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) < ... 202 203 204 205 206 [207] 208 209 210 211 212 ... >

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 19 2016,13:04    I was noticing the Swamidass matter, too.  He says: Quote I will comment finally on a quote that brought a smile to my face, and spring to my step. “Swamidass: I do not think atheists have an indisputable case against [ID]. Though, to be honest, [their] math is usually more solidly worked out” “Jerry: This is nonsense. I am sorry. They have no math!! If they do then present it or at least describe it and its logical implications. I would be very interested in that. You would be the first person to ever try that here.” You forget with whom you are speaking. This is my area of expertise. I do not assess the field by reading pop culture books. I read the primary literature. I have 20 years of experience in science and have read thousands of papers on this topic, from every viewpoint and side of the issue. If I say something exists that you do not know about, maybe, just maybe, I am right. It turns out that there are hundreds of mathematical modeling papers published each month that are directly relevant to this discussion. This is vast area of work, that is mathematically rigorous and has consistently produced knowledge about how biological systems function in the present, not just the past. My specific expertise, by the way, is just one relatively small subfield in a gigantic discipline. I can only smile when you say: “This is nonsense. I am sorry. They have no math!!” My meta-question is, how is that you do not know about a vast body of work that is directly relevant to the questions you find most important in science? Oh, I don't know how he might not know about it, perhaps because Jerry's an IDist, reads UD, and read what VJTorley wrote in the past, like: Quote May I suggest that in future, when engaging with Darwinists, we force them to confront these two questions: 1. Why do you scoff at the notion of an Intelligent Designer, when even your own brand of evolution relies on a Turing Oracle to make it work, in current mathematical models? Isn’t that a Designer smuggled in via the back door? 2. Where’s your evidence that Darwinian evolution can generate the diversity of life-forms we find on Earth today, in the time available? Current modeling suggests that it cannot. Thoughts, anyone? And now, over to you. At last a Darwinist mathematician tells the truth about evolution Uh, yeah, like that's what's at stake, not the probabilities against a "Darwinian" ordering arising without "Darwinian" evolution actually accounting for it. The real question I have now, though, is Torley close to actually getting it by now?  He used to write basically the same creationist canards as the rest of the UD think-tank, only with a more educated grammar and vocabulary, and now he's defending someone who actually makes a great deal of sense against the more rabid and stupid there.  Someone who points out that there's very good mathematical modeling done in evolutionary biology, not so much with ID. I have to advise Torley to keep it stupid, or he may end up being banned. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 19 2016,15:39    Quote 48 Dr JDDMay 19, 2016 at 1:54 pm Prof Swamidass: You make a few straw man arguments that are really poor arguments I am afraid to support the TE position. For example – you play the ad hominem card of “do a PhD in Biology” line however there are plenty of people who have done just that and reject TE or UCD. Indeed, does not Dr Hunter hold a PhD in the biological sciences? So to extend that further you speak as though your position is more reasonable as it is mainstream but this is just not the case. The taught and standard view in evo biology is in fact as you well know that Dariwinism/Neutral theory/whatever rules and it is entirely naturalistic in origin. The loudest proponents of evo are staunch atheists. Thus you yourself, using the mainstream PhD in biology argument do not adhere to the mainstream consensus (not that consensus really counts for anything). Which makes it odd to me that you would use this argument to claim other people’s inability to comment or understand the evidence for CD. Secondly, a major flaw I’m afraid to say is in your theology. You are making statements about how and why God could or would have done something and because He didn’t (or did) it infers He didn’t care that much about people believing if that is true or not. How can you claim to know what is the Mind of God? This is why we have and rely on Scriptures as God ‘s revealed Word. Otherwise it’s anyone’s guessing game what God’s purposes are. Yet we read in the Bible that by faith we understand that the worlds were formed at God’s command. We learn that there is enough evidence in nature to irrefutably point to a Creator God. Yet the whole point and premise of evo is that there is no need for a God because nature can do it. These things are in direct opposition yet This is the mainstream view – nature can account for everything around us. Maybe if we want to speculate what God’s purposes are (which I say is dangerous if not revealed in His Word) we could equally speculate that He chose this path of DNA, genetic codes, homology, etc. to fulfill the Scripture where it says that “Where is the wise man of this age? Where is the scholar? Has God not made the wisdom of man foolishness?” And when you read Psalms you find out that a fool is one that says there is no God. Personally I think that is more likely than “God doesn’t care if you believe in evolution otherwise he would have made it obvious” suggestion. It is essentially a faith position primarily. You appear to have faith – that Jesus died and was resurrected. Presumably you believe then Jesus’ claim he was God incarnate? So then Jesus verifying the Flood occurred, that they were created man and woman From the beginning – does your biology cause you to reject these words of the Living God over what man says? I personally find this odd. Yet many do this to allow mans version to rule. Presumably your faith allows you to believe in the works (miracles) He performed. How do you think science could verify these? More pertinently, for example when Jesus created bread ex nihilo – if your scientifically examined that bread, do you think you could have determined that was its source or origin using the scientific method? Or do you think the scientific method would have implied it was bread, flour, salt, water and yeast mixed and baked at high temperature, unable to show that in fact it was made out of nothing, miraculously. Thus is the same of Creation: one giant miracle. Swamidass is probly gonna regret trying to talk to these people.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 19 2016,15:52    Quote 49 Prof. S. Joshua SwamidassMay 19, 2016 at 2:40 pm @48 So conversation is rapidly degrading here. Very sad. I was enjoying the respite. It seems you mistake me for a believer in scientism. I do not believe science is the only way to truth, or even a particularly good way to Truth. You misunderstand me horribly. I explicitly reject the notion that naturalistic evolution is sufficient to explain our origins. I believe God created us. How could we miss each other here? I keep repeating myself on that point. I’m not even arguing evolution is True, just that it is a (at minimum) a useful framework (e.g. a helpful explanatory framework) when we do science. It might be more than that, but I am not going to die on that hill. Though this view is not trumpeted by the atheists (who try and make big T Truth claims here), my approach is considered part of mainstream science (e.g. look at Owen Gingerich, some members of BioLogos, and more). The AAAS, an association of scientists, has no problem with it either. Remember, I am not an atheistic evolutionist. I am a Christian theistic evolutionist. These are worlds apart in philosophy and theology, but clearly within the bounds of mainstream science. Part of the problem is that there is not enough public people like me showing how evolution is not synonymous with hard naturalism claims. That is our fault. We are trying to fix that. Which is why I am talking to you here. I do believe in creation. I do believe in miracles. I believe that God is incarnate and all the core Christian theology. I believe these things, not because science tells me, but because I trust the Bible. We don’t have scientific evidence for most of the miracles in the BIble (the Resurrection being an important exception). I’m okay with that, because science is limited, and belief comes from trust in Jesus and His Word. Therefor, I can believe things that I cannot prove with science. I think my understanding from Scripture takes priority over my understanding from science. I don’t know God’s Mind. Far from it. On the theological side, I am just asking questions that I am working through. I am figuring out what I think here. I find these question to be the most interesting part of the debate. I don’t think I know the answer yet. If you go to my blog, you’ll see that I asked theologians to reply. Some have. You are taking a stab at it too. That is great. “Maybe if we want to speculate what God’s purposes are (which I say is dangerous if not revealed in His Word) we could equally speculate that He chose this path of DNA, genetic codes, homology, etc. to fulfill the Scripture where it says that “Where is the wise man of this age? Where is the scholar? Has God not made the wisdom of man foolishness?”” Frankly, I agree with that. I makes sense to me. That is pretty much along the lines that I think. If that is true though, I makes me even more skeptical that ID could be successful in science. Science might just be too limited. Maybe God wants to frustrate the wisdom of our world (i.e. science). That is why I do not trust science very much. And, I don’t say mainstream to mean it is correct. Just to explain the context from which I am speaking. That is my methodological starting point, with all its limits and strengths. And to be clear, I do not reject God’s Word. I believe the Bible is Inerrant and Infallible. I think maybe you see the work “evolutionist” and assume I am a confused hybrid between Dawkins and a Christian. We probably have much more in common than you think. I’m recognizably Christian. I just see science differently than many. I don’t trust it so much. he's being really nice and pleasant, but Respectful Disagreement isn't in these IDiots' vocabularies.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 19 2016,16:03    Quote (stevestory @ May 19 2016,13:52) Quote 49 Prof. S. Joshua SwamidassMay 19, 2016 at 2:40 pm @48 So conversation is rapidly degrading here. Very sad. I was enjoying the respite. It seems you mistake me for a believer in scientism. I do not believe science is the only way to truth, or even a particularly good way to Truth. You misunderstand me horribly. I explicitly reject the notion that naturalistic evolution is sufficient to explain our origins. I believe God created us. How could we miss each other here? I keep repeating myself on that point. I’m not even arguing evolution is True, just that it is a (at minimum) a useful framework (e.g. a helpful explanatory framework) when we do science. It might be more than that, but I am not going to die on that hill. Though this view is not trumpeted by the atheists (who try and make big T Truth claims here), my approach is considered part of mainstream science (e.g. look at Owen Gingerich, some members of BioLogos, and more). The AAAS, an association of scientists, has no problem with it either. Remember, I am not an atheistic evolutionist. I am a Christian theistic evolutionist. These are worlds apart in philosophy and theology, but clearly within the bounds of mainstream science. Part of the problem is that there is not enough public people like me showing how evolution is not synonymous with hard naturalism claims. That is our fault. We are trying to fix that. Which is why I am talking to you here. I do believe in creation. I do believe in miracles. I believe that God is incarnate and all the core Christian theology. I believe these things, not because science tells me, but because I trust the Bible. We don’t have scientific evidence for most of the miracles in the BIble (the Resurrection being an important exception). I’m okay with that, because science is limited, and belief comes from trust in Jesus and His Word. Therefor, I can believe things that I cannot prove with science. I think my understanding from Scripture takes priority over my understanding from science. I don’t know God’s Mind. Far from it. On the theological side, I am just asking questions that I am working through. I am figuring out what I think here. I find these question to be the most interesting part of the debate. I don’t think I know the answer yet. If you go to my blog, you’ll see that I asked theologians to reply. Some have. You are taking a stab at it too. That is great. “Maybe if we want to speculate what God’s purposes are (which I say is dangerous if not revealed in His Word) we could equally speculate that He chose this path of DNA, genetic codes, homology, etc. to fulfill the Scripture where it says that “Where is the wise man of this age? Where is the scholar? Has God not made the wisdom of man foolishness?”” Frankly, I agree with that. I makes sense to me. That is pretty much along the lines that I think. If that is true though, I makes me even more skeptical that ID could be successful in science. Science might just be too limited. Maybe God wants to frustrate the wisdom of our world (i.e. science). That is why I do not trust science very much. And, I don’t say mainstream to mean it is correct. Just to explain the context from which I am speaking. That is my methodological starting point, with all its limits and strengths. And to be clear, I do not reject God’s Word. I believe the Bible is Inerrant and Infallible. I think maybe you see the work “evolutionist” and assume I am a confused hybrid between Dawkins and a Christian. We probably have much more in common than you think. I’m recognizably Christian. I just see science differently than many. I don’t trust it so much. he's being really nice and pleasant, but Respectful Disagreement isn't in these IDiots' vocabularies. Quote I don’t know God’s Mind. He's come to the right place.  All the UD regulars will tell him what it is. -------------- 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

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 19 2016,16:22    Quote (JohnW @ May 19 2016,16:03) Quote (stevestory @ May 19 2016,13:52) Quote 49 Prof. S. Joshua SwamidassMay 19, 2016 at 2:40 pm @48 So conversation is rapidly degrading here. Very sad. I was enjoying the respite. It seems you mistake me for a believer in scientism. I do not believe science is the only way to truth, or even a particularly good way to Truth. You misunderstand me horribly. I explicitly reject the notion that naturalistic evolution is sufficient to explain our origins. I believe God created us. How could we miss each other here? I keep repeating myself on that point. I’m not even arguing evolution is True, just that it is a (at minimum) a useful framework (e.g. a helpful explanatory framework) when we do science. It might be more than that, but I am not going to die on that hill. Though this view is not trumpeted by the atheists (who try and make big T Truth claims here), my approach is considered part of mainstream science (e.g. look at Owen Gingerich, some members of BioLogos, and more). The AAAS, an association of scientists, has no problem with it either. Remember, I am not an atheistic evolutionist. I am a Christian theistic evolutionist. These are worlds apart in philosophy and theology, but clearly within the bounds of mainstream science. Part of the problem is that there is not enough public people like me showing how evolution is not synonymous with hard naturalism claims. That is our fault. We are trying to fix that. Which is why I am talking to you here. I do believe in creation. I do believe in miracles. I believe that God is incarnate and all the core Christian theology. I believe these things, not because science tells me, but because I trust the Bible. We don’t have scientific evidence for most of the miracles in the BIble (the Resurrection being an important exception). I’m okay with that, because science is limited, and belief comes from trust in Jesus and His Word. Therefor, I can believe things that I cannot prove with science. I think my understanding from Scripture takes priority over my understanding from science. I don’t know God’s Mind. Far from it. On the theological side, I am just asking questions that I am working through. I am figuring out what I think here. I find these question to be the most interesting part of the debate. I don’t think I know the answer yet. If you go to my blog, you’ll see that I asked theologians to reply. Some have. You are taking a stab at it too. That is great. “Maybe if we want to speculate what God’s purposes are (which I say is dangerous if not revealed in His Word) we could equally speculate that He chose this path of DNA, genetic codes, homology, etc. to fulfill the Scripture where it says that “Where is the wise man of this age? Where is the scholar? Has God not made the wisdom of man foolishness?”” Frankly, I agree with that. I makes sense to me. That is pretty much along the lines that I think. If that is true though, I makes me even more skeptical that ID could be successful in science. Science might just be too limited. Maybe God wants to frustrate the wisdom of our world (i.e. science). That is why I do not trust science very much. And, I don’t say mainstream to mean it is correct. Just to explain the context from which I am speaking. That is my methodological starting point, with all its limits and strengths. And to be clear, I do not reject God’s Word. I believe the Bible is Inerrant and Infallible. I think maybe you see the work “evolutionist” and assume I am a confused hybrid between Dawkins and a Christian. We probably have much more in common than you think. I’m recognizably Christian. I just see science differently than many. I don’t trust it so much. he's being really nice and pleasant, but Respectful Disagreement isn't in these IDiots' vocabularies. Quote I don’t know God’s Mind. He's come to the right place.  All the UD regulars will tell him what it is. Astonishingly, He believes all the same things they do. -------------- "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

Learned Hand Posts: 214 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: May 19 2016,16:30    At least two people there believe that not only does God agree with them, EVERYONE agrees with them because their beliefs are Objective Facts that cannot be mistaken. Those two people disagree with each other about very important matters of faith and morality.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 19 2016,16:34    Quote Astonishingly, He believes all the same things they do. Not the part where he calls himself a Theistic Evolutionist. They hate TEs. Edited by stevestory on May 19 2016,17:34

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 19 2016,16:43    Quote (Learned Hand @ May 19 2016,14:30) At least two people there believe that not only does God agree with them, EVERYONE agrees with them because their beliefs are Objective Facts that cannot be mistaken. Those two people disagree with each other about very important matters of faith and morality. It's a big tent. With a few constraints on allowable values of "big". -------------- 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

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 19 2016,16:51    Quote (stevestory @ May 19 2016,16:34) Quote Astonishingly, He believes all the same things they do. Not the part where he calls himself a Theistic Evolutionist. They hate TEs. I meant He with a capital H as the the mysterious, unknowable Designer that might be aliens (but is really Esusjay. Shhh!). -------------- "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: May 19 2016,17:12    I'm starting to wonder if this guy is the real deal. He's bowing and scraping an awful lot.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 19 2016,17:13    Quote 251 OrigenesMay 19, 2016 at 3:44 pm Quote Swamidass: It [naturalistic macroevolution] provides a coherent explanation of Biology (not invoking God, so not violating methodological naturalism). I take it that you mention “not invoking God” for the specific reason to contrast ID with science. You seem to think that ID does invoke God. This misunderstanding explains why you continually write things like: Quote Swamidass: As philosophical and theological exercises, the best ID arguments make sense to me. You are mistaken about ID. To be clear, ID does not invoke God. linky

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 19 2016,17:47    Quote (stevestory @ May 19 2016,17:13) Quote 251 OrigenesMay 19, 2016 at 3:44 pm Quote Swamidass: It [naturalistic macroevolution] provides a coherent explanation of Biology (not invoking God, so not violating methodological naturalism). I take it that you mention “not invoking God” for the specific reason to contrast ID with science. You seem to think that ID does invoke God. This misunderstanding explains why you continually write things like: Quote Swamidass: As philosophical and theological exercises, the best ID arguments make sense to me. You are mistaken about ID. To be clear, ID does not invoke God. linky Yeah, it might have been Trump. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 19 2016,18:07    OK, I can't pass up this juxtaposition. Quote 251 OrigenesMay 19, 2016 at 3:44 pm Swamidass:     Quote It [naturalistic macroevolution] provides a coherent explanation of Biology (not invoking God, so not violating methodological naturalism). I take it that you mention “not invoking God” for the specific reason to contrast ID with science. You seem to think that ID does invoke God. This misunderstanding explains why you continually write things like:     Quote Swamidass: As philosophical and theological exercises, the best ID arguments make sense to me. You are mistaken about ID. To be clear, ID does not invoke God.     Quote 252 DionisioMay 19, 2016 at 4:52 pm Prof. S. Joshua Swamidass @250 If you’re truly a follower of Christ, you must know that I have to forgive you, because God forgave me much bigger sins and graciously gave me eternal life through saving faith in the redemptive power of Christ death on the cross and His resurrection. BTW, if you ever find time to look at my questions, please pay careful attention to every word. They all have meaning. I look forward to reading your answers someday. Thank you. Soli Deo Gloria Rev. 22:21 LOL

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: May 19 2016,19:38    Quote clown fishMay 19, 2016 at 6:34 pm KairosFocus: “Notice the smokescreening and tangential topic diversion?” WTF? Are you suggesting that the faith you believe in is not morally superior to Islam? Or Judaism? Or Hindu? Or Buddhism? Or the FSM? If not, why do you follow it? Does that seem rational to you? Mullings is as predictable as clockwork.

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,01:54    New ID book from HarperCollins For those interested in sales ranks I've created a NovelRank link: http://www.novelrank.com/asin.......2349589 -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,08:43    OK 'fess up. Which one of you is this.... Edited by Woodbine on May 20 2016,14:46

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,08:45    The key to understanding biological origins used to be the Design Inference. Now it's the Design Intuition. Give it another decade it'll be the Design Prayer.

LarTanner Posts: 36 Joined: Dec. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,09:40    Quote (Woodbine @ May 20 2016,08:45) The key to understanding biological origins used to be the Design Inference. Now it's the Design Intuition. Give it another decade it'll be the Design Prayer. And finally settling on the Design Insistence.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,10:06    Inference? Intuition? Resistance? OHMy!!!

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,10:35    Quote (LarTanner @ May 20 2016,07:40) Quote (Woodbine @ May 20 2016,08:45) The key to understanding biological origins used to be the Design Inference. Now it's the Design Intuition. Give it another decade it'll be the Design Prayer. And finally settling on the Design Insistence. At UD, they've already moved on to the Design Tantrum. -------------- 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

Jkrebs Posts: 590 Joined: Sep. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,10:38    Some excellent analysis going on here.  Tantrum is probably best.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,11:34    Quote (JohnW @ May 20 2016,11:35) Quote (LarTanner @ May 20 2016,07:40) Quote (Woodbine @ May 20 2016,08:45) The key to understanding biological origins used to be the Design Inference. Now it's the Design Intuition. Give it another decade it'll be the Design Prayer. And finally settling on the Design Insistence. At UD, they've already moved on to the Design Tantrum. They've already had the Design Matrix Any day now, they'll utter the magic intonation, and everything will change....

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,11:39    Still waiting for The Design Hallucination or The Design Psychosis. -------------- "[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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,11:48    Quote (fnxtr @ May 20 2016,12:39) Still waiting for The Design Hallucination or The Design Psychosis. I believe that's the other hot thread on this board

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,12:09    Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2016,09:48) Quote (fnxtr @ May 20 2016,12:39) Still waiting for The Design Hallucination or The Design Psychosis. I believe that's the other hot thread on this board  :O Quite. -------------- "[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

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,12:18    Design Delusion? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,12:28    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 19 2016,20:38) Quote clown fishMay 19, 2016 at 6:34 pm KairosFocus: “Notice the smokescreening and tangential topic diversion?” WTF? Are you suggesting that the faith you believe in is not morally superior to Islam? Or Judaism? Or Hindu? Or Buddhism? Or the FSM? If not, why do you follow it? Does that seem rational to you? Mullings is as predictable as clockwork. I protest. I don't think there's ever been a day when Mullings was right twice.

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,12:52    Quote (Woodbine @ May 20 2016,08:45) The key to understanding biological origins used to be the Design Inference. Now it's the Design Intuition. Give it another decade it'll be the Design Prayer. POTW -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

KevinB Posts: 525 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,13:14    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 19 2016,19:38) Quote clown fishMay 19, 2016 at 6:34 pm KairosFocus: “Notice the smokescreening and tangential topic diversion?” WTF? Are you suggesting that the faith you believe in is not morally superior to Islam? Or Judaism? Or Hindu? Or Buddhism? Or the FSM? If not, why do you follow it? Does that seem rational to you? Mullings is as predictable as clockwork. If you are crossing the heath and find him on the ground, leave him there!

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,14:19    Quote (KevinB @ May 20 2016,13:14) Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 19 2016,19:38) Quote clown fishMay 19, 2016 at 6:34 pm KairosFocus: “Notice the smokescreening and tangential topic diversion?” WTF? Are you suggesting that the faith you believe in is not morally superior to Islam? Or Judaism? Or Hindu? Or Buddhism? Or the FSM? If not, why do you follow it? Does that seem rational to you? Mullings is as predictable as clockwork. If you are crossing the heath and find him on the ground, leave him there! Well, I don't think we would mistake him as having been designed. Designed for what?  Excessive use of adjectives in the course of oil of red herring soaked ad hominem attacks on Marxist fellow-traveling anti-levitating demonic-type evo-mat Darwinists? I doubt that any god had that kind of imagination, let alone the madness to make it real. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Pages: (527) < ... 202 203 204 205 206 [207] 208 209 210 211 212 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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