RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >   
  Topic: Salvador Cordova vs. Lenny Flank< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,02:22   

>Perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a theory.



Perhaps you prefer Behe's definition of "scientific theory", which places astrology alongside ID?

But now you've raised another interesting point --- if ID really is "science", then why exactly do IDers find it necessary to change, through legislative fiat, the definition of "science" to make ID fit?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,02:25   

>Hey Flanky boy, the above equation from physics is the basis for ID theory.


Reeeaaallllyyyyyyy.

Would you mind underlining the term in this equation that represents the Intelligent Designer?

Thanks.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,09:54   

Lenny's Education Level


Quote

Lenny:

I have no college degree


Hey!  You're less educated than me.  That's pretty sad.


I answered 1 and 2.

Quote

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?




Evolution tries to account for specified complex information from materialistic processes.  That is not consistent with information theory.   :p   That's why the materialism in evolutionary theory is not consistent with science or the search for correct answers.


Do you have any more of your usual uneducated replies to my answers (ye with no college degree, hehehe!;).



:p

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,11:10   

Quote
Evolution tries to account for specified complex information from materialistic processes.


No-one other than Bill Dembski and his sycophants use the term "specified complex information" or attach any meaning to the term. Like the rest of Dembski's gobbledygook, the term is meaningless. The theory of evolution manages very well without such nonsense. Your above assertion is meaningless.

I doubt even Salvador appreciates your poor attempt at impersonation, whoever you are.

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,12:31   

Hey Flank, your buds don't seem to have much confidence you can take me one-on-one.  They're just helping themselve to this thread.

I thank them for affirming your ineptness in dealing with me.  :p

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,12:36   

Quote

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.


I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.

Salvador

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,12:43   

Quote

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?



Hiya Flank,

Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?    

I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I woudl say anyway.....

Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank.  Care to issue some retractions.

Oh, by the way, do you have an answer to my 1st question, or are you just going to repeat your false accusations with some cut and paste?



Salvador

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,12:54   

Quote

I'm beginning to think that this is NOT Sal, but just an imposter (probably DaveScott or somesuch).

Sal, even at his most mouth-foamingly, is not this illiterate and childish.


I just had to phrase the answers and question at a level commensurate with your knowledge level.  :p

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,13:02   

>Hey!  You're less educated than me.  That's pretty sad.



Well, apparently no one taught you during your extensive education that pretending to be someone you're not and posting under false pretenses is a lie, and lies are bad.  Apparently you enver learned that in church, either.

But then, I long ago learned that, to IDers, lying for the Lord is SOP.  It no longer surprises me.  (shrug)


>I answered 1 and 2.



Riiiiggggghhhhhtttttt.  So the scientific theory of ID is, "something intelligent did . .  uh . .  something intelligent".

That's the best you got, huh?  No WONDER scientists dont pay any attention to you.  (shrug)

So far, as I see it, we have:

Number of questions asked by me: 31
Number of intelligible answers from you: zero

But, I do want to thank you for showing everyone so clearly here . . .


>3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

>Evolution tries to account for specified complex information from materialistic processes.  That is not consistent with information theory.   :p   That's why the materialism in evolutionary theory is not consistent with science or the search for correct answers.


. . . that you are too dumb to know what "materialism" means.  (shrug)

When you're ready to answer any of the questions I've asked of you (and TRY to do better than "um, something intelligent happened"), do let me know, OK?

Oh, and hey Sal (the real Sal), how long do you intend to let this juvenile imposter continue to besmirch what's left of your, uh, good name?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,13:03   

Quote
No, I just had some time to finally deal with you.  You were low on my priorities.
Quote  


(1) what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method?





The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  



What I think Lenny and others are interested in is how thoughts manifest themselves in the physical world--to resolve the paradox of Aristotle's unmoved mover--that how can something be move that is in itself unmoved. My theory of differentially sized crystalline spheres solves the paradox and provides the last piece of the puzzle completing ID theory. Since these spheres apprach zero mass, they can be moved by thought, with approaching zero, yet real, physical force. This is how thought effects everything else.

Mr. Cordova, I appreciate your work but there that small problem in ID that evolutionists since Democritus have hinted at. I believe I have resolved it.


Reverend Jim writes:

Quote
4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.



What do the political views of your sugar daddies have to do with the accuracy of your conclusions? Are you scared, Reverend? Do you see Black helicopters piolted by men with Crusader helmets spying on your house? Does your pizza delivery boy report similar occurences? Are you sure Susan Sontag really died of cancer? Are you sure she wasn't poisoned by John Ashcroft's deep agents on every street corner in Men in Black garb? Could it be time for Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal and yourself to board yourselves up in a cabin in Montana with whatever overweight, smelly literature department chairwomen willing to mate with you guys before the infamous "they" come to take ya'all away?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,13:14   

Hey Sal imposter, are you gonna tell YOUR bud to shut up and go away?  One-on-one, and all that?  

Or at least have HIM answer my simple questions (since YOU seem quite unable to)?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,13:20   

>Where did I ever say


Well, tell me who the #### you really ARE, and I'll be happy to show you.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,13:27   

>(1) what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method?


>What I think Lenny and others are interested in is how thoughts manifest themselves in the physical world


Nope.  What I am interested in is, well, the scientific theory of ID and how we can test it using the scientific method.

So far, the best the Sal-imposter can come up with is "something intelligent did. . .  uh . . . something intelligent".

Is THAT the extent of ID "theory"?  THAT is what IDers want to base the science of biology on?

No WONDER the judge in Dover wasn't terribly impressed by it.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,14:32   

Quote


Hey Sal imposter, are you gonna tell YOUR bud to shut up and go away?  One-on-one, and all that?  




Hey Flank, it's me.  I'm just had to lower my level of discourse down to your high school level education.  If I started talking like a college guy, it would probably sail over your head.

I answered your five questions, demonstrated you were using :
Fallacy of Interrogation.  Care to issue some retractions of your FALSE accusations.

You're presumption that you're dealing with someone who is not the real Salvador Cordova only demonstrates you're full of presumptions.


Quote


Well, tell me who the #### you really ARE, and I'll be happy to show you.


I'm the real Salvador T. Cordova.  Are you claiming the person you're having this exchange with is an impostor?

:0

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,14:58   

Nope, no answers to any of my 31 questions here . . . .


Do let me know when you're ready, Sal Imposter.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,15:01   

>I'm the real Salvador T. Cordova.


For your sake, I sincerely hope not.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,15:08   

Quote

Flank wrote:

Hey Sal, the last dozen or so times you were here, you ran away without answering four simple questions I've asked of you.



Hey, Flank, your set of question is 5 questions, I thought you'd be able to count by now.

Quote

I'll repeat them again for you, in case you've forgotten them.

*ahem*

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?



Quote

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

My answer:

The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  

Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

It it testable in 2 ways:

1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science. And subject to Popperian falsification as would be expected from a scientific theory.




Quote

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

My answer:  ID theory is not used to determine the age of the earth and it does not answer the question of whether humans descended from apes like ancestors or not.  

Does gravitational theory have answers to those questions? No.  Does that therefore invalidate graviational theory as a theory? No.  

Your question nly demonstrates your attempt to suggest ID is untrue because it does not address certain questions.  That's the fault of your miswired understanding, not the theory.  Does your high school level understanding comprehend that, is the reasoning too sophisticated for you?



Quote

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

Evolution is dealing with specified complex information. That information trancends material reality (have you read Matter Myth by Physicist Davies and Gribbin?).  Trying to tie the origin information to unthinking materialistic processes is mixing apples and oranges.

Weather phenomena do not deal with CSI.  

Your accident investigation question is to vague to be useful for discussion, likewise your discussion of medicine.  The fact that you can't even phrase your questions coherently is the reason you don't get the answer your looking for.  You questions are about as dumb as asking why does 5 equal 4 (which apparently you haven't quite figured out is untrue), and then you call me a liar when I don't answer you're non-sensical questions.

Do you understand information theory, Flank? Well I guess not high school boy, it's way over your head.....




Quote

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

My answer:  

I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.




Quote

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

My answer:
Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?    

I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I would say anyway.....

Your question is another example of
Fallacy of Interrogation

Do I have to diagram the details of your logical fallacies down to the high school level for you?


Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank.  Care to issue some retractions.





Quote

Sal (or whoever you really are), just answer my goddamn questions.


Getting testy, eh?  Still presuming you're not dealing with the real Salvador Cordova?  Do you enjoy remaining in a state of denial.  Didn't think that I'd eventually deal with you Flank?    Can't deal with the facts that it's the real me coming out to take your high school understanding on?


I answered your questions (whichever one were coherent at least).   I can cut and paste now, just like you, Flank.   Since you evaded my first question, how about another one, #2:

How did life eventually arrive at the architecture such tat proteins eventually were homo-chiral with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  

C'mon, Flank, make that high school education show through.

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,15:14   

Quote


Flank insists:

Nope, no answers to any of my 31 questions here . . . .



That is False Flank, I answered the above question regarding Ahmanson.  That is a sufficient condition to show your claim is false.  Care to make a retraction, Flank, or are you in denial?

Quote

My answer to question 4:

I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.


Further you continue to use Fallacies of Interrogation.  That means such questions, aren't even questions.

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,15:17   

Quote

Well, tell me who the #### you really ARE, and I'll be happy to show you.


I told you who I am, Flank. What's the matter, can't deal with the truth.   :p

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,15:18   

Nope, still no answers to any of the 31 questions I asked.

Do let me know when you're ready, OK?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,15:21   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 05 2005,21:18)
Nope, still no answers to any of the 31 questions I asked.

Do let me know when you're ready, OK?

Apparently you missed it Flank, so here it is:

Quote

Flank wrote:

Hey Sal, the last dozen or so times you were here, you ran away without answering four simple questions I've asked of you.



Hey, Flank, your set of question is 5 questions, I thought you'd be able to count by now.

Quote

I'll repeat them again for you, in case you've forgotten them.

*ahem*

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?



Quote

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

My answer:

The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  

Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

It it testable in 2 ways:

1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science. And subject to Popperian falsification as would be expected from a scientific theory.




Quote

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

My answer:  ID theory is not used to determine the age of the earth and it does not answer the question of whether humans descended from apes like ancestors or not.  

Does gravitational theory have answers to those questions? No.  Does that therefore invalidate graviational theory as a theory? No.  

Your question nly demonstrates your attempt to suggest ID is untrue because it does not address certain questions.  That's the fault of your miswired understanding, not the theory.  Does your high school level understanding comprehend that, is the reasoning too sophisticated for you?



Quote

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

Evolution is dealing with specified complex information. That information trancends material reality (have you read Matter Myth by Physicist Davies and Gribbin?).  Trying to tie the origin information to unthinking materialistic processes is mixing apples and oranges.

Weather phenomena do not deal with CSI.  

Your accident investigation question is to vague to be useful for discussion, likewise your discussion of medicine.  The fact that you can't even phrase your questions coherently is the reason you don't get the answer your looking for.  You questions are about as dumb as asking why does 5 equal 4 (which apparently you haven't quite figured out is untrue), and then you call me a liar when I don't answer you're non-sensical questions.

Do you understand information theory, Flank? Well I guess not high school boy, it's way over your head.....




Quote

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

My answer:  

I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.




Quote

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

My answer:
Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?    

I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I would say anyway.....

Your question is another example of
Fallacy of Interrogation

Do I have to diagram the details of your logical fallacies down to the high school level for you?


Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank.  Care to issue some retractions.





Quote

Sal (or whoever you really are), just answer my goddamn questions.


Getting testy, eh?  Still presuming you're not dealing with the real Salvador Cordova?  Do you enjoy remaining in a state of denial.  Didn't think that I'd eventually deal with you Flank?    Can't deal with the facts that it's the real me coming out to take your high school understanding on?


I answered your questions (whichever one were coherent at least).   I can cut and paste now, just like you, Flank.   Since you evaded my first question, how about another one, #2:

How did life eventually arrive at the architecture such tat proteins eventually were homo-chiral with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  

C'mon, Flank, make that high school education show through.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,15:40   

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

(OK, we'll scratch this one, since you seem to recognize that Ahmanson is a nutter and have repudiated his nuttiness  -- I look forward to your helping OTHER IDers repudiate his nuttiness too.  Although I am rather curious as to why, do you think, Ahmanson funds DI, and why, do you think, DI takes his money?)

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

6.  What did the designer do, specifically.  What mechanisms did it use to do whatever the heck you think it did.  Where can we see it using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything.

7.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), IDers keep telling us that ID is science and not just fundamentalist Christian apologetics.

Given that, why is it that IDEA Clubs only allow Christians to serve as officers?  Why aren't Muslims or Raelians or Jews who accept ID allowed to serve as IDEA Club officers?

Is there a legitimate scientific reason for that, or is it just plain old-fashioned religious bigotry we are seeing?

8.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), the Templeton Foundation says that it asked IDers to submit ideas for scientific research projects into ID that it could fund ------ and no one submitted any.

Why is that?  Is it because IDers are far more interested in using political methods to push their religious opinions into school classrooms than they are in doing any actual "scientific research"?


9.  Gee, Sal (or whoever you are) I can't think of any scientific advance made in any area of science at any time in the past 25 years as the result of ID "research".  Why is that?


10.  How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have there been centering around ID "research"?  (I mean the ones that were NOT later withdrawn by the journal on the grounds that they were published fraudulently).  None?  Why is that?

11.  Why is it that leading DI luminaries (such as the, uh, Isaac Newton of Information Theory) never get invited to scientific symposia on Information Theory or Quantum Mechanics?  Surely if ID were at the cutting edge of scientific research in these fields, professionals in the field would be dying to hear about it, right?  And yet IDers are ignored in these fields.  Why is that?

12.  Why is it that IDers prefer to "debate" in front of church audiences and college Christian student groups, but not in front of scientific conferences or peer-reviewed science journals?

13.  Hey Sal, why is it that all of DI's funding comes from fundamentalist Christian political groups and Reconstructionist nutjobs?  

14.  Why is it that the Templeton Foundation, which focuses on issues of science and religion (right up ID's alley, eh?) won't fund DI?

15.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), your pal Luskin told the press that there was a positive scientific theory of ID that was NOT based solely on negative arguments against evolution.

Why is it that you are quite unable to come up with any?

Or was Luskin just BS'ing everyone when he made that claim?

16.  > I don't want ID or creation science taught in Public Schools nor college science classes.

Why not?

Please be as specific as possible.

17.  >The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  

Explained how.  How does ID "explain" anything.  other than "something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent".

18.  >Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

What interpretation.

And why do quantum physicists think ID is full of crap?

19.  >It it testable in 2 ways:

WHAT, specifically, is testable?  How do you  propose to test :"something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent"?

20.  >1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

Glad to hear it.  Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

21.  >2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science.

Glad to hear it.  Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

22.  >An objective criteria would be something like the blueprints for genetically engineered food.

Great.  Can you show me, please, the blueprint for anything that you think your Intelligent Designer designed --- the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, etc etc etc?

Then can you show me how this blueprint is implemented by the Designer?

23.  > www.genetic-id.com gives examples of  how design is detected.

Why is it that genetic engineers, like other scientists, think ID is full of crap, then?

24.  >If you think that ID applies only to "God made" designs, it only shows your misunderstandings of the theory

Really.  So the design of life wasn't done by God?

Interesting.

Was it space aliens?

25.  >The issues you bring up are creationist issues, not ID
issues.  

But you ARE a creationist, aren't you.

If not, then I am curious --- what were you before ID appeared on the scene in 1987?

26.  >No alternative is better than a wrong alternative.

Uh, I thought ID **was** the "alternative" . . . ?

Are you now telling me that it's NOT an "alternative"?  After all DI's arm-waving about its "alternative scientific theory" and its "positive scientific theory that does not depend solely on negative arguments against evolution", are you NOW telling me that DI is just BSing us when they say that, and they really DON'T have any "alternative scientific theory" after all?

27.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), if there is no such alternative as "intelligent design theory", then, uh, why does the Intelligent Design movement call itself the, uh, "Intelligent Design movement?  Why name yourselves after something that doesn't exist?  Why not call yourselves a more accurate name?  I, personally, like the one offered by your pal Paul Nelson ---  The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short).  It's lots more accurate than "intelligent design", particularly since, as you NOW seem to be saying, there simply IS NO scientific theory of design. . . .

28.  >We do not see the Designer of life in opreation today as far as I know

Why not?  Did it climb back aboard its flying saucer and go home?

Are you seriously suggesting that God doesn't intervene in the modern world?  Do your fellow fundies know that you are telling everyone that God no longer does anything?  

29.  > we postulate a Designer operated in the past.

Convenient for you, isn't it.

So tell me, when did it stop operating.

And how can you tell.

30.  >Perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a theory.

Perhaps you prefer Behe's definition of "scientific theory", which places astrology alongside ID?

But now you've raised another interesting point --- if ID really is "science", then why exactly do IDers find it necessary to change, through legislative fiat, the definition of "science" to make ID fit?

31.  >Hey Flanky boy, the above equation from physics is the basis for ID theory.

Reeeaaallllyyyyyyy.

Would you mind underlining the term in this equation that represents the Intelligent Designer?

Thanks.


Yep, that makes 31 questions, Sal.  One, you've now answered.  Two, you gave BS evasions.  Still lots left.

Any time you're ready, Sal.  You just let me know, OK?


>I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

Glad to hear that.  Sincerely.

What have you been doing to have other IDers repudiate them?

>Further you continue to use Fallacies of Interrogation.

Consider it a Vise, Sal.  (snicker)  (giggle)

> That means such questions, aren't even questions.

Well, Sal, they all look like questions to ME.  Questions that you, for some odd reason, don't seem to want to answer.

One down, Sal.  Thirty more to go.

Let me know when you're ready.

And by the way, if you really ARE Sal, then I feel very sorry for you.  You seem, at long last, to have finally lost all your marbles.  (shrug)

But I thank you, whoever you are, for demonstrating so clearly to everyone that ID/creationists are evasive dishonest cowards who refuse to answer even the simplest of questions.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,15:45   

Quote

From the darwin papers.
In a comparative study of the hearts of the four types of living reptiles; lizards, snakes, turtles, and crocodiles, we find that there are major structural differences between them all, with no indication of any type of an intermediate form ever existing, in fact, an intermediate form between a crocodile's heart and that of any other reptile would undoubtedly spell instant death to the creature.

In lizards, snakes, and turtles we have the right atrium and the left atrium situated next to each other, on the same side of the heart, to the left of the two aorta, while the pulmonary artery is on the right side of the heart. The crocodile's heart, on the other hand, is not anything like this at all. His right atrium and left atrium are on opposite sides of the heart: the right atrium is placed where the pulmonary artery is in the other reptiles, while the pulmonary artery and two aorta are situated in between the two atria.


Among the three remaining types of reptiles, a lizards heart has both aortas and both atria connected to the left ventricle, while in a turtles heart only the right aorta and the two atria are connected the left ventricle, the left aorta is connected to the right ventricle. In a snakes heart only the left atrium opens into the left ventricle, both of the aortas and the right atrium open into the right ventricle. None of these creatures could have survived unless their hearts were perfectly formed as they are from the beginning of their existence, an intermediate form would spell instant doom for an animal, and yet none of these reptiles have hearts that are alike in the slightest.

The amphibian has a heart unlike that of any reptilian heart. Instead of a four chambered heart like that found in reptiles, with an amphibian's heart there are only two atria that pass into a single ventricle, and a fish only has one atrium and one ventricle connected to the gills. There is definitely a progression in complexity from the heart of the fish to the reptile, but there is nothing like an intermediate stage to be found, an intermediate stage would be fatal for any creature. A heart must be completely functional and fully developed for the creature to survive.

It is similar to having four distinct types of internal combustion engines: a V-6 gasoline engine; a single piston motorcycle engine; an in-line diesel engine; and a rotary engine. Although all of these engines use similar chemical, electrical, and mechanical principles in their operation, they all have quite distinct designs for a particular, unique purpose. None of these engines "evolved" into the other engines, each one would have to be perfectly functional, with the correct specifications, timing, and design features from the start for them to operate.

An evolutionist by the name of Lenny Flank has disputed this and attempted to claim that there are transitional forms for the hearts of the four types of reptiles. He brought up the pachyrhachis, a fossilised snake, and a fossil amphibian called Acanthostega as some sort of proof for transitional forms. Unfortunately for Flank, it is doubtful that they would provide information on any transitional forms of reptilian hearts since we do not have any remains at all of the hearts of these two extinct species. Furthermore, even if we did, their hearts would in all probability be the same as the hearts of modern snakes and amphibian salamanders; after all the pachyrhachis was simply a snake with unique claspers probably used in mating, and the Acanthostega was a salamander, no more, no less.

Indeed, this problem of the evolution of the reptiles' heart is such an unsolvable conundrum that I have decided to call it Flank's Dilemma, in honor of Lenny Flank, a self professed expert on reptilian anatomy.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,15:47   

>How did life eventually arrive at the architecture such tat proteins eventually were homo-chiral with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  


We don't know.  (shrug)

How about giving us Intelligent Design, uh, "theory's" explanation for this.  What, specifically, does ID theory postulate the designer did to produce homo-chiral proteins with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  What mechanisms did it use to produce them?  And how can we test any of these mechanisms using the scientific method?

Or is "POOF !!!  God --- uh, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer -- dunnit!!!!!" the best that ID, uh, "theory" can come up with?  "Something intelligent did . . . uh . . . something intelligent"?

Is  THAT the best ID can offer?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,15:49   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 05 2005,21:40)
1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

(OK, we'll scratch this one, since you seem to recognize that Ahmanson is a nutter and have repudiated his nuttiness  -- I look forward to your helping OTHER IDers repudiate his nuttiness too.  Although I am rather curious as to why, do you think, Ahmanson funds DI, and why, do you think, DI takes his money?)

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

6.  What did the designer do, specifically.  What mechanisms did it use to do whatever the heck you think it did.  Where can we see it using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything.

7.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), IDers keep telling us that ID is science and not just fundamentalist Christian apologetics.

Given that, why is it that IDEA Clubs only allow Christians to serve as officers?  Why aren't Muslims or Raelians or Jews who accept ID allowed to serve as IDEA Club officers?

Is there a legitimate scientific reason for that, or is it just plain old-fashioned religious bigotry we are seeing?

8.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), the Templeton Foundation says that it asked IDers to submit ideas for scientific research projects into ID that it could fund ------ and no one submitted any.

Why is that?  Is it because IDers are far more interested in using political methods to push their religious opinions into school classrooms than they are in doing any actual "scientific research"?


9.  Gee, Sal (or whoever you are) I can't think of any scientific advance made in any area of science at any time in the past 25 years as the result of ID "research".  Why is that?


10.  How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have there been centering around ID "research"?  (I mean the ones that were NOT later withdrawn by the journal on the grounds that they were published fraudulently).  None?  Why is that?

11.  Why is it that leading DI luminaries (such as the, uh, Isaac Newton of Information Theory) never get invited to scientific symposia on Information Theory or Quantum Mechanics?  Surely if ID were at the cutting edge of scientific research in these fields, professionals in the field would be dying to hear about it, right?  And yet IDers are ignored in these fields.  Why is that?

12.  Why is it that IDers prefer to "debate" in front of church audiences and college Christian student groups, but not in front of scientific conferences or peer-reviewed science journals?

13.  Hey Sal, why is it that all of DI's funding comes from fundamentalist Christian political groups and Reconstructionist nutjobs?  

14.  Why is it that the Templeton Foundation, which focuses on issues of science and religion (right up ID's alley, eh?) won't fund DI?

15.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), your pal Luskin told the press that there was a positive scientific theory of ID that was NOT based solely on negative arguments against evolution.

Why is it that you are quite unable to come up with any?

Or was Luskin just BS'ing everyone when he made that claim?

16.  > I don't want ID or creation science taught in Public Schools nor college science classes.

Why not?

Please be as specific as possible.

17.  >The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  

Explained how.  How does ID "explain" anything.  other than "something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent".

18.  >Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

What interpretation.

And why do quantum physicists think ID is full of crap?

19.  >It it testable in 2 ways:

WHAT, specifically, is testable?  How do you  propose to test :"something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent"?

20.  >1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

Glad to hear it.  Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

21.  >2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science.

Glad to hear it.  Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

22.  >An objective criteria would be something like the blueprints for genetically engineered food.

Great.  Can you show me, please, the blueprint for anything that you think your Intelligent Designer designed --- the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, etc etc etc?

Then can you show me how this blueprint is implemented by the Designer?

23.  > www.genetic-id.com gives examples of  how design is detected.

Why is it that genetic engineers, like other scientists, think ID is full of crap, then?

24.  >If you think that ID applies only to "God made" designs, it only shows your misunderstandings of the theory

Really.  So the design of life wasn't done by God?

Interesting.

Was it space aliens?

25.  >The issues you bring up are creationist issues, not ID
issues.  

But you ARE a creationist, aren't you.

If not, then I am curious --- what were you before ID appeared on the scene in 1987?

26.  >No alternative is better than a wrong alternative.

Uh, I thought ID **was** the "alternative" . . . ?

Are you now telling me that it's NOT an "alternative"?  After all DI's arm-waving about its "alternative scientific theory" and its "positive scientific theory that does not depend solely on negative arguments against evolution", are you NOW telling me that DI is just BSing us when they say that, and they really DON'T have any "alternative scientific theory" after all?

27.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), if there is no such alternative as "intelligent design theory", then, uh, why does the Intelligent Design movement call itself the, uh, "Intelligent Design movement?  Why name yourselves after something that doesn't exist?  Why not call yourselves a more accurate name?  I, personally, like the one offered by your pal Paul Nelson ---  The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short).  It's lots more accurate than "intelligent design", particularly since, as you NOW seem to be saying, there simply IS NO scientific theory of design. . . .

28.  >We do not see the Designer of life in opreation today as far as I know

Why not?  Did it climb back aboard its flying saucer and go home?

Are you seriously suggesting that God doesn't intervene in the modern world?  Do your fellow fundies know that you are telling everyone that God no longer does anything?  

29.  > we postulate a Designer operated in the past.

Convenient for you, isn't it.

So tell me, when did it stop operating.

And how can you tell.

30.  >Perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a theory.

Perhaps you prefer Behe's definition of "scientific theory", which places astrology alongside ID?

But now you've raised another interesting point --- if ID really is "science", then why exactly do IDers find it necessary to change, through legislative fiat, the definition of "science" to make ID fit?

31.  >Hey Flanky boy, the above equation from physics is the basis for ID theory.

Reeeaaallllyyyyyyy.

Would you mind underlining the term in this equation that represents the Intelligent Designer?

Thanks.


Yep, that makes 31 questions, Sal.  One, you've now answered.  Two, you gave BS evasions.  Still lots left.

Any time you're ready, Sal.  You just let me know, OK?


>I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

Glad to hear that.  Sincerely.

What have you been doing to have other IDers repudiate them?

>Further you continue to use Fallacies of Interrogation.

Consider it a Vise, Sal.  (snicker)  (giggle)

> That means such questions, aren't even questions.

Well, Sal, they all look like questions to ME.  Questions that you, for some odd reason, don't seem to want to answer.

One down, Sal.  Thirty more to go.

Let me know when you're ready.

And by the way, if you really ARE Sal, then I feel very sorry for you.  You seem, at long last, to have finally lost all your marbles.  (shrug)

But I thank you, whoever you are, for demonstrating so clearly to everyone that ID/creationists are evasive dishonest cowards who refuse to answer even the simplest of questions.

Hey Flank, you can't read. I answered 5.  You haven't answered one.  What's the matter, Flank, are my question to sophisticated for your high-school education?

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 05 2005,21:18)
Nope, still no answers to any of the 31 questions I asked.

Do let me know when you're ready, OK?

Apparently you missed it Flank, so here it is:

Quote

Flank wrote:

Hey Sal, the last dozen or so times you were here, you ran away without answering four simple questions I've asked of you.



Hey, Flank, your set of question is 5 questions, I thought you'd be able to count by now.

Quote

I'll repeat them again for you, in case you've forgotten them.

*ahem*

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?



Quote

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

My answer:

The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  

Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

It it testable in 2 ways:

1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science. And subject to Popperian falsification as would be expected from a scientific theory.




Quote

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

My answer:  ID theory is not used to determine the age of the earth and it does not answer the question of whether humans descended from apes like ancestors or not.  

Does gravitational theory have answers to those questions? No.  Does that therefore invalidate graviational theory as a theory? No.  

Your question nly demonstrates your attempt to suggest ID is untrue because it does not address certain questions.  That's the fault of your miswired understanding, not the theory.  Does your high school level understanding comprehend that, is the reasoning too sophisticated for you?



Quote

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

Evolution is dealing with specified complex information. That information trancends material reality (have you read Matter Myth by Physicist Davies and Gribbin?).  Trying to tie the origin information to unthinking materialistic processes is mixing apples and oranges.

Weather phenomena do not deal with CSI.  

Your accident investigation question is to vague to be useful for discussion, likewise your discussion of medicine.  The fact that you can't even phrase your questions coherently is the reason you don't get the answer your looking for.  You questions are about as dumb as asking why does 5 equal 4 (which apparently you haven't quite figured out is untrue), and then you call me a liar when I don't answer you're non-sensical questions.

Do you understand information theory, Flank? Well I guess not high school boy, it's way over your head.....




Quote

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

My answer:  

I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.




Quote

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

My answer:
Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?    

I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I would say anyway.....

Your question is another example of
Fallacy of Interrogation

Do I have to diagram the details of your logical fallacies down to the high school level for you?


Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank.  Care to issue some retractions.





Quote

Sal (or whoever you really are), just answer my goddamn questions.


Getting testy, eh?  Still presuming you're not dealing with the real Salvador Cordova?  Do you enjoy remaining in a state of denial.  Didn't think that I'd eventually deal with you Flank?    Can't deal with the facts that it's the real me coming out to take your high school understanding on?


I answered your questions (whichever one were coherent at least).   I can cut and paste now, just like you, Flank.   Since you evaded my first question, how about another one, #2:

How did life eventually arrive at the architecture such tat proteins eventually were homo-chiral with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  

C'mon, Flank, make that high school education show through.

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,15:55   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 05 2005,21:47)
>How did life eventually arrive at the architecture such tat proteins eventually were homo-chiral with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  


We don't know.  (shrug)

How about giving us Intelligent Design, uh, "theory's" explanation for this.  What, specifically, does ID theory postulate the designer did to produce homo-chiral proteins with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  What mechanisms did it use to produce them?  And how can we test any of these mechanisms using the scientific method?

Or is "POOF !!!  God --- uh, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer -- dunnit!!!!!" the best that ID, uh, "theory" can come up with?  "Something intelligent did . . . uh . . . something intelligent"?

Is  THAT the best ID can offer?

Hey, Flank, you're unwilling to apply the same standard to yourself that you demand of me.  You said, "we don't know".  By your standards, Flank you didn't answer the question.  By the way, you need to make some retractions for your False accusations.  I let you sort it out in the following post.



Quote

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

My answer:  

I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.




Quote

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

My answer:
Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?    

I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I would say anyway.....

Your question is another example of
Fallacy of Interrogation

Do I have to diagram the details of your logical fallacies down to the high school level for you?


Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank.  Care to issue some retractions.



  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,15:56   

Apparently Sal has difficulty reading for comprehension, so I will repeat myself:


>How did life eventually arrive at the architecture such tat proteins eventually were homo-chiral with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  


We don't know.  (shrug)

How about giving us Intelligent Design, uh, "theory's" explanation for this.  What, specifically, does ID theory postulate the designer did to produce homo-chiral proteins with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  What mechanisms did it use to produce them?  And how can we test any of these mechanisms using the scientific method?

Or is "POOF !!!  God --- uh, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer -- dunnit!!!!!" the best that ID, uh, "theory" can come up with?  "Something intelligent did . . . uh . . . something intelligent"?

Is  THAT the best ID can offer?


Oh, and I got 30 more questions still waiting for an answer from you.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,16:00   

Hope you're having fun, Sal (or whoever you are).

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,16:00   

By the way, you need to make some retractions for your False accusations.  Are you going to, Flank?



Quote

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

My answer:  

I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.




Quote

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

My answer:
Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?    

I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I would say anyway.....

Your question is another example of
Fallacy of Interrogation

Do I have to diagram the details of your logical fallacies down to the high school level for you?


Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank.  Care to issue some retractions.



  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,16:04   

(sticks thumbs in ears and wiggles fingers)

Nanni nanni poo poo.

So THERE.

Pttttttthhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttt.


Having fun, Sal?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
  77 replies since Dec. 04 2005,12:41 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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