OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38) |
We saw what you wrote but what you really meant. |
Who the fuck are you to decide what someone 'really meant'. Normally, I'm a very nice person, but this pisses me off.
You do not have telepathy.
You do not have precognition.
You do not know me or anyone here.
You have no right to declare what SOMEONE ELSE said.
But that's OK, because you are under the same delusion that other creationists (excuse me 'IDists') are. That is "You (somehow) know better than everyone else on the planet.
It is obvious from your posts that you barely understand the scientific method, but you still know more than thousands of real live scientists that bust ass day-in and day-out to provide YOU (Mr. med student) the tools that you must have to do your job (ever hear of anti-biotics, superbugs, or do you know where the most anti-bitoic resistant bacteria exist (hint, you'll be working there)).
Oh, and who the fuck is 'We'? Are you in a computer lab with your buddies? Are you using the 'royal we', your highness? Are the rest of your little club too scared to jump in here?
| Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38) |
(I never asked that I made a statement that I knew what it was)
( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism)
|
Bullshit. First rule of Darwinism is there is no darwinism.
The goal of evolutionary SCIENCE is to show how the great diversity of life came about... AND provide tools that can be used to help us (Mr. med student).
You claim that scientists are lying about evolutionary theory. There are many people in this 'debate' that are liars, but they are not on the science side.
Ask Meyer about the lies in his book.
Ask Dembski about the Harvard video (hint: It's called theft)
Ask Behe about lying to a court of law in Dover.
| Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38) |
( I really doubt if their are ANY working scientist here from the adolescent attacks, the rest you wrote is just crap. What is even more remarkable is that man being the result of undirected causes believes himself capable of defining a reality that is unpredictable if undirected. Why you want to remain ignorant is of coarse your own business not mine).
|
What would you know about working scientists? What does belief have to do with science? If you ask these questions, then you do not understand science.
| Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38) |
( As Professor Davison point out scientist don't debate. I would say you miss understand my attention... again. I know Darwinian evolution is a ideology I don't need to question it's validity any longer, your attacks have delivered all the evidence I could ever wish for. The Darwinist attempts to deny that intelligent causes do not exist when all one needs do is imagine the progress and advancements of civilization without intelligence. The view of the metaphysical naturalist that wholly undirected natural causes govern the universe is patently false. Believing so is based on superstition and misguided faith. Darwinist depend on a "dumb public" for support and of coarse forums like this were numerous people can ambush anyone who question Darwin)
|
There is so much wrong here that I don't know where to start.
Let me ask you: Let's say there's a scientist. He's a horrible rapist. He beats his wife and children. He's a true asshole.
Does that automatically make any results, data, conclusions from his work wrong?
Of course it doesn't. Therefore everything in your paragraph above is invalid.
| Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38) |
( First let's be honest you don't speak for working scientist you speak for your own personal experience. You get upset with other scientist who question your "Ideology" which doesn't even qualify for a theory. But you don't question your public school education because if you did you would have to question your atheistic faith, do you think your doing something "new". The same thing happened in the 60's with another religious movement which taught the same rebellious doctrine.)
|
We speak from evidence. You speak from a holy book.
We speak from 150 years of data. You speak from 2000 years of myth.
We speak from decades of dealing with creationists/IDists. You speak from regurgitating the same crap that we dealt with 20 years ago.
You claim that you don't discuss God. Then why do the leaders of the ID movement specifically claim that God is the designer? Dembski, Meyers, Wells, they all say this. YOU may not speak of God, but all other ID proponents do. But, hey, you know more than thousands of scientists... I guess you know more about ID than the people that invented the modern concept too.
Again, if had a clue about the scientific process, you would know what it's like to stand in a crowd of expert scientists who are intent on trashing your hard work. You will never understand the pride that comes when, at the end of those proceedings, a truly notable scientist in your field comes to you and says, "Damn, you convinced me son. Good work."
All you have is a bunch scyophants preaching to the choir (literally in most cases). You've never had to defend yourself against people who know what they are talking about. Good luck...
| Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38) |
( I would further state Intelligent Design, like evolution, is a fact and a scientific theory, whether or not it has yet produced any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena. Let's not forget that when Darwin first theorized evolution, he had no method for inheritance and no rigorous predictive capacity.)
|
Please provide a single experiment that unambiguously (i.e. everyone agrees with that interpretation) that shows ID is true.
Please provide whatever evidence you have that ID is a fact.
Please provide the 'hypothesis' of ID.
Please explain why the leaders of ID (Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Behe, etc) have said "there is no ID theory"
I've been asking you people these questions for 15 years and no one can answer.
| Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38) |
( Share what knowledge? Your unfounded believe in Atheism. You see I hear people like you claim their is no debate yet here we are. On another level Scientist do disagree on this. Why are their so many Design institutes coming out?.What we see is that mankind is anywhere near as close to explaining and defining origins let alone the workings of the universe , but what we do need is better and more in depth methods of observation.Darwin is definitely being exposed and will suffer more blows to it's shaky foundation. If that angers the atheist in these forums so what. Science is about being popular it's about searching for real answers all which have taken a back seat to a ideology which is now beginning to suffer major set backs.
|
The only debate is how people like you and your 'institutes' can infect the education of my kids. Personally speaking, you guys can write a million books a year, but the second you try to pass of your shit as science, then you have to face up to real science.
I've been listening to the 'Darwin's on his last legs' arguement for at least a decade. You know what... no one cares what you think.
You either provide evidence or go running home to Dembski about how people were mean to you.
You want to argue about science... fine, bring it. You want to argue about ideologies... well that's what WE are doing. You can't because you're trying to make a duck into a crocodile.
Evolution is not ideology. Why not, because it
1) is falsifiable
2) is testable
3) provides tools that can predict the results of observations and experiments
Tell you what, if you think you have a chance, I've got two strings of numbers on my home computer. (I'm at work now.) If you are up to the challenge, I'll post them here and you can take Dembski's design filters or whatever the heck they are and tell me which one is designed (by me using very specific numbers) and which one is random (produced by atmospheric noise) and show the calculations that you used to arrive at that decision.
I triple dog dare you. Hell, I dare Dembski, to. Should be easy for a fact and a theory.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
