2/26/2010
ID Deniers!
Recycling is good! Honest debate is better... but not without risk! First posted a coupla years back, now re-submitted with a few additional comments.
If someone disagrees with Darwinism they're an ignorant fool! How do you know they’re an ignorant fool? 'Cause they disagree with Darwinism. How do you know their facts are wrong? Because their facts don't support Darwinism.
When one looks at the universe and chooses to turn their brain on, and their rebellion/prejudices off… one would conclude there is some seriously good programming involved. Every act of Earth’s creatures is a result has purpose, survival and reproduction. As biologists delve more and more into the inner workings of the cell, one is astonished at the complexity of its operation… nothing simple about it! This has inspired honest reflection by many scientists, this honesty I add not without risk, due to the current atheistic dogma in the biological “establishment” (Dogma that attacks and censors ANY opposing view).
The dogmatic evolutionists clearly see (but deny) that the rug has been pulled from under them, but their materialism is so ingrained that they now commonly twist themselves into pretzels trying to deny the obvious… that life is FAR too complicated to be an accident! (Hence the term ID Denier!). The irony of this is that they maybe (kinda) right on evolution… it has occurred! It’s just that all productive “mutations” fulfilled a purpose, that improves the survivability of the species (and that’s good… whatever “good” is). Taint no accident… a true example of evolution: say the horseless carriage to the modern race car, or the Wright Brothers flyer to the space ship, all occurred as a result of external intelligent input, based on things learned from earlier examples. Information that is used to improve the next version of the beast, (be it mechanical or biological).
The obvious (IMHO) fact … this universe is the product of an infinite intelligence, that for some reason, is not palatable to many so-called evolutionary “scientists”. This has caused an interesting phenomenon… the morphing of evolutionary “science” into a religion, complete with high priests (Sagan, Gould, Dawkins, etc.). Their devotion is much more akin to religion that science, because under NO circumstances can their “theology” be disproved… it’s a matter of faith, beyond the realm of science… as new facts demonstrating the irreducible complexity of life are revealed, they are promptly denied (and previously noted, often repressed and censored)!
As “they” say, denial is not just a river in Egypt… it creates a blinding impediment the so-called “scientific method”. ID Deniers… open thine eyes and thy minds! (At least to honest debate).
I won't hold my breath!
If someone disagrees with Darwinism they're an ignorant fool! How do you know they’re an ignorant fool? 'Cause they disagree with Darwinism. How do you know their facts are wrong? Because their facts don't support Darwinism.
When one looks at the universe and chooses to turn their brain on, and their rebellion/prejudices off… one would conclude there is some seriously good programming involved. Every act of Earth’s creatures is a result has purpose, survival and reproduction. As biologists delve more and more into the inner workings of the cell, one is astonished at the complexity of its operation… nothing simple about it! This has inspired honest reflection by many scientists, this honesty I add not without risk, due to the current atheistic dogma in the biological “establishment” (Dogma that attacks and censors ANY opposing view).
The dogmatic evolutionists clearly see (but deny) that the rug has been pulled from under them, but their materialism is so ingrained that they now commonly twist themselves into pretzels trying to deny the obvious… that life is FAR too complicated to be an accident! (Hence the term ID Denier!). The irony of this is that they maybe (kinda) right on evolution… it has occurred! It’s just that all productive “mutations” fulfilled a purpose, that improves the survivability of the species (and that’s good… whatever “good” is). Taint no accident… a true example of evolution: say the horseless carriage to the modern race car, or the Wright Brothers flyer to the space ship, all occurred as a result of external intelligent input, based on things learned from earlier examples. Information that is used to improve the next version of the beast, (be it mechanical or biological).
The obvious (IMHO) fact … this universe is the product of an infinite intelligence, that for some reason, is not palatable to many so-called evolutionary “scientists”. This has caused an interesting phenomenon… the morphing of evolutionary “science” into a religion, complete with high priests (Sagan, Gould, Dawkins, etc.). Their devotion is much more akin to religion that science, because under NO circumstances can their “theology” be disproved… it’s a matter of faith, beyond the realm of science… as new facts demonstrating the irreducible complexity of life are revealed, they are promptly denied (and previously noted, often repressed and censored)!
As “they” say, denial is not just a river in Egypt… it creates a blinding impediment the so-called “scientific method”. ID Deniers… open thine eyes and thy minds! (At least to honest debate).
I won't hold my breath!
Comments:
<< Home
The obvious fact the this universe is the product of an infinite intelligence
While you may feel that asserting this makes for a compelling argument, you need to actually provide evidence for the claim for it to be of any merit.
While you may feel that asserting this makes for a compelling argument, you need to actually provide evidence for the claim for it to be of any merit.
# posted by 
: 7:48 PM
: 7:48 PM
If evolution's "evidence" is so solid... why must legions of jack-booted grand inquisitors enforce orthodoxy, and hysterically attempt to censor even the mildest dissent?
Dimensio pointed out the "need" for RNB to provide "evidence"... I ask what classroom in the education "cartel" will even allow any presentation of such evidence? Many on the ID side are willing to give it a go!
Evolution has long ago morphed into ideology/religion and left science far behind, in fact it is become anti-science!
Dimensio pointed out the "need" for RNB to provide "evidence"... I ask what classroom in the education "cartel" will even allow any presentation of such evidence? Many on the ID side are willing to give it a go!
Evolution has long ago morphed into ideology/religion and left science far behind, in fact it is become anti-science!
# posted by : 11:31 AM
: 11:31 AM
As usual Dimensio is 180 outta phase... he/she(?) seems to have no obligation to show "evidence" for his(her) position... but demands it of RNB!
What evidence do you wish to see?
It is not rational to accuse me of failing to provide evidence when you have not requested evidence in the first place.
What evidence do you wish to see?
It is not rational to accuse me of failing to provide evidence when you have not requested evidence in the first place.
# posted by : 1:20 PM
: 1:20 PM
If evolution's "evidence" is so solid... why must legions of jack-booted grand inquisitors enforce orthodoxy, and hysterically attempt to censor even the mildest dissent?
As you have not demonstrated that there has actually been such a "hysterical attempt", your question is based upon an unsupported premise, and is thus loaded and invalid.
Dimensio pointed out the "need" for RNB to provide "evidence"... I ask what classroom in the education "cartel" will even allow any presentation of such evidence? Many on the ID side are willing to give it a go!
A classroom is not the correct venue for presenting evidence for a claim in science. A classroom is a place for discussing scientific claims for which the evidence has already been reviewed and for which the conclusions have been accepted by a consensus of experts within the relevant field of study. It is curious that "Intelligent Design" proponents wish to circumvent the process of having their claims peer reviewed and instead wish to insert their claims into classrooms, giving them special treatment over all other scientific claims.
Evolution has long ago morphed into ideology/religion and left science far behind, in fact it is become anti-science!
Please justify your claim with evidence.
As you have not demonstrated that there has actually been such a "hysterical attempt", your question is based upon an unsupported premise, and is thus loaded and invalid.
Dimensio pointed out the "need" for RNB to provide "evidence"... I ask what classroom in the education "cartel" will even allow any presentation of such evidence? Many on the ID side are willing to give it a go!
A classroom is not the correct venue for presenting evidence for a claim in science. A classroom is a place for discussing scientific claims for which the evidence has already been reviewed and for which the conclusions have been accepted by a consensus of experts within the relevant field of study. It is curious that "Intelligent Design" proponents wish to circumvent the process of having their claims peer reviewed and instead wish to insert their claims into classrooms, giving them special treatment over all other scientific claims.
Evolution has long ago morphed into ideology/religion and left science far behind, in fact it is become anti-science!
Please justify your claim with evidence.
# posted by : 1:22 PM
: 1:22 PM
Nothing Demonsio has written has in any way countered Mr. RNB. He just recycles the same ole rants.
He continues to use a lot of words to bascially say nothing... other than to prove he's just another ID Denier!
He continues to use a lot of words to bascially say nothing... other than to prove he's just another ID Denier!
# posted by : 2:16 PM
: 2:16 PM
Nothing Demonsio has written has in any way countered Mr. RNB. He just recycles the same ole rants.
"Mr. RNB" has made no actual argument of substance. His blog posting was a series of unsupported assertions. I requested supporting evidence for one of these assertions.
He continues to use a lot of words to bascially say nothing... other than to prove he's just another ID Denier!
If any "ID" advocate were to make an argument of substance, I would have a basis for a more meaningful response. As things stand, however, I am able to do nothing more than point out that thus far not one ID advocate posting here has made an argument of substance, nor have any actual facts been referenced in your postings.
"Mr. RNB" has made no actual argument of substance. His blog posting was a series of unsupported assertions. I requested supporting evidence for one of these assertions.
He continues to use a lot of words to bascially say nothing... other than to prove he's just another ID Denier!
If any "ID" advocate were to make an argument of substance, I would have a basis for a more meaningful response. As things stand, however, I am able to do nothing more than point out that thus far not one ID advocate posting here has made an argument of substance, nor have any actual facts been referenced in your postings.
# posted by : 4:45 PM
: 4:45 PM
What Dimensio (et al) does not get (or maybe he does) is this is not about "facts" or "evidence"... it's about the free exchange of ideas... even if one thinks they're wrong, silly of whatever.
The Evolutionists establishment CLEARY doesn’t book any opposition to their basic contentions. And that IS a fact!!!!
The Evolutionists establishment CLEARY doesn’t book any opposition to their basic contentions. And that IS a fact!!!!
# posted by : 12:53 PM
: 12:53 PM
The Evolutionists establishment CLEARY doesn’t book any opposition to their basic contentions. And that IS a fact!!!!
Please support this "fact" with evidence to show that it is, in fact, a "fact".
Please support this "fact" with evidence to show that it is, in fact, a "fact".
# posted by : 8:28 PM
: 8:28 PM
ID deniers are essentially cowards! Knowing the weakness of the "Darwin god", they seek to outlaw opposition... sorta like fascists (which they are)... as any contrary view is declared "religion" not worthy of a response!
# posted by : 11:06 AM
: 11:06 AM
Monkeybones... talk dirty to me! (when you throw the "F" word around!) To those who disagree with you!!!
# posted by : 11:08 AM
: 11:08 AM
My Dog Darwin... but the are fascists! Darwinism long ago morphed into an ideology/dogma... as real science facts began to undermine its claims... which were never more than speculations anyway... and now we all know that!
# posted by : 9:40 AM
: 9:40 AM
ID deniers are essentially cowards! Knowing the weakness of the "Darwin god",
Please explain what you mean by the phrase "Darwin god" and the weaknesses thereof.
they seek to outlaw opposition...
Please justify this assertion. Reference legislation at any local, state or federal level which would criminalize "opposition" to "ID deniers".
sorta like fascists (which they are)... as any contrary view is declared "religion" not worthy of a response!
Please justify your assertions with evidence.
Please explain what you mean by the phrase "Darwin god" and the weaknesses thereof.
they seek to outlaw opposition...
Please justify this assertion. Reference legislation at any local, state or federal level which would criminalize "opposition" to "ID deniers".
sorta like fascists (which they are)... as any contrary view is declared "religion" not worthy of a response!
Please justify your assertions with evidence.
My Dog Darwin... but the are fascists! Darwinism long ago morphed into an ideology/dogma... as real science facts began to undermine its claims... which were never more than speculations anyway... and now we all know that!
Please support your assertions with evidence. Reference the "facts" that undermine the claims of "Darwinism". Justify your assertion that the claims were "never more than speculation".
Please support your assertions with evidence. Reference the "facts" that undermine the claims of "Darwinism". Justify your assertion that the claims were "never more than speculation".
dimensio, your comments are really annoying, and if you want evidence for that, i refer you to... your comments.
But, for evidence on the dogmatic protection of the evolution/materialist religion, i refer you to wikipedia, who refuse to publish the ID position on chemical evolution. Since there is no evolutionist position on this, there is simple a comment that says something to the effect of, "The only theory put forward on this topic is from the ID movement, and since it is not science, we refuse to publish the details..."
You only have to read a few pages on creation/evolution in wikipedia to realise that those in control and darwin worshipping, "God Delusion" owning atheists.
Hmm, wikipedia has been updated since i last checked this page, there's now a paragraph - yes a single paragraph - on it, which doesn't say anything. You'd think, given that this is supposedly how life came to be, there'd be more than a single paragraph.
But, for evidence on the dogmatic protection of the evolution/materialist religion, i refer you to wikipedia, who refuse to publish the ID position on chemical evolution. Since there is no evolutionist position on this, there is simple a comment that says something to the effect of, "The only theory put forward on this topic is from the ID movement, and since it is not science, we refuse to publish the details..."
You only have to read a few pages on creation/evolution in wikipedia to realise that those in control and darwin worshipping, "God Delusion" owning atheists.
Hmm, wikipedia has been updated since i last checked this page, there's now a paragraph - yes a single paragraph - on it, which doesn't say anything. You'd think, given that this is supposedly how life came to be, there'd be more than a single paragraph.
dimensio, your comments are really annoying,
I am sorry that you find requests that unsubstantiated assertions to be irritating. I can understand, however, why ID proponents would be averse to such requests, given that they rarely have any evidence.
and if you want evidence for that, i refer you to... your comments.
This does not constitute evidence to any previous claims of other posters. I have never made any attempt to "outlaw opposition", nor do my postings contain any "facts" that contradict the theory of evolution.
But, for evidence on the dogmatic protection of the evolution/materialist religion, i refer you to wikipedia, who refuse to publish the ID position on chemical evolution.
Please explain your assertion of refusal. What is the "ID" position on "chemical evolution", when was a publication attempt made and when was it rejected? Were reasons given for this rejection?
Since there is no evolutionist position on this, there is simple a comment that says something to the effect of, "The only theory put forward on this topic is from the ID movement, and since it is not science, we refuse to publish the details..."
I have seen no such comments. Please reference the specific page where this comment appears and quote the specific comment.
You only have to read a few pages on creation/evolution in wikipedia to realise that those in control and darwin worshipping, "God Delusion" owning atheists.
Your vague assertion is meaningless; you cannot demonstrate a position by making vague accusations backed up by no evidence beyond a paraphrasing of a quote whose existence you have not even demonstrated.
Hmm, wikipedia has been updated since i last checked this page, there's now a paragraph - yes a single paragraph - on it, which doesn't say anything. You'd think, given that this is supposedly how life came to be, there'd be more than a single paragraph.
The Wikipedia page on "Chemical Evolution" is a brief descriptive paragraph noting multiple meanings of the term with links to pages dealing with the more specific subjects regarding those different meanings. Essentially, the "Chemical Evolution" page is a somewhat elaborate disambiguation page. Showing that Wikipedia has implemented a full paragraph for what could just as well be a simple disambiguation page for a topic is not evidence of an attempt to "outlaw" opposition to the theory of evolution, nor is it evidence that there exists "facts" that show that the theory of evolution is in error.
I am sorry that you find requests that unsubstantiated assertions to be irritating. I can understand, however, why ID proponents would be averse to such requests, given that they rarely have any evidence.
and if you want evidence for that, i refer you to... your comments.
This does not constitute evidence to any previous claims of other posters. I have never made any attempt to "outlaw opposition", nor do my postings contain any "facts" that contradict the theory of evolution.
But, for evidence on the dogmatic protection of the evolution/materialist religion, i refer you to wikipedia, who refuse to publish the ID position on chemical evolution.
Please explain your assertion of refusal. What is the "ID" position on "chemical evolution", when was a publication attempt made and when was it rejected? Were reasons given for this rejection?
Since there is no evolutionist position on this, there is simple a comment that says something to the effect of, "The only theory put forward on this topic is from the ID movement, and since it is not science, we refuse to publish the details..."
I have seen no such comments. Please reference the specific page where this comment appears and quote the specific comment.
You only have to read a few pages on creation/evolution in wikipedia to realise that those in control and darwin worshipping, "God Delusion" owning atheists.
Your vague assertion is meaningless; you cannot demonstrate a position by making vague accusations backed up by no evidence beyond a paraphrasing of a quote whose existence you have not even demonstrated.
Hmm, wikipedia has been updated since i last checked this page, there's now a paragraph - yes a single paragraph - on it, which doesn't say anything. You'd think, given that this is supposedly how life came to be, there'd be more than a single paragraph.
The Wikipedia page on "Chemical Evolution" is a brief descriptive paragraph noting multiple meanings of the term with links to pages dealing with the more specific subjects regarding those different meanings. Essentially, the "Chemical Evolution" page is a somewhat elaborate disambiguation page. Showing that Wikipedia has implemented a full paragraph for what could just as well be a simple disambiguation page for a topic is not evidence of an attempt to "outlaw" opposition to the theory of evolution, nor is it evidence that there exists "facts" that show that the theory of evolution is in error.
What's interesting about Dimensio is that he(she?) argues completely in circles... and yet appears to be totaly unaware of it... ah, the power of self-delusion!
# posted by : 2:05 PM
: 2:05 PM
What's interesting about Dimensio is that he(she?) argues completely in circles... and yet appears to be totaly unaware of it... ah, the power of self-delusion!
Making the vague assertion that I "argue completely in circles", without addressing a single statement that I have made, is not a valid substitute for rational discourse that addresses specific statements.
Making the vague assertion that I "argue completely in circles", without addressing a single statement that I have made, is not a valid substitute for rational discourse that addresses specific statements.
In circles that would challenge a NASCAR racer!
If you believe that this constitutes a rational argument, you are mistaken.
If you believe that this constitutes a rational argument, you are mistaken.
Dimensio, I rest my case.
You have made no case. You have merely asserted "In circles that would challenge a NASCAR racer!" without providing any explanation or substantiation of the assertion. You cannot "rest" a case that you have not made.
You have made no case. You have merely asserted "In circles that would challenge a NASCAR racer!" without providing any explanation or substantiation of the assertion. You cannot "rest" a case that you have not made.
# posted by : 3:21 PM
: 3:21 PM
Carl Sagan's Cosmos is now being re-broadcast on the Science Channel.. and is one of the slickest most entertaining displays of the evolution fantasy ever produced. The episode "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue" is where the late Mr. Sagan declares life on Earth began and continued "by accident" (truth or speculation??). These "accidents" somehow begat a universe of undeniable complexity and harmony! If only I could have such "accidents" maybe I'd be rich and handsome. When one blows away the smoke... the so-called "fact" of evolution is pretty much NOTHING but speculation. Ya find a bone, and ya speculate how it got here and who/what it’s related too... fact???? Gimme a break!!. Example... why did the dinosaurs disappear (allegedly) 65 million years ago... an asteroid/skeeters? Facts???? We know they disappeared, but the asteroid theory is just that, speculation... couldn’t a worldwide flood done the same thing?
Evolution "evidence" has always been (starting with Mr. Dawin himself) NOTHING but speculation… as it will remain. To claim otherwise is an insult to any thinking mind!
Evolution "evidence" has always been (starting with Mr. Dawin himself) NOTHING but speculation… as it will remain. To claim otherwise is an insult to any thinking mind!
# posted by : 10:46 AM
: 10:46 AM
Carl Sagan's Cosmos is now being re-broadcast on the Science Channel.. and is one of the slickest most entertaining displays of the evolution fantasy ever produced. The episode "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue" is where the late Mr. Sagan declares life on Earth began and continued "by accident" (truth or speculation??). These "accidents" somehow begat a universe of undeniable complexity and harmony! If only I could have such "accidents" maybe I'd be rich and handsome. When one blows away the smoke... the so-called "fact" of evolution is pretty much NOTHING but speculation.
The origin of the cosmos and the origin of life are not addressed by the theory of evolution. Your assertion that evolution is "NOTHING but speculation" is unsubstantiated, and your credibility on the subject is questionable given your previous conflation of it with cosmology and abiogenesis.
Example... why did the dinosaurs disappear (allegedly) 65 million years ago... an asteroid/skeeters? Facts???? We know they disappeared, but the asteroid theory is just that, speculation... couldn’t a worldwide flood done the same thing?
There exists physical evidence for an asteroid impact (the Chicxulub Crater near Mexico). A global flood would have left physical evidence that, thus far, has yet to be found.
The origin of the cosmos and the origin of life are not addressed by the theory of evolution. Your assertion that evolution is "NOTHING but speculation" is unsubstantiated, and your credibility on the subject is questionable given your previous conflation of it with cosmology and abiogenesis.
Example... why did the dinosaurs disappear (allegedly) 65 million years ago... an asteroid/skeeters? Facts???? We know they disappeared, but the asteroid theory is just that, speculation... couldn’t a worldwide flood done the same thing?
There exists physical evidence for an asteroid impact (the Chicxulub Crater near Mexico). A global flood would have left physical evidence that, thus far, has yet to be found.
"There exists physical evidence for an asteroid impact (the Chicxulub Crater near Mexico). A global flood would have left physical evidence that, thus far, has yet to be found."
Pure speculation... we need a explanation so 'wala' we find an "impact" crater in Mexico!
I maintain a healthy dose skepticism!
Pure speculation... we need a explanation so 'wala' we find an "impact" crater in Mexico!
I maintain a healthy dose skepticism!
# posted by : 10:11 AM
: 10:11 AM
Pure speculation... we need a explanation so 'wala' we find an "impact" crater in Mexico!
Are you suggesting that the crater does not actually exist? Note also that the asteroid impact hypothesis was initially derived from a discovery of significantly higher than normal concentration of iridium in a sedimentary layer. Iridium is very rare in the Earth's crust, but it is very common in asteroids and comets (note: flooding does not leave behind iridium deposits; not even a global flood would do that). The asteroid was then hypothesized, with a prediction drawn that an impact crater would be found. That an impact crater consistent with what had been predicted was found added significant weight to the hypothesis.
The asteriod impact hypothesis was not invented out of whole cloth. It was, from the very beginning, deduced from physical evidence indicative of an asteroid impact. This hypothesis led to predictions that were later confirmed.
Neither you nor rnb have provided any evidence that could lead to even a preliminary hypothesis of a global flood.
I maintain a healthy dose skepticism!
To be skeptical is to request and to seek evidence for claims. To deny the existence of physical evidence that is actually presented is delusion.
Are you suggesting that the crater does not actually exist? Note also that the asteroid impact hypothesis was initially derived from a discovery of significantly higher than normal concentration of iridium in a sedimentary layer. Iridium is very rare in the Earth's crust, but it is very common in asteroids and comets (note: flooding does not leave behind iridium deposits; not even a global flood would do that). The asteroid was then hypothesized, with a prediction drawn that an impact crater would be found. That an impact crater consistent with what had been predicted was found added significant weight to the hypothesis.
The asteriod impact hypothesis was not invented out of whole cloth. It was, from the very beginning, deduced from physical evidence indicative of an asteroid impact. This hypothesis led to predictions that were later confirmed.
Neither you nor rnb have provided any evidence that could lead to even a preliminary hypothesis of a global flood.
I maintain a healthy dose skepticism!
To be skeptical is to request and to seek evidence for claims. To deny the existence of physical evidence that is actually presented is delusion.
If iridium is "rare" on Earth... why is there a layer of it worldwide? Doesn't seem too rare to me... but I do know one thing, how it got here is, bottom line, speculation. Now, I have nothing against speculation... sometimes it's all we got. The "crater" on Yucatan MAY be an asteroid/meteor/comet, but it also may not. Educated guesses are ultimately not unarguable fact... and thusly should never become unassailable truth, guarded by academic fortresses.
Much of what we “know” is just how we wish things to be. And an arrogant approach to those who disagree… don’t make it so.
Much of what we “know” is just how we wish things to be. And an arrogant approach to those who disagree… don’t make it so.
# posted by : 9:43 AM
: 9:43 AM
If iridium is "rare" on Earth... why is there a layer of it worldwide?
Iridium is not "rare on Earth". Iridium is rare in the earth's crust because its density caused it to sink further down toward the core during the formation of the planet. That there was a much higher concentration of it within one specific geological layer (note: the layer was not made of iridium, as you seemed to infer, it simply contained more of it than any other layer) led geologists to hypothesize that the higher concentration in that specific layer (which has not been observed in any other geological layer) was a result of an asteroid or comet impact.
It sounds almost as though you are desperately throwing out lame objections rather than consider that maybe, just maybe, the claims of an asteroid impact are more than just baseless speculation.
Doesn't seem too rare to me...
Your willful ignorance and dishonest semantic games do not alter reality.
but I do know one thing, how it got here is, bottom line, speculation. Now, I have nothing against speculation...
You are starting to sound desperate, and you are straining the definition of "speculation" in what seems to be a pathetic attempt to handwave away actual physical evidence for an event that you simply do not wish to believe occured.
sometimes it's all we got.
In the case of the asteroid impact, we have actual physical evidence.
The "crater" on Yucatan MAY be an asteroid/meteor/comet, but it also may not.
Feel free to submit your hypothesis on the cause of the crater (and the significantly higher than normal iridium content in the K-T Boundary) to geologists for peer review. You do have an alternate hypothesis, do you not? Or do you have evidence that would at the very least suggest that the neither the cause of the crater nor the iridium content at the K-T Boundary was not an asteroid impact? Do you have anything of substance to offer?
Educated guesses are ultimately not unarguable fact... and thusly should never become unassailable truth, guarded by academic fortresses.
All scientific explanations are based upon inferences drawn from physical evidence. You are arguing against the very methodology of science.
Much of what we “know” is just how we wish things to be. And an arrogant approach to those who disagree… don’t make it so.
You have yet to provide any actual argument of substance. You have done nothing more than handwave away existing physical evidence without showing why the conclusions drawn from that evidence are incorrect nor offering any evidence for an alternative explanation. You have used a dishonest semantic game to discount the rarity of an element within the Earth's crust (by claiming that it was claimed to be "rare" in general, which it is not), which only makes you look desperate, and you have attacked the very basis of scientific investigation.
Do you have anything of actual substance to offer, or is the sum total of your argument a session of ranting and handwaving away physical evidence in order to try and prentend that explanations actually supported by observations are no better than completely baseless conjecture supported by no evidence whatsoever?
Iridium is not "rare on Earth". Iridium is rare in the earth's crust because its density caused it to sink further down toward the core during the formation of the planet. That there was a much higher concentration of it within one specific geological layer (note: the layer was not made of iridium, as you seemed to infer, it simply contained more of it than any other layer) led geologists to hypothesize that the higher concentration in that specific layer (which has not been observed in any other geological layer) was a result of an asteroid or comet impact.
It sounds almost as though you are desperately throwing out lame objections rather than consider that maybe, just maybe, the claims of an asteroid impact are more than just baseless speculation.
Doesn't seem too rare to me...
Your willful ignorance and dishonest semantic games do not alter reality.
but I do know one thing, how it got here is, bottom line, speculation. Now, I have nothing against speculation...
You are starting to sound desperate, and you are straining the definition of "speculation" in what seems to be a pathetic attempt to handwave away actual physical evidence for an event that you simply do not wish to believe occured.
sometimes it's all we got.
In the case of the asteroid impact, we have actual physical evidence.
The "crater" on Yucatan MAY be an asteroid/meteor/comet, but it also may not.
Feel free to submit your hypothesis on the cause of the crater (and the significantly higher than normal iridium content in the K-T Boundary) to geologists for peer review. You do have an alternate hypothesis, do you not? Or do you have evidence that would at the very least suggest that the neither the cause of the crater nor the iridium content at the K-T Boundary was not an asteroid impact? Do you have anything of substance to offer?
Educated guesses are ultimately not unarguable fact... and thusly should never become unassailable truth, guarded by academic fortresses.
All scientific explanations are based upon inferences drawn from physical evidence. You are arguing against the very methodology of science.
Much of what we “know” is just how we wish things to be. And an arrogant approach to those who disagree… don’t make it so.
You have yet to provide any actual argument of substance. You have done nothing more than handwave away existing physical evidence without showing why the conclusions drawn from that evidence are incorrect nor offering any evidence for an alternative explanation. You have used a dishonest semantic game to discount the rarity of an element within the Earth's crust (by claiming that it was claimed to be "rare" in general, which it is not), which only makes you look desperate, and you have attacked the very basis of scientific investigation.
Do you have anything of actual substance to offer, or is the sum total of your argument a session of ranting and handwaving away physical evidence in order to try and prentend that explanations actually supported by observations are no better than completely baseless conjecture supported by no evidence whatsoever?
Neither evolution or ID are observable, testable or repeatable... hence their conflict, as they are vying for the same ground... a version of King-of-the-Hill. Science can only look at things that are... the fossil is now, as is the crater.
One of the commenters... Mr. Flibble blogs on the subject... I like his perspective.
One of the commenters... Mr. Flibble blogs on the subject... I like his perspective.
# posted by : 4:32 PM
: 4:32 PM
Neither evolution or ID are observable, testable or repeatable...
"Testable" means that the theory makes predictions (based upon inferred consequences of the theory's statements). Predictions -- successful predictions -- have been derived from the theory of evolution.
Please do some actual research before spouting off ignorant twaddle that you cribbed from creationist sites.
"Testable" means that the theory makes predictions (based upon inferred consequences of the theory's statements). Predictions -- successful predictions -- have been derived from the theory of evolution.
Please do some actual research before spouting off ignorant twaddle that you cribbed from creationist sites.
"'Testable" means that the theory makes predictions (based upon inferred consequences of the theory's statements). Predictions -- successful predictions -- have been derived from the theory of evolution."
Inferred, predictions? These are examples of fact? When was evolution predicted? It has been inferred, and that is basically ALL it is... we're back to speculation!!!
A lot of words have been expended with no movement... when one resorts to insults ("ignorant twaddle") one is only pounding the table... which bottom line is the only "proof" evolution has to offer. It's an ideology... with a veneer of "science" (we're full circle!) and I do be mean circle!
Inferred, predictions? These are examples of fact? When was evolution predicted? It has been inferred, and that is basically ALL it is... we're back to speculation!!!
A lot of words have been expended with no movement... when one resorts to insults ("ignorant twaddle") one is only pounding the table... which bottom line is the only "proof" evolution has to offer. It's an ideology... with a veneer of "science" (we're full circle!) and I do be mean circle!
# posted by : 9:09 AM
: 9:09 AM
"one is only pounding the table..."
Old lawyer rule: "When the facts favor you, argue the facts. When the law favors you, argue the law.
When neither the facts or the law favor you, pound the table!"
Old lawyer rule: "When the facts favor you, argue the facts. When the law favors you, argue the law.
When neither the facts or the law favor you, pound the table!"
# posted by : 9:25 AM
: 9:25 AM
Inferred, predictions? These are examples of fact? When was evolution predicted?
I said nothing about evolution being predicted. I said that predictions have been derived from the theory of evolution.
Are you deliberately playing semantic games, or do you genuinely believe that you have constructed a coherent argument?
I said nothing about evolution being predicted. I said that predictions have been derived from the theory of evolution.
Are you deliberately playing semantic games, or do you genuinely believe that you have constructed a coherent argument?
Old lawyer rule: "When the facts favor you, argue the facts. When the law favors you, argue the law.
When neither the facts or the law favor you, pound the table!"
I seem to be the only one who has referenced any facts in this particular discussion (when I brought up the Chicxulub Crater). Everyone else has relied solely upon unsubstantiated assertions and very vague accusations.
Let me know if I overlooked any facts referenced by others. I do sometimes skim over things and I do not wish to accuse everyone of presenting attacks devoid of merit if someone actually did reference something factual (note: the claim that "evolution is religion" or that "you haven't disproven ID" falls into the category of vague accusation or unsubstantiated assertion; a "fact" would be a specific, single, verifiable objective observation).
When neither the facts or the law favor you, pound the table!"
I seem to be the only one who has referenced any facts in this particular discussion (when I brought up the Chicxulub Crater). Everyone else has relied solely upon unsubstantiated assertions and very vague accusations.
Let me know if I overlooked any facts referenced by others. I do sometimes skim over things and I do not wish to accuse everyone of presenting attacks devoid of merit if someone actually did reference something factual (note: the claim that "evolution is religion" or that "you haven't disproven ID" falls into the category of vague accusation or unsubstantiated assertion; a "fact" would be a specific, single, verifiable objective observation).
He's back! Howya doin' Dimensio?
"Nothing pushes the heathen buttons like dissing the sacred Darwin!" (Heard that somewhere???)
Post a Comment
"Nothing pushes the heathen buttons like dissing the sacred Darwin!" (Heard that somewhere???)
# posted by : 9:14 AM
: 9:14 AM << Home
