Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 522 523 524 525 526 [527] 528 529 530 531 532 ... >

djmullen Posts: 327 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,00:17    Which reminds me - were those parasitic candiru fish really designed?

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,00:19    Quote (djmullen @ June 15 2007,00:17) Which reminds me - were those parasitic candiru fish really designed? I'm not telling. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,00:34    Quote (djmullen @ June 15 2007,00:17) Which reminds me - were those parasitic candiru fish really designed? I think that's another one of those 'malevolent design' things Behe was alluding to, along with malaria and the prostate. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,02:55    Dumbski has a go, he thinks he's hard enough.   Quote But the evidence for attaining via sequential mutations the types of systems Behe considers is nil. The Darwinists have no step-by-step detailed testable scenarios for evolutionary processes attaining such systems. Stepwise mutational pathways to such systems for now exist only in Coyne’s imagination and that of his fellow Darwinists On the plus side, how you look is now fair game. what a pathetic attempt. More street theatre Dr Dr Dr Dembski? Davescot chimes in too:   Quote Coyne and his chance worshipping peers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock is gradualism and the hard place is Haldane’s Dilemma. As gradualism gets more gradual Haldane’s Dilemma gets more difficult to overcome - there’s a limit to the number of mutations that can become fixed. As gradualism gets less gradual then the improbability of simultaneous beneficial mutations becomes more difficult to overcome. A truly classic example of being stuck between a rock and a hard place! Dover DS? Dover. Rock and hard place indeed. And anyway, his entire comment is about "chance worshippers". What I want to know is at what point the designer decided to intervene and create some "simultaneous beneficial mutations" because at this point we've got zero IDea of what the IDiots are proposing if "simultaneous beneficial mutations" are impossible under naturalistic circumstances. Link, if you can take high level tard anyways. -------------- 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

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,03:54    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 15 2007,03:17) Someday you may discover the Silence of Dignified Contempt for yourself. I *would* reply to that post but..... Louis ;) -------------- Bye.

franky172 Posts: 160 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,08:44    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 15 2007,02:55) Dumbski has a go, he thinks he's hard enough.     Quote But the evidence for attaining via sequential mutations the types of systems Behe considers is nil. The Darwinists have no step-by-step detailed testable scenarios for evolutionary processes attaining such systems. Stepwise mutational pathways to such systems for now exist only in Coyne’s imagination and that of his fellow Darwinists On the plus side, how you look is now fair game. what a pathetic attempt. More street theatre Dr Dr Dr Dembski? Davescot chimes in too:     Quote Coyne and his chance worshipping peers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock is gradualism and the hard place is Haldane’s Dilemma. As gradualism gets more gradual Haldane’s Dilemma gets more difficult to overcome - there’s a limit to the number of mutations that can become fixed. As gradualism gets less gradual then the improbability of simultaneous beneficial mutations becomes more difficult to overcome. A truly classic example of being stuck between a rock and a hard place! Dover DS? Dover. Rock and hard place indeed. And anyway, his entire comment is about "chance worshippers". What I want to know is at what point the designer decided to intervene and create some "simultaneous beneficial mutations" because at this point we've got zero IDea of what the IDiots are proposing if "simultaneous beneficial mutations" are impossible under naturalistic circumstances. Link, if you can take high level tard anyways. I like this: Quote But the evidence for attaining via sequential mutations the types of systems Behe considers is nil. The Darwinists have no step-by-step detailed testable scenarios for evolutionary processes attaining such systems. Stepwise mutational pathways to such systems for now exist only in Coyne’s imagination and that of his fellow Darwinists. Wasn't their just a paper published (PNAS?) that analyzed all the pathways to a genome that had several mutations and found 20 paths by which all the mutations were beneficial? Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,09:10    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 15 2007,02:55) Dumbski has a go, he thinks he's hard enough.     what a pathetic attempt. More street theatre Dr Dr Dr Dembski? Uh.... Check out the identical schnoz, the general shape of their faces, the prominent forehead, the neanderthal brow ridge, the dangerous chins (merely a spandrel, as it turns out)... WAD: Herman Munster WAS in fact designed. See what you get? [Edit: I'd probably loose my job if I had Photoshop installed on my laptop...] -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,09:33    SCheesman   Quote I think a better analogy for a working protein is a key to unlock a door. You can’t gradually evolve a key, one tumbler at a time, and depend on the improved “door-opening ability” as a guide to finding the right key. It's call lockpicking, e.g. by torque and raking — one locking pin at a time. More specficially, viruses evolve a key to unlock the cell membrane, and so gain control of the cell. Lock-and-key mechanisms usually co-evolve. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

jujuquisp Posts: 129 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,10:02    Dembski is such an ass.  Now he's making fun of people's appearances?  I'm sure Jesus gave him prior approval to do it.  These guys are more ridiculous than anyone could ever imagine.  Pathetic.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,10:13    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 15 2007,02:55)     Quote But the evidence for attaining via sequential mutations the types of systems Behe considers is nil. The Darwinists have no step-by-step detailed testable scenarios for evolutionary processes attaining such systems. Stepwise mutational pathways to such systems for now exist only in Coyne’s imagination and that of his fellow Darwinists Jesus fucking Christ - On a stick...when is Dembski's birthday?  Somebody needs to get him an "Idiots Guide On How to Write".  WTF?  How in the hell did someone with his total lack of writing skillz get double doctored?   Oh.  Sorry for the rant, I started to say Happy Birthday, and got distracted by The Tard.  And when I was 24 living in The Cave, we had to go out and work at the Bedrock Quarry, and stop our cars with our bare feet... -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,11:32    I'm sure ID has a perfectly good explanation for the candiru. Quote ... and God saw that it was good. But on the evening of the sixth day, God saw a grievous lack, though he knew not what of.  After much perspication, God saweth the need of a small parasitic fish that could swim deep into any human orifice, and therein stick itself with permanence.  God said, let it be, and it was, and God saw that it was very good. And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.  ... And on the seventh day he rested.

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,13:08    Hey Sal Cordova made the top post on ScienceBlogs! Sal Cordova Quote Mines Nature (I'm shocked!) -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,13:29    Quote (jujuquisp @ June 15 2007,10:02) Dembski is such an ass.  Now he's making fun of people's appearances?  I'm sure Jesus gave him prior approval to do it.  These guys are more ridiculous than anyone could ever imagine.  Pathetic. ROTFLMAO!!!!  Are you serious? The posters here make it their mission in life to make fun of people and their appearances!   Shoot, I actually got after Dembski once for the puppet show thing with JJ, but I'll never do that again after being exposed to this particular site!   So, are you saying that Jesus would think it is bad to rip people apart and make fun of them?  Do you think it is bad to do that to people?  Or are you saying it's completely okay to treat people like dirt unless you are a Christian because Christians have this thing about morals.   Always cracks me up with someone mentions Dembski's "street theatre" when, in truth, he rarely does that kind of thing.  OTOH, you people make it a daily occurance. Weird.  I guess you're admitting that morals are in the eye of the beholder, and as long as the crap is being slung from your side, it's okay...because you guys don't believe in that Jesus guy...morals are relative.  You can do and say whatever you want. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Shirley Knott Posts: 148 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,13:35    Are you KIDDING?? Jesus does NOT think its bad to rip people apart and hurt them.  After all, he sends all the ones who don't kiss his ass to hell for an eternity of punishment. What could possibly warrant that kind of treatment? What kind of monster would do this? How could any sane person *worship* this monster?? no hugs for thugs, Shirley Knott

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,13:47    Quote Jesus does NOT think its bad to rip people apart and hurt them.  After all, he sends all the ones who don't kiss his ass to hell for an eternity of punishment. How in the hell do you equate believing that He was sent to earth to suffer and die for the sins of all, and in turn we are merely asked to accept the gift with "ass kissing"?  That's it - that's ALL the "ass kissing" we have to do.   Hideous request, isn't it?!!  Horrible!  Devastating!  An impossible request!! -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,13:49    Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,13:29) Quote (jujuquisp @ June 15 2007,10:02) Dembski is such an ass.  Now he's making fun of people's appearances?  I'm sure Jesus gave him prior approval to do it.  These guys are more ridiculous than anyone could ever imagine.  Pathetic. ROTFLMAO!!!!  Are you serious? The posters here make it their mission in life to make fun of people and their appearances!   Shoot, I actually got after Dembski once for the puppet show thing with JJ, but I'll never do that again after being exposed to this particular site!   So, are you saying that Jesus would think it is bad to rip people apart and make fun of them?  Do you think it is bad to do that to people?  Or are you saying it's completely okay to treat people like dirt unless you are a Christian because Christians have this thing about morals.   Always cracks me up with someone mentions Dembski's "street theatre" when, in truth, he rarely does that kind of thing.  OTOH, you people make it a daily occurance. Weird.  I guess you're admitting that morals are in the eye of the beholder, and as long as the crap is being slung from your side, it's okay...because you guys don't believe in that Jesus guy...morals are relative.  You can do and say whatever you want. Guess what Ftk, you have said something that I slightly agree with. There is a lot of jeering at the apearances of IDists done on this site. However, most of it was done in response to crazy claims/posts by said IDists. The long string of personal atacks agains DS began after Dave made some incredibly bragging posts about himself as a stud who had other mens wives begging him to impregnate them. Dembski got the same sort of treatment after his Judge Jones fart animation. The "street theatre" that people refer to was to do with Dembski making wild-assed claims about Judge Jones and his ruling suposedly in order to get other people to do his work for him. That man is a snake Ftk. His history is nothing to be proud of or aspire to.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,13:50    Let's keep this thread about bashing or defending Dembski, not bashing or defending Jesus.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,13:52    Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,13:47) Quote Jesus does NOT think its bad to rip people apart and hurt them.  After all, he sends all the ones who don't kiss his ass to hell for an eternity of punishment. How in the hell do you equate believing that He was sent to earth to suffer and die for the sins of all, and in turn we are merely asked to accept the gift?  That's it - that's ALL the "ass kissing" we have to do.   Hideous request, isn't it?!!  Horrible!  Devastating!  An impossible request!! FTK -  Accepting the "gift" as you say, is the tip of the iceberg, or, put it another way, it's a wedge to somewhere I don't choose to go.   I also seem to recall some old story about a BIG horse, with Greeks inside of it... I don't thnik the Trojans were all that happy about their "gift" either! -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:05    Oh, BS, Stephen.  Dembski has nothing to be ashamed of at all.  Even if DaveScot is a jerk to some of you at times, I can't imagine that he is actually the one who turned this place into a pit of spewing ridicule toward those you disagree with.  I mean, do you actually think that people take this place seriously?  Shoot, that's why I could care less of what you people say about my views.  Reasonable people reading some of the stuff on this forum might get a few laughs, but when they consider the attitudes of the posters here, it's abundantly clear where the anger at ID stems from.   Know what else?  I don't think you were ever probably as strong an ID supporter as you believe you might have been.  If you were, you'd consider Behe's new book with more interest.  From what I've always understood about Behe, he believes the same thing you and Wesley supposedly believe.  That there is a designer, and that common descent and evolution are pretty much "fact". It's the "edge" of evolution that is in question here.  That is what ID is about, and you seem to fail to understand that. You and Wesley have no reason to reject ID other than perhaps you don't want to consider how evolutionary mechanisms started working on that first microbe, and exactly what they are actually cabable of.  Why the fear of trying to find out? -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:13    Quote ROTFLMAO!!!!  Are you serious? The posters here make it their mission in life to make fun of people and their appearances! The difference, dearie, is that we're the G.D. peanut gallery. Look at steve's avatar, fer chrissake. This thread exists for the purpose of making fun of the people we disagree with. Public figures have no recourse against satire, and fools like DaveScot, Cordova, and Dembski, like it or not, have asked, begged, to become public figures. Be careful what you ask for. But Dembski is (nominally) Jerry Coyne's peer, and he's making juvenile smears based on possibly the least relevant topic available --his personal appearance! In what is (again, nominally) an academic dispute! I don't think you have an appreciation for just how pathetic that makes Dembski look to serious scholars. He knows that he's a laughingstock, clearly. Anyone with any degree of dignity as a professional academic would refrain from such japes in public. So, just what are you saying, ftk? That Dembski's position is equivalent to one of us nobodies on the nets, making jokes and blowing off steam? Fine. Then why does anybody give an effing Falwell for the tard? He's just another poo-flinging idiot with a laptop and an axe to grind, so shut up. Or, are you saying that Dembski's outings into street theater, however rare, make some valid contribution to the discussion? That you think Jerry Coyne's appearance is a salient point, worthy of consideration? How you manage to be so self-righteous while not even maintaining a coherent point is beyond me. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:17    Quote FTK -  Accepting the "gift" as you say, is the tip of the iceberg, or, put it another way, it's a wedge to somewhere I don't choose to go. No, it's not the "tip of the iceberg".  It's the whole shebang.  If it's not, then I'm headed directly to hell.  I've screwed up time and time again...part of life.  Heck, I could make a list of the stuff I did just yesterday that was pretty shitty.  We all recognize the crap we do that is immoral and may lead to problems in our lives, and that's the point - we inherently know what is expected of us.   That is why Christ did what He did for us. That doesn't mean that I just go out and screw up continuously then ask for forgiveness and go back to it.  I recognize it and try to stop because I know that is what He would have me do.  Stopping has always made my life much easier...not because of guilt or fear of God's "wrath", but because the "rules" were meant as guidelines as to the best way to live a happy, healthy life. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:21    Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,14:05) Oh, BS, Stephen.  Dembski has nothing to be ashamed of at all.  Even if DaveScot is a jerk to some of you at times, I can't imagine that he is actually the one who turned this place into a pit of spewing ridicule toward those you disagree with.  I mean, do you actually think that people take this place seriously?  Shoot, that's why I could care less of what you people say about my views.  Reasonable people reading some of the stuff on this forum might get a few laughs, but when they consider the attitudes of the posters here, it's abundantly clear where the anger at ID stems from.   Know what else?  I don't think you were ever probably as strong an ID supporter as you believe you might have been.  If you were, you'd consider Behe's new book with more interest.  From what I've always understood about Behe, he believes the same thing you and Wesley supposedly believe.  That there is a designer, and that common descent and evolution are pretty much "fact". It's the "edge" of evolution that is in question here.  That is what ID is about, and you seem to fail to understand that. You and Wesley have no reason to reject ID other than perhaps you don't want to consider how evolutionary mechanisms started working on that first microbe, and exactly what they are actually cabable of.  Why the fear of trying to find out? Wow! Please Ftk tell me that you have heard of the wedge document. That completely blows ID out of the water as science. It is a totally religious/political movement. Nothing else. FGS they had already decided what they was going to discover before doing any research. Open your eyes. As for my ID strength of support. I wanted to believe in God (I still do) and thought on first glance that ID had something to offer. So I swallowed it. If you do not believe me why not try this. Actually follow the evidence. Do that and you will not support ID for long. Tell ya what Ftk. You tell me what the theory of ID is. What are it's claims and how can it be falsified? Do you have a clue about what science actually is Ftk? That is not an insult BTW as I didn't before joining this debate. There is no-way that ID is science, it fails at the first hurdle. Look, you are probably a nice person in real life and probably concerned about bringing up your kids etc. Most of us are. But you are getting things mixed up. Personaly I do not have a problem with teaching religion provided it is taught as religion. I do have a problem with teaching religion as science.

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:22    Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,14:05) Oh, BS, Stephen.  Dembski has nothing to be ashamed of at all.  Even if DaveScot is a jerk to some of you at times, I can't imagine that he is actually the one who turned this place into a pit of spewing ridicule toward those you disagree with.  I mean, do you actually think that people take this place seriously?  Shoot, that's why I could care less of what you people say about my views.  Reasonable people reading some of the stuff on this forum might get a few laughs, but when they consider the attitudes of the posters here, it's abundantly clear where the anger at ID stems from.   Know what else?  I don't think you were ever probably as strong an ID supporter as you believe you might have been.  If you were, you'd consider Behe's new book with more interest.  From what I've always understood about Behe, he believes the same thing you and Wesley supposedly believe.  That there is a designer, and that common descent and evolution are pretty much "fact". It's the "edge" of evolution that is in question here.  That is what ID is about, and you seem to fail to understand that. You and Wesley have no reason to reject ID other than perhaps you don't want to consider how evolutionary mechanisms started working on that first microbe, and exactly what they are actually cabable of.  Why the fear of trying to find out? You see, FTK, that is the difference, as had as it may be for you to understand, between ID and science. We don't shut off our minds and blindly agree with someone just because they say a few other things we like. Behe is wrong - so wrong the only real possibility left open is he is intentionally lying, given his past. (DaveScot and Dembski are ignorant - Behe has no excuse) The reason we know that is, unlike you, we actually checked out his reasoning, despite his acceptance of common decent and evolution (But only when its convenient for him). I know this goes against everything in the ID movement - but you might want to try it sometime. We certainly didn't get where we are today by being uncritical - Kepler and Newton had some nutty ideas that we reject, despite the fact that both are important figures in modern physics. So, ID is now about shoving god into every imaginary gap in evolution, is it? Why hasn't Dembski changed his websites name, I wonder? UD seems to imply pretty forcefully that ID supports neither common descent or evolution. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:28    Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,14:05) Oh, BS, Stephen.  Dembski has nothing to be ashamed of at all... I can hardly believe I missed that. If you paid somebody about 150K for some work several years ago and that guy had done some work and sold it for personal gain and had yet to do the work that you commisioned, how would you feel? FFS open those eyes.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:31    Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2007,13:50) Let's keep this thread about bashing or defending Dembski, not bashing or defending Jesus. WTF? Jesus doesn't send folks to hell, Dembski does. Have you ever seen the SNL hosted by Paul Simon? Where he feels sick and gets on an elevator? His songs are playing over the speakers in muzak form? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:31    Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ June 15 2007,14:13) Quote ROTFLMAO!!!!  Are you serious? The posters here make it their mission in life to make fun of people and their appearances! The difference, dearie, is that we're the G.D. peanut gallery. Look at steve's avatar, fer chrissake. This thread exists for the purpose of making fun of the people we disagree with. Public figures have no recourse against satire, and fools like DaveScot, Cordova, and Dembski, like it or not, have asked, begged, to become public figures. Be careful what you ask for. But Dembski is (nominally) Jerry Coyne's peer, and he's making juvenile smears based on possibly the least relevant topic available --his personal appearance! In what is (again, nominally) an academic dispute! I don't think you have an appreciation for just how pathetic that makes Dembski look to serious scholars. He knows that he's a laughingstock, clearly. Anyone with any degree of dignity as a professional academic would refrain from such japes in public. So, just what are you saying, ftk? That Dembski's position is equivalent to one of us nobodies on the nets, making jokes and blowing off steam? Fine. Then why does anybody give an effing Falwell for the tard? He's just another poo-flinging idiot with a laptop and an axe to grind, so shut up. Or, are you saying that Dembski's outings into street theater, however rare, make some valid contribution to the discussion? That you think Jerry Coyne's appearance is a salient point, worthy of consideration? How you manage to be so self-righteous while not even maintaining a coherent point is beyond me. Conner, Are you saying that Dembski should be held to a higher standard because he is an academic and a serious scholar?    Holey comoly, buddy.   So, you're saying that all the posters here are just a bunch of dopes?  What about those who post at PT?  Dopes as well?  I've seen some real wing dingers posted over there that are filled with ridicule and personal attacks. When Dembski writes papers or articles, I've never seen him act unprofessionally.  He wrote about the topic in question on his blog, just like everyone else writes crap about people on their blogs.  Look at PZ's blog for God's sakes.   Guess you're saying he's an unprofessional shmuck as well. Personally, I don't like it when Dembski pulls this stuff, but he doesn't hold a candle to the guys from your side.  And, I can't imagine it's easy to just let you jerks blast him continuously...take a look at LOLcreationists for just a very small taste of what I'm refering to. A MIRROR IS ALWAYS HELPFUL, PEOPLE...   If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:38    Quote As for my ID strength of support. I wanted to believe in God (I still do) and thought on first glance that ID had something to offer. So I swallowed it. If you do not believe me why not try this. Actually follow the evidence. Do that and you will not support ID for long. Hold the phone here a second.  Are you saying that you don't believe in God?  That you merely "want" to believe in God?  So, you were looking toward ID to give you the proof you would like to find in order to believe in God?  That may answer a few questions I initially had about you.   If you're looking toward ID to PROVE God, then you're right, you're looking in the wrong place, IMO. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:40    Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,14:05) I mean, do you actually think that people take this place seriously?  Shoot, that's why I could care less of what you people say about my views. And you will keep coming back here forever, if it takes that long, to tell us that you don't care what we think of you. Is that it? For what it is worth, I happen to agree with you that criticising Dembski for making fun of how someone looks is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  But, I have to say that I am forming a less-than-charitable opinion about why you stay here.  Just the other day you made the following statement:     Quote     Quote Second, I'm just one of those people who has a really hard time watching people say stuff about me that is completely incorrect without mentioning that fact to them.  I have no idea how other people can allow you guys to rake them through the coals without comment. Third, I tried to get out of here early on, but people kept bringing up stuff from my blog that I couldn't just let go by without comment. If our little den of iniquity here is so insignificant, you might want to ask yourself why you can't just ignore us?Why is it so important to address the inconsequential opinions of the participants here?     Quote Reasonable people reading some of the stuff on this forum might get a few laughs, but when they consider the attitudes of the posters here, it's abundantly clear where the anger at ID stems from.   Let me guess. We all hate Christians and we have to make fun of them because we are afraid they are right?  And if any of the participants here claim to be Christians, well, they obviously can't be true Christians.  Have I got that right?     Quote It's the "edge" of evolution that is in question here.  That is what ID is about, and you seem to fail to understand that. Wait a second.  I thought ID was about design detection?  When did they change?  Can you forward me the memo?     Quote You and Wesley have no reason to reject ID other than perhaps you don't want to consider how evolutionary mechanisms started working on that first microbe, and exactly what they are actually cabable of.  Why the fear of trying to find out? As long as I have been here, I have never detected any fear about "finding out" from any of the participants, theists and atheists alike.  What I see, though, is a dedication to the process of science and ire at those who co-opt the good name of science to serve a theological agenda. And, you want to know who I think fears the discovery of those mechanisms the most?  Dembski and his crew, that is who.  ID is only about design detection.  The identity, motives, and methods of the Designer are completely off-limits.  They can't get away from that question fast enough. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:44    Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,14:38) Quote As for my ID strength of support. I wanted to believe in God (I still do) and thought on first glance that ID had something to offer. So I swallowed it. If you do not believe me why not try this. Actually follow the evidence. Do that and you will not support ID for long. Hold the phone here a second.  Are you saying that you don't believe in God?  That you merely "want" to believe in God?  So, you were looking toward ID to give you the proof you would like to find in order to believe in God?  That may answer a few questions I initially had about you.   If you're looking toward ID to PROVE God, then you're right, you're looking in the wrong place, IMO. I was saying that I want to believe in God. I thought that ID had scientific evidence of God and ID was found wanting. My belief in God is not scientific and it is probably not what you would call belief. Rephrase. I want a loving God to exist. I hope one does. But that is not a scientific claim/belief. It is religious. There is a difference.

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:45    Quote So, you're saying that all the posters here are just a bunch of dopes?  What about those who post at PT?  Dopes as well? I'm saying, hypocrite, that we are (mostly) ordinary folks taking snipes at public figures. Do you contest that public figures have an obligation to stay above that kind of fray or be considered by their rivals beneath serious consideration? Obviously, I don't think I'm "just a dope," but I can also recognize that satire and ridicule are not serious entries into the debate, and I don't particularly think anyone should attach any importance to my posts when they're clearly not intended as anything other than humor. I can have very little real effect on this "controversy," for all my amateur interest in it. Dembski, as a professional charlatan and a first-rate pseudo-intellectual, has a following. He has a responsibility, as the nominal leader of a creationist faction, to represent these people seriously with the kind of consideration their fervent belief warrants. That he cannot even be bothered to do this tells me he doesn't think any more of the rubes who continue to hang on his every word than he does of his own place in history. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Pages: (1000) < ... 522 523 524 525 526 [527] 528 529 530 531 532 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard