More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again...

Message boards : Politics : More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again...
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 . . . 27 · Next

AuthorMessage
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19066
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1531385 - Posted: 23 Jun 2014, 21:55:53 UTC - in response to Message 1531383.  
Last modified: 23 Jun 2014, 21:56:09 UTC

You do make some strange comments at times.

You accuse people all the time of putting words into your mouth, when in fact you are the person most likely to.

Nowhere has it ever been suggested that SCOTUS does peer reviews. Courts use evidence and expert witnesses.

And how many tin=mes do you have to be told there is no such thing as neo-darwinism, there is in fact no such thing as darwinism. The words you are looking for are "The Theory of Evolution" Please use that phase in all your future postings.

And "The Theory pf Evolution" never never has stated or proposed that a species can change into another.
If two species are linked then it will be they had a common ancestor, probably millions of years ago.
ID: 1531385 · Report as offensive
brendan
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 99
Posts: 165
Credit: 7,294,631
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1531390 - Posted: 23 Jun 2014, 22:22:06 UTC - in response to Message 1531383.  

SCOTUS has taken the view that ID is creationism on several occasions.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism

SCOTUS Peer reviews? News to me.

Perhaps they should review Neo-Darwinism's so called fact about one speices changing into another...


Sigh. Just to remind you:
No such thing as neo-darwinism in science.
Evolutionary theory does not state that one species changes into another.

Twisting the facts and making false claims about evolution is not going to convince me. Give me evidence that something is designed - give me evidence of a designer.
ID: 1531390 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1531397 - Posted: 23 Jun 2014, 22:39:39 UTC - in response to Message 1531385.  

You do make some strange comments at times.


As do you.

You accuse people all the time of putting words into your mouth, when in fact you are the person most likely to.


No, no I don't. I do so when people put words in my mouth or twist what I say into something different then I said in the first place. I'm not the only one who thinks that either. It has been brought up by someone else in this thread.

And the second part of your sentence is very much untrue. I take people for what they say and respond to what they say.

Nowhere has it ever been suggested that SCOTUS does peer reviews. Courts use evidence and expert witnesses.


Sometimes and sometimes not. As in this case the sometimes not...

Never the less the court case your talking about had everything to do with politics and not much to do with the science of Intelligent Design. Which is the same as Neo-Darwinism.

And how many tin=mes do you have to be told there is no such thing as neo-darwinism, there is in fact no such thing as darwinism. The words you are looking for are "The Theory of Evolution" Please use that phase in all your future postings.


I reckon you haven't read the books I have already posted about in this link, written by Neo-Darwinist who proclaim EXACTLY what I have said here. I WILL call it exactly what it is in all my postings.

In in all your future postings, along with everyone else here please refrain from calling Intelligent Design--Creationism. It is a grievous mistake you all seem to make. I have been very and quite clear about this.

And "The Theory pf Evolution" never never has stated or proposed that a species can change into another.


Charles Darwin was just 28 years old when, in 1837, he scribbled in a notebook "
one species does change into another"—one of the first hints of his great theory ...

Please be more careful when you post. I do try to be as careful AND accurate as I can. I do sometimes mess up and blow it from time to time but... ...really that is the theory and you are 100% wrong as has everyone else who said the very samething you have here...

Please look up genetic drift or perhaps gene flow.

If two species are linked then it will be they had a common ancestor, probably millions of years ago.


Yes, that would be called a hybrid, a offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera. I believe in this part of Darwin, it can be proven.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1531397 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1531399 - Posted: 23 Jun 2014, 22:41:55 UTC - in response to Message 1531390.  

You sir are wrong... ...flat out wrong.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1531399 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11361
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1531401 - Posted: 23 Jun 2014, 22:42:59 UTC - in response to Message 1531382.  

no
already done that...

I do not believe you!
ID: 1531401 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1531403 - Posted: 23 Jun 2014, 22:45:25 UTC - in response to Message 1531401.  

It does not require---belief.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1531403 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11361
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1531425 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 0:01:49 UTC - in response to Message 1531403.  

It does not require---belief.

Prove it.
ID: 1531425 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11361
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1531426 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 0:06:21 UTC - in response to Message 1531403.  

It does not require---belief.

You make this outlandish assertion about the possibilty of donut shaped planets and then claim to have cited a reason why they are possible in theory. I do not belive you have cited any thing to affirm your assertion. Provide the reason you say such nonsense. You claim to have done this already. Prove it.
ID: 1531426 · Report as offensive
Profile John Neale
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 00
Posts: 634
Credit: 7,246,513
RAC: 9
South Africa
Message 1531428 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 0:20:44 UTC - in response to Message 1531397.  

Charles Darwin was just 28 years old when, in 1837, he scribbled in a notebook "
one species does change into another"—one of the first hints of his great theory ...

Robert, your understanding of the theory of evolution in particular, and of the scientific method in general, is "flat out" wrong on very many levels. This is the biggest red herring in this thread, and all the others you've spawned in this forum. Your premise is false.

Here's some context for what you quoted above: What Darwin Didn't Know.
ID: 1531428 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1531435 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 1:48:21 UTC - in response to Message 1531428.  
Last modified: 24 Jun 2014, 1:48:56 UTC

Charles Darwin was just 28 years old when, in 1837, he scribbled in a notebook "
one species does change into another"—one of the first hints of his great theory ...

Robert, your understanding of the theory of evolution in particular, and of the scientific method in general, is "flat out" wrong on very many levels. This is the biggest red herring in this thread, and all the others you've spawned in this forum. Your premise is false.

Here's some context for what you quoted above: What Darwin Didn't Know.


No, I am correct.

;-) and Your link wont download.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1531435 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11361
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1531436 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 1:53:52 UTC - in response to Message 1531435.  

No, I am correct.

The society of unsubstianted assertions applauds your BS.
ID: 1531436 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1531437 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 2:03:13 UTC - in response to Message 1531436.  

It simply doesn't take Faith. This thread proves it.

I was assured that he was a scientist. Not that assurances mean anything here. Never the less he didn't know the theory and I have been told he works in that field.

I have good reason not to----believe that.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1531437 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1531438 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 2:20:32 UTC

betreger said:
The society of unsubstianted assertions applauds your BS.

The Society of One Sentence Posters who Use One Sentence to Denigrate Always, Applauds You, Sir.


heeeheeeheee.

Oh Yeah.

fO shO.

Dat be fO sentences fO Da Brainiac.

Dat Me.

OOooopsie. dat Six. Oooopsie again. Dat Seven. No, Ten.

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1531438 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1531442 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 2:55:10 UTC - in response to Message 1531354.  

You taught science in a Catholic school.


In more than one Catholic school.

Did you teach the Catechism?

Nope. I already told you, I taught science.

You really have no idea what the curriculum is/was now do you?

More than you apparently. Do you know how schools work?

Never not once looked around you as to what else was going on did you?

Lol. Wrong again. I am so sure right now that I have a better idea at what goes on in Catholic schools than you do.

I can typing...

Do you know what words you are trying to use?
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1531442 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1531446 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 3:17:55 UTC - in response to Message 1531442.  
Last modified: 24 Jun 2014, 3:18:25 UTC

Ya, Catechism class is where Creationism is taught. Why would you not know that?

Fair and Balanced...
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1531446 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1531447 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 3:19:07 UTC - in response to Message 1531438.  
Last modified: 24 Jun 2014, 3:19:40 UTC

betreger said:
The society of unsubstianted assertions applauds your BS.

The Society of One Sentence Posters who Use One Sentence to Denigrate Always, Applauds You, Sir.


heeeheeeheee.

Oh Yeah.

fO shO.

Dat be fO sentences fO Da Brainiac.

Dat Me.

OOooopsie. dat Six. Oooopsie again. Dat Seven. No, Ten.

;-)

I stopped keeping count after you reached 5.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1531447 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1531449 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 3:32:55 UTC - in response to Message 1531446.  

Ya, Catechism class is where Creationism is taught. Why would you not know that?

Fair and Balanced...

So you do agree then, that Intelligent Design, AKA creationism is not science?

Finally. I thought you'd never understand.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1531449 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19066
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1531456 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 4:04:40 UTC - in response to Message 1531446.  

Ya, Catechism class is where Creationism is taught. Why would you not know that?

Fair and Balanced...

But not all schools run by the Roman Catholic church teach Catechism.

Bet you didn't know that.
ID: 1531456 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1531463 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 4:17:49 UTC - in response to Message 1531456.  

Ya, Catechism class is where Creationism is taught. Why would you not know that?

Fair and Balanced...

But not all schools run by the Roman Catholic church teach Catechism.

Bet you didn't know that.

I did.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1531463 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34053
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1531537 - Posted: 24 Jun 2014, 7:56:21 UTC

Good question Clyde. I tend to not be able to follow anymore because of that.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1531537 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 . . . 27 · Next

Message boards : Politics : More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again...


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.