RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
sparc



Posts: 2089
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2009,23:16   

What is StephenB intending to say by    
Quote
ID, consistent with but not tied to the Biblical view expressed in Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20, which teaches that God’s existence is made evident in his handiwork and that design in real
Wouldn't that statement imply at least another view consistent but tied to the biblical view expressed Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20? Or is good old fashioned honest creationism no christian world view anymore?

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,00:21   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 28 2009,21:12)
O'Leary:
Quote
But as for the ideas: Used to was, and done to death, and it will wash no more.

WTF?  Is this some literary reference or just Densye's attempt at lyrical prose? Either way, it makes no sense to me.

She's quoting, with no apparent sense of irony, from this ode to pretentious hacks by Henry Duff Traill:
Quote
After Dillettante Concetti

"Why do you wear your hair like a man,
Sister Helen?
This week is the third since you began."
"I'm writing a ballad; be still if you can,
Little brother.
(O Mother Carey, mother!
What chickens are these between sea and heaven?)"

"But why does your figure appear so lean,
Sister Helen?
And why do you dress in sage, sage green?"
"Children should never be heard, if seen,
Little brother!
(O Mother Carey, mother!
What fowls are a-wing in the stormy heaven!)"

"But why is your face so yellowy white,
Sister Helen?
And why are your skirts so funnily tight?"
"Be quiet, you torment, or how can I write,
Little brother?
(O Mother Carey, mother!
How gathers thy train to the sea from the heaven!)"

"And who's Mother Carey, and what is her train,
Sister Helen?
And why do you call her again and again?"
"You troublesome boy, why that's the refrain,
Little brother.
(O Mother Carey, mother!
What work is toward in the startled heaven?)"

"And what's a refrain? What a curious word,
Sister Helen!
Is the ballad you're writing about a sea-bird?"
"Not at all; why should it be? Don't be absurd,
Little brother.
(O Mother Carey, mother!
Thy brood flies lower as lowers the heaven.)"

(A big brother speaketh:)

"The refrain you've studied a meaning had,
Sister Helen!
It gave strange force to a weird ballad.
But refrains have become a ridiculous 'fad',
Little brother.
And Mother Carey, mother,
Has a bearing on nothing in earth or heaven.

"But the finical fashion has had its day,
Sister Helen.
And let's try in the style of a different lay
To bid it adieu in poetical way,
Little brother.
So, Mother Carey, mother!
Collect your chickens and go to - heaven."

(A pause. Then the big brother singeth, accompanying himself
in a plaintive wise on the triangle:)

"Look in my face. My name is Used-to-was,
I am also called Played-out and Done-to-death,
And It-will-wash-no-more. Awakeneth
Slowly, but sure awakening it has,
The common-sense of man; and I, alas!
The ballad-burden trick, now known too well,
Am turned to scorn, and grown contemptible -
A too transparent artifice to pass.

"What a cheap dodge I am! The cats who dart
Tin-kettled through the streets in wild surprise
Assail judicious ears not otherwise;
And yet no critics praise the urchin's 'art',
Who to the wretched creature's caudal part
Its foolish empty-jingling 'burden' ties."


--------------
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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,02:25   

English prose is one thing; English poetry something quite different but strangely similar, and hard to read.

For once I made the effort, and can only say Wow!

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,05:50   

Clivebaby's widdle feewings are hurt:
       
Quote
Karl Giberson has responded in a post at Beliefnet to Dr. Dembski’s previous post here at UD. The post that Dr. Dembski wrote was in response to another Beliefnet post written by Darrel Falk. What is left out of this triangle is that I had also posted a response to Darrel Falk’s post right after Dr. Dembski’s post. But Karl Giberson seems to have missed my post, because not only am I not mentioned in his reply, his reply has already been directly refuted by my post, and I would assume that Karl Giberson wouldn’t have written his post if only he had read mine.

Clive, howzabout a bit of inference to the best explanation: No one, but no one, gives a rat's ass WHAT you have to say.

The real mystery is why anyone cares what Dembski has to say anymore.

--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,06:08   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 29 2009,05:50)
Clivebaby's widdle feewings are hurt:
       
Quote
Karl Giberson has responded in a post at Beliefnet to Dr. Dembski’s previous post here at UD. The post that Dr. Dembski wrote was in response to another Beliefnet post written by Darrel Falk. What is left out of this triangle is that I had also posted a response to Darrel Falk’s post right after Dr. Dembski’s post. But Karl Giberson seems to have missed my post, because not only am I not mentioned in his reply, his reply has already been directly refuted by my post, and I would assume that Karl Giberson wouldn’t have written his post if only he had read mine.

Clive, howzabout a bit of inference to the best explanation: No one, but no one, gives a rat's ass WHAT you have to say.

The real mystery is why anyone cares what Dembski has to say anymore.

Beat me to it Bill :)

Funniest thing I've seen in ages from Clive!

Poor wikkle baby!

--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,06:10   

Gordon Mullings is back on form.  
Quote
Indeed, Weasel is an inadvertent demonstration of intelligent design using targets and/or so-called fitness landscapes and optimisation by hill-climbing techniques.

As touching Dr Dembski et al; it has been pointed out that while their analysis on p 1055 of the IEEE paper is based on a constructed example and a particular model of variation as a weasel tracks to target, that does not change anything material about the reality of implicit latching, that similar to explicit latching it ratchets to target, and that either of them could account for the mere facts c 1986: the excerpted runs and the description. On subsequent reported statements by CRD, and the above probable programs, we can see that Weasel credibly exhibited implicit latching-ratcheting.

And, EIL, sponsored by M&D, present a cluster of algorithms covering ways in which the o/p of 1986 could have been achieved explicitly or implicitly or even by sheer random chance. (It is noteworthy that objectors claiming that the EIL analysis in the IEEE paper etc caricatures the Dawkins original weasel — which they cannot provide and show unique characterisation of from the 1986 BW text — characteristically do not reckon with that range of algorithms and the implications of observing that latching (an inferred behaviour from 1986 run outputs) can be achieved explicitly and implicitly.)


--------------
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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,06:23   

What did I tell you? StephenB:
   
Quote
—-(BTW, if the above reads like I clipped and pasted it from something else. It’s because I have. It’s a sliver of a 15,000 word article I have coming out early next year, “How to Be an Anti-Intelligent Design Advocate.” It is going to be published in a special issue of a law review on ID and public education).

15,000 words of StephenB, alone on a park bench, clutching his cane:

"...and then I said, all things that come to exist have a... uh...uh... a something. A cause! Ha! By cracky Diffaxitive, I got you that time. That's what I said! I think that's, I think that's what I said. Heh Heh. I said. Heh. That Diffixative..."
 
Quote
It’s a lot easier to float downstream than to swim upstream.

Even easier? Sinking like a stone.

--------------
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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,07:00   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 28 2009,22:06)
incoming tard alert!!!

 
Quote
28 September 2009

Author Gil Dodgen Discusses His Loss of Faith in Adulthood
GilDodgen

I was raised an atheist, and was very devout as a kid. I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a scientist, “I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, and that all the laws of physics were fine-tuned to make life possible. Wouldn’t this require design and purpose?” Unfortunately, the response I got was, “Only mindless, uneducated religious fanatics ask that question. It was all an accident. Stop asking stupid questions.” But I wasn’t mindless, uneducated, or a religious fanatic. I was an atheist!

A light went off, and I said, “Materialism doesn’t make sense. Design and purpose in the cosmos makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from atheism.

Freudian slip, Frill?

After it went off, it seems like the light never came back on again.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,08:19   

Gordon Mullings continues

Quote
Cabal:

All you have to do is write a program that without using the target sentence and a distance to target metric, reliably achieves it in several dozens to several hundreds of generations, showing implicit [quasi-]latching-ratcheting as it converges on target by a real, current functionality anchored metric of fitness.

I would love to see the result.

GEM of TKI
Tard. Where to begin?

--------------
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

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,08:44   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 29 2009,08:19)
Gordon Mullings continues

 
Quote
Cabal:

All you have to do is write a program that without using the target sentence and a distance to target metric, reliably achieves it in several dozens to several hundreds of generations, showing implicit [quasi-]latching-ratcheting as it converges on target by a real, current functionality anchored metric of fitness.

I would love to see the result.

GEM of TKI
Tard. Where to begin?

WTF?  Can anyone translate that from tardese to something resembling English?  Is he asking for a simulation of evolution that doesn't incorporate any evolutionary mechanisms?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,09:27   

It does shed some darkness on the subject.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,12:38   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 29 2009,06:00)
Freudian slip, Frill?

After it went off, it seems like the light never came back on again.

Is that why he's so delighted with I.D.?

  
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,16:43   

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 29 2009,08:44)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 29 2009,08:19)
Gordon Mullings continues

   
Quote
Cabal:

All you have to do is write a program that without using the target sentence and a distance to target metric, reliably achieves it in several dozens to several hundreds of generations, showing implicit [quasi-]latching-ratcheting as it converges on target by a real, current functionality anchored metric of fitness.

I would love to see the result.

GEM of TKI
Tard. Where to begin?

WTF?  Can anyone translate that from tardese to something resembling English?  Is he asking for a simulation of evolution that doesn't incorporate any evolutionary mechanisms?

Ignoring for the moment KF's totally vague wording, I believe the following fit his bill:

Antennaes (no distance metric, no target, all intermediates are functional):
http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg/research/antenna.htm
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.41.9308

Travelling Salesman (no distance metric, no target, all intermediates are functional):
http://www.lalena.com/AI/Tsp/

Unsupervised clustering (no distance metric, no target, all intermediates are functional):
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/6/289

Dozens more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm#Applications

You might think that someone who had spent so much time writing probably over 20,000 words on GAs would have taken the time to read at least half that many words by people who use and understand GAs.

You'd be wrong.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,17:04   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 29 2009,07:00)
Quote
A light went off, and I said, “Materialism doesn’t make sense. Design and purpose in the cosmos makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from atheism.

After the Enlightenment comes the Endarkenment.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,17:10   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 29 2009,18:04)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 29 2009,07:00)
 
Quote
A light went off, and I said, “Materialism doesn’t make sense. Design and purpose in the cosmos makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from atheism.

After the Enlightenment comes the Endarkenment.

Hey, that's my word!

My Country Bleeds for Thee

ETA: I'll be standing by the mailbox, awaiting the royalty check.

Edited by Lou FCD on Sep. 29 2009,18:12

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,20:37   

So, why has Lou spent the last several days standing by his mailbox? :p

Henry

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,21:10   

Gil concludes the story of his conversion:
   
Quote
And now you know, the rest of the story (with a whole lot of details left out — I’d have to write a book about it).

No, Gil, please, don't. Gee, you don't have to do that. *Looks at watch.* No, really! That's OK.

--------------
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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,21:33   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 28 2009,23:12)
O'Leary:
 
Quote
But as for the ideas: Used to was, and done to death, and it will wash no more.

WTF?  Is this some literary reference or just Densye's attempt at lyrical prose? Either way, it makes no sense to me.

Denyse might just be warming up to accept her Bulwer-Lyton Lifetime Achievement Award....

Bulwer-Lyton

--------------
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

  
Raevmo



Posts: 235
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,04:45   

Clive is a tard:

Quote
I agree with you. When nature fell along with Man, death was introduced, and in my opinion, the whole of nature changed to such a degree that we cannot even reconstruct the original creation. It’s theoretically possible that the very repetitions of nature (what some people call laws) were very different pre-fall than how they behave now. But I think it is safe to say that pre-fall, God didn’t create anything that killed, because there wasn’t yet any death.


It's also very safe to say that Clive didn't really think this one through. He must think that there wasn't any need to eat before the fall. What kind of paradise is that, where you can't have a juicy burger?

Or maybe he thinks that there was some kind of magic non-organic food-stuff that didn't require killing plants or animals. Well, come to think of it, you don't need to kill the entire plant to eat from it. Actually, I realize now that you could still eat lizard tail burgers before the fall.

I guess I didn't think this through myself...

--------------
After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

--GilDodgen

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,05:23   

Is there anyone of the few left advocating ID who is still claiming there is no religious aspect to it?

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,05:40   

How to argue like an IDiot

Staring the inimitable (and evidently undeniable) niwraD in the "Turing machines, cells and why both are designed" thread:    
Quote
5

niwrad

09/28/2009

3:11 pm
Graham #3

Graham: To decide if they are really IC you would need to look at their precursors, and their pre-cursors, etc, all the way back.

niwraD: To decide if a system is IC it is not necessary to look at its precursors, as you say, because it is sufficient to analyze its parts now (as I did to infer that a TM is IC). If all its parts are necessary to work then the system is IC and as such has no functioning precursors.

Graham: It’s possible (with ’scaffolding’ etc) to produce what now appears to be IC.

niwaD: Exaptation, adaptation, scaffolding and similar terms at the very end all mean forms of evolution. Unfortunately the equation IC = no evolution disproves all such forms in a single blow. Besides what now “appears” to be IC “is” really IC.

Graham: However, you are looking at current cell architectures that are the product of long periods of evolution.

niwraD: For the reasons said above the current cell architectures cannot be the product of long periods of evolution. In fact, although I dealt with the IC of the transcription process only, there are many other processes and systems having an IC kernel in the cell that make its basic architecture fundamentally non evolvable from inorganic matter by chance and

Well, there you have it!  "IC = no evolution".  If it looks like it's IC, then it is.  End of story.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  You kids get offa my lawn!

  
Raevmo



Posts: 235
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,06:36   

Denyse rambles
Quote
(= “God will just LOVE you if you blow yourself up in order to murder and maim others”? Yeah really. And if your parents think that is okay, please find a new set of parents. In all believable theistic traditions, only God chooses martyrs; it is NOT a matter for private judgment. Private judgement [sic] is too easily corrupted by local or personal issues.)

In unbelievable theistic traditions on the other hand...

How does Denyse know that God did not choose suicide bombers? Is that her private judgment?

--------------
After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

--GilDodgen

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,07:24   

Quote
Well, there you have it!  "IC = no evolution".  If it looks like it's IC, then it is.

Guess he's taken his cue from, I hesitate to mention his name - Ray Martinez:      
Quote
If an IC system is reducible, evolvable, then it aint an IC system as
defined by Behe.

Clever, eh?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
dmso74



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,08:24   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 30 2009,05:23)
Is there anyone of the few left advocating ID who is still claiming there is no religious aspect to it?

Corny, of course. to him, all science is religious except ID. and up is down, black is white, Denyse is coherent, etc..

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,10:03   

I can't believe this was written by a guy with a Ph.D. in philosophy (emphasis in the original):
 
Quote
In the end, there will be a reckoning for us all: Judgement Day. In the meantime, evil agents do get away with a lot of bad things. As to why God lets them do so, I don’t think it’s because He is powerless or indifferent to suffering. Two alternative possibilities which I think deserve to be explored in further depth are the following:

(1) The first human beings, when they rejected God at the beginning of human history, made God promise not to avert life-threatening dangers and safety hazards to human beings in the ways He used to before the Fall – “We don’t need your help, thank you! Leave us alone!” God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18), so He cannot break a promise. Fortunately for us, Adam’s intelligence was no match for God’s. By Adam I mean the original leader of the human race, who possessed the authority to make decisions binding on the whole of humanity, including posterity. Although Adam thought he had turned the world into a “God-free zone,” he was not clever enough to anticipate God’s plan to redeem the human race – a plan whose execution required the performance of several hundred miracles – and he had no inkling of the Incarnation. Since the “terms and conditions” of God’s promise of non-intervention to Adam did not include miracles that were part of God’s redemptive plan, but was limited to life-saving (and injury-preventing) interventions of the sort that God would have made before the Fall, God’s hands were not totally tied. Although we live in a world where God often seems absent, we should remember that the really important work of God has been accomplished. Calvary saw to that; the rest is a mopping-up job. The final resolution of human history will be at a time that God decides.


There is a second part, but my capacity to digest TARD is limited.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,11:19   

Vjtorley. As I said: paradoxical. Here he is spinning a quasi-paranoid fantasy:
 
Quote
Nature as we see it now could be very different from what God originally intended, because of interference in the natural world by malevolent agents, billions of years ago. These agents could have been: (a) angels, or (b) beings from another intelligent civilization, who visited Earth billions of years ago. These malevolent beings could have tampered with God’s original designs and thus warped the entire evolutionary process. This is the scenario I think most likely...

Really? Bizarre.

Really bizarre.

--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,11:43   

Clive:
Quote
Remember also that prior to the flood, there were no carnivorous animals, so two dispensational changes have occurred (fall and flood) to get to the present, both of which had physiological impacts on the very created order of nature and all of life.

WTF?

--------------
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

  
Raevmo



Posts: 235
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,11:44   

That has to be one of the weirdest threads EVER.

Somehow Clive still manages to pile up the tard even higher:

 
Quote
I think you’re pet theory may be right. The derivative of the original creation was changed as a result of the fall, and as a result death was introduced into the world. Remember also that prior to the flood, there were no carnivorous animals, so two dispensational changes have occurred (fall and flood) to get to the present, both of which had physiological impacts on the very created order of nature and all of life.

(my bold)

WTF? Prior to the flood? I thought it was prior to the fall, which is weird enough.

Note how he says "remember" -- as if Clive and his deranged YEC buddies were actual witnesses.

--------------
After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

--GilDodgen

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,11:46   

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 30 2009,11:44)
That has to be one of the weirdest threads EVER.

Somehow Clive still manages to pile up the tard even higher:

 
Quote
I think you’re pet theory may be right. The derivative of the original creation was changed as a result of the fall, and as a result death was introduced into the world. Remember also that prior to the flood, there were no carnivorous animals, so two dispensational changes have occurred (fall and flood) to get to the present, both of which had physiological impacts on the very created order of nature and all of life.

(my bold)

WTF? Prior to the flood? I thought it was prior to the fall, which is weird enough.

Note how he says "remember" -- as if Clive and his deranged YEC buddies were actual witnesses.

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,11:47   

Quote
Clive Hayden: Remember also that prior to the flood, there were no carnivorous animals

Sure. Have a carrot.



--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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