Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,14:20

Quote

All my posts here will be right on topic-UD and ID.

Moi aussi. Pardonez-moi. UD, ID, we all scream for Dembscream.

Quote

The location of the eyes of a house cat are exactly where two holes in the fur are located. Chalk up yet another win for Intelligent Design. (fart).

Not so fast, torts fans! *burp* (Please excuse me, Judge Jones, cutie.) This cat wears glasses!

Refutation of design. Pud 'em up! Pud 'em up! Raa'arr!

(Meow! Prrrr...)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,14:21

Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,13:39)

Oh so you can only say disparaging things about UD here? Sorry ... I didn't know that rule.

it's not a rule as such, more of a consequence of there being nothing good that can be said.

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,14:59

Quote

43. SCheesman // Dec 27th 2006 at 3:37 pm
"Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria? ”

I agree, this IS an excellent question and it does deserve some kind of answer.

Though not an “exact” answer, the solution to this question is that the designer created the complete DNA code for the flagella to be fully operational, once instantiated. Whether as a “hidden” subroutine that was eventually activated at the proper time (i.e. front-loaded), or as part of a fully functioning bacterium fully formed (as oponents of common descent might prefer) might be a question answerable in the future, just as close examination of computer code can reveal aspects of the code’s orignal design and subsequent evolution.

Comment by SCheesman — December 27, 2006 @ 3:37 pm

Link

My Bold. TBH, I dont think too much of Cheesemans "some kind of answer".

So, ever hear of SCO v's IBM SCheesman? Go to http://www.groklaw.net/ and check out the most comprehensive examination of the "evolution of computer code" ever conducted. What would ID have done differently? Can ID come down absolutley on one side or another in the row over source code?

C'mon DS, put those computer skillz to use! Identifying source code origins should be a trivial matter for the design inference.

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

Mr_Christopher

Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,16:00

Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,13:39)

Oh so you can only say disparaging things about UD here? Sorry ... I didn't know that rule.

Actually if you drill into this thread you'll find quite a few examples of brilliant points being made at UD, often just prior to them being deleted (or banned) for obvious reasons.

But this is not a thread to promote creationist nonsense/ignorance, there are other ones for that.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,17:35

landru

Quote

Does a forensic pathologist have to identify exactly how and when a poison was introduced into a body in order for his finding that poisoning was the cause of death to be accepted? Of course not.

A finding of poison does not determine whether the poisoning was by design. The question would remain as to whether the poisoning was purposeful or accidental, and if purposeful, who was the perpetrator. As usual in these sorts of cases, several fundamentals of forensic science are brought to bear, such as motive, method and opportunity. Every contact leaves a trace. In any case, the whole point is to determine who the murderer is, if anyone.

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

You never step on the same tard twiceâ€”for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,17:40

Nominated for Best Strawman of the Day

Arnhart

Quote

Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria?

IDist

Quote

I will tell you if you tell me what is the size of my shoes I am wearing when typing these designed words.

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

You never step on the same tard twiceâ€”for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,17:51

now they get to win either way! Must be nice and simple being a ID supported over at UD. Dont have to think much, and you get free ice cream and treats from DS the performing seal. bac-flag flavour.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1906#comment-82711

Quote

59. Jack Krebs // Dec 27th 2006 at 6:40 pm
If one hypothesizes that design is implemented at the genetic level, or even at the sub-molecular level within the genome, then one might expect the implementation of the design of the flagellum in this hypothetical situation to appear to us as “step-by-tiny-step incremental changes with successive generations each functional in its own right.” There would be nothing deceptive about this - it would just be the way the designer works.

So it can still be IC, but built up stepwise, as evilution might have done? Waaaa?

It's hard to believe that some of these people are not really Anti-ID when they spout garbage like this! So "evilution" can be true, but it's design in any case every step of the way? Waaaa?

Are these people for real? Somebody needs to make a 10c docu-drama about the deluded folk that think "darwinism" is coming to a crashing end "some time soon". Vapourware we call that for computer software long time promised. Vapourscience? Vapourlabs....

And the big deal they are making about re-issuing Behe's book? Must be 1000 books coming out a month with real science in them, at all levels, and no doubt all of it directly contradicts their position. Which they've declined to defend in court, or in the labs.

C'mon DS, spend some of that $$$ on some real darn tootin ID science! A Nobel awaits! If you get it, make sure Dembski does not get hold of the mic on the night, we know how much he loves his fart jokes!

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

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,18:10

GilDodgen

Quote

Darwinism proposes a mechanism, a process, whereby a bacterium turned into Mozart in 10^17 seconds through purely materialistic means. This is an extraordinary claim that seems to fly in the face of everything we know about complex, tightly functionally integrated information processing systems.

First start with the strawman "Darwinism", then minimize the time involved by using an exponent, then end with a rhetorical fallacy.

GilDodgen

Quote

I could make a convincing case that Stonehenge was designed without offering the details of its design and construction. If I were to propose a specific process — where the stones came from, how they were transported, how they were hewn, how they were assembled — I would be expected to provide suitable evidence for these specific claims.

This is backwards from the scientific method. We might hypothesize that Stonehenge was designed. From that hypothesis, we then make predictions. If humans manufactured Stonehenge, we might find a nearby source of stone, and evidence that they were moved into place by mechanisms appropriate to the proposed explanation. Or we might look for evidence that humans manufactured stone monuments elsewhere. If this evidence is lacking, then the original assertion is considered poorly supported and new hypotheses may be proposed.

The hypothesis of design is only the very first step of any reasonable scientific approach. Then this hypothesis is subjected to skepticism and the collection of new evidence in a continuing effort to refine our knowledge.

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

You never step on the same tard twiceâ€”for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,18:18

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 27 2006,18:10)

The hypothesis of design is only the very first step of any reasonable scientific approach. Then this hypothesis is subjected to skepticism and the collection of new evidence in a continuing effort to refine our knowledge.

And I know that DS agrees!

Quote

45. DaveScot // Dec 25th 2006 at 8:17 am

grendalkin

Saying it could happen in some manner isn’t good enough. It must be demonstrated. The former is story telling. The latter is science.

Comment by DaveScot — December 25, 2006 @ 8:17 am

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

Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,18:21

Theory: Flagellum evolved over millions of years in primordial oceans of primitive organisms.

Behe

Quote

I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum.

A few notes before we start our experiment:
* Modern bacteria are the result of billions of years of evolution, just like people.
* Primitive organisms that evolved the original flagellas no longer exist.
* A "long time" might be millions of years.
* The number of organisms involved might fill Lake Michigan.

See. Behe really is proposing a falsifiable experiment. No problem. Next, we will evolve a dog into a cat through selective breeding in our backyard.

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

You never step on the same tard twiceâ€”for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,19:05

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 27 2006,14:59)

Quote

43. SCheesman // Dec 27th 2006 at 3:37 pm
"Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria? ”

I agree, this IS an excellent question and it does deserve some kind of answer.

Though not an “exact” answer, the solution to this question is that the designer created the complete DNA code for the flagella to be fully operational, once instantiated. Whether as a “hidden” subroutine that was eventually activated at the proper time (i.e. front-loaded), or as part of a fully functioning bacterium fully formed (as oponents of common descent might prefer) might be a question answerable in the future, just as close examination of computer code can reveal aspects of the code’s orignal design and subsequent evolution.

Comment by SCheesman — December 27, 2006 @ 3:37 pm

Link

My Bold. TBH, I dont think too much of Cheesemans "some kind of answer".

So, ever hear of SCO v's IBM SCheesman? Go to http://www.groklaw.net/ and check out the most comprehensive examination of the "evolution of computer code" ever conducted. What would ID have done differently? Can ID come down absolutley on one side or another in the row over source code?

C'mon DS, put those computer skillz to use! Identifying source code origins should be a trivial matter for the design inference.

Da\/3_7@rd iz teh l337 h@><o|2.

Woo7!

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

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,19:46

Richardthughs:

Quote

Demsbki's farting flash is a bit like when The Great Gazoo joins the cast of "the flintstones" - You're on your last season.

Exactly. He has jumped the shark. No doubt about that.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Ved

Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,19:51

Quote (GilDodgen @ ,)

Quote (Zachriel @ ,)

Darwinism proposes a mechanism, a process, whereby a bacterium turned into Mozart in 10^17 seconds through purely materialistic means.

...minimize the time involved by using an exponent...

Yeah, seventeen zeros is a lot of zeros. Also, the theory only explains how Mozart is possible after 3 billion years.

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,20:22

GilDodg'em:

Quote

It’s not a rhetorical strategy; it’s just a demand that extraordinary claims be accompanied by commensurately extraordinary evidence. Darwinism proposes a mechanism, a process, whereby a bacterium turned into Mozart in 10^17 seconds through purely materialistic means. This is an extraordinary claim that seems to fly in the face of everything we know about complex, tightly functionally integrated information processing systems.

Now I'm getting lost. I just got with the Behe certified fact that it was the unbelievable, irreducible, specified submicroscopic subcellular molecular nanocomplexity evident within bacteria that renders inescapable the argument to design. Little tiny stuff that Darwin couldn't see, because he had a black box and all, and he was an atheist and all. And Darwinism comes tumbling down and atheists are seen rending their documents. Er, garments.

I am pretty sure that Darwin could have seen Mozart - But NOW bacteria are just the starting point, because in 10^17 seconds flat one of those bacteria turned into Mozart, and natural selection can't explain THAT. If natural nanotech isn't enough, just get a load of the Jupiter.

"Too many notes."

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,20:32

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 27 2006,21:22)

This is an extraordinary claim that seems to fly in the face of everything we know about complex, tightly functionally integrated information processing systems.

Hand-waving gibberish.

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,20:37

Stevestory:

Quote

Hand-waving gibberish.

Not to get technical, but would that not also be murky flapdoodle?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 27 2006,21:27

Arf!

from:

http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/

Nice one Pat!

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

k.e

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Dec. 28 2006,00:00

LOL

Channels Peter Sellers as the inspector in the pink panther....

Zir ....does ur ly-on fartz?

ID movement:No my lion does not fart.

<i>pprrrrrrrffffffrummmppppe</i>

Zir .... ur ly-on just fartzed on me!

ID movement:That's not my lion.

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

djmullen

Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 28 2006,00:29

[quote=Mr_Christopher,Dec. 27 2006,13:34][/quote]

Quote

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2006,13:19)

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 27 2006,13:07)

They forgot one:

The location of the eyes of a house cat are exactly where two holes in the fur are located. Chalk up yet another win for Intelligent Design.

(fart).

ooohhh that tickled me.

Plus, Oranges are orange coloured..
Flies do actually fly
Bangs Sound like they are spelled..

ID wins again, good one Richard. Being a Design Theorist is easy, I can do it and so can you!

I'm pulling out the big guns on this one:

Notice that a human's nostrils are located EXACTLY where the sinus passage is? Hands down ID wins!

(fart)

Danged atheists keep missing the Really Big Clue to ID!

There are over three billion people on this planet. Some of them are teeny tiny little short people, some of them are great big giant people, most of them are in between height people, like me.

BUT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS LEGS THAT ARE JUST LONG ENOUGH SO THEIR FEET REACH EXACTLY TO THE GROUND!!!

And you try to tell me that we're not designed?

Dembski will explain this profitably and at length in his next book. He's writing that book as an intrument of grace for you atheists. Read it or burn in h3ll.

(fart)

phonon

Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Dec. 28 2006,00:38

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Dec. 27 2006,07:11)

Quote

There is a litany of possibilities for who the designer could be:

1) Space aliens (don't ask who designed them, materialist pawn; you're just ~~satan~~ trying to trick us with demon logic)
2) God
3) Yahweh
4) The father
5) The son
6) The holy ghost
7) G-d
8) ~~Allah~~ I mean, ~~Jah~~ oops, ~~Ahura Mazda~~, er, ~~Siddha~~, um, nevermind, move on, nothing to see here
9) Jehovah
10) Jesus
11) Elohim
12) Abhir
13) Shaphat

Don't forget

14) El Shaddai

or is it

Shai Hulud?

edit: (fart)

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

UnMark

Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Dec. 28 2006,00:51

Old Man of the Desert... you read my mind, phonon.

The Flying Speghetti Monster is missing from the list, too.

phonon

Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Dec. 28 2006,01:33

Quote (UnMark @ Dec. 28 2006,00:51)

Old Man of the Desert... you read my mind, phonon.

Hey, what can I say. Recently I read 6 Dune books back to back (the ones written by Frank Herbert's son) and I've got it on the brain, I guess.

Oh hey and Michael Behe is a dolt:

Quote

Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.

No Michael. Good god, you have tenure?

Don't you realize, Michael, that you are admitting that the task you set is practically impossible because of the very reasons you state? You can't systematically examine every single variable that could come into play. At least not in many human lifetimes. Oh! You do know that and you're just a dishonest flim flam man! Gotcha.

Anyway, you could always claim that by starting out with a knock-out bug, that the failed experiment was really falsifying the "limited front loading hypothesis" so that a small hypothesis within ID is falsified and falsifiable, but Big ID hadn't been falsified, but is still falsifiable (that's all it needs to be scientific, right?). Oh, and of course, since "limited front loading" had been falsified, so had natural selection.

And you call yourself a biochemist.

(fart)

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

Faid

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Dec. 28 2006,03:21

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 27 2006,18:10)

GilDodgen

Quote

Darwinism proposes a mechanism, a process, whereby a bacterium turned into Mozart in 10^17 seconds through purely materialistic means. This is an extraordinary claim that seems to fly in the face of everything we know about complex, tightly functionally integrated information processing systems.

First start with the strawman "Darwinism", then minimize the time involved by using an exponent, then end with a rhetorical fallacy.

GilDodgen

Quote

I could make a convincing case that Stonehenge was designed without offering the details of its design and construction. If I were to propose a specific process — where the stones came from, how they were transported, how they were hewn, how they were assembled — I would be expected to provide suitable evidence for these specific claims.

This is backwards from the scientific method. We might hypothesize that Stonehenge was designed. From that hypothesis, we then make predictions. If humans manufactured Stonehenge, we might find a nearby source of stone, and evidence that they were moved into place by mechanisms appropriate to the proposed explanation. Or we might look for evidence that humans manufactured stone monuments elsewhere. If this evidence is lacking, then the original assertion is considered poorly supported and new hypotheses may be proposed.

The hypothesis of design is only the very first step of any reasonable scientific approach. Then this hypothesis is subjected to skepticism and the collection of new evidence in a continuing effort to refine our knowledge.

Gee, I wonder which of the two pictures represents a designed object, according to Gil...

And, most importantly, why.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Faid

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Dec. 28 2006,03:26

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 27 2006,17:40)

Nominated for Best Strawman of the Day

Arnhart

Quote

Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria?

IDist

Quote

I will tell you if you tell me what is the size of my shoes I am wearing when typing these designed words.

Hahaha is IDist typing with his shoes?

Man, I can't say anything about his shoesize, but his "designed words" sure help me set an upper limit on his IQ.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

djmullen

Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 28 2006,03:52

O'Leary writes:

Quote

2. Another recent ChristianWeek column:“Made in the image of God”? What does that mean?

Ever hear of a “humanzee”? Some would hail the hybrid of a human and a chimpanzee as a crowning achievement.

I believe there are some posting at UD.

Occam's Toothbrush

Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

Posted: Dec. 28 2006,04:11

Quote (UnMark @ Dec. 28 2006,00:51)

The Flying Speghetti Monster is missing from the list, too.

I only included beings we have verifiable scientific evidence for. I read every page of the bible and didn't see your "FSM" mentioned once.

Can someone email Carol Clouser and ask her what the ancient Hebrew word for spaghetti is?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

Occam's Toothbrush

Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

Posted: Dec. 28 2006,04:18

Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,13:39)

Oh so you can only say disparaging things about UD here? Sorry ... I didn't know that rule.

No, you can only say stupid, dishonest, unsupportable YEC things here.

But that's not prescriptive, though, just descriptive. So it could change. <not holding breath>

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

Renier

Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 28 2006,04:44

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 27 2006,17:51)

now they get to win either way! Must be nice and simple being a ID supported over at UD. Dont have to think much, and you get free ice cream and treats from DS the performing seal. bac-flag flavour.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1906#comment-82711

Quote

59. Jack Krebs // Dec 27th 2006 at 6:40 pm
If one hypothesizes that design is implemented at the genetic level, or even at the sub-molecular level within the genome, then one might expect the implementation of the design of the flagellum in this hypothetical situation to appear to us as “step-by-tiny-step incremental changes with successive generations each functional in its own right.” There would be nothing deceptive about this - it would just be the way the designer works.

So it can still be IC, but built up stepwise, as evilution might have done? Waaaa?

It's hard to believe that some of these people are not really Anti-ID when they spout garbage like this! So "evilution" can be true, but it's design in any case every step of the way? Waaaa?

Are these people for real? Somebody needs to make a 10c docu-drama about the deluded folk that think "darwinism" is coming to a crashing end "some time soon". Vapourware we call that for computer software long time promised. Vapourscience? Vapourlabs....

And the big deal they are making about re-issuing Behe's book? Must be 1000 books coming out a month with real science in them, at all levels, and no doubt all of it directly contradicts their position. Which they've declined to defend in court, or in the labs.

C'mon DS, spend some of that $$$ on some real darn tootin ID science! A Nobel awaits! If you get it, make sure Dembski does not get hold of the mic on the night, we know how much he loves his fart jokes!

I know Jack Krebs is anti-ID, and very active in fighting ID. I think he was playing with them to perhaps admit that *if* there was a designer, then he might be designing in the same way that evolution works. Makes sense, since the IDiots have no bloody clue what God.. uh.. the Designer does, or how he does it.

And you are right of course, they get to win either way, since magic can make anything happen... However, since we won't settle for "Magic" as an explanation, they feel they are being persecuted... shame...

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Dec. 28 2006,05:15

yes, I read some of his later posts and it does seem he was playing with them.

There's a law about this one though, like Godwins. Something like "if you are pretending to talk like a creationist then somebody will come along and believe it". I guess that somebody was me today

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

Renier

Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006