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 4

Pages: (356) < ... 153 154 155 156 157 [158] 159 160 161 162 163 ... >

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2012,14:36    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 19 2012,04:28) Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 19 2012,00:51) The Dodgenator has churned out combination a1:     Quote I’m something of an evangelist for classical music, since it has brought me so much joy and reward all throughout my life. My piano teacher, Ruby Bailey, with whom I studied from the age of seven through high school (and, actually, beyond), I consider to be my second mother. ... So how does Darwinism account for this, the extraordinary power of music in all of our lives?   Quote The Extraordinary Power of Music (How does Darwinism account for this?) Gil, for the sake of argument let's say it does not. How does ID account for it? ... And while you're at it Gill, how does ID account for wearing frilly shirts whilst playing music? I'd say the Darwinian explanation is sexual selection, but I just can't see that working out. -------------- "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 --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2012,16:00    News: Quote A new book, Science and Human Origins, by Ann Gauger, Doug Axe, and Casey Luskin, has hit the street, and we’ll be having a fair bit more to say about it. For now, just this: Developmental biologist Ann Gauger, who wasn’t sure whether the human race could have come from one original couple, as opposed to Templeton winner Francisco Ayala’s claim of thousands of people, concludes in Chapter 5 that Ayala was vastly overstating his case, and that it is quite possible that there was one Adam and one Eve.* I'm not sure that's the spin they want put on it "news".... http://www.uncommondescent.com/human-e....-426662 -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

MichaelJ Posts: 462 Joined: June 2009 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2012,16:16    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 19 2012,19:28) Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 19 2012,00:51) The Dodgenator has churned out combination a1:     Quote I’m something of an evangelist for classical music, since it has brought me so much joy and reward all throughout my life. My piano teacher, Ruby Bailey, with whom I studied from the age of seven through high school (and, actually, beyond), I consider to be my second mother. ... So how does Darwinism account for this, the extraordinary power of music in all of our lives?   Quote The Extraordinary Power of Music (How does Darwinism account for this?) Gil, for the sake of argument let's say it does not. How does ID account for it? ... I'd hate to be Gil. I did a quick Google and there is a pile of competing ideas on why we evolved to enjoy music.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2012,17:34    So how does Gil account for snowball the dancing cockatoo? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2012,18:35    Quote (midwifetoad @ June 19 2012,15:34) So how does Gil account for snowball the dancing cockatoo? Satan did it -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2012,20:02    UB is trying his representation-and-protocol argument that has utterly failed to persuade anyone at TSZ now at UD,(UD link). Addressing Jerad he hilariously begins:   Quote I am not trying to be obscure and I am certainly not trying to play games. Comedy gold. Edited by Ptaylor on June 20 2012,13:03 -------------- 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

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,00:13    StephenB   Quote –Chance Ratcliff: “It’s possible that BioLogos gleans some benefit from the equivocal definition of Theistic Evolution. How many TEs are under the impression that guided evolution is the definition of TE?” Yes, indeed. Politicians characterize this kind of dissimulation as “strategic ambiguity.” Speak only in general terms and allow your listeners to read their own ideas and preferences into your comments. TEs are ambiguous because they don't say exactly when and how their "designer" interfered with evolution although they agree with an old earth, common descent, and reject a historical Adam and Eve (although some believe in some kind of "spiritual" Adam and Eve), which at least puts some restrictions on the when and how, while the only thing ID proponents are definite about is that there must be a designer. They pretend that it wouldn't make a difference to what you'd expect to see if this designer had a few billion years to implement his design as opposed to a few thousand years, they don't agree on whether this designer acted in a way that looks like common descent or not, they're just publishing a book that apparently doesn't even reject an historical Adam and Eve, they are proponents of a supposedly scientific "theory" about the origins of everything that doesn't say anything, but TEs are "strategically ambiguous"? TARD ETA: Cudworth in response to StephenB Quote I can to some extent forgive the BioLogos folk regarding the self-contradiction; they in most cases don’t have the intellectual tools to deal with the contradictions they have embraced. (They don’t know any philosophy at all, and they use mostly bad sources for theology — generally very recent works written by liberal evangelical theologians from Britain and the USA, rather than classic early-to-mid-20th-century scholarly works and primary sources such as Calvin and Aquinas.) What I don’t forgive them for is *not listening* when people whose knowledge of philosophy and theology dwarfs their own tell them they are making mistakes. Ignorance due to confusion is forgivable; ignorance due to willfulness isn’t. I'd say pot, kettle, black, but that doesn't really capture it. It's more like abandoned coal mile in the middle of the night as seen by a blind man, kettle, black. -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,01:38    cudworth barfed: "I can to some extent forgive the BioLogos folk regarding the self-contradiction; they in most cases don’t have the intellectual tools to deal with the contradictions they have embraced. (They don’t know any philosophy at all, and they use mostly bad sources for theology — generally very recent works written by liberal evangelical theologians from Britain and the USA, rather than classic early-to-mid-20th-century scholarly works and primary sources such as Calvin and Aquinas.) What I don’t forgive them for is *not listening* when people whose knowledge of philosophy and theology dwarfs their own tell them they are making mistakes. Ignorance due to confusion is forgivable; ignorance due to willfulness isn’t." What a demented, delusional, deranged, dishonest dullard. And frankly, I don't see any significant difference between a theistic evolutionist and an IDiot. According to joe g, the self-proclaimed expert on ID, ID does NOT go against evolution and evolution was/is designed and/or guided by a supernatural entity (i.e. "God", or in joe's case, allah). TEs accept evolution and claim that it was/is designed and/or guided by a supernatural entity (i.e. "God"). Every TE or IDiot has their own version of their religious beliefs as to whether their god intervenes in evolution or doesn't intervene or how much it intervenes or when it intervened/intervenes or whatever. The bottom line is that they ALL believe that their chosen god did it, does it, will do it, has done it, sometimes did it, might get around to doing it, or WHATEVER. It's ALL just a steaming pile of religiously based bullshit fairytale beliefs. What cracks me up is that the TEs say that the IDiots are wrong and the IDiots say that the TEs are wrong, and they fight over the nitpicky particulars of their beliefs, which are ALL based on the SAME insane delusion. What it really comes down to is 'authority' (power). god zombies, regardless of the particulars they promote or argue about, ALL have the insatiable desire to be, and they proclaim themselves to be, THE authority. THEIR version of their beliefs are THE right ones. THEY are THE authority. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is WRONG. Everyone MUST accept, believe, and worship whatever THEY say. THEY are NEVER wrong. In their totally pompous minds, they ARE god. They're all fucking nuts. -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,02:06    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 19 2012,16:00) News:   Quote A new book, Science and Human Origins, by Ann Gauger, Doug Axe, and Casey Luskin, has hit the street, and we’ll be having a fair bit more to say about it. For now, just this: Developmental biologist Ann Gauger, who wasn’t sure whether the human race could have come from one original couple, as opposed to Templeton winner Francisco Ayala’s claim of thousands of people, concludes in Chapter 5 that Ayala was vastly overstating his case, and that it is quite possible that there was one Adam and one Eve.* I'm not sure that's the spin they want put on it "news".... http://www.uncommondescent.com/human-e....-426662 This is great news! It supports fundamentalism in more than one way. Mitochondrial Eve had to wait 80,000 years for Y-chromosomal Adam to appear, thereby giving both a fine example of biblical longevity and preemptive conjugal fidelity. Darwinism is refuted, biblical literalism vindicated, moral lesson drawn. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,02:47    "The whole truth":   Quote What cracks me up is that the TEs say that the IDiots are wrong and the IDiots say that the TEs are wrong, and they fight over the nitpicky particulars of their beliefs, which are ALL based on the SAME insane delusion. What it really comes down to is 'authority' (power). god zombies, regardless of the particulars they promote or argue about, ALL have the insatiable desire to be, and they proclaim themselves to be, THE authority. THEIR version of their beliefs are THE right ones. THEY are THE authority. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is WRONG. Everyone MUST accept, believe, and worship whatever THEY say. THEY are NEVER wrong. In their totally pompous minds, they ARE god. They're all fucking nuts. My disagreement with IDC and all other religious antievolution is and always has been that their arguments are wrong, irrelevant, or counterfactual, and that insisting on teaching falsehoods is a poor way to show devotion to God. I'd be interested in knowing where I've argued over "nitpicky particulars of belief", where I've insisted that others worship as I'd specify, or where I've been wrong on something decidable and not admitted it. There's a lot of what I've written over the years available online, so you should have plenty of ready-to-hand material to back up your claims ... if they were true. The truth is that I advocate the teaching of science in science classrooms, and leaving the non-science out of those classrooms. I have documentable decades of this mode of advocacy behind me. What I believe personally is, in my opinion, of no importance to this issue. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,03:18    I have always assumed that a TE is distinguished from a biologist who also happens to be religious by his assumption that some form of intervention was historically involved in life. Otherwise there is no reason to put the T and the E together. I don't see that deism qualifies as TE. Or fine tuning. Perhaps the undectable quantum nudge qualifies. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

MichaelJ Posts: 462 Joined: June 2009 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,03:18    To me the big difference is that TEs accept the scientific consensus and ID is a political movement.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,03:35    I don't think the scientific consensus includes tweaking of the direction of evolution, either by intervention or by prefiguring. Although neither are subject to disproof. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,05:29    Quote (midwifetoad @ June 20 2012,09:35) I don't think the scientific consensus includes tweaking of the direction of evolution, either by intervention or by prefiguring. Although neither are subject to disproof. And that is the nub of it. Does there exist a coherent statement of what TE is? Does it propose that there is a theistic element that is, if only in principle, detectable? If not, it's like 'Alternative Medicine' that works - it's just 'medicine'. It's been a while since I looked at the Catholic position on these things but I don't recall that they maintain that God's fingerprints are there to be seen and measured: the argument is more like an aesthetic one. -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

Cubist Posts: 558 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,06:14    On a purely intellectual level, Intelligent Design is more or less an obfuscated synonym for Theistic Evolution. Both TEists and IDiots have a religious belief in a Designer Who is Intelligent, and has the full skill set required to create a Universe. However, there is a very significant difference between the two positions; namely, IDiots maintain and insist (at interminable length...) that their religious dogma is good old science and nothing but, while TEists are quite up-front about the religious nature of their TEist belief. So it is that on the practical rubber-meets-the-road level on which political disputes occur, IDiots want to cram their religious beliefs down the throats of captive audiences in science classes; to the extent that TEists want to spread their beliefs at all, TEists are content to do so in comparatively unexceptional, unobjectionable ways. If you happen to be concerned about the possibility that the TEist position might mutate into the sort of political cause that IDiocy has always been right from the start, feel free to keep a wary eye on TEists to see how close they are to getting political. But it really doesn't make sense to attack TEists as one would IDiots, because in the political arena, existing TEists are definitely on the side of good science, even if they do insist on spot-welding on a hypothesis of the sort Laplace had no need of.

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,07:41    DO'L posts a link to a Discovery story about a contrarian astronomer doubting the Big-Bang connection to the latest studies of the cosmic microwave background radiation. She fails to mention that the guy's alternative theory did not pass the statistical test. (The Discovery story does.) Meanwhile, the WMAP team wins the Gruber Prize in cosmology. Will this make DeNews? -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

NormOlsen Posts: 104 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,09:43    Quote (olegt @ June 20 2012,07:41) DO'L posts a link to a Discovery story about a contrarian astronomer doubting the Big-Bang connection to the latest studies of the cosmic microwave background radiation. She fails to mention that the guy's alternative theory did not pass the statistical test. (The Discovery story does.) Meanwhile, the WMAP team wins the Gruber Prize in cosmology. Will this make DeNews? Nice, he criticizes the results of a detailed statistical analysis which finds that the "CMB blobs yield a power spectrum that exactly fits theoretical predictions":     Quote Verschuur shrugs off the interpretation, saying that astronomers can analyze the data and then stop when, "they find what they are looking for." Then he defends his own eye ball interpretation:     Quote "astronomers who study interstellar structure do not use statistics to show associations between different forms of matter ... they go by what the data look like." Quack alert!

NormOlsen Posts: 104 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,12:22    There's a stunning level of ignorance on display at UD right now at the Adam and Eve Possible? thread. Says user mahuna: Quote As far as we know, all hominids give birth to 1 baby at a time, with rare cases of twins or triplets. Even in the ancient historical period, the odds of 2 twins (let alone 3 triplets) surviving infancy were very low. So, it isn’t reasonable to assume that in a single generation 10 (for example) homo sapien children appeared from non-homo-sapien parents. The logical alternative, even assuming Evolution is true, is that after several false starts, 1 male and 1 female homo sapien found each other (even if born in different packs) and mated successfully. And this, even after Jon Garvey tries to edumacate him.

Freddie Posts: 371 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,16:28    Quote (NormOlsen @ June 20 2012,12:22) There's a stunning level of ignorance on display at UD right now at the Adam and Eve Possible? thread. Says user mahuna:     Quote As far as we know, all hominids give birth to 1 baby at a time, with rare cases of twins or triplets. Even in the ancient historical period, the odds of 2 twins (let alone 3 triplets) surviving infancy were very low. So, it isn’t reasonable to assume that in a single generation 10 (for example) homo sapien children appeared from non-homo-sapien parents. The logical alternative, even assuming Evolution is true, is that after several false starts, 1 male and 1 female homo sapien found each other (even if born in different packs) and mated successfully. And this, even after Jon Garvey tries to edumacate him. Gauger (UD Link):       Quote Excellent summary of the current ND view of speciation, John Garvey. And funny. Collin, have you read the book? Mahuna, the existence of mitochondrial Eve doesn’t indicate anything about how many females there were when she was alive, just that we all have inherited our mitochondria from her. Besides, Y chromosome Adam appeared roughly 70 years later, depending on what dates you use. So thinking of them as a first couple doesn’t work. Seriously, read the book. I'm going to be kind and assume she had a DeNews moment and missed a few zero's somewhere along the line and that this isn't just pandering to the YECs under the canvas. I think this one is on course to break the record for the number of "buy my book" requests in a single thread.  It could possibly also generate enough tard to be a signature line mining source for years to come.   Which one of you guys is mahuna? [Edit: Corrected Link] -------------- Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy. Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people. Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Dr. Jammer Posts: 37 Joined: Feb. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,11:56    Quote (MichaelJ @ June 19 2012,17:16) I'd hate to be Gil. I did a quick Google and there is a pile of competing ideas on why we evolved to enjoy music. The Darwinist must attempt to explain everythingrelated to the biological world, including human nature,  via his creation myth. That's never been in doubt. The question is, are those explanations convincing? To you and those like-minded, it's an easy yes. You don't even have to think about it (and probably haven't). Darwinism is true, as is every single attempt to explain every single facet of biology and human nature from a Darwinian perspective. For the rest of us, we who aren't Darwin fundies, the explanations remain far less convincing. We require a much higher standard of evidence than do you religious folk. -------------- Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

rossum Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,12:05    Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,11:56) The Darwinist must attempt to explain everythingrelated to the biological world, including human nature,  via his creation myth. That's never been in doubt. The question is, are those explanations convincing? The IDist must attempt to explain everythingrelated to the biological world, including the Designer,  via his or her creation myth. That's never been in doubt. The question is, firstly, do those explanations even exist, and secondly are those explanations convincing? Quote For the rest of us, we who aren't Darwin fundies, the explanations remain far less convincing. We require a much higher standard of evidence than do you religious folk. For the rest of us, we who aren't ID fundies, the explanations remain far less convincing. We require a much higher standard of evidence than do you religious folk. Note here, that one of the ways to tell a content-free post is to take it and turn its arguments round to face the other way.  If it works just as well in the opposite direction, then the original post was just content-free rhetoric with no real substance. rossum -------------- The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,12:08    Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,11:56) Quote (MichaelJ @ June 19 2012,17:16) I'd hate to be Gil. I did a quick Google and there is a pile of competing ideas on why we evolved to enjoy music. The Darwinist must attempt to explain everythingrelated to the biological world, including human nature,  via his creation myth. That's never been in doubt. The question is, are those explanations convincing? To you and those like-minded, it's an easy yes. You don't even have to think about it (and probably haven't). Darwinism is true, as is every single attempt to explain every single facet of biology and human nature from a Darwinian perspective. For the rest of us, we who aren't Darwin fundies, the explanations remain far less convincing. We require a much higher standard of evidence than do you religious folk. Excellent, then provide the evidence for the designer. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

NormOlsen Posts: 104 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,12:12    Quote We require a much higher standard of evidence than do you religious folk. How convenient.  Indeed, one can apply that "standard of evidence" argument to anything.  Heck if I don't like the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun, I can always say "I require a higher standard of evidence!".  This is especially true when one doesn't even understand what the evidence is, as is so often the case with ID supporters.

Patrick Posts: 666 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,12:16    Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,12:56) We require a much higher standard of evidence than do you religious folk. I love how religious fundamentalists use the term "religious" as an insult.  It's like insulting a sibling with a "your mom" joke.

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,12:23    Quote (Patrick @ June 21 2012,12:16) Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,12:56) We require a much higher standard of evidence than do you religious folk. I love how religious fundamentalists use the term "religious" as an insult.  It's like insulting a sibling with a "your mom" joke. That seems to be all the rage these days. Cornelius Hunter is ranting about religious fundamentalism among us. (That's a reference to PZ Myers, in case you are wondering.) The irony is that Hunter is teaching at Biola University, formerly known as the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, the place where Christian fundamentalism was born. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Dr. Jammer Posts: 37 Joined: Feb. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,12:24    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 20 2012,03:47) Motive mongering is a two-way street. Any of you can point out the religious convictions of I.D. proponents, and I can return the favor by pointing out the atheism of the most outspoken of Darwin defenders. In the end, it's all a big waste of time. All that matters is the evidence, and the evidence, both from the origin of life and the revealed directiveness of biology via internal technology points OVERWHELMINGLY towards design. It is every bit as powerful as the evidence for the gravitational force, perhaps even stronger.  Relying on disingenuous games, like the Onion Test, does not change one iota of any of this, but instead reveals just how far Darwin's once-proud theory has fallen. It's the flat Earth of the 21st century. Let's be completely honest here, although I know that's quite a challenge for most of you. Darwinism has devolved from scientific theory, to failed scientific hypothesis, to stealth atheist religion. We know of the strong correlation between those proselytizing for Darwinism and atheism. Eugenics Scott, Barbara Forrest, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins, etc. -- all well-known Liars for Darwin; all militant atheists. You people defend Darwinian evolution, not for scientific reasons, but because it's your religion. You need it to be true; your intellectual fulfillment demands it. You'll lie to yourselves, and to others, to maintain the illusion that it is. You absolutely abhor anyone who challenges that propped-up illusion, which is why we see so much vulgar filth being spewed at I.D. proponents. Your true motivations, emotional, rather than rational, are revealed in every four-letter word you hurl. You guys have lost. Deep down inside you know it, which further spurs on your insecure fits of vulgarity. My advice? Quit deluded yourselves and join those of us in the 21st century, a period in which the beauty and sophistication of design has revealed itself in all its glory. It's really not all that bad. In fact, viewing biology as the artwork of an ingenious artist (engineer) is really quite intellectually stimulating. -------------- Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,12:27    Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,12:24) Let's be completely honest here, although I know that's quite a challenge for most of you. You don't seem to be arguing in good faith, Jared. Therefore, fuck off. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Patrick Posts: 666 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,12:28    Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,13:24) [quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,June 20 2012,03:47][/quote] Motive mongering is a two-way street. Any of you can point out the religious convictions of I.D. proponents, and I can return the favor by pointing out the atheism of the most outspoken of Darwin defenders. In the end, it's all a big waste of time. All that matters is the evidence, and the evidence, both from the origin of life and the revealed directiveness of biology via internal technology points OVERWHELMINGLY towards design. It is every bit as powerful as the evidence for the gravitational force, perhaps even stronger.  Relying on disingenuous games, like the Onion Test, does not change one iota of any of this, but instead reveals just how far Darwin's once-proud theory has fallen. It's the flat Earth of the 21st century. Let's be completely honest here, although I know that's quite a challenge for most of you. Darwinism has devolved from scientific theory, to failed scientific hypothesis, to stealth atheist religion. We know of the strong correlation between those proselytizing for Darwinism and atheism. Eugenics Scott, Barbara Forrest, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins, etc. -- all well-known Liars for Darwin; all militant atheists. You people defend Darwinian evolution, not for scientific reasons, but because it's your religion. You need it to be true; your intellectual fulfillment demands it. You'll lie to yourselves, and to others, to maintain the illusion that it is. You absolutely abhor anyone who challenges that propped-up illusion, which is why we see so much vulgar filth being spewed at I.D. proponents. Your true motivations, emotional, rather than rational, are revealed in every four-letter word you hurl. You guys have lost. Deep down inside you know it, which further spurs on your insecure fits of vulgarity. My advice? Quit deluded yourselves and join those of us in the 21st century, a period in which the beauty and sophistication of design has revealed itself in all its glory. It's really not all that bad. In fact, viewing biology as the artwork of an ingenious artist (engineer) is really quite intellectually stimulating. I call Poe.  Mostly because I'd prefer to think that people this willfully and aggressively ignorant and dishonest don't actually exist.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,12:41    Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,12:24) All that matters is the evidence, and the evidence, both from the origin of life and the revealed directiveness of biology via internal technology points OVERWHELMINGLY towards design. It is every bit as powerful as the evidence for the gravitational force, perhaps even stronger. List three pieces of this 'overwhelming evidence' I dare you. Or you can run away... again. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2012,12:59    Is "Signature in the Cell" the one with the farked DNA on the cover? -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

Pages: (356) < ... 153 154 155 156 157 [158] 159 160 161 162 163 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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