scordova

[I’m not taking sides, but merely pointing out the infighting going on.] PZ has till 2pm Pacific Standard Time today to comply with the letter sent from Shermer’s lawyers. A countdown clock has been established: P.Z. Myers Happy Rape Accusation Humiliation Countdown Clock In fine witch-hunting style, Myers then broadly solicited more anonymous rumors to back up his anonymous rumor, resulting in more people coming forward claiming Shermer raped them, tried to rape them, or filled their wine glass for nefarious purposes, including a fat LARP-y guy named Dallas Haugh who was fairly sure Michael Shermer raped him. Shermer Sends Cease and Desist letter PZ Myers received a cease and desist letter from Michael Shermer’s attorney asking him to remove Read More ›

At the International Conference on Creationism 2013 (ICC 2013), professional geneticist Jeffrey Tomkins (along with Jerry Bergman) delivered a devastating critique of the claim that humans are 98% genetically similar to chimps. What he demonstrated was the fact that Darwinists are essentially saying “what is similar is 98% similar”, which is cherry picking. Tomkins acknowledges we are closer to chimps than daffodils, but humans are still substantially different from chimps. I posted a less technical complaint here: With no dictionary tricks, humans only 70% similar to chimps. Recall the “dictionary trick” whereby Tom Wolfe’s famous novel The Right Stuff can be shown to be almost 100% identical to a dictionary merely by aligning the words in Wolfe’s novel against identical Read More ›

There are many devout Jews and Christians who believe the universe is old. Unlike Darwinism, the presumption of an old universe has real support from science. Philosophically, something as grand and as powerful as the entire universe would reasonably seem to be eternal. Standard thermodynamics and the Big Bang hypothesis changed all that, and the age of the universe is no longer viewed as eternal. Perhaps God did not want us to believe the Cosmos is all powerful and eternal, but rather transient and passing. Thermodynamics tells us the stars cannot burn forever, and thus thermodynamics has left us evidence that the known cosmos is not eternal… As much as Young Earth Creationists (YECs) hate the Big Bang, the Big Read More ›

C14 should not be found in the Carboniferous era supposedly 300 million years old. If the presence of C14 is not due to contamination or other processes, the carboniferous layer is then much younger — on the order of 40,000 years or less. [the “Cocktail” designation in the title refers to ideas that are possibly true, but are speculative in nature and which are not offered with the same level of conviction as other arguments at UD.] Here is an embarrassing admission from the pro-Darwin TalkOrigins website: the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they’ve discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; Read More ›

An atheist has reported: 1. Michael Shermer (Skeptic magazine) accused of serial rape (from report by FTB/A+ atheist PZ Myers) 2. Lawrence Krauss accused of sexual assault (from report of A+/FTB atheist Jen McCreight) 3. Editor of Skeptical Inquirer (SI) magazine Ben Radford accused of sexual assault and stalking of skeptic writer Karen Stollznow 4. Bill Nye the science guy accused of sexual harassment by A+ atheists 5. DJ Grothe (JREF atheist) accused of misogyny by former JREF atheist Carrie Poppy as reported by FTB/A+ atheist PZ Myers I try to keep UD family friendly, so I will only provide a link to an atheist discussion that summarized these breaking accusations. I cannot directly quote the link because it is Read More ›

Bribes are usually offered to get someone to do something dishonest, but in this case a bribe was offered to get someone to do something honest. Shouldn’t a Darwinist be glad to receive a $10,000 donation from a creationist? Creationists offered to donate money to a Darwinist museum if they would merely subject dinosaur fossils to C-14 dating. Darwinists swear by C-14 dating except when C-14 gives them results that overturn their paleontology. As pointed out previously, the presumption the Earth and Universe are billions of years old does not imply fossils are necessarily old. One does not have to be a YEC to appreciate what Bob Enyart is doing in this interview where he offers Darwinist Jack Horner $10,000 Read More ›

[cross posted at TSZ A Question for those that doubt Common Descent] Mark wrote Recent posts by Sal remind me that there are some intelligent educated people who doubt Common Descent. What I don’t understand what they think the alternative is. Put simply I take Common Descent as the position that : * At one time there was only very simple unicellular life on earth (this is not a debate about how that unicellular life originated) * Complex life forms (eukaryotes) are created by slight modifications from other life forms (which are their parents). We have never observed them being created any other way! * All complex life forms are the descended from a very small number of simple life Read More ›

What happens when you publish a peer-reviewed paper that states inconvenient facts against Darwinism? Better yet, photos that cast doubt on prevailing paradigms: You get fired. At least that is what a researcher is alleging. We are very saddened and disturbed to report that Mark Armitage was fired from his position at California State University just days after his paper was published on line. http://logosresearchassociates.org/week-1/ Again, I repeat, if we assume the Earth is billions of years old, it does not mean the fossils are necessarily hundreds of millions of years old. At the very least, even if the fossils are old, it is still premature to be making claims about their age given the empirical evidence. See: Cocktail: C14, Read More ›

WD400: Selection can sometimes favour mutations that break existing proteins. OK, so what? Comment, If not Rupe So what? 😯 1. if selection can select in favor of breaking of proteins, so why then do we presume selection favors creation of proteins? 2. selection can select against breaking of proteins, but that would be no proof selection was involved in the creation of the protein (see: Selection falsely called a mechanism when it should be called an outcome. A proteins necessity for survival does not mean selection was the mechanism of protein creation. 3. selection is mostly irrelevant to creation of new proteins (since most molecular evolution is free of selection) (see: Most evolution is free of selection, therefore Darwinism Read More ›

Former professor of genetics at Clemson, Jeffrey Tomkins points out humans and chimps potentially have only 70% similarity. But this bold claim is at variance with the popularly reported similarity of 98%? How can this be? Recall the “dictionary trick” whereby Tom Wolfe’s famous novel The Right Stuff can be shown to be almost 100% identical to a dictionary merely by aligning the words in Wolfe’s novel against identical words in the dictionary. The illusion of similarity is brought about by a total disregard for sentence structure and context of the words within sentences, paragraphs, and chapters. When those considerations are taken into account, it becomes preposterous to assert The Right Stuff is almost 100% identical to a dictionary. But Read More ›

Evolutionists reluctantly admit most evolution is free of selection and therefore non-Darwinian (neutral evolution). When pressed, they’ll say neutral drift is real, but they don’t like it when the dots are connected in a way that demonstrates neutral evolution refutes Darwinism, that there is a contradiction between Dawkins’ vision and neutral evolution! The way Darwinists deal with this violation of the law of non-contradiction is to pretend no contradiction exists. They’ll obfuscate and fog the issue with myriad technical terms and irrelevancies so that the illusion of non-contradiction is protected from public view. Confusion and the illusion of some higher knowledge are their friends, clarity and education of the public are their enemies. If Dawkins had been faithful to the Read More ›

Darwin’s lack of systematic thinking began to show its ugly head as the discipline of population genetics progressed. Darwinism’s contradictions appear when we consider the paradox of interference selection, the ability to blend favorable traits, and existence of widespread protein polymorphisms. At the molecular level, Kimura, Ohta, Jukes, King, Nei and others mathematically demonstrated most evolution must be neutral. Why is that? And why do man-made Genetic Algorithms defending Darwin avoid the issues raised by the neutralists, and further, why is it that creationists are the building certain computer models based on population genetic literature and not Darwinists?! Instead Darwinists like Dawkins and the Avida-ists build Genetic Algorithms that actually dispense with the core findings of population genetics and neutral Read More ›

In desperate attempt to perpetuate the illusion that complex biological novelty can easily emerge in the biosphere, Darwinists have resorted to defining species in a way that allows new “species” to emerge with ease. They argue members of a species become new species when they lose the ability or incentive to interbreed, even when no significant novelty is involved. Here is a true statement: emergence of radically different and new organs would imply no interbreeding but the converse is not true even though it is promoted by Darwinists as if it were true: no interbreeding implies emergence of radically different and new organs For example, see how this university website advertises newly acquired inability as macroevolution: Speciation. Individuals of a Read More ›

There were 75-100 phyla, but over time some disappeared. This graph depicts the Cambrian explosion where most phyla appeared and how over time some phyla disappeared. This is graphically the pattern that is central to Darwin’s doubt. It destroys the notion of Darwinian gradualism: http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/IMAGES/H.gif Remarkably, as phyla disappeared, new species appeared. This is a curious pattern. Some have labeled this phenomenon “disparity precedes diversity”. NOTES 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum In biological classification: phylum is a taxonomic rank below kingdom and above class. Traditionally, in botany the term division is used instead of “phylum”, although in 1993 the International Botanical Congress accepted the designation “phylum”. …. Phyla can be thought of as grouping organisms based on general specialization of body plan. 2. Read More ›

wd40 said here: ” some fish are more closely related to you than they are to tuna”. Here is a fish that is considered closest to humans http://seapics.com/assets/pictures/104657-450-lungfish.jpg” Lungfish are considered closest relative of tetrapods (humans are tetrapods). Thus it would be something like the lungfish that wd40 argues is more closely related to me than it is to a tuna. Well, here is a tuna: http://www.worldtunatrade.com/wp-content/gallery/gallery-2/tuna.jpg And here is a human: http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110107000310/jackyman225/images/e/e0/Indiana_jones_1.jpg Do you think a lungfish is more closely related to a tuna or is a lungfish more closely related to a human? Well, wd40 says, ” some fish are more closely related to you than they are to tuna”. How did wd40 arrive at this strange conclusion? Read More ›