Storming the Beaches of Norman

Evolution News & Views ^ | October 3, 2009 | Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

ping!

[Filo]

It’s not about dissent. There are tons of scientific dissents within evolution that constantly reshape our understanding of natural history.

There is, however, nothing of value coming from the ‘thumper camp.

They are ignored or ridiculed (I prefer the latter) for a reason.

[GeronL]

Wave those new news reports around about how monkeys evolved from man and not vice versa. Not that its an improvement really but it shows how little we really know.

[GodGunsGuts]

I am VERY MUCH looking forward to the day when the shoe is on the other foot.

[GodGunsGuts]

PS What do you think of Meyer's thesis in Signature in the Cell? That is, that the only empircally verified source for complex, functionally specified, digital codes (such as DNA) is intelligent design, whereas all naturalistic attempts to explain the same have utterly failed.

[GodGunsGuts]

==There are tons of scientific dissents within evolution

LOLOLOLOL!!! Way to decide what is and is not allowed to challenge Darwood’s evo-religious creation myth. That’s why the American people are rapidly starting to realize what creationists and IDers have known all along...the TEMPLE OF DARWIN IS AN EXTREMIST RELIGION AND MILITANTLY ANTI-SCIENCE.

[alstewartfan]

Filo, that’s the problem. The only dissent allowed comes from “WITHIN” Darwinist thinking. Anyone outside the box must be destroyed. Real intellectual thought going on! Darwinists, frankly, are “small and fearful men” (and women). Bob

[Filo]

Filo, that’s the problem. The only dissent allowed comes from “WITHIN” Darwinist thinking.

Not at all. There is no problem with allowing only scientific evidence and thought and with ignoring the prattling of the uneducated.

There is absolutely no reason to allow for abject stupidity in science (unless that's what you're studying.) If that weren't the case we could then start reconsidering the geocentric nature of the universe, flat Earth theories and other nonsense.

[Filo]

PS What do you think of Meyer's thesis in Signature in the Cell? That is, that the only empircally verified source for complex, functionally specified, digital codes (such as DNA) is intelligent design, whereas all naturalistic attempts to explain the same have utterly failed.

It's just as stupid and wrong as everything else that the 'thumpers have come up with to protect their stupid beliefs.

Why do you ask? ;)

[facedown]

...the geocentric nature of the universe...

Careful, there are folks around here who actually believe that too. Sheesh.

[GodGunsGuts]

So the Origin of Species thumpers have discovered an empirically verified naturalistic explanation for the origin of complex, functionally specified, digital codes?

NOT!!!

The only empirically verified source for the same is INTELLIGENT DESIGN. All attempts by the Temple of Darwin to explain the origin of DNA via naturalistic means have utterly and totally failed.

That’s why your fellow Temple of Darwin fanatics expend so much effort suppressing free speech and the scientific method—because they have something to hide.

[count-your-change]

But isn't free and open debate a good thing? Not according to the following:

“Box 2. Natural divisions
From the following article:
Intelligent design: Who has designs on your students’ minds?

Geoff Brumfiel

Nature 434, 1062-1065(28 April 2005)

doi:10.1038/4341062a

Evolution advocates say that researchers should be careful about how they respond to such overtures. If the request is for a public debate with an intelligent-design advocate, the best answer is ‘no’, argues Robert Pennock, a philosopher of science at Michigan State University in East Lansing. “A public debate is an artificial setting for getting into scientific issues,” he says. “There's no way in that format to thoroughly give a scientific response, especially to a lay audience.”
“A formal debate is not how we do science,” agrees Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California. “But I think it's appropriate for scientists to meet with students and educate them about what the real science is saying.”
That's what Victor Hutchison and his colleagues in the zoology department at the University of Oklahoma in Norman have been doing for the past few years. “We will not agree to debate the creationists publicly,” he says. “But we encourage faculty members and graduate students to attend their meetings and challenge them in the discussion.”

Jonathon Wells may feel like the fellow Friday of Robinson Crusoe fame. He lands on the beach but Robinson hides lest he be roasted, not toasted, and eaten.

[Filo]

So the Origin of Species thumpers have discovered an empirically verified naturalistic explanation for the origin of complex, functionally specified, digital codes?

That depends on the detail level you are expecting. The basic answer is yes.

The only empirically verified source for the same is INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Empirically verified my ass. Just because you lie and some other idiot swears by it does not make it verified.

All attempts by the Temple of Darwin to explain the origin of DNA via naturalistic means have utterly and totally failed.

No they haven't. The problem you're having is that you expect some kind of proof or formula that arrives at exactly what we see now. That ain't gonna happen.

There is more than adequate theory and evidence to support said theory to back up naturalistic explanations for the origins of genetic codes.

That’s why your fellow Temple of Darwin fanatics expend so much effort suppressing free speech and the scientific method—because they have something to hide.

Again, ignoring stupid isn't the same as hiding something. If you've got something scientific to add to the debate then you're more than welcome to submit it for review.

When your submissions are, effectively, "God* did it" then you will be mocked, and deservedly so.

[GodGunsGuts]

You can tell yourself whatever you like, Filo. The fact remains that the Temple of Darwin is a fanatical anti-science religion that is forced to rely on taxpayer funding, court enforcement, and outright censorship to keep their evo-religious stranglehold on the ideology of science intact. The moment your fellow evo co-religionists are forced to stand on the scientific evidence, Darwood’s materialist creation myth collapses like a house of cards. That is why your darwiniac high priests masquerading as scientists run away from the origins debate, because they know they will be utterly crushed by the ever growing mountain of evidence that falsifies Darwood’s evo-religious creation myth.

[GodGunsGuts]

Indeed, Eugenie Scott has written an article urging evo scientists not to debate Creation or ID scientists because...drum roll please...the evos always get beat!

[Filo]

You can tell yourself whatever you like, Filo.

I like to tell myself (and others) the truth. It gets me through the day, you know.

The fact remains that the Temple of Darwin is a fanatical anti-science religion that is forced to rely on taxpayer funding, court enforcement, and outright censorship to keep their evo-religious stranglehold on the ideology of science intact.

Wow. An impressive rant (I'm sure you had someone write that for ya) but 100% counterfactual, as always.

The moment your fellow evo co-religionists are forced to stand on the scientific evidence, Darwood’s materialist creation myth collapses like a house of cards.

All it ever does is stand on the scientific evidence and it hasn't collapsed yet. If anything it's stronger than ever.

You're just confused because you think your ID garbage has something to do with science.

Here's a clue, bud: it doesn't. It's as far from science as you can get.

That is why your darwiniac high priests masquerading as scientists run away from the origins debate, because they know they will be utterly crushed by the ever growing mountain of evidence that falsifies Darwood’s evo-religious creation myth.

And yet none of this "evidence" has ever done any such thing.

Why? Because it's not really evidence. It's just the result of truly stupid people misinterpreting discoveries in their own twisted way to serve their own idiotic ends.

Neither evolution nor science has anything to fear from dogmatic morons like that.

They do, however, provide plenty of fodder for mockery and other forms of entertainment.

Yeah, it's kind-of like teasing retards. . . okay, it's exactly like teasing retards, but it's still fun.

[GodGunsGuts]

Bluff and bluster seems to be what you're all about, Filo. But the fact is that when the evo high priests masquerading as scientists agree to debate Creation or ID scientists, they get utterly destroyed. That is why the Temple of Darwin has sent out the word: AVOID DEBATING CREATION AND ID SCIENTISTS AT ALL COSTS!

Temple of Darwin is an accurate description of your fellow evo coreligionists. Temple of Cowards is just as accurate.

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL! I always get a kick out of Dawrin-droolers accusing Creationists and IDers of what they themselves are guilty of...Talk about projection!

Nice try though d:op