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... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 431 432 433 434 435 [436] 437 438 439 440 441 ... >

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,17:26    Thank you, Mr Gaulin. "Clues to the origin of intelligent living things are found in rudimentary molecular systems such as self-replicating RNA. Since these are single macromolecules that can self-learn they are more precisely examples of “Unimolecular Intelligence”, as opposed to “Molecular Intelligence”, which may contain millions of molecules all working together as one, to self-replicate." So "unimolecular intelligence" only applies to single molecules as opposed molecular intelligence which applies to complex assemblies of molecules? A number of questions; 1. What are the "clues" you refer to and how do we identify them? 2. How do they "self-learn"? Read chemistry books? 3. What is the difference between a "unimolecule" and a molecule I still see nothing but bald assertions without any test data or experimentation to even attempt to explain how the molecules (singular and complex) assemble themselves "intelligently " into "intelligence". Or do you just mean the laws of Physics and Chemistry are the "intelligence"?

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,17:27    Gary, we've all seen it, or minor variations of it.  It's drivel.  Everyone who's seen it agrees it's drivel -- at best. It has zero supporting evidence, it contradicts known facts, it explains nothing. Where some relationship to reality can be extracted from the steaming heap of tortured verbiage, it fails to address necessary conditions as opposed to sufficient or merely accidental conditions. Go back to page 1 of this thread and re-read it.  This time around, pay attention.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,17:32    And by the way ChemiCat, this information that appears under your name indicates that you are not being truthful in regards to why you came to this forum: Quote ChemiCat Posts: 3 Joined: Nov. 2013 Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 05 2015,08:51) A bit of background about why I came to this forum. I am an ex-chemist with a grounding in organic analysis. [b]I stumbled across the phrase "molecular intelligence" and came here to see this new research into an area of chemistry of which I hadn't heard.[b] -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,17:33    Thanks NoName. I have read some of the 400+ pages of this forum(not all as I have better things to do with my time) and I think I realise that Mr. Gaulin knows nothing about chemistry, physics or biology. The "extract" he gives in his reply to me is a large number of random words thrown together to sound sciency, nothing more.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,17:33    BTW, if a trained chemist can't make sense of your drivel, the fault certainly lies with you and your, ahem, inadequate verbal skills. This does point up yet again the contradiction between your claims -- is it K-12 level or is it beyond the level of a PhD? Clearly, it's whichever better suits your rhetorical needs of the moment.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,17:33    And by the way ChemiCat, this information that appears under your name indicates that you are not being truthful in regards to why you came to this forum:   Quote ChemiCat Posts: 3 Joined: Nov. 2013   Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 05 2015,08:51) A bit of background about why I came to this forum. I am an ex-chemist with a grounding in organic analysis. I stumbled across the phrase "molecular intelligence" and came here to see this new research into an area of chemistry of which I hadn't heard. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,17:40    "And by the way ChemiCat, this information that appears under your name indicates that you are not being truthful in regards to why you came to this forum:" And why is this not the truth, Mr Gaulin? I did join this forum in 2013 because that is when I came across your, very misleading, phrase "molecular intelligence". How is this dishonest? I have not posted a lot to this forum because I was waiting to see whether your claims were anything more than hot air from a creationist. They aren't. I await your apology and retraction.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,17:49    Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 05 2015,17:40) I have not posted a lot to this forum because I was waiting to see whether your claims were anything more than hot air from a creationist. They aren't. I await your apology and retraction. I owe you nothing. Good day... -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,18:44    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,17:49) Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 05 2015,17:40) I have not posted a lot to this forum because I was waiting to see whether your claims were anything more than hot air from a creationist. They aren't. I await your apology and retraction. I owe you nothing. Good day... Yep, pusillanimous swine often fail to recognize when they are in the wrong. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,18:49    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2015,18:44) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,17:49) Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 05 2015,17:40) I have not posted a lot to this forum because I was waiting to see whether your claims were anything more than hot air from a creationist. They aren't. I await your apology and retraction. I owe you nothing. Good day... Yep, pusillanimous swine often fail to recognize when they are in the wrong. Oh go play with your Avida. You are so biased you should shut-up before you get yourself in even more trouble. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,18:51    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,18:49) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2015,18:44) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,17:49)   Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 05 2015,17:40) I have not posted a lot to this forum because I was waiting to see whether your claims were anything more than hot air from a creationist. They aren't. I await your apology and retraction. I owe you nothing. Good day... Yep, pusillanimous swine often fail to recognize when they are in the wrong. Oh go play with your Avida. You are so biased you should shut-up before you get yourself in even more trouble. Unless of course you are throwing insults at ChemiCat, but I doubt it. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,19:08    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,18:51) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,18:49) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2015,18:44)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,17:49)   Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 05 2015,17:40) I have not posted a lot to this forum because I was waiting to see whether your claims were anything more than hot air from a creationist. They aren't. I await your apology and retraction. I owe you nothing. Good day... Yep, pusillanimous swine often fail to recognize when they are in the wrong. Oh go play with your Avida. You are so biased you should shut-up before you get yourself in even more trouble. Unless of course you are throwing insults at ChemiCat, but I doubt it. Hahaha!  Gary makes a stupid mistake, gets called on it, acts like an asshole instead of being an adult, then tries again for "suicide by cop" from Wes. Weren't you in mid-flounce, Gary? -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,19:23    None of these adversaries can even explain how intelligence works. So they have to throw insults at those who can, in order to make it look like they don't need to, for them to claim to be an expert in how intelligence works. Welcome to what they call "science". The reality is nothing like is taught in the public schools. The truth is that vested interests normally come first. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,19:50    Oh and I wanted to mention to everyone that "science journals" are from an bygone era, before there was the internet. Printed journals/magazines were once the only way to communicate science discoveries and theories. Any comments to what was printed had to be published in the next journal/magazine.  That is of course if the publisher wants to. What we are in part seeing in this forum is an effort to keep things the way they were in the old days. That same reliance on publishers can be seen in ChemiCat's statement "So, Mr Gaulin, are you going to test this assertion and publish your test results as evidence so that we can verify them?" I am up against an industry that is trying to maintain control of science. And with the way funding works I'm not even allowed to be granted the funds I needed to continue my science work. So I'm stuck in the middle of a scam where vested interests come first, not science. This should help explain why those who have no vested interests to protect (and are able to understand how the computer model works) are not this way at all. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,19:51    Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 05 2015,17:08) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,18:51) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,18:49)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2015,18:44)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,17:49)     Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 05 2015,17:40) I have not posted a lot to this forum because I was waiting to see whether your claims were anything more than hot air from a creationist. They aren't. I await your apology and retraction. I owe you nothing. Good day... Yep, pusillanimous swine often fail to recognize when they are in the wrong. Oh go play with your Avida. You are so biased you should shut-up before you get yourself in even more trouble. Unless of course you are throwing insults at ChemiCat, but I doubt it. Hahaha!  Gary makes a stupid mistake, gets called on it, acts like an asshole instead of being an adult, then tries again for "suicide by cop" from Wes. Weren't you in mid-flounce, Gary? "I'm leaving... wait, what? Someone else is paying attention to me, even if just to call me an idiot? Okay, I'll stay." -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,19:55    And please excuse the typos. I have other work that I need to finish before tomorrow. I have to type out my thoughts as fast as I can. In the process of changing words to be more precise I sometimes end up with "an bygone" instead of "a bygone" like it should be. And of course those with vested interests use that against me too. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,20:10    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,20:23) None of these adversaries can even explain how intelligence works. So they have to throw insults at those who can, in order to make it look like they don't need to, for them to claim to be an expert in how intelligence works. Welcome to what they call "science". The reality is nothing like is taught in the public schools. The truth is that vested interests normally come first. But Gary, you can't explain how intelligence works. Heck, you can't even try. We've given you quite a list of unquestionably intelligent acts that your "theory" excludes in principle from being intelligent acts. Game over, you've been refuted. It's sad to see you still trying to run the old lie that until or unless someone can actually do what you only lie about, your lies have to be accepted as if they were true. Even you don't believe that or you'd be all over Postrada's stuff. Some day, if you work really really hard, you might rise to the level of pathetic.  So far you even fail at that.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,20:23    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 06 2015,03:55) And please excuse the typos. I have other work that I need to finish before tomorrow. I have to type out my thoughts as fast as I can. In the process of changing words to be more precise I sometimes end up with "an bygone" instead of "a bygone" like it should be. And of course those with vested interests use that against me too. Good grief man your whole output is a frikken "typo". If you believe that anyone here cares that you misspelled an 'a' then you are crazy as well as demented. Gary shit or get off the pot. Since you believe your nonsense start teaching it in schools instead of coming here and disagreeing with us religious scientific destroyers...... Oh wait........YOU'RE DIFFERENT YOU USE YOUR REAL NAME You're just an attention whore Gary. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,20:39    And yes, some of these people are mentally ill. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,21:48    You are just piling up lots of little errors that indicate that you prefer to think of things they way you want them to be, rather than dealing with the actual facts on the ground: Quote Oh and I wanted to mention to everyone that "science journals" are from an bygone era, before there was the internet. Printed journals/magazines were once the only way to communicate science discoveries and theories. And books, and presentations at meetings, and (back in Darwin's day), lots of letters to colleagues, so wrong again. Quote Any comments to what was printed had to be published in the next journal/magazine. Wrong again.  If the comments were questions asked at the meeting, they were generally printed along with the text of the talk. Quote That is of course if the publisher wants to.  Some publishers work that way, but in other cases the publisher publishes whatever the society and its editors tell them too. Quote What we are in part seeing in this forum is an effort to keep things the way they were in the old days. That same reliance on publishers can be seen in ChemiCat's statement "So, Mr Gaulin, are you going to test this assertion and publish your test results as evidence so that we can verify them?" He is calling for you to support your so-far-unsupported assertions.  Do some relevant tests, provide the details, and present the results. Quote I have to type out my thoughts as fast as I can. No, you have to think your thoughts more slowly, and then consider what might convince doubters of your conclusions.  Scientists test their ideas in order to see if they have any value and to justify reaching conclusions.  You want to skip all that and jump right to receiving adulation.  That's not going to happen. Then you have to present your reasoning in an understandable way.  You are trying to skip that part too. Quote Competent writers always examine what they have put down. Better-than-competent writers—good writers—examine their effects before they put them down: They think that way all the time. Bad writers never examine anything. Their inattentiveness to the detail of their prose is part and parcel of their inattentiveness to the detail of the outside world. Clive James. Quote “Write at a pace that doesn't surpass your creative flow. Don't be hasty; don't be sloppy. Richelle Goodrich.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,22:28    Writing letters to friends that can take a month or more to arrive and attending meetings where there is a small roomful of like minded people is also part of a bygone era, that does not work in the modern age of science. The ID Lab computer model(s) already proved that there is nothing wrong with the "theory of operation". Anyone who needs to dwell on perfect English grammar is no friend of science. That's just more of the "science journal" mentality that turned science into a writing contest. But of course the companies that charge researchers several thousand dollars to make papers acceptable to science journals have a good reason to like it that way. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2015,23:35    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,18:51) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,18:49)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2015,18:44)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,17:49)     Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 05 2015,17:40) I have not posted a lot to this forum because I was waiting to see whether your claims were anything more than hot air from a creationist. They aren't. I await your apology and retraction. I owe you nothing. Good day... Yep, pusillanimous swine often fail to recognize when they are in the wrong. Oh go play with your Avida. You are so biased you should shut-up before you get yourself in even more trouble. Unless of course you are throwing insults at ChemiCat, but I doubt it. Gary got something right; I'm not referring to ChemiCat. As for the rest, what trouble? Is Gary pestering Casey again? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,00:14    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 06 2015,07:35) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,18:51)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,18:49)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2015,18:44)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,17:49)     Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 05 2015,17:40) I have not posted a lot to this forum because I was waiting to see whether your claims were anything more than hot air from a creationist. They aren't. I await your apology and retraction. I owe you nothing. Good day... Yep, pusillanimous swine often fail to recognize when they are in the wrong. Oh go play with your Avida. You are so biased you should shut-up before you get yourself in even more trouble. Unless of course you are throwing insults at ChemiCat, but I doubt it. Gary got something right; I'm not referring to ChemiCat. As for the rest, what trouble? Is Gary pestering Casey again? I'm pretty sure Casey has a full diary or is about to rush to the airport every time Gary leaves a message on his answer phone. It wouldn't surprise me if Gary has a letter from Casey outlining the law on stalking. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,00:16    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 06 2015,04:39) And yes, some of these people are mentally ill. What? Do you have Schizophrenia as well as Paranoia? -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,05:15    Quote Writing letters to friends that can take a month or more to arrive and attending meetings where there is a small roomful of like minded people is also part of a bygone era, that does not work in the modern age of science. Absolutely, but you said that "printed journals/magazines" were the only way to communicate scientific results, and that's not true.  Also, books remain a valid means of publishing results.   Quote Anyone who needs to dwell on perfect English grammar is no friend of science. That's just more of the "science journal" mentality that turned science into a writing contest. But of course the companies that charge researchers several thousand dollars to make papers acceptable to science journals have a good reason to like it that way. I'm not asking for perfect grammar, but just comprehensible writing where the readers don't have to guess at what the heck you are trying to say several times per sentence.  However, your many additional minor quirks and errors are off-putting, to say the least, which interferes with you getting your message to your readers.  You want your readers thinking "now that's insightful" and "how interesting", not "what on earth is he talking about?" and "good grief, what a moron."

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,06:30    Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 06 2015,00:14) I'm pretty sure Casey has a full diary or is about to rush to the airport every time Gary leaves a message on his answer phone. Where did you read that I left a message for Casey on his answer phone? -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,06:38    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,23:28) ... The ID Lab computer model(s) already proved that there is nothing wrong with the "theory of operation". ... Bullshit. There are no particular connections between your software and your "theory".  There's no trace in the software of anything simulating 'molecular intelligence' nor 'cellular intelligence'.  The remainder falls square into the area where your "theory" is circular -- using elements of intelligence as 'explanations' for intelligence. Nor does your software 'guess' in a manner even remotely comparable to known cases of actual guesses performed in the real world. Even if, and this is a counter-factual conditional, your software demonstrated some level of intelligence, the most that would or could demonstrate is that you have identified sufficient conditions for the presence of intelligence. That's not good enough for the program you've laid out.   You need to identify the necessary conditions for intelligence.  We have already proven that that is not possible for your "theory" excludes many forms of intelligence.  Thus, your "theory" fails. That's really all you ever do, Gary.  You fail.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,06:40    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 06 2015,07:30) Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 06 2015,00:14) I'm pretty sure Casey has a full diary or is about to rush to the airport every time Gary leaves a message on his answer phone. Where did you read that I left a message for Casey on his answer phone? "Paranoia strikes deep, into your hear it will creep" You're so fond of music videos, find us a video of that song. Do note that the message you are reply to contained no claim that the author had read anywhere that you had left a message on Casey's answer phone. You really don't even understand speculation, the broader category of 'guess', do you?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,06:43    Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 06 2015,05:15) Quote Writing letters to friends that can take a month or more to arrive and attending meetings where there is a small roomful of like minded people is also part of a bygone era, that does not work in the modern age of science. Absolutely, but you said that "printed journals/magazines" were the only way to communicate scientific results, and that's not true.  Also, books remain a valid means of publishing results.   Quote Anyone who needs to dwell on perfect English grammar is no friend of science. That's just more of the "science journal" mentality that turned science into a writing contest. But of course the companies that charge researchers several thousand dollars to make papers acceptable to science journals have a good reason to like it that way. I'm not asking for perfect grammar, but just comprehensible writing where the readers don't have to guess at what the heck you are trying to say several times per sentence.  However, your many additional minor quirks and errors are off-putting, to say the least, which interferes with you getting your message to your readers.  You want your readers thinking "now that's insightful" and "how interesting", not "what on earth is he talking about?" and "good grief, what a moron." I was trying to remain specific to what is often demanded in this thread, which is to publish in science journals instead of where I normally publish my computer models (at Planet Source Code). It would be nice for me to have the time to keep up with my writing work. But I can't afford it right now. But oh well, it's only science. It's only science. It's only science. . -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,06:53    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2015,23:35) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,18:51)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,18:49)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2015,18:44)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2015,17:49)     Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 05 2015,17:40) I have not posted a lot to this forum because I was waiting to see whether your claims were anything more than hot air from a creationist. They aren't. I await your apology and retraction. I owe you nothing. Good day... Yep, pusillanimous swine often fail to recognize when they are in the wrong. Oh go play with your Avida. You are so biased you should shut-up before you get yourself in even more trouble. Unless of course you are throwing insults at ChemiCat, but I doubt it. Gary got something right; I'm not referring to ChemiCat. As for the rest, what trouble? Is Gary pestering Casey again? Huh? I don't get it. The link sent my browser back to the start of this thread. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Pages: (622) < ... 431 432 433 434 435 [436] 437 438 439 440 441 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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