Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Pages: (527) < ... 336 337 338 339 340 [341] 342 343 344 345 346 ... >

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 04 2018,09:37    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 03 2018,20:17) This comment on KF’s latest OP. Especially since it comes from an ID proponent (I think) Quote OldAndrew June 3, 2018 at 10:50 am Forgive me, but this is utterly and entirely incomprehensible. Bolds, italics, varying font colors, diagrams, cartoons, numbered lists, and indentations do not help. It is all but impossible to read this and understand what the point is. No one is “studiously ignoring” it. I don’t think that’s even a thing. It’s an impenetrable wall of words written without any apparent awareness of how it sounds to others. One would have to spend hours analyzing it one sentence at a time in order to understand it well enough to agree with it or not. No one is going to do that. I know I’m being a bit blunt, and I apologize. But I’m trying to be constructive, not mean, and perhaps save you some time. To put it plainly, almost no one has any idea what you are attempting to communicate. This might as well be written in Klingon. Changing peoples’ minds is difficult. In some cases it’s impossible. There is 0.00% chance that you will have any desirable influence on anything or anyone by writing what no one understands. https://uncommondescent.com/philoso....-659690 ID without theocracy? Is there such a thing? -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 04 2018,09:41    Re "ID without theocracy? Is there such a thing?" Only if actual evidence were found. Consider what might happen if a researcher who had never heard of GMO's were to happen to study some genetics that accidentally included some GMO's. In that case, a resulting hypothesis just might resemble an evidence based version of ID, at least for the particular species that had been studied.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 04 2018,23:34    Quote (Henry J @ June 04 2018,17:41) Re "ID without theocracy? Is there such a thing?" Only if actual evidence were found. Consider what might happen if a researcher who had never heard of GMO's were to happen to study some genetics that accidentally included some GMO's. In that case, a resulting hypothesis just might resemble an evidence based version of ID, at least for the particular species that had been studied. Since ID is a religious construct justifying the existence of the god of the Christian Bible the unbiased researcher would not be asking that question. Unless he was perhaps home schooled. Which might explain his ignorance of GMOs. The minute his paper was submitted he would be quickly disabused of his hypothesis. I'm pretty sure anyone working in the field who was credible would spot a GMO as a GMO. The fact that in all the years of research no GMOs attributable to a geneticist of non human origins has been found speaks for itself. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 05 2018,07:33    That was kind of my point. Genes that were designed should have patterns that would be detectable to researchers, even if they didn't know that species was modified by genetic engineers.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 05 2018,12:37    Quote (Henry J @ June 05 2018,15:33) That was kind of my point. Genes that were designed should have patterns that would be detectable to researchers, even if they didn't know that species was modified by genetic engineers. Where's Dembski when we need him? Wasn't he a fan of numerology? I think  he may be missing an opportunity for a new book. Something along the lines of "God's Genes look inserted in card carrying IDists" or "The Logos of St John decoded in snake Genes ". -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 06 2018,08:27    I worry about jdk Quote 16 jdkJune 5, 2018 at 9:08 pm Did you read any of the opening posts by kf? He continually makes the point that to make any “ought” statement whatsoever relies on accepting “ought” at the world root level. Do you ever read his stuff? Trying to comprehend kf: just don't go there -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: June 06 2018,09:41    Quote Allan Keith June 6, 2018 at 8:20 am Quote BA77, I can put lipstick on a pig and call the pig a beauty queen,… What you do in your spare time is none of our business. As long as the pig is consensual.

Jkrebs Posts: 590 Joined: Sep. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: June 06 2018,20:59    OldAndrew, who I think is real, had a refreshing post tonight: Quote I agree with those who believe that morality is objective. I disagree with those who say that it is not. But it boggles my mind what anyone hopes to gain by endlessly picking at it and going at it again and again, saying the same things again and again. It comes across as fixated and self-righteous. On this, JDK’s logic is sound: The objectivity of morality depends on the existence of God or on the existence of something else that makes that objective morality real. Some of us believe in that. Some don’t. If someone does not believe in God or any other source of objective morality, they are still entitled to say that murder is wrong and that love is good, for whatever reason that they wish to do so. Let whoever says otherwise cite the source of their authority to look down on another person and judge their conscience, which is exactly what you’re doing. I happen to believe that when anyone exhibits common aspects of morality, they demonstrate (non-scientifically) the existence of a source of such morality whether they know it or not. That’s because the evolution of honesty and compassion are as much of a fantasy as evolution of an eye or a cell nucleus. But if someone does not see that or doesn’t believe it, and still feels that lying is bad and caring for others is good, it’s hard for me to comprehend what sort of disturbed outlook obsesses over finding fault with it. My best guess is extreme self-righteousness. The argument depends on telling others – ad nauseum – that if think that child torture is wrong but don’t believe in objective morality, then they don’t really think that child torture is wrong – they just think that they think that child torture is wrong. Good luck with that. I can’t think of a worse possible way to persuade someone that you’re right and they’re wrong, even if you’re right and they’re wrong. I can think of quite a few equally pointless arguments to carry on for months and years on end, but I suppose those don’t come with the same gratification of feeling superior. link

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2018,10:32    Quote (Jkrebs @ June 07 2018,04:59) OldAndrew, who I think is real, had a refreshing post tonight: Quote I agree with those who believe that morality is objective. I disagree with those who say that it is not. But it boggles my mind what anyone hopes to gain by endlessly picking at it and going at it again and again, saying the same things again and again. It comes across as fixated and self-righteous. On this, JDK’s logic is sound: The objectivity of morality depends on the existence of God or on the existence of something else that makes that objective morality real. Some of us believe in that. Some don’t. If someone does not believe in God or any other source of objective morality, they are still entitled to say that murder is wrong and that love is good, for whatever reason that they wish to do so. Let whoever says otherwise cite the source of their authority to look down on another person and judge their conscience, which is exactly what you’re doing. I happen to believe that when anyone exhibits common aspects of morality, they demonstrate (non-scientifically) the existence of a source of such morality whether they know it or not. That’s because the evolution of honesty and compassion are as much of a fantasy as evolution of an eye or a cell nucleus. But if someone does not see that or doesn’t believe it, and still feels that lying is bad and caring for others is good, it’s hard for me to comprehend what sort of disturbed outlook obsesses over finding fault with it. My best guess is extreme self-righteousness. The argument depends on telling others – ad nauseum – that if think that child torture is wrong but don’t believe in objective morality, then they don’t really think that child torture is wrong – they just think that they think that child torture is wrong. Good luck with that. I can’t think of a worse possible way to persuade someone that you’re right and they’re wrong, even if you’re right and they’re wrong. I can think of quite a few equally pointless arguments to carry on for months and years on end, but I suppose those don’t come with the same gratification of feeling superior. link Hmmm. Let he who has not longwindedly cast the first stone be objectively moral. I just hope he is fucking with kf's and barry's collective paranoia. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2018,16:01    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 03 2018,13:17) This comment on KF’s latest OP. Especially since it comes from an ID proponent (I think) Quote OldAndrew June 3, 2018 at 10:50 am Forgive me, but this is utterly and entirely incomprehensible. Bolds, italics, varying font colors, diagrams, cartoons, numbered lists, and indentations do not help. It is all but impossible to read this and understand what the point is. No one is “studiously ignoring” it. I don’t think that’s even a thing. It’s an impenetrable wall of words written without any apparent awareness of how it sounds to others. One would have to spend hours analyzing it one sentence at a time in order to understand it well enough to agree with it or not. No one is going to do that. I know I’m being a bit blunt, and I apologize. But I’m trying to be constructive, not mean, and perhaps save you some time. To put it plainly, almost no one has any idea what you are attempting to communicate. This might as well be written in Klingon. Changing peoples’ minds is difficult. In some cases it’s impossible. There is 0.00% chance that you will have any desirable influence on anything or anyone by writing what no one understands. https://uncommondescent.com/philoso....-659690 I'm giving OldAndrew an honorary POTW.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2018,17:49    Exactly. KF can't tell the difference between eloquence and flatulence. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2018,18:09    Quote (fnxtr @ June 07 2018,17:49) Exactly. KF can't tell the difference between eloquence and flatulence. That's easy.  The former is what Judge Jones put in his Kitzmiller ruling.  The later is what Dembski put in his animation. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2018,19:46    Quote Killing Innocent Children: Yes or No? June 7, 2018 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design Barry is a MASTAR of subtle framing.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2018,19:50    Quote This is UD’s 20,000 Post June 7, 2018 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design Bill Dembski posted the first post at UD on April 15, 2005.  Thirteen years later I post this, the 20,000th.  In addition to tens of thousands of posts, our readers and contributors have put up hundreds of thousands of comments in our comment threads (over 428,000 at last count). Yeah, but to be fair, 387,234 of those were comments by Dionisio on old threads about Volcanoes etc.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2018,20:00    Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2018,19:50) Quote This is UD’s 20,000 Post June 7, 2018 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design Bill Dembski posted the first post at UD on April 15, 2005.  Thirteen years later I post this, the 20,000th.  In addition to tens of thousands of posts, our readers and contributors have put up hundreds of thousands of comments in our comment threads (over 428,000 at last count). Yeah, but to be fair, 387,234 of those were comments by Dionisio on old threads about Volcanoes etc. A quick back of the envelope calculation gives us about a 5 to 1 ratio of them commenting and us laughing our assess off (Just counting the UD threads). -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

LarTanner Posts: 36 Joined: Dec. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2018,20:12    Gee whiz-- Barry puts me in moderation simply for asking him why he qualified "killing a baby" with "for no other reason than that its mother is unmarried." I wanted to know why he didn't just say "killing a baby" (or even just "killing") was evil, which I thought would have been easy for him to assert. After all, he knows objective morality so well. It's almost as if something being objectively right or wrong depends on whether Barry agrees with the motivation behind it.

Lethean Posts: 292 Joined: Jan. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2018,20:35    Quote (LarTanner @ June 07 2018,20:12) Gee whiz-- Barry puts me in moderation simply for asking him why he qualified "killing a baby" with "for no other reason than that its mother is unmarried." I wanted to know why he didn't just say "killing a baby" (or even just "killing") was evil, which I thought would have been easy for him to assert. After all, he knows objective morality so well. It's almost as if something being objectively right or wrong depends on whether Barry agrees with the motivation behind it. Coincidentally Barry's god happens to agree with Barry. At all times. HTH -------------- "So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance." "My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it." ~Dave Hawkins~

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 07 2018,21:09    Quote (LarTanner @ June 07 2018,19:12) Gee whiz-- Barry puts me in moderation simply for asking him why he qualified "killing a baby" with "for no other reason than that its mother is unmarried." I wanted to know why he didn't just say "killing a baby" (or even just "killing") was evil, which I thought would have been easy for him to assert. After all, he knows objective morality so well. It's almost as if something being objectively right or wrong depends on whether Barry agrees with the motivation behind it. Surely not!

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,04:24    Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2018,16:01) Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 03 2018,13:17) This comment on KF’s latest OP. Especially since it comes from an ID proponent (I think)   Quote OldAndrew June 3, 2018 at 10:50 am Forgive me, but this is utterly and entirely incomprehensible. Bolds, italics, varying font colors, diagrams, cartoons, numbered lists, and indentations do not help. It is all but impossible to read this and understand what the point is. No one is “studiously ignoring” it. I don’t think that’s even a thing. It’s an impenetrable wall of words written without any apparent awareness of how it sounds to others. One would have to spend hours analyzing it one sentence at a time in order to understand it well enough to agree with it or not. No one is going to do that. I know I’m being a bit blunt, and I apologize. But I’m trying to be constructive, not mean, and perhaps save you some time. To put it plainly, almost no one has any idea what you are attempting to communicate. This might as well be written in Klingon. Changing peoples’ minds is difficult. In some cases it’s impossible. There is 0.00% chance that you will have any desirable influence on anything or anyone by writing what no one understands. https://uncommondescent.com/philoso....-659690 I'm giving OldAndrew an honorary POTW. Seconded. -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,09:55    Quote (LarTanner @ June 08 2018,04:12) Gee whiz-- Barry puts me in moderation simply for asking him why he qualified "killing a baby" with "for no other reason than that its mother is unmarried." I wanted to know why he didn't just say "killing a baby" (or even just "killing") was evil, which I thought would have been easy for him to assert. After all, he knows objective morality so well. It's almost as if something being objectively right or wrong depends on whether Barry agrees with the motivation behind it. Try bolds, italics, varying font colors, diagrams, cartoons, numbered lists, and indentations. That should easily get under his radar. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,10:00    Quote (k.e.. @ June 08 2018,09:55) Quote (LarTanner @ June 08 2018,04:12) Gee whiz-- Barry puts me in moderation simply for asking him why he qualified "killing a baby" with "for no other reason than that its mother is unmarried." I wanted to know why he didn't just say "killing a baby" (or even just "killing") was evil, which I thought would have been easy for him to assert. After all, he knows objective morality so well. It's almost as if something being objectively right or wrong depends on whether Barry agrees with the motivation behind it. Try bolds, italics, varying font colors, diagrams, cartoons, numbered lists, and indentations. That should easily get under his radar. Or providing multiple youtube links followed by several hundred word excerpts from those links. And, for good measure, throw in a couple troll and liar accusations. I am particularly fond of "pathetic snivelling liar". It has a poetic ring to it.

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,12:11    Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2018,19:50) Quote This is UD’s 20,000 Post June 7, 2018 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design Bill Dembski posted the first post at UD on April 15, 2005.  Thirteen years later I post this, the 20,000th.  In addition to tens of thousands of posts, our readers and contributors have put up hundreds of thousands of comments in our comment threads (over 428,000 at last count). Yeah, but to be fair, 387,234 of those were comments by Dionisio on old threads about Volcanoes etc. Your Friday afternoon chuckle. Quote asauber June 8, 2018 at 10:50 am Thanks to everyone who contributes and has contributed positively to UD over the years. It’s an upper echelon site for thinkers, IMO. Andrew

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,13:21    Quote (Henry J @ June 07 2018,19:09) Quote (LarTanner @ June 07 2018,19:12) Gee whiz-- Barry puts me in moderation simply for asking him why he qualified "killing a baby" with "for no other reason than that its mother is unmarried." I wanted to know why he didn't just say "killing a baby" (or even just "killing") was evil, which I thought would have been easy for him to assert. After all, he knows objective morality so well. It's almost as if something being objectively right or wrong depends on whether Barry agrees with the motivation behind it. Surely not! It's nice to see everyone at UD taking a break from doing all that groundbreaking science, and showing how big the tent is on other issues. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,14:40    Quote (JohnW @ June 08 2018,14:21) It's nice to see everyone at UD taking a break from doing all that groundbreaking science, and showing how big the tent is on other issues. I know. With all the groundbreaking discoveries pouring into the thriving, totally-not-formerly-anemic-now-defunct ID journals, it's hard to see how they have time to talk about abortion and Objective morality. The ID journal PCID, for example, is so busy that I haven't been able to get the page to load in years, that's how overwhelmed the server is. Go to a "Lamestream" evolutionary biology journal like Journal of Evolutionary Biology, on the other hand, and that shit comes up every time. Must be nothin goin on in those Fake News labs.

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,17:26    Quote (stevestory @ June 08 2018,12:40) The ID journal PCID, for example, is so busy that I haven't been able to get the page to load in years, that's how overwhelmed the server is. Go to a "Lamestream" evolutionary biology journal like Journal of Evolutionary Biology, on the other hand, and that shit comes up every time. Must be nothin goin on in those Fake News labs. Great read in the high techno babble at UD!

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,17:51    For a change, it's not a dead scientist he's happy about this time (linky):   Quote 1  bornagain77  June 8, 2018 at 7:25 am Off topic:   Quote Anthony Bourdain (June 25, 1956 – June 8, 2018), a man who was paid handsomely to try to find as much happiness in this world as he could, was apparently left empty in that quest and ended up committing suicide. If there is any lesson to be learned in his tragic death it is that all the pleasures of this world will not bring us true fulfillment and that we must look ‘higher’ than this temporal realm in order to find true happiness: Matthew: 31-33 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. [URL=http://godlessmom.com/wp-conte.....urdain.png] He had it coming for cooking tasty food.  You'll eat your loaves and fishes and like them, young lady! im in ur post, fixin ur Linx Edited by stevestory on June 08 2018,19:26 -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,18:24    Quote (JohnW @ June 08 2018,18:51) and BS77's next post: Quote 2 bornagain77June 8, 2018 at 4:18 pm If you are seeking to ‘scientifically’ structure your sex life around the sexual behavior of dogs, might I suggest you have completely missed the boat as far as the romantic love between a man and a woman is concerned? Roberta Flack ft. Donny Hathaway – The Closer I Get To You https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ENBxRVo Verse: Matthew 19: 4-6 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Youtube videos mixed with bible verses. High Science!

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,18:33    Quote 71 Allan KeithJune 8, 2018 at 2:51 pm StephenB, Quote If subjectivism is true, then each individual may claim his own moral code just as you claim yours. I agree. That would be rediculous. If that were true we would end up with some people thinking that early term abortions are morally acceptable and others not. Some would claim that birth control is morally acceptable and others would claim it’s not. Some would claim that same sex marriage is morally unacceptable and others would disagree. i wonder if stephenb comprehends how hard he just got pwned.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,19:32    Quote (stevestory @ June 08 2018,16:24) [quote=JohnW,June 08 2018,18:51][/quote] and BS77's next post: Quote 2 bornagain77June 8, 2018 at 4:18 pm If you are seeking to ‘scientifically’ structure your sex life around the sexual behavior of dogs, might I suggest you have completely missed the boat as far as the romantic love between a man and a woman is concerned? Roberta Flack ft. Donny Hathaway – The Closer I Get To You https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ENBxRVo Verse: Matthew 19: 4-6 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Youtube videos mixed with bible verses. High Science! No way are they getting my traffic but I do wonder what atom hit what neuron to cause this. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2018,04:20    Quote (stevestory @ June 08 2018,14:40) Quote (JohnW @ June 08 2018,14:21) It's nice to see everyone at UD taking a break from doing all that groundbreaking science, and showing how big the tent is on other issues. I know. With all the groundbreaking discoveries pouring into the thriving, totally-not-formerly-anemic-now-defunct ID journals, it's hard to see how they have time to talk about abortion and Objective morality. The ID journal PCID, for example, is so busy that I haven't been able to get the page to load in years, that's how overwhelmed the server is. Go to a "Lamestream" evolutionary biology journal like Journal of Evolutionary Biology, on the other hand, and that shit comes up every time. Must be nothin goin on in those Fake News labs. I try my best to stop shit getting through JEB but the editors keep on insisting on publishing it. Sorry, I'll have to try harder. -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Pages: (527) < ... 336 337 338 339 340 [341] 342 343 344 345 346 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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