RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
phishyphred



Posts: 26
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,19:26   

one of the uncommon dissent authors let teh atbc password out...darwinsucks

cute

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,22:59   

Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 04 2006,01:26)
one of the uncommon dissent authors let teh atbc password out...darwinsucks

cute

Does he? A dead guy sucking, we have a miracle.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,00:25   

What's so disturbing about Darwin's Ucks?

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Inoculated Mind



Posts: 16
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,03:40   

Haha. They didn't need to let slip the password. That was like, the fifth one I tried. Right after "dembskirules." But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice. I was hoping that they would say some disparaging stuff thinking no one could read it.

No luck on the Author page password thus far... :) I thought combinations that reflected a test of belief like the ATBC page might yield something. Guess they chose one less predictable.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,04:30   

Quote
Haha. They didn't need to let slip the password. That was like, the fifth one I tried. Right after "dembskirules." But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice. I was hoping that they would say some disparaging stuff thinking no one could read it.
that's too bad, I rely on these guys for my weekly comedy intake.

   
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,07:17   

Avocationist-

I completely understand your idea of "proving" God.  I am a rational person, and I do believe that it is possible to prove the existence of God rationally.  The problem is that all current proofs for God are purely philosophical, and not scientific.

If Dr. Dembski proves that there was an Intelligent Agent, that agent would most likely not be God.  Let me see if I can explain this

God---> Absolute Supreme Being
Science--->  Does not deal in absolute certainty
Intelligent Designer--> If an entity, most likely a superior entity, yet not Supreme

So, lets get this totally clear, both sides should agree that the Intelligent Agent is not GOD.  The 'atheists' and the 'theists'.  The Intelligent Agent may be a creation of God....but then again....evolution would be considered a creation of God by the same criteria.

So ID is not an attempt to make a scientific case for God.  ID, at the best, is a rework of some very old philosophy that justifies the existance of God.  If you would like some reading material I would be glad to provide it.

You, however, stumbled upon why 'atheists' want to get ID yanked out of everything.  ID could never honestly suppose that the designer was God, yet many people believe that is what they are suggesting.  Even from a theological standpoint, ID is cheating.

Let me explain the position of almost every person you will ever talk to who is anti-ID.  They are not against your 'idea'.  They most likely take issue with any case of teaching young people bad science.

They dont want biology classes full of the loch ness monster, or Yeti, or anything else that isnt totally verified.  We should not be teaching young people 'fringe science'.  

It is not productive to their very limited time inside of a science classroom.

That being said, I encourage the ID scientists to continue their work.  Many times in the past, something that began as 'fringe' science later became accepted scientific principle.  A great example of this would be "Darwin's Theory of Evolution".  But Darwin never asked grade school teachers to give his lesson plan.  Darwin never demanded a public discourse on his theory.  Darwin and his colleagues continued to collect evidence.  They eventually collected so much evidence for evolution, that creationism was destroyed in the context of science.  I know that you feel that Dr. Dembski and others have already produced the evidence and that we are just putting our fingers in our ears and ignoring them.  The problem is that we are not putting our fingers in our ears.  Many people have obviously read, and critiqued their papers.   If this was a religious thing, ID could just sit back on its previous work and say.."We will wait till you believe us".  This, however, is Science.  All the IDist should be worrying about is producing better evidence.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,10:28   

Quote
All the IDist should be worrying about is producing better evidence.

I don't think this is how it works. There is no evidence indicating ID, and there never will be. And the cdesign proponentsists know this perfectly well.

Quote
I encourage the ID scientists to continue their work.

Are you kidding? Their work is entirely political. You don't think any of the DI's $4 million/year budget was spent on *test tubes* do you?

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,10:32   

Quote
But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice.

It's fun to watch John and Dave squabble, split up, and then reunite when they realize they have no other friends.  That's happened at least three times since I started watching.

Here's an interesting take on John's penchant for monologues:
http://decorabilia.blogspot.com/2006....ce.html

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,10:34   

Quote
But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice.

It's fun to watch John and Dave squabble, split up, and then reunite when they realize they have no other friends.  That's happened at least three times since I started watching.

Here's an interesting take on John's penchant for monologues:
http://decorabilia.blogspot.com/2006....ce.html

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,10:46   

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 04 2006,16:34)
Quote
But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice.

It's fun to watch John and Dave squabble,...
Here's an interesting take on John's penchant for monologues:
http://decorabilia.blogspot.com/2006....ce.html

That link is funny.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,12:21   

Quote
Are you kidding? Their work is entirely political. You don't think any of the DI's $4 million/year budget was spent on *test tubes* do you?


I said scientists....your right...i need to clarify...i hope the ID scientists continue their scientific work.

I dont know if they are doing any scientific work or not....but I will always encourage people who are doing scientific work to continue,  no matter how crazy I believe the concept to be.

I honestly believe the best way to stop the whole ID movement is to encourage them.  If ID scientists are constantly dismissed for being frauds....they get to develop a persecution complex....and people go along with that.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,14:24   

Quote
But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself

Hopefully when he realises no one cares he'll get rouund to answering my questions about his hypothesis.

Quote
I honestly believe the best way to stop the whole ID movement is to encourage them

I agree, maybe we should help by coming up with some research ideas for them, at least that might shut them up for a while. The problem is the great deal of people who think that the design inference and Darwins black box are enough to prove design and disprove evolution, and that no more science can be done until everyone else agrees with them.

  
Inoculated Mind



Posts: 16
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,14:48   

Quote
I agree, maybe we should help by coming up with some research ideas for them, at least that might shut them up for a while.


Minds of geniuses....

I'm working on an essay talking about just that, how they could attempt to do some actual research on design in biology. The fact is, design detection does occur in biology, but they have almost no idea how, why, or where. Maybe we could encourage them to contribute to an actual controversy in biology. I'll let you folks know when its done, might be 2 weeks.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,15:39   

Tacitus,

OK, I've spent 30 minutes trying to figure out how to enclose in quotes, or even using bold instead. I'll just have to preface my quotes with "You said"

And what's up with not being able to print a four letter word that starts with h and designates and extremely hot place?

When I said ID is the design inference and nothing more, you continue to state that Dembski's professed goal of overthrowing the materialist oppression is somehow disingenuous. But it isn't. Everyone has a worldview. ID itself is rather limited.

You said: I assume you meant to say "evolutionists" and not "atheists" since they are hardly synonymous.

Well, I meant atheists have philosophical motives as well as IDists. Really, tho, it applies to anyone. Now, you say an atheist and an evolutionist are not the same but I disagree. This is my opinion--evolution that teaches random unguided processes is only compatible with atheism, and no form of deistic or theistic belief is compatible with it. I consider Ken Miller a very confused IDist.

You said:  I do believe that if ID ever becomes the primary theory taught in our schools, the most likely reason is that the Reconstructionalists or the Dominionists will have somehow managed to take over the government.

You know, I think ID is true. But if I thought those guys had a chance I'd fight them. But I don't think that's the reason it will be taught. It will be taught when people see it's true. Look, lots of those people are mad at ID because they won't support 6-day creationism. And I'll bet a lot of new age spiritualists will accept ID. How can you paint everyone with the same brush?

You say I have assumed God is discoverable. But I prefaced it with the word 'probably.' I don't think a separate God is a possibility, but that is because I lead a contemplative life. I could be wrong. The idea that God does not want us to know him/her is getting too far into fantasy. Attributing all sorts of petty emotions to the infinite? Yes, I heard one or two Christians express the idea that God does not want to be proved because he wants us to have faith. Frankly, I was shocked. That is a dismal view. It shows that they do not understand what faith is, and it shows that Christianity neither assists nor encourages people to come to know God. But what's worst is that these people believe in an eternal #### scenario, with an egotistical God who sends people there for the absurd reason that they don't know if he's real. Yet he doesn't want to spoil this rigged game by letting us discover his existence for sure? With a guy like that on our side, who needs a devil? I guess it won't be very inspiring in heaven, what with nothing but knowledge of God and no need of faith.
**************************************
Puck,

If God can be "proved" rationally, then that should mean that we can expect or hope that science will find the way to catch up. I am sorry but the following didn't click:

God---> Absolute Supreme Being
Science--->  Does not deal in absolute certainty
Intelligent Designer--> If an entity, most likely a superior entity, yet not Supreme

The parts aren't coming together for me. But I agree the designer could be a less than supreme being. The gnostics thought so, but they thought this world was evil and that the designer was bad, maybe even Satan. I do not agree, being monistic.

You also said that the entity, if created by God, would therefore by default mean that evolution is a creation of God. That is true. Do you agree with that?

You said: So ID is not an attempt to make a scientific case for God.

Not sure what you're saying. Although, they would agree that ID is not a case for God, but for intelligent design. But I think that until we get to God, we will have the regress of who designed the designer.

It doesn't matter if ID is a rework, oldies are goodies, but now there is much fresh data.

Please explain why ID is cheating from a theological standpoint. I didn't quite get that whole line of thought.

Most IDists aren't pushing for the classroom, and Darwin's time moved slower than ours but they pushed soon enough. I do think that you're right ID needs more time to cook, but there's no need for hostility and it gets a bit tired to call it bad science.

When people like Flint say that there is no evidence for ID and that all the ID people know this perfectly well--
I am simply speechless.

Yes, I do think they have enough evidence. And I suppose you may have read and critiqued their papers, although many have not. The problem, then, must lie elsewhere.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,17:06   

avocationist, I'm not sure it's going to be useful to continue our discussion since we appear to be completely incompatible  worldviews. When I read your comments about ID, evolution, faith, and even Christianity, I can only even begin to find them consistent if I look at them from your highly specific system of beliefs.

Anyway, you misunderstand what I'm saying about Dembski. He, and others, had long argued that ID, in itself, is scientific (i.e. has no bais in religion). Fine. My comment was that Dembski himself keeps undermining that argument by republishing quotes from collegues, friends, and others which directly contradicts that argument.

As for you argument that theistic evolutionists are simply confused IDists, well, that can only be true *if* your own personal idea of what God is, is true. In the broader sense, since evolution does not address "life from non-life" there is plenty of leeway for a Christian to believe in a God who kicked everything off according to a plan and let evolution happen. Who are you to define someone else's faith?

My comment about Dominionists was simple a roundabout way of saying that the only way ID will ever become the norm is through political mandate because it will never be proved through science (and frankly, nobody seems to be wanting to try).

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,17:08   

Avocationist-

I claimed that ID is cheating from a theological perspective because:

If we both agree that the Intelligent Agent could be the product of God....and not God himself....you believe it is one of God's creations.  Theistic evolutionists believe the exact same thing.  You are cheating from a theological perspective because both scenarios have an equal amount of validity from the theological perspective.

Quote
It doesn't matter if ID is a rework, oldies are goodies, but now there is much fresh data.


There is fresh data...but it is in the exact same category as the previous data.  Therefore it is still subject to the same counter-arguments.  This is still Paley's watchmaker argument.  There is no new perspective....just different examples.

Avocationist...if you could provide me with new data that doesnt fall into the category of the classic watchmaker argument....I would appreciate it.

Quote
Now, you say an atheist and an evolutionist are not the same but I disagree. This is my opinion--evolution that teaches random unguided processes is only compatible with atheism, and no form of deistic or theistic belief is compatible with it. I consider Ken Miller a very confused IDist.


Hmmmm....this is a serious fallacy.
Do you think a dice game is atheistic?
It is a random event...repeated over and over to eventually arrive at a winner.  Do you favor the idea that God chooses a winner beforehand...and that the dice are just all part of his elaborate plan?

You are arguing that if something does not involve God...then it makes for an atheistic worldview.  Evolution is truly agnostic.  ID, on the other hand, is firmly theistic.  It supposes that either a God exists...or that he created an entity to take care of it for him.  If you remove the term "God" from ID...and suggest that a form of intelligence is responsible for all creation....then you basically just advocated natural selection.

Quote
Most IDists aren't pushing for the classroom, and Darwin's time moved slower than ours but they pushed soon enough.


Alright...then can you explain to me why no ID organization...or scientists has every advocated NOT teaching ID in school?

Plus, and lets not get confused here...Evolutionary Theory was pushed....many decades later...after it was established scientific principle...and only against BANS on its teaching.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,18:21   

[quote=tacitus,Feb. 04 2006,23:06][/quote]
Tacitus,

OK, I'm trying the quotes manually--

Quote
avocationist, I'm not sure it's going to be useful to continue our discussion since we appear to be completely incompatible  worldviews.


People with differing world views cannot communicate? Are you a Christian? Have I offended you?

Quote
When I read your comments about ID, evolution, faith, and even Christianity, I can only even begin to find them consistent if I look at them from your highly specific system of beliefs.


I'd like to think that's because I think for myself.  It looks like you're saying I'm inconsistent. How so?

Quote
My comment was that Dembski himself keeps undermining that argument by republishing quotes from collegues, friends, and others which directly contradicts that argument.


You asked how IDists can claim moral superiority when they do not identify a designer or his/her motivations.  But I answered that while ID itself is just a design inference that does not identify a designer, that many or most IDists do believe in God and take the position that materialist philosophy is not good for society.

Quote
As for your argument that theistic evolutionists are simply confused IDists, well, that can only be true *if* your own personal idea of what God is, is true.


Perhaps, but if there is a God, that God is the source of all existence. One might suppose that God, being the source of all existence, is some guy who sat separately and did nothing, and that the evolution of life was no more likely to happen than not. Perhaps he was bemused or surprised. But essentially, this is nonsense. The existence of God, as different from just particles and chemicals, changes everything. One simply cannot speak of life or the universe being an accident. I mean, look, Ken Miller is Catholic. He believes, presumably, in a God who has interefered in this accidental place and even plans to judge people and send most of them to ####. How can a God who took no part in an accidentally evolving humanity judge them as deserving punishment or reward? The notion seems absurd.

Quote
In the broader sense, since evolution does not address "life from non-life" there is plenty of leeway for a Christian to believe in a God who kicked everything off according to a plan and let evolution happen. Who are you to define someone else's faith?
You say it doesn't address abiogenesis, but so many are pinning their hopes on it. But as to God kicking everything off according to plan, in what way is that not ID?

Quote
Who are you to define someone else's faith?


What I was defining is evolution as defined by many well-known spokepersons. Such as Ken Millers textbooks, which he has revised but used to say that evolution is a random and unguided process, as well as what someone over at uncommon descent calls the Weisel 38 document.

  
phishyphred



Posts: 26
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,18:54   

keiths saying you guess password after I tell is like stock trade chatters claim to buy stock after they know it go up so they look good...after-the-fact trader we call...in future if you want be believed give password before everyone else know it

avocationist time to leave here...you too good is what they mean to say in "further discussion not profitable"...not profitable for /them/

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,19:00   

[quote=PuckSR,Feb. 04 2006,23:08][/quote]
Puck,

Most IDists believe the designer is God. It could be someone else. My understanding of what theistic evolutionists believe is either that God guided the process throughout in various unknown ways, or perhaps they think he was a bit more hands-off, but obviously gave rise to a system capable of evolving life.  But I just am missing who is cheating about what and where. Do you mean ID versus theistic evolution? I do not see a real difference.

You say the new data is in the same category as the old. Pehaps, but we have data that is so much more detailed and compelling than we had even acouple of decades or so ago. You might say, that Paley's watch argument has been strengthened.

I think there's data besides the watchmaker. Do you think the complex specified infomation stuff is more Paley's? I think Meyer made some good points in his paper about the difficulty in creating new body plans and we seem to be on the edge right now of even realizing how little we do know about epigenetic factors in embryo development. I recently read Denton's first book. I was surprised that it isn't out of date and he had some things in there I could perhaps look up. I thought his book was excellent and brought out several cateogories of argument. And he is an agnostic so far as I know. I read Wells book a couple of years ago, specifically because he presented himself as nonreligous or agnostic, but it looks like he kinda lied. I'm perturbed about that.

I tend not to like determinism, but there are certainly good arguments in its favor. I'm not sure the dice are a good example. I suppose that there are physical reasons why each die does exactly what it does. The question is whether our consciousness can make choices and of course thereby alter future events.

But I perceive you find the idea of guided evolution too much like determinism. I don't think it needs to be. If it makes you feel better, I find the idea of a God who subverts the laws of nature to accomplish his ends boring, uninspiring, silly, and illogical. And any other bad thing I can think of.

Of course if something does not involve God that leaves atheism! Or are you arguing for a God who exists somewhere but has nothing to do with the universe!? I tell you man, that's impossible.

Quote
If you remove the term "God" from ID...and suggest that a form of intelligence is responsible for all creation....then you basically just advocated natural selection.


It just won't work. Random mutation isn't capable. Find more mechanisms. That one won't do.

The Discovery Institute does not advocate for ID to be taught in classrooms. They say it isn't mature enough for that. They would like the persecution to stop at least at the university level.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,19:05   

Quote
avocationist time to leave here...you too good is what they mean to say in "further discussion not profitable"...not profitable for /them/


Well, I'm not welcome at UD any more. Who will talk to me?

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,19:37   

Quote
keiths saying you guess password after I tell is like stock trade chatters claim to buy stock after they know it go up so they look good...after-the-fact trader we call...in future if you want be believed give password before everyone else know it.

Phishy, it was Inoculated Mind who guessed the password, not me.  And somehow I suspect his self-esteem will survive your disbelief.

As for guessing the password, come on.  We're talking about DaveScot here.  The password was guaranteed to be something hostile, childish, and anti-Darwinian.  Inoculated Mind just followed the evidence where it led...

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,19:53   

Quote
Perhaps, but if there is a God, that God is the source of all existence. One might suppose that God, being the source of all existence, is some guy who sat separately and did nothing, and that the evolution of life was no more likely to happen than not. Perhaps he was bemused or surprised. But essentially, this is nonsense. The existence of God, as different from just particles and chemicals, changes everything. One simply cannot speak of life or the universe being an accident. I mean, look, Ken Miller is Catholic. He believes, presumably, in a God who has interefered in this accidental place and even plans to judge people and send most of them to ####. How can a God who took no part in an accidentally evolving humanity judge them as deserving punishment or reward? The notion seems absurd.


Actually, I agree with you there, but then I find religious concepts in general to be pretty much unbelievable--I am an unbeliever. I am willing to admit that I do not know why we are here (over and above blind chance and the unguided processes of evolution) but I find the concept of personal God as defined in the Bible (or any other religious text I've come across) to be deeply unsatisfying.

However, the important point is that it doesn't matter what you and I believe. Ken Miller and millions of other Christians quite happily reconcile their faith with evolution.

By the way, you haven't offended me. I was merely suggesting that there was little profit in continuing our discussion since we appear to be so diametrically opposed.

  
Inoculated Mind



Posts: 16
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2006,23:13   

phishyphred said:
Quote
saying you guess password after I tell is like stock trade chatters claim to buy stock after they know it go up so they look good...after-the-fact trader we call...in future if you want be believed give password before everyone else know it


Phishy, I figured out the password before DaveScot added those two updates to the page, and John Davison had not yet posted. I didn't read your divulging the password on UD, it was here that I heard that the password had been leaked.

You can take my word as a scientist that I am not lying, I did figure out the password, reasoning that DaveScot set it up, and he has a simplistic, caustic style to him. Unfortunately I didn't mail a self-addressed envelope to myself so that I could prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. If I had told everyone I knew the password before it was leaked, that would have spoiled the spying, now wouldn't it?

Oh well, its not like DaveScot and John Davison haven't ruined their reputations already...

  
phishyphred



Posts: 26
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,05:44   

keiths sorry for mistake...you look all alike to me

inocu latte mind sure sure you guess password before I say and I buy amazon for $1 and sell for $1000...we are after the fact genius with flawless hindsight!

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,05:47   

Quote
However, the important point is that it doesn't matter what you and I believe. Ken Miller and millions of other Christians quite happily reconcile their faith with evolution.


People quite happily do but why shouldn't I examine their systems for the many logical flaws and inconsistencies, especially when there is so much mischief abroad?

You seem to have a much better handle on where I'm coming from than vice versa. Other than I'm an IDist but you expected that. And I am not politically correct toward human nonsense including my own.

It seems to me Buddhism in its purest forms does not speak of a personal God at all and is highly intellectual and abstract. Very useful. Taoism is similar.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,05:55   

DaveScot is persuing common descent again. Or maybe not. Or maybe. It gets all confused in the comments. One thing's for sure. No one else on the site is happy with the idea.

Common Descent or Common Design?

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,06:04   

:05-->
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 05 2006,01:05)
Quote
avocationist time to leave here...you too good is what they mean to say in "further discussion not profitable"...not profitable for /them/


Well, I'm not welcome at UD any more. Who will talk to me?

Um, I don't think that counts as an official, DaveScot-style banning.  ;)

--------------
"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

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,06:58   

I never said I was banned, but it was clear I had become unwelcome. My posts were being deleted.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,07:22   

Avocationist

Must just correct you on thinking that evolution is a random process. Whilst mutations are random, natural selection is most definitely not random. Those organisms that survive best in their particular environment are the ones whose genes pass on their "fitness". This non-random selection is where information is increased and where Dembski's talking of random walks fails at undermining evolution.

  
Caledonian



Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2006,07:22   

Quote
Ken Miller and millions of other Christians quite happily reconcile their faith with evolution.
 And they quite happily compromise their intellectual integrity in the process.

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

Pages: (1000) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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