Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 15 2019,21:00) | | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 15 2019,20:56) | | Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 15 2019,20:44) | | Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 15 2019,20:33) | | Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 15 2019,21:15) | | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 15 2019,19:38) | | Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 15 2019,19:31) | | Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 15 2019,15:23) | | Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 15 2019,12:43) | | Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 15 2019,09:18) | | Since ID is science, we just assumed that science was their purpose. Maybe they should change it to "Serving the Religious Fundamentalist Community". |
Or maybe their purpose is trying to look like science is their purpose? Or at least look that way to their supporters. |
Serving the Cdesign Proponentsist Community. |
As a follow on, I saw one YEC moron try to rename originally created "kinds" into originally designed archtypes just to sound more sciency. :D |
The following is from two of the architects of the modern synthesis:
| Quote | | “One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor.”-- Ernst Mayr |
and
| Quote |
“From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles….the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different.”- G. Simpson |
|
Nothing in there about created "kinds" or being "designed" Chubs.
Looks like the asshole who made the switch was just bullshitting to hide his YEC affiliation. :D |
A name change was the whole point of the intelligent design scam. Too bad for them it failed. Now they're back to trying to pass creationism bills. |
I guess the find and replace they used in “Of Pandas and People” didn’t work as well as they had planned. |
The book that had zero influence of any IDist? |
Au contraire Joke. The trial where the Creationist into ID book was exposed also showed the country how little the IDiots had in the way of actual science and that ID really was just rebranded Creationism.
ID-Creationist morons like you have been bawling their eyes out ever since. :D |
What? The trial where evoTARDs lied an bluffed their way through it because a judge is the last person who should be deciding what is and isn't science.
Only desperate an ignorant evoTARDs would think science is decided in a Court of Law.
IC still remains as evidence for ID and all you can do is stomp and scream
--------------
"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
|
