RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (22) < ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 >   
  Topic: FL Debate Peanut Gallery, Keep it Clean!< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,21:49   

So, is E=mc2 the same as E=mc2+JC, or not?

If not, why not, and how, exactly?

If it is, why bother?

--------------
"[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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,22:34   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,20:58)
Quote
"naturalism, materialism, atheism, agnosticism" are "sewer-stenched idol gods"???

Honestly?  Yes.  Straight down the line.  

Baal-Mart Blue-Light Specials, every last blasted one of 'em.   Hopefully you haven't been shopping their clearance racks??

FL

Floyd, you do know that Ba'al is Canaanite for "Lord" as well as a personal name.  Kind of like..."God".  Given that both Yahweh and Ba'al (and El) were Canaanite deities, you might want to rethink your analogy.

You won't, but that's par for the course.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,00:57   

fuck well we know that troll hasn't been reading books in his absence.  still as stupid as the first time.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,08:39   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,17:54)
Quote
What's the difference between an organism that's designed and one that is not designed?

The not-designed one willtotally lack any specified complexity / irreducible complexity, right down to its last little cell and that cell's components.

FL

Excellent.  So let's talk about the science of ID then.

I really don't care about the religous implications of ID if it is indeed a science.  

If it is not a science, then the religious implications are all that exist and ID is specifically prevented from being taught in public schools.

How do we measure specified complexity?
How do we measure irreducible complexity?
What units do we measure specified complexity in?
What units do we measure irreducible complexity in?
What tools do we use to specified complexity?
What tools do we use to measure irreducible complexity?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be designed?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be not designed?
What do we measure to determine specified complexity (gene, genome, what about a chimera does it have more, less, or the same specified complexity)?
What do we measure irreducible complexity (gene for the structure, the proteins in the structure, what about a part that has been co-opted for another purpose, like feathers for example, flight feathers are required for bird flight, but not for bat or insect flight, flight feathers can also be used for insulation, but let's not get caught up in minutia, let's get the big picture first)?
** Sorry for the stream of conciousness in that last.


You see FL, you can say all kinds of things.  But to actually be able to measure them and unambiguously come up with an answer that everyone who does the experiment (or observation) will also come up with, means that you may have something.

The above questions are the absolute minimum to even begin the study of ID science.

You can just start with one.  Of course, if you can answer any of them, you'll have done more than Dembski, Meyer, Behe, and all the others.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,09:37   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,17:12)

Quote
If Dembski's specific 3-point hypothesis survives the falsification process,


LOL! Sorry FL, but unless Dembski publishes his "hypothesis" under the guidelines of the Scientific Method - which would include an actual scientific body for peer review - it won't be taken seriously or accepted as science. Dembski refuses to actually treat his "work" scientifically, preferring instead to publish it as popular philosophy in book form to general audiences. That's up to him of course - I don't begrudge the man making a buck or two off the rubes. But the fact is, right now nothing from ID has entered any scientific process, never mind falsification specifically, because Demski has chosen not to go that route.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,09:46   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,17:59)

Quote
Quote
"And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there." --- Dembski

And if you don't think evolutionists aren't doing the very same thing to sell the masses on their evolutionary snake oil,  then you've never read Gould, Sagan, Ken Miller, nor Dawkins.  (Nor even Francis Collins!!).

FL


Ahhh FL...just can't help being disingenuous, can you? Oddly you seem to have left out that Gould, Sagan, Miller, Dawkins, and Collins (and a whole slew of other actual scientists, including, Hawking and Futuyama) all perform and published actual scientific research in actual science journals through actual scientific peer review processes. Not so for Mr. Dembski. Oddly still, NO ID research of any kind has ever been published through scientific channels, but I suppose that's a separate subject.

Bottom line, once again you provide a lovely example of why ID should be (and is) shunned and looked on as so much crap - it's proponents feel that lying and mischaracterizing are the standard approach to selling their snake oil. No thanks.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,09:49   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,20:58)

Quote
Quote
"naturalism, materialism, atheism, agnosticism" are "sewer-stenched idol gods"???

Honestly?  Yes.  Straight down the line.  

Baal-Mart Blue-Light Specials, every last blasted one of 'em.   Hopefully you haven't been shopping their clearance racks??

FL


I for one will take those "sewer-stenched idol gods" over your sewer-stenched idol gods of lying and general unpleasantness any day of the week.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,10:10   

Quote
The not-designed one will totally lack any specified complexity / irreducible complexity

But how will you know that if you've no way to determine if specified complexity is present in the first place?

--------------
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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,10:18   

Quote
Floyd, you do know that Ba'al is Canaanite for "Lord" as well as a personal name.  Kind of like..."God".

"Baal" is translated "lord", but if you think there is any possible equivalence between the Canaanite Baal and the real live God, please grab the nearest Old Testament (1 Kings chap. 18, for example) and totally wipe out that fallacy.  Quick!!
 
Quote
27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them.
"Shout louder!" he said. "Surely (Baal) is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened."

28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed.

29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

(Afterwards, Elijah said....)
 
Quote
37 "Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again."

38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, "The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!"

Worshipping Baal is a total mistake, just like worshipping Evolution.   (Burn all those idol gods, people!)

There's only one real God.  The God of the Bible.

FL

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,10:24   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,08:18)
There's only one real God.  The God of the Bible.

Sez you. Who cares?

--------------
"[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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,10:34   

Quote (fnxtr @ April 14 2010,10:24)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,08:18)
There's only one real God.  The God of the Bible.

Sez you. Who cares?

He's already got the truth, and he's no supposed to question in. All observations must conform to it or be false.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,12:36   

Quote (Robin @ April 14 2010,09:37)
[quote=FloydLee,April 13 2010,17:12][/quote]
Quote
If Dembski's specific 3-point hypothesis survives the falsification process,


LOL! Sorry FL, but unless Dembski publishes his "hypothesis" under the guidelines of the Scientific Method - which would include an actual scientific body for peer review - it won't be taken seriously or accepted as science. Dembski refuses to actually treat his "work" scientifically, preferring instead to publish it as popular philosophy in book form to general audiences. That's up to him of course - I don't begrudge the man making a buck or two off the rubes. But the fact is, right now nothing from ID has entered any scientific process, never mind falsification specifically, because Demski has chosen not to go that route.

I think the actual statement from Dembski was "[we don't need that] pathetic level of detail"

Makes one wonder what level of detail is required...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,12:54   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 14 2010,13:36)
Quote (Robin @ April 14 2010,09:37)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,17:12)

 
Quote
If Dembski's specific 3-point hypothesis survives the falsification process,


LOL! Sorry FL, but unless Dembski publishes his "hypothesis" under the guidelines of the Scientific Method - which would include an actual scientific body for peer review - it won't be taken seriously or accepted as science. Dembski refuses to actually treat his "work" scientifically, preferring instead to publish it as popular philosophy in book form to general audiences. That's up to him of course - I don't begrudge the man making a buck or two off the rubes. But the fact is, right now nothing from ID has entered any scientific process, never mind falsification specifically, because Demski has chosen not to go that route.

I think the actual statement from Dembski was "[we don't need that] pathetic level of detail"

Makes one wonder what level of detail is required...

For ID, the less detail the better.  It's like seeing the face on Mars or Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich.  If you look too close it spoils the illusion.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,13:57   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 14 2010,10:36)
I think the actual statement from Dembski was "[we don't need that] pathetic level of detail"

Makes one wonder what level of detail is required...

That classic post can be found here.  For Floyd to ignore/gloss over and everyone else's amusement, here's the money shot:
Quote

As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.


Aaaand nigh on eight years later, ID still can't find its own irreducibly complex ass with both hands in a room full of mirrors.

--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,14:18   

Quote (didymos @ April 14 2010,13:57)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 14 2010,10:36)
I think the actual statement from Dembski was "[we don't need that] pathetic level of detail"

Makes one wonder what level of detail is required...

That classic post can be found here.  For Floyd to ignore/gloss over and everyone else's amusement, here's the money shot:
Quote

As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.


Aaaand nigh on eight years later, ID still can't find its own irreducibly complex ass with both hands in a room full of mirrors.

So, the main proponent of ID says that it is basically useless...

Which anyone who's honest with himself knew all along.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,14:29   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 14 2010,15:18)
So, the main proponent of ID says that it is basically useless...

It's not entirely useless.  

Thanks to ID, DrDrD can afford nice sweaters.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,14:57   

Quote
Sez you. Who cares?

You never can tell.  Even down in Atheistville, you got some people who are quietly interested.  Think Antony Flew.

Who will be NEXT to defect from the atheistic camp??  Step right up, boys!!!!!

FL   :)

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,15:08   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,15:57)
Quote
Sez you. Who cares?

You never can tell.  Even down in Atheistville, you got some people who are quietly interested.  Think Antony Flew.

Who will be NEXT to defect from the atheistic camp??  Step right up, boys!!!!!

FL   :)

Which god?

Daddy?
Laddy?
Big Spook?

And some of us aren't boys.

--------------
"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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,15:12   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,14:57)
Quote
Sez you. Who cares?

You never can tell.  Even down in Atheistville, you got some people who are quietly interested.  Think Antony Flew.

Who will be NEXT to defect from the atheistic camp??  Step right up, boys!!!!!

FL   :)

Wasn't he a deist at the end? That's still an atheist deconstructively: NOT THEIST.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,15:14   

ID is not mechanistic, Dembski wrote.   So where's the published proof that a scientific hypothesis needs to be mechanistic in order to be science?  

(And what exactly will you evolutionists do to salvage your high-school biology textbooks' chemical evolution sales-pitch, if you insist on every scientific hypothesis being mechanistic?)

******

Quote
True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering. -- William Dembski


Anyone have a published disproof of that statement?

FL

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,15:17   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,15:14)
Quote
True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering. -- William Dembski


Anyone have a published disproof of that statement?

FL

There have been no "discoveries" (that ID is purportedly discovering) to disprove.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,15:33   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,15:14)
ID is not mechanistic, Dembski wrote.   So where's the published proof that a scientific hypothesis needs to be mechanistic in order to be science?  

(And what exactly will you evolutionists do to salvage your high-school biology textbooks' chemical evolution sales-pitch, if you insist on every scientific hypothesis being mechanistic?)

******

 
Quote
True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering. -- William Dembski


Anyone have a published disproof of that statement?

FL

Quote
mech·a·nis·tic (mk-nstk)
adj.
1. Mechanically determined.
2. Philosophy Of or relating to the philosophy of mechanism, especially tending to explain phenomena only by reference to physical or biological causes.
3. Automatic and impersonal; mechanical

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mechanistic

So, ID refuses to explain a phenomena by natural (physical or biological) causes.  So what's that leave?

Supernatural...

Dembski says that ID has a supernatural cause.  The only problem with that is you can't investigate supernatural causes by science.

If you could, then it would no longer be supernatural.  Then it would be <shudder> mechanistic.

So, Dembski (and you and ID) have a problem.  You keep saying that ID is science, but it doesn't have to do any of the things that science does.  So, where does that leave us?  

ID - the unscience (with respect to Occam's Toothbrush).

Since you've very effectively demonstrated that ID is not science... and we've demonstrated that the purpose of ID has a religous basis (Wedge document anyone)...

Then you can't teach ID in schools without violating the 1st Ammendment of the US Constitution.

Thanks for playing.  We'll see about a nice parting gift...


[Note: I almost added something sciencey, but I'd hate to disrupt this discussion about religion.]

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,15:35   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,16:14)
Quote
True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering. -- William Dembski


Anyone have a published disproof of that statement?

FL

What IC systems might it be that ID is discovering?  Can you name any?

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,15:55   

Quote
You see FL, you can say all kinds of things.  But to actually be able to measure them and unambiguously come up with an answer that everyone who does the experiment (or observation) will also come up with, means that you may have something.

I wonder if evolutionists are able, every time with no exceptions, to "measure things and unambiguously come up with an answer that everyone who does the experiment or observation will also come up with" especially WRT:

(1) chemical evolution hypotheses, and also  

(2) human evolution hypotheses.

If not, of course, then one has to ask why a double standard is being employed when it comes to the ID hypothesis.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,16:06   

Well (2) is easily satisfied by ERVs or analyzing Human and Great Ape Chromosomes.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,16:10   

You'd think ID proponents would understand that in science, sometimes you don't know.  And whomever has the best evidence will eventually be considered as most correct... until new evidence comes along.

Perhaps you should read up on some examples of how science continually reviews itself, investigates new possibilities, and constantly upgrades it's hypotheses until the best solution is found.

Examples:
Einstein's relitivity overturning Newtownian mechanics
PE vs. gradualism
warm-blooded vs. cold-blooded dinos
hominid evolution
the various models of the atom
etc
etc
etc

Unfortunately, science is the only one that does this.  ID is always the same: "an unknown designer did something at some point in time".

With respect to prebiotic origins of life... let me ask you... what's the shortest strand RNA that can self replicate?  When was this discovered?  Why is it important?

If you can correctly answer those questions, then you will see how science discovers how things could (yes 'could') have happened.  How we test and measure these things.  And how repeatability is used in science.

{Insert prediction regarding the 'you weren't there argument'.  I can't wait for this one.}

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,16:30   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 14 2010,13:33)
ID - the unscience (with respect to Occam's Toothbrush).

(cue Geoffrey Holder's laugh from the old 7-Up commercials).

--------------
"[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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,16:45   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,12:57)
Quote
Sez you. Who cares?

You never can tell.  Even down in Atheistville, you got some people who are quietly interested.  Think Antony Flew.

Who will be NEXT to defect from the atheistic camp??  Step right up, boys!!!!!

FL   :)

Y'know FL, I don't really give a flying what you worship. Just keep it the fuck out of taxpayer funded schools, okay? Thanks.

--------------
"[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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,17:19   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,15:55)
one has to ask why a double standard is being employed when it comes to the ID hypothesis.



It's the jumpers.

--------------
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

  
Jasper



Posts: 76
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2010,17:36   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,16:14)
(And what exactly will you evolutionists do to salvage your high-school biology textbooks' chemical evolution sales-pitch, if you insist on every scientific hypothesis being mechanistic?)

Are you seriously suggesting that the descriptions of chemical evolution in high-school biology textbooks are not mechanistic? Is it your assertion that such textbook descriptions do not reference physical or "natural" causes?

Aren't you the one who complained about the textbook used in your local high school because it suggested that life may have arose "naturally and spontaneously" through the combined action of various physical and/or chemical causes?

Do you know what the word "mechanistic" means?

  
  634 replies since Sep. 09 2009,12:17 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (22) < ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]