(December 7, 2018 at 8:34 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 8:02 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: It is not disputed, and YOU have no evidence for that lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer disputes it as one scientist.

He is trained in fields of science unrelated to biology or biochemistry in a Christian “university”, who has since made it clear he is no scientist at all, but the sort of creationist hack expected form Christian “universities”, by using a PhD, again in field unrelated to biology or biochemistry, as pseudo cock feather to impress idiots like you to push pseudoscientific bullshit to advocate discredited religious world view, instead of doing real scientific work in fields in which he at least has qualification.

(December 7, 2018 at 8:51 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 8:34 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Dr. Stephen C. Meyer disputes it as one scientist.

He is trained in fields of science unrelated to biology or biochemistry in a Christian “university”, who has since made it clear he is no scientist at all, but the sort of creationist hack expected form Christian “universities”, by using a PhD, again in field unrelated to biology or biochemistry, as pseudo cock feather to impress idiots like you to push pseudoscientific bullshit to advocate discredited religious world view, instead of doing real scientific work in fields in which he at least has qualification.

This is a terrible argument.  Cherry picking scientists who only say what you want them to say wouldn't be scientific. That's why we have peer review.   If someone shares scientific work, that is the standard they are held by regardless of religion, ideology, or worldview.  As soon as you start adding unnecessary bias, then you begin floating out of the realm of scientific study.

(December 7, 2018 at 8:51 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 8:34 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Dr. Stephen C. Meyer disputes it as one scientist.

He is trained in fields of science unrelated to biology or biochemistry in a Christian “university”, who has since made it clear he is no scientist at all, but the sort of creationist hack expected form Christian “universities”, by using a PhD, again in field unrelated to biology or biochemistry, as pseudo cock feather to impress idiots like you to push pseudoscientific bullshit to advocate discredited religious world view, instead of doing real scientific work in fields in which he at least has qualification.

He is a brilliant scientist with a PhD from Cambridge.  He is none of things you label him as.

(December 7, 2018 at 9:02 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 8:51 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

He is trained in fields of science unrelated to biology or biochemistry in a Christian “university”, who has since made it clear he is no scientist at all, but the sort of creationist hack expected form Christian “universities”, by using a PhD, again in field unrelated to biology or biochemistry, as pseudo cock feather to impress idiots like you to push pseudoscientific bullshit to advocate discredited religious world view, instead of doing real scientific work in fields in which he at least has qualification.

He is a brilliant scientist with a PhD from Cambridge.  He is none of things you label him as.

Really?

What was his major in his Christian “university”?

What field of science was it in which he was gainfully employed?

What was his PhD in?

Does any of this give him qualification to speak about biology, genetics, origin of life?

No?

Then What motivated him to presume authoratativeness despite his lack of qualification and related professional accomplishemmet, using totally unrelated PhD as camouflage?  Ah, yes, his matriculation from a Christian establishement of higher “learning” offers a clue.

I’m still waiting for CDF to explain why he thinks simple organisms with short life spans can speciate, but larger and more complex organisms can’t.

(December 7, 2018 at 8:34 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 8:02 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: It is not disputed, and YOU have no evidence for that lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer disputes it as one scientist.

I have read and studied two of Meyer's books, Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt, as well of some of his other writings.

His arguments are laced with the same logical fallacies and misrepresentations from his Discovery Institute Masters, most commonly the argument from incredulity (one of your favorites), the mere assertion (your absolute favorite), the strawman fallacy, among others, rending them ineffective and unconvincing. He does not write like a scientist. He writes like a person with a personal agenda who pretends to be a scientist. And that agenda is a religious agenda. As is typical of militant Abrahamic creationists on a salary, he complains (again, using fallacious reasoning) about established science, but only against science which conflicts with his religious beliefs. He offers no alternative, except for goddidit. He lies. He misrepresents. He conflates. He pretends to be all "sciency". He repeats previously refuted words strings (such as specified complex information) without scientific definitions or any suggestion on how to measure or test them.

He pretends to present science, which is only designed to convince gullible theists such as yourself. He succeeds, and you are a classic example.

Basically, Meyer is a disingenuous and lying whore for the Discovery Institute. And you are a gullible acolyte of this lying whore for the Discovery Institute.

Your continued reliance on his nonsense, and the nonsense from similar imposters and con men, explains much.

Quote:It has been disputed.  Here's one example.

There are plenty more as well.

We're not talking about a UCA. DNA PROVES humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. 
5 articles that dispute that should do.

(December 7, 2018 at 9:18 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I’m still waiting for CDF to explain why he thinks simple organisms with short life spans can speciate, but larger and more complex organisms can’t.

CDF47 doesn't think. He reacts with mere assertions. Mere assertions which only comport with his perceived theology. When asked to verify his claims he dodges, weaves, ignores, re-asserts or invents new nonsense.

(December 7, 2018 at 8:34 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 8:02 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: It is not disputed, and YOU have no evidence for that lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer disputes it as one scientist.

Stevie Weavie Meyer is a debunked fool.
"Stephen C. Meyer is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement. Before joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College". Wikipedia

(December 7, 2018 at 9:00 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 8:51 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

He is trained in fields of science unrelated to biology or biochemistry in a Christian “university”, who has since made it clear he is no scientist at all, but the sort of creationist hack expected form Christian “universities”, by using a PhD, again in field unrelated to biology or biochemistry, as pseudo cock feather to impress idiots like you to push pseudoscientific bullshit to advocate discredited religious world view, instead of doing real scientific work in fields in which he at least has qualification.

This is a terrible argument.  Cherry picking scientists who only say what you want them to say wouldn't be scientific. That's why we have peer review.   If someone shares scientific work, that is the standard they are held by regardless of religion, ideology, or worldview.  As soon as you start adding unnecessary bias, then you begin floating out of the realm of scientific study.

Have your read Stephen Myer's books? They are not peer reviewed, nor are they "scientific work". Yes, adding unnecessary bias is not desirable, as is writing about something you have never read.