Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > The technical details of evolution

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2010,08:48    Over at Cornys blog TB said   Quote thort: Would you like to discuss any of the technical details? I would, but unfortunately it would be beyond your comprehension level. I’ve suspected your ignorance in science and you’ve just proved your ignorance by your list of links as evidence to support your fairytales. Only a rube would believe anything that comes out of those irrational atheists pimping for their amoral religion. As I know there are many actual biologists here who'll be able to comprehend TB's points I thought I'd extend an invitation to TB to discuss evolution with some experts, as he obviously wants to. TB has his own (empty) blog here http://teleologicalblog.blogspot.com/ Which contains 2 posts, one of which is a link to this site: http://teleological.org/theology/ So I think I can tell how this is going to go. -------------- 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

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2010,09:10    The crack about "irrational atheists" is pretty amusing given that the links in question all point to articles authored by Douglas Theobald, who is a theist. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2010,13:12    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 11 2010,15:10) The crack about "irrational atheists" is pretty amusing given that the links in question all point to articles authored by Douglas Theobald, who is a theist. But surely Wes you must know that the definition of an atheist is someone who doesn't believe precisely as I do. ;-) Louis -------------- Bye.

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 11 2010,17:48    That's why YOU'RE an atheist, Louis, and I am the Chosen One.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2010,04:16    Quote (Doc Bill @ July 11 2010,23:48) That's why YOU'RE an atheist, Louis, and I am the Chosen One. If I believe you does that mean I'm not an atheist? Louis -------------- Bye.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2010,22:18    That probably depends on who/what did the choosing of the chosen one. Henry

Aardvark Posts: 134 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2010,04:47    I suspect that TB may in fact be a sock for JoeG/IDguy.  I've never seen anyone else argue against common descent like that.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2010,12:24    I'd agree with you -- the tu quoque stance is classic GI Joe -- but TB doesn't use the word "asshole" enough. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2010,12:56    Quote (fnxtr @ July 13 2010,10:24) I'd agree with you -- the tu quoque stance is classic GI Joe -- but TB doesn't use the word "asshole" enough. He can't.  That's Corny's one actual rule: no swears.  You can get away with a "hell" or a "damn", but anything stronger and you risk post deletion.  Say what you will about CH, at least he's clear about what isn't allowed over there and a very light hand with the moderation.  He'll even let you mock and insult him directly.  Very unusual for an ID/Creationist blog. -------------- 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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2010,13:20    Quote (didymos @ July 13 2010,12:56) Very unusual for an ID/Creationist blog. My guess is that as ID/Creationists have a hard time when using metrics such as these for measuring success: A) Citations B) Publications C) amount of ground breaking original research D) amount of normal research on everyday stuff, filling in the details E) Experiments. F) Hypothesis construction G) Hypothesis testing H) Amount known about what they are criticising I think they've taken to measuring success by number of page views*number of comments. Corny should be using the number of defunct ID journals and the number of times the bible is mentioned on UD as his metric. Those numbers are guaranteed to increase. Corny sees a graph on the control panel on his blog. The graph is on an upward trend. He shows this to others at his university. He wins. What he does not see is the similar graph for UD that's now on a downward trend. Well, more of a downward trend then it was anyway. It's rate of decline has just increased. BTW, how long is it before we can officially declare that http://bio-complexity.org is moribund?   -------------- 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

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard