RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: IDC != AntiEvolution?, Discuss...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,08:49   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 02 2010,08:44)
joe is just trolling for man-meat again.  joe you and chunk should get a room and type really hateful kinky homoerotic stuff at each other, you are doing about the same thing for your cause here.

the best thing about your dribbling upthread to me is you say your damnself that ID is the null.  the default position and the burden of proof is on anyone saying otherwise to show differently.  then you deny that.  

Quote
...ID is scientific.

It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested.

Now what?

You still don't have any way to test your claims.

All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs.

So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


then

Quote
Too bad for you that if "specification" is not observed the design in not inferred.

IOW one can eliminate chance and necessity but if there isn't any specification then design is not the default.


hmmm "specification" huh.

what's that?

oh, ask Rich?  OK.  Rich, what does Joe say "specification" is?

Another dick-head chimes in-

And as predicted nothing of substance and nothing to support its position.

Go figure...

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
  178 replies since Feb. 24 2010,09:34 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]