NoName
Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 26 2016,01:51) | Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 25 2016,10:26) | Quote |
Posts: 4908 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2016,06:47 www.facebook.com/icrscience/videos/10154465101114451/
What? Is it just me or does someone else see a giant mistake being made? |
No not just you. I heard him invoke a supernatural agency (God?) to be the creator of dinosaur adaptability as well.
Of course he did this without evidence. Hmm, who does that remind me about? So, Gaulin, given up on your sleep theory then? |
FYI:
www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/why-do-we-have-to-sleep#post-769777
I don't have time to answer to ridiculous junk. |
Is that why you've stopped talking about your diagram? And your many other items of ridiculous junk? You've finally come to your senses? No, of course not. But as we have repeatedly noted, you are simply not qualified to determine what counts as 'ridiculous junk'. The evidence is scattered across the web, going back nearly a decade. A vast trove of it is embodied in your consideration of your own output and the high value you put on it. Quote | And whether the Theory of Intelligent Design is useful to someone else is up to them to decide. Not you or N.Wells or anyone else who would rather control science via some sort of academic dictatorship. |
In a sense completely other than what you seem to have in "mind", you are correct. Each person is entitled to decide on the merits or lack thereof in the so-called 'Theory of Intelligent Design'. The problem, of course, is that you consider only those who have approved it to have the right to decide. There simply is no 'Theory of Intelligent Design'. There is nothing whatever that parades around under that tiresome phrase that rises to the level of theory. There is precious little that rises to the level of hypothesis. On the one hand, we have a complete and total refusal to address the definition of 'theory'. On the other, we have the complete and total refusal to define 'intelligent' and 'design'. Quote | In the real science world you're on your own, especially in the future after the Discovery Institute has become a faded memory. It's then not a controversy, just another ordinary scientific model and theory. |
Nope, it's not even that. There is no controversy, there has never been a controversy.
There is no more controversy over purported theories of 'intelligent design', particularly your own incompetent attempt, than there is over whether the Emperor's New Clothes exist. There is no there, there. And that is starkly uncontroversial. Dictates pretending to be from 'on high', such as yours, are laughably pretentious, and rightly scoffed at.
You've ignored each and every chance to engage on the issues. As you have sown, so shall ye reap. Those magic beans aren't ever coming up.
Each of us has decided, on the merits, that in the context of genuine science, you are simply nowhere to be found. You're not even a spectator -- you're a crow picking at the trash the crowd drops as it leaves the stadium having observed the ongoing work of genuine science. Just as the crow has no clue about science, so to with you. You just pick and poke at shiny things that grab your attention. You've wasted your life. Stop wasting our time. We care about science, yes, which rather implies we don't care about you or your 'efforts'.
|