Joined: July 2006
Gordon in response to this
|In science, if your explanation is better than the last, you should be able to show it, and no one is willing to do so here.|
|25 –> An outright fabrication in the teeth of explicit explanation, analysis and evidence. If you suppress, deny, distort and reject the truth in the teeth of patient and repeated pointing out, what are you?|
Some more amusing snippets:
|31 –> If by “evolution” you mean to use the usual slippery slope extrapolation from minor, empirically supported changes well within the FSCI limit, to the grand metaphysically controlled materialist narrative, then we call your bluff, KL.|
|35 –> An anthroplogist blinded and constrained by a priori evolutionary materialism and refusing to address the question of cogently explaining the origin of functionally specific complex bio-information is part of the problem, not a part of the solution.|
|38 –> This is so far beyond the gamut of the search capacity of the observed cosmos, that it cannot be explained on that scope, much less jumping up an ape — Lucy and kin, for argument — on the plains of E Africa over the past 6 – 10 MN years.|
39 –> By sharpest contrast, given that we already see genetic engineering in action, a molecular nanotech lab a few generations beyond Venter’s would be a very reasonable explanation, if we wanted a simple alternative model.
|44 –> What they can do, is construct just so stores that are plausible to those locked in an evo mat circle of thought|
|45 –> There is nothing about living or fossil body plans, or generally used timelines, that does not fit in a design paradigm. This is a brazen turnabout rhetorical tactic, as the pivotal issue is precisely the failure to explain sudden emergence, stasis and disappearances as the general pattern of the fossils, and to explain the source of the required FSCO/I to support said fossils, on eh part of the reigning orthodoxy.|
|46 –> Moderation for cause [whether automatic by Akismet in an age of spam and worse, or manually by the judgement of moderators] is not censorship, and there is every advantage to having a conversation take the time to be analytical rather than hasty and hot >>|
Moderation is for your own good!
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand