Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion BoardThe Critic's Resource on Antievolution

 Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Telic Thoughts Thread

 Pages: (117) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >
creeky belly

Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

Since my last post has been relegated to the Bathroom Wall for tone I'll just repost the calculations:

perhaps you should look at what I calculated:

For the car
lambda = 6.62 x 10e-34 m^2 kg/s / (1000 kg * 10 m/s)
lambda = 1e-37 m = 1e-28nm
size of car: 2 m
lambda is much smaller than the size of the car, thus the quantum effects are NEGLIGIBLE

For the electron
lambda = 6.62 X10e-34 m^2 kg/s /( 1.67 x10e-27 kg*10 m/s)
lambda = 60 nm
size of electron = 1e-4 nm
since lambda is larger than the size of the electron, it will exhibit quantum properties

k.e

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

Oh FFS

 Quote blah blah .....Penrose is 65 years old.  He has been knighted........blah blah

......So have Mick Jagger and Bob Geldoff .......your actual point?

In fact TP WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

You seem to be trying to describe a reality that requires a puppet operator. You seem to be pleading for the cosmic pantograph.

Do you have a way of testing Penrose's idea using the scientific method?

You should know I posted a couple of times on TT and was banned for saying a fact was not an idea and that ID was just an idea and just as useless as the idea of god or any other idea for that matter.

Why would they ban such an obvious...idea?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

creeky belly

Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

Here are some links to places where they also did the calculation: here and here and here's some stuff about that pesky cube root of volume here here's a page from a textbook here

k.e

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

Do you believe in UFO's TP?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

JAM

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,22:05)
Hi Jam,

 Quote Are you trying to claim that Penrose was distinguishing anything from flagellar, ciliary, or spindle microtubules, or was he just adding extra polysyllabic words to his tome?IMO, it's just part of an attempt to obfuscate his sloppy equivocation between the cytoskeleton and the microtubule cytoskeleton.

It has been suggested that I am wasting my time here.  That may be true in your case, but on the chance that others are listening in I will continue.

What you quote only confirms the sloppy reductionism of both Hameroff and Penrose.
 Quote Disruption of intra-neuronal cytoskeletal structures impairs cognition, such as tangling of the tau MAP linking MTs in Alzheimer’s disease (Matsuyama and Jarvik, 1989, Iqbal and Grundke-Iqbal 2004).

This is an irresponsible case of stating hypothesis as fact. It's not yet known whether the plaques and NFTs of AD cause cognitive impairment or are the effects of a more subtle mechanism that causes cognitive problems. It's one of the major issues in AD research, and claiming that it is already solved is ludicrous.

 Quote Wherever cellular organization and intelligence are required, MTs are present and involved.

No quarrel there. You seem to have trouble understanding that presence and involvement don't justify reducing consciousness to MTs, just as knowing that MTs are involved in fibroblast motility doesn't justify a similar reduction.
 Quote Since Sherrington’s observation in 1957, the idea that the cytoskeleton—MTs in particular—may act as a cellular nervous system has occurred to many scientists.

I take issue with "in particular."
 Quote Here is a diagram and video showing microtubules appearing to actively orchestrate a cell dividing.

No, TP. MTs are involved and essential, but there's no evidence of orchestration. The movement is caused by motors.
 Quote Here is a video that makes a mockery of thinking of microtubles as passive cytoskeletal components.

Straw man, TP. I had hoped that you were more thoughtful than that. I'm not claiming that they are passive. I'm pointing out that there's no evidence to support the reductionist notion that it all (or even mostly) boils down to MTs.

TP, If I keep asking you this question:

If that [fibroblast motility] can't be reduced, how sensible is it to believe that consciousness can be reduced so much further?

...and you don't answer it, grossly misrepresenting my position instead, are you thinking about what I'm writing at all?

JAM

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

 Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,22:43) Hi creeky belly,YOU SCREWED UP!  LOOK AT THE LINK I PROVIDED.Do you see the "m" in the first equation under the words "de Broglie relations"?"m" stands for MASS!...A tubulin dimer is 8 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm and weighs 55,000 daltons.

You and Hameroff screwed up. The Dalton (always capitalized) is a unit of mass, not weight.

qetzal

Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 24 2007,23:51)

 Quote Disruption of intra-neuronal cytoskeletal structures impairs cognition, such as tangling of the tau MAP linking MTs in Alzheimer’s disease (Matsuyama and Jarvik, 1989, Iqbal and Grundke-Iqbal 2004).

This is an irresponsible case of stating hypothesis as fact. It's not yet known whether the plaques and NFTs of AD cause cognitive impairment or are the effects of a more subtle mechanism that causes cognitive problems. It's one of the major issues in AD research, and claiming that it is already solved is ludicrous.

Hameroff seems to do that rather a lot. Consider this claim:

 Quote To gauge how single neuron functions may exceed simple input-output activities, consider the single cell organism paramecium. Such cells swim about gracefully, avoid obstacles and predators, find food and engage in sex with partner paramecia. They can also learn; if placed in capillary tubes they escape, and when placed back in the capillary tubes escape more quickly.

A quick PubMed search suggests this is arguable at best:

 Quote Behav Neurosci. 1994 Feb;108(1):94-9.Is tube-escape learning by protozoa associative learning?Hinkle DJ, Wood DC.Department of Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260.The ciliate protozoa, Stentor and Paramecium, have been reported to escape from the bottom end of narrow capillary tubes into a larger volume of medium with increasing rapidity over the course of trials. This change in behavior has been considered an apparent example of associative learning. This decrease in escape time is not due to a change in the protozoa's environment, their swimming speed, frequency of ciliary reversals, or the proportion of time spent forward or backward swimming. Instead, most of the decrease results from a decrease in the proportion of time spent in upward swimming. However, a similar decrease in upward swimming occurs when the task is altered to require escape from the upper end of the capillary tubes. Because the protozoa exhibit the same change in behavior regardless of the reinforcing stimulus, tube-escape learning is not associative learning.PMID: 8192854

Skimming through some of the links on Hameroff's site, he seems to repeatedly oversimplify unsettled questions in ways that conveniently fit his preferred hypothesis. As one more example, he states that gaseous anesthetics work by binding to hydrophobic pockets in proteins, and argues that this supports his model of superposition of states in tubulin. Here again, a quick search suggests that this is just one possible model of how such anesthetics work.

None of this is actual evidence against Hameroff's claims, of course, but I'm always more suspicious of someone who's willing to employ such dubious arguments.

Thought Provoker

Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

Hi All,

When SteveStory popped in at Telic Thoughts as "Steve" and started asking reasonable, yet probing questions, I was encouraged.  I think it is good to look at things from various points of view.

Once I realized who he was and that he had started a thread discussing Telic Thoughts here, I attempted to try and inform the discussion.

SteveStory indicated he was looking for something a little more substantial than the typical creationist fluff.

I suggest that I have offered such.

However, this has caused this thread to steer significantly off-topic (which, of course, happens all the time).

I also have got to get some real work done in real life.

Meanwhile, I hope I have managed to provoke some thinking here.  And, as a bonus, I started another thread called The Magic of Intelligent Design.

It is a repost of something I had presented at Telic Thoughts.  It provoked some thinking there (both for and against).  Maybe it could do the same here.

JAM

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

 Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 25 2007,09:55) However, this has caused this thread to steer significantly off-topic (which, of course, happens all the time).

Hi TP,

Over on TT you claimed:
 Quote I can defend the Penrose-Hamerof hypothesis, in detail.

Then defend in detail, using actual data and citing the primary literature, their attribution of consciousness to microtubule properties instead of those of actin filaments.

Gunthernacus

Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007

Secret Message for Paul Nelson

Paul Nelson comments, "No, I'm debating Michael Ruse in southern California, about what would make us adopt the opposing position on ID vs. Darwinian evolution." and he links to UD. There he offers this quote:

 Quote An alert mind keeps in reserve and in good trim all that’s needed to destroy its dogmas and opinions. It is always prepared to attack its “feelings” and to refute its “reasons.”— Paul Valery, Analects

YEC notions excepted, of course.  FFS, a YEC "debating" about what it would take to get him to accept Darwinian evolution?  I guess the following week, the KKK will give 5 good reasons for affirmative action and a representative for NOW will offer a scenario in which suffrage is a bad idea.

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

ericmurphy

Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

 Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2007,11:50) One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant. While this makes for some good laughs, it's not very challenging. We've been trying to recruit some smarter creationist to debate here. It's not very easy. It seems for every educated creationist familiar with science, there are about a million AFDaves and FtKs. Since we haven't yet managed to recruit such an educated creationist, perhaps we should make do by discussing the best of the bunch, Telic Thoughts. It's slightly better than the others. If Uncommonly Dense is like a clown car, Telic Thoughts is more like an AMC Pacer.

I had a long-running argument with JoeG (Joe Gallien, I think his name is?) on Telic Thoughts a couple of years ago. He kept claiming there was no evidence for macroevolution, and that there was no proposed mechanism for macroevolution.

It got kind of repetitive after a while.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4926
Joined: May 2002

Weird. MikeGene goes way off in the weeds.

Antievolution in a “Post-Wedge” World?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Zachriel

Posts: 2715
Joined: Sep. 2006

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

stevestory

Posts: 10809
Joined: Oct. 2005

Telic Thoughts guy says:

 Quote First, it's not really surprising that some SIVcpz Vpus have only one CK II site, and have a string of negatively charged amino acids in place of the second site. CK-II site phosphorylation also results in negative charge.I found it interesting though, that virtually all HIV-1 sequences have both serines, even though they undergo so much variation during replication. The reason why may actually be that changing from a serine codon, to , say aspartate, requires at least two nucleotide substitutions, thus resulting in a rugged fitness landscape where a possible tranversion would result in a poor replicator. It's got to climb up a peak in order to mutate again to aspartate. So here we get a better understanding of Behe's thinking regarding "the edge of evolution".

That's a strikingly vague comment. Can you clarify this with some numbers, mister Telic Thinker? Or just this kind of hand waving?

ERV

Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

 Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 09 2007,21:09) That's a strikingly vague comment. Can you clarify this with some numbers, mister Telic Thinker? Or just this kind of hand waving?

I know, I totally dont get their point.

"Aspartic acid cant be phosphorylated, therefore Creationism is true.  Fitness landscapes."

What?

stevestory

Posts: 10809
Joined: Oct. 2005

yeah, pretty much. They're like voodoo priests, muttering some incantations and hoping the bad juju goes away.

Frostman

Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

This post is to document my recent banning at Telic Thoughts (telicthoughts.com).  Like here, my username there is Frostman.

It all started when Bradford quoted a recent NYT article by Paul Davies which caused some discussion.
Davies's editorial ends on a note that anti-theists find most discordant.
 Quote (Davies @ NYT) But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Quote (Frostman @ TT)
However Davies wrote two important sentences preceding the above sentence:
 Quote (Davies @ NYT) In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research.
Davies was quoted out of context. What Davies says, in context, is most certainly something non-theists would support.

 Quote (Bradford @ TT) What Davies is clearly inferring is that an element of faith underlies human endeavors and science is no exception. Anti-theists are notorious for their distortions of the meaning of faith and an insistence it must be blind. That is inconsistent with Davies' points. I've used the term anti-theist which you altered to non-theist. Their meaning differs.

 Quote (Frostman @ TT) I changed anti-theist to non-theist because the former appears inflammatory. I try to cool the discussion whenever possible.    The term anti-theist connotes an us-vs-them mentality; two opposing sides warring against each other. On the other hand, non-theist connotes a person who happens to disagree with theism.    My apologies if you were being inflammatory on purpose.

This is where things get interesting.  Bradford deleted the above post.  The policy at Telic Thoughts is to move off-topic posts to a page called the "memory hole".  On-topic posts are not so moved, and outright deletion of posts is not done at all (with the exception of spam, etc).  In response he said,
 Quote (Bradford @ TT) Frostman, do not accuse and pretend an apology in the same sentence. As for what is inflammatory, I'll be the judge of that. If you think the blog entry is inflammatory you can always exit. I'll show you the door.

I inquired if he indeed deleted my post (as I did not know then).  After my asking a second time, he said yes.

Bradford then wrote a very angry post, which he soon deleted himself (instead of moving it to the memory hole per the policy, again).  It was interesting to see the outburst, and sadly only part of it survives in my response to it,
Quote (Frostman @ TT)

 Quote (Bradford @ TT) If you're going to accuse me of quoting someone out of context (when I linked to the actual article) then have the integrity to respond to the actual wording I used.

The fact of the matter is that the Davies quote was clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and "anti-theists" alike would agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you clipped. There is nothing "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is true. It does not matter which term I use — they are equivalent insofar as agreeing with Davies or not.

As I said, "anti-theist" sets the stage for an us-verses-them mentality, which is to be avoided. By pointing out the problematic quoting, I did not wish to inadvertently take the side of "anti-theists". That is why the term is inflammatory — you are setting the stage for those who disagree to be on the "anti-theist" side. It's just modern-day tribalism.
 Quote (Bradford @ TT) You don't give a rat's behind about avoiding inflammatory language.

Wow, a double entendre with irony. What are your reasons for believing that?

Not surprisingly, this post was soon deleted (not moved to the memory hole).  I begin to notice other posts being deleted.  There were two by someone protesting the deletion of my posts --- deleted.  There were a few by keiths (another member of TT) saying that he witnessed the deletion of the posts --- deleted.  Keiths wrote a post which quoted the deletion policy at Telic Thoughts --- deleted.  I quoted my first deleted post --- deleted.  I asked Bradford if his behavior was appropriate in light of the deletion policy --- deleted.

It should be noted that Guts, another member of Telic Thoughts, said the memory hole was not working soon after the deletion of my first post.  Guts also said that he fixed it, and his test posts at the memory hole presumably demonstrated this to him.  At first this appears to be the reason why posts were deleted rather than moved.  However, the rash of deletions occurred after Guts fixed it.

Furthermore, the deletions happened before and after Bradford cheekily said, "Frostman, you're wrong. The memory hole works fine. :grin:"  As it was obvious these posts were being deleted rather than moved, it was indeed an impudent comment.  There are two of my posts currently in the memory hole; I suspect they were moved there by Guts before Bradford was able to delete them, as Guts mentioned that he moved some posts.

At this point, Bradford's posts which reprimanded me were present, but my posts to which the reprimands refer were deleted.  This left a clear impression that I somehow flew off the handle, when in fact my posts were entirely appropriate, if only the reader could see them.

 Quote (Frostman @ TT) It is unethical to make accusations while deleting (not moving to the memory hole) the posts upon which those accusations are made, and also deleting (again, not moving to the memory hole) responses to those accusations. Do you disagree?

That, of course, was promptly deleted.  Soon after I obtained a forbidden message from the Apache server at telicthoughts.com, meaning my IP address was banned.  I confirmed this by successfully being able to connect to telicthoughts.com from an anonymous proxy.

Therein lies the tale of Frostman's adventure with Telic Thoughts.  If I were to speculate, I would cite the various times in which Bradford was cornered by my direct questions.  For example, in one thread, I asked the same question eight times and he would not respond, as the question clearly indicated he made a mistake in reasoning.  He eventually responded by warning me that I was trolling.

I must say Bradford's meltdown was interesting to watch.  He threw the Telic Thoughts deletion policy out the window while behaving quite dishonorably.  Apparently the motivation was to avoid losing face at all costs.  The light at the end of the tunnel is the cognitive dissonance he will feel as a result.  As all that dissonance adds up, he may eventually question those things he holds dear about himself.

stevestory

Posts: 10809
Joined: Oct. 2005

I think it was Bradford I told something like "It's clear that Mike Gene has at least some familiarity with science, and it's clear that you do not."

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

which one of you guys is Bradford again?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Frostman

Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

Somehow I forgot to give the thread in which this all happened:

http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/

JAM

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

 Quote (Frostman @ Nov. 26 2007,21:37) This post is to document my recent banning at Telic Thoughts (telicthoughts.com).  Like here, my username there is Frostman....Therein lies the tale of Frostman's adventure with Telic Thoughts.  If I were to speculate, I would cite the various times in which Bradford was cornered by my direct questions.  For example, in one thread, I asked the same question eight times and he would not respond, as the question clearly indicated he made a mistake in reasoning.  He eventually responded by warning me that I was trolling.

Bradford is incredibly stupid, incredibly ignorant, and incredibly dishonest. The three qualities have a delightful synergy.
 Quote I must say Bradford's meltdown was interesting to watch.  He threw the Telic Thoughts deletion policy out the window while behaving quite dishonorably.

That's the norm at TT, not the exception.
 Quote Apparently the motivation was to avoid losing face at all costs.  The light at the end of the tunnel is the cognitive dissonance he will feel as a result.  As all that dissonance adds up, he may eventually question those things he holds dear about himself.

There's not a chance in hell of that happening.

Frostman

Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

I have not yet addressed one aspect of my recent banning.  No doubt a Telic Thoughts member will write to me and say, "Well, we told you to stop posting on that thread, but you continued.  You got yourself banned."  I would interpret that statement as: "We told you to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, but you kept making a fuss about it."

Allow me to run with this analogy.  The man behind the curtain is Bradford.  The reality of the situation is the appropriateness of my posts together with the inappropriateness of his behavior.  The apparatus controlled by the man behind the curtain is an illusion-making machine.  It works by deleting all posts which mention his dishonest conduct, while preserving his posts which admonish my posts.  Voila, the illusion is complete: my behavior appears questionable, and Bradford appears to rightly scold me for it.

Well, the illusion is not very good, because I clearly see the man behind the curtain.  I bring attention to this fact.  The man looks at me and says, "You best not say anything more," wagging his finger at me, "or I'll ban you."

At this point there is no turning back, at least for me.  The illusion is directed toward falsely discrediting me while at the same time concealing his dishonest behavior.  It is inconceivable that I would put my head down and walk away.  The story ends either with my banishment or with the public recognition that there is a man behind the curtain engaged in mischief.

I hope that is clear.

Alan Fox

Posts: 1402
Joined: Aug. 2005

Telic Thoughts seems to be going the same way as all the pro-ID blogs. (That's imploding, in case anyone wasn't sure!)
Take UD's list of ID friendly blogs:

ARN
(Fair moderation policy has resulted in most pro-ID posters being beaten into submission by some excellent anti-ID regulars. Almost moribund.)

(Just Dembski stuff, no comments, not a true blog)

ID in the UK
( Just one witless guy's blog with nothing posted for a couple of months)

ID the future ID Superblog
(DI propaganda, no comments, not a true blog)

ISCID
(Moribund, apart from one notable exception.)

Overwhelming Evidence
(Moribund, supposedly for young ID folks, but same, sad faces)

Post-Darwinist The Blog of Denyse O'Leary

Telic Thoughts
(Somewhat of a maverick, used to be the thinking man's UD, what happened to Bilbo?)

Young Cosmos Personal site of Salvador Cordova
(Amazingly, Sal is still posting, so ID is not dead yet.)

Guts

Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

I normally don't feel like any website has to explain themselves with respect to banning. TT has always welcomed critics, but if you cross the line, you're gone. Thats just the way life is, and it's true for any blog/website (I was banned from an anti-ID forum myself once).

With that said, I feel that the situation with Frostman was the result of a huge misunderstanding that was completely my fault. I am also their technical support. The Memory Hole function simply did not work, and this was noted on the blog long before this situation snowballed, although it should've been made more explicitely. I specifically instructed TT bloggers to save a copy of the offending comment in their thread and delete it. After which they can send it to me , and I would manually insert it in the database (the memory hole).

This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy. I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.

However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.

JAM

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

 Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,17:16) I normally don't feel like any website has to explain themselves with respect to banning. TT has always welcomed critics, but if you cross the line, you're gone.

What line, Nelson? Suggesting ID predictions that Mike Gene might test instead of writing books? Pointing out one of the many times that the feckless Bradford contradicts himself?
 Quote ...However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.

Riiiight. So why is there nothing in the thread at TT to indicate that?

JAM

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

 Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,18:19) lol JAM, you're delusional, as always.

Your avoidance of two simple questions makes me delusional?

That's pretty funny, coming from someone who claims that "Intelligent agents today build motors that look like the motors in bacteria."

They build nanometer-scale motors out of proteins? Who's done that?

JAM

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

 Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,17:16) I normally don't feel like any website has to explain themselves with respect to banning. TT has always welcomed critics, but if you cross the line, you're gone. Thats just the way life is, and it's true for any blog/website (I was banned from an anti-ID forum myself once). With that said, I feel that the situation with Frostman was the result of a huge misunderstanding that was completely my fault. I am also their technical support. The Memory Hole function simply did not work, and this was noted on the blog long before this situation snowballed, although it should've been made more explicitely. I specifically instructed TT bloggers to save a copy of the offending comment in their thread and delete it. After which they can send it to me , and I would manually insert it in the database (the memory hole). This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy. I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers. However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.

If it was a misunderstanding, why was Frostman banned, Nelson?

stevestory

Posts: 10809
Joined: Oct. 2005

A few insults have been moved to the Bathroom Wall.

Guts

Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

Well, at least I demonstrated the point.

JAM

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

 Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,18:54) Well, at least I demonstrated the point.

What point?

 3497 replies since Sep. 22 2007,13:50 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

 Pages: (117) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >

 Forum Jump -----------   >All About Antievolution   -----------------------    +- Antievolution, Politics, and the Law    +- Intelligent Design    +- Young-Earth Antievolution    +- Old-Earth Antievolution    +- Collaborations   >Specifically About Intelligent Design   -------------------------------------    +- Intelligent Design News    +- Not a Book to Be Tossed Aside Lightly...    +- Cabbages and Kings    +- The ID-files   >Evolutionary Biology   --------------------    +- News & Events   >From the Panda's Thumb   --------------------------    +- After the Bar Closes...   >The TalkOrigins Archive   -----------------------    +- Feedback

 Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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