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... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Pages: (527) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >

Freddie Posts: 371 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2014,15:54    Quote (Robin @ Feb. 12 2014,13:19) All quiet on the UD front. UD link for those wishing to avoid the sauce pit. Here's what it says:     Quote 19 G-typeFebruary 12, 2014 at 2:08 am In the kitzmiller v. dover case, a federal court ruled that intelligent design is religious. Teaching a religious viewpoint in a class that is listed as a science course = school endorses a religious viewpoint, and is therefore unconstitutional. During the trial, the discovery institute claim that intelligent design is a scientific viewpoint rather than a religious one. Yet, in articles on f.ex. evolutionnews.org, its pretty appearant that intelligent design is religiously motivated: Example, from one article: “The outline of the story is now, sadly, a familiar one. Instructor wants to discuss intelligent design (ID). Intolerant atheists throw a fit. College quickly capitulates to the demands of the atheists. Instructor is censored. – See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....z....dpuf” The article blames “intolerant atheists” for censoring intelligent design. In saying that, the article heavily implies that intelligent design is religously motivated. In effect: intelligent design proponents are aware that Hedin was breaking the law, and are upset that Jerry Coyne had a part in exposing the crime. I'm just fascinated by the fact that this comment has sat for some time without so much a ceiling speaker crackle. So which one of you is G-Type? :D From the same thread. Yes, it's often hard to parse comments as convoluted as this.  Please try harder. -------------- Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy. Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people. Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

DiEb Posts: 312 Joined: May 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2014,14:34    Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 12 2014,11:17)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 11 2014,06:23)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2014,10:48)     Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,21:38)     Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2014,23:49) Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction here upon his seat of learning? Must do better. Editz for linkfixin. KirosFocus, you posted this in the self same thread:       Quote ...Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away. Speaks volumes, sad but revealing volumes. KF YOU ARE THE KING OF HYPOCRITES. Sad but revealing volumes. Kirosfocus, may I focus your attention to this thread where you make some pointed claims then ran away when it was revealed you where indeed a quote-miner. For shame! Hey KF, don't forget this. You semi-latching Weasel. The hypocrisy is stunning. It'd be good if someone still unmoderated at UD could give GEM a little headsup. I mean we could be assuming the worst; perhaps he has forgotten the incident, and he's not just hoping that everyone else will. KF answers.     Quote So at most there is a minor error of citation such as does occur, for which if so I apologise. (That will happen occasionally, even when typing from a book.) KF, it would have been "a minor error of citation" if you hadn't made this error a cornerstone of your argument! (edit for snark) Edited by DiEb on Feb. 15 2014,20:50

Febble Posts: 310 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2014,14:51    He didn't seem to think it was a minor point, in which case it's not a minor error to get it wrong.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2014,23:19    Nice little bit of fun going on over at the cesspool. franklin sets a trap for the UD IDiots starting here with a question about the Disco Tooters home site.           Quote does anyone know why this site doesn’t allow comments on its posts/articles? Discovery Institute batshit77 takes the bait, comes back with his usual scroll-wheel killing blither about those nasty disgusting atheists:           Quote How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet (internet) – 2013 Excerpt: When did atheists become so teeth-gratingly annoying? I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s presentation, that I have linked, to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s (atheist’s) position actually is. (snip tons more) franklin gives batshit77 more rope           Quote I don’t know BA77 is their overall censorship at the website I posted driven by their fear of atheist’s being able to comment on their website? batshit77 fashions a noose, sticks his head in           Quote I think you are merely setting up a straw man since the thread in question was shut down for merely the questioning of if evolution is true or not and was not shut down for any exceedingly boorish behavior as is characteristic of typical internet ‘new’ atheists. Even UD, in a policy a clearly agree with, limits the trollish behavior of new atheists on its threads. Elsewise UD would be overrun by such behavior. franklin kicks the trap door release     Quote got it,BA77, you hold that there are two standards for censorship given your perception of someone being an atheist or not. The one thing that I am a bit confused about is if ID is not religious, or as claimed has absolutely no religious connotations, why would it matter if one is a fundamentalist christian, agnostic, deist, or atheist for their comments to be considered? Should not all comments be welcome for consideration? For once in his verbose multi-thousand word post life batshit77 has no answer. Well played franklin, well played!   -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2014,23:53    Nice catch Mr Aftershave!!! In light of this I suggest BA77 should have Barry Ambulancechaser rename their blog Censored Unboorish Nonscientific Theists. -------------- "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

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,00:30    Ooh, it's getting better! After an hour with both his brain cells working furiously batshit77 decides the best strategy is to completely ignore franklin's points, begins preaching about those evil atheist censors oppressing ID   Quote So franklin, it seems you agree wholeheartedly that ID should be allowed a place in Academia and not be censored at all? Glad you agree, welcome aboard the ID ship. (snip another 1000 words of batshit77 drivel) franklin's not buying, holds batshit77's feet to the fire   Quote BA77, your desperation to change the subject is duly noted! Now would you care to address the subject of the OP? Again, I don’t understand your obsession with atheism. After all. ID has nothing to do with religion so why should an individuals religious proclivities be considered in any of these discussions? Your move Philip Cunningham. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,02:32    I just don't care anymore what these dipshits write, think, or do. Years ago there was a Christian rock band called POD "Pay ? Death." I was asked to join their fan website that was dominated by Christian creationists. Eventually the band crapped out, but somebody had paid their ISP in advance for years and years. Long after the band was gone, there were a few holdouts still using the band's forum as a 10 member FaceBook. That is how I see UD today. It is a pathetic wreck like ARN before it. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,06:44    Quote (Febble @ Feb. 15 2014,14:51) He didn't seem to think it was a minor point, in which case it's not a minor error to get it wrong. And now he's had a meltdown / gone to Plato's Cave. Sadly predictable, must do better. -------------- "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

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,08:50    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 16 2014,04:44) Quote (Febble @ Feb. 15 2014,14:51) He didn't seem to think it was a minor point, in which case it's not a minor error to get it wrong. And now he's had a meltdown / gone to Plato's Cave. Sadly predictable, must do better. Followed by this pitiful, lame rationalization: Quote F/N: Onlookers, remember that it is normal for citation to be fairly brief, as issues of permissions easily arise. I am in effect implicitly appealing to the doctrine of fair use in giving a much more extensive cite, but a publisher can challenge that a cite is excessive. And, in the days when cites were on paper, every word added materially to costs. KF -------------- 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

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,09:14    Adding a word not in the original does not make it briefer. But brevity isn't quote mining. Misrepresenting the author's intended meaning is the essence of quote mining. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,13:13    This, from Sal, seems worth preserving. He's all about phylogenetic methods, but resorts to nonsense about "gaps between created kinds" to scuttle the obvious evolutionary implications of a sound method. Quote They ignore obvious gaps between created kinds... Otherwise, the phylogenetic methods for a created kind I think are really cool. They’ve been used to reconstruct Y-chromosomal Aaron, and possibly Abraham, and maybe, just Maybe Noah or the daughters in law of Noah. We’ll see. I’m not totally against phylogeny, but I don’t believe in 1 universal phylogenetic tree, I believe in an orchard of phylogenetic trees. UD link "Created kind" seems like a nice moving target. Sal rejects that phylogenetic methods DO work across species in favor of his beliefs. Edited by REC on Feb. 16 2014,13:25

Febble Posts: 310 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,16:08    Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2014,08:50) Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 16 2014,04:44) Quote (Febble @ Feb. 15 2014,14:51) He didn't seem to think it was a minor point, in which case it's not a minor error to get it wrong. And now he's had a meltdown / gone to Plato's Cave. Sadly predictable, must do better. Followed by this pitiful, lame rationalization: Quote F/N: Onlookers, remember that it is normal for citation to be fairly brief, as issues of permissions easily arise. I am in effect implicitly appealing to the doctrine of fair use in giving a much more extensive cite, but a publisher can challenge that a cite is excessive. And, in the days when cites were on paper, every word added materially to costs. KF Whereas these days, adding words is much cheaper presumably.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,16:12    KF's extensive experience with academic publication comes to the fore. Biblical child discipline, KF and Mr. Leathers, batshit weekly. -------------- "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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,17:21    Quote Whereas these days, adding words is much cheaper presumably. Especially when words (sometimes lots of them) is all they've got.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2014,17:22    Quote We?ll see. I?m not totally against phylogeny, but I don?t believe in 1 universal phylogenetic tree, I believe in an orchard of phylogenetic trees. IMNSHO, that one sentence kills whatever anti-evolution argument he was trying to produce. Biologists don't "believe in" 1 universal tree, either. They infer that conclusion from the evidence. If the evidence pointed the other way, that's what biologists as a group would be saying. Henry

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,05:30    "Jerry" at UD posted this:               Quote Despite being mocked by Voltaire, I believe that Leibniz got it right. This is the “best of all possible worlds.” We just do not know or understand what is meant by “best.” A benevolent world is definitely not a “best” world. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God not create the best or all possible worlds? So the worm eating out the boy’s eye is part of “best.” I am sure with a little thought we can think of much more gross or horrible examples. But they are all trivial compared to what is being offered, at least by the Christian God. So Attenborough should look to other possible gods to condemn but not the Christian God. Now consider how many mistakes can be crammed into three paragraphs: 1. A grammatical error in the first sentence (Jerry: a qualifying clause is assumed to be related to the subject of the sentence. In your contribution, that would be "I"). I doubt that Voltaire had the foreknowledge to mock you, but that is the plain meaning of your statement, so I suppose you know what you mean. 2. Liebniz argues from logic that "this must be the best of all possible worlds because we are in it". Voltaire then writes a book (Candide) pointing out that Liebniz conflates a claim from logic ("this must be the best of all possible worlds") with a claim from evidence ("because we are in it"). Voltaire has a lot of fun with Liebniz's solipsism. Jerry missed that bit. 3. Jerry then says that we (what you mean "we", paleface?) don't know what "best" means. Yes, well OK, but who ever made such a claim? I don't think it is an extraorordinary claim that most people can tell the difference between "better" and "worse", at least as far as the world affects them. I suspect that most Congolese can tell that it is better not to have your hands chopped off if you pilfer a diamond in the mines. I suspect that most women know it is better that they should be able to go about their business without some men assuming they (the women) are available for sex. 4. Next we get: "A benevolent world is definitely not a “best” world." Here is a clue, Jerry. Before you get to use an adjective such as "benevolent" in relation to the noun "world", you have explain some features of benevolence (because benevolence carries the imputation of intention). Some things that require explanation are: A. Who or what is the entity possessing this benevolence (evidence of existence and characteristics required)? B. What did this entity do that convinces us of its benevolence (evidence of its intention)? C. When did this entity conduct its actions (evidence of timing required)? D.  Where did this entity conduct its actions (evidence of place required)? E. How did this entity accomplish its actions (evidence of mechanism required)? F. Why did this entity do these things (no evidence required for this, anyone can come up with Because Reasons)? 5. Then we get: . "Why would an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God not create the best or all possible worlds?". Very good question (it happens to be the question that atheists ask over and over again). What does Jerry have to contribute as an answer? Here is what we get: "So the worm eating out the boy’s eye is part of “best.” I am sure with a little thought we can think of much more gross or horrible examples. But they are all trivial compared to what is being offered, at least by the Christian God." 6. So let me get this straight. Your theology trumps the pain and suffering of that boy (who may never have heard of your God) because you claim your belief is correct (without any evidence-based answers to A-F questions above). Is that the best your religion can do? 7. And finally we get a conclusion: "So Attenborough should look to other possible gods to condemn but not the Christian God." But wait a sec, you haven't produced any evidence that this god of yours actually exists (A-F above). You may be right, but your conclusion ("So . . ?") does not rest on any demonstrably reliable presumption. -------------- "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,05:34    Jerry is high on the list of suspects. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,06:00    Midwifetoad said said:   Quote Jerry is high on the list of suspects.  Yes, evidently (in the normally accepted sense of evidence). It seems (from observation) that the contributors to the UD blog have lost interest in debating the "scientific" claims for Intelligent Design, and are most interested in discussing the religious implications of scientific research results. Evidence: that the only posts appearing at UD and generating comments aising above the bjornagain77 background noise are those addressing either a) direct criticisms of intelligent design, or b) posts that raise questions about Christian religious orthodoxy. -------------- "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,06:18    Why did I say that Miwifetoad said said? Because: She sells sea shells by the sea shore The shells she sells are surely seashells So if she sells shells on the seashore, I'm sure she sells seashore shells. It is a maritime experience. -------------- "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,06:54    Joe says:       Quote Talk about a strawman- I don’t know any Creationist who thinks that God created all the organisms that we observe. Creationists accept that today’s organisms evolved from the orginally created kind.That means darwinian evolution could very well be responsible for parasitic worms. It also means that God didn’t have to be.Then there is God’s plan- which is something tat we don’t know and most likely couldn’t understand.You know what I say about that kid in Africa- what were his parents thinking? Ummmm. Wait a sec. Since the biblical version of "kind" is something you are proposing as a reliable category in biology, then I assume you have a set of measurable characteristics that we can use to identify them. What set of characteristics do you propose that we use? -------------- "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,07:19    Quote (timothya @ Feb. 17 2014,14:18) Why did I say that Miwifetoad said said? Because: She sells sea shells by the sea shore The shells she sells are surely seashells So if she sells shells on the seashore, I'm sure she sells seashore shells. It is a maritime experience. Whereas UD is a Martinet experience. -------------- "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

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,07:39    Quote (timothya @ Feb. 17 2014,12:54) Since the biblical version of "kind" is something you are proposing as a reliable category in biology, then I assume you have a set of measurable characteristics that we can use to identify them. What set of characteristics do you propose that we use? woof kind, meow kind, big grey nose kind, pouchy kind, flying kind, creeping thing kind, swimming kind, scaly kind, mankind, helpmeet kind, duckbilled platypus kind. -------------- Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray [A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

KevinB Posts: 525 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,07:41    Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 17 2014,05:34) Jerry is high on the list of suspects. You do realise that in the context of this thread CSI means "Complex Specified Information", not "Crime Scene Investigation" ?

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,07:48    Quote (timothya @ Feb. 17 2014,14:54) Joe says:         Quote Talk about a strawman- I don’t know any Creationist who thinks that God created all the organisms that we observe. Creationists accept that today’s organisms evolved from the orginally created kind.That means darwinian evolution could very well be responsible for parasitic worms. It also means that God didn’t have to be.Then there is God’s plan- which is something tat we don’t know and most likely couldn’t understand.You know what I say about that kid in Africa- what were his parents thinking? Ummmm. Wait a sec. Since the biblical version of "kind" is something you are proposing as a reliable category in biology, then I assume you have a set of measurable characteristics that we can use to identify them. What set of characteristics do you propose that we use? 50 shades of Joe is the harlequin of gay ID. God may or may not be teh designer, evilusion is teh thing that makes kinds like whales with fingers and parasitic wormies not to mention all the animals that creationists don't ascribe to God. Joe doesn't understand it but heck ac/dc is the way to go for Joe. Hey Joe can we have the list please? The one with the God created animals and the ones that he didn't? -------------- "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

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,08:12    That kid in Africa -- his parents created the worm. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,08:18    Quote (timothya @ Feb. 17 2014,06:54) Joe says:         Quote Talk about a strawman- I don’t know any Creationist who thinks that God created all the organisms that we observe. Creationists accept that today’s organisms evolved from the orginally created kind.That means darwinian evolution could very well be responsible for parasitic worms. It also means that God didn’t have to be.Then there is God’s plan- which is something tat we don’t know and most likely couldn’t understand.You know what I say about that kid in Africa- what were his parents thinking? Ummmm. Wait a sec. Since the biblical version of "kind" is something you are proposing as a reliable category in biology, then I assume you have a set of measurable characteristics that we can use to identify them. What set of characteristics do you propose that we use? So God created humans and the charismatic megafauna, and evolution created all things dark and ugly. -------------- "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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,11:21    Barry seems to be going for some sort of false equivalency around "faith". Not all "faith" is equal, Barry. Knowing is hard, confidence is less so. -------------- "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

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,11:24    So Barry has pulled out ALL the quotes (seriously, looks like at least 50) including several from:   Quote Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46. Myths not Myth. Wrong pages. Again. FFS! Barry seems to want to reopen the fight about quote mining:   Quote Prediction: I will be accused of quote mining. Those who accuse me of quote mining will have the burden of demonstrating that I am quoting all of these writers out of context, and in context they mean something other than what I appear to be quoting them for. Barry, even though the quotes are both: 1) Often mis-attributed, and badly mangled 2) Reflective of a pointless faux-scholarship where perusing creationist quote lists* on the web substitutes for reading, comprehending, and synthesizing the evidences into some coherent point, I would say these quotes do support the point that many evolutionary biologists do not support strict phyletic gradualism, contradicting your title: "Gradualism: The Darwinist Article of Faith." Your post is, therefore, self-refuting. You could add one more quote, and we could debate whether Darwin himself believed in this "Darwinist Article of Faith": Quote Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms... The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus. Charles Darwin, 1859. On the origin of species London: John Murray. 1st edition, p. 313 or p. 279 of this online version: http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty....ies.pdf *(and the typos, choices of ellipses, etc do reflect their sources). Edited by REC on Feb. 17 2014,11:38

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,11:42    The Arrington hustle. Let's see you tackle all 50. How many are not covered by the quote mine project? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2014,12:07    Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 17 2014,11:42) The Arrington hustle. Let's see you tackle all 50. How many are not covered by the quote mine project? Alternately, let's see how many also appear in Meyer's two books... -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Pages: (527) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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