Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

[edwest2]

Bacteria always remain bacteria, viruses always remain viruses.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

While I honestly don’t think the number of people believing in something makes it necessarily true, I do think it gives something merit.

The number of people who believe that God exists should be enough to give that idea merit. So, what does that mean in your estimation?

 

[reggieM]

virtually all scientists and most theologians accept it; what I meant is that they accept it because it rings true.

Billions of people believe in God because that belief rings true. Those billions are the vast majority of the human population. So, what does that say about liquidpele’s atheism?

Brushing teeth is not good because hundreds of millions do it; rather, hundreds of millions do it because they find it prevents tooth decay.

The majority of the population rejects evolution because they find that it is absurd and does not ring true.

And I agree about the "paying attention " bit: the whiners in “Expelled” claimed that no one is paying attention to ID; no one is paying attention to it because it’s not science; it has produced not one single useful result.

Atheist-evolutionists and their fellow-travellers seem to be paying a lot more attention to ID lately than ever before. We can see it here on CAF where ID vs Evolution threads tend to generate a lot of attention. So, the message of *Expelled *must have worked quite well.

 

[shoewindow3000]

The number of people who believe that God exists should be enough to give that idea merit. So, what does that mean in your estimation?

I believe in God regardless of how many other people do or do not.

 

[StAnastasia]

Billions of people believe in God because that belief rings true. Those billions are the vast majority of the human population. So, what does that say about liquidpele’s atheism? The majority of the population rejects evolution because they find that it is absurd and does not ring true. Atheist-evolutionists and their fellow-travellers seem to be paying a lot more attention to ID lately than ever before. We can see it here on CAF where ID vs Evolution threads tend to generate a lot of attention. So, the message of *Expelled *must have worked quite well.

(1) I don’t know why liquidpele is an atheist. Ask him yourself – he is of age.

(2) I’m not interested in what the majority of the population believes. I’m interested in what scientists, theologians, and other educated people believe.

(3) ID is interesting as a cultural phenomenon, like belief in UFOs.

 

[StAnastasia]

I believe in God regardless of how many other people do or do not.

As do I.

 

[reggieM]

How Beach Life Favors Blond Mice, Elizabeth Pennisi
Science 11 September 2009: 1330-1333.
Hopi Hoekstra, a young evolutionary biologist at Harvard University, has been tackling the genetic complexity of a classic case of adaptation in mice.

“Molecules-to-man evolution” is here equated with “adaptation”. Not much of a confirmation.

Scientists fix bugs in our understanding of evolution
What makes a human different from a chimp?
Date: 13 Apr 2009, Rating: 1.00

“Fixing bugs in our understanding” – is not confirming, but rather admitting that our “prior understanding” was wrong.

Tuatara, the fastest evolving animal
New DNA research has questioned previous notions about the evolution of the tuatara
Date: 13 Apr 2009, Rating: 3.00

“Questioning previous notions” is not confirming evolution, but rather claiming that prior (current) notions should be “questioned”.

Europeans’ understanding of science, evolution, more advanced than Americans
SAN FRANCISCO — When it comes to scientific literacy, Americans aren’t nearly as evolved as they may think. In fact, only about 40 percent of American adults accept the basic idea of evolution, a figure much lower than any European country.
Date: 13 Apr 2009, Rating: 3.00

The fact that 60% of Americans do not accept evolution says nothing about confirming the theory. On the contrary – a very large percentage of the population rejects it (see your arguments from popularity elsewhere).

Does evolution select for faster evolvers?
It’s a mystery why the speed and complexity of evolution appear to increase with time.
Date: 13 Apr 2009, Rating: 3.67

New data should simply confirm the theory. In this case, evolutionary speed “is a mystery”. This does not confirm evolution but merely admits that the data does not fit the theory.

Comparative Oncology and Comparative Tumor Immunology
Comparative oncology is a branch of comparative pathology that is relatively new biomedical
discipline.
Date: 1 Mar 2009, Rating: 1.00, 5 pages

Molecules-to-man evolution is nowhere to be found here. This paper adds nothing to the topic.

A Look Into Natural Selection and its Mechanisms
The paper briefly introduces Darwin and his voyage aboard the HMS Beagle. Evolution, and its tool, natural selection, are discussed. Methods of natural selection, such as genetic drift and allopatric speciation are also discussed.
Date: 16 Feb 2009, Rating: 3.20

A historical paper – adds no new confirming data to evolutionary theory.

Failure of anti-tumor immunity inmammals - evolution of the hypothesis
Anti-tumor immunity failure in mammals can be defined as an immunoreproductive phenomenon, which is developed under the evolutionary pressure of autoimmunity and reproductive effectiveness.
Date: 16 Feb 2009, Rating: 5.00, 6 pages

A hypothesis is not evidence that confirms evolutionary theory.

Origin and evolution of viruses: EscapedDNA/RNA sequences as evolutionaryaccelerators and natural biological weapons
Knowledge of the origin and evolution of viruses could provide a better understanding of a number of phenomena in the field of evolution, such as the origin and development of multi-cellular organisms…
Date: 16 Feb 2009, Rating: 4.33, 6 pages

It “could provide” – or then again, it might not. No confirming evidence.

Tale of two snails reveals secrets about the biochemistry of evolution
Researchers in Spain are reporting deep new insights into how evolution changes the biochemistry of living things, helping them to adapt to new environments.

Adaptation equated with “evolution” here.

 

[reggieM]

(1) I don’t know why liquidpele is an atheist. Ask him yourself – he is of age.

I didn’t ask you to tell me why he is an atheist. I asked you about “atheism”. There is a big difference between asking about a philosophical system versus asking about the belief of a particular individual. In the one case, a reply should be given about the ideas and concepts in question. In the other case, the question regards an individual and his beliefs. That might help you better understand questions like this in the future.

I’m interested in what scientists, theologians, and other educated people believe.

What percentage of scientists believe in “theistic evolution”? – I’m curious. It would be strange to see you taking a minority opinion on that.

(3) ID is interesting as a cultural phenomenon, like belief in UFOs.

Like ID, belief in UFO’s gets support from the scientific community also:

space.com/searchforlife/et_betterodds_050114.html
Now a team of American scientists note that recent astrophysical discoveries suggest that we should find ourselves in the midst of one or more extraterrestrial civilizations. Moreover, they argue it is a mistake to reject all UFO reports since some evidence for the theoretically-predicted extraterrestrial visitors might just be found there.
The researchers make their proposal in the January/February 2005 issue of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (JBIS).

 

[StAnastasia]

Bacteria always remain bacteria, viruses always remain viruses.
Peace,Ed

Not always. The best way to express this is that the fossil record shows bacteria and Archaea in the fossil record first, and that eukaryotes do not show up until much later. so we came from bacteria that evolved into single-celled eukaryotes which then joined as multicells. think of it like this:

 

[reggieM]

…history has moved well on since his time.

We can reject Darwin’s notions because history has moved on.

Perhaps today’s evolutionary views are as certain than those of evolutionary theorist Ernst Haeckel were in his day.

 

[StAnastasia]

We can reject Darwin’s notions because history has moved on.
Perhaps today’s evolutionary views are as certain than those of evolutionary theorist Ernst Haeckel were in his day.

I’m only a theologian., Ask a biologist – there are at least 100,000 of them working with evolution every day. They must have good reason to continue to work on and develop a theory broached in 1859.

 

[reggieM]

Ask a biologist – there are at least 100,000 of them working with evolution every day.

I could consult a biologist who knows more about molecular biology than you do – and who also happens to be an “evolution doubter”.

 

[buffalo]

“Molecules-to-man evolution” is here equated with “adaptation”. Not much of a confirmation.

“Fixing bugs in our understanding” – is not confirming, but rather admitting that our “prior understanding” was wrong.

“Questioning previous notions” is not confirming evolution, but rather claiming that prior (current) notions should be “questioned”.

The fact that 60% of Americans do not accept evolution says nothing about confirming the theory. On the contrary – a very large percentage of the population rejects it (see your arguments from popularity elsewhere).

New data should simply confirm the theory. In this case, evolutionary speed “is a mystery”. This does not confirm evolution but merely admits that the data does not fit the theory.

Molecules-to-man evolution is nowhere to be found here. This paper adds nothing to the topic.

A historical paper – adds no new confirming data to evolutionary theory.

A hypothesis is not evidence that confirms evolutionary theory.

It “could provide” – or then again, it might not. No confirming evidence.

Adaptation equated with “evolution” here.

Gosh reggie, thanks. I was looking into these but you are really fast.

 

[StAnastasia]

I could consult a biologist who knows more about molecular biology than you do – and who also happens to be an “evolution doubter”.

No doubt.

 

[StAnastasia]

“Molecules-to-man evolution” is here equated with “adaptation”. Not much of a confirmation.

It’s too bad “Intelligent Design” biologists publish nothing at all in mainstream science journal for anyone to criticize. Could that be because they simply have no ideas to publish?

 

[buffalo]

It’s too bad “Intelligent Design” biologists publish nothing at all in mainstream science journal for anyone to criticize. Could that be because they simply have no ideas to publish?

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

 

[buffalo]

**from Nature Magazine
**

**
**

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design

Jim Giles
Top of pageAbstract

Critics of evolution score publishing success

A new front has opened up in the battle between scientists and advocates of intelligent design, a theory that rejects evolution and is regarded by its critics as another term for creationism.A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of intelligent design — the first time such material has appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue.

 

[buffalo]

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, vol.39, #5, September 2009

 

[StAnastasia]

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, vol.39, #5, September 2009

This article does not support ID. Moreover, "ID creationists persistently use models that misrepresent theories (or in the case of the WEASEL hoorah, misrepresent what the model is intended to represent), and then conclude (on the basis of syntactic manipulations of the model) that the theories are invalid. Dembski, of course, is a serial offender in this respect, and it’s a pity that he’s inveigled Marks into sharing his delusions. "

 

[buffalo]

This article does not support ID. Moreover, "ID creationists persistently use models that misrepresent theories (or in the case of the WEASEL hoorah, misrepresent what the model is intended to represent), and then conclude (on the basis of syntactic manipulations of the model) that the theories are invalid. Dembski, of course, is a serial offender in this respect, and it’s a pity that he’s inveigled Marks into sharing his delusions. "

Have you even read the paper? Perhaps you should.