Comments on: The strange evolution of “Evolution” http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan Free Glenn Beck Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:40:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Shelley http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx/comment-page-3#comment-15479 Shelley Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:17:27 +0000 http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#comment-15479 Mithology? That is a good thing, right? Mithology? That is a good thing, right?

]]> By: Marc http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx/comment-page-3#comment-14234 Marc Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:47:39 +0000 http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#comment-14234 Evolution is a scientific FACT!!! Christianism is a MITHOLOGY Evolution is a scientific FACT!!!

Christianism is a MITHOLOGY

]]> By: Skinz http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx/comment-page-3#comment-8619 Skinz Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:14:45 +0000 http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#comment-8619 Menda (93) EEUU sounds like a noise a god-damn monkey would make and we sure ain't no god-damned monkies. Menda (93) EEUU sounds like a noise a god-damn monkey would make and we sure ain’t no god-damned monkies.

]]> By: Gralgrathor http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx/comment-page-3#comment-8468 Gralgrathor Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:34:40 +0000 http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#comment-8468 Just for people unfamiliar with the way Dembski uses the phrase "Specified complexity" : 1. There is no way to calculate the chances of natural Darwinian-style evolution evolving us: there is not enough information. If we evolved by D-evolution, then the chance is 1. If not, then we will forever be incapable of computing the chance - hence we cannot say it is impossible. 2. Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function (such as y = x?) cannot gain information, he therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses. Well, enough for now; I have to fight the Islamic beliefs as well, you know. Just for people unfamiliar with the way Dembski uses the phrase “Specified complexity” :

1. There is no way to calculate the chances of natural Darwinian-style evolution evolving us: there is not enough information. If we evolved by D-evolution, then the chance is 1. If not, then we will forever be incapable of computing the chance – hence we cannot say it is impossible.

2. Dembski’s calculations show how a simple smooth function (such as y = x?) cannot gain information, he therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski’s calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski’s subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.

Well, enough for now; I have to fight the Islamic beliefs as well, you know.

]]> By: james http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx/comment-page-2#comment-7901 james Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:09:28 +0000 http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#comment-7901 you guys are outrageous!! Firstly, and it's a subtle point- Darwin was observing BIRDS. This lack of attention to detail is a nice example of your gung-ho approach to knowledge. Secondly, don't come up with an important sounding name, then fail to explain it- it makes you look like a pretentious fool, trying to hide your ill-informed rantings behind a veil of authenticity Thirdly, The way to change someone's opinion is to relate to them, not tell them from the outset "if you don't agree with me you'll burn in hell forever" That makes you sound, to a rational mind, a bit, well, mad. At the very leat, you sound like you are scaremongering. Let god decide, since you are already in his good books so much. Why waste your time with "godless" soulds like mine? you guys are outrageous!!

Firstly, and it’s a subtle point- Darwin was observing BIRDS. This lack of attention to detail is a nice example of your gung-ho approach to knowledge.

Secondly, don’t come up with an important sounding name, then fail to explain it- it makes you look like a pretentious fool, trying to hide your ill-informed rantings behind a veil of authenticity

Thirdly, The way to change someone’s opinion is to relate to them, not tell them from the outset “if you don’t agree with me you’ll burn in hell forever” That makes you sound, to a rational mind, a bit, well, mad.
At the very leat, you sound like you are scaremongering. Let god decide, since you are already in his good books so much. Why waste your time with “godless” soulds like mine?

]]> By: potto http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx/comment-page-2#comment-6132 potto Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:35:55 +0000 http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#comment-6132 who says god didnt want evolution to happen anyway???? why is it so hard to belive he might have wanted things to change once in a while? what about the great flood? maybe after destroying th world once to try and change it he decided it was less hassle all round if the change happened gradually. who says god didnt want evolution to happen anyway???? why is it so hard to belive he might have wanted things to change once in a while? what about the great flood? maybe after destroying th world once to try and change it he decided it was less hassle all round if the change happened gradually.

]]> By: potto http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx/comment-page-2#comment-6131 potto Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:23:43 +0000 http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#comment-6131 it wasnt sea turtles, it was actually fiches that proved his theory. most of the finches looked the same when put together but there were small differences EG finches who lived in a grassy part of the island had small curved beaks to get grass seeds out of the plants, but finches who lived in a place with nut trees had broad beaks for cracking nuts etc. if you think about it its like breeding pedigree dogs (which i think is wrong btw) the breeders choose the dogs with, say, the longest noses and breed these two dogs. the puppies will then have longer noses. its like this in nature but it would be that the animals with the best characteristics would be more likely to survive to an age where they can have children, it takes longer but its the same kind of thing. it makes sense if you have a brain! it wasnt sea turtles, it was actually fiches that proved his theory. most of the finches looked the same when put together but there were small differences EG finches who lived in a grassy part of the island had small curved beaks to get grass seeds out of the plants, but finches who lived in a place with nut trees had broad beaks for cracking nuts etc. if you think about it its like breeding pedigree dogs (which i think is wrong btw) the breeders choose the dogs with, say, the longest noses and breed these two dogs. the puppies will then have longer noses. its like this in nature but it would be that the animals with the best characteristics would be more likely to survive to an age where they can have children, it takes longer but its the same kind of thing. it makes sense if you have a brain!

]]> By: Kerouac http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx/comment-page-2#comment-5797 Kerouac Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:31:08 +0000 http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#comment-5797 I'd just like to add that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed. What's more, Darwin was never explicitly Christian; in fact, many members of his family were Freethinkers. Whilst it may be true that Darwin was initially convinced of God's existence by the teleological argument of William Paley, he soon began to question those beliefs when on board the HMS Beagle. As well as this, Darwin's daughter Henrietta - present at the death of her father - has stated that he did not - repeat, did not - convert to Christianity on his deathbed. But of course, anyone questioning the truth of this website is wasting their time, as it's clearly a hoax and a very, very funny lampooning of the American Christian Right. Isn't it...? I’d just like to add that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed. What’s more, Darwin was never explicitly Christian; in fact, many members of his family were Freethinkers. Whilst it may be true that Darwin was initially convinced of God’s existence by the teleological argument of William Paley, he soon began to question those beliefs when on board the HMS Beagle.

As well as this, Darwin’s daughter Henrietta – present at the death of her father – has stated that he did not – repeat, did not – convert to Christianity on his deathbed. But of course, anyone questioning the truth of this website is wasting their time, as it’s clearly a hoax and a very, very funny lampooning of the American Christian Right. Isn’t it…?

]]> By: OMG http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx/comment-page-2#comment-5616 OMG Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:50:19 +0000 http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#comment-5616 Darwinism is true, Bible is wrong. Darwinism is true, Bible is wrong.

]]> By: Aydoo http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx/comment-page-2#comment-4922 Aydoo Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:25:06 +0000 http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#comment-4922 Normally I wouldnt comment on this type of thing but I just needed to mention one thing. "Actually, Specified Complexity is proven fact, and was discovered by the mathematician, philosopher and Christian: William Dembski. I am afraid I don?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥t have time to explain his theory, but you can find an excellent explanation at the Discovery Institute, which was my main research source for this article." These are your exact words. Copied and pasted straight from your article so dont accuse me of twisting anything around. ANYWAY. In all versions, definitions of the word: THEORY =/= FACT. And incase you failed Highschool Algebra =/= means DOES NOT EQUAL. You disproved your whole arguement right there. Aydoo~ Normally I wouldnt comment on this type of thing but I just needed to mention one thing.

“Actually, Specified Complexity is proven fact, and was discovered by the mathematician, philosopher and Christian: William Dembski.

I am afraid I don?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥t have time to explain his theory, but you can find an excellent explanation at the Discovery Institute, which was my main research source for this article.”

These are your exact words. Copied and pasted straight from your article so dont accuse me of twisting anything around. ANYWAY.

In all versions, definitions of the word:

THEORY =/= FACT.

And incase you failed Highschool Algebra =/= means DOES NOT EQUAL.

You disproved your whole arguement right there.

Aydoo~

]]> By: Dan hates dumb americans http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx/comment-page-2#comment-4667 Dan hates dumb americans Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:47:22 +0000 http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#comment-4667 I've alway noticed that people who don't believe in evolution tend not to look, very evolved. Has anyone else noticed this? I’ve alway noticed that people who don’t believe in evolution tend not to look, very evolved. Has anyone else noticed this?

]]> By: Menda http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx/comment-page-2#comment-4436 Menda Wed, 31 May 2006 14:29:03 +0000 http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#comment-4436 You are stupid or what?, I thought that the people in EEUU wasn?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•t so fool, you are not a good example for EEUU. I hope this way of thinking disappear soon. Spain. You are stupid or what?, I thought that the people in EEUU wasn?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•t so fool, you are not a good example for EEUU. I hope this way of thinking disappear soon.

Spain.

]]> By: anonamous http://ShelleyTheRepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx/comment-page-2#comment-2379 anonamous Tue, 23 May 2006 16:57:47 +0000 http://shelleytherepublican.com/2006/05/06/the-strange-evolution-of-evolution-by-tristan.aspx#comment-2379 YES, you sir are stupid in fact darwin never stated that people evolved from any form of monkeys but that humans and chimps shared similar ancestors. YES, you sir are stupid in fact darwin never stated that people evolved from any form of monkeys but that humans and chimps shared similar ancestors.

]]>