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... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 531 532 533 534 535 [536] 537 538 539 540 541 ... >

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2016,19:39    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 30 2016,19:32) Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 29 2016,10:03) gary, how are extirpations and extinctions explained by your so-called 'ID theory'? Are you claiming that the behaviors (whatever they may be) of female alligators are "certain features of the universe" that were/are designed-created by your chosen, so-called god, or that female alligators design-create "certain features of the universe" (their behaviors)? How about male alligators? You said: "The most likely candidate for causal forces that have the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose is the consciousness causing “behavior of matter”." As N. Wells pointed out, you don't explain that. What "consciousness" are you talking about and what causes the "consciousness"? The scientific fields that study extinctions are in in the area of paleontology and geology, where extinction events are used to pinpoint a specific geological time where all around the planet new species suddenly appear in the strata above that geological layer. I am only obliged to explain how to from the behavior of matter on up model the "intelligent cause" that would likewise experience crashes followed by relatively fast recovery (by new biological designs) after an equal magnitude environmental catastrophe happening in the model's virtual world. The way the model has to go from one emergent intelligence level to the next likewise makes consciousness emergent from the "behavior of matter". That alone does not explain how consciousness works, but it's a valuable clue as to where to start in search for more answers. For modeling purposes it is not necessary for intelligence to be consciously aware of its internal signals such as those for shock and pain. The virtual critters will still respond as though they were conscious. And in regards to other things you might like the rant I just posted at UD that someone named Donald took note of: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-596364 I'm working on a response back, Umm, he didn't ask primarily about mass extinctions, but about extinctions in general, specifically including 'local extinctions'.  Since nothing in your model goes extinct, or reproduces or dies or speciates or changes, it has no relevance to evolutionary biology. Gary complains: Quote not wanting to be inconvenienced by scientific details that require learning something new. All irony meters in Gary's vicinity explode.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2016,19:41    Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 30 2016,19:24) Quote What I currently say about scurrying back into her mouth is true enough No, it's not.  I don't see anything on that website that supports your claim of young crocodilians scurrying into their mothers' mouths in the face of danger. I am in contact with their director of education. And no offense to you but I am fine with the opinion of knowledgeable experts who know a lot more than you ever will about the subject. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2016,19:47    Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 30 2016,19:39) Since nothing in your model goes extinct, or reproduces or dies or speciates or changes, it has no relevance to evolutionary biology. And hey dimwit: https://sites.google.com/site.......800.png -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2016,19:50    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 30 2016,19:41)       Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 30 2016,19:24)         Quote What I currently say about scurrying back into her mouth is true enough No, it's not.  I don't see anything on that website that supports your claim of young crocodilians scurrying into their mothers' mouths in the face of danger. I am in contact with their director of education. And no offense to you but I am fine with the opinion of knowledgeable experts who know a lot more than you ever will about the subject. Fine.  I've never claimed to be a crocodile expert, just someone who is competent at digging into the scientific literature and thus someone who knows more about crocodilians than you.  (Note that it is you, not me, who is continually making false and moronic moronic claims about giraffe throats, insects with hippocampi and four legs, parental devotion in salmon, and crap about crocodiles.) But go ahead - PROVE me wrong.  Quote the guy verbatim, and then back it up with something that's been published, rather than just making ever-vaguer and less-convincing counter-assertions.  So far you haven't produced any knowledgeable experts to back you up.  Even outright fibs made up to scare or impress tourists at a Florida roadside attraction would be better than what you've currently presented. You have a good opportunity here: mother crocs do carry babies in their mouths and they do protect their babies, and babies do climb on their mothers, so it is not unrealistic that babies might scurry into their mothers' mouths for protection, except that it is out of character with how the mothers protect their babies.  Moreover, people keep learning interesting new stuff about crocodilians, so there's a reasonable chance that I'm not up to speed on the latest discoveries, so you've got a better than usual chance of me being wrong.  However, the problem at the moment is that you have a habit of making stuff up and uncritically grabbing on to anything that looks shiny, all the while blathering on  without bothering to check your "facts" or critique your own arguments.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2016,19:57    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 30 2016,19:47) Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 30 2016,19:39) Since nothing in your model goes extinct, or reproduces or dies or speciates or changes, it has no relevance to evolutionary biology. And hey dimwit: https://sites.google.com/site.......800.png I was talking about your computer model, as were you in the post that I commented on.  Your diagram is not a scientific model in any useful sense of the word - it's basically a prolonged incoherent assertion that relies heavily on abusing the words species and speciation beyond any connection to sanity or reality.  You have yet to demonstrate that anything in your computer model has any relevance to anything in any of the versions of that diagram.

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2016,04:18    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 30 2016,17:32)   Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 29 2016,10:03) gary, how are extirpations and extinctions explained by your so-called 'ID theory'? Are you claiming that the behaviors (whatever they may be) of female alligators are "certain features of the universe" that were/are designed-created by your chosen, so-called god, or that female alligators design-create "certain features of the universe" (their behaviors)? How about male alligators? You said: "The most likely candidate for causal forces that have the capacity to arrange matter for a purpose is the consciousness causing “behavior of matter”." As N. Wells pointed out, you don't explain that. What "consciousness" are you talking about and what causes the "consciousness"? The scientific fields that study extinctions are in in the area of paleontology and geology, where extinction events are used to pinpoint a specific geological time where all around the planet new species suddenly appear in the strata above that geological layer. I am only obliged to explain how to from the behavior of matter on up model the "intelligent cause" that would likewise experience crashes followed by relatively fast recovery (by new biological designs) after an equal magnitude environmental catastrophe happening in the model's virtual world. The way the model has to go from one emergent intelligence level to the next likewise makes consciousness emergent from the "behavior of matter". That alone does not explain how consciousness works, but it's a valuable clue as to where to start in search for more answers. For modeling purposes it is not necessary for intelligence to be consciously aware of its internal signals such as those for shock and pain. The virtual critters will still respond as though they were conscious. And in regards to other things you might like the rant I just posted at UD that someone named Donald took note of: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-596364 I'm working on a response back, N. Wells is right, gary, I'm asking about any and all extinctions, and extirpations (local extinctions). I also didn't ask about only long past extinctions, so your remarks about paleontology and geology are irrelevant to what I asked you, and there are plenty of scientists studying long past, recent, and potential extinctions (whether local or total) who are not paleontologists or geologists. In many cases a variety of scientists cooperate in the study of extinctions or potential extinctions. Here, let me make my questions about extirpations/extinctions more thorough: How does your so-called 'ID theory' explain any and all local and total extinctions, in the past, present, and future? According to your so-called 'ID theory', how and why do any and all extinctions occur? According to your so-called 'ID theory', how and why are extinctions not prevented by the 'intelligence' within the biological entities that go extinct? According to your so-called 'ID theory', why does 'the designer' cause or allow extinctions? Your responses to my other questions are also inadequate, incoherent, irrelevant, or non-existent. I'll pass on going to UD. Post your rant and responses to it here if you want me to read it. ETA another question. ETA: or potential extinctions Edited by The whole truth on Jan. 31 2016,02:27 -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2016,04:56    Quote I am only obliged to explain how to from the behavior of matter on up model the "intelligent cause" that would likewise experience crashes followed by relatively fast recovery (by new biological designs) after an equal magnitude environmental catastrophe happening in the model's virtual world. Gaulin, how can you rant on and on about learning and intelligence when you still haven't learnt how to construct a meaningful sentence intelligently? There is more to English than starting with a capital letter and ending with a full stop.   Quote The scientific fields that study extinctions are in in the area of paleontology and geology, where extinction events are used to pinpoint a specific geological time where all around the planet new species suddenly appear in the strata above that geological layer. Apart from loons like Meyer, please provide references to any credentialed geologist or palaeontologist who refers to "suddenly appear" in a scientific peer-reviewed paper. You are once again trying your hardest to force your god into science. We can add palaeontology and geology to the lengthening list of scientific fields that Gaulin knows nothing about.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2016,06:38    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 30 2016,20:47)   Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 30 2016,19:39) Since nothing in your model goes extinct, or reproduces or dies or speciates or changes, it has no relevance to evolutionary biology. And hey dimwit: https://sites.google.com/site.......800.png This chart is sufficient to demonstrate your complete ignorance of science, as well as your dishonesty and general mental incompetence. It presents a series of lies. Molecules do not speciate as indicated on the diagram. Molecular 'speciation' does not lead to genetic speciation. The assertion that molecular speciation is an 'intelligent cause' is, at base, assuming your conclusion.  Molecules as such are not intelligent.  Molecules, as such, do not learn. There is no intelligence involved in the move from increasingly complex molecules to systems of molecules to interacting systems of molecules to assembly of systems of molecules to more complex, more structured systems. All there is is chemistry and physics. We know this because we see nothing occurring that does not fall under the explanatory power of chemistry and physics. The same goes, of course, for the move from unicellular species to multicellular species.  No intelligence involved or needed, because physics and chemistry suffice. There are no 'spare facts' which require insertion of some undefined something that you call 'intelligence'.  It has nothing to do with what's going on. It is worse than laughable that you differentiate between 'environment' and 'intelligent cause'.  It is flagrantly dishonest -- or stupid.  (In your case it's likely both.) How is it that intelligent causes are not part of the environment?  They are in no way distinct from it -- they cannot be given the structure and content of your dishonest diagram. IF 'intelligence' had emerged as per your diagram, then at best your diagram presents the problem space, not a solution.  Had you not noticed?  Asserting a description of what you fantasize to happen does not count as providing a description of the all-important how it happened.   We are all in agreement with certain foundational assumptions -- life is based in molecular interactions.  Intelligence is a phenomenon of life, of bodies. We are all (well some of us at least) are interested in knowing where along the ever-increasing complexity of molecular structures various processes begin to occur, and why and how.  As part of that, we are interested in just what counts as a phenomenon of 'intelligence' and where and how it emerges at some point in this ever-increasing growth of complexity. That's the problem space.  Your insane verbiage, your pseudo-concepts, your flat-out misrepresentation and misuse of terms from science, adds nothing but layers of crap.  You treat science as if it were a statue in the park and you were a pigeon -- or a flock of pigeons.  Your contribution to science is equivalent to the contribution of pigeons to statues.  Aesthetically unpleasing, useless, layers of, well, crap, that has to be scraped off so the item of interest can be seen and appreciated. I'm pleased to see that you agree that there are features of the universe that are not best explained by intelligent cause. Now all you have to do is determine how we sort the features of the universe into those that do and those that do not require intelligent cause.  Without that, you have nothing but bare assertion.  Worse, an assertion with no explanatory power whatsoever. Pigeon crap in other words.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2016,06:54    Building on ChemiCat's complaint about "suddenly appear" in     Quote where extinction events are used to pinpoint a specific geological time where all around the planet new species suddenly appear in the strata above that geological layer. I completely missed that earlier.  This is yet another example of Gary spouting off howlers without knowing the facts.  Where geological sections are complete, and the strata recording the mass extinction and its aftermath have not been eroded, not one mass extinction has been marked by multiple new species suddenly appearing in the layer above the mass extinction, as Gary implies by "suddenly appear" and "pinpoint a specific geological time".  In all well-understood major extinctions, mass-extinction aftermaths are characterized by lowered biodiversity (loss of species that had been present earlier, sometimes followed by an increased abundance of a lucky few of the surviving species, like Claraia after the Permian or ferns after the Maastrichtian), followed by a gradual recovery and evolutionary radiations into new species over the next 5-10 million years or more.  Check out the Scythian and Danian stages and "Romer's Gap" for really good examples of this.  If you have a section that appears to show an immediate appearance of multiple new species right after the extinction, closer study will show that your section has a sizable hiatus during the extinction and after (examples: all geological period boundaries in their first defined sections, from back when early geologists defined periods by bounding unconformities). Gary, you could actually make some progress if you A) stopped saying crap without double-checking your facts, and B) stopped making assertions without providing some supporting evidence.  This would have the side-effect of leaving you unable to say anything, but your reputation would be the better for it.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2016,07:51    Further to N.Wells's take down of your dreck, Gaulin, mammals and dinosaurs co-existed until the probable asteroid impact. After this event some mammals survived and were able to radiate into the available ecological  niches which became available to them. Some dinosaurs were able to survive and eventually became the birds of today. Neither the mammals nor the dinosaurs became extinct in the mass extinction, they evolved to become the animals we see today. Until you understand science please stop making unfounded assertions to force your gods into well-understood science

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2016,10:52    Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 31 2016,04:18) According to your so-called 'ID theory', why does 'the designer' cause or allow extinctions? The premise of the theory of intelligent design only obliges me to explain how biological "intelligent cause" works. But theory would explain it as: The life giving behavior of matter level that still powers us 24 hours a day also causes volcanic eruptions and even black holes for intelligence throughout the universe to learn how to keep a safe distance away from, or get used to. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2016,11:03    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2016,11:52) Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 31 2016,04:18) According to your so-called 'ID theory', why does 'the designer' cause or allow extinctions? The premise of the theory of intelligent design only obliges me to explain how biological "intelligent cause" works. But theory would explain it as: The life giving behavior of matter level that still powers us 24 hours a day also causes volcanic eruptions and even black holes for intelligence throughout the universe to learn how to keep a safe distance away from, or get used to. Hardly. It also obligates you (not 'obliges you') to provide evidence to support the definition of 'intelligent cause', which you are also obligated to provide.  You are obligated not to use the term prior to defining it nor are you permitted to define it solely in terms of itself. You are obligated to provide the method or algorithm by which we may determine for any given feature of the universe whether it is 'best explained by intelligent cause' or not. You are obligated not to contradict the definitions and sources you rely on.  One of the more flagrant violations of that obligation is your complete misuse of the word 'learn' and its variants. You are obligated to address serious and valid criticisms of your "theory" or to show why any given criticism is either no serious or not valid. You're not living up to your obligations.  But that is hardly a surprise, it's all that's been seen out of you for 9+ years now.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2016,11:05    Second sentence is even worse than the first, and again demonstrates your misuse of 'learn'. Learn what the words mean.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2016,14:47    Quote The premise of the theory of intelligent design only obliges me to explain how biological "intelligent cause" works. But theory would explain it as: The life giving behavior of matter level that still powers us 24 hours a day also causes volcanic eruptions and even black holes for intelligence throughout the universe to learn how to keep a safe distance away from, or get used to. I understand it all now! Gaulin thinks that Scientology and science are the same thing! He never did understand English. Xenu rules and is the intelligent cause that Gaulin worships. Keep on bombing those volcanoes, Gaulin.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2016,03:16    What's wrong, Gaulin? Utterly Dense got your tongue?

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2016,14:38    Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 06 2016,03:16) What's wrong, Gaulin? Utterly Dense got your tongue? Hey, Gary gets Recognition over at UD: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-596948 Quote Mapou February 6, 2016 at 2:33 pm Nobody should reply to GaryGaulin. He’s just a stupid troll. Still trying to find instances of baby crocodiles scurrying into their mother's mouth?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2016,21:30    I am currently overwhelmed with science work, and all else. Hopefully I will soon be able to concentrate on describing alligator behavior. There are a good number of new posts at UD. This search might help locate some of them: www.google.com/#q=site:http:%2F%2Fwww.uncommondescent.com%2F+responses+garygaulin -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2016,01:42    offs NURSE!!!!! Gary's back on the computer again!!!!!!! -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2016,03:51    Quote I am currently overwhelmed with science work,... NURSE! Gaulin is sciencing again!

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2016,08:07    Quote I am currently overwhelmed with science work, and all else. Why haven't you told us about your science work previously? It's got to be better than what you've been prattling about for years. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2016,15:34    Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 06 2016,14:38) Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 06 2016,03:16) What's wrong, Gaulin? Utterly Dense got your tongue? Hey, Gary gets Recognition over at UD: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-596948 Quote Mapou February 6, 2016 at 2:33 pm Nobody should reply to GaryGaulin. He’s just a stupid troll. Still trying to find instances of baby crocodiles scurrying into their mother's mouth? and more recently, Quote RexTugwell  February 7, 2016 at 12:30 pm GaryGaulin, no one cares about your version of “ID Theory” so please give it a rest. and Quote gpuccio  February 7, 2016 at 1:04 pm RexTugwell: Thank you for expressing so clearly what I think of GaryGaulin’s theory. It's just rose petals and accolades from one end to the other. So far, Gary, you've been unable to respond to any of the criticisms of your work, and pretty much every significant bit of it has been found wanting.  No one has found anything worthwhile in it, not even the people who should be your allies over at UD.  What if anything might get you to re-consider your work?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2016,15:52    The DI was sinking itself. So I had to throw them an anchor, which kinda went clear through their bow: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-597027 -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2016,21:46    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 07 2016,15:52) The DI was sinking itself. So I had to throw them an anchor, which kinda went clear through their bow: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-597027   Quote GaryGaulin February 7, 2016 at 1:42 pm   Quote RexTugwell:    GaryGaulin, no one cares about your version of “ID Theory” so please give it a rest. Quite actually the opposite is true: http://www.umc.org/news-an....9865149 You have no idea how foolish you look to those you have been claiming to speak for. P.S. all comments to the article must first be approved, anonymous posters are not allowed, therefore attempting to spam what I wrote will only make Methodists even more angry at you. It’s in many more places than that anyway, and doing very well in both science and religion. As yet, no one at the umc site has expressed any interest, so your link supports Tugwell and refutes your own claim. I'm not sure why anyone would throw an anchor to someone who is sinking, but yes, your work is exactly that useless (both to them and to everyone else).   Someone other than you might learn from the way no one sees value in your not-a-theory.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2016,01:58    Quote The DI was sinking itself. So I had to throw them an anchor, which kinda went clear through their bow: All right as I have some spare time let us, as a gentle exercise, try and work out what this mess means. Were the DI sinking themselves? This is called "scuttling". If they were was it for the insurance? If they were just sinking then "itself" becomes superfluous. "So I had to throw them an anchor...". Was this the heaviest thing you could find, Gaulin? Why were you helping them to sink? Under US law would this be the equivalent of our aiding and abetting? "Which kinda went "clear" through their bows". Is this meant to be "clean"? So you are adding to your previous law-breaking by making sure they sank. Either that or Gaulin has no idea of what an analogy is meant to say. Please don't become a life-guard, Gaulin. Lead weights are no use to a drowning person. Why do I have to use a year's worth of parentheses when replying to Gaulin's rubbish?

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2016,18:24    Can't even get his colloquialisms straight. -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2016,18:47    Gary, you're in the habit of saying, as you did here at UD, that your "theory" is "doing well" in many places.  The reaction to the "theory" on the web, which is demonstrable, generally falls into two categories: It's ridiculed and derided, or it's ignored.  Which of those do you consider "doing well"? -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2016,18:48    Quote (khan @ Feb. 08 2016,18:24) Can't even get his colloquialisms straight. I thought it was pretty clear. Perhaps the best thing he's written. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2016,19:20    Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 08 2016,18:48) Quote (khan @ Feb. 08 2016,18:24) Can't even get his colloquialisms straight. I thought it was pretty clear. Perhaps the best thing he's written. Now that's a nicely tossed anchor.

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2016,18:35    Quote Which of those do you consider "doing well"? Oh!  Oh!  Oh!  I know . . . He's doing! Well . . . . . . My 2c.       Whatta hoot!

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2016,09:14    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 08 2016,18:47) Gary, you're in the habit of saying, as you did here at UD, that your "theory" is "doing well" in many places.  The reaction to the "theory" on the web, which is demonstrable, generally falls into two categories: It's ridiculed and derided, or it's ignored.  Which of those do you consider "doing well"? Doing well looks like this: http://www.uncommondescent.com/christi....-597144 And Kathy emailed back to say that she has faith that Science does & will lead us to God. So carry with the science work. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Pages: (622) < ... 531 532 533 534 535 [536] 537 538 539 540 541 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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