Ziggy by Tom Wilson & Tom II for October 03, 2015

Fine have a little meat with your H20

Got the same issue after the grackles and crows wallow in the bird bath.

Drink up and experience natural selection.

What ? The blue bird of pickiness ?

Never thought of bird baths needing cleaningerThere again, I never had one!

I see a lot of comments from people oblivious to science.

PS I hope the non- believers of evolution don’t get the flu this year. that virous evolves every year, that’s why we need yearly vaccinations.

By the way, an excellent recent book for those having trouble distinguishing between science and religion is Jerry Coyne’s “Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible.”

For anyone interested, at this link you can link to a recent series of “evolution of life on earth” journal articles that, for the next two weeks, are free to download.

Some nice links:How creationists “think”.An interesting post with a reference to the original journal article on how mutation produces new information in the genome.Of course, this could be extended indefinitely, as there are numerous scientific journals of evolutionary biology.

Oh, you’re still here.You say the evolutionists’ arguments don’t hold water, but you believe in talking snakes, angels, demons, and seances, so why anyone would pay attention to you is beyond me.Both sides in the punctuated equilibrium debate accept the fact of evolution; science, not religion, will progressively explain how it happened. The mere fact that you don’t understand mutation and natural selection does not mean that they did not happen; that’s the fallacy of appeal to personal ignorance. Remember, science doesn’t know everything; religion doesn’t know anything. Even better, “science has all the answers; we don’t have all the science" (James Morrow). You excreted the comment that my very brief explanation as to how mutation adds information to the genome was “woefully simplistic,” but I see that you implicitly accepted it as true. Of course it was simplistic; I only gave it one sentence. Much more is to be learned from real scientists who understand real information theory, and aren’t (like William Dembski) just pretending and using big words to awe the ignorant and fleece the sheep.Everyone should know by now that all the standard creationist uses of quotations by evolutionists are intentionally misquoted, deceptions, and lies (christians lying, especially creationists, is so common that no one even bothers to notice any more). For the record, the refutation of the Colin Patterson quote, one of the most commonly used by deceitful creationists (pardon the redundancy) is here.And this fits in with everything else you say. You just wave your hands, declare that everyone (except you and your coreligionists at AiG) gives out “flawed, faulty, false information” even though this is what accounts for the entire field of biology for the last 150+ years, and tell us to believe in zombies. As for your accusation of “tired tropes,” well, it seems that your psychological projection is getting out of control; you may want to consider seeing a psychiatrist. What is creationism if not “what good is half an eye?” tired tropes? PRATTs (“Points Refuted a Thousand Times” in case you don’t know the acronym) one and all. No evidence. None. Zero. Zilch. The long essay here provides much information on macroevolution (since you apparently aren’t intelligent enough to understand that microevolution over time results in macroevolution, probably because you refuse to read books of paleontology; I keep on mentioning Donald Prothero’s Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, and you keep not saying that you’ve read it. I have neither the need, nor the interest to refute all of your straw men, any more than the wack-a-loons at geocentrism.org.I note that you didn’t respond to the point, if genetic entropy explains the genome, why “degenerations” occur in families that make it look like common descent. Of course the whole issue as to why living things arrange themselves in nested phylogenies is the same question writ large. Or this: “What else than”macroevolution” can explain the fact that the human genome contains three genes for making egg yolk—genes that have been rendered inactive by mutation? Those genes are remnants of our amphibian and reptilian ancestors, which did have functional egg-yolk genes.” (Jerry Coyne, professor of biology, and real scientist). It’s kind of like the “why do men have nipples” question; of course, there are quite literally hundreds of other such features in the both the fossil record and the genomes of different species that evidence common descent.In case you haven’t noticed, I’m continuing to ignore your pathetic commission of the fallacy of appeal to consequences. There is plenty of self-chosen meaning in life just finding out how the world works, friends and family, and steering people away from soul-sucking religious cults like the one you belong to. And yes, I am using the word “soul” metaphorically; there is, of course, exactly zero evidence for the existence of souls. And that, of course, is exactly the same amount of evidence there is for all the other theological doctrines peddled by religionists of every stripe.

You seem to be presenting some sort of self-chosen religious system. Fine, it that’s what you want, but without evidence—and there is no evidence for any of your theological assertions—there’s no real reason for me to believe and/or to do what you tell me to do. And, a very good reason for me not to. As W. K. Clifford put it, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”I note in passing that (1) despite your claims to “good, solid, logical answers” the world grows less religious every day (“nones” being the fastest growing group in the USA, for example), and that (2) since you keep saying that evolution is a “random” process, you clearly either do not understand what you are criticizing or, more probably, do understand, but are intentionally lying about it. Typical creationist “morality.”