RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (19) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   
  Topic: DI EN&V, Open comments and archive< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,11:07   

Don't forget Carolyn Crocker!

David Coppedge will be on the payroll soon.

  
Sealawr



Posts: 54
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,14:56   

Coppedge will be available to start as soon as the judge issues his ruling.  I'm on pins and needles.

--------------
DS: "The explantory filter is as robust as the data that is used with it."
David Klinghoffer: ""I'm an IDiot"

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1234
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,15:02   

Quote (fnxtr @ June 08 2012,09:45)
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 08 2012,04:11)
Wasn't Mario their IT guy for a while? Also haven't heard from Anika "the tank" Smith for a while. I guess they finally found real jobs. Too bad about Luskin.

Hannah Maxson, Mark Hausam... man, those were the days, hey?

All of those students must have graduated, woodbine.  Surely they have their PhD's by now, toiling away in ID laboratories.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you池e taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,10:19   

Ann Gauger been spilling nonsense on the DI BI blog. I poke back with
Someone Teach Ann Gauger How to Google

--------------
I知 referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I知 not an evolutionist, I知 a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2012,13:30   

David Klinghoffer likes James Barham's latest essay at TheBestSchools.org.

I don't.

http://dvunkannon.blogspot.com/2012....to.html

--------------
I知 referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I知 not an evolutionist, I知 a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2012,13:44   

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 09 2012,10:19)
Ann Gauger been spilling nonsense on the DI BI blog. I poke back with
Someone Teach Ann Gauger How to Google

They had a thread on this at UD a little while ago. Predictable enough outcome.

Good stuff!

--------------
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痴 work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,11:10   

Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,11:32   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,17:10)
Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

You mean, how Wegener's appealing theory wasn't accepted as scientifically sound until someone went and produced the pathetic level of detail stuff?

Yeah, that would be a good read alright.

But enough of this banter. We mustn't distract the IDiots from their very technical experimentation showing the evidence for design.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,11:40   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution.  Is that true?  If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right.  Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,12:06   

Quote (OgreMkV @ June 20 2012,12:40)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution. Is that true? If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right. Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.

Ogre, to be charitable, he _is_ looking for it, in the same way as a drunk looks for his car keys under the street lamp. In this case, a Bible shaped street lamp.

--------------
I知 referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I知 not an evolutionist, I知 a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,12:48   

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 20 2012,12:06)
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 20 2012,12:40)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution. Is that true? If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right. Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.

Ogre, to be charitable, he _is_ looking for it, in the same way as a drunk looks for his car keys under the street lamp. In this case, a Bible shaped street lamp.

Is that the same joke as the officer asking why he's looking for his keys under the street lamp and the guys says, "Well, I dropped my keys in the street way over there, but the light is over here."

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,14:08   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

When do you expect design to overturn Darwin then?

Do you have an ETA?

10 years?

50?

100?

EDIT: As it's only a mirror if design does overturn Darwin. Until then it's "no evidence, no movement". Just like ID.

Edited by oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 20 2012,14:09

--------------
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痴 work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,15:04   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

Yes, brilliant, just like the Galileo gambit that they and every other pseudoscientist has brought up.

What have they ever done but produce very inexact analogies that fail at the facts every time?

Let's see, Wegener's idea explained the fit of continents and fossil distributions (related to the fact that evolutionary theory tells us that exact duplicates can't be replicated after extinction, not the case for design--gee, how does that turn out, in fact?), while IDiocy explains, uh, what the IDiots want it to explain--while every inconvenient fact that evolution predicts and is found is ignored by these dishonest cretins.

Did plate tectonics win by whining that it doesn't stoop to geologists' pathetic level of detail?

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,06:06   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 20 2012,16:04)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant. :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

Yes, brilliant, just like the Galileo gambit that they and every other pseudoscientist has brought up.

What have they ever done but produce very inexact analogies that fail at the facts every time?

Let's see, Wegener's idea explained the fit of continents and fossil distributions (related to the fact that evolutionary theory tells us that exact duplicates can't be replicated after extinction, not the case for design--gee, how does that turn out, in fact?), while IDiocy explains, uh, what the IDiots want it to explain--while every inconvenient fact that evolution predicts and is found is ignored by these dishonest cretins.

Did plate tectonics win by whining that it doesn't stoop to geologists' pathetic level of detail?

Glen Davidson

I think it was ultimately a farting flash animation that put tectonics over the top, wasn't it?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,08:43   

A new book by Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, and Casey "Where's the Wrist?" Luskin: We ain't come from no monkeys. Brought to you by Discovery Institute Press.

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

  
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,10:48   

That second article was a real eye-opener, Mr. T.

Quote (David Klinghoffer @ June 21, 2012,05:28)
She and co-author Doug Axe tested in the lab an easier case of evolutionary transition, from one similar but functionally distinct bacterial protein to another -- "evolutionary cousins" of a humbler type. This very minor revolution would require seven coordinated mutations if not more, which in a population of bacteria would need something like 10^27 years.
Quote
To put that in some perspective, remember that the universe is only about 10^10 years old. It can't have happened.

The problem of accomplishing the revolution that transforms a chimp-like ancestor into a member of the genus Homo is, of course, worlds and worlds and worlds more difficult. Dr. Gauger cites Dennis Bramble and Daniel Lieberman, writing in Nature and describing the immensity of difference in anatomical features -- the unique gifts that make their first appearance in Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.

Remember we're not talking about what are arguably called spiritual endowments -- the ability to speak, write, do math, do art, appreciate lofty moral and aesthetic ideals, and the rest that science can't even describe much less account for in evolutionary terms. We're just talking about the anatomy.

Bramble and Lieberman count 16 such revolutionary changes and Gauger points out that the transition from our last presumed common ancestor with chimps is allotted only six million years by the standard timetable. This itself produces a defeater for any Darwinian narrative of human evolution:
Quote
Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and long generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.

Gauger concludes:
Quote
Our uniquely human attributes constitute a quantum leap, not just an innovation, a leap that cannot have arisen without guidance. We are not souped-up apes.


My, oh my, how fascinating.

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,11:17   

Quote
Bramble and Lieberman count 16 such revolutionary changes and Gauger points out that the transition from our last presumed common ancestor with chimps is allotted only six million years by the standard timetable.


Whales evolved from something like this:

to something like this in approximately the same timeframe:


I find the change from a terrestial to an aquatic lifestyle somewhat more impressive.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,11:26   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,10:48)
That second article was a real eye-opener, Mr. T.

Quote (David Klinghoffer @ June 21, 2012,05:28)
She and co-author Doug Axe tested in the lab an easier case of evolutionary transition, from one similar but functionally distinct bacterial protein to another -- "evolutionary cousins" of a humbler type. This very minor revolution would require seven coordinated mutations if not more, which in a population of bacteria would need something like 10^27 years.
 
Quote
To put that in some perspective, remember that the universe is only about 10^10 years old. It can't have happened.

The problem of accomplishing the revolution that transforms a chimp-like ancestor into a member of the genus Homo is, of course, worlds and worlds and worlds more difficult. Dr. Gauger cites Dennis Bramble and Daniel Lieberman, writing in Nature and describing the immensity of difference in anatomical features -- the unique gifts that make their first appearance in Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.

Remember we're not talking about what are arguably called spiritual endowments -- the ability to speak, write, do math, do art, appreciate lofty moral and aesthetic ideals, and the rest that science can't even describe much less account for in evolutionary terms. We're just talking about the anatomy.

Bramble and Lieberman count 16 such revolutionary changes and Gauger points out that the transition from our last presumed common ancestor with chimps is allotted only six million years by the standard timetable. This itself produces a defeater for any Darwinian narrative of human evolution:
 
Quote
Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and long generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.

Gauger concludes:
 
Quote
Our uniquely human attributes constitute a quantum leap, not just an innovation, a leap that cannot have arisen without guidance. We are not souped-up apes.


My, oh my, how fascinating.

Once again, I ask... why not quit trying to find problems with evolution and start talking about ID.

I've asked you a number of questions about ID and you have completely ignored them.

You're here.  The rest of your ilk are to chicken to come here and I'm not about to go to a place with restricted access and a group that doesn't mind changing words written by someone else.

So, how about it?  Are you actually interested in talking or are you just trolling?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,11:51   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,10:48)
My, oh my, how fascinating.

Yes indeed. But you'll find that when the bucket is empty you won't be able to simply drop in your favoured replacement without any actual evidence to support it, regardless of how empty the bucket is.

So, how did humans arise? Did the designer tweak DNA directly or was it something else?

Does the fact that you don't know a single thing about how, when, where or why with regard to the designer or the design never worry you?

--------------
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痴 work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,12:00   

Jared,

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,12:38   

High-Larry-Ous!

The DI's stated, written objective is nothing short of the "renewal" of American culture and science to incorporate a Biblical Christian worldview in everything that's done.

No, the DI does not care about science one whit which is why they employ the witless (Klinkleklopper, Luskin the Gerbil, Axe, Gauger, et al).

"My granddaddy ain't no monkey" is just their way of keeping the flaps of the big tent open wide enough to fleece the credulous and feeble minded.  Alas, those people would be most of our elected representatives!

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,12:45   

Why does Luskin refer to himself as a 'scientist'?

  
NormOlsen



Posts: 104
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,13:00   

Quote (SLP @ June 21 2012,12:45)
Why does Luskin refer to himself as a 'scientist'?

He's got a masters degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California at San Diego (according to his website).

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 992
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,13:47   

Quote (SLP @ June 21 2012,12:45)
Why does Luskin refer to himself as a 'scientist'?

Because he once made a volcano out of baking soda and vinegar.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1254
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,13:59   

Having ape ancestors is way cooler than having been modelled out of a lump of dirt. And a clean and uninterrupted genetic lineage still beats some tinkering and tweaking along the way - it's just much more streamlined, just like a Lamborghini is cooler than a pimped ride.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
NormOlsen



Posts: 104
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,14:43   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 21 2012,13:59)
Having ape ancestors is way cooler than having been modelled out of a lump of dirt. And a clean and uninterrupted genetic lineage still beats some tinkering and tweaking along the way - it's just much more streamlined, just like a Lamborghini is cooler than a pimped ride.

Pardon my utter lack of Photoshop skills (or in this case, Paint.NET).

  
Quack



Posts: 1748
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,14:53   

Quote (NormOlsen @ June 21 2012,14:43)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 21 2012,13:59)
Having ape ancestors is way cooler than having been modelled out of a lump of dirt. And a clean and uninterrupted genetic lineage still beats some tinkering and tweaking along the way - it's just much more streamlined, just like a Lamborghini is cooler than a pimped ride.

Pardon my utter lack of Photoshop skills (or in this case, Paint.NET).

Lovely!

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1254
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,15:01   

Quote (NormOlsen @ June 21 2012,14:43)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 21 2012,13:59)
Having ape ancestors is way cooler than having been modelled out of a lump of dirt. And a clean and uninterrupted genetic lineage still beats some tinkering and tweaking along the way - it's just much more streamlined, just like a Lamborghini is cooler than a pimped ride.

Pardon my utter lack of Photoshop skills (or in this case, Paint.NET).

That's hilarious - I needed that laugh!

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,15:23   

Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,13:00)
Jared,

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?

I.D. boils down to, "we are not apes," to the same degree that Darwinism boils down to, "God does not exist."

Are there people who support I.D. because they believe it demonstrates that we're not apes, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Are there people who support Darwinian evolution because they believe it explains life without need of a God, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Again, motive mongering is a two-way street.

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,15:32   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,15:23)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,13:00)
Jared,

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?

I.D. boils down to, "we are not apes," to the same degree that Darwinism boils down to, "God does not exist."

Are there people who support I.D. because they believe it demonstrates that we're not apes, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Are there people who support Darwinian evolution because they believe it explains life without need of a God, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Again, motive mongering is a two-way street.

And again, we have no supporting evidence for anything you've said.

Do you really think that people believe in evolution because it makes it OK to not believe in God?  I've got some bad news for you buddy... you are massively confused.

Evolution is not a belief.  It is science.  There is evidence.  Whether you agree or disagree with the evidence is one thing, but there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution.  Further, the theory of evolution can successfully predict future occurrences.

evolution is science
science is not a belief
therefore evolution is not a belief

I don't expect you to understand.  After all, you think "because it looks complicated" is evidence that supports ID.

Of course, everywhere but in your head, people actually study a subject, then come to a decision about it.  You guys decide how you want it to be, then try to find things that you think supports your opinion.

Again, I would like you to point out, in detail, where in the definition of evolution that it says "God does not exist".

If you want to discuss religion, I can do that too.  But religion is not science.  Science is not religion.  Evolution is not religion, because it is science and ID is religion, even the inventors of ID say that ID is religion.

Remember this quote "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."?  I wonder who said that?

Now, do you want to talk about religion or do you want to talk about science or (much more likely) neither?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
  565 replies since Jan. 20 2011,10:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (19) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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