oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
| Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 30 2007,06:45) | Triple Bannination! As predicted, using our deep understanding of CSI (Completely Stoopid IDiocy), DT sez | Quote | art (and art2) is no longer with us
erv can also take her sarcastic mouth elsewhere
factician has also been included in the housecleaning |
|
It's ok, Bornagain77 (who appears to be a child, or at least is behind some sort of net-nanny type filter) explains it all
| Quote | DaveScot,
Remember these people actually believe whole heartedly that evolution of CSI is possible in HIV. We know for a fact, from rigorous math and the study of observational data of deleterious mutation rates in other organisms, that this is not possible. I think Sal is doing an excellent job of gathering the available observational data that is available in HIV in which to clearly show these people why it is not remotely possible.
Their snide comments probably come from years of brainwashing in the Darwinism doctrine and the arrogant and mistaken assumption that they can?t possibly be wrong. But we have a surprise for them in the actual practice of hard science, So I ask that we may exercise a little patience with our guest until we have the observation data we need to destroy their case. |
So, lets look at that:
| Quote | | Remember these people actually believe whole heartedly that evolution of CSI is possible in HIV. |
Unfortunately CSI is a somewhat nebulous concept. And anyway, by virtue of the fact that HIV exists it by their definition must have CSI already. It does not need to "evolve" CSI, it (if for a moment we believe Sal et al) already has it. You are very confused bornagain77.
| Quote | | We know for a fact, from rigorous math and the study of observational data of deleterious mutation rates in other organisms, that this is not possible. |
We know for a fact do we? As CSI has not been defined in any useful way, I strongly doubt it. Could bornagain77 point us to where the "rigorous math" has been done? And what Intelligent Design proponents generated these study's of deleterious mutation rates? Or do these "studies" simply not exist and bornagain77 is really talking about "genetic entropy", the idea that we're not really all here because we all died generations ago due to accumulated mutations?
| Quote | | think Sal is doing an excellent job of gathering the available observational data that is available in HIV in which to clearly show these people why it is not remotely possible. |
And your expertise in this field bornagain77 is from where? What qualifies you to judge if Sal is doing an excellent job or not? And what exactly is not remotely possible bornagain77? CSI evolving? Well, ID says if it's "alive" it already has CSI. So why does HIV need to evolve CSI? It's amazing how many fields Sal is proving the experts wrong in. On the one hand we have Cosmology (everybody is wrong) Information theory (everybody is wrong) and now HIV (everybody is wrong).
Amazing. I'm sure there's a word for people like him.
| Quote | | Their snide comments probably come from years of brainwashing in the Darwinism doctrine and the arrogant and mistaken assumption that they can?t possibly be wrong. |
Bornagain77, if that's true what's your explanation for the fact that DaveScot bans people he is unable to argue with? What arrogant and mistaken assumptions is he working under? You call it "brainwashing", everybody else calls it "learning". The only people that claim that they cannot be wrong are the people on your side bornagain77. The evidence itself matters not, or you'd let ERV continue to talk on the thread that she was invited to. You are the arrogant one bornagain77. Could you tell me where the brainwashing takes place? I know where your brainwashing takes place bornagain77. Where do I go to get my brain washed in darwinism?
| Quote | | But we have a surprise for them in the actual practice of hard science, So I ask that we may exercise a little patience with our guest until we have the observation data we need to destroy their case. |
How deluded. What ID proponents are doing hard science? And as ERV has already been banned when you penned your message, how foolish do you look? Bornagain77, if you say lets have patience until you have the hard data, then presumably your current position is not based on hard data but faith. Yet you appear confident that the "hard science" data will help your case. It appears that you have already decided what the "hard science" will say, and as such it's not really science at all, it's just confirming previously held opinions just like all the other creationists. Just like Sal, who holds to viewpoints in defiance of all available evidence. When the "hard science" is done, why not wait until you've seen the results before deciding that "darwinism" is the loser.
And anyway, bornagain77, show me who's doing this ID "hard science". I challenge you!
Tard
--------------
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 Gaugers work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
