"Free Thinking Atheist"????!!1!??

-
Free thinking atheist. An oxymoron if there ever was one. Well, I take that back. An atheist that accepts Intelligent Design as the best and only scientific explanation for our existence would definitely qualify.

However, any atheist who is also a materialist (an a/mat) isn't able to think beyond its own arse. I say that because not only is materialism a failed philosophy, it doesn't offer anything in the way of a coherent, scientific explanation for our existence. That means there wasn't any thought behind it to begin with.

It is all about the mechanisms and materialism just doesn't have any capable of producing what we observe. So any free thinker would dump materialism. And anyone clinging to it is far from a thinker and far from free.

Contemporary Understanding of Evolution?

-
Our contemporary understanding of evolution is nothing more than something happened, that is some unknown process(es) did something at some points in time. We think it was all due to genetic variation but we don't have any idea what sequences were varied nor how they were varied. We don't even know if any amount of genetic variation is up to the task at hand, ie producing life's diversity from some simple replicators capable of Darwinian evolution.

So there you have it. And to top it all off we don't even know what determines the final phenotype of any developing organism.

Our contemporary understanding of evolution is full of unknowns and bolstered by that ignorance.

Joshua Swamidass is Willfully Ignorant and Peaceful Science is a Joke

-
Joshua Swamidass is a clueless ass. Now he spews:

I’m still curious when they will move on to engaging contemporary understanding of evolution, rather than the 150 year old “Darwin’s theory.”

Wow. This has been explained over and over again. I expect evoTARDs such as Timothy Horton to be willfully ignorant but not Joshua. Oh my.

Darwin started it all and the contemporary understanding of evolution still incorporates his concepts. As Dr. Jerry Coyne wrote contemporary evolution is still all about blind and mindless processes.

So it is all still Darwinism. Call it Neo-Darwinism, the modern synthesis or the extended synthesis. It still pertains to blind and mindless processes.

Evolutionists are such a clueless lot. They are also paranoid and stupid.

That is why they hide behind moderation in their own forums. They don't dare venture to a pro-ID venue where they cannot control the discussion.

Universal Descent with Variation?

-
UK Jerad, the evo troll, said the following:

The major processes are universal descent with variation, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift and quite a few others all of which are easily found described in any good evolution textbook.

Let's look at these, one at a time:

1. Universal Descent with Variation- a) too vague; b) nothing to do with blind and mindless processes; c) Variation to what, exactly? No one can say.
2. Natural selection- a) a mere process of elimination and not of actual selection; b) nothing more than contingent serendipity; c) impotent with respect to universal common descent
3. Sexual selection- a) Is a universal common descent stopper; b) is unaccountable for via blind an mindless processes
4. Genetic drift- a) Is not said to be a constructive mechanism; b) Also impotent with respect to universal common descent

Not one mechanism mentioned in any evolution textbook has been shown to be capable of producing new body parts and new body plans. Not one mechanism mentioned in any evolutionary textbook can produce eukaryotes from populations of bacteria. And not one mechanism mentioned in any evolutionary textbook has been shown to be capable of producing the genetic toolkits required for developmental biology.

"Theory of evolution"? It doesn't exist because of the above. Evos don't have the faintest idea what evolutionary processes can do. Theirs is nothing but faith and wishful thinking.

Neil Rickert is Detached from Reality

-
Seriously, Neil Rickert is one of the most ignorant assholes on the internet. The sad part is he thinks his ignorance means something. Case in point Neil spews:

This has been the failure of the ID movement all along. Their arguments against evolution are detached from reality.

What an ignorant thing to say. First off it was mathematicians and not IDists making the mathematical argument against evolutionism. Secondly anyone who thinks that blind watchmaker evolution is a viable explanation for the diversity of life is detached from reality. Evos can't even form coherent arguments for their claims and they definitely don't have any evidence or science to help them.

If the arguments FOR evolutionism had some reality to support them then, maybe, Neil would have a point. But Neil is just another gullible loser happy to agree with the alleged experts.

Neil Rickert- asshat for evolutionism

UK Jerad- Totally Ignorant of Science

-
UK Jerad, the scientifically illiterate troll, thinks that ID has to have all of the answers before it can be taken seriously. Yet, when we look at Jerad's lame-ass position we see that it cannot answer anything. Jerad's is supposed to be a mechanistic "theory" describing the how things evolved but yet no one has any idea how things evolved. Jerad's doesn't have a testable mechanism and doesn't make any predictions.

And yet Jerad the ignorant ass thinks that is OK cuz some mysterious scientists are working in some mysterious labs trying to figure it all out. Too bad that if they do exist they have yet to publish anything of substance to support their position.

The sad part is that in an attempt to refute something Dt. Behe wrote evolutionists have destroyed any chance that unguided evolution can produce the diversity of life. That destruction came via a peer-reviewed paper Waiting for TWO Mutations. The paper concluded:

For population sizes and mutation rates appropriate for Drosophila, a pair of mutations can switch off one transcription factor binding site and activate another on a timescale of several million years, even when we make the conservative assumption that the second mutation is neutral.

TWO specific mutations would take several million years in a population of fruit flies. Fruit flies' reproductive cycle is  much, much faster than mammals. That means the waiting time for two specific mutations in mammals would take tens to hundreds of millions of years. And that is only two. We know, for example, that color vision required more than two. It is out of the reach of unguided processes. Yet it exists.

So we can infer that it was not unguided evolution that produced color vision. That and the fact there is no way to test the claim that unguided evolution did it.

So Jerad doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing what we observe and he doesn't have any methodology to test his claims.

Earth to John Harshman

-
John Harshman continues to prove that he is ignorant of nested hierarchies. Now he spews:

Nested hierarchy reflects common design? Seriously?

Yes, John, seriously. Linnaean taxonomy is the nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And, guess what?  It was predicated on a COMMON DESIGN!

With respect to biology Linnaean Classification lays out the pattern of common design expected. Linne based his scheme on the basis of "archetypes" with common design being part of that:

“One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor.”-- Ernst Mayr 

Simpson echoed those comments:

“From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles….the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different.” 

Common design is inherent in the concept of "archetypes".

And AGAIN, phylogenetic trees are NOT nested hierarchies. John Harshman says otherwise despite the evidence.

Peaceful Science Agrees that Evolution is NOT Science

-
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/objective-direct-and-indirect-evidence-and-subjective-inferences/6260/116

If we limit ourselves to science, the best interpretation is the one that explains the most data, makes testable predictions, and has testable mechanisms.

Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is devoid of testable predictions and also devoid of mechanisms that can be tested to see if they are capable of producing the result observed. It cannot explain the data.

Those morons are so clueless that they don't even understand that they have smooched the pooch and admitted theirs is bullshit.

Peaceful Science- proudly promoting the pseudoscience of materialism.