A lot of premier discussions at UD recently do not bring up google hits, but other sites which reference discussions at UD come up on google. This seems odd and deliberate. I cannot say for sure but this seems suspicious. A comment by fryether (still trapped in the moderation queue, which I have no authority to release) said: As an IT Professional, I am shocked that if you look up “uncommon descent” on google the only reference to the actual site is behe.uncommondescent.com along with a plethora of anti-ID sites. Compare the results to the BING and you see a huge difference. No I make no money off of bing. I don’t even use it myself. Although I might start Read More ›

I am thinking it is time we began a collection of Darwinist fever swamp fallacies found in the wild. (Make sure to get your Malaria shot before going there . . . ) After the now standard “your’e a quote miner” false accusation and the “it’s a Gish galloper” smear of a man not present to defend himself and associated false accusation of wholesale lying, we have been seeing a few choice ones recently. Let’s begin a collection: The Darwinist 1984-style Orwellian doubletalk definition slip-slide trojan horse. I think that about captures it: it’s not what it seems like, and it’s what’s inside the wrapper that counts. often used with false accusations like you’re quote mining or you’re on a Read More ›

On Christmas Day, WJM put the following hypothetical conversation in a comment. Since he has not headlined it himself, as promised yesterday, I now do so: Typical debate with an anti-ID advocate: ID advocate: There are certain things that exist that are best explained by intelligent design. Anti-ID advocate: Whoa! Hold up there, fella. “Explained”, in science, means “caused by”. Intelligent design doesn’t by itself “cause” anything. ID advocate: What I meant is that teleology is required to generate certain things, like a functioning battleship. It can’t come about by chance. Anti-ID advocate: What do you mean “by chance”? “By” means to cause. Are you claiming that chance causes things to happen? ID advocate: Of course not. Chance, design and Read More ›

Some visit UD trying to get answers for their questions. To that effect, Jaceli123 and others have been fielding questions that maybe some of you can answer. I don’t have answers toJaceli123’s question about tails and jaws. Other than that, have at it. Here is my off-topic: Boxer George Forman became a Christian after a near death experience. He’d been a burlger, and misfit. He then became an Olympic champion and then Heavyweight champ. But then Ali dethroned Foreman of the title. Some time later, Foreman had a near death experience, and friends and family could not comprehend the transformation. He became kind and charitable….running out of money, he came back to the boxing ring to give glory to God. Read More ›

The problem with evolutionary theories is not that they are impossible—any theory, no matter how bad it is, if held with sufficient conviction can be adorned with sufficient epicycles to explain the data and avoid outright impossibility. And evolutionists certainly do have the needed conviction. For evolutionists, their theory simply cannot be false. That option is not on the table and they will do whatever it takes to avoid it, including blackballing scientists, falsely claiming the theory to be a scientific fact, misrepresenting the science in courts and in textbooks, contriving false histories, and so forth. And so while evolutionary theories can never be outright falsified, they are improbable. This can be seen both (i) by comparing the theory with Read More ›

Over at The Skeptical Zone, Dr. Elizabeth Liddle has written an interesting essay, titled, Proof: Why naturalist science can be no threat to faith in God, in which she argues that even if scientists were to discover that the appearance of complex life was inevitable, with or without an interventionist God, that discovery should not dent people’s religious faith in the slightest degree: “finding out that life is perfectly possible in the absence of an interventionist God tells absolutely nothing at all about whether God exists.” Dr. Liddle’s essay is cleverly argued and thought-provoking; however, I believe it is marred by several serious flaws. Framing the question properly In the opening paragraph of her essay, Dr. Liddle frames the question Read More ›

New researchis now indicating that the brain is even more powerful than previously thought. A nerve cell, or neuron (see illustration), can be thought of as having inputs and outputs. The basic output is an electrical signal that travels down the tail of the neuron called the axon. The axon may connect to tissue, such as muscle via a connection called a synapse. The synapse may also connect the axon to another neuron, and this leads us to the input side of the neuron. The input branches, leading from the synapse to the central body of the neuron, are called dendrites. So for a given neuron, there are a number of input signals coming from the dendrites, and a number of output signals Read More ›