RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,03:11   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 03 2007,00:07)
Demsbki upset with anti-ID book:

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/cambridge-house-press-not-to-be-confused-with-cambridge-university-press-publishes-adolesc


ent-critique-of-id/]http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....e-of-id[/URL]

 
Quote
This book takes the level invective, namecalling, and sexual obsession (while abnegating intellectual content) among our Darwinist critics to a new low. But the important question here is, can they go still lower? I’d like to encourage P. Z. Myers to try his hand at a full-length book treatment of ID.



Not enough farting in it, Bill?

Bourne adds:  
Quote
Alston is not a scientist… but as a licensed psychologist it is clear that he needs to get his head examined by one more competent than himself.


So, psychologists are not allowed to comment on ID coz it's science, but engineers know more about biology then biologists?

But Bourne does get one thing right, but fails to remember "if the cap fits"
Quote
When they have nothing left but imprecations, bitterness, perversions and “threatenings and slaughter” to spit, they’re pretty much washed up.


Another lamp for your projector sir?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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