text:
Posted on November 27, 2012
By Kyle Butt, M.A.
The concept of creation by a supernatural Creator has been a powerful and persuasive aspect of truth since the beginning of time. The idea that there is no supernatural Creator, and that everything we see in the Universe—from hummingbirds to humans—has evolved through mindless, chance processes has been advanced in an attempt to dispel the truth of creation. One reason that naturalistic evolution has not made more head-way against creation than it has is because, intuitively, humans can see the obvious fact that the world exhibits every indication of intelligent design. Even the most outspoken atheistic evolutionists tacitly admit this to be the case.
For instance, Richard Dawkins stated: "Living things are not designed, but Darwinian natural selection licenses a version of the design stance for them. We get a short cut to understanding the heart if we assume that it is designed to pump blood" (2006, p. 182, emp. added). Did you catch that? He said that things weren't designed by any intelligence, but we can understand them more readily if we assume they were.
University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne, in his book Why Evolution is True, wrote: "If anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives" (2009, p. 1, emp. added). He further stated, "Nature resembles a well-oiled machine, with every species an intricate cog or gear" (p. 1). On page three of the same book, he wrote: "The more one learns about plants and animals, the more one marvels at how well their designs fit their ways of life." Atheist Michael Shermer, in his book Why Darwin Matters, stated: "The design inference comes naturally. The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because it looks designed" (2006, p. 65, ital. in orig.)….
Continue Reading on apologeticspress.org
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Biology, Christian Values, Creation Worldviews, Design, Evolution, History, Human Biology, Origins, Philosophy, Theology, Worldviews and tagged Animals, apologetics, Apologetics Press, atheists, blood, creation, Creator, Darwinian, designed, evolution, humans, hummingbirds, life, natural selection, pants, press, reason, revolution, Richard Dawkins, Species, supernatural, time, Truth, universe. Bookmark the permalink.
There is a difference between something looking like it was designed and it actually being designed.
Is it like the difference between DNA and the computer? I saw your explanation once about the difference and didn't know if I quite understood.
That was comparing the two in reference to the idea of codes. Not quite the same thing.
Why doesn't this distinction about codes not have some implication about a designer? It seems to me it would, given, if I recall, the computer — unlike the DNA — is void of the flaw of chance therefore obviously designed.
In saying it is not quite the same, that also means there are some similarities.
Thanks, Jeff. Interesting article on the codes. btw.
This is weird, it is not zionica but your conversation came up on discus!
Because i am logged on here thru Dicqus
It can also mean it is NOTHING like it because we are not talking about quite the same thing
Kent, have you ever been in a school room attending a class, and been encouraged to ask questions? Yes or no.
You mean like there is a difference between something looking like it evolved and actually having evolved?
No, because there is actual evidence that life evolves.
We are not talking about bird beaks and sun tans are we Jeff? I mean can you prove anything evolved into something else? I have never seen anything anyone can say proves evolution. EVER.
We have evidence that the allele frequency in animals change. That is the definition of evolution To see new animals would require millions of years. But that will occur with the accumulation of changes over time.
Calls for speculation and you have no mechanism Jeff Mutations don't cut it anymore and no Natural selections is part of adaptation nothing like it was once understood
So Jeff Dixon, you define evolution(micro) as "a change in allele frequency over time" , which you then proclaim evolution(macro) is true. Nice Jeff but with all due respect it is ASININE.
The syllogism of evolution by natural selection:
1. Individuals within populations vary
2. Part of this variation is heritable (we now know caused by particulate alleles)
3. Some individuals are more successful at surviving and reproducing (are more 'fit') than others
4. Some of the variation in fitness is caused by the variation in traits
When these premises are true, there will be a change in the frequencies of the traits from generation to generation (assuming no complications) We call this type of change 'evolution'
(Micro)evolution is change in allele frequencies across generations
Even the village idiots can see this and I mean people, who operate on the level of trained animals, would recognize design. But that is not what we see. Instead, we use pattern and design recognition as tests of intelligence, because the ability to work with these on an abstract scale is uniquely human. And when we see design on the level of atomic structure, and then again on a universal scale, it does seem a bit much to think it is a holdover from animal evolution.
The problem I have with the expanded notion,
is its uselessness.
From here on I will be using the following acronyms
TOE = Theory of evolution
Darwits = idiots that believe in Darwinian Evolution and any version of it (with the exception of micro evolution, where there is no disagreement)
GDI = God did it
It is all this expanded notion, there is no way it can be falsifiable since every discovery contributes to the base of knowledge of evolution. On the other hand, they say,,
Quote: "evolutionists can honestly claim that evolution is the basis for all advances in biology and medicine."
Ok There is 'evolution' and then there are 'theories of evolution'. Evolution is the change that has occurred to life over time. Here is another way they have "languaged" the theory into an absolute fact, so when one hears these subtle re-affirmations that are quite literally built into the evolutionary scientific vernacular as to thwart any question or criticism of this complete and utter Hoax that has been going on for generations now with Jeff Dixon a prime example of the very objective it was used for. To strip him of any chance he might know the creator. Here is another they use a lot, Quote: "There is no disputing that evolution has occurred." Oh really? I know numerous articles and scientists that would say otherwise with some in the very highest circles of evolution academia, calling it a complete joke, absurd and a gargantuan fraud. But they have protections in place for heretics also and saying such a thing among their peers would be career suicide.
On one hand you will see Darwits attempting to prove things evolved using this simple approach saying Quote:
"Many species that are alive today were not alive 100 million years ago" (or any arbitrary number in the distant past).
Then in a separate argument you often hear this one said, Quote:
"Many species that were alive and flourishing 100 million years ago (or, again, any arbitrary number in the distant past) are extinct today. There has been a change in the forms and diversity of life over the history of earth."
That is 'evolution'.
It is why it sounds unintelligible because it IS unintelligible. It is rife with more double talk, double standards, double meanings, of this bastardized science vernacular. Macro and Micro evolution now mean the same thing in that they have merged the meanings of these two words. They have taken a proven phenomena, hard coded in our DNA such as a sun tan, which is micro evolution and merged it with the macro evolution change of the wolf turning into the Whale. This kind of evolution has NEVER been observed. Now they will say YES IT HAS! Well when you ask for an example, you get another sample of micro evolution to explain macro and we go in circles.
Merged meanings of words, slippery semantics and deliberate obfuscation on terminology that at one time, were words used for their specificity and that now can be used to define almost anything they want it to, depending on the argument. This is one of the most frequent tactics used by the "Darwits", it is called "equivocation", especially used to explain the differences between adaptation and poly-morph-ism, trans-speciation, macro evolution etc,.
One evolutionist I was debating, actually said, Quote:
"There has never been a fossil, ever discovered in the history of science and paleontology, that has ever disproved evolution!"
I was so stunned by the stupidity of that statement. This is a College educated person I am arguing with and it left me feeling the deep despair and the futile hopelessness of the task before us to de-program several generations of educated idiots and nitwits who actually thought I was going to fall for that one.
I asked him, just how many fossils have ever disproved God? Without skipping a beat he comes back at me with "The Fossil record shows no evidence of God, there is no physical evidence ever found that has his GDI logo"
I asked, GDI? "Yes", he said, " meaning Goddidit"
Cute isn't it. That person was Jeff Dixon. Now of course we want to find fossils that prove the theory but you won't find a fossil that will disprove anything PERIOD, not even God. In one argument, you will hear them whine about how hard it is for an actual fossil to come into existence and albeit true it ain't my problem they take so long and is such a delicate process, the same argument asking where are all the transitional fossils, will get you this answer.
Quote:" Look in the Mirror"
Yes, today ALL Fossils are transitional fossils now because it is simply ok to say and why? Because it is OK to assume evolution occurred and why? "Because there is no question that evolution occurred" . Oh yeah I forgot.
You begin to see the circular logic going round and round and as the theory adds all this garbage to it, it is literally impossible to understand. Jeff Dixon doesn't understand it and that is why almost all his answers were taken from someone else who got it from someone else and so on. But off the cuff, the entire study of evolution is about finding ways, it COULD have done it, or MIGHT have happened, etc. The Scientist of old used to do actual science and the award winners actually proved things true or false but today,, the up and coming bright stars in science get awards, NOT for discoveries but for inventions, or for their imagination of plausible new mechanism's to explain evolution. Yes scientific papers like that are always GREATLY appreciated as long as it can be imagined to have happened, then that is evidence enough for the Darwits.
In contrast, the 'theories of evolution' are man-made, scientific constructs that attempt to explain how evolution has occurred. There are several theories that are not all mutually exclusive. A major component of most – if not all – evolutionary theories is the mechanism of natural selection. Assuming you already know that much, Natural selection has been observed on enough occasions to be considered a fact, so any reasonable theory must incorporate it into the model. Other mechanisms such as random genetic drift, sexual selection, speciation by infestation, etc. have also been observed so these must also be incorporated into the model or it will be incomplete. Some "evolutionists" try to simplify the theory by stating that evolution is simply a change in allele frequency over time.
This being the most unscientific explanations for the TOE and one I happen to disagree with. The reason is simple, with the latest discoveries of more and more complexity in the cells in addition to these complex systems, we find purpose with intent and function that is either designed or it evolved. The most simple answer is right there looking up at you in the microscope that it is most definitely designed moreover, if it is, in fact a product of blind, deaf and dumb luck, then evolutionists have to scramble to revamp the entire paradigm all over again. First thing they have to do is add the extra millions and millions of years for these complex systems to evolve which means either adding more time to the standard belief the earth is billions of years old, so that the mechanisms now in place, have time to fit the new theory, OR invent another mechanism to aid the other two, three or four,,, I guess its five now they are talking about but regarding this one on the alleles changes employs the very slight of hand I was talking about and Jeff Dixon tries to use, in persuading us he is a smart guy and knows something about science.
Well.. he is neither smart nor does he know that much about science. Inherent in any model of evolution is the idea of common ancestry. That two species can arise from one is no longer in question. We have observed speciation events on numerous occasions. Especially easy since the word species has far greater latitude to cover the most insignificant of changes making it easy to say, one species, evolved into another. Spare me the lessons about taxonomy and genus and phyla or even the meanings of these words and their coordinating area of study, I know what a taxonomist is and I know what he does versus other areas of specialized study in this comic-book cornucopia of conundrums called evolutionary biology. What is in question is the extent to which common ancestry can be assumed or extrapolated.
Since we have not actually witnessed a truly legitimate series of transition in real time to its radically changed new form. (or whatever the current need-to-see example is over at ), we must make inferences as to the extent of common ancestry from the available data. We can see from the fossil record that there was a time when the only life that existed on Earth was unicellular. Later, there was other life like sponges and other soft-bodied animals. Then there were hard-bodied animals. Then plants. Then land animals. There was a progression through time in the appearance of mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.
Non-flowering plants appeared before flowering plants. Good thing honey bees arrived just in time to pollinate them! Such marvels of good fortune happening at every single turn with each and every interdependent life form, is taken very casually by Darwits like Jeff Dixon and we heard his ridicule of the Fibonacci effect on nature, yet again, these are not so much proof of design as they are questions that need some serious explaining because these are the patterns which are impossible to ignore as those coming from a mind with intelligence not unlike that of a Human. But the atheist science community and people like Jeff Dixon, can only call us whack jobs and compare this greatest of mathematicians to Tarot card readers and wizards, warlocks and various ancient answers to "sideshow bob".
We see him miss the point again on the example I gave for the marksman all missing the condemned man in-front of a firing squad and adds how funny it was as he laughs, we laugh at him for missing the pink elephant in the room. That when ever the math or the probabilities of what would naturally raise some eyebrows, rather than investigate the conspiracy to miss the target, Stupid people like Jeff will just assume it happened by mistake by chance. Just like life itself happened by dumb luck,. Yet the questions remain and are very powerful legitimate questions that not only will continue to asked but that we demand an answer and if the materialist's won't investigate, then the rest of us will at the atheist peril.
The evolutionist tells us, "the best way to explain our observations of current and past life is that all of modern life started from a common ancestral population. The origin of that ancestral population is not known. "
Well now this doesn't pass the scientific method as it assumes the antecedent and it assumes the consequent, both are the very same logical fallacy, intelligent design trips up on. BUT Evolutionists have given themselves a pass on this and many more like it to further the theory into the future of the main stream science community. They have literally decriminalized fraud to the point that even Ernst Haeckel was given posthumous awards for his work in embryology when the man ADMITTED his drawings were changed to keep Darwin's theory from being falsified because at the time, it was within smelling distance of getting kicked to the curb
His excuse? "everyone else does it. "
Now to fill up the hole Louis Pasteur put into the hull of the TOE, that life must come from life. Evolutionists today say something I would have never believed they would admit in all my years debating them. But they are pretty desperate these days because the theory has become such a pathetic joke a fraud a hoax of the highest and most deceitful, order.
They claim, "there is some evidence to indicate that abiogenesis could have occurred (some would even say that it must have occurred). As we learn more about life, the theory (or theories) necessarily change since science is a dynamic process. So, what may be our understanding of how things work now may be different than our understanding of how things work later."
Really?? I have been telling them that for years because every time I have seen one of my old debate opponents, remembering the latest missing link he used to substantiate his argument, turned out later to be nothing of the kind. It was debunked as usual and as many were, faked, forgery, fudged data, liars, schemers, egomaniacs, and just plane dishonest crooks. Some were found to be nothing but a dead lemur or another extinct dead monkey or Frankenstein monkeys. Then it was the Nylon eating Bacteria and again, the latest discovery into this phenomena is no big surprise when it came to finding out what Bacteria did to accomplish this and that we have seen it in bacteria samples that have somehow survived thousands of years.
We see no changes in any of the entomology samples found in amber dated a million of years ago.
Cockroach bigger but same
Mosquito, lots larger but same
Dragon Fly, HUGE, but same exact design.
Preying Mantis, same same same
Every living fossil ever found, gets the same old tired excuse from evolutionist as it didn't have to evolve because it was not under any selection pressures which would have kicked into gear for change. BUT there had to have been selection pressures because the damn thing was near extinction and even thought to be until someone finds one of these life forms.
Tiktaalik (mud skipper fish) was another prize for the "boyz at the Dawkins zoo for nitwits" and misfit scientists. This discovery was a key piece of evidence proving the accuracy of prediction regarding the TOE and much of the Dover VS Kitzmiller decision, was based on this evidence. The problem was, the fish had not been seen yet. The fraud in this science is Rampant and we see how we rank in Science, since the atheist has taken control of the NAS. But if you want to show someone JUST how absurd, Darwins theory is and that there is NO OTHER PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION for our existence, I have never seen a more damaging illustration of just how impossible, evolution is and why you are in fact a complete IDIOT to believe in it, than this video presentation. This is DEVASTATING to the Darwits and
To all you atheist's out there,, and Jeff
There is no difference between macro and micro evolution. None. The only people who claim there is a difference are Creationists who are desperate to find some way to disprove evolution. You accept that small changes occur but fail to grasp that these small changes over vast amounts of time lead to big changes. It is a very simple concept. But if you claim there is a difference, then explain exactly what stops the small changes from accumulating.
Yes, there are some animals that look the same as they did a million years ago. So what? Evolution does not say that all older species will disappear. It does not say that every species will change. It says it can occur. It is the same stupid argument that says that is man descended from apes, why are there still apes? It is like asking why if Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans.
They Don't lead to big changes you moron UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THEY DO AND YOU CAN'T!
Quote:" It is like asking why if Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans
No it isn't dumb ass because we can PROVE there are still Europeans and we can prove Americans had european heritage. How is that the same as trying to prove Americans have a common ancestor with a Rock!
Quote:"There is no difference between macro and micro evolution"
Really?? then why is their two different spellings having two different definitions Jeff. Debunk the video jug head
It is like saying that accumulated interest will not result in big changes, only little ones. There is nothing that prevents the big changes. And we see the changes that occurred.
We ONLY see the changes that occur when expressed idiot! They are changes already accessible to the DNA Strand and NOT proven to have ever "evolved"! That is the difference Jughead
Getting a sun tan is NOT proof I came from a Rock!
And we see this being expressed as different animals evolve over time.
But they didn't evolve over time that is the point. The variation was there for Natural selection to choose from but the selections had to be there before it can make the choice. This is why evolutionists are ducking the natural selection aspect and probably will give up on it entirely.
Sorry Jeff you got Johnson!
but saying so isn't proof and CERTAINLY doesn't explain these two
The first argument of the video is about probability.
Attached is a through debunking of that argument.
The second example is trying to equate a book to DNA. He asks how the information in the book becomes a plane. He indicates that a reader must be created by chance. Obviously information in a book does not do anything on its own. But DNA is not the same as information in a book. Chemical reactions are not random chance as he tries to claim.
I am 14 minutes into this video and the first two examples are entirely misleading and using faulty logic. I can see why you like it.
Wasting an hour and half on more of this tripe is silly. If you want to come up with a something more compelling, please feel free to do so. But this video is asinine.
Sorry Jeff but it is obvious you didn't watch the entire video because this link gets destroyed in it
Still waiting on the Atom question
Of course it does. lol. Probably in the same fashion as when he discussed the example of blowing up a piece of wood and the odds of it arranging the pieces as 10 to the 80th power. Which is just utter nonsense. The odds are zero that could happen. He is just making up statements to try and sound convincing. There is no possible way for wood fragments to form into a house, because the fragments would not land in the same location and even if they did, they would have nothing to make them stick together. I would say the reality is that you did not even bother to read the article I posted because you don't care about truth or reality. Which is completely obvious since you consider this piece of schlock to be compelling.
Already answered the atom question. We don't know. That is the truthful answer people give when the answer is unknown. You and theists like you offer up God did it, which is no answer, but a sloppy and careless way of saying you either do not care or think it is beyond the capacity of man to find out. People have been saying that for centuries and they keep being proven wrong as the amount of information that science uncovers continues to build.
Hey I'm not the one saying it is out of the question apriori, YOU are Jeff. You say you don't know yet say matter can not be created. When one HAS the truth, to keep looking for it is rather stupid Jeff. You see that is what Science is about. It isn't to just say God did it but to find out HOW he did it. The God did it statement is a tactic atheists use but you won't find many Christians interested in REAL science, stopping there. You have lost the debate Jeff. You say we are just making up statements but that probability has been acknowledged by everyone in Science even Dawkins gave a similar analogy.
You saying we just make up stuff is pretty funny coming from a Darwit like yourself. Since everything you guys do is make up stuff with your just so story method of making evolution what it is a pile of Garbage so absolutely impossible, the only way it could have come about is by supernatural means.
Like I said Jeff, you ain't even a challenge in a debate
You suck at it and its about time you were told
You haven't proved Jack because
you got JOHNSON for
Are you on crack? I did not say it is out of the question. I said we don't know yet. Yes, matter cannot be created. That is not to say that atom cannot be created. We split the atom to make the atomic bomb, you loon. If it can be split, it could be created. I love how you cannot grasp just how idiotic you truly are. You think you make profound statements, yet they fall apart immediately.
You seem to be the one on crack idiot, I was talking about God, NOT the Atom Moron. I'm well aware of the Atomic Bomb and various other weapons of mass destruction and how they work, It is something they spend a lot of time teaching us in the Military so take your just recently looked up information and SHOVE IT, Dixon! You don't fool anyone with your stupid ass responses but you sure LOOK a fool trying. I read what you said so in the context of your own post saying God did it is not an answer is the one you refuse to entertain because YOU think it means STOP doing research. That is what I was referring to you dumb ass
This is what you said.
KentPerry Jeff Dixon•17 hours ago
Hey I'm not the one saying it is out of the question apriori, YOU are Jeff. You say you don't know yet say matter can not be created.
We talking about how an atom gets created, not god, you dimbulb. Trying to change the topic to make you sound less idiotic does not work when your prior comments are easily captured and presented.
Jeff I know what I said Jughead, I was there! and the reason I said it was because you said this:"You and theists like you offer up God did it, which is no answer,"
Now I never Offered up that answer because you never asked WHO did it but even if you believed God DID do it, I still would be wanting to know how he did it.
Jeff said Quote:"Since the atom can be split, it is obviously not the base material. They might have had you sit in on classes about the atom in the military, but it is obvious you never grasped the material."
Never said it was the base Material Jeff. I I was just going off your own comment that said Quote:" this is not to say the atom cannot be created"
Now should I rip on you for forgetting the "Base Material" should be mentioned first ie; "That is not to say the base material of the atom, can not be created" BEFORE you go talking about the Atom, or can I assume that much is implied in the statement LIKE YOU YOU SHOULD HAVE MINE YOU NITWIT! Yes Jeff, conventional wisdom would suggest if you create an atom you probably have the base material stuff figured out along with it MORON!
I have already stated that matter and energy cannot be created, you psychotic loon. If you cannot keep up with the conservation, that is your problem. One among many, I might add.
No jeff there is no such thing as evidence to prove evolution. NONE, ZERO! Not a shred of it. Not an IOTA of evidence. ZIP, NOTTA , ZILCH. What you believe is a philosophy and not science. Evolution is getting torn apart by quantum mechanics and information theory. You got no explanation and you got no mechanism jeff because Natural Selection isn't even considered part of evolution anymore. Most of all we see is now known to be hard coded in the DNA. Whats more is the complete lack of understanding YOU have of evolution. Look I have seen this theory complete revamped and repackaged again and again just to make it fit the latest discoveries that keep debunking it and proving the causality of the Universe existence. You nitwits can not escape the blunt trauma of truth and that truth is that a God exists not because I believe it but because there is NO other way to explain life. Speaking of life, Jeff, shouldn't you be out enjoying it the most you can the best you can and in the most debased depravity you can enjoy without a God you'd be accountable to? Run along jeffery go play outside sin sin sin all you can son, life is short and has no other point to it but to live and die so get all the gusto you can Hoss. You ain't doin nothin here but helping more of those undecided people choose REAL Science called Creation over that Pathetic Pile of Piltdown Paleontology and Faux fabricated fossils of fraud you are pushing.
What nonsense are you reading now? Of course natural selection is still a part of evolution.
Yeah? the difference is the one denying something looking designed, is because it was.
He denies it because he doesn't like the religious implications of its designer. The difference the willingness to admit what looks designed is most likely because IT IS DESIGNED. Its Occam 's Razor everyone. Jeff sees life and thinks there must be a million monkeys in a room typing out a Sonata about LIFE, rather than just see the simple truth admitting the sonata he reads was most likely created by a song writer. Common Sense is not one of Jeff's strong points. In fact he resist's it quite adamantly, to the detriment of his own bad reputation as being a complete fool and total jack ass.
Its always a treat to watch ole Jeff Dixon paint himself in a corner
Such a fool he is.
Sad really
It's me Esther talking about one of my highly-regarded, favorite amateur scientists, Jeff Dixon! What is your qualification to so regard him the way you do, Kent? I am waiting for your honest reply. Be careful, I know wrong when I see it. I learned wrong in Catholic catechism class, you know what I mean.
I say, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. If the universe looks designed by God, that is because it was.
No, that is because you want to believe it was created by a god.
Likewise is evolution, because you want to believe it evolve by a bunch of idiots believing in a theory. Is like me putting two wheels on my grandmother and believe she is a bicycle, it don't make her a bicycle. You probably have a bunch of college degrees, only to make you an educated moron.
Have you copywrited the Grandmother/Bicycle analogy? I'd like to use it.
What a shock. You enjoy idiotic analogies.
They're required to illustrate idiotic concepts.
Mex you said effectively "[idiotic analogies are] required to illustrate idiotic concepts." Jeff would agree with that 100%.
cc: Jeff
I admit it's a stupid analogy. The trick is to get him to admit that the concept in question is idiotic.
On another note, the way you follow Jeff around and even at times speak for him is interesting for lack of other terms.
Yes, indeed, I think he has very interesting ideas and is a worthy opponent in the arguments. He is one of few people who is regular on the boards who uses solid reasoning and I think a lot of people think the same about him. Many use scripture to support their arguments which is fine too.That is when it becomes really interesting to see how such exchange is resolved. Btw, this conversation actually came up in my discus from zionica so it was just a click away like all the comments I follow.
Quit Talking about yourself Jeff
Idiot, you owe me an apology! Are you saying that I have no right to my opinions KentPerry? Why are you so contentious? No don't tell me that you want to save people from Jeff. You are like others who criticize those who think differently than you do, because you love to victimize people, plain and simple. That is just plain idiocy.
Note, Jeff is inviting you to a real debate: "What you "get" is highly debatable." Do you know the rules of debate Kent? That is a challenge, if you do. If you don't, JUST SHUT UP, you are worst then my worst nightmare which is hearing Obama speak.
I owe you my most bitter contempt you airhead stfu dumb ass
You offer that as a reflex. Your hatred is mind boggling.
Only to nitwits like you jeff
Jeff is an honorable man, Kent. You should count to 10 first, then respond. You may find a friend, too. He may be more like a son then you think. He does have a father, by the way.
Jeff is nothing but a shapeless mass of undulating flesh with a brain stem and nothing more. I scrape more important matter off the bottom of my boot after stepping in it and as bad as the odorous matter is to the sense of smell, the stench of Jeff Dixon comes through as even worse
It is. I have noticed this about Kent. You are perceptive, Jeff. Thanks for the confirmation.
You are as unfair as they come. It is your military, your Catholicism which is unfortunately concentrated now in your 5-points (or is it V-Points, TULIP) Calvinism.
I am sorry! I should have called what you said idiocy, which it is.
It's me Esther talking about one of my highly-regarded, favorite amateur scientists, Jeff Dixon!
What is your qualification to so regard him the way you do, Kent? I am waiting for your honest reply.
Actually, one would use an effective analogy to demonstrate that a concept is absurd.
Yes and actually they would do that by using an even more absurd analogy but you are just splitting hairs again huh Jeff. You pathetic PUNK ass little nitwit. ha ha ha GROW up and be a man jeff! Get a Job get out of your stupor and make something more of yourself than just trying to be the biggest pain in everyones ass. You are such a joke, DAMN if you only knew what an ignorant little tool you are. Got that proof for evolution yet Jeff?? Still waiting!!! C'Mon Jeff show us whatcha GOT BIG MAN!!
Still waiting Jeffery HA HA HA WHERE IS THE PROOF!
You should go back to science 101. You cannot prove a theory. One can only disprove it. And guess what? The theory of evolution has withstood every attempt to show it is wrong.
Quote: "One can only disprove it" Love it. How do you disprove something that can not be proven Jeff? The TOE has never been proven and is why no one can disprove it. It has become so elastic it isn't falsifiable therefore it is not valid/ No one attempts to show it wrong because everyone is told NOT to even question it. I remember when Zoo Keeper Dick Dawkins said finding a Rabbit in the Cambrian would disprove it and when we did, he switched the goal posts again.
The entire premise of science is that people attempt to falsify claims. I truly appreciate you showing just how little you actually know about every topic you post about.
Ha ha you think acting like you know what you are talking about makes you look smart Jeff?
It doesn't and you aren't
Kent: Does pretending you are psychotic (you are pretending, yes?) make you feel better?
I guess you know more about science than I do. I've always thought science was the observance of real things and real productions and real processes. You suggest that's not science at all. We differ.
I never said that was not part of science. However, science is far more than that. The basis of any theory is that it explains the universe. If it is shown to be wrong, then the theory must be discarded or modified.
"The entire premise of science is that people attempt to falsify claims." I am a scientist and this is not what I do. I think you are talking about the science that you like. That's all. does this qualify as "silly"?
In the philosophy of science, falsifiability or refutability is a quality or characteristic of a scientific hypothesis or theory. Falsifiability is considered a positive (and often essential) quality of a hypothesis because it means that the hypothesis is testable by empirical experiment and thus conforms to the standards of scientific method.
Now, that is not to say that this characteristic is the ONLY thing in science, but it is one of the underlying premises.
If I used it, I do not know. I was not engaged in definitions in science only in a solution to a calculus integral which matched real, experimental spectra. I just search for coherence between experiment and my equation. Such definitions can simply be understood, as far as I am concerned, to enable finding the honest truth, since reporting findings is serious business.
TOE = theory of everything (not an evolutionary concept at all)
Yeah thats great esther but in the context any idiot could surmise,, and for the remainder of this discussion TOE will heretofore mean Theory of Evolution.
Got it airhead?
I got it. You like mis-naming things. It is part of your attempt to confuse the issue because that is the only way you can win. Clear as day, I see that. No different from any small child's attempt to gain control when it is necessary for an adult to lay down the law. It is "confusion to the enemy", but the stupid thing is, you regard the enemy to be Jeff and damn it, Kent, Jeff is not your enemy. How old would your son be now, Kent?
Kent: You like parent-child fights, don't you?
TOE spells a good word, but has no identifiable meaning in any discussion.
Nor does the word "Ray Dowen" have any importance. None whatsoever but when debating the Theory of Evolution,it is often customary to refer to it by its acronym. Knowing the context of the discussion is going to be the theory of evolution, conventional wisdom would tell us that when we see the three capital letters TOE, that it is the theory of evolution and not the fungus infection under your nail of your largest digit on the foot you have placed in your mouth so often raymond.
For more, see: http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/theory+of+evolution
If a writer wants to be understood, he's apt to not assume that everyone knows that a toe is not a toe regardless of the subject of the e-note. But some seem to have no need to make their thoughts understandable.
Tis why I said this Ray:"and for the remainder of this discussion TOE will heretofore mean Theory of Evolution." I have no interest in helping you understand anything Ray, because you're jerk.
I am confident that a toe is an appendage on human feet. The toes help us walk well and are designed by God to fit on feet. I wonder why anyone would want to confuse readers. Why write if you don't want to be understood? Probably there is some good reason.
a "Toe" or "toe" is a word, but if you care to browse most discussion boards where the debate is "Theory of Evolution" you will find it is wholly uncontroversial to use the acronym in all caps TOE being that they are all in caps should be your first clue Raymond, the second clue would be that I would be using the acronym rather than typing it out all; the time since the phrase gets said so often.
Don't tell me I want to confuse the readers you stuck up holier than thou pompous ass. Now I showed you the link to the acronyms page and now you know that it is often used that way and the REASON it is in that list of acronyms. Then I also mentioned it that I would be using it that way so readers would understand. Having done that much, raymond, if you still don't get it, it isn't any fault of mine,
It's just that you're too damn stupid to understand and obviously desire to remain that way.
By the way, the word Toe doesn't just mean that appendage of the foot either. It can also mean The part of a sock, shoe, or boot. So do you always follow the word toe with the description using the appendage of the foot? Or do you assume in the context of what it is the subject is on, that you assume the reader will have the common sense to figure that out with out someone splitting hairs, saying "Toe might mean the front of his boot or sock, why wouldn't you explain rather than try to confuse everyone."
That might seem ridiculous, but if we were talking about the Internet, TOE could also mean TOE (TCP/IP Offload Engine) A network adapter that performs some or all of the TCP/IP processing on an Ethernet adapter. I imagine if the subject were about that, you would be hammering away at them too while they explain the all caps are the acronym for it.
So either you are just an idiot, or you're just trying to be a jerk.
Having seen your uppity attitude before,, I'd say
it's the latter.
No such thing as a TOE in the realm of evolution. Sorry.
Jeff, you obviously believe in a theory of evolution, but it's not good for you to suppose any theory is correct just because a person cannot understand why it is NOT correct. I understand well why the theory is absurd. But I'm sure you would not understand that nothing doesn't suddenly become something because someone made a theory. This universe is observable. It's SOMETHING. It's not nothing. It's intricate and detailed. It didn't just happen to form itself. Evolution supposes that nothing just suddenly decided to become something so it did, and it was good, and the process continued until humans developed themselves. No, evolution makes no sense. It's nonsense.
"humans developed themselves"?
How else could humans happen, or anything happen according to evolutionary theories? Things just happened to happen. Surely monkeys wouldn't decide to develop into humans. So somehow a monkey must have decided to become a human, so he did if evolutionary theory holds. And in each step one had to start the evolution. Was a monkey wise enough to want to be a human? None that we know of have expressed such an ambition. So surely it must be a case of humans (a human) developing from a monkey and it takes two to mate so it must have been TWO monkeys. The theory needs a starting place. So I posit that nothing decided to become something, and on up the evolutionary ladder.
"Things just happened to happen" is not the same as "humans developed themselves."
Isn't the former, what Dawkins said in The Blind Watchmaker?
I'm not sure what Dawkins said (wrote). What I'm sure of is that the entire theory is absurd. No evidence exists that any species ever "adapted" into another species, which would have to be true for evolution to solve any problems at all. Adaptation is not the same as an evolutionary change.
Chemical reaction are chemical reaction, meaning these things happen without prejudice. They just happen. Adaptation is what happens when change occurs, otherwise adaptation would be unnecessary.
Harmful protein-coding mutations in people arose largely in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years
It is not a matter of not understanding why it is not correct. it is a matter of showing it to be wrong. The universe is observable. That does not mean it is not able to be quantified and explained. And the theory of evolution does both.
I suggested that the theory of evolution assumes that everything just happened to happen. You, Jeff, state that the theory of evolution explains how the universe began and how it still is empowered. I'm surprised anyone would think so. I see nothing within evolutionary theory to satisfactory explain how the universe came into existence or how human life began on this planet.
I used a poor choice of words. The Theory of Evolution does not address how the universe was created. In saying that the universe can be observed, I was talking about things in that universe. Life on earth is one of those things. The theory of evolution discusses how existing life changes over time. It does not address how life was created either.
Guess what, splitting hair is a gross (meaning big) problem compared to the problem of splitting an atom, and hair is made of atoms, so Jeff has the right idea. So why are you so upset? Maniacal? How old would your son be? Maybe I am that age or … Jeff, perhaps.
Notes such as this one from KentPerry should be removed if this blog is moderated. Vulgar trash talk has no place in honest discussions.
Perhaps you shouldn't provoke such statements with your sarcastic snarky little remarks
Gandma on wheels analogy happens to be both stupid, effective, and descriptive.
It is stupid. The rest you merely tossed in to try and make it sound better. It does not make it sound better.
Actually it was a lot better than any I have seen Jeff come up with. It did quite well showing the ironic absurdity of Jeffs desperate belief system while he actively disbelieves in a creator.
As if your opinion could ever be unbiased against me. Don't make me laugh.
make you laugh? ha ha ha Jeff, you have never known laughter because your life is too damned miserable
I laugh at you every time you post.
No you don't Jeff. You pace and grimace and whine and cry and bitch like the punk ass emotional tampon you are. You're nothing Jeff you're a loser and you'll always be a loser. but that's ok, I don't care that you're a loser or that your grasp of science is as recent as your latest cookie cutter copy pasted quote from ivy league school at the university of impromptu Google searches and Dirt on the Bible and Christianity for noobie atheists actively disbelieving in God
You are really silly, Kent, you know that?
Why aren't you sharing your evangelical passions with us, like the V-Points? Maybe your positions on those will be more convincing? Please. How old would your son be, Kent?
The only one acting like a loser is you. You cuss and bitch about everything you disagree with. If someone argues with you, you refer to them with coarse foul language.
No just You Jeff because as you have shown, you fit the most vulgar expletives available to describe you.
More lies, you have also tossed them out to Ester. Probably others as well, but that is all I have seen so far. No shock that you lie, it is just amusing in that I think you actually believe yourself. But delusional loons usually have no grasp on reality.
Esther, Jeff
Ahh look we have Jeffs sock puppet, Esther here also I see.
Did you like my comment?
Your analogy is idiotic. Evolution has factual evidence to support it.
I see you are also dismissive of higher education. No surprise there at all.
Mmmm calling people an idiot already eh Jeff. So you really came here to insult people like you do at the many other boards to troll
I said the analogy was idiotic, not the person. As usual, you get it all wrong. Nothing new there.
If the analogy is so idiotic, what does it say about the person Jeff. The analogy doesn't care if you think its idiotic and you know it. You didn't insult the analogy one bit and you know it. So there is only one other reason you found it so necessary to ridicule and that was toward the person who made it which is the only one that can possibly be at effect Jeff. So don't give you BS punk I know your garbage too well and let me tell ya,, IT IS ALL GARBAGE, HOSS
Just because one makes a bad argument does not mean one is an idiot. is there any topic that you know anything about? Seriously? Your comments sound like they are being prepared by preschoolers.
Does that go for all those you have called silly or idiot under the guise of insulting the post and not the poster? You got some nerve there jughead
I have a lot of nerve. I also have limited tolerance for psychotic loons.
I've never seen the slightest bit of evidence to support the theories of evolution. I doubt that there is any such evidence. You speak as if there were some. I speak of EVIDENCE, not of guesses. Surely there will be some record left by someone who was present when the first atom was formed. Tell us what the evidence was and where he stood when there was nothing to stand on. And how he wrote when there was no language known by the inanimate objects present. What American viewed the creation of this universe? Where can we locate this proof you speak of? By proof I don't mean the guesses of some "expert." I mean the eyewitness account of someone who observed the creation.
What nonsense is that? The universe formed formed 15 billion years ago and mankind showed up around one million years ago, No, there was no one around when the first atom was formed. And that does not matter because science is not dependent on people observing an event to know it occurred.
Deceived by the devil,, laughing at their simpleness. Is it for nothing that satan tempts?
and you want to believe it wasn't. We get that.
Kent, what you "get" is highly debatable.
Do you want to explain where something came from before there was anything? Your theory surely doesn't pick up with there being something already in existence. But it surely sounds as if you don't have any idea that there must have been a creator in order for there to be something created.
Since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, on what basis do you assume there was a time when nothing existed?
That rule may be supplanted w/ the TOE or ToE… and by NO means do I mean evolution
You have only to consider the eye. Human, or whatever. After studying how it all works and
it's info is translated by the brain, It takes monumental unreasoning " faith" to assume that
it came about by " natural selection." This was admitted by Darwin and is the first evidence
that he was beginning to think. Just as a professor who was arguing with his class over
the issue of absolute truth. He said there can be no absolute truth at which remark the student
with which he was contending said, " are you sure of that?" He said " absolutely."
What is truth? As was asked by the judge interviewing Jesus. As scripture says, " Thy word Oh God is truth."
The God that you evolutionists deny. As Pharoah did, and paid the penalty for un-belief.
Darwin actually wrote:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
So, which is it? Ignorance or a desire to deceive that drives you?
YOU are an IDIOT!!!! YOU would believe that a person dressed up like a duck and waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck IS a DUCK. But us INTELLIGENT people would want to test it's DNA and see IF it has duck DNA? Then make a determination!!!!
Go BACK to SCHOOL YOU are STUPID!!! GET psychiatric help because YOU are MENTALLY SICK, DELUSIONAL, PSYCHOTIC and have HALLUCINATIONS!!!
What's really disturbing is the fact that you would take a swab of DNA from a person dressed up as a duck. Any intelligent person would recognize that ducks are not the same size as a human being. Furthermore, people do not usually make the same sounds or movements that ducks make. Really now, who needs the "psychiatric help?"
God gave EVERY human being the ability to find and discern him. This ability is called COMMON SENSE. How atheists can possibly believe in the Theory of Evolution, is to me, reveals one of two things — either they're hopelessly gullible, or they intensely hate God so much that they're willing to grasp for straws just to dispel Him away.
I remember seeing an interview of Richard Dawkins, and here is what he said about the Theory of Evolution, "When I heard about the Theory of Evolution, I said "At last!", there is something I can CLING to." Now that is a paraphrase, but it captures the essence I'm trying to higlight. First, Richard Dawkins was already desperately finding another explanation to explain away God, and he felt he found it with the Theory of Evolution. Secondly, it begs the question why he's so determined to explain away God. Why he hates God … only Richard Dawkins knows.
But COMMON SENSE is all it takes to discern God. That our daily lives have benefited from objects created by creative and inteligent sources (e.g. car, cellphone, tv, etc.) pretty much almost 100%, and to adhere to the notion that WE, the most complex creation of all, is somehow a result of a non-intelligent process, is of the utmost folly and idiocy.
The theory of evolution has more supporting data than any other scientific theory.
Let's not call evolution a scientific theory. In fact, we can barely call it a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomena that can be proven. The scientific method requires that a scientific theory is based on evidence that is repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Darwinian evolution has never been confirmed through observation or experiment therefore it is not technically a scientific theory. If we're talking science, let's stick to science and call these concepts what they really are instead of giving them greater status in the scientific community than they really have.
. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
Evolution is NOT subject to the scientific method and is therefore technically not even "scientific" and has certainly never been "proven". The theory of evolution states that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a single common ancestor which itself arose from an inorganic form billions of years ago. No scientist was around billions of years ago to see this happen, nor have they ever observed one kind of creature changing into another which must have occurred if evolution is true. Evolution has never been observed in any form, EVER. No events, including evolution, from the ancient past can be observed, repeated or measured, the three immutable properties of the scientific method.
Of course it is subject to the scientific method. No one saw a star form, yet we have sound ideas of how that occurred. No one saw the formation of gravity, yet we have sound ideas of that. No one saw the formation of germs or atoms, and guess what, we have sound ideas about those ideas as well. It does not require that anyone be around when something happened to be able to test a hypothesis about the idea and form a theory. You should try cracking open a science book once in awhile.
Every strict adherence to the scientific method used for the TOE has always tripped over the logical fallacy for assuming the consequent. It fails every time
Nonsense. Have any actual examples instead of your standard MO of ranting?
There is no TOE.
Quote: "No one saw the formation of atoms, and guess what, we have sound ideas about those ideas as well" Really?? You think you can explain how atoms evolved ?
I guess you have never heard of the Atomic Theory. What a shock. Yet another topic you are profoundly ignorant on.
Mmmm so is that a yes or a no Jeff?
You have my answer.
Jeff. we don't need theories to explain creation. We have it on good authority that God spoke and things came into existence. You have to believe also in some force which created the things you suppose just happened to come together to form intricate things and animals and people. But you speak as if there was something always in existence. You have to understand that once there was nothing before there was something.
No, you have a book written by men that makes claims about being the word of god. And given the number of mistakes and contradictions in the bible, it is silly to claim it came from a god.
Physicists have mathematical approximations of these events. For the big picture, I can tell you with surety the elements came together according to the basic laws of attraction and repulsion (like charges repulse, unlike attract)synchronous with the laws of thermodynamics attenuating the mix. But such ideas have no solid theory and we have so far only hoped for the "theory of everything."
Jeff, do you theorize that all these things we see just accidently happened? We believe in a Creator God who purposed and accomplished all these things we can now see. I figure you do not believe in God. I hope I'm wrong and that you realize that your "scientific theory" picks up AFTER something was created. Hence, a Creator who is superior to what we see was created.
No, they were not accidents. Chemical reactions are very specific.
No Jeff it is only a fact to those who believe it is a fact. You can't prove it is a fact, no more than anyone else ever has proven it is a fact. It comes NOWHERE close to explaining anything and all you do here is spout off assertions you make no argument. Not one,
I did not come up with the theory of evolution. Therefore, i am not simply spouting off assertions. I am discussing a scientific theory that 99% of biological scientists accept as fact. If you can demonstrate it to be wrong, then write your paper on the topic and earn a Noble prize.
Not ONE of the 99% of the scientists you claim agree to the TOE have ever proven it. I can't disprove it Jeff. I can't prove something that doesn't happen, doesn't happen. It's trying to prove a negative.
There is NO TOE. It has never been suggested nor has it every been found.
I think the claim is preposterous that most "scientists" are atheists. I read and respect John Clayton's DOES GOD EXIST? publication in which he quotes scientist after scientist who has discovered that there is a Creator God after many years of disbelief.
I said the vast majority accept evolution. Many Christians accept evolution.
I accept evolution just not the evolution that goes past the template design in the DNA. We have exhausted all variation in the domestic dog and hit the wall or limits of variation Gregor Mendel had told us about.
No, you accept an alternative view of the topic that fits into your Christian mindset.
Of course it could be disproven. For example, if the creationist view of the world was right, we should find the remains of rabbits and dogs and cats alongside dinosaurs. If that was ever discovered, it would blow a major hole in the ToE. But they have never found anything like that. And for one simple reason. Rabbits and dogs and cats did not exist until millions of years after dinosaurs had gone extinct.
So if I show you a fossil of a rabbit in the cambrian or a T-Rex with a rabbit in its gut?? You admit evolution is bunk yes?
Yes, I will admit that evolution is wrong if you can show that. Go for it.
We on the internet are not seeking a Noble prize. But many of us do love truth and seek to abolish lies which are paraded as facts as if they could be proven. There's no proof whatever that evolution ever happened to cause one species to become a different specie, which is what the theory suggests. We of course see evolutionary changes over the centuries within species. That's not in question. But the theory is based on no creator, and we see well that nothing would exist if there had not been a Creator.
If you were truly interested in truth, you would get your information on science from scientific sources, not silly creationist sites.
You mean atheist sources Jeff and sorry Pal Truth is Truth where ever you find it. By the way, I do get my data from scientific sources. Just because I post the data to a Christian website doesn't change the data from true to false. Interesting confirmation bias you got there chump
Creationist sites are not scientific sites. Your desire that they be so changes nothing about the drivel they put out.
Why are they not scientific sites Jeff? Because YOU SAY SO
You're so full of crap you're ridiculous
Because scientists say so, you loon.
Gravity is an observable fact. Evolutionary theories are just guesses, and unsupported by any observable facts.
You should read from real scientific sources. Talkorigins.org is a great source of information.
We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).
As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.
It would HAVE to considering how weak it is
Right, it is weak because it has so much supporting evidence. You truly are a loon.
I asked you for one piece of evidence proving molecules to man evolution and all you know how to do is use the logical fallacy of consensus ad-populim ad infinitum ad nauseum Mr.Dixon. That ain't evidence saying it has "Oooodles and Ooodles of supporting evidence, Mountains of evidence, indeed a galaxy of evidence . I have seen what Darwits call evidence and it isin't. The TOE and the dim bulbs that buy it are aware that it also has a HISTORY of fraud, fudged data, fabricated evidence galore and the most unscrupulous scientists in all areas of science. Now I asked you do you think you can explain how the atom, evolved or no?
Kindergarten back in session.
Man did not evolve directly from molecules.
" Man did not evolve directly from molecules"
Oh really Jeff? Tell us how it happened smart guy. Tell us who saw it happen and why it is so much more accurate to believe in bullshit made up about something YOU claim happened BILLIONS of years ago while in the same voice you criticize the accuracy of Bronze age books. Please share with us Jeff your research into the atom and how it arrived. This ought to be good. HA HA HA HA
The following paragraph is typical coming from the atheist they have call everyone too stupid to understand probability while they STILL miss the entire point about the probalistic argument. This idiot puts a whole website together with pre programmed dice rolls I just disassembled the coding for and dishonest as he is, COULD have used random Java code to be accurate but he did not.
Quote:"One of the most common types of anti-evolution argument is the probability-based argument, and its greatest strength is the fact that the average person does not know the concept of probability very well, if at all. Creationists have many creative ways of using public ignorance of probability to their advantage, but the most common trick is to attack abiogenesis: the process by which it is believed that the first self-replicating molecule was produced in the primeval seas, billions of years ago."
//end quote.
So starting with this straw man. he then continues to attack an argument NEVER made by Creationists. Jeff Dixon desperate to answer, has to resort to this sophistry and proves my point yet again about the marksman missing the condemned man. They simply just don't get it.
Everything he said in his argument is true. All Creationists argue straw-man arguments, especially you.
The theory of evolution is not a scientific theory. It boggles the mind to suppose that this universe had no designer and that everything we see today just happened to be as it is. Humans design things and we have to admit that the designed thing was designed by the human. But Niagara Falls was not designed by a human. Nor was the Grand Canyon, nor any of the mountains humans seek to climb. The oceans didn't just happen to happen. The Arctic and Antarctic pole areas didn't just happen. The moon, the sun and the stars didn't just happen to form themselves. Most people are wise enough to see that it took a designer with infinite powers to create many of the things we see every day. And sight, and hearing, and speech. Just an accident. No, a designer. Guesses as to how these things all happened are theoretical and not at all scientific.
No, it boggles your mind.
Is it justifiable to say "has more supporting data"? I doubt this.
RICHARDSB Thanks, excellent. Let's ask "Evolution from what ? Explain to me "There was nothing, then…".? Nothing stays nothing. Then "Over millions of years,,," Millions of years of nothing stays nothing. That leaves only one possibility: something had no beginning, existed always. Whatever it was, let's call it: X. Everything came after X. Make a good study of all that exists, or ever existed. You'll find that it is all so 'wonderful', so 'complicated". Can I believe, it all came about by chance, it all 'just happened' ? For a farmer to grow crops, a carpenter to make a chair, it just happens by chance ? Or is there some 'intelligence' involved ? Seeing a working motor, I know "It did not just happen". A lot of knowledge was involved. Seeing a plant grow, a bird fly, do I say 'It just happened by accident'. Or rather ask "How did it all come about ?".From nothing ? Without knowledge ? Or do I realize:"Only a tremendous knowledge & power can cause all this". An airplane doesn't fly by it self. It is based on solid principles. Then what gives live to a body, a plant, an animal ? Some eat plants, some eat meat. What do worms eat ? All by accident ? It all points to a tremendous 'intelligence & power'. We don't call it X. We call it: God. How does God look like ? I don't know. But He showed Himself as a man. So we present Him as a man. It's less important how He looks like, but know: He exists. Created everything. Finally, a man and a woman.
I read that out of all the people ever born on earth since humans began, only 2% were born before Christ came. After Christ, 98% of all people were born. God did walk on earth at one time because His divine spirit has never left us.
That is a silly claim. It has been estimated that a total of 106 billion people have been born since the dawn of the human race 55,000 years ago. Given that there are around 7 billion now, most of the humans lived long ago.
Jeff, would you please tell us why you come on this site so much. You seem to be a fairly educated guy, but still jump through hoops to try to convince us that evolution is fact, when it can never be proven no more than I can prove that God exists to someone who is hell bent on denying his creation. It must be tough going through life spending so much time and effort trying to convince believers that they are little better than their pet dog or cat. I, and I'm sure others on here, pray for you. But please, cut the lecturing for a minute and just tell us what it is you are trying to gain or prove to yourself. I'm sure others want to know. Otherwise, stop the nonsense. You come up with some of the craziest fluff that you think sounds so intellectual. Once again, why do you come to this site so much? I think you would like to be convinced that God did create you, but you're too proud to admit it. One suggestion; try prayer. Some people think prayer is talking to God while most prayer should be listening. I don't think you have ever just listened. God Bless.
I post to show people not yet lost to the god delusion that there are answers to mindless theism.
No Jeff, you do this because you hate Creationists and Christians and the only help you are offering those so called on the fence sitters, is what we have always said about atheists, that they are the biggest jerks on the Internet. You ain't that smart and you ain't that caring about other people so spare us all the BS Jeff and just tell us when you might ever move out of your dead mothers basement and get a life doing something people will benefit from because no one listens to you, or believes you are one of the great philosopher kings of science. You're a putz and that is all you are.
nothing more than a punk
I am amused by Creationists and hold out hope for Christians that one day their eyes might open. Hate is what you preach, Kent.
Like I have said so many times before jeff YOU AIN'T IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO HATE.
So quit flattering yourself so
What is possible encouraging Amateur Scientists: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/19-the-amateur-scientists-who-might-cure-cancer-from-their-basements#.ULlMjoOCkvY 113012
According to Richard Dawkins, a really peculiar creature himself, the heart in creatures on the planet, can be better understood if we assume it was designed by some power to pump blood, but he apparently still believes it was a chance accident of evolution that brought the heart into being. The atheists mock faith but if they can buy into that theory then they may have more faith in evolution than many religious believers have in a God. Talk about a " Leap Of Faith".
The belief in God/s IS a BIZARRE DELUSION and Religion IS a PSYCHOSIS!!!
says you. someone that believes a frog can turn into a handsome prince.
Given enough time.
pfffT! yeah riiight
Profoundly study the few ongoing existing miracles. The closest one that I know is in Guadalupe,Mexico-city. One in the north of South America. The 2 or 3 others in Europe. Unbelievers must insist that there is no God(Who had no beginning,exists always), for if there is a God, what will happen to them after death ? I wonder how they explain that there was nothing, and then suddenly there was something. And all the wonderful working in the universe works without 'intelligence' ordering it ? There is a law (reason) why water turns into steam. But why is there such 'law', 'reason' ? Do unbelievers claim that everything happens because of 'nature' ? Then what causes, or what is 'nature', where did 'nature' come from ? Do unbelievers prefer the word 'nature' instead of 'God' ?
Why assume there was a point when nothing existed? The Big Bang does not say that something came from nothing. It says that all matter and energy that existed was contained in a singularity that exploded.
So time space and matter is infinite yes? That matter has always existed? is that what you are saying Jeff? The steady state ?
Yes, I believe that matter has always existed. Since it cannot be created or destroyed and we have never found evidence that there was period when it did not exist, that is the logical conclusion. I also think that there are infinite Big Bangs. There is an explosion, the universe expands, it finally contracts and then there is another Big Bang which starts it all over again.
"However, Penrose and Gurzadyan have now discovered concentric circles within the CMB in which the temperature variation is much lower than expected, implying that CMB anisotropies are not completely random. The scientists think that these circles stem from the results of collisions between super massive black holes that released huge, mostly isotropic bursts of energy. The bursts have much more energy than the normal local variations in temperature. The strange part is that the scientists calculated that some of the larger of these nearly isotropic circles must have occurred before the time of the Big Bang."
So if time space and matter have always existed then you are talking about an infinite universe yes?
It expands and contracts INSIDE OF WHAT JEFF?
Nothing. What is expanding and contracting is the sum total.
Kent: Fact: With regard to: "God is a FACT Jeff. Quit denying it and DEAL WITH IT"
Why don't you face the reality: Jeff does not believe in the biblical god, because he has studied the scripture and finds it is replete with contradiction! Get it? Also. he has said time and time again, he will accept scientific proof if you come up with some on the actual existence of God.
Esther I have show your hero all those so called contradictions have nothing to do with whether or not a God created the known universe and the scientific proof God is not only possible but the more plausible way the universe could have come into existence.
Good luck with that! Where is your scientific verification of God, Kent? I am talking about in the flesh, and not "just" his creations. That is the only proof an atheist, any atheist will accept.
Quote:"Why assume there was a point when nothing existed? "
Why assume God doesn't exist? If you assume he doesn't then what caused something rather than nothing ? If the universe always existed, why is it so hard to assume God always existed. Why is it the Fibonacci mathematics seen all through out the universe means nothing to you? Science can't explain it other than to call it the finger print of a designer
I have heard from several people who believe that the Fibonacci sequence is a proof of god. A search of the internet, or your local library, will convince you that the Fibonacci series has attracted the lunatic fringe who look for mysticism in numbers. You will find fantastic claims:
The "golden rectangle" is the "most beautiful" rectangle, and was deliberately used by artists in arranging picture elements within their paintings. (You'd think that they'd always use golden rectangle frames, but they didn't.)
The patterns based on the Fibonacci numbers, the golden ratio and the golden rectangle are those most pleasing to human perception.
Mozart used f in composing music. (He liked number games, but there's no good evidence that he ever deliberately used f in a composition.)
The Fibonacci sequence is seen in nature, in the arrangement of leaves on a stem of plants, in the pattern of sunflower seeds, spirals of snail's shells, in the number of petals of flowers, in the periods of planets of the solar system, and even in stock market cycles. So pervasive is the sequence in nature (according to these folks) that one begins to suspect that the series has the remarkable ability to be "fit" to most anything!
Nature's processes are "governed" by the golden ratio. Some sources even say that nature's processes are "explained" by this ratio.Of course much of this is patently nonsense. Mathematics doesn't "explain" anything in nature, but mathematical models are very powerful for describing patterns and laws found in nature. I think it's safe to say that the Fibonacci sequence, golden mean, and golden rectangle have never, not even once, directly led to the discovery of a fundamental law of nature. When we see a neat numeric or geometric pattern in nature, we realize we must dig deeper to find the underlying reason why these patterns arise.
The "golden spiral" is a fascinating curve. But it is just one member of a larger family of curves/spirals collectively known as "logarithmic spirals", and there are still other spirals found in nature, such as the "Archimedian spiral." It's not difficult to find one of these curves that fits a particular pattern found in nature, even if that pattern is only in the eye of the beholder. But the dirty little secret of all of this is that when such a fit is found, it is seldom exact. The examples from nature that you find in books often have considerable variations from the "golden ideal". Sometimes curves claimed to fit the golden spiral actually are better fit by some other spiral. The fact that a curve "fits" physical data gives no clue to the underlying physical processes that produce such a curve in nature.
FIBONACCI SEQUENCE IN NATURE?Phylotaxis. The dictionary defines Phylotaxis as the history or course of the development of something. In biology it generally refers to how a living thing develops and changes over time. This is one part of nature where the fibonacci sequence and related sequences seem to show up uncommonly often, and it's legitimate to inquire why. The interesting cases are seedheads in plants such as sunflowers, and the bract patterns of pinecones and pineapples.
We have noted above that not all spirals in mathematics or in nature are golden spirals. Likewise, spirals can be produced by non-biological processes if the discrete elements which make up the spiral are laid down according to some simple rules. The problem for biologists is to find those rules. Merely asserting that "nature seems to prefer fibonacci numbers (most of the time, in certain particular cases) isn't an explanation
No it isn't an explanation and the idiot you stole this writing from doesn't get it. Its like having a dozen marksmen all aiming their rifles at you as you stand to be executed before a firing squad. At the read, aim fire. Everyone missed you and you stand there infront of marksmen without a single shot hitting you. THAT doesn't mean it's a miracle but it DOES need explaining. IT's either a miracle or something of a planned event an agenda to deliberately miss is more likely the explanation. The article you stole doesn't even touch that and instead makes a straw man argument attempting to say those arguing the fibonacci effect are using it to prove something or to explain something when that isn't it at all, it NEEDS Explaining.
What does missing a target have to do with supposed designs found in nature? You need to think of a much better example. This one is laughable.
Jeez Jeff Take your HEAD out of your colon you idiot! How did they niss Jeff? By chance or by instruction or design. It figures you are too damn stupid to understand.
Jeff, would you please address Ravi Zacharias's attack on Dawkins. I would like to know your thoughts.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ravi-zacharias-responds-to-wall-street-journal-articles-by-richard-dawkins-and-karen-armstrong 112912
His premise is that the universe must have a beginning. That premise has never been demonstrated to be factual.
Stating the universe was created does not mean it was.
"No one saw the formation of atoms" – Jeff Dixon
Yet Jeff says Matter can not be created or destroyed and all matter is comprised of atoms
Then he says Quote:"His premise is that the universe must have a beginning. That premise has never been demonstrated to be factual"
Yet Jeff can attribute an age to the Universe which means it had a beginning. Now while he3 mocks my knowledge of atomic theory, I have asked him four times to explain how the Atom came to be. This is the basis of all physical matter. I have yet to hear an answer from Jeff because he simply has no idea. Why no one seeing the formation of atoms is true and a good excuse for not answering, it also makes a good reason to take everything the Darwits say happened back when there was no one to see them, with the same grain of salt. Jeff loses at every turn with his contradictions and double standards. His ability to explain in scientific terms is to hide tail and run avoiding the questions as if never asked.
Yet Science certainly does say the universe had a beginning while he ducks the question for why there is something rather than nothing with a "Who Cares" cavalier attitude.
The gravity of that question, the sheer weight of that question, goes right over his thick skull and with good reason. Jeff puts his foot in it again saying:
"Why assume there was a point when nothing existed? The Big Bang does not say that something came from nothing. It says that all matter and energy that existed was contained in a singularity that exploded."
Ok jeff what was the the container that held the contents of all matter and energy, inside of if not nothing? What surrounded the container? It must have exploded IN SOMETHING ELSE, NO? WHAT WAS IT? WHAT WAS IT JEFF? Of course you can't say a universe made of matter and energy because as he just admitted, all that was in the container he called a singularity. So that is why he deflects the question, saying why assume there was a point where nothing existed? Well,, THAT's Why Jeff. You can't have it both ways Jeff and the law of contradiction which says something can't be nothing, at the same time is why we have no choice but to ignore your attempts to shrug off the hard questions.
You are nothing in a debate Jeff
In fact you suck at it
You obviously are misunderstanding what the idea of infinite big bangs implies. The matter and energy is eternal. However, the universe goes through an infinite cycle of explosion, expansion, contraction and a new explosion. The new explosion resets the time clock of how we count the beginnings of this current universe because the previous universe no longer exists. But the matter and energy from the previous period still exists.
Does that sink thru that mush you call a brain now?
Just more circular logic Jeff pfft!
ad infinite regression
There is no difference between eternal matter and energy existing in an infinite universe and an eternal god except for one key point. We can see the universe. We can perform experiments on matter and energy. On the other hand, there is no evidence of a god. He cannot be seen.
Yet, you are of the opinion that the unseen god is logical and seen universe is not. lol
No less logical than the un-seen multiverse and the unseen macro-evolution. You don't see the multiverse but we will never get out of this universe to see the other. but they say there are clues it exists. It is the same with God who Naturally would have to be outside the universe to create it but you dismiss all the clues in evidence apriori saying he didn't create the universe and all physical matter because you can't see God. How do you know you don't see God everywhere you look?
Seriously,, IF God made the universe and all the physical matter you see before you, then what physical matter do you have to compare it to Jeff as evidence he doesn't exist? You wouldn't have a clue what matter Not made by god would even look like. Yet because the physics involved have laws and the laws of physics indeed the laws of the universe are intelligible, are the very reasons you can test it at all and shows an intelligence behind it. Logic itself would be nothing without a logical laws of physics and if we are all the product of blind natural selection,a series of happy accidents, whose to say your logic is logical at all?
Lets face facts here, what you see, is actually manufactured in the occipital lobes of your brain and what you think you see out there is actually photons of light. Same with what you hear taste and smell. I mean you can see we may not even know that physical matter is anything more than perceptions of it. I know it is another theory entirely but I think you get the point.
Science can SEE the universe is intelligible they see that much and many Scientists have admitted that fact but don't confuse the religious implications or what you don't believe with what you don't see when it is everywhere you look. Obviously God would have to be outside the universe but the evidence for his existence can not be dismissed. We both see the same physical evidence and how we interpret it is the difference. You and I have a lot in common with religion in that I don't get along with most Christians and for the most part, I think religion "preys" on people, (no pun) but as far as a creator being or "God" in this sense, the topic being atheists admit things look designed and that the possibility of such a being most certainly exists.
It just might be things look designed simply because
they are.
My favorite Quote of Jeff's
"You can't prove a theory, you can only prove a theory wrong"
So you see they either start out that the TOE is true apriori
Or they have quite a fail safe with that slick escape
The reason Atheists have trouble with a Creator and attracted to evolution is that they can't see the forest for the trees. They are so convinced that Darwin was a "scientist" when he was a rank amateur!
Jeff problem is that he is just plane stupid.
Atheists are just as smart as anyone else, and I once knew one who had been a Catholic first. She was very smart. However, they are also stupid at the same time, for, it is quite obvious that everything is perfect in this world, or else it would not work correctly all the time in the plant and animal world, not to mention the universe.
To think that everything came about by chance is ludicrous thinking, such as the male-female workings in the animal world, human or otherwise, which all work as a match quite well.
If there is no god, then, anything is allowed. I would rather live a life of believing in God and find out that He is there when I die, than live a life as if there is not a God, and get a big surprise later.
where is the evidence? – if you believe I can respect that, but there is no evidence. If God gave you reason, he would expect you to demand reason – lest you'd be prey for charlatans, and be easily led away by stories that you want to believe.
That is about the BIGGEST pile of crap I have EVER heard come from the mouth of someone who calls themselves SANE. Seriousfuckingly?! And you call yourself an intellectual? I only pray that your family line does not go any farther.


text:
|Second crack at SMUSH. Still looked to monstrous. We wanted to keep him somewhat reminiscent of his human beginnings as the three Mercenary brothers. (Who first showed up in Batman and Robin #1) I liked the tail instead of feet though.
|SMUSH, and a first crack at SCALLOP.
|Upper left. Rejected Cover sketch. Bottom left Approved cover sketch for BATMAN AND ROBIN #12. The freaks were supposed to appear in the background, but ultimately got cut from the final image. Right, SCALLOP.
|Working up a color for SCALLOPS Hair and makeup.
|TERMINUS final stage. His hight was reduced a bit from this sketch, and he ended up standing about 9 feet tall. The clocks that provided the countdown to his ultimate demise appear on the inside of his arms.
|Here you can see that TERMINUS briefly became POISON MARVIN, Poison Ivy's lesser known brother. But polling data showed that the readers weren't ready for this yet. He was reverted back to his current form. :)
|The final Freak-sheet. BAT HEAD, BOOT FACE, SMUSH, SCALLOP, and my last minute entry HANGMAN.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Eileen Hebets
Associate Professor
Ph.D. University of Arizona, 2002
(Ecology & Evolutionary Biology)
M.S. University of Arizona, 1998
(Ecology & Evolutionary Biology)
M.S. University of Cincinnati, 1996
B.S. Albion College, 1994
Contact Information
325 Manter Hall
Research Interests
Complex Signal Evolution and Function/Plasticity of Female Mate Choice
My research program focuses on understanding the diversity associated with communication systems, with much of my current concentration on intra-specific communication relating to reproductive behavior. Understanding the evolution of animal signals is not a trivial task, as it requires detailed knowledge of not only the animals producing the signals (the signalers), but also of the environment through which the signals must travel and of the animals receiving the signals (the receivers). Acquiring the necessary details pertaining to the various steps in the communication process relies upon numerous techniques and approaches and requires integration of information across multiple levels of analysis. As such, my research is very integrative, spanning both ultimate and proximate factors influencing ultimate signal form. For example, my research incorporates field-based studies that examine selection pressures under natural conditions; laboratory-based behavioral assays in which I experimentally manipulate signalers, the signaling environment, and/or receivers to assess signal function; the use of genetic markers to examine population structure with respect to secondary sexual traits; phylogenetic methods and approaches to examine evolutionary trends in complex signal form and function; assays of ecdysteroids and biogenic amines to examine the relationships between circulating levels of neuromodulators and behavioral expression; and the use of neural techniques such as electrophysiology to examine the peripheral sensory system capabilities of receivers.
Research in my laboratory uses various arachnid groups to ask questions relating to the evolution and function of animal signals. I have worked mostly with wolf spiders and jumping spiders (Order Araneae), but have also focused on opilionids (Order Opiliones), amblypygids (Order Amblypygi), and solpugids (Order Solipugae). My research has been supported by numerous funding sources including most recently the Searle Scholars Program and the National Science Foundation.
My current research efforts (not including the studies of my graduate students) encompass five main research programs. Information regarding each of these can be found on my personal webpage.
Peer Reviewed Publications since 2005
Fowler-Finn, K. D. and E. A. Hebets. 2011. The degree of response to increased predation risk corresponds to male secondary sexual traits. Behavioral Ecology 22: 268 – 275.
Fowler-Finn, K. D. and Hebets, E. A. 2011. More ornamented males exhibit increased predation risk and antipredator escapes, but not greater mortality. Ethology 117: 102 – 114.
Hebets, E.A. , J. A. Stafstrom, R. L. Rodriguez, and D. J. Wilgers. 2011. Enigmatic ornamentation relieves male reliance on courtship performance for mating success. Animal Behaviour 81: 963 – 972.
Hebets, E. A. and A. S. Rundus. 2011. Chemical Communication in a Multimodal Context. In: Chemical Communication in Crustaceans. (Ed by T. Breithaupt & M. Thiel), pp. 335 – 354. New York, New York: Springer. (Invited contribution)
Hebets, E. A. 2011 Current status and future directions of research in complex signaling. Current Zoology 57: I-V. (editorial for Special Issue on Complex Signaling)
Rundus, A. S., L. Sullivan-Beckers, D. Wilgers, and E. A. Hebets. 2011. Females are choosy in the dark: context-dependent reliance on courtship components and its impact on fitness. Evolution 65: 268-282.
Wilgers, D. J. and E. A. Hebets. 2011. Complex courtship displays facilitate male reproductive success and plasticity in signaling across variable environments. Current Zoology 57: 175 – 186. (Special issue)
Willemart, R. H., R. D. Santer, A. J. Spence, and E. A. Hebets. 2011.A sticky situation: Solifugids (Arachnida, Solifugae) use adhesive organs on their pedipalps for prey capture. Journal of Ethology 29: 177 – 180.
Byers, J., E. A. Hebets, and J. Podos. 2010. Female mate choice based upon male motor performance. Animal Behavior 79: 771 – 778.
Rundus, A. S., R. D. Santer, and E. A. Hebets. 2010. Multimodal courtship efficacy of Schizocosa retrorsa wolf spiders: implications of an additional signal modality. Behavioral Ecology 21: 701 – 707.
Elias, D.O, Mason, A. C. and Hebets, E. A. 2010. A signal-substrate match in the substrate-borne component of a multimodal courtship display. Current Zoology 56: 370 – 378. (invited contribution)
Hebets, E.A. and Sullivan-Beckers, L. 2010. Mate Choice and Learning. In: Breed M.D. and Moore J., (eds.)
Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, volume 2, pp. 389 - 393 Oxford: Academic Press. (invited author)
Chelini, M. C., R. H. Willemart, and E. A. Hebets. 2009. Costs and benefits of freezing behaviour in the harvesman Eumesosoma roeweri (Arachnida, Opiliones). Behavioural Processes 82: 153 – 159.
Santer, R.D. and Hebets, E.A. 2009. Prey capture by the whip spider Phrynus marginemaculatus. Journal of Arachnology 37: 109 – 112.
Santer, R.D. and Hebets, E. A. 2009. Tactile learning of spatial landmarks in whip spiders (Arachnida, Amblypygi). Journal of Comparative physiology A 195: 393 – 399.
Wilgers, D.J., A. C. Nicholas, D. H. Reed, G. E. Stratton, and E. A. Hebets. 2009. Condition-dependent alternative mating tactics in a sexually cannibalistic wolf spider. Behavioral Ecology 20: 891 – 900.
Shamble, P.S., D. J. Wilgers, K. A. Swoboda, and E. A. Hebets. 2009. Courtship effort is a better predictor of mating success than ornamentation for male wolf spiders. Behavioral Ecology 20: 1242 - 1251.
Hebets, E.A., Elias, D.O., Mason, A.C., Miller, G.L., and Stratton, G.E. 2008. Substrate-dependent signaling success in the wolf spider Schizocosa retrorsa. Animal Behaviour 75: 605 – 615.
Hebets, E.A., Wesson, J., and Shamble, P. 2008. Diet influences mate choice selectivity in adult female wolf spiders. Animal Behaviour 76: 355 – 363.
Hebets, E. A. 2008. Seismic signal dominance in the multimodal courtship display of the wolf spider Schizocosa stridulans Stratton 1991. Behavioral Ecology19: 1258 – 1266.
Santer, R. D. and Hebets, E.A. 2008. An agonistic signal received by an arthropod filiform hair alludes to the prevalence of near-field sound communication. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275: 363 – 368 (Highlighted Article Online)
Framenau, V. W., E. A. Hebets. 2007. A review of leg ornamentation in male wolf spiders, with the description of a new species from Australia, Artoria schizocoides (Araneae, Lycosidae). Journal of Arachnology 35: 89 – 101.
Hebets, E.A. 2007. Early experience does not influence heterospecific recognition in the wolf spider Schizocosa uetzi. Journal of Arachnology 35: 1 – 10.
Hebets, E.A. and Vink, C. 2007. Experience leads to preference: Experienced females prefer brush-legged males in a population of syntopic wolf spiders. Behavioral Ecology 18: 1010-1020.
VanderSal, N. D. & Hebets, E. A. 2007. Cross-modal effects on learning: A seismic stimulus improves color discrimination in a jumping spider. Journal of Experimental Biology 210: 3689-3695.
Elias, D. O., Hebets, E. A., and Hoy, R. R. 2006. Female preference for signal complexity. Behavioral Ecology. 17: 765-771.
Elias, D.O., Lee, N., Hebets, E. A., and Mason, A. C. 2006. Seismic signal production in wolf spiders: Parallel versus serial multicomponent signals. Journal of Experimental Biology 209: 1079-1084. (cover photo)
Elias, D.O., Hebets, E. A., Hoy, R. R., Maddison, W. P., and Mason, A. C. 2006. Regional song differences in sky-island populations of the jumping spider Habronattus pugillis Griswold. Journal of Arachnology 34: 566-577.
Fowler-Finn, K. D. & E. A. Hebets. 2006. An examination of agonistic interactions in the whip spider Phyrnus marginemaculatus (Arachnida, Amblypyi) Journal of Arachnology 34: 62-76.
Hebets, E.A., Cuasay, K., and Rivlin, P.K. 2006. The role of visual ornamentation in female choice of a multimodal male courtship display. Ethology 112: 1062 – 1070.
Spence, A. J. & E. A. Hebets. 2006. Anatomy and physiology of giant fibers in the antenniform leg of the amblypygid Phrynus marginemaculatus. Journal of Arachnology 34: 545 – 556.
Elias, D. O., E. A. Hebets, A. C. Mason, and R. R. Hoy. 2005. Seismic signals are crucial for male mating success in a visual specialist jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). Animal Behaviour
Hebets, E. A. 2005. Attention-altering interactions among signals in multimodal wolf spider courtship displays. Behavioral Ecology 16: 75-82.
Hebets, E. A. and D. R. Papaj. 2005. Complex signal function: Developing a framework of testable hypotheses. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 57: 197-214
Hebets, E.A. & W.P. Maddison. 2005. Xenophilic mating preferences among populations of the jumping spider Habronattus pugillis Griswold. Behavioral Ecology 16: 981-988.


text:
Earring mix, acrylic and silver-finished brass, clear / pink / red, 50x9mm flower leverback. Sold per pkg of 3 pairs.
Item Number: D38-1866JD
Blossom with these silver-finished brass leverback earrings. Embellished with seven sparkling flowers and flirty chain dangles. Leverback earrings offer more security than open earwires. Colors can include clear, pink and red. Package contains 1 pair of each style. Colors, shapes and sizes may vary in each lot.
Restricted Shipping to:
More Information on Product Safety and Restrictions


text:
The officer went to a Clinton Street residence just before 3 a.m. Sunday. He was repeatedly hit with a wine bottle shortly after he arrived, said Jeff Hawke, director of GHDPS.
The officer and the 18-year-old suspect "were then involved in a physical altercation, which ended with the suspect being subdued and handcuffed," Hawke said. "A taser was deployed by the officer to bring the suspect under control."
Hawke said the officer was taken to North Ottawa Community Hospital and treated for non-life threatening injuries.
The suspect was lodged in the Ottawa County Jail and charged with assault with intent to do great bodily harm. The charge is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Bond was set at $50,000. The man's name is being withheld pending arraignment.
Read the full stories in Monday and Tuesday's Tribune; and stay tuned to grandhaventribune.com for updates on this situation.


text:
John Balyo was arraigned Monday in Calhoun County District Court in Battle Creek on first-degree and second-degree criminal sexual conduct charges. A July 7 preliminary examination is scheduled.
The 35-year-old Balyo is accused of paying another man to arrange sex with minors. Authorities searched his home in Caledonia, south of Grand Rapids.
He was arrested Friday in Gaylord at a Christian music festival. WCSG in Grand Rapids said on-air Monday that Balyo's affiliation with the station ended Saturday.
Kent County Undersheriff Jon Hess also said Balyo was fired from a volunteer squad that helps direct traffic during festivals and other public events.


text:
Newark Overhead Door Co
Don't pay extra when you don't need to for a garage door. You'll appreciate Newark Overhead Door Co's competitive prices when it comes to our Wayne Dalton 9100 series, 9600 series, and Amarr Stratford, Oak Summit and Classica series garage doors.
Experience you can trust in
You aren't an expert at installing garage doors, so let our experienced technicians do the work for you. You'll appreciate that we are family owned and operated and are the longest standing company in town.
Get a quality, dependable garage door:
Door Series:
How-To-Measure Guide For A Garage Door
You'll get the benefit of our 50 years of experience when you hire Newark Overhead Door Co for your garage door repairs or installations. Call us at 740-366-2782 today or visit us at 211 Dayton Rd in Newark.