RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,13:04   

So Rude displays his brilliance for all the internets to marvel at:
Quote

Allen MacNeill’s Augustine and Gould’s NOMA are obviously attempts to delegitimize religion and Scripture as sources of knowledge—comfortable fantasies and useful
fictions maybe—but not public knowledge, as Phillip Johnson so astutely perceived.
[blah, blah, snip]


This is so dumb, even Tribune7 was given pause:
Quote

St. Augustine attempted to delegitimize religion?


That whole thread is pretty much a concerted YEC effort to pile-on the Dr. Dr at this point.   Recommended.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3559
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,13:19   

Quote
Actually, he probably would dismiss that.  Notice that "pre-biotic"?  He's got an abiogenesis hang-up.   Of course we do know of such a mechanism: chemistry.


Last of the the gaps, gasping its last.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1482
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,14:11   

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 15 2009,13:04)
So Rude displays his brilliance for all the internets to marvel at:  
Quote

Allen MacNeill’s Augustine and Gould’s NOMA are obviously attempts to delegitimize religion and Scripture as sources of knowledge—comfortable fantasies and useful
fictions maybe—but not public knowledge, as Phillip Johnson so astutely perceived.
[blah, blah, snip]


This is so dumb, even Tribune7 was given pause:  
Quote

St. Augustine attempted to delegitimize religion?


That whole thread is pretty much a concerted YEC effort to pile-on the Dr. Dr at this point.   Recommended.

That whole thread is a laugh riot! Dembski comes out as an OEC, and the YEC IDiots are shitting themselves.  They're now tossing in all the standard YEC claptrap - the RATE project's AND claims, polystrate trees, variable speed of light, etc.  It's like a moron feeding frenzy.

:D  :D  :D

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
khan



Posts: 1482
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,14:26   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 15 2009,15:11)
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 15 2009,13:04)
So Rude displays his brilliance for all the internets to marvel at:    
Quote

Allen MacNeill’s Augustine and Gould’s NOMA are obviously attempts to delegitimize religion and Scripture as sources of knowledge—comfortable fantasies and useful
fictions maybe—but not public knowledge, as Phillip Johnson so astutely perceived.
[blah, blah, snip]


This is so dumb, even Tribune7 was given pause:    
Quote

St. Augustine attempted to delegitimize religion?


That whole thread is pretty much a concerted YEC effort to pile-on the Dr. Dr at this point.   Recommended.

That whole thread is a laugh riot! Dembski comes out as an OEC, and the YEC IDiots are shitting themselves.  They're now tossing in all the standard YEC claptrap - the RATE project's AND claims, polystrate trees, variable speed of light, etc.  It's like a moron feeding frenzy.

:D  :D  :D

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!

That thread can cause brain damage.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Quack



Posts: 1755
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,14:27   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 15 2009,10:30)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 15 2009,10:04)
i that we had determined that niwrad was likely the eye-taliban Giuseppe Sermonti.  he is definitely not english as first language.  he is also definitely a tard.

For a while I thought that niwrad was gpuccio, but I think gpuccio's English was better. I wonder where gpuccio went?

He's definitely ESL, but I haven't figured out the first language from the mistakes in the second. I've eliminated Asian because he doesn't make single/plural mistakes.

You bastards, if you only knew how hard I try to hide my foreignity... (well, not here)

--------------
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.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,14:28   

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 15 2009,13:04)
So Rude displays his brilliance for all the internets to marvel at:
Quote
Allen MacNeill’s Augustine and Gould’s NOMA are obviously attempts to delegitimize religion and Scripture as sources of knowledge—comfortable fantasies and useful
fictions maybe—but not public knowledge, as Phillip Johnson so astutely perceived.
[blah, blah, snip]
This is so dumb, even Tribune7 was given pause:
Quote
St. Augustine attempted to delegitimize religion?
That whole thread is pretty much a concerted YEC effort to pile-on the Dr. Dr at this point.   Recommended.

So the monster has turned on its creator?  Gotta love poetic justice.  More popcorn please!

What will the good Dr. Dr. do now that he's been "outed" as an OEC and therefore not a literal believer in the TROO tm word?

Might be hard to find someone to pull strings and get him a cushy job somewhere or sell books.

Is P Johnson, Esq, an OEC or YEC?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3559
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,14:50   

Quote
What will the good Dr. Dr. do now that he's been "outed" as an OEC and therefore not a literal believer in the TROO tm word?


Dembski has long argued that the difference between 6000 and 4 billion is negligible. Not something to excite the passions of ID scientists.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,14:57   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 15 2009,14:50)
Quote
What will the good Dr. Dr. do now that he's been "outed" as an OEC and therefore not a literal believer in the TROO tm word?
Dembski has long argued that the difference between 6000 and 4 billion is negligible. Not something to excite the passions of ID scientists.

Yeah, that's the "big tent" style.

Gloss over any differences between yourself and those whose goals are closer to yours than those you wish to destroy.  As OEC and YEC both want to rid this planet of our most cherished religion and remove the High Priest Darwin, er, I mean they want to rid the world of Evilution, a few "soothing words" go a long way.

Still, is Phil Johnson a YEC or OEC?  I can't find anything that says one way or the other.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,15:10   

I read through the thread you guys are talking about and the saddest thing jumped out at me:

"tragic mishap
10/14/2009
5:34 pm
Of course, I’m willing to accept an old age and common descent and all that for purposes of conversation, but when it comes down to what I actually believe, I’m betting on Genesis."

The Bible thumpers have people so scared of going to hell that they disbelieve what they know is correct in the hopes that they will go to heaven.

At least that's what I get out of this guys post.

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

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3559
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,15:11   

Quote
Still, is Phil Johnson a YEC or OEC?  I can't find anything that says one way or the other.


You're asking for a pathetic level of detail.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4362
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,15:12   

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 15 2009,14:57)
Still, is Phil Johnson a YEC or OEC?  I can't find anything that says one way or the other.

If you got the coin to buy his books, he can be anything you want him to be!

Blonde, brunette, red-head, YEC, OEC.  If you ask him nice, he might even put on that Catholic School Girl Outfit that Casey likes so much!

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

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 885
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,15:36   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 16 2009,08:10)
I read through the thread you guys are talking about and the saddest thing jumped out at me:

"tragic mishap
10/14/2009
5:34 pm
Of course, I’m willing to accept an old age and common descent and all that for purposes of conversation, but when it comes down to what I actually believe, I’m betting on Genesis."

The Bible thumpers have people so scared of going to hell that they disbelieve what they know is correct in the hopes that they will go to heaven.

At least that's what I get out of this guys post.

Yes, don't they just love a chance to exit from reality and bathe in bibleness? I liked tm's contribution where he jumps in abandoning all reason:
     
Quote
As a YEC, I never really believed the only reason or even the biggest reason for that view is to preserve this classical theology. In fact, I can’t really recall that ever entering my thinking. Others might think that way, but I assure you I do not. My own reason is quite simply that when asking a historical question, the oldest accounts are quite literally the closest to the truth. It seems rather arrogant to me to trust the modern interpretations of the evidence rather than to trust the accounts of people who were much closer to the actual events than we were. Especially considering the ridiculous level of error in modern science in relation to truth in the absolute sense.

I'm having a bit of trouble here - on one level tragey is right - the value of eyewitness accounts and all that, but is he really telling us that the further in time we move from an event, the wronger about it we become?

--------------
“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,15:51   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 15 2009,13:10)
I read through the thread you guys are talking about and the saddest thing jumped out at me:

"tragic mishap
10/14/2009
5:34 pm
Of course, I’m willing to accept an old age and common descent and all that for purposes of conversation, but when it comes down to what I actually believe, I’m betting on Genesis."

The Bible thumpers have people so scared of going to hell that they disbelieve what they know is correct in the hopes that they will go to heaven.

At least that's what I get out of this guys post.

Oh, there's an even better example.  Or worse.  One of those.  Anyway, I give unto thee Janice:  
Quote

That the earth is young is something I take on faith because I know the evidence for it isn’t strong. Certainly, it’s nowhere near as strong as the evidence for design and the evidence that macro-evolutionary theory is incorrect. But I don’t see that the evidence for an old earth is strong either. One of us has missed something. If it’s me I don’t think that will cause me any major problems and I’m not willing to say that, if it’s you, it will cause you any major problems either. Maybe it will. Maybe it won’t. I don’t know. There are lots of things I don’t know.


Well, she got that last bit dead right. Atom dug it, at least (for some reason known only to him).  I'm kinda suspicious of Janice though.  Clivebaby should haul her in for questioning.

And then there's the Dr. Dr. hisself, earlier in the thread:  
Quote
As I note in THE END OF CHRISTIANITY, I would be a young-earth creationist in a heart-beat if I didn’t see the evidence for an old earth as so strong.  

The young-earth old-earth debate, however, is only about 20 percent of the book.


Alternate Dembski: I totally still like you guys!!!! Some of my best friends are YECs. Srsly....so buy my book!  At Amazon!  

Plus there's the fact that fucking Bevets inspired that reply.  I guess somebody played the "Summon Bevets" card.

(edited: forgot a possessive pronoun)

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,15:55   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 15 2009,13:36)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 16 2009,08:10)
I read through the thread you guys are talking about and the saddest thing jumped out at me:

"tragic mishap
10/14/2009
5:34 pm
Of course, I’m willing to accept an old age and common descent and all that for purposes of conversation, but when it comes down to what I actually believe, I’m betting on Genesis."

The Bible thumpers have people so scared of going to hell that they disbelieve what they know is correct in the hopes that they will go to heaven.

At least that's what I get out of this guys post.

Yes, don't they just love a chance to exit from reality and bathe in bibleness? I liked tm's contribution where he jumps in abandoning all reason:
     
Quote
As a YEC, I never really believed the only reason or even the biggest reason for that view is to preserve this classical theology. In fact, I can’t really recall that ever entering my thinking. Others might think that way, but I assure you I do not. My own reason is quite simply that when asking a historical question, the oldest accounts are quite literally the closest to the truth. It seems rather arrogant to me to trust the modern interpretations of the evidence rather than to trust the accounts of people who were much closer to the actual events than we were. Especially considering the ridiculous level of error in modern science in relation to truth in the absolute sense.

I'm having a bit of trouble here - on one level tragey is right - the value of eyewitness accounts and all that, but is he really telling us that the further in time we move from an event, the wronger about it we become?

Doesn't this mean that the Iliad should be read literally?  Awesome.  I'm totally moving to Greece and worshiping Zeus.  Maybe Athena.  She seems like a pretty cool chick.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,16:24   

Maybe Robin's sister can answer this one then.  How many words were there in ancient Hebrew?

I know the English vocabulary has gone up almost an order of magnitude since Shakespeare.

It stands to reason that when you combine translation errors, change in words, re-translation errors, and forced changes due to doctrinal adjustments... I can barely see how the bible is readable, much less historically accurate.

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

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

   
JohnW



Posts: 2235
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,16:27   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 15 2009,13:36)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 16 2009,08:10)
I read through the thread you guys are talking about and the saddest thing jumped out at me:

"tragic mishap
10/14/2009
5:34 pm
Of course, I’m willing to accept an old age and common descent and all that for purposes of conversation, but when it comes down to what I actually believe, I’m betting on Genesis."

The Bible thumpers have people so scared of going to hell that they disbelieve what they know is correct in the hopes that they will go to heaven.

At least that's what I get out of this guys post.

Yes, don't they just love a chance to exit from reality and bathe in bibleness? I liked tm's contribution where he jumps in abandoning all reason:
       
Quote
As a YEC, I never really believed the only reason or even the biggest reason for that view is to preserve this classical theology. In fact, I can’t really recall that ever entering my thinking. Others might think that way, but I assure you I do not. My own reason is quite simply that when asking a historical question, the oldest accounts are quite literally the closest to the truth. It seems rather arrogant to me to trust the modern interpretations of the evidence rather than to trust the accounts of people who were much closer to the actual events than we were. Especially considering the ridiculous level of error in modern science in relation to truth in the absolute sense.

I'm having a bit of trouble here - on one level tragey is right - the value of eyewitness accounts and all that, but is he really telling us that the further in time we move from an event, the wronger about it we become?

The last sentence "Especially considering the ridiculous level of error in modern science in relation to truth in the absolute sense."  magnifies the strangeness.  In the context of what precedes it, he seems to be implying that science is getting further and further away from reality as time goes by.  Flat earth > Ptolemy > Copernicus > Newton > Einstein.  After all, the Babylonians were closer to the beginning of the universe than we are.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need to stop doing science.  We're getting wronger and wronger.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,16:44   

niwrad needs to crack a textbook on thermodynamics.  Pronto.  
Quote
Not true. Thermodynamics does speak a lot about “an intelligent source of organization”. What is “Maxwell’s demon” (a fundamental concept in thermodynamics) but “an intelligent source of organization”? Bill Dembski wrote: “It is CSI that enables Maxwell’s demon to outsmart a thermodynamic system tending toward thermal equilibrium” (”Intelligent Design”, 6.1). So also from this viewpoint thermodynamics perfectly agrees with ID theory. When thermodynamics says that Maxwell’s demon is the only way to systematically decrease entropy in a system it states exactly the same thing of ID theory when says that intelligence is the only source of CSI.


Let me count the errors.  

1.  Maxwell's demon is not a fundamental concept of thermodynamics.*  Like Dawkins's weasel, it's just a toy model used to make a point.  I taught gradual statistical physics last spring and I did not even mention the demon.  

2.  Leó Szilárd showed that any decrease of entropy the demon produces in the system will be more than offset by an increase in demon's own entropy.  So the total amount of entropy increases.  

3.  Intelligent beings that we observe (i.e. humans) produce so much entropy through perspiration alone that it will dwarf any amount of information (measured in the same units) that they can physically produce.  One kcal of heat  at room temperature is equivalent to 1.5 trillion trillion (that's 1.5 x 1024) bits of entropy.  

*It was introduced in statistical physics, actually, but that's a minor point.

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

  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,16:48   

Dembski continues to act like a creepy Dawkins-stalker:
Quote

Some evolutionists are thoughtful and measured, willing to admit the anomalies that evolutionary theory must still explain. Richard Dawkins is not one of them. Instead, he seems to inhabit a la-la land where all the conceptual difficulties connected with the evolutionary theory are resolved or swept under the rug. As one colleague who wishes to remain out of the limelight wrote to a list I moderate: [snip bunch of crap]


A colleague on your super-ninja-secret ID list. Suuuuurrre.  Bill, he just doesn't like you that way: move the fuck on, you weasel.  You ain't gettin' no Dick, no how.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
REC



Posts: 567
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,16:48   

I love the last post!  Clearly on MSNBC, Dawkins should dispense with the simple, but effective analogy, that describes 99% of all cases, and start discussing the impact of topological variation in phylogenomics.  Oh yeah, Dianne,  there's this one group using a set of algorithms that didn't get totally clean crisp results that from a mountain of data and yeah, that disproves the entire field.

Quotemining one group that had difficulty parsing huge amount of genomic data into pretty trees is pretty low, especially considering they conclude it generally worked.

I could give most undergrads a chicken, human, mouse, chimp, and zebrafish sequence of anything, and using BLAST, I'm sure most would have a clean phylogeny. Even the most trivial alignment of insulin yields a decent tree:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast....4;86444

EDIT: you have to ignore the Insulin-like duplications, or turn the Max Seq def down to .5  (you could treat that as a case study in topology: gene duplications make complications!)

Would ya look at that?  Humans and chimps together, other mammals, birds, frogs and toads, then bony fish.....Took about 15 seconds...  

Where's the design? Why can't one well-designed sequence function in all these animals?

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,17:03   

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 15 2009,14:44)
I taught gradual statistical physics last spring and I did not even mention the demon.  

Aha! A gradualist!

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

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,17:46   

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 15 2009,17:44)
niwrad needs to crack a textbook on thermodynamics.  Pronto.  
Quote
Not true. Thermodynamics does speak a lot about “an intelligent source of organization”. What is “Maxwell’s demon” (a fundamental concept in thermodynamics) but “an intelligent source of organization”? Bill Dembski wrote: “It is CSI that enables Maxwell’s demon to outsmart a thermodynamic system tending toward thermal equilibrium” (”Intelligent Design”, 6.1). So also from this viewpoint thermodynamics perfectly agrees with ID theory. When thermodynamics says that Maxwell’s demon is the only way to systematically decrease entropy in a system it states exactly the same thing of ID theory when says that intelligence is the only source of CSI.


Let me count the errors.  

1.  Maxwell's demon is not a fundamental concept of thermodynamics.*  Like Dawkins's weasel, it's just a toy model used to make a point.  I taught gradual statistical physics last spring and I did not even mention the demon.  

2.  Leó Szilárd showed that any decrease of entropy the demon produces in the system will be more than offset by an increase in demon's own entropy.  So the total amount of entropy increases.  

3.  Intelligent beings that we observe (i.e. humans) produce so much entropy through perspiration alone that it will dwarf any amount of information (measured in the same units) that they can physically produce.  One kcal of heat  at room temperature is equivalent to 1.5 trillion trillion (that's 1.5 x 1024) bits of entropy.  

*It was introduced in statistical physics, actually, but that's a minor point.

So you're saying that invention is much more than 99% perspiration? :)

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

  
Raevmo



Posts: 235
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,17:50   

clivebaby:
 
Quote
Yes it is. All was can truly say and not become self-referentially incoherent is that some dogmas are wrong, and some right.

Excuse me? That is simply incoherent, both self-referentially and allo-referentially, even inter-referentially.

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

--GilDodgen

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,20:01   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 15 2009,15:11)
Quote
Still, is Phil Johnson a YEC or OEC?  I can't find anything that says one way or the other.
You're asking for a pathetic level of detail.

Actually no.

It is when I go and talk to the group I work with, I have several evangelical co-workers and one of them is a retired preacher, it would be nice to "help drive a wedge" between those who want to use the good Dr. Dr. I can use Phillip as well.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,20:13   

absolutist is an absolute tard:  
Quote

Carl Zimmer: “I write about research and ideas that have held up under scrutiny.” (1) As if the idea of a monotheist God hadn’t passed that test.


You're a damn idiot, you IDiot.  Try this: “I write about [scientific] research and [scientific] ideas that have held up under scrutiny.”  Sheesh!  Try to consider the proper fucking context next time.  Kthx.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3559
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,21:13   

Quote
it would be nice to "help drive a wedge" between those who want to use the good Dr. Dr. I can use Phillip as well.


It would be nice, but it's about as easy as driving a wedge between two parts of an oil slick.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,21:31   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 15 2009,21:13)
Quote
it would be nice to "help drive a wedge" between those who want to use the good Dr. Dr. I can use Phillip as well.


It would be nice, but it's about as easy as driving a wedge between two parts of an oil slick.

"Oil slick " is appropriate when referring to the oleaginous P. Johnson. In the middle of this interview  ( http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ID-intro/cast/johnson/johnson.htm )  he really shows how duplicitous and weaselly he can be when directly confronted with the YEC question.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1022
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,21:35   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 15 2009,21:31)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 15 2009,21:13)
Quote
it would be nice to "help drive a wedge" between those who want to use the good Dr. Dr. I can use Phillip as well.


It would be nice, but it's about as easy as driving a wedge between two parts of an oil slick.

"Oil slick " is appropriate when referring to the oleaginous P. Johnson. In the middle of this interview  ( http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ID-intro/cast/johnson/johnson.htm )  he really shows how duplicitous and weaselly he can be when directly confronted with the YEC question.

I get denying you're a creationist when you want to pretend to be doing science.  What I don't get is denying being a YEC to other creationists.  Doesn't this show a certain amount of awareness that you position is ridiculous, even to other creationists?

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1697
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,22:22   

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 15 2009,12:34)
Quote (JLT @ Oct. 15 2009,10:00)
Quote (KCdgw @ Oct. 15 2009,14:24)
You have to love this:

Doomsday Smith:

       
Quote
Whatever the actual reason, though, there’s still nothing in thermodynamics for either you or ID in general to latch onto and that poor horse is still stone-cold dead. If it seems like it’s still twitching a bit, that’s only because you keep whacking on it so much.

eric B answers:
     
Quote
In short, “mechanisms which can produce biological complexity derive power from the sun.” is a bogus concept, a fiction. There is no support whatsoever, either empirical or theoretical, for supposing there could be such a mechanism in an undirected prebiotic universe.


Funny. I always thought we knew such a mechanism....


Actually, he probably would dismiss that.  Notice that "pre-biotic"?  He's got an abiogenesis hang-up.   Of course we do know of such a mechanism: chemistry.

Didn't somebody at UD recently claim that plants don't evolve because they are no animals?

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,22:24   

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 15 2009,20:22)
Didn't somebody at UD recently claim that plants don't evolve because they are no animals?

Wasn't that Joseph aka JoeG?

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2009,23:10   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 15 2009,19:35)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 15 2009,21:31)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 15 2009,21:13)
 
Quote
it would be nice to "help drive a wedge" between those who want to use the good Dr. Dr. I can use Phillip as well.


It would be nice, but it's about as easy as driving a wedge between two parts of an oil slick.

"Oil slick " is appropriate when referring to the oleaginous P. Johnson. In the middle of this interview  ( http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ID-intro/cast/johnson/johnson.htm )  he really shows how duplicitous and weaselly he can be when directly confronted with the YEC question.

I get denying you're a creationist when you want to pretend to be doing science.  What I don't get is denying being a YEC to other creationists.  Doesn't this show a certain amount of awareness that you position is ridiculous, even to other creationists?

I think it's kinda cute that they're willing to lie to each other for Jesus.

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

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

Pages: (501) < ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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