Posts by Copernic

26

Youtube video on new brochure "The Origin of Life"

by Designer Stubble in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9lfodn9yr8.

The Origin of Life / Was Life Created - Utter Lies!

by God_Delusion in

"peter faces a dilemma.

his parents have taught him that god created the earth and all life on it.

they say that the bible's account of creation is trustworthy and that evolution is simply a theory-one not supported by the evidence.

Copernic

You can find your pleasure here : http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments

It works again !

15

My Critical Analysis of Life how did it get here book

by ForbiddenFruit in

hi guys, i know this has been done many times before, but i'm doing it so i can send this out to family and friends who are still in, so i can hopefully open their eyes.

i'll update it regularly.

i am far from an expert on the subject, but i will do my best :).

Copernic

UPDATE !!! : EvoWiki is back !

Enjoy !!! : http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Life--How_Did_It_Get_Here%3F

15

My Critical Analysis of Life how did it get here book

by ForbiddenFruit in

hi guys, i know this has been done many times before, but i'm doing it so i can send this out to family and friends who are still in, so i can hopefully open their eyes.

i'll update it regularly.

i am far from an expert on the subject, but i will do my best :).

Copernic

The solution was given on a newsgroup :

You've got it here : http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

No waiting !

15

My Critical Analysis of Life how did it get here book

by ForbiddenFruit in

hi guys, i know this has been done many times before, but i'm doing it so i can send this out to family and friends who are still in, so i can hopefully open their eyes.

i'll update it regularly.

i am far from an expert on the subject, but i will do my best :).

Copernic

You're welcome !

But I would like to find a way to copy the website (in fact all the claims rebuted) without this long long long download on each claim.

If someone has an idea. I tried already with a Website Copior but it doesn't work (because it's a page of archive.org ? )

Help!

25

DC 2010 Release - The Origin of Life and its many misquotes

by Designer Stubble in

i have just started working my way through the new publication the origin of life 5 questions worth asking.

it is completely appalling.

it is at the very most six grade level and just the first references i verified (which most dubs dont do) have been taken out of context, are completely misquoted or in the example of using the encyclopedia britannica a dated version is used rather than the most recent one, to align with what they want to write, rather than aligned with the newest research.. .

Copernic

The first quote is misquoted !!

1 / p4-5 How life began: evolution's three geneses par Alexandre Meinesz

no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction."

Here the quote in context page 45. http://www.scribd.com/doc/27089768/How-Life-Began-Evolution-s-Three-Geneses

The balance sheet of the last 50 years of research on the origin of life is simple. No empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearence of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and on significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction. Even if our alchemists one day reconstruct in their laboratories part of the puzzle of how bacterial machinenry arose, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that that is how things actually happened on Earth.By contrast, we are witnessing the emergence of a group of new arguments and a new piece of evidence (the magnetite necklaces) in favor of an alternative hypothesis : an extraterrestrial origin. I will add that, if this hypothesis is supported by other sorts of tangible evidence, many of the articles contesting the first reports that appeared in 1996 will be thrown into question. After all, if a research team proves that these traces could be of inorganic or terrestrial origin, there is no decisive reason to choose between the two hypotheses – there is doubt. The two demonstrations cancel one another. However, if other lines of research prove that the rock really does have traces of life, it is worth reexamining the previously disputed finding.

In fact, Meinesz's objection is not about possility of abiogenesis itself but on the impossibility to prove HOW it happened exactly on earth. This comment introduced a chapter dedicated to panspermia.

25

DC 2010 Release - The Origin of Life and its many misquotes

by Designer Stubble in

i have just started working my way through the new publication the origin of life 5 questions worth asking.

it is completely appalling.

it is at the very most six grade level and just the first references i verified (which most dubs dont do) have been taken out of context, are completely misquoted or in the example of using the encyclopedia britannica a dated version is used rather than the most recent one, to align with what they want to write, rather than aligned with the newest research.. .

Copernic

p 24 Henry Gee seems to be misquoted too and it's not the first time

You can reed the quote in his book

Gee Responds to Discovery Institute’s use of Quotation
10/15/2001

The Discovery Institute’s Viewers Guide to the PBS “Evolution” series claims in several places (for example, on page 11) that the series “…leave(s) viewers with the misleading impression that the evidence for human evolution is much stronger than it really is.” The Guide attempts to discredit the scientific implications of the human fossil record by quoting (on pages 11, 40, 47, 88, and 111) passages from the 1999 book In Search of Deep Time by Dr. Henry Gee, who is also Senior Editor, Biological Sciences, for the journal Nature. Dr. Gee has sent us the following comments:

1. The Discovery Institute has used unauthorized, selective quotations from my book IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME to support their outdated, mistaken views.

2. Darwinian evolution by natural selection is taken as a given in IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, and this is made clear several times e.g. on p5 (paperback edition) I write that "if it is fair to assume that all life on Earth shares a common evolutionary origin..." and then go on to make clear that this is the assumption I am making throughout the book. For the Discovery Institute to quote from my book without reference to this is mischievous.

3. That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. Unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view. However, this disagreement is hardly evidence of some great scientific coverup -- religious fundamentalists such as the DI -- who live by dictatorial fiat -- fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a mark of health rather than decay. However, the point of IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, ironically, is that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology
22
-- the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.

4. I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.

5. The above views are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my colleagues at NATURE or any opinion or policy of the NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP.
Henry Gee

15

My Critical Analysis of Life how did it get here book

by ForbiddenFruit in

hi guys, i know this has been done many times before, but i'm doing it so i can send this out to family and friends who are still in, so i can hopefully open their eyes.

i'll update it regularly.

i am far from an expert on the subject, but i will do my best :).

Copernic

You can have some great answers with the archives of the dead EvoWiki : http://web.archive.org/web/20080206011359/http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments

Warning : It takes a bit long to downolad the first time the archive, but it's a very helpful ressources debunking creationist's claims !

223

Diary of a thinking to return ex-Jw

by reniaa in

i thought long and hard about posting this but the mis-information on this site finally persuaded me, i already accept many may not accept what i say on face value and get their appologist pens ready for making sure no pro-witness propaganda slips through the net on this site but here goes....... i've been on this forum for a few months my first post was about how i was thinking of returning to jw's and at my sisters recommendation to look at this site for both sides of the story before taking that step.. i faded from jw's 10/11 years ago now i left my hubby at the time divorced him to going on to have more relationships and kids, i was definately given the impression after asking on this site and with what i read that if i tried to return i might face df or at least a jc but definately a couple of elders questioning me over what i've been upto these last few years - none of these have happened.

i talked with an old jw friend (yes i do have then and she never shunned me quite happily accepted an offer of coffee from me and my asking for a chat) i told her i was interested in going back and was very frank about what i done in the last 10 years but not sure how returning was done now, she quite happily said she go ask for me to find out.. result!

she came back this week and said "all i had to do was goto meetings again" and an offer of a study was there for me if i wanted it to explore the open doubts that i had expressed i now had.. not quite the fire and brimstone welcome this site led me to believe would happen.. i will keep you posted with further updates if i feel the need to put them in future.. .

Copernic

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/

223

Diary of a thinking to return ex-Jw

by reniaa in

i thought long and hard about posting this but the mis-information on this site finally persuaded me, i already accept many may not accept what i say on face value and get their appologist pens ready for making sure no pro-witness propaganda slips through the net on this site but here goes....... i've been on this forum for a few months my first post was about how i was thinking of returning to jw's and at my sisters recommendation to look at this site for both sides of the story before taking that step.. i faded from jw's 10/11 years ago now i left my hubby at the time divorced him to going on to have more relationships and kids, i was definately given the impression after asking on this site and with what i read that if i tried to return i might face df or at least a jc but definately a couple of elders questioning me over what i've been upto these last few years - none of these have happened.

i talked with an old jw friend (yes i do have then and she never shunned me quite happily accepted an offer of coffee from me and my asking for a chat) i told her i was interested in going back and was very frank about what i done in the last 10 years but not sure how returning was done now, she quite happily said she go ask for me to find out.. result!

she came back this week and said "all i had to do was goto meetings again" and an offer of a study was there for me if i wanted it to explore the open doubts that i had expressed i now had.. not quite the fire and brimstone welcome this site led me to believe would happen.. i will keep you posted with further updates if i feel the need to put them in future.. .

Copernic

I don't mean to stir people, I've only had chance to do about 4/5 replies on this topic because of my busy life but I seem to have that effect, it isn't deliberate i'm sorry if my honest opinion on CofC upset people I would just prefer a more modern read of an EX-GB experiences in current times.

Inside the GB : http://www.freeminds.org/women/barbdiscovery.htm

About the Flood : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

If you are able to give an honest answer...