AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: nmgirl

form_srcid: nmgirl

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.205.175.144

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: nmgirl

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2009/09/14 20:31:21, Link
Author: nmgirl
I am new to PT and atbc and I want to say how glad I am to find you.  I have been involved in an ongoing thread about ID on a local site and have gotten very frustrated about trying to communicate with people like FL.  It feels really good to not be alone.  

Now to this discussion:  FL's first assertion is that Evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

Wrong.  I am a Christian, ie, I believe Jesus Christ is my personal savior.  I also believe in evolution.

Do I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, NO.

Do I believe that FL and his ilk have the right to judge if I am the RIGHT kind of christian, NO.

A lot of the stuff you guys discuss I don't understand.  It's been more than 30 years since I studied geology and more than 20 since I stopped working in the field.

Date: 2009/09/15 18:51:00, Link
Author: nmgirl
Hey, I logged in here for FL's great debate.  Where is his indisputible proof that christianity and evilution are incompatible.  Enquiring minds want to know!

Date: 2009/09/16 09:27:25, Link
Author: nmgirl
FL, what is a "biblical christian"? Is this your definition who believes in a literal interpretation of every word in the bible?  so what do you call us who are not literalists?  Oh wait, i know the answer:  hell bound, spawns of Satan, evilutionists.

Date: 2009/09/16 17:44:08, Link
Author: nmgirl
FL, what about the nearly 12000 christian pastors who signed up in the Clergy Letter Project? Are they all wrong?

Date: 2009/09/16 17:54:14, Link
Author: nmgirl
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith

I found the essays at this site very useful for understanding where FL and his ilk get their ideas and how they manipulate real science to deny evolution.

A couple of beliefs I found very interesting are:

That God deliberately made some rocks look really really old,Billions of years old, even though they are really only 6000 years old.  So God produces fraudulent rocks just like a modern con will produce fake documents or artwork?

Also, god has changed the rates of decay in radioactive minerals since Genesis so our calculations will produce erroneous data.  

What kind of God is this?

Date: 2009/09/17 18:50:08, Link
Author: nmgirl
To FL, your allegation that Christianity and evolution are incompatible is patently wrong.  Why? Because I am a christian who believes in evolution.  

Therefore Christianity and evolution are compatible, in me and in millions of other Christians.

God did not give you the right to define what beliefs make a Christian and it is incredibly arrogant to assume you have that right. ("pride goeth before a fall"?)

Ok, i'm done!

Date: 2009/09/18 09:40:52, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,08:48)
Quote
FL what's your timeline for the Earths history and what is your scientific explanation for the Flood?

As suggested to the other poster, the Big Four Incompatibilities are completely independent of age-of-Earth issues, Flood, etc.  
(I do believe in the Bible's account of a literal 6-day creation and a global Noahic Flood, however.)

why don't you answer the question?  

how do you explain all the tests that support a 4.5 billion year old earth?

I reported earlier about a yec belief that God deliberately made some rocks look really really old, but he was only kidding. Is that what you believe?

Date: 2009/09/18 10:33:09, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,10:13)
So here you can see that same sort of evolution-greases-the-slide action taking place in yet another life.  
Again, by itself, that doesn't prove evolution's incompatibility with Christianity.  

But added up with all the others, it shows that Christians have a REAL problem (affecting real people) on their hands with that incompability issue, and that it's necessarily to consider the issue very seriously.

Talk about a fire engine red herring.  How does one person or 10 million people who claim evolution destroyed their faith, support your case.l  I say their faith wasn't very strong to begin with,.  

There are still 10s of millions of christians who do support evolution.

Date: 2009/09/18 10:35:04, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 17 2009,18:18)
Not any more, apparently. Jesus has little or nothing to do with Floyd's version of Christianity. Now it's all about imposing your will on other people. Control, it's all about control. If you can convince people to bend their most natural drives to your will for no apparent rational reason, convincing them to hand you money and power is a minor thing.

Then Floyd must be a catholic.

Date: 2009/09/18 19:01:29, Link
Author: nmgirl
FL. here is my belief.  I think your YEC literalist beliefs limit God to what I call a "poof moment": God got bored and made the universe.  

I believe that 12 + billion years ago God made the universe and all the processes in it.  When the earth cooled and was conducive to life, life appeared in microbes and then continued to expand and change.  God created this marvelous process so that no matter the conditions, life has survived all the changes in the planet.  Whether snowball earth in the pre cambrian, the swamps of the carboniferous or the red deserts of the permian and triassic, there was always life.  Despite meteorites, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods (not THE flood you believe in)there is always life.  We have ecosystems that don't even depend on oxygen and sunlight to survive.

Why God decided to bless our species with a soul, I don't know. Maybe it's the opposable thumbs that mean we can write.  Maybe its our ability to communicate with each other.   I believe he sent his son to us and that Jesus died for us.  that belief has nothing to do with how our bodies came to be.

I'm not a theologian and no debater.  I can't quote scripture by the page.  I just believe in God . . . and evolution.

Date: 2009/09/28 19:00:23, Link
Author: nmgirl
I've been gone for a while, but its nice to know the posts have continued to deteriorate.  As I got caught up, I realized that FL hadn't answered a couple of my questions:
1.  What is biblical Christianity?
2.  If the world is only a few thousand years old, why did God fake the ages of the rocks?
good to be back!

Date: 2009/09/28 19:30:10, Link
Author: nmgirl
Another question, doesn't FL have any friends that would post here and back him up?

Date: 2009/09/29 12:23:47, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,09:48)
Also Nmgirl, I wanted to really thank you for at least being willing to tell me about your personal Christians beliefs, in response to my sincere request for pro-evolution Christians on this thread to offer their own personal theology so that we could see if there was "no discernable dissonance" between it and evolution.

I know about three people in this thread who have identified themselves in the past as "Christians" on PandasThumb, but they have seemingly all punted on this one.  
(Again, I'm reviewing the pages to see if I missed explanations of other personal theologies from any other professing Christians.  If so, let me know folks.)  

So far, Nmgirl, you are the only professing Christian with enough faith and/or courage to even say what you believed & not believed.

You know what I really believe, Nmgirl?  With the exception of some headliners like Francis Collins, Pope Benedict, etc., the great majority of Christian evolutionists are honestly SCARED to discuss and debate the Incompatibility issue within evolution forums that are clearly dominated by secular evolutionists, such as PT and AtBC and FRDB.
Perhaps these Christians are afraid that in a secular pro-evolution environment, they could possibly wind up "getting it from both sides" or something, so they avoid putting their actual beliefs on the table where a few of the seculars might suddenly decide to analyze and critique those Christian beliefs themselves, on top of a YEC like me offering an "discernable dissonance" analysis on the opposite end.

(Hmmm.  "Getting it from both sides" has actually happened on PandasThumb before, come to think of it.  I suppose that could make many a Christian evolutionist quite skittish and nervous.)

FloydLee

flattery will get you no where.  answer the bloody questions.

Date: 2009/10/01 11:50:59, Link
Author: nmgirl
When I worked as an exploration geologist in the 70s and 80s, we never had these discussions.  I just assumed all my peers believed in deep time and evolution just as I do, but now I'm curious.

Of course where we were working makes it hard to be a YEC.  I can't see 50000 feet of Stanley shale being deposited, lithified and then overthrust more than 100 miles in less than 5000 years without someone noticing.

Date: 2009/10/01 16:26:33, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,15:59)
Quote
So, FL is saying that either we have to believe that God magically and mysteriously poofed everything, including people, plants and fake evidence, into existence 6,000 years ago, or we're automatically godless heathens who automatically reject Jesus.

Hmmm.  You wouldn't be mis-representing my position a little, would you, Stanton?

I think this nicely summarizes your position, FL

Date: 2009/10/02 12:04:41, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,10:46)
Quote
If at least 1 (one) Christian is able to reconcile his faith with evolution, then both are compatible, and this even if YOU don't agree!


That Christian you speak of, should therefore be able to specifically state HOW he or she has reconciled evolution with their Christianity, (what specific supportable reasons they subscribe to for claiming a reconcilation).

And also sort of speak about HOW the clear published statements by evolutionists that constitute the Big Five Incompatiblities have been neutralized or reconciled by their stated reasons.  (Or if not, then he or she should honestly admit they've not been reconciled after all.)

At a minimum, they should simply be able to say what they believe or don't believe like Nmgirl did and just leave it at that.  That's honorable, even if it doesn't reconcile anything.

Why?  I don't owe you jackshit.  My faith is in God, not some IDiot hopeing to score points with the home team.

Date: 2009/10/02 16:03:39, Link
Author: nmgirl
I think I have finally figured out the principal characteristic of ID:  the ability to cut and paste selected quotes from unsubstantiated sources.  God must be so proud of his creation.

Date: 2009/10/02 21:07:44, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 02 2009,20:53)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,20:25)
The last time you were asked to address {the problem of the Pope}, you wound up making a complete fool of yourself and slinking away without actually addressing it, Floyd.

You've been asked to address it many times, Floyd -- say, nearly a dozen or so times. It was in my very first post to YOU here, Floyd -- WEEKS ago.  

Yet, you've never managed to respond directly to this, Floyd (save the aformentioned debacle when you crawled away).

So...Why is that, Floyd?

That's because FL is here solely to preach at us with lies and distortions about how the only path to God is through believing that God magically and mysteriously poof everything and everyone on Earth into existence in grotesque contrast to the evidence, not to discuss anything, let alone discuss anything in a truthful manner.

Stanton, I hate to tell you you're wrong. FL is here to tell us that he is the only person on this planet who speaks for God.  And until everyone accepts him as the second coming of Christ, he will just keep on blathering.

Date: 2009/10/03 12:00:13, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,07:37)
I think "attacking the messenger" is a cheap shell game ploy.

Peer ReviewLet's be real--is any evolutionary journal going to let a creationist in and sully their prestigious reputation?  That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas.  

As far as peer review--there is peer review among creationists, which contrary to your likely guess, is not so few.

       I hike through a canyon that in places are vertical and some are not.  Where there are waterfalls there are vertical walls OF CLAY-- high in silicate material.  There are huge boulders of sedimentary clay (some of them you can scratch sand off with your fingers) strewn over the bottom on top of each other, which are obviously a result of gravity pulling them off the side.  In effect gravity shaped the canyon--NOT THE WATER--flooding has cut the canyons--but gravity shaped it.  And the walls are vertical, this principle would still work even if the walls were 10 times higher.

It is silicate based clay that can cause vertical walls on canyons--yet be "soft" enough for flooding to cut through.  The grand canyon is a large scale of this principle--because it's walls are silicate based--not soft mud formed in the topsoil.

guys, I think we've got one dumber than FL or ray-ray.

"attacking the messenger is a cheap shell game ploy"  Attacking the messenger('s idiotic posts) is what this forum is about.  Go home if you don't want to play.

"That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas"  I suspect that if you paid his fee, Dawkins would be on the next plane. He would probably love to thump those thumpers.

Peer Review:  Poor IDiots.  they want to be accepted as true scientists, but only if we change the rules.WHIIIINNNNNNNE.

" I hike through a canyon . . ."

This is so funny in so many ways its just sad. I know most of you understand geology 101, but obviously someone needs a lesson. CLAY is a mineral found in many sedimentary rocks.  It is not a rock.  Is your rock shale, siltstone, sandstone? Enquiring minds want to know! If only gravity was it work, wouldn't all the material that has fallen off the walls still be there somewhere?  What force carried it away? You say canyon walls cannot overhang:  ever been in a slot canyon in Arizona or Utah?  Ever seen pictures of a slot canyon? Again geology 101:  limestone is not silicate based.

If you are the IDiots next great white intellect, the movement is definitely doomed.

Date: 2009/10/04 22:41:51, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,22:02)

There's your image deadman, and now here's your quote.
       
Quote
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too.


You gave me a pixel of the entire redwall formation, but we'll go with an initial observation.  First of all--there is no way it is 95% calcium carbonate. Do you know what is about 98% pure--the WHITE cliffs of Dover.  Did I "gallop' to know that?  Nah.  I already knew it.  

The cliffs of dover are WHITE chalk--made up of forminefera and other phytoplankton. Did I gallop--nah. Look at how RED your cliff is.  Do we need to say that's some kind of oxidation? Did I gallop--nah. Probably with some metal like magnesium--since you want me to talk about dolomitic limestone.  Did I gallop--a little, i had to research a little on dolomite--isn't a troll dishonest?

Limestone is not that pure. Maybe there is iron or another metal mixed in, I don't know--do you know what causes it to be red?  I'm sure you went there and analyzed the entire cliff Deadman--so why don't you tell me what it is (lol--I think we need to laugh a little).  Maybe it has "red clay" which comes from an ooze that is 30% or less of marine shells.  Anyway, I'm sure you're going to let me know after you tell me how much I don't know about it...:D

As far as jumping through your hoops--last time I checked you weren't my professor--so I don't have an assignment due.:)

Vertical structure--Ooze? Oozes are not 95% pure CC. Well didn't I tell you once that the RL is calcite and modern oozes are aragonite.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty.  Do you or I think that cliff sits as it was originally formed--you don't and I don't.  Stuff fell off of it.  If it was cut by massive amounts of water having only a little plasticity (there is a scientific word for the thickness of a solution--do you remember what it is? I'm trying not to regurgitate much), which I believe it did--the pressure made it to drain quickly and probably it had already began to have secondary chemical changes--which some scientists believe is the cause of dolomite--but they don't know for sure--so I don't either.

Okay, you keep tripping over the fact that somehow it's going to fall over--I'll say it again--IT IS NOT A WALL--IT IS THE EDGE OF THOUSANDS OF CUBIC MILES OF HORIZONTAL SEDIMENT.  

My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.

Then and most importantly above all.  You have no idea how many tectonic events have affected the Grand Canyon--while (hypothetically) the material was wet and when after (hypothetically) it was cut.

You have to understand, Deadman--you have to ask!  And another thing--I think we are all taking ourselves too seriously here.  Maybe we need to take a chill pill or blood pressure or something.

If you would simply google "redwall limestone"  you would find that the red is staining from the red beds of  the overlying Supai formation.

and you seem to be the only one hyperventilating.  Everyone else is just laughing.

Date: 2009/10/06 11:58:13, Link
Author: nmgirl
Since FL still has doubts about the Catholic Church and evolution, here is the latest, as posted on the NCSE website:

The latest on evolution from the Vatican
October 5th, 2009 International General 2009
A recently published statement on current scientific knowledge on cosmic evolution and biological evolution from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences concludes: "The extraordinary progress in our understanding of evolution and the place of man in nature should be shared with everyone. ... Furthermore, scientists have a clear responsibility to contribute to the quality of education, especially as regards the subject of evolution." The statement appears in the proceedings of "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life," a plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held from October 31 to November 4, 2008.

Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories," noting that there was also wide agreement among the participants on the common ancestry of life on earth. "Evolution," he added, "has acquired the status of established fact. In the words of His Holiness John Paul II, it is 'more than a hypothesis'." The centrality of natural selection to evolution was also recognized, although de Duve acknowledged "the need to refine some of the conceptual bases" of natural selection "in the light of recent findings."

"On the other hand," De Duve added, "no one, at least among the scientists, defended the recently advocated theory of 'intelligent design' ... Several of the arguments cited in support of this theory were shown to ignore recent findings. In particular, the theory was rejected as intrinsically non-disprovable, resting, as it does, on the a priori contention, neither provable nor disprovable, that certain events cannot be naturally explained. These views did not satisfy some theologians who stressed the role of design in creation, an affirmation which, in turn, raised the questions of where and how design is manifested. The issue was not settled during the meeting."

"Intelligent design" was also the topic of Maxine Singer's contribution to the plenary session. Singer traced the history of the antievolution movement in the United States, from Scopes-era attempts to ban the teaching of evolution, through the McLean, Edwards, and Kitzmiller cases, to the present spate of "academic freedom" bills such as Louisiana's, which "permits teachers to speak of evolution as 'controversial' and is an invitation to teachers to present alternative, nonscientific explanations." She added, "The young governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, signed the bill, making it law although he had been a biology major at Brown University."

"Intelligent design is one of the more recent subterfuges used to try to get creationist idea into school science curricula," Singer explained. Its proponents "say their methods are scientific. But they do not describe experiments or systematic observations and do not publish in recognized, peer-reviewed journals." In the face of resistance to evolution exemplified by "creation science" and "intelligent design," Singer concluded, "we are unlikely to convince those who view their religious faith as in fundamental conflict with scientific evolution. ... The most important task for scientists and the only one that has a chance to succeed is assuring that science and evolution are taught properly in school science classes."

Date: 2009/10/06 16:32:36, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,16:07)
Quote
If the Pope believes in Evolution and also believes that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, he must regularly experience a painful amount of cognitive dissonance.

Maybe yes, maybe no, I don't know.
But you can tell from the previous Pope quotations I offered in this thread that he's really, thoughtfully struggled with the issue.  

He has never retracted his own Required Explanation/Teleology/Intelligent-Project statements, and he did allow Cardinal Schoenborn to offer his own pro-ID challenge in the media some years ago.  That's courageous and thoughtful of him.

But, there IS a very serious dissonance involved with Christianity and Evolution.   You've already read the personal statements of five former Christians for whom that dissonance helped erode and corrode their Christian faith past the breaking point.  

It's no accident -- none at all -- that Jason Rosenhouse wrote at Evolutionblog that
       
Quote
"Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend."

---June 21, 2008

He's right.  That situation has to be taken mondo seriously.

Btw, Rosenhouse wrote something else too.  Consider well:
       
Quote
But you cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict.

The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.


----Rosenhouse, eSkeptic website, Oct 10, 2007

Dissonance.  Conflict.  Erosion.  Damage.  Think about it.  Even this generalized "the Pope accepts evolution" statement that some posters are advocating, doesn't take into account certain other serious items that he's said publicly.  

I think it's clear that there's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance taking place (although I don't know to what extent) taking place among the Christian TE's.  

FloydLee

Floyd the dissonance is all in your head.  A literal interpretation of genesis is not a requirement of being a christian. some of your cult members may believe it, but a large number of other christians beg to differ with you and don't suffer any cognitive dissonance. We have a pita from trying to talk to you, however.

And in response to your continuing attempts to prove the Catholic church does not support evolution, here is the latest from the NCSE website:

The latest on evolution from the Vatican
October 5th, 2009 International General 2009
A recently published statement on current scientific knowledge on cosmic evolution and biological evolution from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences concludes: "The extraordinary progress in our understanding of evolution and the place of man in nature should be shared with everyone. ... Furthermore, scientists have a clear responsibility to contribute to the quality of education, especially as regards the subject of evolution." The statement appears in the proceedings of "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life," a plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held from October 31 to November 4, 2008.

Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories," noting that there was also wide agreement among the participants on the common ancestry of life on earth. "Evolution," he added, "has acquired the status of established fact. In the words of His Holiness John Paul II, it is 'more than a hypothesis'." The centrality of natural selection to evolution was also recognized, although de Duve acknowledged "the need to refine some of the conceptual bases" of natural selection "in the light of recent findings."

"On the other hand," De Duve added, "no one, at least among the scientists, defended the recently advocated theory of 'intelligent design' ... Several of the arguments cited in support of this theory were shown to ignore recent findings. In particular, the theory was rejected as intrinsically non-disprovable, resting, as it does, on the a priori contention, neither provable nor disprovable, that certain events cannot be naturally explained. These views did not satisfy some theologians who stressed the role of design in creation, an affirmation which, in turn, raised the questions of where and how design is manifested. The issue was not settled during the meeting."

"Intelligent design" was also the topic of Maxine Singer's contribution to the plenary session. Singer traced the history of the antievolution movement in the United States, from Scopes-era attempts to ban the teaching of evolution, through the McLean, Edwards, and Kitzmiller cases, to the present spate of "academic freedom" bills such as Louisiana's, which "permits teachers to speak of evolution as 'controversial' and is an invitation to teachers to present alternative, nonscientific explanations." She added, "The young governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, signed the bill, making it law although he had been a biology major at Brown University."

"Intelligent design is one of the more recent subterfuges used to try to get creationist idea into school science curricula," Singer explained. Its proponents "say their methods are scientific. But they do not describe experiments or systematic observations and do not publish in recognized, peer-reviewed journals." In the face of resistance to evolution exemplified by "creation science" and "intelligent design," Singer concluded, "we are unlikely to convince those who view their religious faith as in fundamental conflict with scientific evolution. ... The most important task for scientists and the only one that has a chance to succeed is assuring that science and evolution are taught properly in school science classes."

Date: 2009/10/07 14:47:01, Link
Author: nmgirl
Louis, i agree with you.  I have only been doing this a couple of months and I am sick and tired of trying to have a discussion with people whose only skill is cut and paste. I mean, are they even capable of having an original thought?

It was fun to shoot the fish in the barrel for a while, but now it's more like kicking puppies.

Date: 2009/10/07 19:15:23, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,18:55)
]
This was not caused by a glacier.
Durham Canyon

Let me get this straight. You are comparing erosion of unconsolidated top soil to erosion of consolidated rock? hahahahahahahahhahahhhahahahaha.  OUch, I think I pulled something!

Date: 2009/10/07 21:34:58, Link
Author: nmgirl
Scienthuse, check out a couple of books by donald l baars:  Navajo Country and The Colorado Plateau.  pages 16-19 in the latter talk about the deposition of the Redwall Limestone.  

Neither book is going to do you much good however if you continue to hang on to a 6000 year old earth perspective.

Date: 2009/10/08 00:06:13, Link
Author: nmgirl
I started reading Baar's book again and as he talks about the beauty and majesty of the Grand Canyon as seen from a small raft on the river, I just don't understand why YECs have to believe in this 6000 year old earth and things happening in just moments.  Can't they see the wonder of millions of years of geologic activity, one process building on the other to create this fantastic place? Why is this not evidence of creation over millions of years?

Date: 2009/10/08 13:15:04, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,12:50)
Quote
So, please define what "professional scientist evolutionists" means.
`
Here's 5 examples just to get started.

Futuyma
Mayr
Bozarth
Coyne
Whoever's currently teaching Biology 391 at the Univ. of Tenn. at Martin

So, would you agree?  Are those professional evolutionist scientists there?

Floyd, you are the one who claimed to be able to prove that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  You have not been able to do that so GIVE IT UP!

No matter how many red herrings or strawmen you throw out there, no matter how many BFF you think up, no matter if you think the Pope is not a Christian, you have lost this debate.

We all know Christians, both famous and anonymous, who have no problem believing in evolution and Christianity.  Just because YOU have a problem with reality, it is not proof of a problem.

Date: 2009/10/08 13:28:58, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 08 2009,12:36)
The last six pages of chewtoy-dom aside does the acceptance of geological "deep time", a long age of the earth, etc. therefore require the acceptance of evolutionary theory to explain the development of life on the aged orb?

I think any explanation that the current (or very similar to current) lifeforms were developed at that time (e.g. multiple billions of years ago) and have existed in something close to a static state for that length of time is:
1. Not supported by the fossil evidence
2. Not supported by the DNA evidence (pointing to development and diversity of species in relatively rapid time frames.)

To summarize, if you accept an old Earth (4+ billion years old and the accompanying geology (stratifigraphy, plate tectonics, etc.) does that require acceptance of the current theory of the evolution of life?  (And if not, what is a rational theory that explains the known evidence?)

- Kurt

I don't think you can even discuss evolution without an acceptance of deep time. And i don't understand how you can know anything about geology and deny deep time.

I also don't see how you can deny all the evidence of an old earth by claiming that god deliberately faked all that evidence. I think it's blasphemy to claim that god is a fraud.

Date: 2009/10/08 18:45:32, Link
Author: nmgirl
Floyd, here's my thought on #2, the teleology bit.  You don't give a rat's ass what the purpose of a grapefruit or meerkat is.  You have to think that human's were created for a special purpose so you can feel special.  You don't want a God to worship, you want god to worship you.

Date: 2009/10/09 13:21:00, Link
Author: nmgirl
Floyd, the first step in getting out a hole is to stop digging.

Date: 2009/10/12 20:57:34, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,20:18)
Mayr said that the theory of evolution "no longer requires God as creator or designer."

And yet, according to both the Old and New Testaments, God is absolutely required as creator and designer.  (Already cited examples in the Bible text.)

And the Pope agrees.
   
Quote
"How many people are there today who, fooled by atheism, think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order.

"Through sacred Scripture, the Lord reawakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project."  --- Pope Benedict (CNS, Nov. 9 2005

So, we have the First  Incompatibility there.  No way to escape it.

Floyd, where is the text of the entire speech? I looked this up and you have taken one person's opinion of what they thought the Pope meant.  You keep taking stuff out of context and posting opinion as fact and you wonder why you keep losing.  

You know one definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over again and expecting a different income.

Date: 2009/10/14 06:35:09, Link
Author: nmgirl
Floyd, you need to give it up.  You were toast the first time a Christian posted that he/she believed in evolution. You think that lies and mis-quotes will somehow change our beliefs or that you can judge us as not really Christians and continue to argue.

Millions of Christians accept evolution as science and your opinion is meaningless.

If we're wrong, we'll deal with God on the issue, not you.

Date: 2009/10/14 08:58:49, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,08:35)
Quote
You were toast the first time a Christian posted that he/she believed in evolution.

Rosenhouse has refuted this argument.  What was your response to his statement, Nmgirl?

My response is real simple:  i am a Christian who believes in evolution.  someone else's opinion is irrelevant to my belief.

Date: 2009/10/14 09:17:38, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,09:14)
Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 14 2009,08:58)
My response is real simple:  i am a Christian who believes in evolution.  someone else's opinion is irrelevant to my belief.

Here's another... since I'm discounting quotes taken out of context... we're two up on you.

Here's 12050 more:  the clergy letter project.

Date: 2009/10/15 13:31:02, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,13:27)
Quote
Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god

Actually, even THIS much of your post is a painful exercise in Biblical illiteracy.  The God of the OT (who is the same as the God of the NT, but that's another post), is NOT "a primitive sun god" at all.  That much you could glean just by reading the Bible period!  

Exactly how is it that the Creator and Ruler and Sustainer of the Entire Universe At All Levels All Time All Space All Dimensions (both Testaments make that clear, Gen. 1:1, Col. 1:16) be limited to a mere "god of the sun" like some heathen half-patootie job?  That's irrational baby!

FloydLee

Floyd, you are such a spazz!  

I'm going to put the water question another way:

Why don't fundies like you require teaching God in physics class when kids study gravity?  why don't you require teaching about god in chemistry class when talking about molecules of H2O?

Date: 2009/10/19 12:06:38, Link
Author: nmgirl
I think Floyd's head exploded.

Date: 2009/10/20 09:04:48, Link
Author: nmgirl
Let's try a new debate topic:  Why Floyd Lee is proof that there is no Intelligent Design.

1.  He keeps going off topic.
2.  He thinks he has the right to judge people in God's stead.
3.  He can't believe that millions of Christians don't agree with him.
4.  He can't read and respond to questions.
5.  He thinks that opinions are facts.
6.  He thinks that the Pope is not Christian.

I'm sure you guys can add some more proofs for me.

Date: 2009/10/21 13:51:36, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:43)
Quote
Non sequitor.

How can it possibly be a non-sequitor?  The immaterial human soul, and human ensoulment by God alone (NOT evolution), is NON-negotiable, according to Popes Benedict ,  JP2,  Pius,  and the rest.

No Catholic concessions (and no compatibilities either!) to evolution AT ALL on that one.

so are you now claiming that the soul is a physical, inheritable charachteristic, just like brown eyes?  


hahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahaha!

Date: 2009/10/21 14:00:22, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:55)
Quote
so are you now claiming that the soul is a physical, inheritable charachteristic, just like brown eyes?
 
Please check the definition of "immaterial."  

Actually, you evolutionists would have a lock on the Catholic angle if the soul actually WAS a physical inheritable characteristic.  

As it stands now, the lock exists only for the Incompatibility!!

websters concise dictionary:  Immaterial- 1. not pertinent; unimportant 2.   incorporeal, spiritual.

Date: 2009/10/21 15:45:30, Link
Author: nmgirl
floyd's plauing quote games again:  here is the previous paragraph from John Paul II


"It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point:

If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

Date: 2009/10/22 16:46:26, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2009,09:36)
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 21 2009,15:57][/quote]
 
Quote
Nmgirl quoted:
   
Quote
If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

Seems clear enough.


Well, it's certainly clear enough to those of us who don't try to quote mine or selectively read the essay:

 
Quote
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.


So indeed, what the pope is saying is that there are several concepts of evolution and some of them -those that insist that the soul is a product of naturalist development - are incompatible with evolution. Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution. Once again, Floyd only demonstrates that he can't read or refuses to do so accurately and honestly.

Robin, thanks for highlighting the relevant phrase that FL left out.

Date: 2009/10/23 10:50:16, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:28)
Quote
Do snakes talk?

Do donkeys talk?

Can a big fish swallow a person without killing him?

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?

All four of those items would require supernatural action.  But the Bible says all four events actually took place in history, all the same.  Literally.

But you don't believe the Bible on those items.

So tell me something  Henry.  The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  You believe the Bible on THAT one?  Literally?  

I await your answer.

You know floyd, this isn't about anyone's faith or lack of faith.  You claim to have proved that Evolution is incompatible with christianity.  

You have failed.  Accept it and go on.  it is none of your business what anyone's faith is.  Act like a man, not a whiny 3 yr old.

Date: 2009/10/26 13:49:23, Link
Author: nmgirl
69 pages of posts and FL's only proof is a literal interpretation of genesis.  Geez, I hope he didn't sprain any brain cells.

Date: 2009/10/27 12:39:01, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,12:30)
Quote
Yet another appeal to authority.

Hey, if you want to go directly to the Genesis biblical text itself, and CONFIRM that Gen. 1-11 were written as straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or If you want to go to other Old Testament texts and confirm that the OT writers considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.

Which one you wanna do Frank?

i was going to post a rebuttal, but fl is just too pathetic to waste time on.

Date: 2009/10/27 12:48:07, Link
Author: nmgirl
I'm still trying to figure out how you get 24 hour days if the sun wasnt created until the 4th day.  how did these biblical experts measure 24 hours?

Date: 2009/10/27 13:05:45, Link
Author: nmgirl
we're repeating ourselves now.  yodel Elf is going to stick to his IDiocy no matter what.  Since hw is not going to offer anything new, I think it's time to shut this down.

Date: 2009/10/29 10:10:36, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 29 2009,09:38)
Hey Floyd,

The following people accept Evolution as the way their god made life, including the physical nature of humans:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister

Question:  Are they or are they not Christians?  Yes or no will do.

Hey, don't forget me, nmgirl.

Date: 2009/10/29 10:44:12, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 29 2009,10:35)
Hey Floyd,

The following people accept Evolution as the way their god made life, including the physical nature of humans:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister
5:  nmgirl

Question:  Are they or are they not Christians?  Yes or no will do.

And the 12000 plus signers at the clergy Letter Project.

Date: 2009/10/29 10:47:21, Link
Author: nmgirl
We can now add the Methodists.  Resolutions from the 2008 General Conference:

Petition 80050: accepts evolution and corrects some ambiguities under “Science and Technology” in the Book of Discipline.


Petition 80990: endorses The Clergy Letter Project and its reconciliatory programs between religion and science and urges United Methodist clergy participation, in Resolution 11, “God’s Creation and the Church” in the Book of Resolutions.


Petition 80839: creates a new resolution, “Evolution and Intelligent Design,” in the Book of Resolutions: “The United Methodist Church goes on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools.”

Date: 2009/10/29 12:31:08, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,12:24)
Quote
If you want, I will go back and find every response by you, list the page and show that you are a true goddamn liar.

Then start with the Pope.  (You'll find Francis' Collins name next to his.)  Clear answers were already provided.

Also look up Nmgirl.  Already responded to her testimony, way back.

You'll want to start searching soon, I would think.  
Btw, you also received my specific answers on Robin, CM, and your sister (whoever she is).  Don't wanna respond back on THOSE answers, do you??

Answer the question:  Is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 REQUIRED to be a Christian.

Date: 2009/10/31 19:59:28, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:33)
Quote
Yet I am a Christian who accepts evolution.  
You continue to claim that this is impossible.

Nope.  I have NOT said "this is impossible", not at all.  
(Remember the Pope?  Remember Nmgirl?  Do you need to check a few of the back pages, CM?  Sure looks like you do.)

Instead, what I have fully demonstrated, that "this is rationally and Scripturally inconsistent."

THAT was the point of the Incompatibility debate, CM.  Surely you get it by now?

what is "rational" about ignoring 200 years of scientific discoveries? You know FL, I think you need to get away from searching the web for people you can misquote and go into the real world.  maybe a dose of real geology or a trip to a real science museum would help, but I doubt it. Fortunately, I don't meet many people who are determined to remain stupid.

Date: 2009/10/31 20:08:46, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,19:33)
Instead, what I have fully demonstrated, that "this is rationally and Scripturally inconsistent."

THAT was the point of the Incompatibility debate, CM.  Surely you get it by now?

So tell me Floyd, where did you get your degree in Theology?  Where are your published scholarly works on the bible. Which misquoted scriptures are inconsistent with acceptance of the Theory of Evolution?  And why in the hell do you still think that someone's opinion is evidence?

Date: 2009/11/02 13:54:43, Link
Author: nmgirl
Is english FL's first language?

Date: 2009/11/02 16:51:17, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2009,16:22)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,14:07)
And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
 
   
Quote
"The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

I went through this earlier, but here it is again for you to ignore a second time:

1.  How do we define "diverse scientific discoveries"?
2.  Can we count them?  If so, show us your list.
3.  How do we define "distant and very different environment"?
4.  How do we count the "diverse scientific discoveries" we haven't made, but which could be made elsewhere?

ETA: I agree with Heddle's "Al Sharpton" example also.  Gonzales and Richards are saying their hypothesis holds water unless we can say otherwise.  Similarly, if we watched Rev. Al long enough and closely enough, we might see him levitate a little bit.  Therefore there is no such thing as gravity.

I would add a #5:
How do you define a "superior platform"?

Date: 2009/11/04 11:10:48, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 04 2009,11:04)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:56)
 
Quote
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes?

Nope.  Not at all.   Fortunately, his cosmological ID hypothesis does not require agreement with old-age.  The fine-tuning appears whether you like "Old" or "Young."

So, once again you pick and choose.

Tell me FL, what requirement is there for fine-tuning when your deity made everything as is just 6000 years ago?

I mean, you seem to disagree with Gonzalez that the planet is fine tuned for life. You don't need to fine tune something when you can create it exactly as you require in the first place.

Gonzalez would not have been able to write the same book if he believed the earth was only 6000 years old, yet you somehow think that does not matter.

Amazing.

"amazing" is not the word I would use for FL's thought process.  pathetic-yes, amazing-no!

Date: 2009/11/05 11:31:42, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,11:16)
Quote
Can you tell me how we could go about falsifying the claims made in PP? A single example.

Let's do better than that.  Let's give you G and R's specifics.  These are the specific falsifiers for their particular cosmological ID hypothesis.  Please engage.
 
Quote
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses.

It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.
Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

******
 
Quote
Is that something we can do in a lab?

Doesn't seem like it much, but falsifiability of a scientific hypothesis is NOT limited to what can be observed in laboratories on the ground, as G and R's specifics make clear.
 
Quote
In the next year?  10 years?

Or even 20.  Or more.  Falsifiability of a scientific hypothesis NOT dependent on how many years it takes you to observe and record that one killer falsifying observation.

It's like what Casey Luskin said at EN & V on June 4, 2007.  He said it best:

 
Quote
Clearly the privileged planet hypothesis makes testable predictions. It may take much data to completely determine if the hypothesis stands the test of time, but Dr. Gonzalez’s viewpoint is testable and falsifiable.

so your proof of "ID is Science" are hypotheses that can not be tested by our current level of technology?  I'm still waiting for definitions of "hostile to life" "superior platform" and diversise scientific descoveries".

Date: 2009/11/05 11:45:48, Link
Author: nmgirl
Help me out here guys.  i am new to posting to these boards with the IDiots but I see the same things everywhere.  Why are most of their posts cut and paste of other people's words.  Are people like FL incapable of presenting their thoughts in their own words?

Date: 2009/11/10 15:50:14, Link
Author: nmgirl
"So, accepting evolutionary theory is like buying an iPhone to appear hip although you make only one phone call per week and never use any of its other functions*?"

you mean, i'm finally cool!

Date: 2009/11/13 11:04:14, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 13 2009,10:54)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 13 2009,09:56)
Careful, Quack, you read like you're getting infected with Byerslexia.

Guess I better let him speak for himself then.
Josephbenami:
       
Quote
So good guys of Canada just keep talking out load. Its our country. Canadian, French Canadian, Ethnic citizen.
Robert Byers
Toronto,Ontario

edu.gov.on.ca:
   
Quote
Robert Byers, Project Manager – Database

Robert on marsupials

Oh My God, where did this idiot come from?

Date: 2009/11/18 08:14:02, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 18 2009,03:41)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 16 2009,09:10)
Rob, you can now do some science:

Show how the marsupial 'bears' are more closely genetically related to the world's true placental 'bears' than to other marsupials.

Should be easy.  

"Well, they look the same" was science in 4000 BC.

These days, not so much.

Genetics is a new field full of presumptions.
I see genetics as just following other physical triggers in the body and not as a trail of origins.
If a creature changes instantly to a new reproductive style the dna must follow as its hand in glove.
The clear sameness of creatures is the evidence of relationship and genetics must bow to it.
Its only a special case where i am related to my father. This just because of no important changes occured. Yet if they do then so with the dna.
No reason not to see that it works that way especially when clearly a bear is a bear regardless of having a pouch or not.

a bear is a bear, of course, of course, unless it's not!

this is absolutely priceless.

Date: 2009/11/18 09:32:17, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 18 2009,08:38)
A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed.

thanks, i couldn't remember all of it.

Date: 2009/11/19 15:19:16, Link
Author: nmgirl
The latest from my favorite local IDiota:

"I think it can be both 7 days 6000 years ago and billions of years without no contradiction. My theory, and I don't know if anyone has ever seriously studied it is that time...the passage of time...was different than it is now and we looking back would see 6000 years as billions of years. Think of the doppler effect through time. "

Date: 2009/11/23 16:59:33, Link
Author: nmgirl
bobby's writing makes me appreciate the "cut and paste" crowd.  my local IDiota tried to quotemine dawkins to support ID today.  talk about falling out of your chair laughing.

Date: 2010/01/10 11:26:40, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 10 2010,08:46)
Any bets on how long it will be before someone in the IDC movement quote-mines [URL=http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/01/stephen-hawking-the-human-species-has-entered-a-new-stage-of-evolution-the-daily-galaxy-to

p-story-of.html]this article[/URL] about Stephen Hawking?

Money shot (with quote mine material bolded):
 
Quote
"By contrast," Hawking says, "there are about 50,000 new books published in the English language each year, containing of the order of a hundred billion bits of information. Of course, the great majority of this information is garbage, and no use to any form of life. But, even so, the rate at which useful information can be added is millions, if not billions, higher than with DNA."

This means Hawking says that we have entered a new phase of evolution. "At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information."

But what distinguishes us from our cave man ancestors is the knowledge that we have accumulated over the last ten thousand years, and particularly, Hawking points out, over the last three hundred.

"I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race," Hawking said.

already been done out here in the land of enchantment.  don't know where the IDiota got his cut and paste from, but it showed up on topix a few months ago.

Date: 2010/01/29 14:56:52, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (JLT @ Jan. 29 2010,10:27)
Quote
Natural selection, which has often been portrayed as all-powerful and capable of building exquisitely complex structures, has failed to provide the giant panda with any enzymes for digesting plant food.

Therefore, pandas can't exist. Oh wait -
   
Quote
Although the panda cannot make enzymes for digesting plant food, communities of gut microbes are the most likely explanation of its continuing survival.

So, pandas don't need special enzymes to survive on plant food but that they don't have any still
   
Quote
testifies to the failure of Darwinian mechanisms to overcome problems caused by mutations.

It is not, however, an instance of bad design, because pandas were of course designed to eat meat and were only forced to eat plants because of mutations.
   
Quote
From the perspective of design, we have a story of how a superbly designed carnivore has managed to survive the effects of genetic degradation.

In other ID news:
Whales don't have gills, another failure of Darwinian evolution. Genetic degradation led to the loss of their legs, so these superbly designed land living animals are forced to swim.

OK, when did bamboo cease to be a plant?

Date: 2010/02/11 14:28:28, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 11 2010,13:51)
In a totally unexpected move, Casey takes the fight directly to Judge Jones, in the first of a series of 8 posts!  Can you feel the hurt coming?


i rarely click these links because my tard tolerance level is very low but i had to check this one out.  I've read the dover decision a couple of times and sure don't remember jones talking about dr dr d or his stupid idea.

Date: 2010/02/12 10:54:48, Link
Author: nmgirl
i have several questions and can't find a thread to post on, so here goes:

1. why do so many discussions about ID vs TOE turn into discussions about philosophy? I''m obviously naive to think that science is about observable evidence and experimentation.

2.  WTF is methodologic naturalism? and why is it used as a cuss word by the IDiota?

3. can anyone explain what the IDiota mean by information?

thanks

Date: 2010/03/10 15:27:40, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Mar. 10 2010,02:36)
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010....ts.html

In which Vox blames feminism for something that feminism is the first to condemn.  Superintellicalifragilisticexpialitard

omg, i have never been to this guy's blog and now I may never recover. "Internet Superintelligence" at the top of the page (WTF?).  

And his babbling against women?  I have heard that kind of crap since I left the heart of the bible belt in the 70s.  Obviously his mother did not show him enough girl power.l

Date: 2010/03/11 10:47:45, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:32)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)
Quote
I have provided plenty of evidence for ID on my blog.


Then it shouldn't be too much trouble to cut and paste your best example of that evidence.

 
Quote
Why can't you grow some balls and leave your protectorate and actually engage the evidence?


Your posts are coming through here without hindrance, Joe. You pre-moderate your own blog. A quick glance doesn't suggest your blog is a suitable venue for a free exchange of ideas.

Alan,

It shouldn't be any problem for you to post the best evidence for your position.

Please start with a testable hypothesis for an accumulation of genetic accidents.

As for posting here- just to fight assholes like you.

I posted a new topic and some little faggot edited my words.

IOW this is not the place to exchange ideas...

excuse me for butting in on the insult fest here, but isn't lenski's e coli experiment enough for you?

Date: 2010/03/16 10:42:23, Link
Author: nmgirl
Dear BJ,  youask why ID/creationists (IDiota) don't get any respect on science blogs.  Here are some of my observations.

Some babble incoherently like Byers.

Some, like FL  and IBIG, insist on their literal interpretation of the Bible being the only truth.

The misuse of real science, ie the second theory of thermodynamics.

The mental contortions required to make the geology of the earth fit with a noachian flood:

Date: 2010/03/16 11:24:11, Link
Author: nmgirl
Dear BJ,  you ask why ID/creationists (IDiota) don't get any respect on science blogs.  Here are some of my observations.

Failure to answer a simple question:  How do you calculate CSI?

Some babble incoherently like Byers.

Some, like FL and IBIG, insist on their literal interpretation of the Bible being the only truth.

The misuse of real science, ie the second theory of thermodynamics.

The mental contortions required to make geology fit a 6000 year old earth with a noachian flood:
    - rocks are not really millions and billions of years old, God just made them look that way to fool us.
    - plate tectonics either doesn't exist or was much faster in the past.
    - claiming there is no place on earth where limestone is forming now so how can we say how long it takes to deposit 6 or 7000 feet of the stuff.
    - claiming the fossil record supports how dead organisms would have been deposited after a world wide flood.  

Quotemining:  The deliberate misquoting of evolution supporting scientists to make it appear that they support ID.  for example Gould, Hawking.  This "lying for Jesus" is especially reprehensible since in the internet age it is very easy to check what the author really said.  

Lying through "cut and paste":  individuals will try to argue their point with articles and links from places like aig or conservapedia without ever checking original sources. This is where you get the "Scientist sez" quotes like " Dr Joe sez chimps and humans are not related" and Dr Joe is a high school educated homeopath in Gunbarrel City, TX.

Deliberate misunderstanding of how science works.  Scientists doing research are constantly producing new data.  This data could be new fossils or mapping of the genome in a new organism or even the discovery of new organisms.  This new data may fit smoothly in the paradigm or be outside the box.  Scientists will argue and test and do more research to see where it fits or it may inspire a new research.  This messy process does not cancel out the value of the conclusions.

Endless repetition of arguments that have been dismissed dozens of times before.  I think the IDiota must have a play book because they argue the same things the same way time after time.  I give Byers credit for being a creative babbler.  

Deliberate "misunderstanding" of scientific terms such as transitional fossils. or misunderstanding common phrases such as Joe's "baseball sized rock" on another thread here.

I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

Date: 2010/03/24 15:01:56, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (snorkild @ Mar. 24 2010,13:12)
Methinks mr. Ray weasel'd away.

:(

I was thinking the same thing.  chicken shit.

Date: 2010/03/24 19:12:23, Link
Author: nmgirl
Does CDanner think we responded to bj in order to turn him against Christianity?  Since most of our posts were about dr dr d as pond scum, does that mean that cd thinks the dr should be worshipped?

Date: 2010/03/26 20:23:08, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 26 2010,20:06)
They don't get grades at BibCol, just gold stars pasted on their foreheads.

Their mommies are so proud!

better than crosses branded on their arms.

Date: 2010/04/13 13:04:59, Link
Author: nmgirl
I don't read UD much because it is just too nauseating, but I found this from slimy sa interesting:

"The issue with Waltke is he is guilty of the very thing he insinuates about others. In the eyes of several highly literate scientists, he’s following the cult of Darwin in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. He affirms the orthodoxy, not the facts. This is the pot calling the kettle black."

WTF is the "overwhelming scientific evidence" against evolution?

Date: 2010/04/13 17:16:02, Link
Author: nmgirl
who pulled FL's string?

Date: 2010/04/14 19:00:29, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,15:14)
ID is not mechanistic, Dembski wrote.   So where's the published proof that a scientific hypothesis needs to be mechanistic in order to be science?  

(And what exactly will you evolutionists do to salvage your high-school biology textbooks' chemical evolution sales-pitch, if you insist on every scientific hypothesis being mechanistic?)

******

 
Quote
True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering. -- William Dembski


Anyone have a published disproof of that statement?

FL

Froot Loop, where is the DI's published evidence?

Date: 2010/04/22 13:42:39, Link
Author: nmgirl
From Gil

"The problem with most Darwinists is that they have no real-world experience in any hard-science discipline with real-world accountability (such as engineering), in which a proposed solution or mechanism must first pass the beverage-out-the-nose test, and then be empirically verified to be capable of what is claimed for it."

so trying to find a cure for aids or vaccines against swine flu or anitibiotics that will cure mrsa or cdif or tb is not "hard science"  I think saving the human race from anitbiotic resistant bugs is about as real as it gets.

Date: 2010/04/24 00:51:54, Link
Author: nmgirl
bjray, I think ogre's list of words to define is a good place to start understanding evolution.  I would add another thing:  TIME, verry long periods of time.

The universe is 13.5 billion years old.  that's 13,500,000,000 years.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

The oldest earth rocks so far discovered are 3.8-4.2 billion years old.

Modern humans appeared no more than 200,000 years ago.

We began studying and systematizing biology and geology less than 300 years ago.

On the Origin of species was written 150 years ago.

The dna double helix was discovered 57 years ago.

My point is that we have spent very little time studying a whole lot of time, and have a lot of work still to do.

Date: 2010/04/24 20:37:09, Link
Author: nmgirl
bj, you really disappoint me.  you came here claiming to be a seeker of truth, but quickly started repeating creationist lies that were shot down long before you were born and in some cases even before I was born.  What is this hangup with you guys to be stuck in the 1800s with paley and when are you going to move to the 21st century?

Date: 2010/04/28 15:23:06, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 28 2010,05:39)
vjtorley has a 3,771 word opening post on [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-a-living-thing-is-what-an-artifact-is-and-why-the-first-living-thing-would-have-been-

one-part-one-of-a-response-to-the-smithy/]What a living thing is, what an artifact is, and why the first living thing would have been one. [/URL]

The last sentence: "Part Two of my reply will be posted later today."

would have been one what ?

Date: 2010/05/19 11:40:01, Link
Author: nmgirl
I just did my periodic, short visit to UD.  I don't know how you guys can stand it.  30 seconds and I start screaming at the computer and pulling my hair out.

Date: 2010/05/19 18:35:07, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (J-Dog @ May 19 2010,09:32)
HaHa, he's wrong, the jokes on him!  Darwin won't be proved wrong in 2013 - the Mayan's have already decided that the world ends in 2012, and it says so right on the TV*.  


*Telly for all you Brit fans out there.

i was trying to figure out why 2013 and then I realized: that is when the rethuglicans take over the world again.

Date: 2010/06/07 14:06:23, Link
Author: nmgirl
is walter bjray's grandfather?

Date: 2010/06/14 20:21:24, Link
Author: nmgirl
From a poster at Huffpo:  


"Our Imaginary Friend who art in Sky-Heaven, hallowed be Thy multiple names and personalities.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in Russia as it is in Texas.
Give us this day our creationism and forgive us our schools of Satanic humanism and we will never forgive the fanatical secularism of the liberals against us.
And lead us not into evolution, but deliver us from The Monopoly of Darwinism.
For Thine is the Intelligent Design and the anti-intellectualism and the hypocrisy forever.
?? ??????? ya."

I just had to share.

Date: 2011/01/06 13:56:33, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,11:18)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 06 2011,11:10)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:59)
Abortion? How many innocent babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade? try   49,551,703

Another red herring... abortion is done by Christians as well as non-Christians.

So, you think it's OK to murder doctors who perform abortions?

So, you think it's OK to perform violence, including murder, to prevent abortion... which is the law of the land*?

* And don't start on "God's Law supercedes Man's Law", don't forget that the Bible says you should follow the Law of the Land... or is that metaphorical too?

But abortion is a secular agenda, I have never seen abortion promoted by churches. You seem to think that just because there are Christians having abortions that it somehow makes not a secular agenda.

And no I don't agree with violence of any kind against abortion clinics, doctors, etc... So, tell me how many have been killed by violence against abortion clinics and doctors? I've already shown that over 49 million babies have been killed.

IBIG, you use the word "church" instead of Christian now.  I say a Christian is not a church.  Too many churches forget the meaning of Christ's message.

Date: 2011/02/19 11:38:31, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 18 2011,22:09)
Quote (REC @ Feb. 18 2011,16:51)
Do ID types have no ability to self-reflect? On one hand, Cornelius Hunter, O'Leary and the like scream about the Darwin tax lobby, and hold every quote by PZ Myers and Dawkins (most have nothing to do with evolution) as evidence that evolution is evil atheism incarnate.

And Dr. Dr. D is spending his summer indoctrinating little Christians to resist secularism:
   
Quote
ID is clearly a factor here in undermining faith in atheism.


UD

   
Quote
Our mission at CrossExamined.org is to equip high school and college students to know why Christianity is true, how to defend it, and how to tactfully refute those who try to corrupt them.


Link

Crossing students didn't turn out too well for for a teacher recently.

At yesterday's hearing in santa fe, a mother of a college student was there testifying in support of the (teach the controversy) bill.  She couldn't understand why her perfect daughter was being was being told to keep her christianity out of her college biology classes.  

So teaching kids how to defend their faith could have a bad effect on their future.

Date: 2011/06/23 10:47:30, Link
Author: nmgirl
count me in for $200.

Date: 2011/11/15 16:55:35, Link
Author: nmgirl
We didn't used to use the term Carboniferous in the United States.  We used Mississipian (older) and Pennsylvanian (younger).  These rocks are between 359 to 249 million years old.  In the midcontinent, including North Texas,  the Mississipian is mostly shallow water limestone and the Pennsylvanian is mostly a near shore, riverine  environment.  I'm sure that sometime during the millions of years of the Pennsylvanian the rivers probably flooded a few times.  How does that indicate a global flood?

Date: 2011/11/17 14:06:29, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:19)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,12:53)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,09:13)
I still want to know where to look for the flood material.  

Interestingly, if forastero were to pick a coal bed between two igneous layers, then we could date that coal bed within a fairly tight range.

What do you think forastero?  What do you estimate the likelihood of us finding a coal bed that can be dated to within 50,000 years of the present time?  What range of error in dating techniques would be required to get that coal bed to your estimate of error?

And don't give me any guff about geological columns and "I didn't say anything about coal beds".  You said it, you claimed it, these are the consequences.

I think I'm hurt.  Forastero skipped right past my question.  sigh... how will I ever go on?

BTW: I still want to know how a global flood can carve a meandering channel in limestone and then deposit 17,000 feet of sediment on top of it.

Shall I add this and the varve question to your outstanding list?  I know you'll explain exactly what exploded to cause the Big Bang any time now.  Oh, and don't forget the cal bed that covers the Earth.  I really want to know about that one.  

Think about it a coal bed that's on the order of 17,000 feet thick and covers the entire Earth.  Talk about being a billionaire.  Just tell me where to look forastero.

The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas


THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION:
A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf

forastero, i finally had time to read the paper on the Barnett shale.  It is obvious that you didn't read it and I quote from the conclusion:
"the section is composed primarily of siliciclastic mudrocks of the
Barnett Formation. These rocks were deposited in below wave base conditions in a deep
water platform to slope setting."  These rocks ain't no flood deposits.

Date: 2011/12/02 14:53:31, Link
Author: nmgirl
"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "

So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world?

Date: 2011/12/02 15:46:25, Link
Author: nmgirl
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05)
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53)
"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "

So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world?

The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle.  So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably:
1.  Rain.
2.  Flooding.
3.  Rapid sediment deposits.
4.  Sediment deposition stops for a while.
5.  Forests grow underwater.
6.  More sediment deposits.

4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc.

all in 40 days?

 

 

 

=====