red herring strawman approach and is meaningless. Common design does not mean identical design or can't you differentiate between say a volkwagon and a mecedes. Probably think they both decended from a chariot by small incremental design changes.

Macro evolution has never been observed, never will be observed... sort of by definition since it takes a few million years to occur. Speciation as you define it by micromutation is accepted by everyone just attributed to accounts other than purely mutation and natural selection.

The number of transitional fossils is pitiful and arguable in every case where even Darwin said there should be billions to examine.. none. not.. never. That alone should have killed this fairy tale years ago.

And all this time I thought bats were mammals and birds weren't .. you know different in about two jillion ways.

Please tell me you people have someone who can play in the big leagues and not these sophmoric types.

In the meantime may I send you Duane Gish's book "Evolution the Fossils Still Say No"... which will cause you to go sleepless for a week or two as your world falls away to oblivion.

See lies can't live forever even with George Soros, Satan and the ACLU behind them.

Date: 2005/10/10 05:10:32, Link
Author: evopeach
For the record I sort of deal with straightforward honesty rather than the satanically inspired evo approach.

A lot is made of my typing skills and such but that's just a form of circumlocution logically speaking. The fallacy of "Form over Substance" argumentation has been recognized and ridiculed for about 2ooo years .

I know the wirehead mentality demands that form is more important than truth, logic, rationality and critical thinking, but I don't think I'll play that game.


Date: 2005/10/11 10:19:26, Link
Author: evopeach
CGT, First God planned, then He acted in agreement with His plan because otherwise He would be imperfect in His planning and not God, He would therefore in acting sequentially He created using common design elements as man always does for a variety of engineering and "economic" interests that are apparently beyond the grasp of biology types. As to physical laws, since He made them, defined them and put them into operation His creation should and would be consistent with them otherwise they wouldn't work, live etc. ... that's common sense .. something evos don't have or appreciate.

Immutable: Unchangeable, but really do you really think an atheist god-hater has any possible knowlege to pass on about such matters ....please.

Every so called bad design argument has been dealt with by people with more expertise than I no need to rehearse. I have posted a devastating critique of the so called mammalian eye's bad design on this forum... learn to read.

How about that 100% reversal by your evo club on the bird dinosaur lineage... guffaw  ... another icon of forty years down the toilet.

"Thing just aren't adding up for feathered dinosaurs," said lead researcher, avian evolutionist and paleobiologist Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He described the prevailing theory that birds descended from theropods as paleontological "wish-fulfillment" based on "sloppy science."

Date: 2005/10/11 10:38:53, Link
Author: evopeach

If you had certain conclusions, a world view and a life time of study in each of two areas science, technology, engineering (in an integrated sense) and in the Christian faith with rigerous examination of the Bible via the very best scholarship you could gain access to and then for twenty-five years you and your friends and teachers were subjected to constant unending ridicule for your views by people who certainly are smart and talented in their fields but no smarter than the people they ridicule, admitted to no error in their thinking, insisted on their intellectually supremecy always and called you a redneck, snake holder, bible thumper, dolt, etc would that engender sound public debate?

Let's try this for an example since I did not propose it.

"Thing just aren't adding up for feathered dinosaurs," said lead researcher, avian evolutionist and paleobiologist Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He described the prevailing theory that birds descended from theropods as paleontological "wish-fulfillment" based on "sloppy science."

It seems to me that this article and the research behind it is ever so typical of the entireity of evolutionary dogma except that to his credit the contributor is being intellectually honest... that I can admire as with Robert Shapiro. But it is a dramatic reversal of decades of nonsensical teaching which to name one, the ever hated by evos Duane Gish, has analyzed and logically destroyed twenty years ago in two books he wrote on the fossil record. Now it is clear he was absolutely correct ... dinos never had featheres and are not the ancestors of birds.

How can that be trivial... because nothing can dislodge the theory... absolutely nothing.. its as plastic as can be imagined.

I am open to your civility.

Date: 2005/10/11 10:44:21, Link
Author: evopeach
Yes your belief in the mystereous kinetica of beachballs is roughly equivalent to the evos belief that abiogenesis and early evolution occurred without photosynthesis or such by the star formation entropy balance... or was it a very "simple" form of photosynthesis.. like protocells and clay proteins and well you get it.

Date: 2005/10/11 11:18:52, Link
Author: evopeach

Suppose you said I am in charge of designing all of the classes and training for the student population on the Theory of Intercontinental air travel from which all aeronautics and related activities will preceed.

The you said I just flew in from New York to LA using my new improved non-melting Icarus wings.


The you said actually I hopped from rock tower to rock tower in incremental steps and the towers were only six feet apart. The I went out and looked and couldn't find any rock towers that were closer than 50000 feet apart.

Then you said all of the intermediate rock towers were destroyed by vicious space pumas since your trip.


Finally you claimed to have flown in from New York on a jet designed by a team of engineers imposing their intellect and their conscious plans onto inanimate matter to develop a plane, etc.

I looked over the blue prints, the flight simulation studies, the dynamic similitude wind tunnel test results, the flight test recordings and concluded that it was indeed possible and consistent with all human experience to design, plan, test and activate complex pieces of equipment using the intelligent design model since every act of progress ever made by mankind had been done exactly and precisely that way.

Suddenly the great team of scientists from the diceo rouletteo school of chaotic random results academy arrived and immediately tore your scientifice credentails deploma into shreds, branded yoiu a traitor to chaos and took your application for tenure and put it next to the latrine.

Well I think its clear enough.....

Yes a theory which cannot demonstrate the plausibility of its underlying logical imperative does not deserve to be considered as more than a just so fairy tale with more holes in it than Clyde Barrow.

AS to more time their not creationist numbers the're numbers by evos such as Rhapiro, Fox, Miller, Hoyle, Morowitz and a whole raft of others.

As to distribution I would imagine at the most basic level a uniform equilikely assumption is being made since the entire random mutation theory on point mutations in a string of possible mutable sites is just

Nice try but no bananas

Date: 2005/10/11 11:27:09, Link
Author: evopeach
Saddle I read the entire article and if you can point out any comfort to the dino to bird people in there you are a magician.

Again a careful analysis as Gish did years ago renders this scale to feather theory and proavis and such as laughable.. I mean I can't keep a straight face when reading this crap. And its all hypothetical .. there is no fossil evidence of the little critter or any transitional forms to support one line of it.. all a fairy tale.

It could be true but there is no evidence to support it not one iota its just a story that fits preconceived opinion... even Darwin admitted that.

Date: 2005/10/11 11:37:47, Link
Author: evopeach
See more civility really great. If all theories were constantly permitted to take liberties such as evolution does progress would grind to a halt.

1) Macro evolution is assumed and never demonstrated because its impossible to do so ... but that's solid science.

2) There are no or pitifully few transitional forms where even Darwin said there would be billions .. just time to find them was required... never ever found  period. But its ok we'll find them someday.

3) Every conflict no matter how impactful is accommodated and not taken as a fault or a possible line of falsification.. why.. because evolution is a proven fact beyond dispute.. no matter what.  That is not science.

4) Evolution demands life from non-life by chance ... but cannot demonstrate it,,, cannot even make it plausible and now denies its a logical imperative... thats not science.

Date: 2005/10/11 11:49:55, Link
Author: evopeach
Dear COG,

The same sources say that the entire current theory illustrates that since helium is not.. not.. not being produced in stars or anywhere else today all of it was made at the very beginning  as I have quoted them.

So every element is composed of hydrogen atoms and not really an element.. plus electrons and nutrons of course. What a moron.

Lets take hydrogen and helium both if you wish ... does that make it easier for you to tell me how they became a human brain... ready.. set... go!!

Oppos I forgot all of this is your circumlocution of the impossibility of explaining the abiogenesis underpinning logical imperative of your argument.


Date: 2005/10/12 04:24:57, Link
Author: evopeach

In chemistry and biochemistry, the term proton may refer to the hydrogen ion, H+. In this context, a proton donor is an acid and a proton acceptor a base (see acid-base reaction theories).


The NUCLEUS of the most common isotope of the hydrogen atom is a single proton. (Got that.. just the nucleus not the entire atom.)

Hydrogen is the simplest atom (one proton and one electron), but is still an extremely rich topic for study.

According to the Big Bang model of the early development of the Universe, the vast majority of helium was formed in the first three minutes after the Big Bang. Its widespread abundance is seen as part of the evidence that supports this theory.


The nucleus of the hydrogen atom is not the entire atom it has one of those things called an electron.

The proton is the entire neucleus for hydrogen and has a charge of plus one.  That's why its called an ion with a plus one charge.That is what was created first the elementary particle as in proton from quarks and such. But the proton is not the atom and not the element.

Helium on the other hand was formed as a complete atom with all its electrons and everything from elementary particles which of course includes electrons, protons and nutrons. Two protons, two nutrons (electrically neutral) and two electrons, atomic mass of four.

Now since you don't understand the difference between an atom and its constituent parts, think an ion is always the entire atom, think hydrogen nuclei/protons are complete atoms it is evident that as usual you cannot have an elementary grasp of yet another fundamental scientific topic.

On my part I agree that perhaps ).01% of the helium around was created after the big bang from radioactive decay and from stellar nuclear reactions.

Given the above crystal clear definitions I am obviously 99.9999% correct and your team is 0.0001% correct.

I never said helium was the most abundant element in the universe presently.. period.

Now once more show or refer me to the detailed theory and scientific experimental results that confirm how helium (and hydrogen if you wish) became the human brain. Because that is exactly and precisely what you believe if you believe in evolution.. it is a logical imperative.

Anyone here play rocks, scissors and paper ... I'm trying to find something you might beat me at .. by luck.

Date: 2005/10/12 04:46:18, Link
Author: evopeach

No your arguments, all of them, are destroyed by my posts and you change your arguments like every good evo.

You say I came from New York but all I see is you at LAX. You want me to assume you came from New York but you have no ticket that says you were ever in New York, you have no evidence of transitional intermediate stop over cities ( like a Chicago or Atlanta or Dallas piece of memorabilia .. not a pennent or a coke cup.),
you have no luggage with NYC tags or any other evidence.

You draw a map of the USA showing every possible air route from NYC to LA and state that because there are such it proves you took one of them. Most of them land in the gulf of Mexico or Lake Micigan, crash in the desert , etc. but one of them actually makes it to LA though the flight distance exceeds the world supply of jet fuel by 2,000,000 percent since it requires each stop to spin a wheel and randomly go to the indicated city.

You call over five of your compatriots and ask them to tell you about how you all flew together from NYC to LA but they have zero evidence as well.. even though they firmly believe your story.

The logic you propose is that since you flew from NY to LA you obiously were in NYC and thus I am to assume that you were in NYC and even though there is no evidence you ever were in NYC I am to accept that you were and that it doesn't matter how you got there whether from a space ship, a meteor, created there or what.

Actually the possibility your story is correct is much much more likely than the evo story.

Date: 2005/10/12 05:00:05, Link
Author: evopeach
Four hundred scientists and a whole lot more that are intimidated by the hords herein and their memtors agree with me that mutations and natural selection are inadequate to explain the life we observe.. period.

As to transitional fossils whether dinos to birds or land mammals to whales are never ilustrated in the fossil record by a series of clear unmistakable fossils showing the incredible multiple changes required.

The dino to bird theory is as dead as is possible to imagine and thats just a fact.

When you morons refer to papers writtne by other brainwashed evos without one whit of math, fossil evidence, chemical evidence, experimentally varifiable date etc. that doesn't prove one darn thing just more malarkey and BS without a scintilla of factual evidence.

Give me a hundred just so stories.. they are not science.. just fairy tales.

You will never get it... macroevolution, common descent and abiogenesis will never be science because it cannot be demonstrated, repeated in the laboratory, is mathmatically inconsistent with statistical possibilities and all of the fossil evidence is mounted against it.. period.

You cannot show me any undisputed evidence that any of the above is wrong which is is other than a fairy tale.

Date: 2005/10/12 05:08:22, Link
Author: evopeach

Gee then with all those billions of MA's for every one of the billion species there should be 10**18 transitional fossils clearly illlustrating all the nearly continuous changes say from a land mamal to a whale or from the first replicator to the jelly fish.

I would imagine you would like any any any fossil in the period from abiogenesis to the pre-cambrian somewhere close to an invertbrate since there are absolutely none.


Date: 2005/10/12 08:49:52, Link
Author: evopeach

I've had experience with these guys who claim to show solid evidence of transitional fossils, common decent, macro evolution, abiogenesis and supposed answers to the myriad of extraordinary mathmatical calculations that have been done in great detail by more evos than by IDers or YEC.

1) I can read books like Duane Gish Phd in Microbiology two books in fact on all the so called transitional fossil record, macro evolution, etc. and also Mike Denton's book, same sort of background and an MD as well.

2) I can read Shapiro, Hoyle,Crick and all the others who having exhausted all possibility of explaining abiogenesis, which if it did not occur means evolution did not happen period in the sense you present it,  now ascribe to science fiction and cultic religious paradigms... that's desperation.

I have no more time to waste with this group of brainwashed true believers.

Date: 2005/10/13 04:05:55, Link
Author: evopeach
Fishy Fred,

I never said 400 scientists don't believe in evolution. Rather there are 400 who publically state they do not accept neo-Darwinian theory of muation and selection as an acceptable explanation of the life we observe. And that does not include any members of the American Scientific Affiliation or the very large body of Creationists. Anyway any person skilled in critical thinking knows that Conclusions from Popularity is a severe logical fallacy. (I can give you references if you like)

As to language there are a number of good books written by people with credentials comparable to anyone on this forum who make very convincing arguments based on the very same data and findings that are readily understandable by college degreed people. They just reply on hard nosed facts instead of dashed lines, plaster of paris and pseudo science approaches to math, statistics, thermo, pchem and such hard sciences.

Denton, Meyers, Yockey,Gish, Wilder-Smith and many others write rather clearly and accurately and are well documented.

I even recall one of my mentors Dr. Harry Lass was able to make a rather unique contribution to GR with an article on the Twin Paradox using math no more complicated than Calculus.

You see some sciences do not need linguistic obfuscation to hide the weaknesses of their theory.

Date: 2005/10/13 04:28:56, Link
Author: evopeach
Pne more time for Eric and Julie who apparently can't read. I never, never implied that Helium was the abundant element in the universe except for the first moments in the BB theory and that is a matter of accepted theory unless you are one of the attendant idiots who believe that a proton is the same thing as a hydroden atom because electrons are not part of atoms and are actually illusory non-existant and unimportant particles.

If you do subscribe to the rather well established idea that electrons are necessary patrsd of atoms and not just the nucleus then you will read the several references or any reputable physics site on the BB and note that Helium was created as an ATOM not just an elementary particle and it preceeded atomic hydrogen (not just the nucleus proton). Hydrogen existed only as the isotope duterium and according to the same papers in lesser amounts than Helium. Lithium was a trace element.

Now very shortly after the "first few minutes" hydrogen atoms in toto were formed in enourmous quantity and still comprise 70% plus of all matter today.

If you can show me where I sais helium was the major constituent of the universe to day I will recant that , but you never will be able to do so.. period.

Electrons are part of the atom ... try to remember that fact.

As to brainwashing the engineers are brainwashed on real practical implementable knowledge and how the real world actually works. We spend very little time disproving the existence the God, polishing three teeth to prove an ape could walk upright or that life came from clay gumbies.

The most closeminded people in the universe are evos because they refuse to permit the public to clearly see their flaws or even hear alternative explanations of life.

You surely are the most vicious and intellectually dishonest clan in the rhealm of science.

Of course youy missed the point entirely on the plant. It is not the understanding of how a plant thrives it is rather the understanding how such could evolve from non-life without all the complexities in place to harness the suns energy, etc.

Date: 2005/10/13 07:48:06, Link
Author: evopeach
To all of you true believers: The 400 scientists who plus many  more IDers and Creationists are not all idiots, incompetents publicly reounce neo-darwinina evolutionary mecnanisma period.. There is a body of literature from Denton to present day written by credible people who dispute macroevolution very credibly.

I aways thught science was experimentally based and evidentiary in nature. Yet by definition nothing in abiogenesis is repeatable, nothing in the common decent theory is experimentally reproducable and macroevolution has never been observed because by definition it takes eons to occur.

Evolution other than micro which is usually trivial and increasingly explanable by built-in adaptive genetic machinery (turns out so-called junk DNA, leftovers from evolution, is actually in many cases useful and active and important), micro RNA, etc. Evolution fits none of the historic criteria for real science.

It is "Science by Inference" not by objective evidence.

Date: 2005/10/13 08:52:54, Link
Author: evopeach
When you talk about hydrogen being formed first you equate hydrogen nuclei minus the electron ie a proton with hydrogen, the actual atom.

When I talk about helium I am talking about the actual element fromed by the fusion of two protons and and two electrons... first.

The point is that Helium and Hydrogenwere certainly 99.99% of all matter very early on so that all life including us... our brain .... came from them.

Now with all that material to work from it should be a snap to lay out the steps to the brain... let me know when you're up to the inert gas to the first replicator demonstration in the lab showing that part of the evolutionary journey.

I'm waiting.

Date: 2005/10/13 09:04:59, Link
Author: evopeach
As to the list of neo-darwinian rejectionists its posted so I'll let you practice counting yourself. And I suggest you stop parading around the idea that only biologists are real scientists. You may alienate the paleo bone polishers, zoologists, physicists, astronomers... etc.

Unlike evos, IDers and IC people never say we know we're 100% right and everone else is a redneck, uneducated, bible thumping, illterate cult group.

Neither do they insist on suppression of alternate explanations or paradigms in science, the persecution of people who disagree with them, the denial of work tenure etc. for opposing or even questioning the evo principles.

Its really quite obvious that the suppression of new ideas that might call into question the theory of evolution and the censorship of associated textbooks  is a very common practice in the evo camp and that open debate in the marketplace of ideas, schools in particular, is very much feared indeed. I wonder why?

Date: 2005/10/13 09:16:15, Link
Author: evopeach

This reference states the fact that plate tectonic movements and speeds and tension forces have been measured and the theory varified by these direct measurements currently and thus have no counterpart with unmeasureable macroevolution for instance.

Who says I believe in them any more than macroevolution, common decent etc. they're just discussed because they are the logical imperative for neo-darwian jibberish and point out the fact that there is no logical underpinning for your theory period.

Date: 2005/10/13 09:22:13, Link
Author: evopeach
Argue with Chaisson. And I never said electrons fused I said it requires the fusion of two protons and also two electrons to make a heluim atom. Atom is the operative word. You read like you think.. jumbled and biased to see what you want to see... not reality.

Anyway moron I'm waiting on the step by step process from hydrogen and helium (more material to work with to help you explain the process) to the human brain. Start with just getting to the first replicator for a warmup.

Tick Tock Tick Tock

Date: 2005/10/13 09:29:39, Link
Author: evopeach
You mean  "an effort to gain". See I understood you exactly but I wanted to mimic the evo form over substance trivia for you.

I would be very satisfied with one six week session where the Michael Denton book "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" was objectively presented without a wisper of religion brought into the discussion. It after all was the watershed event that brought the ID vd ND evolution to the forefront originally. He is an evo, not an IDer or a YEC so that can't be the problem.

Date: 2005/10/13 11:49:18, Link
Author: evopeach
Aything that has zero empirical, repeatable, demonstrable evidentialry capability is mopdern mythology and does not meet scientific credibility. In addition it is founded on a wild unwarranted, unsubstantitated basis of abiogenesis which is mathmatically indistinguishable from impossibility.

Tectonics has been measured, it is known to be going on now, it is measureable and demonstratble now , it can be simulated in a primal sense now, it passes the test for scientific investigation. The tools of the trade are seismic, accelerometry, presure sensors etc. not bone fragments and teeth or unsettled assumptions.

Your logic is based on purposed ignorance.

Date: 2005/10/13 12:10:22, Link
Author: evopeach
You have a theory that begins with an undefinable quantummechanical quiff popping event 15 billion years ago or so that resulted in a certain state of the "infinite universes possible" wave function being this one through a big bang event that resulted in at some point hydrogen becoming the predominent element in the universe and from there the other elements formed that make up life.

Thus under your assumption hydrogen became the human brain of course along with the other life molecules through a process of chemical predestination?; happenstance, directed happenstance, mutation and natural selection.

Just do the part from the earths formation to the first replicator, demonstrate it in the lab under primoidal conditions using some random process of molecular interaction and see if we get anything interesting.

Tic Tock Tic Tock Tic Tock

And you call that science... once upon a time a big boom made howdy doody

Date: 2005/10/14 03:47:06, Link
Author: evopeach
Since the Herd mentality characterizes this group of true believers I'll just respond to the Herd.

Of course you can make up several just so stories about any and every aspect of evolution.. thats the entire theory beyond modest changes within kinds called microevolution.

People make up stories that could have happened all the time but in life their called fiction because although plausible they never happened.

People make up stories that at broad brush seem plausible but upon examination turn out to be "cold fusion" , thats abiogenesis for 100 years of fraud and failure.

People make up stories they want people to believe to sell books but upon close examination of the facts are nothing more than fairy tales.. thats general evolution.

See just so stories are just that until they are observed, tested experimentally, reviewed, repeated by independent groups successfully etc. then you have a believable theory.

Evolution beyond micro-evolution has never accomplished any of the above.

Thats not science thats conjecture and mythology.

And there are no wild statements about abiogenesis because it is a totally unproven concept.. can't even make a mathmatically believable hypothesis of it.

Tick Toc Tic Toc

Date: 2005/10/14 04:11:14, Link
Author: evopeach

Urey and Miller are quite familiar as one of the many totally discredited origin of life experimenters like Fox whom I believe has noe gone over to the spacecraft crowd or perhaps the everpopular life force cult.

See wrong, atmosphereics, cold traps, sludge and a totaslly recemic mixture of left and right handed amino acids totally useless and unrelated to any possibility of connectedness to some pathway to life was their result though dishonest pseudo intellectuals like this crowd still try to pass it off as some meaningful result.

There are no meaningful results in the field thats why you people try to remove the problem by defining it as not important and such BS.

Date: 2005/10/14 04:28:38, Link
Author: evopeach
No charge of fraud just the observation that your theory is believed because you want to believe it as part of your world view, your credentials and career are totally dependent on your devotion to it, for many their tenure and taxpayer subsidized grant money depends on it, being published depends on it... etc.

Creationism is in the same boat as evolution regarding origins except they say very clearly that regarding origins their statements are not scientifically varifiable. IDers do not make any statement regarding any particular religious explanation period other than the Designer of life is an entity and not a random process.

Date: 2005/10/14 05:07:15, Link
Author: evopeach

Jerry Coyne isn't he one of those brothers that makes independent movies?  His article in New Republic must be really embarrassing to your clan.

Are Doctors men of scientific training?

Oh and here's the link to the 400 people.

Evolution is a multidisciplinary field and all of those you mentioned are integral to its promulgation. If all science were left up to biologists nothing would happen in science that required math beyond long division, physics beyond f=ma/gsubc, chemistry beyond h20 etc., e=ir should I continue.

If I should ever have trouble telling an oak tree from a cactus, I'll call you right away, however.

Date: 2005/10/14 05:20:12, Link
Author: evopeach
Because evolution is not intellectually honest, is hostile to all other explanations, wastes time, talent and taxpayer resources on useless work driven by the atheists desire to prove God doesn't exist and has no possible useful outcome.

Creation and ID simply take the world as it is, assume it was designed, analyze it from that perspective not worrying about 15 billion years ago but rather about how to learn from the beauty and intricacy of the design, mimic it, fix it where broken and generally search out methods and techniques for using the knowledge to benefit mankind and the entire ecosystem.

Because creation and ID are srtaight forward and truthful in their claims and presentations and any reading of them affirms same.

There is a well respected, scholarly, multidisciplinary and quite accepted book of knowledge that supports my belief, the Bible. Though of course not a book of science per se I have no problem with its explanations of irigins though again they are not scientific.

ID id not creationism period and even Henry Morris says it plain and clear... they have no relationship in their repsective work.

Date: 2005/10/14 06:10:00, Link
Author: evopeach
The bible has withstood 2000 years of criticism and scholarly examination and its still the most owned and read book in the world and followed by many, many millions of people as the central guide to their way of life.

Equating Darwin and Dawkins writing with scripture is laughable in terms of impact on human life and authority.

ID and Creation beliefs are not hostile to good science and many IDers and Creationists work effectively in many scientific discliplines that may very well result in drugs, etc. that benefit people. NOt because of ID necessarily but because origins and fossils and such contribute nothing to their work nor to most work in the fields of science in the context of science that actually benefits mankind directly.

Contrary to the rantings herein teaching the debate would have no practical adverse effect on beneficial science and certainly not on the progress of the students.

Maybe should be renamed talk.afterlifestarted since abiogenesis is not important or necessary to evos theories.

Date: 2005/10/14 08:19:51, Link
Author: evopeach

I have graciously consented to let the otherewise depressed and intellectually lightfooted evos excel in typing, spellchecker, grammar lexicon and carying pi out to 13 places rather than my usual 4. This is in keeping with their nitpicking, wireheaded mental apparatus. Thus they will have something to preen their scales ,I mean feathers, about.

Actually animals use biomass through the intricate digestive sequences to obtain the energetic calories they require for life. Of course most of that biomass is in turn dependent on plants or other animals that in turn depend on plantlife. So it turns out photosynthesis is quite important to life in general. Is this a new concept to your team?

Am I becoming the pedagog for the biologists as well here... I must talk to my CPA about in kind contributions for tax purposes considering the hours of education I have given to evos this year.

I must remind them someday of the fallacy of form over substance... but them what would they have left to say.

Date: 2005/10/14 08:33:20, Link
Author: evopeach
Actually I have never taken a technical or scientific subject where the Bible was a textbook. The Bible is not a book of science primarily but where history impinges on science by necessity I suggest it is as well supported as general evolution. It simply does not speak to 99% of science period.

I do not agree that IDers and YECs theories have no impact on the results of thier work in science.

1) I have outlined elsewhere the impact of using the tols normally associated with systems design, analysis, debugging, securing etc. has been extraordinary in the genome project and subsequent outcomes. This is consciously or unconsciously the direct result of a design implication rather than a random walk through animal space, there could not be a greater dichotomy.

2) We would never waste time talent and resources on origin of life experiments over 100 years, space alien research, panspermia research but rather direct empirical science of understnading the marvelous designs and learning how to apply them to helping mankind.

3) It is the Bible's provence to lift the spirit and hope of mankind outside of science which is a large part of existence, actually.

Didn't your mommy teach you not to mistate other peoples positions?

Date: 2005/10/14 09:55:51, Link
Author: evopeach

I never said that figuring out the genome sequences depended on a design committment, I said the tools used were transferred from the disciplines of systems, IT and were of enormous assistance to the project and they by definition start from a design perspective.

Since one team was headed by a purely materialistic evolutionist, Craig Vetner, and the other by a practicing Christian, Francis  Collins it is clear that good science was performed in both cases.

Thus the work was enabled using tools that assume a design, look for logic and propose solution methods based such whether they are themselves IDers or not.

Truth is not the captive of the mindset of the inquisitor or investigator but of the efficacy of the method used in finding it.

A simple example: I know that on average e is the most popular letter used in English language written expression, followed by t,a,o,i,n,s,r when I solve a cryptogram. Knowing that is quite important in terms of pace and success. I know it is a code with a certain logic, conceptual thought behind it and is rational as to purpose, etc.

If I assume the crytogram is a sequence of randomly chosen letters from a uniform distribution with replacements then whereever shall I start in my investigation. I shall adopt the same trial and error method and be searching for sense when the last star burns out.

Date: 2005/10/14 09:59:49, Link
Author: evopeach
GCT, I did not say the Bible only lifts spirits I said it was one aspect of helping mankind.. among many.

The Spiritual aspects are not appropriate to this forum.

Date: 2005/10/14 10:11:42, Link
Author: evopeach

Stupid and uneducated huh?  This from aguy who thinks a proton is the entire hydrogen atom. You are a moron.

I recant nothing because helium was an atom and you continue to confuse a proton with the hydrogen atom and its only the nucleus.

Is there a name for something stable that is just the helium nucleus ... no of course not.

And of course the demonstration of circumlocution opf the original debate is classic evo talk.

How about this an inert gas became the human brain... now can you elucidate the sequence ... tick toc tic toc

How about just a quick lab demo of the last step from non-life to life.. the first fullly functioning replicator that leads to the brain... a little later.

tic toc tic toc

What an egomaniac !!!

Date: 2005/10/14 10:22:56, Link
Author: evopeach

Do you really want your butt kicked over that again. I can easily resurrect the sources that drove your head into the ground last time.

Are you an intellectual masochist?

Date: 2005/10/14 10:56:22, Link
Author: evopeach
According to the evo press there are three dominant ground finches in the Galopolas Islands: Baby beak, Momma Beak and Poppa Beak.

Baby Beak is short and able only to penetrate small soft seeds.

Momma Beak can eat BabyBeaks seeds if required by climate but prefers the somewhat larger harder seeds that Baby cannot eat.

Poppa Beak can in principle eat any of the seeds on the Island but would prefer the large hard shelled seeds that neither Mommma Beak nor Baby Beak can crack or penetrate.

Now the Islands are fairly small, geographically compact and so there should not be too much trouble finding the fossils of these and other failed varieties of ground finches.

So where can we see the huge number of finch fossils with intermediate sized beaks all the way up to huge beaks and down to tiny beaks and in small gradations since in a random walk without design or purpose there should be beaks that can't penetrate any of the seeds or could but are too large or small to be used for eating seeds or whatever. Surely the perfect muation did not occur that just exactly fit the several varieties of seeds ... that is a saltation event and we know all about those don't we Dr. Goldsmith.

Are there hundreds yea thousands of such finch fossils ..please show me.

You know this seed is too hard, this seed is too soft this seed is ....oops extinct a million times over.

"Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." Paul Ehrlich (Stanford Biology Professor) and L. Charles Birch (Sydney Biology Professor), 1967

tic toc tic toc

Date: 2005/10/14 11:16:05, Link
Author: evopeach

Please.... you are holding to a theory that hangs on skyhooks, anchored in nothing and its eating your guts out.

You among many suggest that origins, abiogenesis, life from non-life are irrelevent to evolution. The you and the otheres spend days illustrating the efficacy of Urey Miller, Fox, etc. and referencing that old evo standbys "A Lot of Good Work is Being Done in that Field"; theories are always evolving and changing for the better (evolution is evolving), Its right around the corner, really great science.. LOL

It must be very painful to rest your case on such nonsense and try to carry on.

And when you come up with something I can't quite grasp just send it over and go ahead... include the integral signs if necessary.... mr leafman.

"Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." Paul Ehrlich (Stanford Biology Professor) and L. Charles Birch (Sydney Biology Professor), 1967

An example of intellectual honesty  by real biologists and pretty good ones at that.

Date: 2005/10/14 11:53:47, Link
Author: evopeach
Hang in there skyhook.. you're on firm solid evo scientific ground other wise known as nothing.

Date: 2005/10/17 03:22:03, Link
Author: evopeach
Here is what I have gleaned from this sites evos so far:

1)  The hundred year search for a believable just so story of abiogenesis involving millions of dollars and alot of scientific talent was just an intellectual curiousity which has no import for the theory of evolution. Evolution has no interest or concern in the basis of life and any theory from panspermia to the Life Force to alien visitors to whatever is equally acceptable.

2) The one hundred fifty year search for any of the billions of transitional fossils is a non-issue post Darwin (who was very concerned about the complete lack of such) because a) Every progeny of every species is transitional, every mutation generates a transitional form and the handful of contested transitional forms is sufficient for evos.

3) Common decent being always and for ever based on homologous large scale structures having some common elements is not effected by the advances in science that have shown in many species that different genes in these species are responsible for the development and unique characteristics of such structures. Further the differences in the structures across species are so profound that it is often difficult to imagine any line leading to a common ancestor or even identify them as common.

3) The genetic code is not really a code but rather just a sequence of chemical reactions that were developed by trial and error and fortuitous selection pressures.

4) Although the science of statistics is among the most proven in our experience the calculations illustrating the impossibility of abiogenesis, separation of right and left hand amino acids by chance, etc. are not to be taken seriously.

5) You can tell if a scientist is to be taken seriously in his statements and publications. If he supports any alternative explanation for life he is to be discredited and drummed out of the club. If he holds fast to the evolutionary paradigm he is eligible for grants, tenure and publication.

Conclusions:  People who are trying for instance to make cochlear implants deliver sounds other than spoken words ,such as music ,acceptably are all wrong using electrical engineers and information technology specialists as their principle investigators because thay are employing the principles of intelligent design. To get from 24 channels of data delivery to the inner ear to the 30,000 normally functional they should employ induced random mutation in the controlling genes and let natural selection work its magic to get the 30,000 required for success.

Date: 2005/10/17 03:34:16, Link
Author: evopeach
I guess giving you  the year and names of the people quoted is not a sourcing. Quotes are to be performed accurately so cut and paste is a pretty good way to insure that.

I take it that fossils that cannot be found either formed too slowly or too fast, in the wrong place, at the wrong time or only the beaks that were perfect fits for the seeds available resulted from the random mutations on the genes controlling beak characteristics.

Were the finches that flew over from South America birds or non-birds?

Date: 2005/10/17 03:44:37, Link
Author: evopeach

You mean the direct quotes from the mechanical engineering texts and instructor notes from two rather prestigious universities using my precise nomenclature and  showing that gsubc is implicit or explicit in every system of units in the world depending on the systems.

Oh and the direct quote from Newton's work using the term proportional which for non-math people like you insists on a constant of porportionality is I suppose to be ignored.

I know, Einstein really meant E=m.

Against that is the assertion of you, a moron,an egomaniac and an academic hack outside whatever discipline you have dabbled in ... to date undefined.

Date: 2005/10/17 04:26:20, Link
Author: evopeach
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Leaf." The primary site of photosynthesis in plants.Photosynthesis is an important biochemical process in which plants, algae, and some bacteria harness the energy of sunlight to produce food. Ultimately, nearly all living things depend on energy produced from photosynthesis for their nourishment, making it vital to life on Earth. It is also responsible for producing the oxygen that makes up a large portion of the Earth's atmosphere. Organisms that produce energy through photosynthesis are called phototrophs."

Is there another group of evos somewhere wou are technically literate because the level of ignorance diplayed herein is so appalling I am getting depressed about the opportunity for continued scientific progress.

Than goodness for the tube worms. LOL

Date: 2005/10/17 04:54:10, Link
Author: evopeach

If Michigan State Engineering School is deemed non-authoratative by you regarding the F=MA/gsubc precise and general form of Newton's law try this nail in your coffin goober head.

WIKOPEDIA is the Source for the following:

The F=m·a relationship can be used with any consistent units (SI or CGS). If these units are not consistent, a more general form, F=k·m·a, can be used, where the constant k is a conversion factor dependent upon the units being used.

For example, in imperial engineering units, F is measured in "pounds force" or "lbf", m in "pounds mass" or "lb", and a in feet per second squared. In this particular system, one needs to use the more general form above, usually written F=m·a/gc with the constant normally used for this purpose gc = 32.174 lb·ft/(lbf·s2) equal to the reciprocal of the k above.

You are the most intellectually dishonest person I have encountered in all my years of debating on the net or elsewhere. There is simply something psychologically wrong with a person who in the face of absolutely black and white, substantiated, expert provided, sourced, universally accepted evidence that is 100 percent against their position continues to rant and rave about their correctness.

I truly think it would be best if you just stopped posting or responding to my strings because I have no further interest in listening to such a dishonest and uninformed person.

You are now on logical ignore.

Date: 2005/10/17 05:33:54, Link
Author: evopeach
All design is intelligent as it is the only process known to man that resultsin progress of any kind that is beneficial.

It is the only method that is scientific, planned, purposeful and is the only method used to perform science in the world.

On the other hand evolution depends on a purely random source for "apparent design" a term used in no other context in the history of mankind. A method whose principles are so preposterously inefficient and unlikely to produce anything functional that no one who proposed them as an approach to performing scientific investigation would be considered sane.

Every high school student in America should have Mike Denton and Behe's books as required reading whether or not they are ever used as textbooks in a formal class.

No person of intellectual honesty can accept neodarwinian though as explanatory after reading those two books.. which I suggest have not even been cracked by this audience in general.

Date: 2005/10/17 06:54:20, Link
Author: evopeach

You are the most irrelevent entity on this post if you think tube worms diminish the importance of photosynthesis since it is also responsible for the oxygen we breathe.

Of course there have been and continue to be entities that don't need photosynthesis, some recently found in Oregon I believe in a river.

However a world free of oxygen and without photosynthesis .. a world of bacteria and tube worms etc. is about 0.00000001% of the species that have ever existed.

Please describe the origin of these first life forms that you know existed and how they came to be in detail so we can all benefit from your Nobel prize winning repeatable life from non-life experiental results... or is this just another just so fairy tale for consumption by the evo true believers without a scintilla of scientific data or experimental results to back it up .. not even a paper theory that stands up to analysis..

Let me guess, LOL

Date: 2005/10/17 08:38:33, Link
Author: evopeach
I see my posts go unanswered as usual except for the usual drivel and vacumn generated personal attacks.

If Behe and Denton have been so discredited by the super intellects of evoland whay is Denton credited with the most significant science based anti-darwininan book published to date and Behe is hand picked to be the lead witness at Dover.

Yeah I guess those hack lawyers for the defense really screwed up pitting his testimony against the cult kook Barbara what's her name...LOL.

Date: 2005/10/17 08:58:35, Link
Author: evopeach

Its childs-play to debate with you people as you are never informed.

Nothing in ten years huh?

Now it is true that the evos have attacked him in their usual cannibalistic fashion for being intellectually honest, banned him from all major journals, etc. but with tenure they are limited in what they can do to get him fired. I wonder how he got tenure since he's clearly a hack scientist, dumb as a post and a completely unpublished researcher. Lehigh must have been asleep for all those years he was teaching, researching and publishing, mentoring grad students, etc.

If you people weren't so totally transparent there might be a challenge here.

Date: 2005/10/17 11:37:19, Link
Author: evopeach
Does all research have to be earth shattering to be classified as new. There is a certain sense that all funded research is new otherwise it wouldn't be funded I suppose.

But nevermind you have spouted off your mouth once again without thinking just to belittle a person of certain credentials you have never met strictly because he disagrees with you... a typical evo.

Date: 2005/10/17 11:44:51, Link
Author: evopeach
I take it that all the evos have great confidence that Barbara Kook is a superior expert witness than Mike Behe.  

Following Plato's teaching that philosophers should be full participants in civic life, Dr. Forrest actively participates in efforts to promote church-state separation, the integrity of public science education, and civil liberties.  She serves on the National Advisory Council of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. She is also a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, having served on the board of directors of the Louisiana affiliate.  Her other supporting memberships include People for the American Way, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and the National Center for Science Education

How did she miss the CPUSA and Red Diaper Babies of America Assn.?

Date: 2005/10/18 03:19:10, Link
Author: evopeach

Nice diatribe, very intellectual, added a lot to the discussion.. sure sign of a critical thinker.

Let's suppose that in the span of 10**-8 seconds that hydrogen nuclei were created before helium atoms or nuclei. How exactly does that change the argument that a universe composed 99% of helium, hydrogen and lithium waas the precise starting point for the natural, self-driven, random, chaotic processes that 14 billion years later resulted in the human brain and all the rest of life.

You see the bickering about 10**-8 seconds for a week is just a red herring to circumlocute the original issue.

If thats too tough just explain the steps up to the supposed first replicator in detail or maybe the last steps from non-life to the first replicator.

After that you can explain the origin of the avian lung unique in the animal kingdom and unrelated to any other species in its design.

Every time I read through Mike Denton's book and research one of the topics back through his references I break out laughing that educated people can actually believe in anything about evolution beyond the most modest sort of micro-evolution.

I forget at times how anal wireheads can be on trivialities and how militant evos are in defending the impossible.

When someone can explain the metamorphesus of the Monarch butterfly at the gene level,from random mutations, since thats where everything starts and ends, I will really appreciate that.

But we do agree on one thing I don't understand why you whiney babies and empty suits keep coming back for for butt kicking by yours truly.

Keep your kool-aid handy.

Date: 2005/10/18 03:28:42, Link
Author: evopeach

PLease type a post that includes 1+2=3.

That way I will be able to continue to post knowing that you are at least somewhat more gifted than the horse that can count.

Really, can you tell me one thing about evolution that is demonstrably proveable in a lab, repeatable, universally supported among qualified scientists, documented evidentiary based data that comports with known scientific laws, methods and experience that is beyond modest microevolutionary change within kinds.

I await your answer complete with the required references to support the usually empty assertions.

Date: 2005/10/18 03:52:01, Link
Author: evopeach

When you use terms like have developed it implies a desire on the part of the mice to want to develop those characteristics. This is a common laughable schizofrenic error evos make. Always and forever we know that every trait and characteristic is based on genetic activity, DNA etc. and according to evos is randomly generated and either discarded or preserved by the environment. There is no direction, plan, desire or such so let's agree mice don't develop anything.

Bacteria multiply rapidly and have more copying errors and mutations perhaps so that the chance of messing up a targeted antibiotic binding site is not unexpected.

As for thick coats, my dog and my friend's horses routinely get thicker coats in the winter and shed in the summer. Is that evolution or is it a routine designed in adaptive capacity based on sensory response?

Can you do any better than triviality and illogical theoretically flawed examples?

How about an observable example of macro-evolution say a bacteria becoming a mouse that can fly?

Oh! And you forgot about the peppered moths!


Date: 2005/10/18 04:33:43, Link
Author: evopeach

I am not shifting the goal posts. I have asked for several months now for someone to be intellectually honest enough to admit as have Shapiro and others that
evolution has zero answers for how life started and thus has no scientific basis for being anything more than a just so story without foundation. The story has to begin with origins and proceed with a logical, rational and believable detailed explanation of these necessary events.

Defining away a problem is just another example of the intellectual dishonesty that is pervasive throughout your cult.

Date: 2005/10/18 06:30:33, Link
Author: evopeach

Your level of intellectual dishonesty is unsurpassed in my experience. I did not change the argument concerning hydrogen and helium but rather pointed out the nitpicking stupidity you people display so openly and clearly and continuously to avoid having to face real issues head on. That is intellectual dishonesty defined.

The point is that making a completely arbitrary assertion that origins are unreleted to the theory of evolution in the face of literally hundreds of pages of books, texts, papers all dedicated to the very topic and using the words evolution in context belay your dishonest attempt to avoid an unsoluable problem for evos.

I truly hold you in derision... you are in need of serious couch time.

Date: 2005/10/18 06:54:14, Link
Author: evopeach

The term, "Have developed" in no way imparts any sort of desire by the mice to develop it, thereby willing it to evolve.  That is a concept that is part of the ID/Creation crowd's lexicon.  What happens is that those mice who can better survive the environment pass on their genes to their offspring, and over many generations we see changes, such as the ability to survive in freezers.  It's called natural selection and you can look it up in any biology text.  You should probably have done that before you posted here

Yes, you make it very clear... Those mice who survive the environment ( the only environment in context is the cold freezer environment) .... pass on the genes to survive in cold freezers.

Mice who can survive in cold freezers have mice who can survive in cold freezers.  (Carl Popper was always correct.. thanks for the reconfirmation)

How many generations were involved in the freezer experiment?

Was there a trial in which several groups of mice froze to death in the freezer to establish that genetic information was not initially present to enable survival in the freezer?

Do you deny that it is an absolute fact that many animals routinely grow heavier coats in winter and shed in the summer as a function of temperature? And no I don't think animals even think about such, period. It is a designed in adaptive capability in their genetic and central nervous systems just like body temperature regulation, hibernation, etc.

Have you seen such occur in opposite fashion where an animals coat sheds in the cold and thickens in the heat?

Hmmm, if not, it must have some sensory basis then because it is not a cognitive process in animals.

If Howdy Doody makes a comeback on TV I recommend you  to play Clara Bell.

Date: 2005/10/18 07:06:39, Link
Author: evopeach
Peppered Moths and Such

The moths were moths before and after the experiments. There were both sorts of coloration before and after the experiements.

The sources refer to episodic malanism across several species around the world which by definition rules out the moths being some singular evidence of evolution,, even micro-evolution.

Natural selection cannot exist without mutational genetic change for it to act on and since there was no provable genetic change, merely a built-in sensory response to environmental change in their habitat, natural selection was not in evidence, unless you believe all predation is natural selection in which case most species have proven remarkably resistant to such.

Honk Honk Clara

Date: 2005/10/18 08:41:53, Link
Author: evopeach
eric murphy,

Does it bother you that with every passing day your entire world view is falling into complete disrepute among some of the most respected members of your community, that the teaching of ID is at least a 50/50 proposition within a few months, that with the changes in the supreme court such is even more likely?

Does it secretly bother you to be a member of a scientifically heretical cult that holds with censorship, blackmail, extorsion, persecution and misrepresentation of facts to cling to a paradigm that has not a single tenet that does not suffer from enumerable contradictions in evidence, lack of correlation between predictions and real observations and has no basis in fact for its theoretical underpinnings?

To be laughed at by such a band of little brainwashed mental midgets actually calls forth pity and compassion from the gifted and gracious such as I.

Have you ever had an original thought in your entire life or are you the Charlie McCarthy of the internet that you appear to be.

Date: 2005/10/18 08:55:19, Link
Author: evopeach
Does Ved stand for venerial disease I hear it often goes to the brain in short order.

Helium was an arbitrary choice because I knew it was one of the three first elements existing according to your theory if not the first considering the difference between nuclei and atoms.

My point was and remains that regardless of which one or all of the three chosen no one can or will even attempt to answer the central and original question.. how did the human brain develop from any combination of the three... take you pick.. make it easy on yourself.

Instead the same old denial of history in evidence that the search for for a plausible, demonstrable origin of life explanation has never been demonstrated.

If someone can show me where I claimed Shapiro had renounced evolution etc. I would like to see that. I did say he had embraced Life Force arguments in his further publications after giving up on the possibility of life  from non-life based on a through documented analysis of the data.

Date: 2005/10/18 10:09:17, Link
Author: evopeach

All space, time and energy began with the Big Bang. As the universe cooled, energy turned into matter. Quarks and electrons, then protons and neutrons appeared in the first minute. But at temperatures of 1 billion degrees, it was too hot for complete atoms to form. Scientists have found that it took another 300,000 years for the temperature to cool off enough for whole atoms of hydrogen to appear. Notice the word complete.

About 300 thousand years after the Big Bang, the Universe had cooled enough for electrons to be captured by protons and alpha particles to form atoms.

In one post you say helium atoms or nuclei... no matter.. now you attempt to differentiate dramatically, yet apparently you can't tell the difference between 10**6 and 300,000 years, the generally accepted figure. I will take this as a measure of your scientific knowledge and integrity.. off about a factor of three.. at least.

"According to the Big Bang model of the early development of the Universe, the vast majority of helium was formed in the first three minutes after the Big Bang. Its widespread abundance is seen as part of the evidence that supports this theory." Wikopedia

I would just call you a liar but in your case your too dumb to even be able to lie.. you simply cannot differentiate between two numbers.

Now remember you're the evo expert(s) and faithful so its up to you to present the evidence for your theory not me.

As foryour analogy its so lacking in meaning, so poorly described and so inappropriate to the argument that it defies understanding.

But here's a test for you.

Which of these numbers is the larger 7 or 18?

Stumped huh?

Date: 2005/10/18 10:23:10, Link
Author: evopeach

If it were not for quotes you couldn't muster the words to order a big mac.

Words have meaning and when people on your team intermittantly tell the truth about your science fiction based paradigm as they have done on hundreds of occasions it is a perfectly permissible debating technique to quote them.

The reason I don't want to quote you is that you are such a liar that your position on any issue would change faster than one can type.

Quote mining is another stupid term dreamed up by morons like you to attempt to ridicule people who litigimately read, analyze and comment on the factually correct, but devastating to evolution, statements made from time to time by evos who are actually intellectually gifted and have made contributions to science ... that leaves out you and the other wantabes on this forum.

Solved that math problem yet Mr. Numbers man?

Date: 2005/10/18 10:31:06, Link
Author: evopeach
Eric and Cog,

In the spirit of peace and harmony I would like for you guys to put your heads together and teach me something.

I thought about it and concluded that,

1) I know how to tie my shoes.

2) I can say the alphabet.

3) I know which between 300,000 and 10**6 which is the larger number

Darn that last one is out of your reach so I guess you really can't teach me anything.

Which one of you is Ann Landers and which is Dear Abby?

Date: 2005/10/18 10:37:47, Link
Author: evopeach

If you can't read this get Dan to help you ... or maybe .. or maybe ... or maybe... darn just take my word for it.

Butthead and Bevas had nothing on you two clowns.

Date: 2005/10/18 10:41:53, Link
Author: evopeach
I really don't want to know the sort of things you might have tried to teach your cat.

Date: 2005/10/19 03:27:33, Link
Author: evopeach

And when people have a decided inability to express their views in terms of critical thinking skills I simply assume that sophistry tending to self-elevation, egomania and a general lack of intellectual capacity to discuss an issue in meaningful terms is the best they have to offer.

Now I am sure that these little attemps to insult me are standard fare for those who hold tendentiously to the mast of a sinking ship but I assure you that the only people impressed are your pathetic peers. You have zero impact on me as I am sure you do with most people you associate with or more likely report to.

You see rising from a oil field camp rent house ($25.00 a month) to the 32nd floor of a major energy company as an Exec. V.P. with two earned degrees in engineering and a very healthy six figure income did not happen by accident.

The only difference between the 420 people that reported to me during my active career and the wireheads on this forum is that they had the common sense to listen closely, agree and say yes sir.

Now go wash out some test tubes, write a ridalin perscription, polish some apes teeth or whatever trivialities you engage in to fill the meaningless time you call a life.

Date: 2005/10/19 04:59:45, Link
Author: evopeach
Dan and GCT ((mutual CYA brothers)

The Second Law:

Whenever an object accelerates, the acceleration is
a) directly proportional to the NET force acting on the object;
b) pointing in the same direction as the net force;and
c) inversely proportional to the mass of the object.

The relationship between force and acceleration is quantified by Newtons second law which says that the acceleration is:

Proportional to the net external force.
Inversely proportional to its mass.
In the direction of the force.
So if we choose the units correctly, then:


In mathematics, two quantities are called proportional if they vary in such a way that one of the quantities is a constant multiple of the other, or equivalently if they have a constant ratio.

In mathematics, two mathematical objects are considered equal if they are precisely the same in every way. This defines a binary predicate, equality, denoted "="; x = y iff x and y are equal. Equivalence in the general sense is provided by the construction of a equivalence relation between two elements. A statement that two expressions denote equal quantities is an equation.

See equals is not the same as proportional which is Newton's precise language. Proportional always infers a constant of proportionality which is universally called gsubc. Depending on the units it is either explicitly or implicitly stated but it is always there, period.

Now CYA twins the only other thing you require is the following definition:

grovel: To  lie or crawl in a prostrate position.

Wouldn't you like to win just one little point someday instead of always being made to grovel.

Date: 2005/10/19 05:23:33, Link
Author: evopeach

I am a peculiar person. I have read enough material on evolution, ID and Creationism to form an intellectually based position. Unlike people here who have never read seriously anything outside their area of expertise because they are convinced that they have grasped the reality and ultimate truth in complete and perfect form.

The understanding of the complete genomes of plants and animals and humans is a pretty recent area of investigation and far from complete. The understanding so far has shown that unlike evolutionary conclusions:

DNA is a real code/language and not just chemistry.

Junk DNA more and more is discovered to have a real purpose and has redefined what is meant by the term gene.

The full set of instructions for and between genes and their operative effects on the cell is far from elucidated.

Thus to assign so called microevolutionary effects always to mutation and selection is premature at best since heretofore none of these could be scientifically demonstrated to be tied to a specific allelle mutation.. it simply wasn't possible and just assumed to be the result of a mutation.

In those cases where genetic engineering has resulted in effects I would be interested in those that were the result of massive mutation induction over many generations with natural selection determining the final result as opposed to those effects realized by a group of intellegent scientists designing a complex series of experiments involving the use of their intellect, training, money, equipment , etc. in a carefully crafted and controlled and designed environment.

The operative word being designed.

Date: 2005/10/19 06:09:13, Link
Author: evopeach
Danny Boy,


379,000 years after the Big Bang

The temperature of the Universe is approximately 3000 kelvins. At this temperature hydrogen nuclei capture electrons to form stable atoms. This event known as recombination is particularly significant because free electrons are effective at scattering light, which is why fire is not transparent, while hydrogen atoms will allow light to pass through.

guess that time number Chaisson gave was +-  about 79,000 +- 21% and not +-300 % as you implied.

HHow did the universe really begin? Most astronomers would say that the debate is now over: The universe started with a giant explosion, called the Big Bang. The big-bang theory got its start with the observations by Edwin Hubble that showed the universe to be expanding. If you imagine the history of the universe as a long-running movie, what happens when you show the movie in reverse? All the galaxies would move closer and closer together, until eventually they all get crushed together into one massive yet tiny sphere. It was just this sort of thinking that led to the concept of the Big Bang.

      The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand. Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10-43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang. Before this time all four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were unified, but physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions.

      During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons—the building blocks of atoms—formed when photons collided and converted their energy into mass, and the four forces split into their separate identities. The temperature of the universe also cooled during this time, from about 1032 (100 million trillion trillion) degrees to 10 billion degrees. Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium.

Have you heard of Dr. Hawking? He is usually respected and a person careful with his words.

He does not refer to free protons as an element nor as hydrogen. He does refer to the combination of a proton and a neutron as the element helium. There is no other designation for that combination as it is not a single elemental particle but rather the comination of two elemental particles.

Your decision to refer to protons as hydrogen is not in agreement with Hawking.

Guess who I agree with on the basis of their credentials.

Date: 2005/10/19 06:27:27, Link
Author: evopeach

Now that you have a better comprehension of Newton's 2nd law we can indeed return to the thermo question.

You contend that evolution and thermo are two completely disjoint areas of science. Thisis if one were to represent evolution and thermo as two Venn diagrams there would be zero common area of intersection between the two.

Thus in the areas of studying the chemistry of the cell lets say where an understanding of the rates of reaction, ph, temperature, pressure, etc. migh just be a consideration to synthetically producing a protein like insulin commercially one would lay out the process with due consideration to all the conditions necessary to make the production effective and efficient and proceed.

That would indeed require a detailed knowledge of thermodynamic considerations such as enthalpy, entropy, free energy, reaction rates, etc.

Are you now saying that the study of the cellular machinery in order to develop new drugs is unrelated to and independent of evolutionary theory?

Date: 2005/10/19 08:15:36, Link
Author: evopeach
My apologies I mean two protons.. thanks.

VED you are a dishonest liar.. plain and simple., as to Hawkings your selective quote is neat but dishonest. Which anyone can dttermine by reading the Hawking site.

"Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier ELEMENTS, most notably HELIUM."

See that part that says most notably HELIUM, right after the phrase .. form the nulcei of a few heavier ELEMENTS.

The next paragraph refers to electron capture.

The two protons are the nucleus of helium but that nucleus is not a fundamental particle like the hydrogen nucleus is. It has no other name in the sense of a fundamental particle.

Kevin couldn't you take that log by yourself. No problem, I am used to assisting evos with math and science.. their weak suits.

5.578639209968072    (plenty of decimal places for the wireheads)

Anything else you guys need help with today ?

I never worked for Enron either.

Date: 2005/10/19 08:44:02, Link
Author: evopeach

Your understanding indeed hasn't changed you were an uniformed dolt before and you remain the same in the face of black and white authoritative evidence to the contrary.

I have not said that evolution contradicts slot in the case of evolutionary biology rather I define the flow through energy system that makes it possible for biological systems to remain in far from equilibrium states.

However if the source of energy is removed from say a plant or an animal for an extended period it withers, diassociates, returns to a minimum energy, maximum entropy, state called equibrium. In the case of life its also known as death.

Can you tell us what physical law governs the process of decay, disassociation, randomization and the tendency toward breakdown, decay and the return to equilibrium in physical processes everywhere we observe.

1) The law of gravity

2) F=ma/gsubc

3) Jude Law

4) Marshal Dillon


I'll give you six chances to get it right.

Date: 2005/10/19 08:53:14, Link
Author: evopeach

You are a glutton for punishment you incompetent baboon.

"Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier ELEMENTS, most notably HELIUM."

See that part that says most notably HELIUM, right after the phrase .. form the nulcei of a few heavier ELEMENTS.


Date: 2005/10/19 08:57:20, Link
Author: evopeach

Answer the question butthead, its very straight forward. Otherwise I will conclude you once again are totally dishonest.

I assure you I don't need to be paid for this missionary to the heathen work.

Date: 2005/10/19 09:08:16, Link
Author: evopeach

I have no doubt that you are a competent engineer but you are way too emontionally invested in supporting every aspect of the evolutionary paradigm to be objective on anything said here.

Clearly, the sentence structure in Hawkings writing refers to helium nuclei being formed and he does refer to it as an element, in fact a heavier element and of course helium is heavier than hydrogen.

That was the argument for the post it had nothing to do with the hydrogen first or helium first debate.

The previous GCT post where he denys Hawking used the term element and helium in the same context is just rediculous on the face of it so if you agree with that interpretation I just chalk it up to immaturity and emotionalism.

A competent engineer can read, is objective, self aware and honest... and you're not getting a passing grade.

Date: 2005/10/19 09:12:10, Link
Author: evopeach

So you can't answer the question. I knew it and you once again are proven to be a dolt.

Date: 2005/10/19 09:19:51, Link
Author: evopeach
Unlike you people, I am at work and doing something creative namely putting together a class on top down nanotechnology for professional engineers and I may get in a hurry responding to three attack dogs with nothing to do but post on here but if you would like I can send proof of my grade of "A" in nuclear physics.

I really could care less about your opinions as I am quite secure in my own shoes.

Date: 2005/10/19 09:27:23, Link
Author: evopeach
Can you tell us what physical law governs the process of decay, disassociation, randomization and the tendency toward breakdown, decay and the return to equilibrium in physical processes everywhere we observe?

Is that the question you are answering because thats the question I asked?

Your answer reflects no understanding or comprehension of the question asked as the word violation nor the phrase violation of appears anywhere in the question.

Try again

Date: 2005/10/19 10:15:32, Link
Author: evopeach
Because your particular opinions are not important to me but some others are.

I wanted to see if the evos were still as egomanical, ill informed, cultish, unsophisticated and ill mannered as a couple ofyears ago.

I keep hoping that in the face of mounting evidence that disparages the very core of their ideas a light might turn on and a more open minded approach to public debate and education might prevail.

I also enjoy batting their brains out as is much in evidence here.

Date: 2005/10/19 10:23:04, Link
Author: evopeach
Yes that's logical considering that my org was in 1988 named as one of the best managed and performing in the MIS/IT area among the Fortune 500 by Computer World based on a vote by consultants and peer company managers. The award ceremony was in NYC, a black tie affair and held at the Morgan Library.

Now tell me about your three direct reports and the cat doesn't count.

Date: 2005/10/19 11:06:24, Link
Author: evopeach
Midnight your dishonesty is more in evidence with every post... keep it up its laughable.

By the way have you people put Lenny under suicide watch because if you  think Dover is not going our way in spades you are blinder than bats.

After that any appeal will go forward to the Supreme Court which by then will be firmly in our camp no doubt.

The comes the ruling on the pit bull protection case where all of my team will be permitted to turn a pit bull loose on one liberal atheist evo without suffering any criminal or civil penalties.

Date: 2005/10/19 11:13:21, Link
Author: evopeach
Captain Midnight ... still putting a little crank in your ovaltine I see. Lets take that unbiased NYT article as purely objective. LOL

Oh! And if you'd like a small wager on the outcome of this trial... I'm game.

Are you guys going to be the pall bearers for Lenny after he takes the pipe when your cult loses?

Its the least you could do after egging him on over such a hopeless cause.

Date: 2005/10/20 03:21:12, Link
Author: evopeach

I doubt that a person who can't add has much credibility in predicting outcomes. See if you can't go with Roberts either way then the vote can't be put in the against column.

I think I can help you with his vote ....99% for Dover... he's a person of faith and a strict constructionist.

5-4 I win.

Date: 2005/10/20 03:32:23, Link
Author: evopeach

I see all of you are still in denial anout the central point of debate so you can avoid having to explain how life came from non-life, whether hydrogen or helium, nuclei or atoms.

I see through you pseudo-intellectuals like a plate glass window.

I earned my "A" in nuclear physics through hard work and I really don't care about your opinions.

You people dwell on a simple typo and use it to avoid the issue that was raised initially and never answered because no one in the world has or can answer it because it never happened and ahundred years of effort have confirmed it.

Ridicule and trivial pursuits is not a sign of intelligence, but its all you people have to offer.

Lets hear the details of your demonstrable explanation to the abiogenesis question, big bang to the human brain if you like.

tick tock tick tock

Date: 2005/10/20 03:43:42, Link
Author: evopeach

Please reread my post ... idiot.

.."you are one of the attendant idiots who believe that a proton is the same thing as a hydroden atom because electrons are not part of atoms and are actually illusory non-existant and unimportant particles"

So sir like your other cultic evos you are the misrepresenter and liar. I never said a hydrogen nucleus was not a single proton. I said it was not a hydrogen ATOM unless there was an electron captured with it which your crowd has demonstrated did not occur until much later.

See just more intellectual dishonesty .. as usual.

Date: 2005/10/20 03:56:54, Link
Author: evopeach

Usually I don't respond to sex wierdos especially foot-sex addicts but just this once:

When your team can't understand the difference between equality and proportionality in Newton's 2nd law as he stated it and as documented by several authoritative sources ... that's ok with you I suppose.

When your team thinks SLOT has no relationship with evolutionary processes including biological life... that's ok with you.

When no one can even remotely address abiogenesis in the smallest respect other than the fallacy of defining away a problem in the face of a hundred years of effort by evos to prove its reality... thats ok with you.

Yes I call non-response, lying, misrepresentation and a complete lack of intellectual honesty a LOSING proposition for your team.

Do you suppose Tom Cruise and John Travolta are liberal democrat evolutionists or lean toward an ID perspective.

Their the most ardent Scientologists I hear about... you know Gore men.

I hold you in derision... laughable clown.

Date: 2005/10/20 04:02:08, Link
Author: evopeach

Please change your name.. that's the NIKE emblem and the title of a book about Phil Knight. I think its disrespectful for a moron to use a name that's normally associated with a very smart business person like Knight.

Obviously you didn't read the subject posts or you you can't add either.

What a clown!

Date: 2005/10/20 04:08:55, Link
Author: evopeach
Here's the bet,

Anyone who replies and accepts, regardless of any appeal, has to write a post admitting they lost the bet.

Then they have to honestly resign from this forum under any and all names for a period of thirty calendar days.

I will be lonely posting to no one.

Date: 2005/10/20 04:53:42, Link
Author: evopeach
Oh I see another socialist red diaper baby maquerading as a person of value and intellect.

Got it!!  Your credibility just went into negative imaginary numbers.

How are things in Cuba these days?

Date: 2005/10/20 07:02:39, Link
Author: evopeach
I post these three among hundreds of possible sources which support my position and destroy youre. But I realize that no level of authoritative statement no matter the source will change your mind to admits error because you people are egomaniacal wireheads and intellectual honesty is beyond your reach.

the second law of thermodynamics drives cars, computers and metabolism; and death, at the very least, opens up tenured faculty positions"---Seth Lloyd, writing in Nature 430, 971 (26 August 2004); doi:10.1038/430971a


Disorder and the second law of thermodynamics

We can view Ů as a measure of the disorder in a system. This is reasonable because what we think of as "ordered" systems tend to have very few configurational possibilities, and "disordered" systems have very many. As an illustration of this idea, consider a set of 100 coins, each of which is either heads up or tails up. The macrostates are specified by the total number of heads and tails, whereas the microstates are specified by the facings of each individual coin. For the macrostates of 100 heads or 100 tails, there is exactly one possible configuration, corresponding to the most "ordered" state in which all the coins are facing the same way. The most "disordered" macrostate consists of 50 heads and 50 tails in any order, for which there are 100891344545564193334812497256 (100 choose 50) possible microstates.

We might define life as a localised temporary region of decreasing entropy. Life builds up the improbable structure of its cells from the disordered materials around it. It does this, however, at the expense of increasing the entropy around it, and it always eventually DECAYS back to the disorder from which it came. A molecule, a crystal or  a planet form because they represent a lower potential energy than the alternative and are therefore more probable. A bacterial culture does not have this property and when life is extinct it returns to chaos .

Date: 2005/10/20 07:59:47, Link
Author: evopeach

"So Roberts can't go either way on him yet" .... in evo logic means he in your corner with Dover.

got it unusually clear LOL

Date: 2005/10/20 09:10:23, Link
Author: evopeach

You want me to read a propaganda piece written in part by Barbara Forrester , the lead witness, against Dover as an objective convincing analysis.

Most people would agree that the way you know when a trial is decided is when its over and the verdict is rendered.

I see it as a separation of church and state issue and since the supreme court has agreed that the teaching of altenative scientific theories is acceptable the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that ID is not scientific.

The detection of design like Mt. Rushmore or the monoliths on Easter Island are pretty comprehensible by average people.

The question seems to be is there any impact on science by the detection of design or is it ... so what.

In ETSI the entire idea was to detect the difference between random white or colored noise and a correlated signal, a code, a message. If such a message was detected and decoded would it have an impact on science in  the USA?

1) We would act on the message because it would likely be some universally important scientific information.

2) We would approach additional messages with a scientifically schooled filtering scheme to enhance further understanding, tightly focused.

So the detection of design would be a scientific endeaver
which would very likely have impact on science itself.

If the messages were repeated over and over and when decoded was universally agreed to say......."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.." would that make all of the work performed to get to that point a waste of time and unscientific?

Date: 2005/10/20 09:47:06, Link
Author: evopeach
False Dilemma

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy

Evolutionists say either the universe, life etc. are all the result of natural law driven phenomena or they are driven by supernatural interventionist acts that are purely and wholly expressions of religion.
From this they conclude that no science can ever be assumed valid because if the supernatural is permitted a result cannot be relied upon as repeatable and dependable because it would be indistinguishable whether the result was obtained scientifically or as a direct result of supernatural intervention.
Given the concept of ID there is in fact a third scientific choice:
At an undefined point in time an Intelligent Designer hybridized intellect, power and ability onto matter resulting in the design in life that we observe as well as the operation of the universe. Past that point the ID has intervened in the universe only rarely and in general has been content to let the universe operate within the boundaries of physical law.

Date: 2005/10/20 11:06:09, Link
Author: evopeach
Group Answer

The definition of ID precludes your response from being meaningful. If you assume the definition of ID by its proponents is untrue and a lie there is no logical way to debate unless you can show evidence that ID has been practiced in the public schools and has proven to be a guise for the presentation of special creation or that there is court acceptable evidence of a secret plan to do so at the first opportunity. Since that has never been permitted or put into evidence there is no evidence other than your unsubstantiated assertion of lying. Your argument is illogical.

Actually there is prima facia evidence of only one creation whether the big bang or special creation because if there more than one there would be observable traces of it in the universe and no one has ever detected other than a single originating event in cosmology or astronomy. There is no data that evidences sporadic and frequent and unpredictable suspensions of natural law over time. It is logical to assume that the rule of natural law is the normal operation of the universe.

In addition, the bible records only one creative event and one worldwide catastrophe, never to be repeated. Further, conservative scholars hold to the absolute economy of miracles and that when and if they occur over time they are clear unambigious supensions of natural law so apparent as to be clearly distinguishable from natural law. The logical approach to science is to assume the universe operates by fundamental laws in every aspect of life.

example:   I believe God could perform a miracle of healing of a terminally ill person. I would however assume that God expects me to take advantage of all talent and intellect and expertise humanly available to accomplish such healing if possible. And to remain open to the possibility that if that effort fails He might act to heal miraculously. The economy of miracles.

If chemotherapy etc cures cancer that is not a miracle it happens with some frequency. I can depend over the long haul on that frequency of cure rate from chemo for a specific form of cancer.

ID is indeed a third alternative to the false choice argument now being presented to the court by the plaintiff which is that ID is creationism and thus fits into the second of the only two choices permitted. Otherwise the plaintiff would agree that ID is an independent third choice of approaching the apparent design argument but that it is inherently religious because it postulates an ID and not because it is special creationism.

Practically speaking the ID concept of original design and then natural law should be appealing in that almost never does the original designer of anything get involved in the routine operation of the entity.It is left up to repairmen, etc. to keep it going based on detailed examination of how it works. Of course eventually the Maytag fails so catastrophically it can't be fixed by anyone, but I have never had the patent owner out to diagnose and repair an appliance.

Oh! That's right evos never utilize practical human experience in their thought processes otherwise they would know that a design always has an intelligent designer that is never an uncaring random process.

Date: 2005/10/21 04:47:52, Link
Author: evopeach
Eric and Toejam,

Actually I love listening to your temper tantrums because it reminds me of little boys caught in a lie and yelling and wimpering so the athority (that s me) might not whip them too hard.

Your circumlocutions, excuses and alibis for never explaining anything by means other than lies, unfounded assertions, stupidity incarnate and then thinking someone in the universe other than your fellow buttkissers are impressed is worth the time it takes to kick you to the ground ... 45 microseconds/post.

Now who go tell more people that equality is the same as proportional, SLOT and evolution are independent and unrelated principles, abiogenesis is a non-issue and no one thinks its important.... DNA is just a randomly developed molecule and the genetic code is just a sequence of chemicals and code is a misnomer.

Gas to Brain........ tick toc tic toc tic toc

My Pit Bull is named Fang and he is straining at the leash.

Date: 2005/10/21 05:01:20, Link
Author: evopeach
Your view is indistguishable from a white noise source.. meaningless like random mutations developing a four chamber heart.

If you think the phrase is made up just type it in your browser.. idiot.

Oh and I note the through and wel conceived logical response to the subject... opps over your head.

Date: 2005/10/21 05:13:00, Link
Author: evopeach
Bentonit and Link,

I always wanted to meet a band of pseudointellectual wireheads who thought they had become part of the intellectual elite and that the American people would fall at their feet... until we impeached their trailer trash president, pounded father Gore into the dust and sent Carrie baby back to the senate in disgrace. And the polls on the issues at hand going 2:1 against you.

Now I learn they are right here and available for public insults and humiliation daily and they come back licking my boots and wimpering for more ... its so much fun to see their attempts at debate fall quickly into the muddy ditch of stupidity and watch them return to mutual buttkissing and slobbering attempts to shore each other up ... laughable.

Are all of you one person under several pseudos? Its just not possible that there can be that many ignorant wireheads on earth at the same time... that would be a miracle.

Kissy Kissy Boys

Date: 2005/10/21 06:42:43, Link
Author: evopeach
Thats teh funny part about evos they think that Dover is an anomoly and that 68% public opinion and the court's rapidly coming swing in our favor will not result in a win for ID.

AS to Behe's appearance he did quite well actually but the larger point is the comment herein cheering the demise of his fortunes, the end of his career and the disgrace he is and will suffer at the habds of the evos.

That should be published for everyone in America to see so they know the vicious and vindictive nature nature of the evo community.

You see I never worry about ultimate outcomes when the other side is dead wrong on teh facts, condused on their own position and wish the worst to happen personally top anyone who opposes, even people in their own community.

I recognize them as mentally sick and an abberation of true humanity.

Date: 2005/10/21 07:17:00, Link
Author: evopeach
Dear Wonder Pinko Pants

What false intelligence was that specifically and where is the evidence concerning a voice in His head telling him to go invade Iraq.

Assertions without multiple unimpeachable sources is trashtalk expected only from evos and other liars.

Date: 2005/10/21 07:34:50, Link
Author: evopeach

I had to look up that term not being a member of the homo club of evos on parade.

Tell me Frisco Fairy is evolution a required belief system to justify certain .. shall we say different life styles.

Its so telling to see all the boys herein holding each other up in the most glaring unsupportable claims.. but now that you spark the idea that would never normally come to mind its becoming clear why all boys are so totally chummy.

I just skimmed through the current Biology text used here on campus called , "LIFE" 5th edition. And what do you know an entire sub-chapter on how the SLOT governs every chemical reaction in biology from metabolism to ATP energy transfers... all of it.  You know that SLOT that has nothing to do with evolution.

Oh and then the so called definition of evolution: The change in genetic makeup in an "individual" or a "group" that is passed on to its progeny and either preserved or lost based on environental selection."

Now the operative part is "Individual" which is of course 180 degrees in opposition to the guys at talk origins.

I submit that between all of you there is not the remote possibility that you can show me or prepare a definition of Evolution in one paragraph that I cannot find a dozen totally contradictory definitions in your own literature within 72 hours of receipt.

Why? Because evolution has no definition, being a plastic ,meaningless tautology which can be and is defined on the fly to meet any investigative observation possible.

It therefore cannot be falsified, has no supporting data that is unchallenged by its own proponents as unreasonable and is incapable of being defined.

Show me wrong... give me the definition.

Date: 2005/10/21 09:53:08, Link
Author: evopeach

A list of assertions without a single source is not just similar but congruent to the BS that you brain is filled with.

Your trailor trash president got his law license for lying on the witness stand unde oath to a federal judge and thats a matter of public record.. although he would gladly have tried for a BJ from the judge in open court in front of a 1st grade class.. it had no bearing on his SENTENCE.  It was a felony butt head.

Now I see you and lenny and most of the others are just another band of socialist pinko anarchists who have no compunction about lying, cheating, BSing, etc. and are  antithetical to the truth and every value except me first and right now.. well it just clears things up considerably.

By the way I just read the cross on Dr. Miller and he needs a blood transfusion... wirerheads are so helpless in the hands of a true intellect like yours truly or in that case the defense lawyer.

What office do you hold over at the CPUSA anyway?

Date: 2005/10/21 10:28:33, Link
Author: evopeach

I suggest that Roberts, Miers (OR ANYONE bUSH PICKS),
Scalia,Thomas are all 0.99 for Dover

I agree Bryer , Ginsberg, Souter are 0.99 against Dover

Your own data support Kennedy as 0.7 against Dover and Stephens O.7 against Dover

Essentially you have to add two people to your sure three and I have to get one to add to my sure four.

So I win is about 0.51 and you win is about 0.49 a toss up unless you lose another person before the trial comes up and before Bush leaves... thats in my favor for sure because whomever it is will be in my camp and you're dead meat. My four aren't leaving how about  yours... he he

Date: 2005/10/21 11:04:15, Link
Author: evopeach
Swoosh are you accepting the original bet bacause I don't think anyone has gutted it up yet to accept period.

Oh and the reason I keep posting is that I do from time to time like to engage my ego by mentally stomping a few evos, democrats, atheists, socialists, losers and here I can hit them all with one swat.

As usual equivocation, hiding, assertion, insult and just about anything but the ability to debate rationally what appears from the evo team.

Date: 2005/10/21 11:11:03, Link
Author: evopeach
Cogzoid :    Because the court reporter actually has a skill, a brain, can read and write and doesn't need a herd of people standing around pumping her up and telling her how smart she is. In other words she is not a butthead evo like you.