Attrocities of 'Christianity', history of the Churches

Originally posted by Proper Knob
And here's Jerry Coyne's blog, he likes going over Behe's work -

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/an-experimental-evolutionist-replies-to-behe/

you see its simply a matter of opinion. Behe has his and Coyne has his own. Indeed an excerpt,

Try as one might to keep Darwinists focused on the data, some can’t help reverting to their favorite trope: questioning Darwinism simply must be based on religion. Unfortunately Professor Coyne succumbs to this. Introducing his blog post he writes:

What role does the appearance of new genes, versus simple changes in old ones, play in evolution? There are two reasons why this question has recently become important…. The first involves a scientific controversy…. The second controversy is religious. Some advocates of intelligent design (ID)—most notably Michael Behe in a recent paper—have implied not only that evolved new genes or new genetic “elements” (e.g., regulatory sequences) aren’t important in evolution, but that they play almost no role at all, especially compared to mutations that simply inactivate genes or make small changes, like single nucleotide substitutions, in existing genes. This is based on the religiously-motivated “theory” of ID, which maintains that new genetic information cannot arise by natural selection, but must installed [sic] in our genome by a magic poof from Jebus. [sic]

Anyone who reads the paper, however, knows my conclusions were based on the reviewed experiments of many labs over decades. Even Coyne knows this. In the very next sentence he writes, schizophrenically, “I’ve criticized Behe’s conclusions, which are based on laboratory studies of bacteria and viruses that virtually eliminated the possibility of seeing new genes arise, but I don’t want to reiterate my arguments here.” Yet if my conclusions are based on “laboratory studies”, then they ain’t “religious”, even if Coyne disagrees with them.

Professor Coyne is so upset, he imagines things that aren’t in the paper. (They are “implied”, you see.) So although I haven’t actually written it, supposedly I have “implied not only that evolved new genes or new genetic ‘elements’ … aren’t important in evolution, but that they play almost no role at all….” [Coyne’s emphasis]



Lol, it seems just like this forum.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
but i dont think that it misrepresented the author at all, thats your opinion. Sure have a good time and remember to eat carrots, its good for the eyes, helps you see in the dark.

Remind me of your reaction when Doward gave 'his opinion' in a recent thread on some text published by The Watchtower.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Remind me of your reaction when Doward gave 'his opinion' in a recent thread on some text published by The Watchtower.

Doward Smoward, sooo many accusations based upon mere lies! He has been chastised and handed over to satan for the destruction of the flesh! 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Doward Smoward, sooo many accusations based upon mere lies! He has been chastised and handed over to satan for the destruction of the flesh! 😉

What was your reaction when you thought Doward misrepresented something something your organisation published?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What was your reaction when you thought Doward misrepresented something something your organisation published?

his text was put to the test and reason was used to undo the nefarious post.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
his text was put to the test and reason was used to undo the nefarious post.

Basically you hit the roof, which confirms my point i made earlier in the thread. It's okay for 'The Watchtower' to misrepresent people, but when someone misrepresents 'The Watchtower' you fly off the handle. That's hypocritical Rob.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
35 So, some scientists now say that little Eohippus never was a type of horse or an ancestor of one. And each type of fossil put into the horse line showed remarkable stability, with no transitional forms between it and others that were thought to be evolutionary ancestors. Nor should it be surprising that there are fossils of horses of different siz ...[text shortened]... he idea of a Great Designer.”42

courtesy of watchtower bible and tract society, Pennsylvania.

I read through most of this, it's a shocking piece of work really. It uses outdated science, misrepresented quotes, creationist scientist quotes are thrown in without telling revealing they are biased.

In short, it's a pile of garbage. That you think it's beautifully crafted speaks volumes.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I read through most of this, it's a shocking piece of work really. It uses outdated science, misrepresented quotes, creationist scientist quotes are thrown in without telling revealing they are biased.

In short, it's a pile of garbage. That you think it's beautifully crafted speaks volumes.

Then perhaps you would like to address the actual points, Behe is quite correct, getting
Darwinists to address the actual data is quite difficult. What about Coyne, he clearly
misrepresented Behe and yet you have advocated his testimony? I wont accuse you
dear Noobster but what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Then perhaps you would like to address the actual points, Behe is quite correct, getting
Darwinists to address the actual data is quite difficult. What about Coyne, he clearly
misrepresented Behe and yet you have advocated his testimony? I wont accuse you
dear Noobster but what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

I will address the data. Firstly though, what goes on between Behe and Coyne is between them. I'm sure that if i go through Coyne's blog i'll find quotes where he says Behe misrepresented him. Let's face it, a debate between a biochemist and a biologist specialising in genetics is above you and me.

I'll post my first point on The Watchtower article in another thread.

(edit - I posted a link that is a massive critique of that article)

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I will address the data. Firstly though, what goes on between Behe and Coyne is between them. I'm sure that if i go through Coyne's blog i'll find quotes where he says Behe misrepresented him. Let's face it, a debate between a biochemist and a biologist specialising in genetics is above you and me.

I'll post my first point on The Watchtower article in another thread.

whether its above us or not, i dunno, Behes blog certainly seems free of pretence, although admittedly sometimes it gets a little technical. As for the watchtower article i have nothing more to add or subtract, It appears to me to be well written, interspersed with corroborative quotations and represents my point of view. Now i do not engage in discussions about the authors or the organisation, merely pointing persons towards our beliefs through the only official site, watchtower.org. That you posted a critique of the article is once again merely the trade of opinions, based, as was stated at the outset, on the same scientific data, and it will remain as such, an interpretation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whether its above us or not, i dunno, Behes blog certainly seems free of pretence, although admittedly sometimes it gets a little technical. As for the watchtower article i have nothing more to add or subtract, It appears to me to be well written, interspersed with corroborative quotations and represents my point of view. Now i do not engage in dis ...[text shortened]... tated at the outset, on the same scientific data, and it will remain as such, an interpretation.

First point -

The whole article is outdated, take the section on the Cambrian explosion and this section -

Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote:"Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. ‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer.

This article was published in 1985. It asks the question, which i put in bold, has the situation changed today? And then proceeds to quote an article from 1959!!!!! That's 25 years earlier!!!! That's not today is it??!!!

This is what the evidence tells us today -

The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation (diversification) may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#How_real_was_the_explosion.3F

from

Butterfield, N. J. (2007). "MACROEVOLUTION AND MACROECOLOGY THROUGH DEEP TIME"

So your assertion that it's the same scientific data having a different interpretation is clearly wrong. Your data is over 40yrs old and is outdated, science has moved on.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no that does not explain anything, you have provided nothing but a gross generalisation. yes i deny it a proven fact, indeed, i find it a religious stance, all you were asked to provide was a simple explanation, you could not even do that.

“...no that does not explain anything, you have provided nothing but a gross generalisation. ...”

exactly what “gross generalisation” are you referring to here?
It gives the empirical evidence. For example, it mentions that the young human embryo has vestige gills -how is that a “ gross generalisation” and, if it isn't, then what is in that link?

“...you were asked to provide was a simple explanation, you could not even do that. ...”

that is an obvious lie. I have repeatedly given a one-word answer to your question; “evolution”.
In what way is a one-word answer not “simple”?
Do you deny that this is my explanation? Do you deny that I said this?
How many times must I repeat the word “evolution” before you acknowledge that I said this?
The explanation is EVOLUTION; how can I more clearly state that?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...no that does not explain anything, you have provided nothing but a gross generalisation. ...”

exactly what “gross generalisation” are you referring to here?
It gives the empirical evidence. For example, it mentions that the young human embryo has vestige gills -how is that a “ gross generalisation” and, if it isn't, then what is in that link? ...[text shortened]... edge that I said this?
The explanation is [b]EVOLUTION; how can I more clearly state that?[/b]

we are talking of the feather , the feather! and you are havering on about embryos! look dude, you were simply asked to provide a simple explanation for the development of the the feather and how it could, all of its own accord develop stealth capability. You havered on in general terms, provided irrelevant references and could not, and even now you cannot explain how it transpired. Indeed all you have stated in your answer is evolution, a nothingness! It is not a lie, it is a statement of fact, you cannot or have not provided any evidence which states how the feather managed all of its own accord to develop stealth capability, evolution is not an explanation, its a cop out, i want the mechanics, how do you explain it, from the very basics, excess scales on a reptile, to the flight of a bird. How did it develop according to your theory.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
First point -

The whole article is outdated, take the section on the Cambrian explosion and this section -

[quote][b]Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote:"Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thickn ...[text shortened]... on is clearly wrong. Your data is over 40yrs old and is outdated, science has moved on.[/b]

it remains a matter of the interpretation of data and the assertion of an opinion. You have provided nothing to the contrary that there was an explosion of life, not a gradual one as has been erroneously proffered by the Darwinists! its a groaning heap of possibly, could be's and maybe so's! we are interested in science not conjecture and postulation!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
we are talking of the feather , the feather! and you are havering on about embryos! look dude, you were simply asked to provide a simple explanation for the development of the the feather and how it could, all of its own accord develop stealth capability. You havered on in general terms, provided irrelevant references and could not, and even now y ...[text shortened]... cess scales on a reptile, to the flight of a bird. How did it develop according to your theory.

“...we are talking of the feather , the feather! and you are havering on about embryos! ….”

you were talking about the feather and I have already answered your question on the feather -the answer is “evolution” i.e. it evolved.
You also said there is no evidence for evolution and I debunked that with a website that clearly stated the evidence which included vestige gills on human embryos that is surely very strong evidence for a marine ancestor to human kind.
So I clearly didn't answer your question about feathers with talk about embryos as you implied above but rather mentioned embryos as a separate issue.

“....you were simply asked to provide a simple explanation for the development of the the feather and how it could, ALL OF ITS OWN ACCORD develop stealth capability. ...” (my emphasis)

I never said it developed “ALL OF ITS OWN ACCORD” and I am not sure what you mean by that;, I said it evolved -THAT is the explanation of its stealth capability.

“...Indeed all you have stated in your answer is evolution, a nothingness! ...”

what does that mean?
Evolution isn't “ nothingness” but a process.
The process of evolution produced the feathers with stealth capability -how is that NOT an explanation?

“...i want the mechanics, how do you explain it, from the very basics, excess scales on a reptile, to the flight of a bird. How did it develop according to your theory. ...”

I am not a biologist so, not surprisingly, I do not have a theory/opinion of the EXACT evolutionary pathway -only that it it DID evolved hence my one-word answer “evolution”.
To form a rational theory/opinion of the EXACT evolutionary pathway, I would probably have to do many years of intensive study and painstaking analysis and observations like some biologists have done.
If you want either the current theories of the exact evolutionary pathway or understanding of how evolution process in general works then you will just have to look it up for yourself -try googling it.