Message from discussion "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it
Received: by 10.66.82.195 with SMTP id k3mr2037287pay.23.1345495152362;
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1345495723 44221 188.8.131.52 (20 Aug 2012 20:48:43 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:48:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Authentication-Warning: yws13.prod.google.com: news set sender to n...@google.com using -f
Injection-Info: r4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=184.108.40.206; posting-account=2aItmQoAAAChTiv7D1Qi2MhEGKtfSxsJ
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/14.0.1,gzip(gfe)
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darwin.ediacara.org id q7KKmg3Z044210
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Aug 20, 8:24 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:43:06 -0700 (PDT), Sam
> <thameelic...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, 21 August 2012 02:51:45 UTC+10, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:50:36 -0700 (PDT), thameelic...@yahoo.com.au
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Thursday, 16 August 2012 14:37:52 UTC+10, nick humphrey wrote:
> >> >> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001:
> >> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html
> >> >> includes the following:
> >> >> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
> >> >> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
> >> >> (just being the devil's advocate here)
> >> >> Nick
> >> >Depends which definition of 'evolution'? Change over time? Change in allele frequency over time? Genetic drift? Mutation? Speciation? Or the myth that mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees, that share a common ancestor with a fish, that the fish itself shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago? The last definition is the definition the lay public visualizes when the 'e' word is mentioned. It has no foundation in empirical science as it is alleged (the non living matter-->fish-->chimpanzee-->mankind myth) to both have started and stopped happening in the UNOBSERVED past.
> >> You showed your hand too soon, making unsupported assertions like
> >> that.
> >> >oxfordictionaries.com
> >> >science
> >> >the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT:
> >> >Contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda
> >> <YAWN>
> >> > natural selection REDUCES genetic information (the less 'fit' genotype is wiped out hence genetic information is lost FOREVER)this isnt even including mutations which once again contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda cause DISEASE.
> >> Some mutations cause disease. The ones that do tend to be selected
> >> against. I guess that counts as reducing genetic information, which
> >> makes that a Good Thing (c).
> >> But most mutations are entirely neutral, and some are actually
> >> beneficial within a given environment. What a coincidence you forgot
> >> to mention that.
> >> >Another lol
> >> Another poster who thinks it's clever to spell 'lol'.
> >> >thing, go to oxforddictionaries.com and type in 'abiogenesis'. Take note of the redirection to spontaneous generation. Google spontaneous generation. Take note of how long ago it was falsified. Google biogenesis. Take note of a law of science being'omne vivum ex vivo' (all life come from life).
> >> I guess that's a real problem for creationists who think living things
> >> came from dust. And argument by dictionary remains unimpressive.
> >Wiki abiogenesis
> >Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
> You conveniently missed this part:
> "In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life
> on Earth may have arisen. "
> So abiogenesis isn't associated with the kind of spontaneous
> generation Pasteur disproved.
> There was a time when life didn't exist. Now it exists in profusion.
> Therefore, there necessarily was a time of first life. Unless you
> insist life always existed. Do you so insist? Because that would be
> contrary to most biblical interpretations as well.
> Now, how about that biblical life from dust thingie?
> >I am interested in the underlying psychology of those invested in the greatest delusion in written history (6,000 years based on 'recorded history' in wikipedia).
> That would be The Bible.
> >Do you believe that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter, through natural process's ~3.5 billion years ago?
> "common ancestor with inorganic matter" is a meaningless statement.
> >As a side note i assume athiests dont even bother reading actual literature (as opposed to just submitting there very very supple brains to evolutionary biology propaganda)the standard NDM (neodarwinian myth) model is too assign these alleged evolutionary processes ('neofunctionalization' myth) off into the unobserved and unobservable past as witnessed by any literature on 'neofunctionalization' (human chromosome 2 too).
> I might as well play your trump card: Were you there? How do you
> Short version: nobody is going to take you seriously as long as you
> continue to spew unsupported gibberish. At least try to support the
> gibberish you spew.
I think I call POE on that one - the spelling mistakes are of the kind
a not very clever person thinks are done by really stupid people - but
the patterns is way off from reality (e.g. "too" instead of the
shorter "to, while getting some of the more complex words right)