Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $82,723
94%  
Woo hoo!! And now over 94%!! Less than $5.3k to go!! We can do this. Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by lasereye

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Canaanite Gene Study Actually Proves the Bible Right, But Don't Tell the Media

    08/06/2017 9:05:15 PM PDT · 9 of 26
    lasereye to Paladin2
    So is it evolution or knot?

    Micro-evolution, which is variation within a species, can and does occur without any new genetic information being created. Existing genetic information is just being rearranged. Macro-evolution requires the continual creation of new genetic information. The rearrangement of existing genetic info cannot cause an insect to turn into a reptile or something.

    But now you're off on the age of the universe.

  • Canaanite Gene Study Actually Proves the Bible Right, But Don't Tell the Media

    08/06/2017 8:59:37 PM PDT · 7 of 26
    lasereye to Paladin2
    Analysis of finch beaks at creation.com:

    Finch beaks point to a Creator who provides

    While naturalistic mechanisms may play some role in producing the patterns we see today, creationists have pointed out that they are insufficient to account for the variety seen within created kinds.

    One issue to address is the source of variation. Is it really random, as is commonly believed, or were creatures designed to be able to vary? Beaks can vary in three dimensions: length, width, and depth. The morphology of the beak in an individual adult is determined during its development. Research on Darwin’s finches is revealing molecular mechanisms that account for these differences in development. Two distinct developmental phases are responsible for determining adult beak shape. The details are fascinating and contradict the assertion that variation is random. Rather, they reveal a purposeful design.

  • Canaanite Gene Study Actually Proves the Bible Right, But Don't Tell the Media

    08/06/2017 8:42:10 PM PDT · 5 of 26
    lasereye to Paladin2

    Finch beaks are an example of micro-evolution. What’s the takeaway from that? That every organism evolved from the same ancestor? LOL.

  • Canaanite Gene Study Actually Proves the Bible Right, But Don't Tell the Media

    08/06/2017 8:26:40 PM PDT · 3 of 26
    lasereye to Paladin2

    What about finches with different beak characteristics?

  • Canaanite Gene Study Actually Proves the Bible Right, But Don't Tell the Media

    08/06/2017 8:21:36 PM PDT · 1 of 26
    lasereye
    The media is as bad on the Bible as it is on politics, climate change, the constitution etc.
  • DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution

    06/01/2017 6:36:34 PM PDT · 19 of 249
    lasereye to Karl Spooner
    You are welcome to post any evidence refuting him.

    That's one reason why I asked him if he's a scientist.

  • DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution

    06/01/2017 6:33:49 PM PDT · 15 of 249
    lasereye to Labyrinthos
    Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. is no more of a scientist than the so-called scientists who walk lock-step with the climate change religion. They all have an agenda that is result oriented. None of them are credible.

    Obviously you automatically say that about any credentialed scientist who rejects evolution, which is circular reasoning. Intelligent people don't employ circular reasoning.

    Are you a scientist by any chance?

  • DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution

    06/01/2017 6:22:31 PM PDT · 5 of 249
    lasereye to samtheman

    Some kind of code?

  • DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution

    06/01/2017 6:17:48 PM PDT · 1 of 249
    lasereye
  • Pulling No Punches: Messages from Montana

    05/28/2017 9:28:16 PM PDT · 27 of 29
    lasereye to JLAGRAYFOX
    The Democrats have poured in over 12 millions dollars to win this seat.

    I read 18 million somewhere. It's bizarre. Most Senate races don't spend that much.

  • Report suggests potentially alarming development in Kushner's meeting with head of Russian bank

    05/28/2017 10:21:25 AM PDT · 31 of 31
    lasereye to CurlyDave

    The FBI investigation is not a criminal investigation - it’s a counterespionage investigation - which has been pointed out repeatedly by Andy McCarthy. They are two different types of investigations. In other words, the fact that they are examining whether this occurred doesn’t suggest that they are considering charging Kushner with a crime. But the stupid/lying lib media jumps to that conclusion. And even if Kushner did commit a crime - and this report doesn’t suggest that he did - it wouldn’t reflect on Trump.

  • Report suggests potentially alarming development in Kushner's meeting with head of Russian bank

    05/27/2017 7:55:24 PM PDT · 1 of 31
    lasereye
    This "potentially alarming" development (if it actually occurred - it only says the FBI is looking at whether it did) is completely incompatible with the idiotic Democrat/media story line for the last several months (after the first idiotic story line, that Russia hacked voting machines in WI, PA, MI) i.e., that the Trump campaign "collaborated' with Russia's email hacking well before the election, presumably in exchange for a promise to end sanctions.

    If the Russians were trying to make contact with the Trump transition team after the election, then no relationship existed (and certainly not any collaboration) before the election (whatever such collaboration was supposed to have consisted of, which is never explained of course).

    But the lunatic Dem media just makes it up as they go.

  • Major Evolutionary Blunders: Convergent Evolution Is a Seductive Intellectual Swindle

    04/25/2017 8:15:27 PM PDT · 36 of 36
    lasereye to BroJoeK
    There is no contradiction, logically or any other way, if you simply recall that we are talking here about features which only seem similar -- like samurai and samurai crabs. There are no examples in nature -- none, zero, nada examples -- of advanced creatures (i.e., mammals, birds) only distantly related and yet whose form & features are identical.

    You keep saying "distantly related". That's not part of the definition. It means the features evolved independently. Period. It has nothing to do with "distantly related" (whatever that means exactly). You don't seem to understand what the definition of convergent evolution is.

    For example, from the above article:

    Jerry Coyne explains convergence by describing two similar-looking but unrelated cacti: “I have both types growing on my windowsill, and visitors can’t tell them apart without reading their tags.”

    You are pretending to possess some encylopedic knowledge of all the species in all of nature. You're getting kind of ridiculous actually.

    Furthermore different species that are supposed to have evolved one from the other (as evidenced by their shared features) don't generally have absolutely identical features. Only similar. That is regarded as evidence for evolution. I don't think they ever have absolutely identical features. But perhaps you with your *cough* encylopedic knowledge of all the species in all of nature know of some you can let me know.

    You don't understand either the standard theory of evolution or the ad hoc convergent evolution theory.

    My guess: as a religious person you naturally equate science to religious beliefs, such as the divinely inspired Bible, written one time and forever true. But science is not like that, never was, never will be. Everything but everything in science started out as ad hoc observations and explanations, some made sense, many contradictory, others eventually falsified. That's what science is, it's how science works. That's why I say science is the opposite of religion because in science there is no permanent truth, no belief, no faith and certainly nothing supernatural. Natural science strictly defined is all tentative, conditional, only grudgingly accepted for now pending further evidence or better ideas which might falsify it. But many of science's soundest theories have been around for centuries now, confirmed innumerable times and used every day to design, power and direct our machines. These ideas are not expected to ever be falsified and our lives depend on them working consistently. One such theory is evolution which now permeates most every other scientific field and as such is confirmed daily.

    You don't seem to understand what an ad hoc theory or assumption is, even though I've already explained it and provided links. It's a modification to the original theory in order to prevent it from being falsified. If you think all accepted scientific theories have layers of ad hoc modifications then you have no idea what you're talking about. In fact you don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about but you pretend to.

    The rest of that is some irrelevant generalizations about science in general and which don't apply to evolution and which evos inevitably end up resorting to. Evolution does not "permeate" every other scientific field. Totally absurd.

    Evolution theory in the past 150 years has never been seriously falsified, despite devoted efforts of anti-evolutionists like lasereye to misrepresent & confuse.

    In order for something to be falsified some condition has to be clearly defined whose discovery would falsify it. Evolution generally lacks that. Although according to Darwin, the failure to discover gradual change in the fossil record would falsify his theory and it hasn't been found. That was taken care of by an ad hoc assumption about how the fossils never formed.

  • Major Evolutionary Blunders: Convergent Evolution Is a Seductive Intellectual Swindle

    04/16/2017 6:47:41 PM PDT · 34 of 36
    lasereye to BroJoeK
    From your words it sounds like you don't really understand what the term "convergent evolution" means. The evolution which brings them to that state is perfectly ordinary evolution (descent with modifications, natural selection).

    So, how is the evolution hypothesis (convergent or not) confirmed to make it a theory? Thanks for asking.

    Scientific hypotheses are confirmed, making them theories, by observing results a hypothesis predicted.

    It means two species having some virtually identical feature where neither inherited it from the other. They evolved independently. As the article above says. I didn't say anything about it being a different kind of evolution. Things having the same feature are evidence for one having evolved from the other according to original evolution theory. Now the theory has been modified, and it's a huge ad hoc modification, to say that things having the same feature are evidence for one having evolved from the other, except when it isn't. As the article above says. In other words ad hoc.

    The convergent evolution theory came about after they realized things had virtually identical features that could not have inherited it from each other. Nobody predicted it beforehand. Therefore, observing things with the same features (that couldn't have inherited them from each other) did not confirm anything. It has not been confirmed by anything unless you're using circular reasoning where the observed thing confirms the theory concocted to explain the thing.

    I see nothing in the list of (allegedly) confirmed predictions that relates to convergent evolution. You need to drop your claim that it's been confirmed by lots of observations.

    That list contains the usual BS. For example,

    Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.

    That is not a prediction of evolution. It's something that can be seen as consistent with evolution. Furthermore, there's nothing in there that demonstrates that every single feature of every living thing fits some strict hierarchical arrangement. You think that's actually been demonstrated? It also seems that such a claim is contrary to convergent evolution, since if the same things evolve independently, there's absolutley no reason why "You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly". The idea that if everything fits a strict hierarchical arrangement (which isn't demonstrated there anyway), it confirms evolution implies that all features found in different species were inherited from each other. But (if true) that's consistent with the original theory of evolution only, without the ad hoc convergent evolution added on.

    And, even if they were all actually predicted, which I doubt, that's a classic example of another logical fallacy, confirmation bias, otherwise known as cherry picking. There are many many things that are contrary to and problematic for evolution theory. Darwin's original claim, that fossils would show gradual change, is false.

    Darwin saved his gradual theory of evolution by claiming that intermediate fossils are not found because "[t]he geological record is extremely imperfect"1 and thus it just so happened that the intermediate links were not the ones fossilized. Gould noted in 1977 that Darwin's argument that the fossil record is imperfect "still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly."
    lasereye: "Convergent Evolution is an absolutely perfect example of what this essay, "Protection of a theory" talks about."

    Nonsense, "convergent evolution" is simply the natural explanation for why species can look similar while obviously different.

    My "Protection of a theory" link was to the wrong website. So you didn't read it. The contradiction between the alleged evolution prediction that life forms must all have strictly hierchical features, while we simultaneously have another idea, convergent evolution, which would predict they won't all have strictly hierchical features, is exactly what the essay talks about.

    Lost in this process are the ad hoc explanations, X4, X5 etc. Rationally, they should be incorporated into theory T, where they might need their own confirmation, be subject to possible falsification, and be compared with one another for consistency. Instead, they are simply stashed away in a hidden place, to be pulled out and cited when convenient. The original theory T is left in pristine condition, and the "confirmatory" status of E4+ is applied to that unmodified version of T. This amounts to a sophisticated form of intellectual dishonesty.
  • Major Evolutionary Blunders: Convergent Evolution Is a Seductive Intellectual Swindle

    04/16/2017 11:57:02 AM PDT · 32 of 36
    lasereye to BroJoeK; central_va; Oztrich Boy; Moonman62; TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed; AndyTheBear
    "Convergent evolution" is a hypothesis / theory strongly confirmed by innumerable observations of extant species, the fossil record and DNA analyses. The convergent evolution hypothesis is confirmed by innumerable observations, making it a scientific theory.

    It is not confirmed by anything. What you are calling "confirmation" is the thing the theory is supposed to explain. The thing a theory explains cannot also be the thing that confirms the theory. That's circular reasoning, which is what evolutionists continually insist on using.

    For example, if I propose a theory that trees came about from huge giants vomiting them out and then taking root, a good question would be "What's the evidence that confirms that remarkable theory?". If people took vidoes of giants doing that, it would be evidence. Using evolutionary "logic", I could reply "All those trees are powerful confirmation of the theory!".

    Of course, as the name says, its based on evolution, and it attempts to explain how distantly related populations can have similar features. As such, it will make no sense to anybody who rejects evolution theory.

    Actually evolution doesn't make sense, not just convergent evolution. But I understand perfectly what the claim is and why the claim is made. Any species is ASSUMED to be the result of evolution. The original evolution theory cannot account for things that they observe. Convergent Evolution accounts for it. Therefore Convergent Evolution is true. QED. There's literally nothing more to it than that. It's what's known as an ad hoc hypotheses. Evolution theory is almost entirely ad hoc.

    In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Often, ad hoc hypothesizing is employed to compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. This is because, if a theorist so chooses, there is no limit to the number of ad hoc hypotheses that they could add. Thus the theory becomes more and more complex, but is never falsified. This is often at a cost to the theory's predictive power, however.[1] Ad hoc hypotheses are often characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects.

    Convergent Evolution is an absolutely perfect example of what this essay, "Protection of a theory" talks about.

    Something that has lots of evidence is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. A number of people who set out to research the resurrection claim (and other parts of the New Testament) in order to refute it, concluded it was true and became Christians. Some wrote books about it.

    This being Easter Sunday:

    For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

    1 Corinthians 15

    On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’” Then they remembered his words.

    When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.
    . . .

    While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

    They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

    When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.

    He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

    Luke 24

  • ‘Israelis Toast Syrian Slaughter’: The Making of a Modern Blood Libel, Just in Time for Passover

    04/15/2017 9:16:18 PM PDT · 1 of 17
    lasereye
    I don't know enough html to to get a Twitter post to show up correctly formatted, if it's possible on this site.
  • Major Evolutionary Blunders: Convergent Evolution Is a Seductive Intellectual Swindle

    03/05/2017 6:58:45 PM PST · 28 of 36
    lasereye to AndyTheBear

    I agree it’s necessary to make some assumptions, but assumptions that are created solely to protect a theory are not legitimate science, and shouldn’t be assigned any credibility by an objective individual. Evolution is essentially a gigantic pile of such assumptions.

  • Major Evolutionary Blunders: Convergent Evolution Is a Seductive Intellectual Swindle

    03/05/2017 6:48:09 PM PST · 27 of 36
    lasereye to Moonman62
    The Wiki article on convergent evolution is informative, but it lacks the bizarre car story.

    In what way is it informative? In providing actual evidence that doesn't assume evolution? If you think the answer is "yes" then you saw something that wasn't there.

  • Major Evolutionary Blunders: Convergent Evolution Is a Seductive Intellectual Swindle

    03/05/2017 4:43:01 PM PST · 25 of 36
    lasereye to BroJoeK; central_va; Oztrich Boy; Moonman62; TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed; AndyTheBear
    DNA analysis can reveal which features were present in their last common ancestor.

    They can't analyze the DNA of their last common ancestor unless they already know what their last common ancestor is (and have a living organism to analyze). This assumes evolution in the first place (as we ll as assuming what their last common ancestor is). In other words you once again assume evolution as your starting point. Having "determined" that their "last common ancestor" lacks the shared trait, "convergent evolution" is now the necessary assumption, which somehow becomes "science".

    Assumptions are not science at all, which is basically the point of the whole article.

    Similar features not present in a common ancestor can be said to result from "convergent evolution". Of course, you are free to reject its assumptions, but the science is consistent and confirmed innumerable times.

    All you're doing is repeating the definition of convergent evolution, not providing evidence for it. What you're calling "the science" is, once again, assuming everything is the product of evolution. Therefore the "evidence" for convergent evolution is a direct result of circular reasoning.

    You're perfectly illustrating Lee Spetner's statement.

    If you draw a phylogenetic [relationship] tree of bats, whales, and a few other mammals based on similarities in the prestin [a hearing gene] sequence alone, the echolocating bats and whales come out together rather than with their rightful evolutionary cousins.11

    Addressing this specific contradiction, Lee Spetner perceptively observes:

    Convergent evolution is…an invention. It was invented solely to avoid addressing the failure of the phylogenetic tree to support Common Descent. There is no theoretical support for convergence, and whatever evidence has been given for it is the product of a circular argument.12

  • Major Evolutionary Blunders: Convergent Evolution Is a Seductive Intellectual Swindle

    03/01/2017 7:52:26 PM PST · 7 of 36
    lasereye to central_va
    I can’t get past primordial soup begetting the first living cell.

    Evos typically say that's not formally a part of evolution theory...so therefore that's not a problem.