Have you ever tried writing palindromes? How about writing phrases that can be read the same way in either direction? Here are some examples:
A man, a plan, a canal: Panama
Live not on evil
Was it a car or a cat I saw
These sentences were no doubt designed…
Can you imagine writing a book that can be read forwards and backwards containing 2 different stories that made sense? Not an easy task…
Watch the video and pay special attention to the following examples:
- Alternative splicing of RNA that produces multiple proteins from one gene
- Duons – Overlapping sequences that code for both protein expression and transcription factor binding sites simultaneously
- Dual coding genes in which one sequence is read in multiple frames to produce completely different protein
The magnitude of the dual coding problem in DNA would be the equivalent of writing a novel that could be read in either forward over reverse directions making two different stories both of which made sense…
And don’t forget that according to Darwinists the dual coding in DNA simply evolved, right?
As much as not collecting stamps is?
Glen Davidson
HAH, is that why they say organizing atheists is like herding cats?
You asked him what he does, he gives you a very polite and complete answer, and you give him this completely worthless prick reply?
Keiths, does anyone find your personality likeable? Have you ever stopped to think about that?
phoodoo,
I thanked him for his reply, and then told him the truth: The poor reasoning skills he’s demonstrated here don’t fit with the idea that he’s a corporate turnaround specialist.
phoodoo,
First, it’s amusing to see you, of all people, asking that question.
Second, how you ever stopped to think about the fact that a person’s behavior on an internet blog dedicated to skepticism might not be indicative of how he behaves in other circumstances?
If I worked with Bill, would I be commenting on his extreme lack of reasoning skills? No, of course not. If he were my brother in law? No. Someone I had just met at a party? Nope. An old high school friend? No.
At a skeptical blog, where I had seen him make the most ridiculous mistakes again and again, including the outright denial of a fact that he himself had previously acknowledged (Behe’s acceptance of common descent)? You bet. Ridicule is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.
And when he goes on to claim that atheism is a form of “groupthink”? Even more worthy of ridicule.
Here’s a scary thought: Phoodoo actually thinks that commenting at TSZ is about projecting a “likeable personality”, and this is the best he can do.
*shudder*
keiths,
Do you think you understand what I mean here? You failed to understand the frog in the well argument and you failed to understand the Behe common descent argument. Whats amazing here keiths is you thought my saying that Behe accepts common descent was at all meaningful.
Group think keeps you in a superficial understanding of the world drowning in logical fallacies. I have been there myself.
Why don’t you explain it to us then?
Yes, there was a time when you believed in a “science” of “design” which was contrary to the evidence of derivation without the kind of leaps of rationality that intelligence effects. And you made a host of bizarre claims based on Sal’s “flower,” which you managed to misconstrue in a variety of ways. And you denied what the evidence of the nested hierarchy shows, again via various misrepresentations and by some poor analogy with software (having backed down from a number of claims that didn’t work). Plus, you failed always to explain, say, bird wings fused from bones that once became articulated in terrestrial dinosaurs (fobbing that off with your credulous nonsense about flight having to be designed), falling back on your usual groupthink that avoids or bypasses all of the facts in order to return to the mindless claim of design regardless of what the evidence shows.
Yes, you’ve been there, you’re doing that. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure that you were a groupthinking atheist (or whatever nonbeliever), because you certainly don’t demonstrate good thinking now. Why would you ever be suckered in by ID if you thought at all well?
Glen Davidson
Adapa,
I have, Adapta. The word “common descent” has multiple meanings so saying you accept common descent tells me very little about your conclusion. I accept common descent and keiths accepts common descent yet our view of the cause of life’s diversity are very different.
Behe says that common descent is a trivial argument. Why does he think it is a trivial argument where John Harshman was willing to work through 6000 comments to defend it as a claim?
The reason for Behe’s belief that common descent is trivial is because it does not adequately explain the data that is observed. In its current form it only attempts to explain the pattern the data forms.
Someone claiming common descent by only reproduction (orthodox common descent) is making a very different claim then common descent that requires design changes to complete transitions.
GlenDavidson,
You are demonstrating groupthink.
You continually make assertions like this to try and persuade people to join you in your groupthink. Darwinism is a poster child of groupthink. A theory built on logical fallacies like the circular reasoning of the definition of homologies. I am hopeful that you somehow can escape it but understand it will be difficult for you as your theory depends on it.
Is that the best you can do? Just repeat stupid accusations that for which you lack any evidence? I gave plenty of evidence of your groupthink, you just blatantly project.
Oh I’m so sorry that I bring up evidence, while you just baselessly accuse.
It’s a pathetic song and dance.
Even to write “Darwinism” indicates your incapacity to get beyond groupthink. Crack a book for once, ignorant pseudoscientist.
Take that up with Richard Owen, you ignorant toad. He wasn’t even an evolutionist when he explained the differences, and all you can do is chant your groupthink pseudoscientist rot.
Oh, I’m sure I could escape good thinking by becoming brain-damaged. You might even sound like something other than cultic dimwit to me if the brain-damage was bad enough.
I would note that you refuted none of the evidence I brought up, nor corrected your many false accusations based on your ignorance and clinging to whatever nonsense you think to weaponize against evolution, but only hurled baseless accusations that you don’t even really understand. Typical Bill, typical conspiratorial thinking of the groupthinking fantasy believer.
Glen Davidson
In the end, creationists just go for demonization.
Why not? They can’t produce anything of value, including the first bit of meaningful evidence for design in wild-type life.
Finding the truth is never their point, but merely to assert that their beliefs are the truth. Even to be open to the evidence is foreign to most of them.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
I understand you Glen. You made a theory of consciousness that depends on Darwinism being true.
You have not shown any understanding of the challenges that Behe has made to your theory which tells me you are blinded by groupthink. The op you posted shows me that your are capable of understanding the challenges to Darwinism.
All that being said, the op on your theory was quite good.
I suggest you stop trying to defend a dying theory and separate Darwinism from your theory. Its time to get ahead of the power curve.
Bullshit. Of course I use actual science, not your drivel, but that’s just intelligent thinking.
Your false accusations are disgusting.
Who doesn’t understand the dull nonsense of a Behe? That it doesn’t actually make a case for design, which embodies the rationality that you constantly avoid dealing with, is your failure. One of many.
It’s appalling that you think it’s about “challenges to Darwinism,” for the propaganda of the term “Darwinism,” and because it indicates that you’ll push your false dilemma no matter how fraudulent.
It’s about evidence for design, which you cannot produce. That is, evidence that is entailed in context, and in a detailed manner.
I suggest you learn something other than your insipid IDiotic bullshit.
Glen Davidson
I’m also skeptical of that. I’ve also questioned it. In what manner would questioning the veracity of that claim be acceptable to phoodoo, one whose replies have often arguably strayed across various boundaries?
I’m a rocket scientist doing brain surgery in my spare time.
Aha, but ‘Atoms are designed’!
GlenDavidson,
You don’t Glen. You don’t understand the evidence for design as you simply try to dismiss it. Have you ever been involved in a project that designed a product in either pharmaceuticals or electronics?
colewd:
Heh. “Groupthink” seems to be Bill’s latest favorite buzzword, to go with “alternative splicing” and “ATP synthase” (which he rendered as “ATP Synthese”).
Never mind that Christianity is one of the most egregious examples of groupthink imaginable: people holding a set of ridiculous beliefs simply because everyone else in their group believes them, too.
colewd:
Um, no, I correctly pointed out (at least four times) that you were failing to apply it to yourself and your own views.
Read that sentence again, Bill. You see why we laugh?
Sometimes the group is correct. Sometimes an outsider with a radical idea can upset the group by demonstrating their new idea is more productive then the old.
I wonder what the excuse is for the lack of such a demonstration here.
I’m sure geologists would become YEC’s in a flash if it meant they could predict oil deposits with more accuracy….
Bill,
As for Behe, he accepts the same version of common descent as the rest of us:
I’ve explained this to you again and again, but you simply won’t accept it. You are paralyzed by groupthink, unwilling to admit that Behe isn’t a part of your cherished group.
But as I told you before:
keiths,
I see you have accepted groupthink as an issue. Laughing at people who don’t agree with you is a symptom of groupthink.
Kieths you are not comprehending the points I am making. You think you understand the frog in the well argument just because you assert you do. You think you understand Behe’s position on common descent just because you assert the meaningless statement “Behe accepts common descent”. You think you understand the evidence supporting Christianity well enough to dismiss it yet you again don’t support your claim.
You have yet to demonstrate understanding of any of your opponents arguments as you just talk over them with assertions that your position is correct.
keiths,
Keiths, you are the king of meaningless statements.
keiths,
Do you think a theory is correct if only one leg is correct?
colewd:
A fifth-grader could understand that argument. It’s not exactly subtle, Bill. The problem is that you attempt to apply it to others without realizing that if it were valid, it would undermine your own position as well.
If that’s a “meaningless statement”, then why have you been fighting for months to deny it? Come on, Bill.
The fact that Behe accepts common descent is very meaningful. It means he rejects your brand of creationism, which is why you’re so upset over it. Behe isn’t stupid enough to believe what you believe, Bill. The evidence for common descent is simply too strong.
TSZ is full of arguments I’ve made against Christianity. You’re welcome to (try to) refute any of them.
Reality, Bill — accept it or be defeated by it.
Bill,
Just explain how Behe’s position on Intelligent Design negates his stated position on common descent.
Common descent is true but….
C’mon, give it a go.
colewd,
He accepts common descent, Bill. Deal with it.
keiths,
We all accept common descent keiths. Your statement is meaningless and shows your lack of comprehension.
I have already done this but your lack of comprehension of counter arguments leaves you believing you have been successful when you have simply failed to communicate.
OMagain,
I doesn’t . Behe’s position on intelligent design potentially increases the line of demarkation between common descent and special creation.
colewd:
Oh, really?
Bill, two days ago:
keiths:
colewd:
Oops.
colewd, to Glen:
It’s hard to imagine that you were in any sort of a technical role, Bill. Are you sure you weren’t in sales, or janitorial services, or something like that?
LOL! No surprises you’re as ignorant of what “common descent” means as you are everything else associated with evolutionary biology.
Some more quotes from the video:
“The evolutionary assumption is that true dual coding genes are
conserved among species which underestimates true number of genes a study by Santana found that 9% of human genes and 7% of mouse genes will dual coding by chance one would expect only 0.07% of genes to be dual coding. However fewer than 30 percent of dual coding genes are shared between human and mouse.
The study also found that 90 percent of dual coding genes
have overlapping coding sequences on opposite DNA strands. In bacteria 84 %of overlapping genes are on the same strand.”
All the above was not doubt predicted by evolution…including the miraculous arrangement of duons…
Sheer dumb luck is the best forward and backward writer of all…
Noble Prize is not good enough for this kind of ingenuity and design …
Yahoo Sheer Dumb Luck! You are as “wise”as your followers…
We don’t think a theory is wrong just because some woefully ignorant Creationist who doesn’t understand it even a little claims it’s wrong. 🙂
keiths,
You used a meaningless statement as truth
keiths,
Its hard for me to imagine that you designed microprocessors but I will take it at face value. 🙂 Did you ever manage people, keiths?
Adapa,
What do you think common descent means?
keiths:
colewd:
Yes, though I much preferred my purely technical roles.
I notice that you didn’t answer my question. Did I guess right? Sales? Janitorial services?
Bill, two days ago:
keiths:
colewd:
Bill, now:
Again, if it’s meaningless, why have you spent weeks trying to deny it?
keiths,
I have managed all high tech functions sales, marketing, finance, manufacturing, development, service and yes facilities 🙂
It does not surprise me that you preferred to be an individual contributor.
I have been trying to get you past this superficial statement and really discuss the real meat of the argument. You have been mistaken that I had some emotional attachment to Behe’s position. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me.
You have been trying to label Behe with a broad brush which does not accurately state his position. Everyone agrees common descent is true. The devil is in the details in order to understand someones real position.
I think Behe’s statement that common descent on its own is trivial is something worth discussing.
Few things Billy needs to come to terms with:
1. Behe believes is “orthodox” common descent
2. Common descent necessarily involves reproduction at every single node
3. (Universal) Common descent means all living forms share a common ancestor and all species are part of the same family tree
4. Common descent is entirely incompatible with special creation.
5. Common descent (as explained to Billy a trillion times) is independent of evolutionary mechanisms
Will he get it now? Of course not
I’ve been letting some stuff pass. But this kind of personal questioning is going too far. Stop it, or I will be moving posts to guano.
colewd:
Yes. I found management boring. The technical stuff is much more interesting.
keiths:
colewd:
Oh, really? See my next comment.
keiths, from the old thread:
colewd:
keiths:
colewd:
keiths,
form keiths
How is it you don’t know the above quote that you attributed to me came from you. I will stay within the rules and not comment about your possible intent.
You do not understand my position even though I clearly explained it to you. Again, the claim you attributed to Behe is meaningless. If you want to have a real discussion I am interested but you appear only interested in meaningless word games.
With all due respect keiths you really need to improve your communication skills.
Moved some posts to guano.
Neil,
You’re screwing up again.
colewd:
Of course it did, and I quoted the entire comment to make that absolutely clear:
Jesus, Bill. Did you also think I was quoting a commenter named “Reality-based people”?
Here’s the part that demonstrates your emotional reaction to learning of Behe’s view:
colewd,
We are having a “real discussion”, though it isn’t going very well for you. I’ve shown that
You’re fighting reality, and you’re losing.
keiths,
So why are you making a quote like that at all? To purposely mislead people. You create a quote and attributed it to me? It looks like you mis understood my intent made a strawman quote attributed it to me and then you became confused. Every time you have made a claim about my intent you have been wrong and become deeply confused. I suggest you drop your attempt to mind read.
🙂
Keiths, I am making light of your obsession here, with a sarcastic comment, of you attributing a meaningless statement to Behe. You took “difficult but I can learn to live with it” seriously?
Keiths, it is apparent you struggle with subtle communication nuances like sarcasm. Now I understand how you got confused about my position.
I think we have taken this conversation as far as it should go at this point.
Christ, Bill. Even you understood it the first time around. If even you got it, what are the chances that it’s going to mislead someone else?
Next, I am not “confused about your position”. You’ve been kicking and screaming for months against the idea that Behe accepts common descent.
Read this again, and note your own words:
And then you tried to pull the same thing just two days ago:
John:
colewd:
It couldn’t be more obvious, Bill. You were so freaked out by Behe’s acceptance of common descent that you were trying to claim that he had changed his mind in the years since writing his book!
Now you’re trying to deny even that, and it’s backfiring badly on you.
colewd:
I agree. Your claims have been thoroughly discredited, and you’ve been tripping over your own shoelaces trying to defend them. What’s left to discuss?