an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

More Childish Whining from Bob Sorensen aka @PiltdownSupermn

Seemingly never satisfied unless he’s throwing a tantrum that would put a particularly spoiled toddler to shame, Bob ‘Never Right’ Sorensen has today dribbled out a blog post that is, even by his spectacularly low standards, thoroughly pathetic.

It’s the typical ‘oh woe is me, I’m a victim of the nasty atheists’ stuff we have come to expect from the perpetually blubbering manchild Sorensen, as this extract illustrates –

There are times when atheists portray themselves as harmless people who never bother anyone, and simply do not believe the way theists believe. So…

  • It must not be the atheists that troll YouTube material by Christians with ridiculous and often obscene comments, and vote down the video
  • It must not be the atheists who troll Christian groups in Facebook
  • It must not be the atheists who troll Amazon and vote down Christian books that they have not read
  • It must not be the atheists who are protesting more and more, trying to secularize America
  • It must not be the atheists who are trying to get the teaching of creation science and Intelligent Design outlawed, and pressure lawmakers with misinformation campaigns
  • It must not be the atheists who write Weblogs misrepresenting Christians (especially creationists), with equivocation, arbitrary assertions and sometimes by flat-out lying
  • It must not be the atheists who are attacking creationists and saying that we are wrong, even though they have no idea what we actually believe and teach. Hint: try actually reading the material, watching the videos and so on without looking for any little excuse to typo-pounce or some other lame excuse to say, “Gotcha!” Actually pay attention to the message instead of embarrassing yourselves with such blatant misrepresentation
  • It must not be the atheists who are trolling Weblogs by Christians, trying to pick fights and leave nasty comments
  • It must not be the atheists who are trolling Christians (especially creationists) on Twitter for the same reasons

What utter hypocritical, childish rubbish.

Other than the unintentional moment of critical self awareness at the end, it’s your usual nonsense from Bob. Hilariously he still seems to think that he has an audience that agrees with him, apparently unaware that his ‘Question Evolution Day’ pals have deserted him over on the Facebook page for that particular misadventure, whilst his entirely imagined ‘friends’ Nicky Andolini and Rhomphaia don’t even bother to comment on his blog any more. It comes to something when facets of ones own split personality can’t be bothered to pat you on the back, eh Bob?

I’d almost feel sorry for Bob, if he weren’t such a relentless wanker.

Single Post Navigation

39 thoughts on “More Childish Whining from Bob Sorensen aka @PiltdownSupermn

  1. If he does not want to answer questions then he should not call the page ‘Question Evolution day’ The same as if you do not like spamyou do not go into a restaurant and order spam, spam spam ,spam,egg,sausage,spam,Spam,spam,baked beans spam and spam.

  2. BathTub on said:

    Did you see there is another Question Evolution group? just as small as Stormy’s group but 10 times the Delusion of Grandeur. They are out to make this the worst year ever for Darwinism!

    http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/

    You may recognize a few contributors names there, I am almost certain that one of them is shockofgod of youtube fame or just a huge sycophant, as it almost seems that every second post is ‘shockofgod is just so awesome’.

    Scroll back through the archives, it’s a comedy goldmine.

  3. David on said:

    re: Question Evolution Day

    Evolution should be questioned EVERY day.

    See:

    Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture
    http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.asp

  4. David on said:

    Why isn’t Jack Horner interested in dating the T. Rex bone with soft
    tissue? Why do evolutionists refuse to conduct this easy C-14 test?
    Perhaps because it would give a young date and not the “65 million years”
    evolutionism preaches?

    See:

    RSF and Jurassic Park Paleontologist Jack Horner
    http://kgov.com/jack-horner

    and

    Real Science Friday
    http://kgov.com/real-science-friday

  5. freddies_dead on said:

    If his worldview is unable to answer the criticisms raised he should look to find one that can – unfortunately he’d rather cover his ears and shout “Lalalalalalalala the ebil afeists are persecuting me!!!!!!eleventyone!”

    Bob should climb down off his cross – Christians are not a minority and they are not being persecuted.

  6. Bob aka “Stormpooper” is a moron. That’s not an ad hominem. I use moron in the literal sense of the term, a person who has the stunted emotional and mental capacity of an 8 year old child.

    His article reflect this stunted mental growth as well.

    I actually find him rather amusing for how brain dead most of his stuff is, there is a double irony working against him which is absolutely hilarious. But he has blocked me from commenting or writing him personal emails. Because I kept complimenting him on his great sense of humor. Which made him irate. Too funny.

  7. freddies_dead on said:

    Welcome David – shall we take a quick look at the questions from that link you posted.

    1. Is irrelevant – evolution has nothing to do with whether the Big Bang Theory is correct or not.
    2. Is irrelevant – evolution has nothing to do with solar system formation theory
    3. Is irrelevant – evolution has nothing to do with the Oort cloud
    4. Crappy attempt to undermine the foundations of physics http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item14.htm
    5. Another attempt to bash radio isotope dating which totally ignores the fact that proper scientists will use multiple isotopes to confirm dating rather than rely on just one. When the different lines of enquiry all confirm one another we can be fairly certain that the laws of physics haven’t suddenly changed to make the earth less than 10k years old.
    6. Is irrelevant – evolution does not rely on any specific process of abiogenesis.
    7. Here you go – here’s some real scientists explaining the evolution of ATP synthase http://www.macromol.uni-osnabrueck.de/paperMulk/Mulkid_Nat_Rev_Micro_2007.pdf
    8. Pointing and shouting “DESIGN!” at every conceivable opportunity is nothing like demonstrating that design actually exists – to do that you’re going to have to prove the existence of a designer first. You cannot determine design when you believe that every single thing is designed – you have no control mechanism to determine non-designed entities.
    9. Please define ‘complex specified information’ as none of your IDiot colleagues seems able. Simple gene duplication coupled with a single random mutation would give rise to ‘new’ information in the genome.
    10. The “rapidly evolved” cecal valves are possibly just natural selection acting on pre-existing genetic information, helping a population adapt to its surroundings. You do realise that that’s exactly what evolution does? That changes are made to existing structures – it’s only over time that those incremental changes may result in the structure having a whole new purpose.
    11. Oh dear. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC341.html
    12. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html & http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
    13. Trilobite eyes are awseome = Jebus! If only they all had similar eyes and there was no way that they could have evolved – http://www.trilobites.info/eyes.htm – oh well better luck next time.
    14. Holy shit! Jellyfish fossilize so why don’t other soft body animals fossilize? Really? I guess you don’t understand fossilisation any better than you do evolution.
    15. As noted in 14 you don’t understand fossiisation but lets concede for arguments sake that we can’t actually give you such a series (we can, look up ceratopsian evolution). How does that prove that “evolution is false” bearing in mind that evolution depends on multiple lines of enquiry quite apart from faunal succession?
    16. It doesn’t need to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html
    17. Mammals from reptiles http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2
    18. This is roughly the same as 15 but with a species you know we have a poor fossil record for. I ask again, how does that prove that “evolution is false” bearing in mind that evolution depends on multiple lines of enquiry quite apart from faunal succession?
    19. a) no b) yes and c) hoatzin, touraco, ostrich, kiwi, emu – your point is probably that because some modern birds still have claws that shows that archaeopteryx cannot possibly be a transitional fossil between reptiles and birds. That you don’t understand evolution is now abundantly obvious.
    20. Again, you know such a fossil doesn’t exist but then we don’t need one – we have modern day counterparts which span that gap. The fossil record is not the be all and end all for evolution.
    21. Jeez you’re stuck on the whole fossil record thing – it’s irrelevant. As for metamorphosis, again there are many examples of different forms of metamorphosis that we can observe directly today and they show a possible set of evolutionary stages. http://cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/butterfly-metamorphosis.html
    22. Oh ffs, fossil record = irrelevant. And again, your inability to see how the dance could go from encouraging foraging through to actual communication as to where best to forage does not mean that it cannot have happened.
    23. Rubbish, most people who know a bit about evolution are well aware that Darwin was not the originator of evolutionary thought – that goes way back to the ancient greeks ffs – he just happened to bring all those ideas together into a coherent whole which explained modern biodiversity.
    24. No new species arose but that doesn’t stop it being an example of evolution … and macroevolution is a bullshit term made up to try and deny evolution whilst still accepting evolution (change within kinds).
    25. Lubenow is lying – Eldredge and Gould based their theory upon evidence, you could try reading their work rather than simply quoting liars.
    26. The beaks changed in response to the environment and then changed back when the environment reverted and you try to claim that evolution didn’t happen because there wasn’t a “net effect”? Holy fuck but you’re an idiot.
    27. Yes they can. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1594990/
    28. Fucking footprints now? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC052.html
    29. The fact that there are hominid fossils which straddle every line from early apes to fully modern humans simply supports evolution as does the fact that people are still debating as to which category each specimen should be placed in.
    30. Quotemine, quotemine, quotemine.
    31. Ask them yourself douch-canoe.

  8. freddies_dead on said:

    Welcome David – shall we take a quick look at the questions from that link you posted.

    1. Is irrelevant – evolution has nothing to do with whether the Big Bang Theory is correct or not.
    2. Is irrelevant – evolution has nothing to do with solar system formation theory
    3. Is irrelevant – evolution has nothing to do with the Oort cloud
    4. Crappy attempt to undermine the foundations of physics http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item14.htm
    5. Another attempt to bash radio isotope dating which totally ignores the fact that proper scientists will use multiple isotopes to confirm dating rather than rely on just one. When the different lines of enquiry all confirm one another we can be fairly certain that the laws of physics haven’t suddenly changed to make the earth less than 10k years old.
    6. Is irrelevant – evolution does not rely on any specific process of abiogenesis.
    7. Here you go – here’s some real scientists explaining the evolution of ATP synthase http://www.macromol.uni-osnabrueck.de/paperMulk/Mulkid_Nat_Rev_Micro_2007.pdf
    8. Pointing and shouting “DESIGN!” at every conceivable opportunity is nothing like demonstrating that design actually exists – to do that you’re going to have to prove the existence of a designer first. You cannot determine design when you believe that every single thing is designed – you have no control mechanism to determine non-designed entities.
    9. Please define ‘complex specified information’ as none of your IDiot colleagues seems able. Simple gene duplication coupled with a single random mutation would give rise to ‘new’ information in the genome.
    10. The “rapidly evolved” cecal valves are possibly just natural selection acting on pre-existing genetic information, helping a population adapt to its surroundings. You do realise that that’s exactly what evolution does? That changes are made to existing structures – it’s only over time that those incremental changes may result in the structure having a whole new purpose.
    11. Oh dear. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC341.html
    12. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html & http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
    13. Trilobite eyes are awseome = Jebus! If only they all had similar eyes and there was no way that they could have evolved – http://www.trilobites.info/eyes.htm – oh well better luck next time.
    14. Holy shit! Jellyfish fossilize so why don’t other soft body animals fossilize? Really? I guess you don’t understand fossilisation any better than you do evolution.
    15. As noted in 14 you don’t understand fossiisation but lets concede for arguments sake that we can’t actually give you such a series (we can, look up ceratopsian evolution). How does that prove that “evolution is false” bearing in mind that evolution depends on multiple lines of enquiry quite apart from faunal succession?
    16. It doesn’t need to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html

    cont’d…

  9. freddies_dead on said:

    cont’d…

    17. Mammals from reptiles http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2
    18. This is roughly the same as 15 but with a species you know we have a poor fossil record for. I ask again, how does that prove that “evolution is false” bearing in mind that evolution depends on multiple lines of enquiry quite apart from faunal succession?
    19. a) no b) yes and c) hoatzin, touraco, ostrich, kiwi, emu – your point is probably that because some modern birds still have claws that shows that archaeopteryx cannot possibly be a transitional fossil between reptiles and birds. That you don’t understand evolution is now abundantly obvious.
    20. Again, you know such a fossil doesn’t exist but then we don’t need one – we have modern day counterparts which span that gap. The fossil record is not the be all and end all for evolution.
    21. Jeez you’re stuck on the whole fossil record thing – it’s irrelevant. As for metamorphosis, again there are many examples of different forms of metamorphosis that we can observe directly today and they show a possible set of evolutionary stages. http://cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/butterfly-metamorphosis.html
    22. Oh ffs, fossil record = irrelevant. And again, your inability to see how the dance could go from encouraging foraging through to actual communication as to where best to forage does not mean that it cannot have happened.
    23. Rubbish, most people who know a bit about evolution are well aware that Darwin was not the originator of evolutionary thought – that goes way back to the ancient greeks ffs – he just happened to bring all those ideas together into a coherent whole which explained modern biodiversity.
    24. No new species arose but that doesn’t stop it being an example of evolution … and macroevolution is a bullshit term made up to try and deny evolution whilst still accepting evolution (change within kinds).
    25. Lubenow is lying – Eldredge and Gould based their theory upon evidence, you could try reading their work rather than simply quoting liars.
    26. The beaks changed in response to the environment and then changed back when the environment reverted and you try to claim that evolution didn’t happen because there wasn’t a “net effect”? Holy fuck but you’re an idiot.
    27. Yes they can. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1594990/
    28. Fucking footprints now? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC052.html
    29. The fact that there are hominid fossils which straddle every line from early apes to fully modern humans simply supports evolution as does the fact that people are still debating as to which category each specimen should be placed in.
    30. Quotemine, quotemine, quotemine.
    31. Ask them yourself douch-canoe.

  10. David on said:

    Why isn’t Jack Horner interested in dating the T. Rex bone with soft
    tissue? Why do evolutionists refuse to conduct this easy C-14 test?
    Perhaps because it would give a young date and not the “65 million years”
    evolutionism preaches?

    See:

    RSF and Jurassic Park Paleontologist Jack Horner
    http://kgov.com/jack-horner

    • Alex Botten on said:

      Even the scientist who discovered that says there was not soft tissue!

      • David on said:

        Last time I checked, blood vessels are soft tissue.

        From Mary Schweitzer’s 2009 interview on “60 Minutes”:

        Lesley Stahl: But as Mary showed us, she’s been able to replicate her findings. These are pieces of an even older dinosaur–a well-preserved 80-million-year-old duckbill. When she dissolved it away in acid…

        Mary Schweitzer: Let’s put this under the scope here.

        Lesley Stahl: Well, look… (to Schweitzer) Is that a blood vessel?

        Mary Schweitzer: This is a blood vessel. You see the branches right there? And look at all of them. And it’s so consistent, over and over and over again. We do this bone and it comes out and I get excited every time. I can’t help it. I mean, 80 million years old!

        Science 1 May 2009:
        Vol. 324 no. 5927 pp. 626-631
        DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069
        Report
        Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. canadensis

        Mary H. Schweitzer et. al

        Molecular preservation in non-avian dinosaurs is controversial. We present multiple lines of evidence that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues from an 80-million-year-old Campanian hadrosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis [Museum of the Rockies (MOR) 2598]. Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins, and phylogenetic analyses of Brachylophosaurus collagen sequenced by mass spectrometry robustly support the bird-dinosaur clade, consistent with an endogenous source for these collagen peptides. These data complement earlier results from Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) and confirm that molecular preservation in Cretaceous dinosaurs is not a unique event.

      • BathTub on said:

        Yes, after they removed the rock with acid, you even quoted that.

        I bet you didn’t even notice that you just pasted confirmation of evolutionary theory, that the protein sequencing on the recovered proteins backed up the proposed avian/dinosaur link.

    • BathTub on said:

      Of course it would give a young date c14 only dates ‘young’ things, the maximum range of results is only up to about 50-60,000 years. But I guess it’s no surprise that a creotard wouldn’t know that.

  11. David on said:

    Christians are not being persecuted? (in academia)

    For starters, read: “Slaughter of the Dissidents” by Jerry Bergman

  12. reynoldhall on said:

    I don’t have the book, so I’ll have to (if I find the time and the inclination) to do some research on my own, or maybe I’ll let someone else do it. In the meantime, I will tell you what I know of both Bergman himself and the “Expelled” movie that his book is being compared to by the favourable reviews on Amazon:

    Those reviews are saying things like:

    t’s a shame this book wasn’t out when the movie was released in theaters; it provides the documentation that demonstrates Expelled’s case.

    “Demonstrates Expelled’s case”? Ohh boy. Take a look at the “expelled” list maybe, eh?

    Now, on Bermgan himself: He is revealed to be dishonest. Besides being a quote-miner, have a look at his educational background.

    Check out where he got his degree in “human biology”:
    Ph.D. in human biology, Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California, 1992.

    Have a look at Columbia Pacific University. The name of the town it’s in is different than that listed on AIG’s page above, but it is the same place, (see the bottom—Bergman is one of their alummi)

    More about this alma mater of Bergman’s here.

    Finally, I don’t buy for a minute the creationists whinging about free speech or academic freedom. Why? At the time of the Scopes trial, it was outright illegal to teach evolution in school. Where the creationists calling for academic freedom then?

    Fuck no.

    And before one can even apply for a job at any creationist institution they have to agree to abide by their statemtns of faith. The exact opposite of academic freedom.

    I note that those so-called advocates of academic freedom don’t seem to see any problem with teachers being afraid to teach evolution in class, despite all the supposed tryanny that “evolutionists” are supposed to enjoy in academia. Maybe it’s only in University that “evolutionists” grow spines?

    • David on said:

      http://creationwiki.org/Jerry_Bergman

      [snip]

      In 1992 he received a Ph.D. in human biology, from Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California. The degree is legal, but the university faced various accusations and had its accreditation removed in 1997. Some feel that the school’s support of Intelligent Design in required readings may have been involved. Others believe that their support of various alternative medical treatments was a factor. The real reason is unknown. Bergman has written a detailed well documented paper on the school’s fall from grace.

      • David on said:

        A Successful Attempt by the State to Shut Down a College
        Was Intelligent Design Involved in Closing Columbia Pacific University?
        The Case for Disparate Treatment

        http://jerrybergmanphd.com/articles/?p=38

      • A Successful Attempt by the State to Shut Down a College
        Was Intelligent Design Involved in Closing Columbia Pacific University?
        The Case for Disparate Treatment

        No, David….there was a lot more to it than the whinging of persecution from the “intelligent design” people!

        An August 1995 site visit committee of the Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education found that CPU had not met the new regulations. It failed the 1995 visit on the basis of 88 points. The council’s review of CPU listed numerous violations of academic standards, including:

        “One master’s-degree student was given credit for “a learning contract describing how he would continue taking dance lessons and watch dance demonstrations in order to improve his skills as a Country Western dancer.”

        “A Ph.D. dissertation written in Spanish was approved by four faculty who cannot speak the language.”

        “One dissertation “had no hypothesis, no data collection, and no statistical analysis. A member of the visiting committee characterized the work as more like a project paper at the college freshman level.” The dissertation, The Complete Guide to Glass Collecting, was 61 pages long.”

        “At least nine students who received the Ph.D. degree in 1994 had been enrolled less than 20 months, four of them less than 12.”[12]

  13. David on said:

    7. Here you go – here’s some real scientists explaining the evolution of ATP synthase http://www.macromol.uni-osnabrueck.de/paperMulk/Mulkid_Nat_Rev_Micro_2007.pdf

    *

    In this Opinion, data on the distribution of homologous and non-homologous subunits in the structures of F‑ and V‑type ATPases have been used to develop an evolutionary scenario for the origin of the rotary cation-translocating ATPases, beginning with an RNA helicase and a membrane channel, and proceeding
    through the intermediate stages of RNA and protein translocases. A notable feature of this scenario is the recruitment of a protein substrate (the translocated protein) as a new, functional enzyme subunit. [snip]

    *
    Did you catch that–scenario? A scenario is “an outline or model of an expected or supposed sequence of events.” In other words: story-telling. A modern Just-So story, not evidence for the evolution of ATP synthase.

    Stretching Credibility in Evolutionary Stories
    http://crev.info/2011/09/110920-stretching_credibility_in_evolutionary_stories/

    Baloney Detector
    http://crev.info/baloney-detector/

    • freddies_dead on said:

      I note with some amusement that you singularly fail to rebut the actual science and it’s absolutely no surprise that you instead choose to attempt to conflate the use of the word ‘scenario’ with story-telling – after all, that’s all you have, a set of just-so stories which you wish were true. We can all see that you’d love nothing more than to be able to bring science down to your level. You failed.

  14. David on said:

    6. Is irrelevant – evolution does not rely on any specific process of abiogenesis.

    *
    See:

    http://creation.com/ns-origin-of-life

    Also… if evolution doesn’t rely on any specific process of abiogenesis, why do articles on the subject frequently appear in the scientific literature, and in science magazines such as Discover, which published a special Evolution issue [Summer 2011] with articles such as “Did Life Start with a Virus?” by Charles Siebert, and “A Cold Start” by Douglas Fox [“Life may have begun at deep-freeze temperatures, new science suggests. Was the primordial soup served up cold?”]

    Evolutionists never started saying evolution doesn’t rely on any specific process of abiogensis/abiogenesis is irrevelant until they realized they were losing the debate on it.

    • freddies_dead on said:

      “why do articles on the subject frequently appear”

      Because scientists are interested in how it happened you buffoon. How the first life came about changes nothing as to how we got from there to the current level of biodiversity.

      “Evolutionists never started saying evolution doesn’t rely on any specific process of abiogensis/abiogenesis is irrevelant until they realized they were losing the debate on it.”

      Only the creotards and IDiots are losing this debate – abiogenisis remains interesting but irrelevant.

  15. David on said:

    7. Here you go – here’s some real scientists explaining the evolution of ATP synthase

    From the paper:

    In this Opinion, data on the distribution of homologous and non-homologous subunits in the structures of F‑ and V‑type ATPases have been used to develop an evolutionary scenario for the origin of the rotary cation-translocating ATPases, beginning with an RNA helicase and a membrane channel, and proceeding
    through the intermediate stages of RNA and protein translocases. A notable feature of this scenario is the recruitment of a protein substrate (the translocated protein) as a new, functional enzyme subunit. [snip]

    *
    Did you catch that–scenario? A scenario is “an outline or model of an expected or supposed sequence of events.” In other words: story-telling. A modern Just-So story, not evidence for the evolution of ATP synthase.

    Stretching Credibility in Evolutionary Stories
    http://crev.info/2011/09/110920-stretching_credibility_in_evolutionary_stories/

    Baloney Detector
    http://crev.info/baloney-detector/

  16. reynoldhall on said:

    Did you catch that–scenario? A scenario is “an outline or model of an expected or supposed sequence of events.” In other words: story-telling. A modern Just-So story, not evidence for the evolution of ATP synthase.

    So in other words, if scientists don’t right away have the answers to every step in the evolutionary pathway of something, instead of making suggestions based upon what they currently know and then trying to see if those ideas are accurate through experimentation and whatnot, they should just ignore all the evidence that they do have, say “fuck research, fuck trying to figure this step out”, then give up and say: “goddit it”?

  17. David on said:

    FYI…

    Ryder-Mackay debate [condensed version]

    1. Ryder: there are multiples lines of utterly conclusive evidence for
    common descent
    2. Mackay: common descent can only be traced back to separately created
    parents.
    3. Ryder: the very same reasoning applies to both languages and the
    biological world to provide conclusive evidence for one thing being
    descended from another.
    4. Mackay: Ryder’s language analogy has nothing to do with how simple
    chemicals formed the first cell, how naturalistic processes produced a
    genetic language from no language and then continued without intelligent
    input to generate increasing information. Language analogies also have
    nothing to do with whether fossils show how one type of organism evolved
    into a totally different organism.
    See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v14/n2/languages
    5. Ryder: virtually all biologists (the majority) believe the evidence
    points overwelmingly to evolution eg. theistic evolutionist Dennis Venema
    6. Mackay: appealing to the majority of biologists is a fallacious
    argument. Dan said he would cite evidence for molecules-to-man evolution
    (macroevolution) in the online debate. He didn’t.

    Score (out of 3)

    Ryder: 0
    Mackay: 3

    *
    http://blogs.ubc.ca/markbergen/2012/03/24/debate-summary-by-dan-ryder/

    http://blogs.ubc.ca/markbergen/2012/03/24/debate-summary-by-john-mackay/

    *

    VIDEO:
    Ryder vs MacKay Debate [Jan. 25, 2012]
    [video src="http://ubco.tv/frontend2.php?cm=movies/P1205CommDescDebate.flv" /]

    “Be it resolved that the genetic and fossil evidence supports the
    evolution model and refutes the biblical creation model.”

    Moderator: Chris Walker, CBC Radio
    http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/personality/chris_walker
    *

    The question period is not included, but you can watch _most_ of the
    question period here:

    Just slide the time bar to begin at 1:20:45

    *

    Hundreds gather to hear creationism, evolution debate
    By Wade Paterson – Kelowna Capital News
    Published: February 04, 2012 11:00 AM
    Updated: February 04, 2012 4:15 PM
    http://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/138712449.html

    *
    Australian creationist argues against evolution
    Walter Cordery, Daily News
    Published: Thursday, February 09, 2012
    http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/story.html?id=1344ff4b-287c-4276-8f15-d25183aafc89

    The University of British Columbia [Okanagan Campus]
    http://www.ubc.ca/okanagan/welcome.html

    Dan Ryder
    http://homepage.mac.com/ancientportraits/drsite/

    John Mackay
    http://www.creationresearch.net/

    “Aussie Creationist Superstar”
    http://www.creationresearch.net/items%20subjects/Aussie_Creationist_Superstar.html

    Gish Galloper: John Mackay was accused of this. What does it mean?
    http://askjohnmackay.com/questions/answer/gish-galloper-john-mackay-was-accused-of-this.-what-does-it-mean

    http://www.creationresearch.net/items%20subjects/Headed_UBC_Debate_Final_Summary.html

  18. exdelph on said:

    Atheists just don’t give the poor ole Xians a chance, do they? Do you reckon 2,000 more years of nonsense will finally show some intelligence? Will the imminent return of Jesus convert the idiots who think the earth is more than 10,000 years old? Well, once we secularize an already secular government with our lies – I reckon we’ll find out…or not.

  19. Well, there’s a lot there to digest, so I will only focus on a few points:

    David posted:
    Ryder vs MacKay Debate [Jan. 25, 2012]
    [video src="http://ubco.tv/frontend2.php?cm=movies/P1205CommDescDebate.flv" /]

    “Be it resolved that the genetic and fossil evidence supports the
    evolution model and refutes the biblical creation model.”

    Did that debate about genetics mention any of the points brought up here?

    So where did all of that extra genetic information come from? The argument is usually fleshed out with a lot of biology jargon that’s guaranteed to impress ignorant audiences.

    This question might be cute coming from a first-year biology major, but from someone passing himself off as an expert in these things it’s just silly. There are quite a few natural mechanisms that can lead to information growth, such as duplication with subsequent divergence, lateral gene transfer, symbiosis, and polyploidy. The first one has probably been the most important in evolution since the Cambrian, the next two were especially important in the early stages of evolution, while the fourth occurs primarily in plants.
    He goes on to talk more about genetic information as well as how Dawkins was once decieved by a creationist film crew.

    About the Gish Gallop that was mentioned earlier…

  20. BathTub on said:

    David is clearly a creobot operating on key word triggers, unable to comprehend what people are actually saying to him.

  21. David on said:

    “My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted.”
    –Steven Wright

    The Programming of Life
    http://programmingoflife.com/watch-the-video

  22. David on said:

    In the Beginning Was Information, Part 1 Dr. Werner Gitt

    Part 2

    Part 3

  23. Fine, since David is ignoring everything everyone is saying, (at least I’m trying to address some of his “points”)

    Here’s some Talk origins stuff about Gitt’s ideas.

    You can start reading from the heading Where Gitt Goes Wrong.

    Here’s some more uh, “information”.

    More technical information can be found on this page on algorithmic information theory, and this page has a critique of Werner Gitt’s ideas. Once again we refer readers to this page on Spetner ‘s formulation of information for specific critiques of Spetner’s ideas. It is important to note that Werner Gitt’s information theory formulations and Lee Spetner’s applications of information theory have not been published in scientific journals and are not peer-reviewed. Currently, they are simply pseudo-scientific concepts, completely unused by professional research scientists. More importantly, however, even using these formulations we can see that Apo-AIM has more AiG-style “information.”

    Here’s an account of someone who went to a creationist conference and heard Gitt’s talk “In the Beginning was Information”.

    I had a hard time getting worked up over this one; Christians can argue all they want among themselves about this sort of trivia. I was already psyching myself up for Werner Gitt’s talk, “In the Beginning was Information.” The alternative was “Fossils, the Flood and the Age of the Earth,” by Tas Walker.

    Gitt was kind enough to provide extensive notes to accompany his talk. Here is the introduction from those notes:

    We will set out in a new direction, by seeking a definition of information with which it is possible to formulate laws of nature about it. Information is a nonmaterial entity and this is the first time that a law of nature has been formulated for a mental concept. First, we will describe the dstinguishing attributes of information, formulate its definition, state the laws themselves and draw six strong conclusions. Since we have successfully discovered and formulated 10 laws of nature about information, we will refer to this definition of information as Laws of Nature about Information (LNI).

    While you’re trying to figure out what any of that means, consider the strong conclusions Witt is going to draw from his model:
    God Exists; Refutation of atheism.
    There is only one God, who is all-knowing and eternal.
    God is immensely powerful.
    God is spirit.
    No human being without a soul; Refutation of materialism.
    No evolution.

    Those are copied verbatim from the notes he provided. Now, we really could stop here and dismiss Witt as a crank. There is simply no way any bit of armchair theorizing or abstract modelling could possibly lead to the breathtaking conclusions Gitt is trying to draw. Nonetheless, let us consider some of his specifics.

    And he goes on and on about what Gitt was talking about and why Gitt is full of it.

    Jason has just written a book where he talks about his experiences with creationists at events like this.

  24. Damn…italics fail. From the above post it should read like this:

    While you’re trying to figure out what any of that means, consider the strong conclusions Witt is going to draw from his model:
    God Exists; Refutation of atheism.
    There is only one God, who is all-knowing and eternal.
    God is immensely powerful.
    God is spirit.
    No human being without a soul; Refutation of materialism.
    No evolution.

    Those are copied verbatim from the notes he provided. Now, we really could stop here and dismiss Witt as a crank. There is simply no way any bit of armchair theorizing or abstract modelling could possibly lead to the breathtaking conclusions Gitt is trying to draw. Nonetheless, let us consider some of his specifics.

    And he goes on and on about what Gitt was talking about and why Gitt is full of it.

  25. Programmers utilize complex codes to create software. The genetic code,
    which is more sophisticated, controls the physical processes of life and
    is accompanied by elaborate transmission and duplication systems. How does
    evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of
    complex information sequencing without intelligence?

    Science Integrity
    Exposing Unsubstantiated Science Claims
    http://scienceintegrity.net/

    Don Johnson’s Special Announcement Page (and links)
    http://www.donjohnson.faithweb.com/

    The Programming of Life (DVD)
    http://programmingoflife.com/watch-the-video

    http://www.Programmingoflife.info/

    [snip]

    Craig Venter artificial genome interview or exerpt (in case you doubt
    there is real computer hardware and software in every cell) that includes
    Venter’s statement: “It certainly changed my views of definitions of life
    and how life works… Life is basically the result of an information
    process, a software process. Our genetic code is our software.”

    • freddies_dead on said:

      “How does
      evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of
      complex information sequencing without intelligence?”

      As soon as you can define terms like ‘information’ and ‘specified complexity’ we can actually decide on whether there is a problem – so far you’ve failed to show that there is one.

      As for how evolution deals with the genome – as it always has, trial and error on a massive scale*. Mutations change the genome and natural selection (genetic drift etc…) whittles out the those mutations which make an organism less fit for it’s environment and allows the advantageous changes to be passed on in populations.

      * You should note that programmers often work in a similar manner – making changes that are then tested and the ones which don’t work are discarded while the ones which do are kept – this is actually software developers copying nature rather than the other way around.

  26. David, I’ve just posted a case where Gitt gets his ideas shot down…hows about dealing with that instead of jut carrying on and ignoring everyone?

    • freddies_dead on said:

      Reynold, David can’t possibly respond as the horse he galloped past on, whilst shouting random questions, takes a bit of stopping before he can turn around and gallop back the other way. Unfortunately there must be something about the motion of the horse which means that all he can manage is to ask still more questions instead of dealing with any responses to his original queries. The advantage for David is that he never has to deal with the things which show him (and the creotards and IDiots he got the questions from in the first place) to be so wrong that it’s actually funny.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: