RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2013,04:20   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 22 2013,01:03)
   
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 21 2013,09:27)
KD wants evidence:          
Quote
Until Matzke actually starts doing science by itemizing the list of proteins required for a simple light sensitive spot, and then itemizing the list of proteins required for fully developed vertebrate eye, and then provides a testable method to go from list A to list B, Matzke hasn’t even begun to refute Thorley [sic!], or to defend a darwinian process, or to even do science. Matzke confuses creative story telling, combined with dodging and evading the core issues, with doing science.


KD, you are letting Nick Matzke off the hook way too soon. We want the process itemized atom for atom, complete with the probability calculation.

In the meantime, try to memorize the spelling of your friend's name.

By the same token, if ID wants to be thought of as a science instead of a particularly poorly thought out branch of apologetics, then ID had damn well better come up with a list of proteins required for a simple light sensitive spot, an itemized list of proteins required for a fully developed vertebrate eye and a testable method to go from list A to List B.  If ID can't provide that, then ID hasn't even begun to support Tholey [sic!], or to refute a darwinian process or even do science.  ID confuses very uncreative story telling, combined with dodging, misunderstanding the core issues, evading the core issues anyway and settling all "scientific" disputes with a bangasm with doing science.


Honestly, people, don't let the bastards get away with this crap.  When they demand knowledge that they know can't be obtained, turn around and demand that THEY produce that same evidence or we will consider THEIR side of the argument to be piss-poor apologetics and not science.

And if they dare to object, just mention sauce, goose and gander and demand they answer your question or stop demanding that we answer it.

I would like to see a definitive and proven genealogy from every one of these bastards. I'm not going to be picky, so I'll accept 1000 years. If they fail to provide such, I'll know they are descended from the aliens who landed in Lisbon in the 1700's, and I'll blast the fuckers with my home-made cosmic ray-gun. Same goes for you evolutionists, so you can wipe that smirk off your faces. Start genealogisin'.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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