RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76 77 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2008,19:54   

DaveTard fails and flails to justify:
† † †
Quote

DaveScot

10/02/2008

2:49 pm

When I say Darwinian evolution I mean the term writ large accounting for the entire history of life on earth. Do I really need to tediously qualify it at every mention? I donít think so. Most of the subscribers and audience here recognize by now that micro-evolution by chance & necessity is not being disputed. We donít dispute facts. We dispute theory.


Yeah, but Dave, everyone else just says 'evolution'. †But let's tediously qualify:


microevolution,macroevolution,evolution:
† † †
Quote

microevolution does not have enough search volume for ranking

microevolution
macroevolution
evolution



Um, OK. †Let's try again. †
micro-evolution,macro-evolution,evolution:

† † †
Quote
micro-evolution does not have enough search volume for ranking


Crap. †OK, how about these?

microevolution,macroevolution:

microevolution
macroevolution


Interesting, but not much support there for you.


micro-evolution,macro-evolution:

† † †
Quote
Your terms - micro-evolution,macro-evolution - do not have enough search volume to show graphs.

Suggestions:

† †* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
† †* Try different keywords.
† †* Try more general keywords.
† †* Try fewer keywords.
† †* Try viewing data for all years and all regions.


Well, that didn't work.

Yes Dave,apparently you do need to tediously qualify. †Even the people in your lair can't agree on what the fuck you're actually talking about. †Besides, by tediously qualifying, you'll come off as slightly less idiotically wrong than you usually do. †Maybe not by enough to affect the outcome of a Google trend plot, but every little bit helps. †Especially in macroevolution evolution.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2008,22:20   

Probably as a result of too much recent salsa dancing, everytime I see didymos, I think

Quote
Didymos!
Let the rhythm take you over...
Didymos!
Te quiero, amor mio
Didymos!


:D

   
stevestory



Posts: 8948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2008,22:24   

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 02 2008,20:54)

That actually looks like some FRET graphs I used to work on.

   
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2008,23:04   

Ah, I like this one. I'd overlooked it 'til now:

Quote

MaxAug

10/02/2008

1:45 pm

Since atheists are promoting evolutionism more than ever, it is no surprise terms related to evolution will appear more than those relating to ID, specially considering the fact that they own the mainstream.


Using the little known ID-to-Reality function of Google Translate, I got this:
Quote

Since scientists are continuing to advance evolutionary theory by doing more research, just as they always have, it is no surprise that terms related to evolution will appear more than those relating to cdesign proponentsism*, especially considering the fact that no adequately informed individual, religiously inclined or not, takes that ID bullshit seriously.


*Not sure what happened there. Guess they haven't worked out all the bugs yet. †I wonder if they've considered using a GA?

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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1670
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2008,00:41   

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 01 2008,04:07)
†  
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 30 2008,22:46)
Dave didn't heed your warning † † †
Quote
12

DaveScot

09/30/2008

10:49 pm

Tard Alert!

TomRiddle is no longer with us.
Larry Fafarman is in timeout, again. I felt bad that I was taking time away from his holocaust denial work on his own blog. He gets irritable when he doesnít get enough Jew-bashing time. I think he probably likes Osama because of Osamaís muslim background and connections.

I guess he edited his post.

The best part is, poor befuddled Larry got the ban-hammer for making a completely rational and accurate observation, †but the fact that he even attempted to publicly criticize DT serves only as further evidence of his estrangement from reality. †It's so...elegant. †A true work of TARD.

Looks like there's been a little editing of DaveTard's post:  
Quote
12

DaveScot

09/30/2008

10:49 pm
TomRiddle is no longer with us.

Larry Fafarman is in timeout, again.


--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.  Edward Feser

  
dogdidit



Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2008,06:47   

Quote
8
DaveScot
10/02/2008
2:49 pm

When I say Darwinian evolution I mean the term writ large accounting for the entire history of life on earth. Do I really need to tediously qualify it at every mention? I donít think so. Most of the subscribers and audience here recognize by now that micro-evolution by chance & necessity is not being disputed. We donít dispute facts. We dispute theory.

My bolding. On-line now at UD: † †
† †- ten true believers;
† †- twelve yet-to-be banninninated skeptics;
† †- a couple dozen sock puppets (you know who you are *wags finger*);
† †- and fifty AtBCers observing from beyond the electrified fence.

Davetard really needs to conduct a census.

--------------
"Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

  
dogdidit



Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2008,06:50   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 03 2008,00:41)

Looks like there's been a little editing of DaveTard's post: † †
Quote
12

DaveScot

09/30/2008

10:49 pm
TomRiddle is no longer with us.

Larry Fafarman is in timeout, again.

Covered already. Behold!

--------------
"Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

  
dogdidit



Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2008,07:02   

While we're at it, I've been thinking about this consistent concoction of DT's:
 
Quote
8
DaveScot
10/02/2008
2:49 pm

Blah blah blah †chance & necessity †blah blah blah...

God Teh Designer tinkers with his creation;
other parts of it are governed by ever-lasting law ("necessity");
and random chance governs the third portion of the firmament.

Have I got it right?

Hmmm.. . Tinkers...to Evers...to Chance...


OH NOES!! DAVETARDS IS A CUBS FAN!!!!

--------------
"Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

  
fusilier



Posts: 212
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2008,07:13   

Quote (dogdidit @ Oct. 03 2008,08:02)
{snip}
Hmmm.. . Tinkers...to Evers...to Chance...


OH NOES!! DAVETARDS IS A CUBS FAN!!!!

THAT explains a lot about the attitude.

(down 2-0 in the playoffs for the 80th year in a row.)

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4366
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2008,07:31   

Quote (dogdidit @ Oct. 03 2008,07:02)
While we're at it, I've been thinking about this consistent concoction of DT's:
Quote
8
DaveScot
10/02/2008
2:49 pm

Blah blah blah †chance & necessity †blah blah blah...

God Teh Designer tinkers with his creation;
other parts of it are governed by ever-lasting law ("necessity");
and random chance governs the third portion of the firmament.

Have I got it right?

Hmmm.. . Tinkers...to Evers...to Chance...


OH NOES!! DAVETARDS IS A CUBS FAN!!!!

What a Beautifully Designed Post!

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2008,10:43   

Quote (fusilier @ Oct. 03 2008,05:13)
Quote (dogdidit @ Oct. 03 2008,08:02)
{snip}
Hmmm.. . Tinkers...to Evers...to Chance...


OH NOES!! DAVETARDS IS A CUBS FAN!!!!

THAT explains a lot about the attitude.

(down 2-0 in the playoffs for the 80th year in a row.)

Dave associating with lost causes?  I find that hard to believe.

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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2008,17:56   

This is an interesting story in itself, and also because it bites DaveTard in the ass yet again. †I blogged about it, and reproduce here what I wrote there:

Quote
It seems redundant to say that ultraconserved non-coding DNA is conserved or preserved, but it is two different types of "conservation" that are being discussed. †The quandary has been that stretches of non-coding DNA are extremely faithfully copied--which implies that natural selection is preserving the sequences--while taking these stretches out of lab animals has no discernable effect on the animals lacking these ultraconserved regions.

Then the question is, are lab animals really an appropriate test (members of captive populations typically survive a good deal less well in the wild than do their wild counterparts--including where nurture is not a factor) of the value of these ultraconserved regions, and how would one test to see if these stretches of DNA are valuable to wild populations?

The answer, or at least an answer, is to find out if natural deletions of these regions are well-tolerated by wild populations. †It turns out that deletions of the ultraconserved regions in question are only 1/300th as likely to be tolerated by wild populations as are deletions of neutral, non-conserved stretches (presumed to be actually useless "junk DNA") of non-coding DNA. †So it seems that the ultraconserved DNA does have a function after all, although we still do not know what it is.

Read more about it here.

It's not surprising, of course, that there is an evolutionary basis for the ultraconserved DNA. †Whether even a 300X better retention of this DNA actually tells us why it is that these chunks of DNA are conserved rather better than coding DNA usually is, seems in doubt, at least to me. †It appears that a lot remains to be learned about these parts of genomes, especially how they actually do enhance survival of wild-type organisms.

There have been a few cases where IDists have tried to make something of the fact that ultraconserved DNA, like on Uncommon Descent. On the whole, though, many seemed not too eager to make much of it, knowing that future research could come back to bite them. After all, there is a great deal not yet understood about DNA and its regulation, and lab animals are not really very good at testing subtle effects on wild populations. Still, it's good to see Uncommon Descent shown to be wrong yet again, no matter how commonly this occurs.

Even more so, it's just good to see how research once again uses evolutionary understanding both to find problems, and then to find the solutions to those problems. †And exactly what has ID been doing while scientists were doing research into evolution, in this and a myriad of other areas?


Source blog

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

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

   
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2008,10:27   

A 'Great' Debate?
I wonder why DDrr.. Dembski was unavailable to fill the pro-ID, theist friendly position? Berlinski is a theist? Monton's relevant work is all "in preparation", very conveniently unavailable for criticism. Design arguments are 'based on a false physics' but should be taught in the public schools?? In the same class as astrology, perhaps?

Anybody going?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,05:04   

Salvador Cordova still has it
Quote
Actually, I think my 3 science degrees (and, God willing a 4th one from Johns Hopkins in Applied Physics) make me scientifically literate. There was more science in my Applied Physics course last semester than in all of Darwinís miserable life. Heck, that makes me more scientifically literate than Darwinists Jack Krebs and Liz Craig of Kansas Center For Sewage (KCFS) who have successfully ensured that Darwinist falsehoods are indoctrinated into the next generation of Kids in kansas. Shame on them.


Yes, shame on you Jack! How many degrees do you have? †:D
YEC blitherings.

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

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 328
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,06:46   

Glad to see Sal taking the high road here, as always. †Kansas Center for Sewage - that's cute, Sal. †Is this an example of your scientific literacy - the kind of thing you learn how to say after having three (God willing, four) science degrees?

  
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,06:50   

Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 06 2008,06:46)
Glad to see Sal taking the high road here, as always. †Kansas Center for Sewage - that's cute, Sal. †Is this an example of your scientific literacy - the kind of thing you learn how to say after having three (God willing, four) science degrees?

Jack, ya gotta admit that whenever Sal showed up at KCFS there was a certain stench . . .

[/cattiness]

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,07:01   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 06 2008,05:04)
Salvador Cordova still has it
Quote
Actually, I think my 3 science degrees (and, God willing a 4th one from Johns Hopkins in Applied Physics) make me scientifically literate. There was more science in my Applied Physics course last semester than in all of Darwinís miserable life. Heck, that makes me more scientifically literate than Darwinists Jack Krebs and Liz Craig of Kansas Center For Sewage (KCFS) who have successfully ensured that Darwinist falsehoods are indoctrinated into the next generation of Kids in kansas. Shame on them.


Yes, shame on you Jack! How many degrees do you have? †:D
YEC blitherings.

Yes! He still has it!

If Scordova had merely said he had a more extensive science education than Darwin, he might have been able to support the claim. But he grossly overreaches.

Quote
Scordova: There was more science in my Applied Physics course last semester than in all of Darwinís miserable life.


I doubt that Scordova would even want to type out the list of Darwin's scientific publications.

Perhaps Scordova forgot that Darwin sailed around the world collecting evidence nearly thirty years before he published Origin of Species. One of the greatest scientific adventures of all times! Then he spent years collecting and publishing additional evidence to support and develop his nascent theory, long before he was willing to put the theory before his peers. Darwin's incremental approach allowed him to build and refine his argument, on a solid evidentiary basis.

Darwin's intensive, multi-year study of barnacles was sufficient to establish his reputation among scientists, while his study of earthworms was sufficient to establish his public reputation; and the sheer volume of his scientific studies, including observations of moths, orchids, bees, beetles, coral reefs, as well as related studies of geology, made him one of the most important scientists of his ageóeven without including Origin of Species.

Here is a list of Darwin's primary scientific output:

Quote
* The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle
* Natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle
* The Breeding of Animals
* The structure and distribution of coral reefs.
* Fertilisation of British orchids by insect agency
* On the agency of bees in the fertilisation of papilionaceous flowers

As well as published observations on living and fossil Cirripedia, animal intelligence, insectivorous plants; cross breeding hybrid dianths; the effects of cross and self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom; the different forms of flowers on plants of the same species; the effect of seawater on seeds; mouse-coloured breed of ponies; bees and the fertilisation of kidney beans; cross-breeds of strawberries; flowers and their unbidden guests; the power of movement in plants; the formation of vegetable mould, through the action of worms; nectar-secreting organs of plants, Rhea americana, Chiasognathus Grantii, Carabus, Geospiza, Camarhynchus, Cactornis and Certhidea, Sagitta, planariæ; Lizard's eggs; observations of proofs of recent elevation on the coast of Chili; the geology of the Falkland Islands; on certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations; on the connexion of certain volcanic phenomena, and on the formation of mountain-chains and volcanoes, as the effects of continental elevations; vincas, frogs, rates, geese, butterflies, teasel, ants, holly berries and their bees, primrose, black sheep, mosquitoes, cherry blossoms, gladioli, penguin ducks, fumariaceae, influence of pollen on the appearance of seed, etc.


Without the Theory of Evolution, Darwin was one of the greatest scientist of his age. With the Theory of Evolution, he revolutionized biology, a revolution which is still spawning entire new areas of research today. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has thus far been a sterile dead-end.

{Previously published on Telic Thoughts.}

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,07:13   

I was going to register for Scordova's Young Cosmos, to link to my previous comment, but I couldn't figure it out. Then I noticed that the vast majority of the recent comments were by John A. Davison.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,07:39   

Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 06 2008,07:13)
I was going to register for Scordova's Young Cosmos, to link to my previous comment, but I couldn't figure it out. Then I noticed that the vast majority of the recent comments were by John A. Davison.

I believe it's "invite only".

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

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,07:54   

Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 06 2008,07:01)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 06 2008,05:04)
Salvador Cordova still has it
Quote
Actually, I think my 3 science degrees (and, God willing a 4th one from Johns Hopkins in Applied Physics) make me scientifically literate. There was more science in my Applied Physics course last semester than in all of Darwinís miserable life. Heck, that makes me more scientifically literate than Darwinists Jack Krebs and Liz Craig of Kansas Center For Sewage (KCFS) who have successfully ensured that Darwinist falsehoods are indoctrinated into the next generation of Kids in kansas. Shame on them.


Sal has convinced me that there is no God, by somehow remaining unstruck by lightning all these years.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1256
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,09:23   

Some person, obviously a hard-core Darwinian agitator, lets go a great big wad of concern trollery at the IDiots:

 
Quote
If Darwin and the Darwinian crew had never gone the way of molecule to man (common descent vs. common design), would science be where it is today. Is the concept of common descent vital to scientific advancement? If anyone has run across any relevant articles contemplating this scenario, please reference them.


Linkibus vulgaris

--------------
"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.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4366
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,10:51   

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 06 2008,09:23)
Some person, obviously a hard-core Darwinian agitator, lets go a great big wad of concern trollery at the IDiots:

Quote
If Darwin and the Darwinian crew had never gone the way of molecule to man (common descent vs. common design), would science be where it is today. Is the concept of common descent vital to scientific advancement? If anyone has run across any relevant articles contemplating this scenario, please reference them.


Linkibus vulgaris

She's SUCH a maverick!  (Take another drink)

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,11:33   

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 06 2008,07:23)
Some person, obviously a hard-core Darwinian agitator, lets go a great big wad of concern trollery at the IDiots:

Quote
If Darwin and the Darwinian crew had never gone the way of molecule to man (common descent vs. common design), would science be where it is today. Is the concept of common descent vital to scientific advancement? If anyone has run across any relevant articles contemplating this scenario, please reference them.


Linkibus vulgaris

If Darwin had been eaten by a jaguar in Argentina, who knows what would have happened?  I suppose it's remotely possible that someone else would have done some field research, integrated it with what was by then common knowledge about the age of the Earth and the changes in its fauna and flora over time, and come up with similar ideas.  Just for the sake of argument, let's call this guy Alfred Russel Wallace.  

Obviously this is all pretty far-fetched.  It could never really have happened.

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

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,12:07   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 06 2008,12:33)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 06 2008,07:23)
Some person, obviously a hard-core Darwinian agitator, lets go a great big wad of concern trollery at the IDiots:

†  
Quote
If Darwin and the Darwinian crew had never gone the way of molecule to man (common descent vs. common design), would science be where it is today. Is the concept of common descent vital to scientific advancement? If anyone has run across any relevant articles contemplating this scenario, please reference them.


Linkibus vulgaris

If Darwin had been eaten by a jaguar in Argentina, who knows what would have happened? †I suppose it's remotely possible that someone else would have done some field research, integrated it with what was by then common knowledge about the age of the Earth and the changes in its fauna and flora over time, and come up with similar ideas. †Just for the sake of argument, let's call this guy Alfred Russel Wallace. †

Obviously this is all pretty far-fetched. †It could never really have happened.

Ha, this is just FtK trying to use one of her lifelines to answer questions hanging for her on the thread dedicated to her bloviation. She set "molecule to man" and "common descent vs. common design" as her two show stoppers. Descent vs. design got stomped pretty fast.

Of course, if Darwin had fallen off the Beagle as it rounded Ushant, Alfred Russell Wallace would be the subject of the same criticisms that Darwin suffers today. The ideas were obvious as the evidence was collected and collated, distributed and discussed. An "I am Spartacus!" moment in science.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,12:54   

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 06 2008,09:23)
Some person, obviously a hard-core Darwinian agitator, lets go a great big wad of concern trollery at the IDiots:

† †  
Quote
If Darwin and the Darwinian crew had never gone the way of molecule to man (common descent vs. common design), would science be where it is today. Is the concept of common descent vital to scientific advancement? If anyone has run across any relevant articles contemplating this scenario, please reference them.


Linkibus vulgaris

FtK

To distract you from the clown circus going on here at your own thread, I can remind you that this topic (design v. descent) has been discussed here by folks who know a hell of a lot more about it than the engineers and blowhards at UD. Why are you ignoring that discussion?

At any rate, if you want to read about the late 19th century, when design and descent went head-to-head as rival explanatory frameworks (and design was left in the dust where it belongs), I'm afraid you will have to get in the car and head to the library to read some books. Two good ones would be David Quammen's "The Reluctant Mr. Darwin", which touches briefly on this topic, and Robert J. Richards' biography of Ernst Haeckel, "The Tragic Sense of Life", which covers the topic in a fair amount of detail.

Happy reading. †And don't forget to tell the UDenizens what you learn!

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

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,12:59   

Quote
To distract you from the clown circus going on here at your own thread, I can remind you that this topic (design v. descent) has been discussed here by folks who know a hell of a lot more about it than the engineers and blowhards at UD. Why are you ignoring that discussion?


Because the majority of my questions were not addressed.  Srsly.  Go back and read my post.  I guess Tom is not coming back...I've waited over a week now, so I'll go back and dig through the attempts to answer some of the questions I posed.  I'll adresses them and highlight things that were never touched on by your folks.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,13:08   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,12:59)
 
Quote
To distract you from the clown circus going on here at your own thread, I can remind you that this topic (design v. descent) has been discussed here by folks who know a hell of a lot more about it than the engineers and blowhards at UD. Why are you ignoring that discussion?


Because the majority of my questions were not addressed. †Srsly. †Go back and read my post. †I guess Tom is not coming back...I've waited over a week now, so I'll go back and dig through the attempts to answer some of the questions I posed. †I'll adresses them and highlight things that were never touched on by your folks.

The original question was to show you why common descent was a better vehicle for scientific progress. Many people gave you answers to that question, including me. You ignored those answers when you took up that conversation with Tom.

What part of this sentence is not an answer to your question? - Common design and common descent were rival explanatory frameworks in the decades after Darwin published the Origin; common descent proved to be better in terms of explaining differences & similarities, as well as in making predictions that have been verified by experiment.

Please address that, since you have never bothered to do it previously. And I do recommend reading both of those books; you might learn a lot more about issues beyond this specific question.

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 8948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,13:35   

Let's not make this yet another FtK thread please.

   
BopDiddy



Posts: 71
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,16:45   

Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 06 2008,07:13)
I was going to register for Scordova's Young Cosmos, to link to my previous comment, but I couldn't figure it out. Then I noticed that the vast majority of the recent comments were by John A. Davison.


  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2008,17:53   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 06 2008,06:04)
Salvador Cordova still has it...

Not to mention his four posts referencing representative "Barney Fag."

There's a class act, and right Christian, too.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76 77 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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