RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (10) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   
  Topic: Kent Hovind on tape, Direct from jail< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,06:35   

Quote
Isn't that a lot like saying that when you guys run low on women, do a few of you pretend to be ladies?


actually, that's not why.  in tarden's case it has nothing to do with how many other women there are.

but anyway i can do a better impression than that lcd.  don't make me pull out my bibble.

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

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,06:55   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 30 2008,22:23)
I'm not buying that Vacation Bible School points people to the TOA.

Most antievolution sites can't muster the gumption to link to the TOA or any other mainstream science sources.

Actually that was addressed during the class.  For too long, the internet had been used to lie about many things.  One of those things is the so called "overwhelming proof" of evolution.  Well I don't see and be honest, neither do you.

Like the guy who came and taught, he was from a local college, about the problems with evolution, he said not to fear sites like these.  The worst he said was to endure mocking from many at a place such as this.  Boy was he right.

But we did spend a lot of time looking over the great stuff that is on the internet, like Trueorigins, Institute for Creation Research and even places like kids4truth.com, which my kids really like.

What is most interesting sir, and your name did come up if that makes you feel special, was the amount of money spent on trying to prove evolution.  Why is that sir?  If you think it's already true, then why do you guys feel the need to keep on trying to prove it?

I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,07:13   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 01 2008,06:35)
Quote
Isn't that a lot like saying that when you guys run low on women, do a few of you pretend to be ladies?


actually, that's not why.  in tarden's case it has nothing to do with how many other women there are.

but anyway i can do a better impression than that lcd.  don't make me pull out my bibble.

Please do pull out your Bible.  Perhaps you'll learn the truth of it.

But as many have said before ID is not religious.  It is being backed up with fact and proof.

If you want to pull out your Bible please do.  I'd like to hear your thoughts on God's Word.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,07:38   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,06:55)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 30 2008,22:23)
I'm not buying that Vacation Bible School points people to the TOA.

Most antievolution sites can't muster the gumption to link to the TOA or any other mainstream science sources.

Actually that was addressed during the class.  For too long, the internet had been used to lie about many things.  One of those things is the so called "overwhelming proof" of evolution.  Well I don't see and be honest, neither do you.

Like the guy who came and taught, he was from a local college, about the problems with evolution, he said not to fear sites like these.  The worst he said was to endure mocking from many at a place such as this.  Boy was he right.

But we did spend a lot of time looking over the great stuff that is on the internet, like Trueorigins, Institute for Creation Research and even places like kids4truth.com, which my kids really like.

What is most interesting sir, and your name did come up if that makes you feel special, was the amount of money spent on trying to prove evolution.  Why is that sir?  If you think it's already true, then why do you guys feel the need to keep on trying to prove it?

I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.

Well, ok.
Quote
Actually that was addressed during the class.  For too long, the internet had been used to lie about many things.

For too long books have been used to lie about many things too. So what.
Quote
One of those things is the so called "overwhelming proof" of evolution.  Well I don't see and be honest, neither do you.

Where have you looked? What books have you read? You might have to leave the internet to do this, you realize that right?
Quote
Like the guy who came and taught, he was from a local college, about the problems with evolution, he said not to fear sites like these.

Can you list these "problems"?
Quote
The worst he said was to endure mocking from many at a place such as this.  Boy was he right.

I tell you what, you coward. Why don't you pick a "problem" from your list (not that it's anything other then the usual ICR talking points) and detail it here. Then, I have no doubt, one of the many experts here can discuss it with you.

Are you afraid to challenge your faith?

Quote
But we did spend a lot of time looking over the great stuff that is on the internet, like Trueorigins, Institute for Creation Research and even places like kids4truth.com, which my kids really like.

I'm glad your kids liked it. It just means that your children will not be able to compete with mine in the marketplace.


Quote
What is most interesting sir, and your name did come up if that makes you feel special, was the amount of money spent on trying to prove evolution.

It's funny but megachurches in the USA bring in millions a week. What are they trying to prove in that case?

And nobody is trying to prove anything. People like you can't be reached via rational means (prove me wrong, accept the challenge to discuss on of these "problems" you mention).
Quote
Why is that sir?  If you think it's already true, then why do you guys feel the need to keep on trying to prove it?

Oddly it's you that should answer this question, if you are so convinced your deity exists then why are you so afraid of science and progress?
Quote

I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.

Why don't you go ask a megachurch to fund a lab.

And in any case, ID/Creation has a lab already, the biologic people. What have they discovered so far? Zilch.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,07:41   

Quote

Please do pull out your Bible.  Perhaps you'll learn the truth of it.

Which is what exactly?

 
Quote
But as many have said before ID is not religious.  It is being backed up with fact and proof.

Your words are contradicted by the very people who represent ID. It's no surprise that "fact" and "proof" mean different things to you.

Or do you mean "facts" like "DNA is very complex and is a code, only designers design codes therefore DNA was designed"

Is that the sort of "proof" you mean?

 
Quote
If you want to pull out your Bible please do.  I'd like to hear your thoughts on God's Word.

After we hear your thoughts on those "problems", sure, no problem.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,08:27   

Whoa whoa whoa whoa! When did mocking liars/suckers/morons (delete as applicable) and IDCIsts...but I repeat myself....become a BAD thing?

Three strikes and out. Discuss sensibly once...discuss sensibly twice...make last ditch attempt at sensible discussion......MOCK!

Lcd seems to have missed the part where IDCists and their ancestors keep trying to force religious dogma into schools claiming it (falsely) to be science. Maybe THAT'S why people have to deal with them occasionally, no matter how unpleasant it might be.

Louis

EDIT: Unless of course lcd is a loki or a sock. Kids4truth? Come onnnnnnnn.

--------------
Bye.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,08:38   

Quote (Louis @ July 01 2008,08:27)
EDIT: Unless of course lcd is a loki or a sock. Kids4truth? Come onnnnnnnn.

lcd?  Lowest Common Denominator? More likely than not.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,08:42   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,08:38)
Quote (Louis @ July 01 2008,08:27)
EDIT: Unless of course lcd is a loki or a sock. Kids4truth? Come onnnnnnnn.

lcd?  Lowest Common Denominator? More likely than not.

Yes, that is what the the initials stand for.

As I see many others have initials for their names on this bored, I thought I'd do the same.  The only question was which initials.

I was told correctly that those who believe ID is good science and in Creationism, like myself, are treated like dirt and less than human, I choose it so you guys can have what I thought would be good natured fun.

Obviously I was wrong.

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,08:43   

Quote (Louis @ July 01 2008,08:27)
Whoa whoa whoa whoa! When did mocking liars/suckers/morons (delete as applicable) and IDCIsts...but I repeat myself....become a BAD thing?

Three strikes and out. Discuss sensibly once...discuss sensibly twice...make last ditch attempt at sensible discussion......MOCK!

Lcd seems to have missed the part where IDCists and their ancestors keep trying to force religious dogma into schools claiming it (falsely) to be science. Maybe THAT'S why people have to deal with them occasionally, no matter how unpleasant it might be.

Louis

EDIT: Unless of course lcd is a loki or a sock. Kids4truth? Come onnnnnnnn.

Try here:

http://kids4truth.com/hometwo.asp

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,08:53   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,08:42)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,08:38)

lcd?  Lowest Common Denominator? More likely than not.

I was told correctly that those who believe ID is good science and in Creationism, like myself, are treated like dirt and less than human, I choose it so you guys can have what I thought would be good natured fun.

Obviously I was wrong.

Au contraire. We are having good natured fun.  And we aren't treating you as less than human.  We are treating you as less than sincere.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,09:00   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,08:53)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,08:42)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,08:38)

lcd?  Lowest Common Denominator? More likely than not.

I was told correctly that those who believe ID is good science and in Creationism, like myself, are treated like dirt and less than human, I choose it so you guys can have what I thought would be good natured fun.

Obviously I was wrong.

Au contraire. We are having good natured fun.  And we aren't treating you as less than human.  We are treating you as less than sincere.

Don't really know what to do about that so I won't worry about.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,09:01   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,08:42)
I was told correctly that those who believe ID is good science and in Creationism, like myself, are treated like dirt and less than human, I choose it so you guys can have what I thought would be good natured fun.

Would you like to talk about Walt Brown and his Jellyfish theory?

I'd love to hear your side of the story.

Go here for the story so far.

Do you, as a creationist, find Walt's story credible?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,09:02   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,09:00)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,08:53)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,08:42)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,08:38)

lcd?  Lowest Common Denominator? More likely than not.

I was told correctly that those who believe ID is good science and in Creationism, like myself, are treated like dirt and less than human, I choose it so you guys can have what I thought would be good natured fun.

Obviously I was wrong.

Au contraire. We are having good natured fun.  And we aren't treating you as less than human.  We are treating you as less than sincere.

Don't really know what to do about that so I won't worry about.

No response to my responses to your points?

Typical creationist tactic I suppose, pretend the difficult questions are not there.

Have you been learning from FTK LCD?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,09:03   

Quote
I was told correctly that those who believe ID is good science and in Creationism, like myself, are treated like dirt and less than human, I choose it so you guys can have what I thought would be good natured fun.


lcd, is 'creationism' good science?

is 'ID is good science' a faith claim?  can you show that it is true without invoking your 'belief'?

check out my sig line for how ID supporters here treat ID critics like dirt and as less than human.  I suspect you know the perpetrator.

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

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,09:06   

oldmanintheskydidntdoit,


Since you've asked so nicely (was "coward" really needed?), here's some of the issues I've seen with evolution:

1:  It hasn't been seen.  Yes, I've read the Lemski debate over at Conservapedia and the comments made here, still the issue remains.  The E. coli in the experiment can now eat the stuff it's not supposed to eat.  But it is still E. Coli, right?  You've heard of Baraminolgy, right?  Even in full Creationists circles, kinds are well known.

2:  Where did the life come from to even evolve?

That is what the predictive power of ID can't be over looked.  ID can explain those things far better than anything I've ever seen evolution even try.

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,09:08   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2008,09:02)
No response to my responses to your points?

Typical creationist tactic I suppose, pretend the difficult questions are not there.

Have you been learning from FTK LCD?

I start from th bottom of the page and work up.

Also, I was taking time in gather what I thought were two good questions to start off with.

Sorry if my time table is not in sync with yours.  I'll worry about that another time.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,09:12   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,09:06)
Since you've asked so nicely (was "coward" really needed?), here's some of the issues I've seen with evolution:

1:  It hasn't been seen.  Yes, I've read the Lemski debate over at Conservapedia and the comments made here, still the issue remains.  The E. coli in the experiment can now eat the stuff it's not supposed to eat.  But it is still E. Coli, right?  You've heard of Baraminolgy, right?  Even in full Creationists circles, kinds are well known.

2:  Where did the life come from to even evolve?

I'm disappointed.  You forgot:

3. No transitional fossils.

4. Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Plus, on your point one, you forgot that no one has seen a half-cat, half dog.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,09:13   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,09:06)
oldmanintheskydidntdoit,


Since you've asked so nicely (was "coward" really needed?), here's some of the issues I've seen with evolution:

1:  It hasn't been seen.  Yes, I've read the Lemski debate over at Conservapedia and the comments made here, still the issue remains.  The E. coli in the experiment can now eat the stuff it's not supposed to eat.  But it is still E. Coli, right?  You've heard of Baraminolgy, right?  Even in full Creationists circles, kinds are well known.

2:  Where did the life come from to even evolve?

That is what the predictive power of ID can't be over looked.  ID can explain those things far better than anything I've ever seen evolution even try.

   
Quote
Since you've asked so nicely (was "coward" really needed?), here's some of the issues I've seen with evolution:

As you have now responded, I apologize and retract that comment.

The word "evolution" can mean many things. Please, before you claim not to have seen it define what you mean, specifically, by "evolution".

   
Quote
That is what the predictive power of ID can't be over looked.  ID can explain those things far better than anything I've ever seen evolution even try.


Please prove that statement by one or more of the below

a) Showing me how ID can explain the origin of life
b) Showing me how ID can explain anything at all in a more accurate way then "evolution".
c) Showing me how "design" explains the loss of expression of hemoglobin and myoglobin in icefish.
d) Where did the life come from to even evolve (what does ID say about the origin of life - note you lose points for referring to the bible at this point).

If ID can explain these things "better" then the currently accepted understanding you will no doubt have easy answers to these questions.

EDIT: clarity

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,09:19   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,09:12)
I'm disappointed.  You forgot:

3. No transitional fossils.

4. Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Plus, on your point one, you forgot that no one has seen a half-cat, half dog.

#3 I think has merit, but I was really looking for one or two items so we can really dig into those.

As for #4, well, I hate to break it to my fellow Creationists and IDers but the 2nd Law only applies to closed systems.  While the Sun-Earth System can be considered a closed system, the Earth is not.  The energy reaching the Earth from the Sun, which follows the 2nd Law incredibly well, provides the energy needed.

The half cat-dog thing, well, there are dog kinds and cat kinds.  The two aren't the same.

No I can't defend, nor will I, the bad science that has come from some of the more intense believers in God's Word.  Yes, some of them do tend to say things without thinking it through.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,09:24   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,09:19)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,09:12)
I'm disappointed.  You forgot:

3. No transitional fossils.

4. Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Plus, on your point one, you forgot that no one has seen a half-cat, half dog.

#3 I think has merit, but I was really looking for one or two items so we can really dig into those.

As for #4, well, I hate to break it to my fellow Creationists and IDers but the 2nd Law only applies to closed systems.  While the Sun-Earth System can be considered a closed system, the Earth is not.  The energy reaching the Earth from the Sun, which follows the 2nd Law incredibly well, provides the energy needed.

The half cat-dog thing, well, there are dog kinds and cat kinds.  The two aren't the same.

No I can't defend, nor will I, the bad science that has come from some of the more intense believers in God's Word.  Yes, some of them do tend to say things without thinking it through.

Jellyfish. Let's show FTK that Creationists need have to fear to discuss such issues.

Or do they....

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,09:25   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2008,09:13)
As you have now responded, I apologize and retract that comment.

Thank you.

I will get to these, but right now, I have to get to the work site.  The new additions are being finished and I'm supposed to be there.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,09:31   

You are no better.

"Kinds" seems to be your only point. And that's pretty sad.

You don't even know how evolution is supposed to work, do you? The only thing you know are the lies you've been told.

It's not "Poof!". And its not quick morphs between stable states - its a constant state of change.

As for transitional fossils - we find them all the time. You've simply closed your eyes and refuse to see.

If you acknowledge that e. coli. changed, than you must acknowledge evolution. The micro .vs macro evolution thing is a strawman used only by the least intelligent, much like the thermodynamics thing. There is no difference. Small changes over time add up to very big changes.

Is your car a horse cart? No? Yet it was developed by a series of small changes. It is your belief that small changes can never amount to big changes, is it not?

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,09:32   

And as for IDs predictive power - please give one single prediction ID makes.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,10:02   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2008,09:01)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,08:42)
I was told correctly that those who believe ID is good science and in Creationism, like myself, are treated like dirt and less than human, I choose it so you guys can have what I thought would be good natured fun.

Would you like to talk about Walt Brown and his Jellyfish theory?

I'd love to hear your side of the story.

Go here for the story so far.

Do you, as a creationist, find Walt's story credible?

Site's not ready until 1:00pm.  Imagine that.

I'm sure Dr. Brown studied long and hard, as I'm sure even Evolutionist scientists say they do, to come to the conclusions he did.  I'll have to read up more on what that's all about.

As for FTK, I think you were just getting them riled up.  To be honest, when I get mad as I'm sure many people do, I'm not always at my best.

I'll hve to read more before I give an opinion.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,10:06   

Quote
I'll hve to read more before I give an opinion.


why let being uninformed stop you?  it doesn't stop the rest of the creationists.

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

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,10:15   

Quote (Nerull @ July 01 2008,09:31)
You are no better.

"Kinds" seems to be your only point. And that's pretty sad.

You don't even know how evolution is supposed to work, do you? The only thing you know are the lies you've been told.

It's not "Poof!". And its not quick morphs between stable states - its a constant state of change.

As for transitional fossils - we find them all the time. You've simply closed your eyes and refuse to see.

If you acknowledge that e. coli. changed, than you must acknowledge evolution. The micro .vs macro evolution thing is a strawman used only by the least intelligent, much like the thermodynamics thing. There is no difference. Small changes over time add up to very big changes.

Is your car a horse cart? No? Yet it was developed by a series of small changes. It is your belief that small changes can never amount to big changes, is it not?

Nerull?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerull

I take it you play DnD.  How do you like 4.0?  I like 3.5 much better.

Not much better?  Okay.

Evolution works by animals changing.  New species being made (and you've seen this when?) from old ones.  The gain of information, somehow, from mutations that are almost always fatal.  Interesting that there's some gain of information when it is so easily seen when codes get muddled and broken, the information in DNA, the result is a loss of information.

Transitional Fossil?  Where?

Oh, so no "Poof".  Well, in the class I was at, we learned about "Punctuated Equilibrium".  Wow.  There's a novel approach.  Things happen so fast that there are no fossils and this is from an evolutionist (rest his soul and may God forgive him and his atheism)!  So Evolution doesn't need Transitional Fossils now!  Again, where are these "transitional fossils"?

Well the E. Coli changed but it's still E. Coli!  So there's no evolution.  They may have had a trait come in from being dormant but how is that evolution when the culture is still E Coli?

The Horse Cart to a Car.  good analogy.  At each point in the design was there intelligence doing the changes.  Which is what ID is all about.

The predictive power of ID is powerful as it is simple:

When systems become so complex that one parts falls away, it stops working so how does it get to be in the first place?  The answer, "It was designed that way".

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,10:16   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 01 2008,10:06)
Quote
I'll hve to read more before I give an opinion.


why let being uninformed stop you?  it doesn't stop the rest of the creationists.

Why?  I have no desire to be like you.

:D

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,10:29   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:43)
Quote (Louis @ July 01 2008,08:27)
Whoa whoa whoa whoa! When did mocking liars/suckers/morons (delete as applicable) and IDCIsts...but I repeat myself....become a BAD thing?

Three strikes and out. Discuss sensibly once...discuss sensibly twice...make last ditch attempt at sensible discussion......MOCK!

Lcd seems to have missed the part where IDCists and their ancestors keep trying to force religious dogma into schools claiming it (falsely) to be science. Maybe THAT'S why people have to deal with them occasionally, no matter how unpleasant it might be.

Louis

EDIT: Unless of course lcd is a loki or a sock. Kids4truth? Come onnnnnnnn.

Try here:

http://kids4truth.com/hometwo.asp

Oh I've seen it Lcd, I've seen it. K4T is old hat even to me.

I have to say I'm curious as to where this "us vs them" idea comes from, there aren't "evolutionist" scientists and "creationist" scientists as some kind of opposed camps. Well there aren't "creationist scientists" at all but that's a different matter. The issue is that creationists simply have no evidence to support their claims, scientists (by which you can think I mean evolutionists if you so desire) do.

I think you need to stop thinking in such falsely dichotomous terms before you start with the science. It's the mistake we all made with FTK and Skeptic: it ain't about the science for them no matter what they say, it's all about the identity politics. Once you figure out it isn't some "evolutionist atheist meanness" versus "the holy and chosen children of god" or some such drivel, then a serious conversation can ensue. Until then: Mockery or Simply Being Ignored. The problem being of course that no one can figure this out for you.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,10:29   

I was waiting for punctuated equilibrium as soon as I heard "poof" mentioned.  A priest, a rabbi, and a Steven Jay Gould walk into a bar...

Even if E.coli "poofed" into another bacteria, wouldn't it still just be bacteria "kind?"  I mean, it isn't an entire kingdom, it's just a "kind."

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,10:30   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,07:12)
Plus, on your point one, you forgot that no one has seen a half-cat, half dog.

you forgot, ... with wings.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
  291 replies since Feb. 15 2007,16:13 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (10) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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