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... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 173 174 175 176 177 [178] 179 180 181 182 183 ... >

plasmasnake23 Posts: 42 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,17:27    I don't really know where to post this so I'm putting it here. At first I was just going to mention that I am tired of ID people talking about how engineers and computer scientists are experts in design. Really, aren't they just experts in a specific type of human design? Just like forensics investigators are experts in a different type of human design. Since ID claims to not know who the designer is then why are engineers considered particularly qualified to "recognize" design when they only deal with human design considering the likelihood the designer is human. If they really accept common descent then the probability is 0% since we weren't around millions of years ago to front load everything or whatever the designer did. This also lead me to thinking about non-human design. I was wondering if chimpanzees modify the twigs they use to catch insects on. If so this would be a great test of the explanatory filter! If Dempski can tell between naturally occuring twigs and twigs modified by chimpanzees without doing anything uncouth like using information about chimpanzees to discern the difference then this would seem to be a step in the right direction for ID. Or the discovery of a new process that mimics chimp-designed twigs in nature. Can't rule that out either.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,17:57    Quote Apollo230: If I outline a research protocol for detecting a designer, you are probably going to summarily dismiss that, too.   As a lurker, I'm quite interested to see if anyone could come up with a viable scientific protocol for design detection in a biological entity.  Every design detection scheme I've ever heard of, from archaeology to detecting genetic modifications in food crops to SETI, works by trying to match a previous, known to be human created 'pattern' with the suspected unknown. The key word here is viable.  Dembski has already offered up his 'explanatory filter' which has proven to be both logically unsound and totally worthless in the real world.  If trying a conventional approach to detecting design in life forms, what do you use as your 'pattern' template? Show us what ya' got! -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,18:46    Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 03 2006,17:36)   Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 03 2006,10:42) The first step is admitting you have a problem... Sidles up to Arden " Psst. The first hit is free..." Lissen here, church-burnin' ebola boy -- you're history!...ds "Next time, it'll cost -- YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL!! BWAHAHAHA" **disappears in a puff of smoke** Sounds like someone else is jonesing for that rich, creamy, DaveTardy goodness, too, Deadman! Oh, BTW, now our beloved DT is saying we're not chivalrous:   Quote At any rate, girls, the noteworthy thing is that NONE of your erstwhile ATBC "friends" have stood up in your defense. I guess chivalry IS dead in some circles. ATBC is a snakepit where nothing is below them and making fun of retards and cripples is considered great sport. What a bunch of weak little boys. These would be the kind that pee their pants in Marine Corps boot camp or claim to be queer in order to get medical discharges. He totally forgot the churches and ebola stuff. I feel sad now, like all our efforts were for nothing.   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,21:29    Quote dismissal of the concept. one, nowhere did i dismiss it as a concept.  two, I'm glad you at least use the correct terminology to describe it, you didn't before.  It's not even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Quote  Therefore, are you really interested in what I have to say about the matter?  If I outline a research protocol for detecting a designer, you are probably going to summarily dismiss that, too. again, there is no summary dismissal, just a factual recognition that nobody here can see how logically one can produce predictions and a testing regimen based on the concept of intelligent design as outlined by Behe and Dembski. So yes, I am genuinely curious as to how you can see your way clear to do so, and my primary question remains.  don't cop out now.  If you wish to defend ID, this IS the way to do it.  Answer that question, and you will have successfully defended the concept of Intelligent Design.  Not only that, but you will have put yourself ahead of all the rabble that say they like to support the notion of ID, but have failed to actually do so. IF you want ID to be something more than religious apologetics and a tool in the culture wars, this is your chance to shine.  Otherwise, you best consign it to the realm of wishful thinking. If you can, you would be the absolute first.  Behe couldn't do it, Dembski couldn't do it, and those are the only ID "luminaries" who even tried, really.  Nelson gave up ages ago, but then he really had no background to even attempt it. did you see the other question i asked you: do you know what happened when the Templeton Foundation (sic) offered the DI funding if they would submit a grant application to research any aspect of ID? I'll go ahead and answer for you: Nada, zip, zilch.  they didn't produce a single grant application.  You must be asking yourself:  why not?  why wouldn't the DI accept grant money to research intelligent design? ... or do you see where I am going with this already? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,21:56    Here's crandaddy in response to a Dembski post praising Michael Shermer as a "mensch": Quote I’m inclined to agree. Decent ID opponents are out there (Michael Ruse seems to be another). It’s refreshing to know that there are reasonable people out there who have the brainpower to understand that it’s possible to disagree without being an obnoxious, feces-flinging gremlin. Comment by crandaddy — August 4, 2006 @ 2:09 am And here's crandaddy, 13 hours earlier: Quote Don’t lose too much sleep over it, Joel. You’ll find that many of our opponents are blood-sucking parasites who will cling for dear life to the smallest details and suck everything they can out of them. The positions they take are so hopelssly indefensible that this is the only way to maintain an image of superiority. It’s a classic case of bullying: Abuse and ridicule the opposition to mask your own deficiencies. Quite pathetic, actually. Comment by crandaddy — August 3, 2006 @ 1:10 pm -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,01:03    Quote This also lead me to thinking about non-human design. I was wondering if chimpanzees modify the twigs they use to catch insects on. If so this would be a great test of the explanatory filter! On UD I was given beaver dams as an example. The problem with the EF asI see it so far as we can't calculate the relevant probabilities to any kind of accuracy. Additionaly CSI and IC are exactly what we would expect evolution to produce, as predicted by Orgel in the 70s and Muller over 80 years ago respectively. So saying that these count as predictions of ID is just wrong, and Dembskis other avenue involes hopelessly mischaracterising evolution and trying to prove it can't generate CSI. Quote [To Dembski] A failure to hybridise could be due to their having evolved to far to let it happen. You know this. Sometimes you allow your zeal to get in the way of your common sense. And yes, sometimes those on both sides make such mistakes. omment by MikeFNQ — August 4, 2006 @ 5:41 am Someones getting banned. Quote Second, the Darwinist Stalin government of the USSR sponsored human-chimp hybrid research and it failed to produce viable off spring. Wow I never knew you could make the government worse by calling them Darwinist for no reason. Lets try: Quote I am angry at my Darwinist government for not calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon Take that Tony Blair!

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,01:50    Quote (stephenWells @ Aug. 03 2006,18:55) Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 03 2006,17:49) yeah, but it sure was a cool looking monster though. When all is said and done, isn't that really the important thing in a monster movie? Eh. It was better when it was a menacing shadowy presence skulking in the darkness. The more visible it became, the more risible also. Though points to the movie for having the heroine squish a mutant bug with a huge biochemistry textbook. Although it suffers from the same problem with science, the book is much better than the movie.  It's much more gripping.  If you can overlook the science errors, it's a pretty good read.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,02:23    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 03 2006,23:46)  Oh, BTW, now our beloved DT is saying we're not chivalrous:       Quote At any rate, girls, the noteworthy thing is that NONE of your erstwhile ATBC "friends" have stood up in your defense. I guess chivalry IS dead in some circles. ATBC is a snakepit where nothing is below them and making fun of retards and cripples is considered great sport. What a bunch of weak little boys. These would be the kind that pee their pants in Marine Corps boot camp or claim to be queer in order to get medical discharges. He totally forgot the churches and ebola stuff. I feel sad now, like all our efforts were for nothing.   Did DaveTard just chastise us for making fun of "retards"? Also, we spend pretty much all our time making fun of him.  So, did he just admit to being a "retard" and a cripple?

plasmasnake23 Posts: 42 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,03:34    Quote (Chris Hyland @ Aug. 04 2006,06:03) Quote This also lead me to thinking about non-human design. I was wondering if chimpanzees modify the twigs they use to catch insects on. If so this would be a great test of the explanatory filter! On UD I was given beaver dams as an example. The problem with the EF asI see it so far as we can't calculate the relevant probabilities to any kind of accuracy. Additionaly CSI and IC are exactly what we would expect evolution to produce, as predicted by Orgel in the 70s and Muller over 80 years ago respectively. So saying that these count as predictions of ID is just wrong, and Dembskis other avenue involes hopelessly mischaracterising evolution and trying to prove it can't generate CSI. Quote [To Dembski] A failure to hybridise could be due to their having evolved to far to let it happen. You know this. Sometimes you allow your zeal to get in the way of your common sense. And yes, sometimes those on both sides make such mistakes. omment by MikeFNQ — August 4, 2006 @ 5:41 am Someones getting banned. Quote Second, the Darwinist Stalin government of the USSR sponsored human-chimp hybrid research and it failed to produce viable off spring. Wow I never knew you could make the government worse by calling them Darwinist for no reason. Lets try: Quote I am angry at my Darwinist government for not calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon Take that Tony Blair! I don't disagree with you on the first point. I think the idea of trying to formalize the recognition of design is interesting but just not feasible using any of Dempski's stuff. So did they actually claim to have calculated the probabilities for constructing a beaver dam? Which dam in particular? All of them? Or was it another one of those things where they claim to use the EF but really just decided it was designed because they knew it was. Also if beaver dams count how much does "intelligence" then cover? Instinctual behaviors count? Do ant hills count? I don't see how you can draw the line once you've included stuff like that which is hard coded into the organism and anything else that happens to the organism like development in which case you'd see "design" everywhere you looked because the net is so vast.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,05:28    Quote (plasmasnake23 @ Aug. 03 2006,23:27) At first I was just going to mention that I am tired of ID people talking about how engineers and computer scientists are experts in design. Really, aren't they just experts in a specific type of human design? Engineers are people who spend a lot of time working on complicated items designed by conscious beings. This doesn't mean they're experts at recognizing design. It does explain why they see complicated items in biology and assume the conscious being. It's a misfiring heuristic.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,05:35    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 04 2006,00:46) At any rate, girls, the noteworthy thing is that NONE of your erstwhile ATBC "friends" have stood up in your defense. I guess chivalry IS dead in some circles. ATBC is a snakepit where nothing is below them and making fun of retards and cripples is considered great sport. What a bunch of weak little boys. These would be the kind that pee their pants in Marine Corps boot camp or claim to be queer in order to get medical discharges.[ So we're like gay snakes? Okey dokey. Davetard on UDOJ: Quote    Peer pressure among adolescent boys is so amusing. A couple of the semi-regulars on ATBC are going on again about how Janie and Kate must be fakes. I actually can't go to UDOJ very often, because it's a bit nauseating to watch a guy write as if he's two bisexual girls, leading Dave on.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,05:56    Quote Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 04 2006,00:46) At any rate, girls, the noteworthy thing is that NONE of your erstwhile ATBC "friends" have stood up in your defense. I guess chivalry IS dead in some circles. ATBC is a snakepit where nothing is below them and making fun of retards and cripples is considered great sport. What a bunch of weak little boys. These would be the kind that pee their pants in Marine Corps boot camp or claim to be queer in order to get medical discharges. Quote So we're like gay snakes? Okey dokey. Hey, dt does have a way with words, doesn't he?  However, in the spirit of Dave Berry, The Gay Snakes would not be a good name for a band. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,06:05    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 04 2006,10:35) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 04 2006,00:46) At any rate, girls, the noteworthy thing is that NONE of your erstwhile ATBC "friends" have stood up in your defense. I guess chivalry IS dead in some circles. ATBC is a snakepit where nothing is below them and making fun of retards and cripples is considered great sport. What a bunch of weak little boys. These would be the kind that pee their pants in Marine Corps boot camp or claim to be queer in order to get medical discharges.[ So we're like gay snakes? Okey dokey. Davetard on UDOJ:   Quote    Peer pressure among adolescent boys is so amusing. A couple of the semi-regulars on ATBC are going on again about how Janie and Kate must be fakes. I actually can't go to UDOJ very often, because it's a bit nauseating to watch a guy write as if he's two bisexual girls, leading Dave on. Now, now, you just think that 'cause you're unchivalrous, Steve!   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,06:11    I can't resist this. The lingering after tardiness of DSS is still giving me the giggles. OK Davey listen up. I am the father of 2 girls one is turning 18 the other is 20 ........believe me you are being HAD by Janee balls. The laugh is on you and you are just too d@mn thick to see it. Hook, line AND sinker. Sucker.....oh I forgot..... you believed Dembski....as you were soldier...carry on. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,06:42    LOL gay snakes. Hiththththththththt...

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,06:46    Quote (k.e @ Aug. 04 2006,12:11) I can't resist this. The lingering after tardiness of DSS is still giving me the giggles. OK Davey listen up. I am the father of 2 girls one is turning 18 the other is 20 ........believe me you are being HAD by Janee balls. The laugh is on you and you are just too d@mn thick to see it. Hook, line AND sinker. Sucker.....oh I forgot..... you believed Dembski....as you were soldier...carry on. It's pretty obvious. Hasn't davetard even noticed that 'JanieBelle' and 'Corporal Kate' sound exactly alike? He did believe Dembski. And JAD. And Granville Sewell. Pretty much the only thing we know about Davetard is his weakness for cranks.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,06:47    snigger ......Stheve...... you bitch -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,06:57    Yeah Steve. I was pondering what the motive might be for the little subterfuge. A little culture jamming practice for a bigger target..no the target is Davey. So someone ...or maybe a few of DT's old Marine Corps buddies...nach. The funniest thing is, it wouldn't surprise me if it was Demski himself or someone from the DI..not Sal he's too stupid. T.S. is clever enough. Have a think about it from a motive POV. Denyse would have the perfect motive. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,07:10    I don't think it's Denyse. If it were, it would sound more like a 17-yro girl. Right now, whoever's writing their lines sounds as much like the real deal, as Keanu sounded like a Floridian in The Devil's Advocate--you occasionally hear bits that sound right, but it comes and goes pretty haphazardly. Also, whoever's doing it has great familiarity with the AtBC/UD/JAD circumstances.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,07:11    hehehehehe.....or the two Berlinski's Bwhahahahahaha But she doesn't have his ...ah.... archaic mannerisms. Whatever, it is one person, probably male and younger rather than older. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,07:14    Quote It's pretty obvious. Hasn't davetard even noticed that 'JanieBelle' and 'Corporal Kate' sound exactly alike? Yeah, but so did: Paley & Dembski Dembski & Johnson Johnson & Behe Behe & Luskin Luskin & Aquinas Aquinas & .... Holy shit!  Dembski is St. Thomas Aquinas of Informational Type Structures reincarnated!  Who knew?   Quote He did believe Dembski. And JAD. And Granville Sewell. Pretty much the only thing we know about Davetard is his weakness for cranks. And his IQ and 10k times (150 & 31, respectively)...wait, it might be the other way 'round. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,07:15    Yeah a T.S. like character I can't remember his other name started with 'M' (the evil doctor) Ichy will know who I mean -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,07:20    Morbius was who I was thinking of. Could JAD pull it off ? -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,07:30    Speaking of the Church Lady, she's finally 'gone public' on the Kansas elections, and it is a very predictable boneheaded whine about 'them wicked materialistic liberals', with things like "materialism is the only legal religion in [Kansas public schools]". Some very naive Englishman responds with this:   Quote While you make some fair points in your post, I find all this talk of ‘liberal bias’ extremely simplistic and as a detached observer from the other side of the big pond, quite alienating. While you have the right to post whatever you wish on this blog, I just don’t think articles like these are becoming for this blog. Leave that to Ann Coulter please. The concept of ID is a big idea, far bigger than American partisan politics and I suspect there are others like me from the US or around the world who are interested in ID but not the politics surrounding it. Yes, there is a political facet to the ID controvesy but this doesn’t help! Is the red/blue issue so pervasive in America than we always have to reduce it to this? And he promptly gets smacked down:   Quote Actually. liberal media bias (LMB) is a fact of life here, and probably in the UK as well. I regard LMB as critical to any discussion of Darwinism in public because a reflexive defense of Darwinism motivates the vast majority of journalists who approach the subject. LMB enables highly accurate predictions as to their behaviour. Then Church Lady denies being a conservative. Cool. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,07:32    Quote August 4, 2006 Ah, so that’s how genes work! I posted this over at my site Stop Lying to Us, but figured it could be put on here for a good laugh: I’m not one to post frivolous things, but this article from Fox News was just too good to pass up: Quote   Suri, the daughter of Cruise, 44, and his fiancee, Katie Holmes, 27, was born in Los Angeles on April 18. She has yet to be seen in public.    However, actresses Jada Pinkett Smith and Leah Remini have reported seeing Suri, in separate visits to the Cruise-Holmes mansion in Los Angeles.    Pinkett Smith has described Suri as “one of the sweetest babies I’ve ever met in my life,” while Remini has said the baby “looks like Tom and Katie, she’s just beautiful.” Really? The baby looks like Tom and Katie? That’s amazing considering they are the parents. With that absolute absurd comment in mind, should we really elevate these people as cultural icons? Filed under: Just For Fun — Joel Borofsky @ 11:59 am Comments (0)

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,07:42    Quote August 3, 2006 University of Kansas: Behe vs. 6 Darwinists (Dawkins, Miller, Scott, etc.)    LAWRENCE, Kan. - The University of Kansas is sponsoring a three-month series of lectures about evolution and intelligent design, and organizers hope it will spark a broad public discussion….    The only speaker who appears to support intelligent design is Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemistry professor and author. (Hat Tip: Mike Gene of TelicThoughts)  More… Filed under: Intelligent Design — scordova @ 2:48 pm Quote # I will speak in support of ID. And I will guarantee the anti-ID crowd will not like what I have to say. I will also guarantee I will not allow ID to be misrepresented and that Miller will be sorry for claiming to be a “christian”. Comment by Joseph — August 3, 2006 @ 7:28 pm Quote # Hi Joseph. I’m curious what you mean by that last remark. Why do you think Dr. Miller isn’t a Christian? and in what way do you think you can make him feel sorry for believing he is? Can you elaborate on your thoughts? Comment by Jack Krebs — August 3, 2006 @ 8:08 pm Quote Jack Krebbs: Why do you think Dr. Miller isn’t a Christian? (for straters) In order to be an evolutionist in Miller’s mold the Bible is very wrong. For example the Bible tells us whales before land animals. Then we have Jesus (the focal point of Christianity) telling us that “The Flood” was a real event and Adam & Eve were real people. Is Jesus a liar? Of is Miller deceiving himself? Who would follow and worship a liar? Complete nonsense. One cannot pick and choose parts of (a) religion one wants. Also it should be noted that there isn’t any difference between Miller’s “God” and no “God” at all. It appears he thinks faith is blind but that is hardly the case: Quote Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.- Albert Einstein I was brought up a Christian. Went to Christian (Catholic) schools and learned what it takes and what it means to be a Christian. That is why I can say that I am not a Christian. It is also why I know Miller isn’t one. He may be a deist, but a Christian? Perhaps only in his mind- but in his mind evolutionism = reality, which to him probably means anything goes and therefore in his mind he can be a christian. But wishful thinking is all he really has. JK: what way do you think you can make him feel sorry for believing he is? Exposing his fraud will do nicely- especially in front of a crowd. ... Comment by Joseph — August 4, 2006 @ 8:03 am http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1390#comments I hope there's video of the event. I want to watch Joseph get the living crap kicked out of him (rhetorically).

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,07:45    Quote I will also guarantee I will not allow ID to be misrepresented and that Miller will be sorry for claiming to be a “christian”. Heh oh, I'm certain Joseph going to represent ID perfectly.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,07:49    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 04 2006,12:32) Quote August 4, 2006 Ah, so that’s how genes work! I posted this over at my site Stop Lying to Us, but figured it could be put on here for a good laugh: I’m not one to post frivolous things, but this article from Fox News was just too good to pass up:   Quote   Suri, the daughter of Cruise, 44, and his fiancee, Katie Holmes, 27, was born in Los Angeles on April 18. She has yet to be seen in public.    However, actresses Jada Pinkett Smith and Leah Remini have reported seeing Suri, in separate visits to the Cruise-Holmes mansion in Los Angeles.    Pinkett Smith has described Suri as “one of the sweetest babies I’ve ever met in my life,” while Remini has said the baby “looks like Tom and Katie, she’s just beautiful.” Really? The baby looks like Tom and Katie? That’s amazing considering they are the parents. With that absolute absurd comment in mind, should we really elevate these people as cultural icons? Filed under: Just For Fun — Joel Borofsky @ 11:59 am Comments (0) I was just about to post on that. Ooowee, I bet Bill's real glad he's got Joel on board. Probably costs him nothing, too! The state of UD these days is making me more optimistic than ever about the slow collapse of ID. Of course, Creationism will still be with us basically forever, like bacteria and rats... -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,07:50    Quote Is Jesus a liar? They'll have to find this guy if they ever make a sequel to Saved.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,07:56    Quote Holy shit!  Dembski is St. Thomas Aquinas of Informational Type Structures reincarnated!   About a month ago, I was looking at the philosopher George Berkeley, and I was thinking about the similarities between him and Dimsky. Berkeley despised materialism, had degrees in math, theology and phil., wrote diatribes using math-y claims ("The Analyst: A Discourse Addressed to an Infidel Mathematician") in which he attacked science and defended Christian dogma/doctrine. For Berkeley and Dembski, the true "cause" of any phenomenon is a spirit --- namely God. Etc., etc. I'm pretty sure one could write up a moderately interesting piece on the Plato-Berkeley-Dembski commonalities, although I sure as #### won't. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Pages: (1000) < ... 173 174 175 176 177 [178] 179 180 181 182 183 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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