Pixiq

I'm beginning to think that adding "controversial issues" into the mix will drive more traffic to this site. I don't know this to be the case. It's sure drives a lot more comments.

I'm wondering if statements regarding immigration policy, military activity, the national dept, JFK and Scientology will be next. Mr. Miller can, of course, post whatever he wants too - regardless of good reasoning or lack thereof.

You like George Berkin, even though he is clearly not educated enough to be writing about this.

You are an Evangelical, your choice, I think it is silly, but your choice.

You think evolution is nonsense, your choice to ignore all of the facts and evidence to the contrary.

You are also free to believe that god gave us our rights, but you are completely wrong about the framers of the constitution. Stick to facts, I know it may not be your strong suit to stick to facts, but do try.

You are a first amendment rights advocate, good thing, otherwise your rather ridiculous beliefs would be in trouble.

Simply put, if you do not like the content, please feel free to navigate away.
I for one enjoy the multitude of content, it is pertinent to me many times, and I find it interesting.
Keep it coming Carlos.

Get your God away from the Constitution please. Which one is your God anyway?

Could you please indicate what Carlos said that is factually incorrect ?

As it is Carlos's blog, I'm pretty sure the pertinent issues are what ever he damn well wants them to be.

You say theory in all caps as if that is some major argument? Gravity is a theory Dave, does not make it any less true.
And I for one would love to hear your holes that you would so widely poke in the theory of evolution.
By the way, why do you capitalize the g in god? God is not a name, it is a description. Also, which god?

Oh and "hackles", not cackles.

So, you are saying that the alleles in a population DON'T change over time? I'm quite sure you don't know what evolution is. I'd like to see these holes you can poke. Of course you can't prove god or intelligent design as both are unfalsifiable.

Are you sure it's evolution you have a problem with and not natural selection. I've read papers by William Dembski where he says Intelligent Design requires evolution. Again, I'm quite sure you don't know what you are talking about.

His religious faith does enter into this as it demonstrates his willingness to delude himself into believing he can imagine his own reality. I consider attacking faith to be my obligation to humanity.

So, you are saying that the alleles in a population DON'T change over time? I'm quite sure you don't know what evolution is. I'd like to see these holes you can poke. Of course you can't prove god or intelligent design as both are unfalsifiable.

Are you sure it's evolution you have a problem with and not natural selection. I've read papers by William Dembski where he says Intelligent Design requires evolution. Again, I'm quite sure you don't know what you are talking about.

His religious faith does enter into this as it demonstrates his willingness to delude himself into believing he can imagine his own reality. I consider attacking faith to be my obligation to humanity.

I haven't had my coffee yet, but is this really a creationist saying that you CANNOT get life from nothing ???

My apologies to Carlos and others for ranting but ... lets do this

> Evolution violates natural laws
- no, evolution IS a natural law

> The proven natural law of biogenesis states that all living things must come from other living things
- ok on the same page here

> Evolution attempts to claim that life started from nothing
- No, evolution explains the diversity of life, you're getting evolution confused with creationism

> This has never been observed or brought about.
- not true, please see the Miller-Urey experiment 1953, along with its follow-up and conformational research showing that first simple amino acids, and then RNA, DNA, and primitive cell structures can be created with Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and electrical stimuli. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

> Evolution does not explain the complexity and variety of life on earth
- no that is exactly what it does

> One can look at a cougar and a lion and see that they are related and may have had a common ancestor. However, a lion is not a type of giraffe, or dog, or anything other than a cat
- I see where this is going

> There is no concrete evidence that shows one form of animal changing into a completely different type of animal (as evolution claims.)
- The evidence you claim does not exist is called the fossil record which shows gradual adaptation of a species as it's environment changes. No it does not show one type of animal changing into a different type of animal, now you're confusing evolution with magic. Evolution does not say that cats change into dogs, evolution says that there are both cats and dogs, and that over time (more than 6000 years) each adapts to its environment. Evolution also says that at some point in time there was a creature that preceded both cats and dogs. In the population of this creature, environmental stresses would have caused some members to evolve more cat like features, while in a different part of the population, different environmental stresses cause that segment to evolve dog like features, over time these two populations diverge and become distinctly different

> Hence the "missing links." Evolution cannot explain this, and evolution does not explain why there are so many different types of life
- yes it does, yes I did, see previous rebuttal

> if "survival of the fittest" is true. Were evolution the case, one would expect life on earth to be much less complex and limited to a few basic forms that are well suited to the environment-this is not the case.
- You are making the false assumption that environmental stresses are the same across the entire globe. Survival of the fittest at the north pole gives you a polar bear, while survival of the fittest in the desert might give you a scorpion or a snake. Survival of the fittest in a calm meadow might give you slow docile deer, while survival of the fittest with cougars around will give you deer that run faster than cougars.

> If evolution were true, all forms of life would be related
- they are

> Yet if this is the case, please explain the existence of the duck billed platypus for example (there are quite a few others, but there is limited space here.) It has fur like a mammal. It lays eggs like a bird or a snake. It has a bill somewhat like a bird. It has the venom sacs of a reptile and the claws and feet of a bird
- It is very different and from a branch of life that diverged much earlier than others. In the example above I suggest a predecessor to a dog and cat that would have had some features of both. The platypus, much like the echidna, and the entire marsupial line for that matter, separated from much of the remaining animal kingdom before other branches continued further evolution do to environmental stresses. Australia represented a fairly isolated and homogenous set of environmental stresses lowering the need for any adaptation of the species there. Yes, they're quite different, and quite easily explained, thanks to evolution.

> It has baffled scientists since its discovery and appears to be completely unrelated to any other family or species of animal, present or prehistoric
- No it has baffled simpletons. Scientists however researched it's DNA, along with fossils and bones recovered from it's environment to determine where and when it diverged from the rest of the animal kingdom.

> Where did it come from?
- well, there was a mommy platypus, and a daddy platypus ...

> Questioning evolution is not delusional
- correct, delusional is not the correct word, unrealistic is more accurate and more polite.

> The theory has some very real holes in it that should be explored ...
- no, I'm sorry it just doesn't if you are willing to accept demonstrable fact in lieu of unquestioning faith

> ... not ignored in the name of scientific dogma
- There is no such thing as "scientific dogma" science is the antithesis of dogma.

---

Now lets try one for you: Taking your assumption that species do not change from one to another.
There are over 4000 documented different species of termites in the world, none of which can live in water. So what would over 8000 termites (and their offspring) eat on a wooden ark for a year ?

---

If you're willing do set aside demonstrable fact and replace it with your own dogma, as George Berkin does, he has no business casting judgements on legal issues that are decided by codified laws instead of "beliefs".

Do you think that a scientific theory is clearly defined or sort of fuzzily defined? If they weren't clearly defined they wouldn't be of much use would they.

Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency in a population over time. This is also an observed fact.

Where are the holes in that?

I suspect that it is natural selection you have issue with.

Evolution does not assert an origin of life. It simply asserts that the form and function of life changes over time as a result of various stressors on an individual, species and ecosystem.

This stress can come from anything. The need to eat, the need to bread, disease, a volcanic eruption or simply cosmic radiation.

It has been shown that individual genes have a natural rate of mutation. So that even without stress, there will be some mistakes made when cells replicate which will continue to drive evolution.

Carlos did not attack his religion, he said what it was, but he didn't attack it.

I disagree with you there, I mean if you are going to teach intelligent design, why not have a class teaching the earth is flat and held up by four giant Elephants? Science is subject to peer review ( http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16 ) religion isn't, it's faith based. There is more than one passage in the bible where people are punished for asking questions and/or seeking knowledge. (Don't bite that apple, OMG you might LEARN something!!)
From: http://ncse.com/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-m...
"ID has been called an "argument from ignorance," as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent cause.

Most scientists would reply that unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of science."

Rance,

Which one will be the creator?