oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
Gil seems to have a number of problems.
He says in the comments to his own "ID Medicine" thread, repeated in full here:
| Quote |
Just for the entertainment value, I checked out the Panda response to my post. I seem to have a penchant for arousing their ire and vitriol, and I can explain why.
If my UD posts were as scientifically and logically vacuous as the Pandas claim, no response would be required, but they seem to have a passion for devoting both tomes and insults to refuting my arguments. I am perpetually labeled as being completely ignorant about science (even though empirically verifiable science is what I do every day for a living). Yet, whenever I post an incisive comment about the empirical, observational, mathematical, or computational problems with blind-watchmaker Darwinism, the Pandas go into a feeding frenzy.
I’ve struck a nerve. The personal insults and claims that I know nothing about science are very telling.
|
The thing is Gil, you said "whenever I post an incisive comment about the empirical, observational, mathematical, or computational problems with blind-watchmaker Darwinism" and yet the subject you posted on had nothing to do with "Darwinism" at all. The subject, for once, was about how ID can bring something positive to the table for once, A Practical Medical Application of ID Theory, nothing to do with "Darwinism" at all apart from perhaps to say "ID is better then"...
So you don't even understand that nobody was responding to your "empirical, observational, mathematical, or computational problems with blind-watchmaker Darwinism" at all, they are simply critiquing the positive argument (for once) that you've put forward for ID.
That Gil does not understand this is telling.
Gil, the only thing that will prove that you are not "scientifically and logically vacuous" is when there is a A Practical Medical Application of ID Theory. So don't give up the day job dropping checkers boards out of planes.
Gil, if your insight is right and important why don't you simply pop over to PT and say as much in the comments and answer the points that have been raised (start with the fact mutiple antibiotics have been given for years in particular circumstances)?
Gil, wake me up when there is a patented practical medical application of ID theory. Perhaps Sal can help out?
--------------
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
|
