Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Uncommonly Dense Thread 4

Posted: Jan. 27 2013,17:30

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 27 2013,07:29)

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 26 2013,01:08)

jerry's back!
This should raise the flow of tard over there if he sticks around.

You could have warned it was graphic man-love!

It was a link to UD. What else would it be but man-love?

--------------
Speaking for myself, I have long been confused . . .-Denyse O'Leary

Glen Davidson

Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Jan. 27 2013,21:06

Jerry may be back, but Gregory's gone. �Banned? �Hard to be sure either way, as he'd indicated that he was tiring of the BS, but we also know the patience the IDiots have with dogged determination to show what a disanalogy there is between human technology and Godly creation of organisms. �

It's really their main "argument," and it's never been anything but a category error of the most extreme proportions, an "analogy" between humans and the transcendent God. �Lord knows Gregory can ramble on about it like Torley, but by doing so (verbosity seems to be the measure of "intelligence" at UD) he actually got the new dolt, William Murray, to admit that all "theories" about intelligent design are "necessarily" about human design first, which makes extending those to the supernatural a tad dicey. �From what little I read of the dullard KF and others, the tired alien trope supposedly saves such category errors, despite the fact that it couldn't begin to do that.

So I don't know, Gregory's either banned or driven out by sheer dishonesty and stupidity, but it was fun to watch them do anything but deal with what he was saying, no matter how overlong it clearly was for an honest forum--hence probably just long enough for UD.

Glen Davidson

ETA, it seems obvious enough to me, but perhaps for newbies I should note that there are actually two category errors in the disanalogy to human designs, the fact that life isn't really much like our technology at all (esp. with all of the evidence of non-teleological evolution), and analogizing the cause, God, with humans. To IDiots, that's all just fine, because they intend to "find" cause and effect that are unlike us (and they pretty much just ignore the evolutionary fixes that any known intelligence would transcend), however that clearly moves them well beyond the realm of science into magic. Which is also fine with them, because they believe in magic, they're just pissed off that we won't call it science as well.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

CeilingCat

Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: Jan. 28 2013,00:47

vjtorley's Coyne envy has inspired what may be the single dumbest post he's ever made.

It seems that Jerry Coyne has brought up the progress science has made and compared it religion's noted lack of the same. �"Not so!" says Dr. Torley and he gives these examples of progress in religion: � � � �

Quote

As an example of progress in theology, I�d like to list the following propositions, which are currently accepted by a solid majority of the world�s religious adherents, but which were accepted only by a tiny minority 2,000 years ago, and by almost nobody 3,000 years ago. I invite readers to add to the list as they see fit.

1. There is one God.

2. God does not have a body or bodily passions. God is a spirit.

3. God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent. That is, God can do anything within reason; God knows everything in the past, present and future; God is compassionate and all-merciful; and God�s power extends throughout the cosmos.

4. God is infinite.

5. God is immutable. God does not change.

6. God is not capricious.

7. God is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Everything in the cosmos is upheld by God�s command.

8. God is not a blind force, but a personal Deity. God has a personal relationship with each and every individual.

9. God is just. God rewards the good and punishes the wicked.

10. God is merciful. God is always ready to pardon a repentant sinner.

11. God is impartial. Distinctions of rank, race, sex, color or creed mean nothing to God. All individuals are equal in God�s sight.

12. God disapproves of the deliberate killing of innocent people.

13. God disapproves of infanticide.

14. God disapproves of killing girls.

15. God disapproves of euthanasia. In particular, God disapproves of killing the sick and elderly.

16. God disapproves of suicide.

17. God disapproves of ritual human sacrifices.

18. God disapproves of slavery.

19. God disapproves of domestic violence.

20. God disapproves of child abuse.

21. God disapproves of cruelty to animals.

22. God disapproves of compulsion in matters of religion.

23. God expects us to treat others as we would like them to treat us.

24. God expects us to bury our dead, instead of leaving their corpses lying in the street to be eaten by animals.

25. God expects us to not only be faithful to our spouses, but to love them as well.

26. God expects us to educate our children, both boys and girls.

27. God expects us to be honest and truthful in our dealings with friend and foe alike.

28. God expects us to be kind to strangers.

29. God expects us to help the poor, sick and needy.

30. God expects us to donate money to charity.

31. People who die in a state of friendship with God will enjoy happiness in Heaven with God for all eternity.

32. There will be a future resurrection of the dead and judgment will be pronounced on every human being.

33. God has at various times spoken to the human race through various prophets. God has communicated messages to these prophets, not only about God�s nature, but also about our duties to others.

=================================================

Most of the world�s religious people living today believe in the above propositions. The proportion of people who believed in these propositions 3,000, 2,000 or even 1,000 years ago was much smaller than it is now. I�d call that progress. Wouldn�t you?

Some of the comments "rise" to the quality of the OP. �Here's a nice series: (in response to a suggestion that Coyne should go to confession) � �

Quote

10 Axel January 27, 2013 at 9:29 am

Don�t wait until Trinity Sunday, Gerald. And take Sean with you. He�s been a bad boy, too.

If you have to dragoon him by drugging him, so be it. A few slaps by a parish nun should bring him round and make him sit up. No need for hard, Tridentine slaps; just a few slaps hard enough to make him sit up and be a good Catholic boy. Well, we are over-represented in the prison population in the UK, but I expect that�s the missionary spirit involved, as well.

11 Axel January 27, 2013 at 9:38 am

No, we do tend to be a wild lot. Both sexual persuasions. We�ll leave out the third fourth, fifth, etc, persuasions.

But forget the drug business. You�d both already be high on ETIIN* And I wouldn�t mind betting Greg is your pusher!

*Everything Turning Itself Into Nothing.

12 Axel January 27, 2013 at 9:42 am

Someone must have spiked my cup of tea! That acronym should have been NTIIE: Nothing Turning Itself Into Everything!

Of course, Mung has to make a contribution to the TARD: � �

Quote

13 Mung January 27, 2013 at 10:32 am

Coyne is so freaking ignorant. It�s pathetic really.

I bet he�s never even heard the term �progressive revelation.�

�But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.�

The rest of the regulars make their own contributions too. �BA proves that Adam and Eve existed about 13,000 years ago, just before the global flood, Mung, of all people, points out that the flood thus preceded the existence of the earth, Barb gives a list of "scientific facts" found in the Bible, KF says something about something...

There's probably more, but I've just been divinely inspired to make some more "progress" in religion: �

Quote

1. God has two left feet.

2. Got loves porn, but only on Tuesdays.

3. It's always Tuesday somewhere.

4. Thou shalt not scrump.

5. God has at various times spoken to the human race through various prophets. God has communicated messages to these prophets, not only about God�s nature, but also about our duties to others.

6. He's doing it right now: "KairosFocus, thou art an asshole."

7. God disapproves of compulsion in matters of religion. �You don't HAVE to believe in God. �You can just burn.

8. God disapproves of slavery unless you believe the Bible, in which case He says it's ok.

9. KairosFocus, you really are an asshole.

10. You too, Bornagain 77.

11. And Joe, don't even let Him get started on describing you.

12. You too, Mung.

Man, religious progress is easy! �All you have to do is say stuff and get people to believe you. �And you can use violence to persuade them.

sparc

Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Jan. 28 2013,00:57

By giving answers to a fallen world William Dembski distroys Behe's mouse trap analogy for Irreducible Complexity:

Quote

How do you know something isn't functional? You might say: Here's a mouse trap, let's remove the hammer, OK. Now I can't squash mice but I can use that mouse trap as a door stop. You know there are other things it could be serving as. So, so, the thing is: just becuse it - you know: To say that something is not functional, that's a very strong claim. It means for all, everthing that it might be doing it can't succeed in doing it.

--------------
"[...] 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 -

BillB

Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

Posted: Jan. 28 2013,06:06

Quote

11. God is impartial. Distinctions of rank, race, sex, color or creed mean nothing to God. All individuals are equal in God�s sight.

12. God disapproves of the deliberate killing of innocent people.

13. God disapproves of infanticide.

14. God disapproves of killing girls.

It seems to be important to them to pick out girls for a specific mention - because that is what impartiality is all about ...

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Jan. 28 2013,10:04

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 28 2013,01:57)

By giving answers to a fallen world William Dembski distroys Behe's mouse trap analogy for Irreducible Complexity: �

Quote

How do you know something isn't functional? You might say: Here's a mouse trap, let's remove the hammer, OK. Now I can't squash mice but I can use that mouse trap as a door stop. You know there are other things it could be serving as. So, so, the thing is: just becuse it - you know: To say that something is not functional, that's a very strong claim. It means for all, everthing that it might be doing it can't succeed in doing it.

Ouch. That leaves a mark. Somebody should go to UD and point out that dembski refutes behe. All my UD accounts were hella banned a long time ago.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Jan. 28 2013,10:18

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 28 2013,01:47)

Quote

As an example of progress in theology, I�d like to list the following propositions, which are currently accepted by a solid majority of the world�s religious adherents, but which were accepted only by a tiny minority 2,000 years ago, and by almost nobody 3,000 years ago.

Torley is very simply, and stupidly, confusing agreement/popularity with progress.

Global Warming is currently accepted by the vast majority of the world's scientists, but wasn't 200 years ago. Ditto with evolution. Do you think the UD crew would accept this as clear evidence of scientific progress?

fnxtr

Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Jan. 28 2013,10:49

a.s.s.f.

--------------
"[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

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Jan. 28 2013,11:17

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 26 2013,18:35)

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 25 2013,19:08)

jerry's back!
This should raise the flow of tard over there if he sticks around.

JERRY - �PM RAS!!!!

alas not even jerry can stimulate my interest in that shit dirigible

but hopefully his magnificent work will be saved here in posterioriam

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.�Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Glen Davidson

Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Jan. 28 2013,14:50

Quote

It seems that Jerry Coyne has brought up the progress science has made and compared it religion's noted lack of the same. �"Not so!" says Dr. Torley and he gives these examples of progress in religion: � �

Of course when one says that science progresses, one means that more becomes known about the subject or subjects. �

Unless he's equivocating(!), I'd have to say that I can't quite put my finger on what greater knowledge we have of religions' purported subject or subjects.

Perhaps it's about what one should expect from someone who doesn't know the difference between inferring from the evidence and inferring from religious prejudices, however.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Robin

Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

Posted: Jan. 29 2013,11:38

I have never really understood the concept conservative Christians have of atheists, secular humanists, and the like. They seem to have the view that such people �- people without the puppet strings of some mythical god keeping them in line - are tied to some biological deterministic puppet strings instead, wherein we are at the mercy of some absolute and uncontrollable inner desire for things "our way". Take this little side item on the Corny thread concerning the Coppedge vs JPL affair:

Quote

TJGuy: You misunderstood me. I�m not saying that atheists should not be tolerated, but I am questioning whether there would have been any good reason for them to tell the truth in this hypothetical scenario where:

1) They were guilty
2) They are materialists(meaning they do not believe there is such a thing as absolute morality or a �god� to whom they are responsible to.

Can you give me a good reason they should tell the truth when doing so would/could encourage anti-science creationists and incriminate themselves and hinder the work of real science?

Seems pretty easy to rationalize a lie here in light of the �greater good� that will come out of it in their minds.

I can�t say for sure, but it does give pause for thought.

There are plenty of reasons to tell the truth that do not require an all-seeing nanny sky fairy. First and foremost, there is drive of self-esteem and self-respect. It actually does prevent a lot of folks from just acting self-centered and doing things only for personal gain. But hey, forget about any of the actual positive self-regulating emotional mechanisms we have - what about the fear of getting caught perjuring oneself in a court of law? And even those people who have absolutely no morale capacity to fear such consequences can still assess the risk of reputation ruin in being caught in such a lie.

Creationists are a funny lot when it comes to actually assessing how things in reality actually work. That, apparently, includes assessing and understanding how people other than creationists actually think.

ETA: Identified the poster and added UD link.

Edited by Robin on Jan. 29 2013,11:41

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. �Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

Posted: Jan. 29 2013,11:51

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 29 2013,11:38)

I have never really understood the concept conservative Christians have of atheists, secular humanists, and the like. They seem to have the view that such people �- people without the puppet strings of some mythical god keeping them in line - are tied to some biological deterministic puppet strings instead, wherein we are at the mercy of some absolute and uncontrollable inner desire for things "our way". Take this little side item on the Corny thread concerning the Coppedge vs JPL affair:

Quote

TJGuy: You misunderstood me. I�m not saying that atheists should not be tolerated, but I am questioning whether there would have been any good reason for them to tell the truth in this hypothetical scenario where:

1) They were guilty
2) They are materialists(meaning they do not believe there is such a thing as absolute morality or a �god� to whom they are responsible to.

Can you give me a good reason they should tell the truth when doing so would/could encourage anti-science creationists and incriminate themselves and hinder the work of real science?

Seems pretty easy to rationalize a lie here in light of the �greater good� that will come out of it in their minds.

I can�t say for sure, but it does give pause for thought.

There are plenty of reasons to tell the truth that do not require an all-seeing nanny sky fairy. First and foremost, there is drive of self-esteem and self-respect. It actually does prevent a lot of folks from just acting self-centered and doing things only for personal gain. But hey, forget about any of the actual positive self-regulating emotional mechanisms we have - what about the fear of getting caught perjuring oneself in a court of law? And even those people who have absolutely no morale capacity to fear such consequences can still assess the risk of reputation ruin in being caught in such a lie.

Creationists are a funny lot when it comes to actually assessing how things in reality actually work. That, apparently, includes assessing and understanding how people other than creationists actually think.

ETA: Identified the poster and added UD link.

I'd add that, based on research and personal experience, it is MUCH more common for a Christian to lie than it is for an atheist to.

I'm not saying Christians always lie or some never do or that atheists never lie either. But the trend is that Christians lie (and have other morally inappropriate behaviors) than do other groups.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Robin

Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

Posted: Jan. 29 2013,14:43

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 29 2013,11:51)

I'd add that, based on research and personal experience, it is MUCH more common for a Christian to lie than it is for an atheist to.

I'm not saying Christians always lie or some never do or that atheists never lie either. �But the trend is that Christians lie (and have other morally inappropriate behaviors) than do other groups.

I understand and I think your assessment is accurate. The fact is there's common thought process in some Christian circles that lying for Jesus is ok (a la Luther) and then another line of thinking that since I'm saved a little lie has no effect. In either case, lying for the sake of supporting their belief is ok.

Ironically, Coppedge seemed to display some of that thinking himself.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. �Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Jan. 29 2013,20:03

EvilSnack makes a joke on KF's silly selective-hyperskepticism thread:
� �

Quote

A half-empty cup of yoghurt has more Bible knowledge than Dawkins.

Then, probably remembering s/he is talking to UDers, decides s/he'd better explain it...
� �

Quote

This is because a half-empty cup has zero knowledge, and Dawkins� ideas about the Bible are contrary to fact;

...to an extra level:
� �

Quote

hence his knowledge level is below zero.

UD link

As PZ Myers once said of a particular UDer "so stupid it hurts."

PS: Check out the new tinyurls - they now show where the link leads.

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Jan. 29 2013,20:03

Somehow a triple post - can anyone delete my double ups?

Edited by Ptaylor on Jan. 30 2013,13:08

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Jan. 29 2013,20:04

Oops - double post.

Edited by Ptaylor on Jan. 30 2013,13:06

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

J-Dog

Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Jan. 29 2013,20:13

Quote

Man, religious progress is easy! All you have to do is say stuff and get people to believe you. And you can use violence to persuade them.

COTW!! (Comment Of The week!)

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Soapy Sam

Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

Posted: Jan. 30 2013,05:24

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 30 2013,02:03)

EvilSnack makes a joke on KF's silly selective-hyperskepticism thread: [...]
UD link

�KF: �

Quote

ANY SUGGESTIONS ON HOW SUCH INDOCTRINATION AND POLARISATION LEADING TO EVIDENT CLOSED MINDEDNESS CAN BE CORRECTED EFFECTIVELY?

ALL CAPS! THAT OUGHT TO DO IT!

Edited by Soapy Sam on Jan. 30 2013,11:26

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

CeilingCat

Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: Jan. 30 2013,07:32

KairosFocus defines selective hyper skepticism again: � � � �

Quote

that fallacy which seeks to reject or dismiss otherwise credible evidence by demanding an inappropriately high type or degree of warrant not applicable to matters of fact, i.e. the general type of question being discussed. Especially, where the same standard is not exerted in assessing substantially parallel cases that make claims that one is inclined to accept.

The irony just burns.

Glen Davidson

Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Jan. 30 2013,10:41

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2013,07:32)

KairosFocus defines selective hyper skepticism again: � � � � � �

Quote

that fallacy which seeks to reject or dismiss otherwise credible evidence by demanding an inappropriately high type or degree of warrant not applicable to matters of fact, i.e. the general type of question being discussed. Especially, where the same standard is not exerted in assessing substantially parallel cases that make claims that one is inclined to accept.

The irony just burns.

What irony? �That reasonable standard applies exactly to Muslims, Buddhists, animists, Darwinists, atheists, Jews, and New Agers alike. �KF never fails to apply it equally to others (ok, not equally so much as righteously), don't you forget it!

As far as that goes, I'm not much impressed by claims that Jesus didn't exist (obviously I mean a man), or that there isn't fairly good evidence that he did, but KF's list of "evidences" doesn't even distinguish between sheer miracle and rather reasonable narrative that seems likely to have been at least inspired by a real event. �And the ID BS is straight out of scholasticism (remember Torley's attempt to link ID with medieval philosophy? �Like it ever left it), if deliberately twisted to be even more favorable to ID than even scholasticism's unwarranted assumptions are.

But Corny's just as concerned about open-mindedness, as one would expect for a tendentious reactionary whose common tactic is to take any news of evolution and point out, as any reasonable person would, that it's obviously impossible for evolution to do. �The evidence that it did and that the hallmarks of design, such as rationality and forethought, are missing in wild-type life mean not a damned thing to such a scoundrel. �No explanation for it, just complete denial of same (or idiotic acceptance of evolutionary limits as evidence for evolution, but not for those limits, which are transcended by design, if you're Behe), such is ID open-mindedness.

He open-mindedly lies (if he's stupid/in denial enough to believe, sort of, he still has no excuse for such intellectual dishonesty/stupidity, given his opportunities to learn):

�

Quote

Evolutionists, on the other hand, are much more certain and there is a never-ending drum roll of high truth claims from their camp. These truth claims are unwarranted and it is them, rather than the theory itself, that are the problem. So I�m not so much concerned about the theory itself as I am about the certainty with which it is presented.

How many times have these IDiots complained about the tentative words used so often in discussions of evolution? �Don't know about Corny specifically, but again, he has no excuse not to realize how tentative it is treated as being, other than that he's a bigot who typically lies about "evolutionists," their motives, and their evidence. �But anyway, he's concerned about our certainty, and helpfully points out that:

�

Quote

Jesus died for our sins and without Him we have no hope.

So, uh, Corny's uncertain about that? �Is that a fair assessment?

Just as kindly he is certain that we don't know his religious tripe:

�

Quote

Here�s a suggestion, read one of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Read a page a day and it will require only a month or two. It will make you more knowledgeable of what is, after all, the most influential book ever written. Shouldn�t you have some knowledge of what that book actually says?

Why no, how thoughtless of me, I have never read the Gospels, you know, except for all of them, early on. �Fortunately, though, he'd never jump to an unwarranted conclusion, being a completely sanctimonious ignorant dolt. �

But please don't tie evolution to Xianity. �Like we're as stupid as you are, Corny. �Xianity fails with or without evolution, at least on normal epistemological grounds (I'm trying not to attack anyone's religious faith, but when this jerk is lying all over the place about everything, I have to call it as I see it), and it's his pigheaded certainty that evolution exists to undermine Xianity that causes him to link the two. �Sure, many on the "new atheist" side do as much, but what of that? �

Corny, so carefully trying to unpack the certainties that he projects onto others. �As big a hypocrite as exists among a whole movement of hypocrites.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Glen Davidson

Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Jan. 30 2013,11:00

I'd add that we who accept evolution knowledgeably, Xians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, whatever, do have one certainty, which is that we ought to follow epistemological standards as objectively as possible. Of course we do have some certainty about evolution as the best explanation thus far (and realistically, that it could be entirely overthrown seems about as unlikely as that the conservation of momentum will be), just as we do about the rest of established science.

Nothing wrong with that, certainly. Those who are inconsistent in the application of the standards of evidence do have a problem.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Soapy Sam

Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

Posted: Jan. 30 2013,11:32

Quote

We are not dealing with reason here, but indoctrination and polarising rhetoric feeding rage-filled contempt that has become artificially, willfully obtuse.

*cough*Projection!

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Glen Davidson

Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Jan. 30 2013,12:03

Has Gary jumped ship?

�

Quote

There is massive problems with the myth and fairy tale theory of natural selection acting on random mutations NDE.
Its false and its about time over 150 lie and disgrace is made public and official.

6
JoeMorreale1187January 30, 2013 at 11:48 am

It�s been proven that NDE cannot account for the origin of information and neither of its increase and continuation. This is not Religion but the scientific evidence that has demonstrated this .

Ok, poking at poor Gary, who misses points about as badly as this dolt whining about near death experience not accounting for the origin or increase of information.

But if you're judged by the company you keep, Lord, these people are stupid. �Fine, you don't have to judge the "leading lights" by the morons they attract, since they're all moronic-sounding simply by themselves, regardless of whether or not they could think better.

Glen Davidson

ETA--it should be noted that previous mentions of NDEs in the thread were clearly near death experiences, rather than standing for the misnomer of neo-Darwinian evolution.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Jan. 30 2013,15:55

JoeMorreale1187 makes some silly comments on that thread, but hey, he's new to UD. Leave it to long-timer StephenB to state the UD/ID position in a nutshell:

Quote

Transformation in Christ is the only evolution that matters.

Link
ASSF!

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Jan. 30 2013,17:59

JoeMorreale has just revealed himself to be a muslim. Prompting this:

link

Quote

Ask your Muslim friends to join in! UD needs fresh perspectives to broaden the focus of ID science beyond sectarian Christianity. After all, science is science and Islam has made signal contributions to scientific progress.

ID has some kind of rootedness in sectarian christianity?

Well, Shut, my, mouth!

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Jan. 30 2013,18:24

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 30 2013,15:59)

JoeMorreale has just revealed himself to be a muslim. Prompting this:

link

Quote

Ask your Muslim friends to join in! UD needs fresh perspectives to broaden the focus of ID science beyond sectarian Christianity. After all, science is science and Islam has made signal contributions to scientific progress.

ID has some kind of rootedness in sectarian christianity?

Well, Shut, my, mouth!

Hmmm...

Quote

8 �JoeMorreale1187 January 30, 2013 at 11:59 am

There is a great book �The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist case for the existence for the Soul� by Mario Beauragard and Denyse O�Leary which I highly recommend .

Poe, or a Denyse sockpuppet trolling for business?

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

Glen Davidson

Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Jan. 30 2013,18:41

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 30 2013,15:55)

JoeMorreale1187 makes some silly comments on that thread, but hey, he's new to UD. Leave it to long-timer StephenB to state the UD/ID position in a nutshell:
� �

Quote

Transformation in Christ is the only evolution that matters.

Link
ASSF!

Yes, it's amazing, we've conspired for years to claim that ID was all about religion, only for Corny, StephenB, etc., to point out now that all that really matters is, you know, religion. �And we should consider becoming the atheist's-boot-licking sellouts, the theistic evolutionists.

Why, so we could seduce more Christians to perdition? �You'd think we would have already done so if we were really as intent on serving Satan as they claim that we are. �I mean really, I only want to serve Satan a little bit.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Patrick

Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

Posted: Jan. 30 2013,19:02

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 30 2013,19:41)

You'd think we would have already done so if we were really as intent on serving Satan as they claim that we are. �I mean really, I only want to serve Satan a little bit.

Glen Davidson

C'mon, he deserves more than that.

Edited by Patrick on Jan. 30 2013,20:18

sparc

Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Jan. 31 2013,10:46

Comments off is becomes a fashion at UD. As if there was any comment left that hasn't been made before regarding Granville Sewell's claims. At the end it's just the good old second law again.

--------------
"[...] 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 -

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005