How are people like this getting elected?

[buckshot24]

After the last farce, I don't know why anyone would bother engaging him.

The last "farce" included a bunch of people telling fairy tales. I think I know why.

 

[ivwshane]

The last "farce" included a bunch of people telling fairy tales. I think I know why.

Yes and you and retrorob wouldn't shut up about it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The last "farce" included a bunch of people telling fairy tales. I think I know why.

I think all anybody needs to know about your integrity is encapsulated in the plain fact that you could suggest the established and overwhelmingly accepted science is the "fairy tale" because of your irrational commitment to the idea that biological diversity was magicked into being by an all-powerful disembodied mind.

The only naturalistic explanation of the evidence is evolution. If you think you have a better naturalistic explanation, you should not hesitate to submit it. The fact is you don't. You want us to believe YOUR fairy tale with exactly zero evidence. The chutzpah is frankly astonishing.

 

[abj13]

The last "farce" included a bunch of people telling fairy tales. I think I know why.

One sentence that summarizes your intellectual dishonesty. Many people engaged you in that thread to explain what science is, and instead of actually addressing anything, you blocked people because they thoroughly showed how ignorant you truly are.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Thomas Jefferson departed this earth decades before the voyage of the Beagle.

But he, Franklin and some others would not have hesitated to read Darwin's Origin or the other work. And they would likely have accepted it as an advancement in understanding how the world worked over something beyond 200 million years.

I'm not personally interested in exploring it further. I know that the mutation of viruses and bacteria essentially follows an evolutionary process. What I mostly know came to me in high school.

Big D was his nickname. He was son of Greek immigrants -- a catholic priest. He would walk around the biology lab with a 5' bamboo pole. In the middle of cracking a joke, he would come up from behind to some student whose mind was elsewhere, raise that pole, and let its weight drop on the day-dreamer's head. And those paying attention to the joke would get a two-for. Just for a moment, and then, back to business.

 

[Moonbeam]

buckshot24: Care to rephrase this because it isn't making any sense to me? This isn't what I'm asking for I'm asking how biological machines we find in cells could possibly come about by genetic copying errors and selection. If something is so self evidently true it shouldn't be this difficult to demonstrate it.

M: As I said, you are incapable or unwilling to understand. It will be easier if you simply state how you answer your question.


b: I suggest it is blind faith that makes one believe a human brain came about via genetic copying errors over billions of years.
You're just giving me platitudes. I am not interested in platitudes.
Right, I don't believe it so I'm an idiot. Look, this isn't the playground and I'm not 5. This crap doesn't work.
How do genetic copying errors build these complex structures?

M: What is your answer. If one person knows that a rope will break under ten pounds of weight and another does not, the second will say it's blind faith that the first says we can't use that rope to hang this man. You are incapable or unwilling to understand scientific reasoning and understand it's not blind faith. It's a best guess based on its established predictive power. Scientific ideas have predictive powers and when those predictions are born out via observations, theories pass from theory to law, There isn't a shred of doubt that evolution happened. But what is your theory.

 

[buckshot24]

M: As I said, you are incapable or unwilling to understand. It will be easier if you simply state how you answer your question.

I didn't understand your sentence, it looks like gibberish to me.

M: What is your answer. If one person knows that a rope will break under ten pounds of weight and another does not, the second will say it's blind faith that the first says we can't use that rope to hang this man.

One doesn't have blind faith in how much weight a rope is rated to handle. You can perform tests and verify if you're not sure. What test can I look at to verify that genetic copying errors can do the things you're asserting they can do?

You are incapable or unwilling to understand scientific reasoning and understand it's not blind faith.

No, I am perfectly capable. You're not capable of providing sufficient evidence that mutation can accumulate and end up creating molecular machines.

It's a best guess based on its established predictive power.

Sort of strange coming from a God believer but if there is no God or some other kind of designer then some form of evolution has to be correct. But if the mechanism one is proposing to drive their particular view of evolution can't get the job done then it can't be true.

Scientific ideas have predictive powers and when those predictions are born out via observations, theories pass from theory to law, There isn't a shred of doubt that evolution happened.

What do you mean by "evolution" here? This is yet another platitude fyi. Totally unconvincing and just irrelevant. Please keep your platitudes to yourself and provide some evidence. Should be trivially simple since it is so self evident. It looks like all you're doing is bluffing and blustering, which is typical of darwinists.

But what is your theory.

Irrelevant. You're the one saying this definitely happened, how about some actual evidence instead of what you've been providing? I want evidence that mutation and selection can and did build men, rhinos, and jelly fish out of much simpler microbes. I want evidence that genetic copying errors w/selection can and did build blood clotting cascades, immune systems, sexual reproduction, or any other biological function. Your confidence in the "theory" isn't evidence.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm not personally interested in exploring it further. I know that the mutation of viruses and bacteria essentially follows an evolutionary process. What I mostly know came to me in high school.

This is like saying a baby can crawl across the room so given enough time they should be able to make it to the moon.

The claim is that a microbe(s) turned into people, corals, and blue whales. How do 50 protein machines come into existence? I don't think what we see in bacteria or viruses has a thing to say about that. This looks like confirmation bias.

 

[zinfamous]

This is like saying a baby can crawl across the room so given enough time they should be able to make it to the moon.

The claim is that a microbe(s) turned into people, corals, and blue whales. How do 50 protein machines come into existence? I don't think what we see in bacteria or viruses has a thing to say about that. This looks like confirmation bias.

and yet, today, I can employ CRISPR and make a mouse, one single generation later, that contains genes foreign to that mouse species....

CRISPR is a "machine" in bacteria that has been quite effectively (and silently to all of science up until about 15 yeas ago) altering that bacteria's own genome within single generations, primarily as a viral defense, for the last 4 billion or so years.

One tiny and targeted snip, one new machine in a new organism. Perform another snip in that new organism, you now have 2 new machines, only 2 generations later.

But, again, you don't believe it.


Oh yeah, and that baby that was crawling one day? Of course you know that it actually did go to the moon. Or do you not believe that evidence, either?

 

[buckshot24]

Thank you for at least talking about the science even if it isn't relevant.

and yet, today, I can employ CRISPR and make a mouse, one single generation later, that contains genes foreign to that mouse species....

Yeah, great. How is this going to create a world with countless genes from one with 0 genes?

CRISPR is a "machine" in bacteria that has been quite effectively (and silently to all of science up until about 15 yeas ago) altering that bacteria's own genome within single generations, primarily as a viral defense, for the last 4 billion or so years.

One tiny and targeted snip, one new machine in a new organism. Perform another snip in that new organism, you now have 2 new machines, only 2 generations later.

This is yet another process you need to explain, I don't see how this helps show mutation and selection as sufficient to turning a microbe into people.

But, again, you don't believe it.

I believe what can be verified. I have no problem with this but I don't see how it is relevant to showing the power of mutation.

Oh yeah, and that baby that was crawling one day? Of course you know that it actually did go to the moon. Or do you not believe that evidence, either?

I believe people went to the moon, I know lots of people don't but I'm not one of them.

I hope you're just trying to be cute here because you've basically undercut your position. The baby didn't crawl to the moon what got that baby to the moon was intelligent intervention and design.

 

[zinfamous]

Thank you for at least talking about the science even if it isn't relevant.

Yeah, great. How is this going to create a world with countless genes from one with 0 genes?
This is yet another process you need to explain, I don't see how this helps show mutation and selection as sufficient to turning a microbe into people.
I believe what can be verified. I have no problem with this but I don't see how it is relevant to showing the power of mutation.
I believe people went to the moon, I know lots of people don't but I'm not one of them.

I hope you're just trying to be cute here because you've basically undercut your position. The baby didn't crawl to the moon what got that baby to the moon was intelligent intervention and design.

What got that baby to the moon was a highly-evolved brain that not only allowed its owner to adapt to ever-changing environments, but to also discover natural laws and create new and wonderful machines exploiting those laws.

There is, from our perspective, no real difference from evolving functioning wings over several million years to developing the technology that allows us to fly over several hundred thousand years. Certainly you agree with that?

Oh damn it, there I go again. I forgot that you aren't interested in discussing this topic on common ground. I'll let you take your ball home with the next post.

 

[Paul98]

Looks like the OP got the answer in person for who would vote for these stupid people.

 

[TheGardener]

Back to the original post. It is good to see that some people won't elect a nut job, who believes he should be anointed to higher office. I give the voters of NYC a thumbs up.

 

[buckshot24]

What got that baby to the moon was a highly-evolved brain that not only allowed its owner to adapt to ever-changing environments, but to also discover natural laws and create new and wonderful machines exploiting those laws.

You say it is a "highly-evolved" brain but even in your world this isn't any different than saying it was intelligent agency. Really not a significant distinction.

There is, from our perspective, no real difference from evolving functioning wings over several million years to developing the technology that allows us to fly over several hundred thousand years. Certainly you agree with that?

No I don't. Humans don't try things randomly until they accidentally find the answer. Humans also have forethought and tried to achieve the goal of flight.

Oh damn it, there I go again. I forgot that you aren't interested in discussing this topic on common ground. I'll let you take your ball home with the next post.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Have a good one.

 

[Grooveriding]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ELWTft6wes

 

[WelshBloke]

Looks like the OP got the answer in person for who would vote for these stupid people.

:awe:

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't understand your sentence, it looks like gibberish to me.
One doesn't have blind faith in how much weight a rope is rated to handle. You can perform tests and verify if you're not sure. What test can I look at to verify that genetic copying errors can do the things you're asserting they can do?
No, I am perfectly capable. You're not capable of providing sufficient evidence that mutation can accumulate and end up creating molecular machines.
Sort of strange coming from a God believer but if there is no God or some other kind of designer then some form of evolution has to be correct. But if the mechanism one is proposing to drive their particular view of evolution can't get the job done then it can't be true.
What do you mean by "evolution" here? This is yet another platitude fyi. Totally unconvincing and just irrelevant. Please keep your platitudes to yourself and provide some evidence. Should be trivially simple since it is so self evident. It looks like all you're doing is bluffing and blustering, which is typical of darwinists.
Irrelevant. You're the one saying this definitely happened, how about some actual evidence instead of what you've been providing? I want evidence that mutation and selection can and did build men, rhinos, and jelly fish out of much simpler microbes. I want evidence that genetic copying errors w/selection can and did build blood clotting cascades, immune systems, sexual reproduction, or any other biological function. Your confidence in the "theory" isn't evidence.

Since we all know you're such a big fan of Michael Behe, maybe this little excerpt from the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover will shed some light on your style of 'argumentation'.

https://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/PDFs/research/portals/probonofiles/kitzmiller.pdf (pages 740 and 741)

Dr. Miller demonstrated that the alleged irreducible complexity of the bloodclotting cascade has been disproven by peer-reviewed studies dating back to 1969, which show that dolphins’ and whales’ blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade, a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998...[other examples follow]...Accordingly, scientists in peer-reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe’s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade.

Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe’s redefinition of the bloodclotting system was likely designed to avoid peer-reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition.

Sound like anyone we know on here? Anyone who has desperately attempted to redefine the terms of discussion any time he gets cornered? Buckshot, have you seen anyone like that on here?

And here's the real kill shot:

Although in Darwin’s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin...

...[Professor Behe] was presented with fifty-eight peer reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not ‘‘good enough.’’

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.

Now I know THAT sounds familiar.

"Show me the evidence!"

--gets shown the evidence--

"Not good enough! Show me the evidence!"

I strongly encourage you and everyone else to read the decision in its entirety, as it's truly an impressive destruction of buckshot's creationist position on evolution.

 

[Moonbeam]

I didn't understand your sentence, it looks like gibberish to me.
One doesn't have blind faith in how much weight a rope is rated to handle. You can perform tests and verify if you're not sure. What test can I look at to verify that genetic copying errors can do the things you're asserting they can do?
No, I am perfectly capable. You're not capable of providing sufficient evidence that mutation can accumulate and end up creating molecular machines.
Sort of strange coming from a God believer but if there is no God or some other kind of designer then some form of evolution has to be correct. But if the mechanism one is proposing to drive their particular view of evolution can't get the job done then it can't be true.
What do you mean by "evolution" here? This is yet another platitude fyi. Totally unconvincing and just irrelevant. Please keep your platitudes to yourself and provide some evidence. Should be trivially simple since it is so self evident. It looks like all you're doing is bluffing and blustering, which is typical of darwinists.
Irrelevant. You're the one saying this definitely happened, how about some actual evidence instead of what you've been providing? I want evidence that mutation and selection can and did build men, rhinos, and jelly fish out of much simpler microbes. I want evidence that genetic copying errors w/selection can and did build blood clotting cascades, immune systems, sexual reproduction, or any other biological function. Your confidence in the "theory" isn't evidence.

As I said, the evidence for evolution is such that evolution is known to be a fact by people who are amenable to the powers of evidence. Since you either can't or won't use that power, you are out of luck. You choices are to accept that as a fact or deny it. It makes not the slightest difference. There is a saying that covers your kind of thinking: The dog may bark but the caravan moves on. Unless you can produce an alternate theory that can change the minds of rational people, you're out in the cold. Nobody owes you a proof you can accept. You have to be worthy of handling factual information. You either don't want or are incapable of such worthiness. You are just like the folk who deny the existence of God because the god that most believe in is ridiculous and they demand proof of what is obvious, that their inner certainty that God isn't some joke, their correct notions of who a God would have to be, is correct.

 

[WelshBloke]

I believe what can be verified.

I suspect that you don't hold your belief to this.

 

[abj13]

Sound like anyone we know on here? Anyone who has desperately attempted to redefine the terms of discussion any time he gets cornered? Buckshot, have you seen anyone like that on here?

That's why I'm suspicious he actually is that knucklehead Michael Behe. He uses everyone of his bad arguments, and uses the exact same twisted logic, while never citing that he is using Behe's work.

 

[buckshot24]

As I said, the evidence for evolution is such that evolution is known to be a fact by people who are amenable to the powers of evidence.

How about presenting some evidence then instead of this dodge of yours? You realize this is a public forum and I wouldn't be the only one reading it, right? Do it for the lurkers if not for me. Your comments are interesting since all you've given us are useless platitudes.

 

[buckshot24]

That's why I'm suspicious he actually is that knucklehead Michael Behe. He uses everyone of his bad arguments, and uses the exact same twisted logic, while never citing that he is using Behe's work.

First, you accused me of arguing for IC when I wasn't. Secondly, I used Behe's CQ 10^20 malaria reference for my own argument. You ridiculously accused me of thinking this was a general mutation rate.

How do complex biological machines come into existence via genetic copying errors and selection? What observable evidence do you have of these great powers of mutation and selection?

 

[buckshot24]

One sentence that summarizes your intellectual dishonesty. Many people engaged you in that thread to explain what science is, and instead of actually addressing anything, you blocked people because they thoroughly showed how ignorant you truly are.

That isn't why I block people but you love to extrapolate flimsy evidence into grand claims so I'm not surprised by this assertion, you're a darwinist after all.

 

[UberNeuman]

How do complex biological machines come into existence via genetic copying errors and selection? What observable evidence do you have of these great powers of mutation and selection?

Look in a mirror. And shut the fuck up.

 

[buckshot24]

Look in a mirror. And shut the fuck up.

No I won't. You can always place me on ignore if I bother you so much.