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 2

Pages: (500) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >

Chayanov Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2008,23:49    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,23:06) Quote What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so". I've asked many Creationists this, and never gotten a coherent answer: how is saying "the Biblical account of creation is true because the Bible says so" not a 'just-so story'? Because their pastor told them so. -------------- Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,00:16    Re: Granville Sewell's excuse for pimping his laughable book here (caution, link leads to Uncommonly Dense shite) . Sewll cites an article in "Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences" on "carnivorous plants" by Wolf-Ekkhard Lönnig and some post-grad guy that was at Max Planck Institute before Lonnig started posting up ID-crap on the Planck website. (Lönnig is a rabid Jehovah's Witless er...Witness... that is now practically a leper even to people that once backed him there). For those who don't want to bother reading the cited .PDF -- and I don't blame you -- Lönnig implies strongly that the trap/digestive systems in carnivorous plants (particularly Bladderworts [Utricularia] ) are "irreducibly complex" a la Behe's B-S. Anyhoo...does anyone know of a take-down of that particular article Sewell cites in near-orgasmic terms? There's a great deal known about bladderworts (Louis may have some, except I think he said his are genital) that the authors seem to have failed to note.   Cheers! Whee, it's fun to be back. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

nuytsia Posts: 131 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,06:52    Quote (deadman_932 @ July 28 2008,16:16) For those who don't want to bother reading the cited .PDF -- and I don't blame you -- Lönnig implies strongly that the trap/digestive systems in carnivorous plants (particularly Bladderworts [Utricularia] ) are "irreducibly complex" a la Behe's B-S. Anyhoo...does anyone know of a take-down of that particular article Sewell cites in near-orgasmic terms? Can't point you to a debunking, but have to agree that the pdf is a stinker of an article. For two guys working in a plant breeding institute their botanical and ecological knowledge is either lousy or convenient. The brief wikipedia article on Carnivorous plants mentions a couple of half-way there plants (described as borderline carnivorous). Of the top of my head I know that Silene and Lychnis species trap insects on sticky stems for no explicable gain other than to possibly stop theft from the flowers by non pollinators. What's interesting to observe here is that when plants are given as examples of speciation it's dismissed, because plants aren't very complicated... until of course they catch insects, then it's either this or this for people like Sewell. Working with plants as I do, I don't see how carnivory is any more complicated than anything else plants generally have to do.

lcd Posts: 137 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,07:21    Quote (Chayanov @ July 28 2008,23:49) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,23:06) Quote What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so". I've asked many Creationists this, and never gotten a coherent answer: how is saying "the Biblical account of creation is true because the Bible says so" not a 'just-so story'? Because their pastor told them so. Hehe, good one. Actually, I can read.  I read what the Bible says on the subject.  As I trust in God, I trust in His Word.  That is the reason why I believe. I feel sorry for you if you don't or can't understand what a great feeling it is to know that God's love is with you when you follow His Word.

bystander Posts: 301 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,07:25    Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,19:21) Quote (Chayanov @ July 28 2008,23:49) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,23:06)   Quote What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so". I've asked many Creationists this, and never gotten a coherent answer: how is saying "the Biblical account of creation is true because the Bible says so" not a 'just-so story'? Because their pastor told them so. Hehe, good one. Actually, I can read.  I read what the Bible says on the subject.  As I trust in God, I trust in His Word.  That is the reason why I believe. I feel sorry for you if you don't or can't understand what a great feeling it is to know that God's love is with you when you follow His Word. the problem is that most of us did and then we started to actually read the Bible

Venus Mousetrap Posts: 201 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,07:35    Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,07:21) Quote (Chayanov @ July 28 2008,23:49) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,23:06)   Quote What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so". I've asked many Creationists this, and never gotten a coherent answer: how is saying "the Biblical account of creation is true because the Bible says so" not a 'just-so story'? Because their pastor told them so. Hehe, good one. Actually, I can read.  I read what the Bible says on the subject.  As I trust in God, I trust in His Word.  That is the reason why I believe. I feel sorry for you if you don't or can't understand what a great feeling it is to know that God's love is with you when you follow His Word. And what you were saying about belief doesn't seem unreasonable? You were saying you couldn't accept science because the just-so stories seemed unbelievable (let's skip over that these are normally testable or even tested hypotheses, which have little bearing on established theory), but you're willing to trust a feeling of euphoria which you believe comes from a person you can't see? Seriously, why not just come out and say it? You don't understand evolution, and you don't like it. It's ungodly and we're all going to hell. Be the fundie you want to be. :)

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,09:13    Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,07:21) Quote (Chayanov @ July 28 2008,23:49)   Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,23:06)   Quote What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so". I've asked many Creationists this, and never gotten a coherent answer: how is saying "the Biblical account of creation is true because the Bible says so" not a 'just-so story'? Because their pastor told them so. Hehe, good one. Actually, I can read.  I read what the Bible says on the subject.  As I trust in God, I trust in His Word.  That is the reason why I believe. Modern evolutionary theory is based on empirical evidence.  It is no more appropriate to talk about "believing" in it than there is to talk about believing in gravity. The fact that you can read your just-so stories yourself doesn't make them anything other than just-so stories. Quote I feel sorry for you if you don't or can't understand what a great feeling it is to know that God's love is with you when you follow His Word. When you provide some empirical evidence for this "God" you speak of, then we can discuss its other attributes.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,09:38    Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,07:21) I feel sorry for you if you don't or can't understand what a great totally creepy feeling it is to know that God's Voyeur's love stalking   is with you when you follow His   reputed word, many-times translated by people with an ax to grind, or point to prove and position to protect Word. Fixed it for you! -------------- 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

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,10:07    Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,07:21) Quote (Chayanov @ July 28 2008,23:49)   Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,23:06)   Quote What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so". I've asked many Creationists this, and never gotten a coherent answer: how is saying "the Biblical account of creation is true because the Bible says so" not a 'just-so story'? Because their pastor told them so. Hehe, good one. Actually, I can read.  I read what the Bible says on the subject.  As I trust in God, I trust in His Word.  That is the reason why I believe. I feel sorry for you if you don't or can't understand what a great feeling it is to know that God's love is with you when you follow His Word. Hey if it feels good it must be true, right? And no need to feel sorry for people who are emotionally stable and have no need for an imaginary reality to make themselves feel better.  Just because you feel something doesn't make it so.  In fact emotions are not a very reliable indicator of anything o0ther than the fact you have emotions.  For example have you ever felt afraid only to realize you had nothing to fear, and therefore the emotion was wrong so to speak?  So, again, emotions prove nothing other than we're capable of feeling emotions.  Your claim that you "feel god's love" does not prove a god loves you nor does it prove a god exists"  it ONLY proves you have the ability to emote over your own beliefs.  Big deal. Some of us are capable of facing life head on without the aid of jealous, irritable sky pixies and we feel just fine without living in a make believe world.   Yeah, feeling sorry for someone because they don't experience your twisted emotional state which is grounded in fairy tales is pretty fucking stupid don't you think? :-)  I mean you might as well say "I feel sorry for you because you don't know the joy and bounty that comes from knowing the love of the tooth fairy"  Har har har. As James Brown once said, "I feel good..." -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,10:23    lcd you seem like a reasonable enough chap on first approximation. don't you think that 'i feel sorry for you' is a bit patronizing?  i'm well aware that that street runs both ways, but since you are a reasonable enough chap on first approximation I advocate taking the high road.  This ain't pharyngula, you know. don't you think that it is likely that many of us have read the words of gods in their many many incarnations? i have, and I know from that experience that one can read between the lines in any book.  I know lots of reasonable christianist types who don't hold that Genesis is a science book. Around here, there are lots of sciency types that can demonstrate that if Genesis is intended to be a science book, then it is a spectacularly incorrect book.  I suggest that we may cover those topics on another thread if you wish, or alternatively (and to stay on topic) we would absolutely love for you to take your issues over to the dungeon of UD and see how well your fellow travellers accept your claim of an inerrant bible (is that your claim?) -------------- 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

lcd Posts: 137 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,11:14    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 29 2008,10:23) Around here, there are lots of sciency types that can demonstrate that if Genesis is intended to be a science book, then it is a spectacularly incorrect book.  I suggest that we may cover those topics on another thread if you wish, or alternatively (and to stay on topic) we would absolutely love for you to take your issues over to the dungeon of UD and see how well your fellow travellers accept your claim of an inerrant bible (is that your claim?) Wait a minute. So you're saying that the good folks of UD do not believe in an inerrant Bible?

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,11:15    Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,11:14)   Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 29 2008,10:23) Around here, there are lots of sciency types that can demonstrate that if Genesis is intended to be a science book, then it is a spectacularly incorrect book.  I suggest that we may cover those topics on another thread if you wish, or alternatively (and to stay on topic) we would absolutely love for you to take your issues over to the dungeon of UD and see how well your fellow travellers accept your claim of an inerrant bible (is that your claim?) Wait a minute. So you're saying that the good folks of UD do not believe in an inerrant Bible? How can they and accept an earth older then 6000 years? Many of them accept common descent. Even Behe does. -------------- 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,11:24    Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,11:14) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 29 2008,10:23) Around here, there are lots of sciency types that can demonstrate that if Genesis is intended to be a science book, then it is a spectacularly incorrect book.  I suggest that we may cover those topics on another thread if you wish, or alternatively (and to stay on topic) we would absolutely love for you to take your issues over to the dungeon of UD and see how well your fellow travellers accept your claim of an inerrant bible (is that your claim?) Wait a minute. So you're saying that the good folks of UD do not believe in an inerrant Bible? i don't know what those folks really believe.  i do know they pay lip service to old earth, although Dr Dr Dembski has made some statements elsewhere that give good reason to regard his view as inerrantist.  He has made statements that the age of the earth doesn't matter, in one publication, and then in another that the bible is the inspired word of god.  So I chalk him up to saying whatever is useful in the context he is working in at the moment. you were being sarcastic, right? -------------- 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

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,11:26    Seems you guys don't have proper copies of the Bible. In mine I find: "I wrote this Bible all by myself and your copy/translation is endorsed by me. Yours truly, Yahweh. (Countersigned by Moses.) I see lcd has one of those too. P.S. I have not found anyone able to verify the signatures for me yet, so my faith have a tendency to waver at times. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,11:39    For point of reference, most Protestants who affirm inerrancy do so along the lines of the Chicago statement. Rich, you live in Chicago, right? -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,11:47    Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,05:21) Quote (Chayanov @ July 28 2008,23:49) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,23:06)   Quote What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so". I've asked many Creationists this, and never gotten a coherent answer: how is saying "the Biblical account of creation is true because the Bible says so" not a 'just-so story'? Because their pastor told them so. Hehe, good one. Actually, I can read.  I read what the Bible says on the subject.  As I trust in God, I trust in His Word.  That is the reason why I believe. I feel sorry for you if you don't or can't understand what a great feeling it is to know that God's love is with you when you follow His Word. I'll take that as basically meaning "I admit it's all a just-so story, but it's the one I choose to believe because it gives me warm fuzzies". -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

lcd Posts: 137 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,12:01    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 29 2008,11:24) i don't know what those folks really believe.  i do know they pay lip service to old earth, although Dr Dr Dembski has made some statements elsewhere that give good reason to regard his view as inerrantist.  He has made statements that the age of the earth doesn't matter, in one publication, and then in another that the bible is the inspired word of god.  So I chalk him up to saying whatever is useful in the context he is working in at the moment. you were being sarcastic, right? No I am not being sarcastic. If Dr. Dembski is an inerrantist who believes in a young Earth then he should say so.  Hiding behind double talk is not very Christian.  That is what many I know who feel that Evolution is deception from evil at it's very worst accuse Evolutionists as. Again Matthew 26:34 comes to mind.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,12:11    i'll add that to the long list of things that Dr Dr Billy would do, if here were interested in ethical behavior. (hint:  he is not.  have you read the entire UD thread yet?) I honestly don't know his personal beliefs, all I know is what he has allowed to filter into print.  I do know that his statements are inconsistent and perhaps even contradictory.  Manufactroversy at its finest. -------------- 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

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,12:12    Quote (dheddle @ July 29 2008,12:39) For point of reference, most Protestants who affirm inerrancy do so along the lines of the Chicago statement. Rich, you live in Chicago, right? By never defining the term Holy Scripture, it almost makes you forget what a debate there was over deciding what was scripture and what wasn't.  :p -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,12:26    Quote (dvunkannon @ July 29 2008,12:12)     Quote (dheddle @ July 29 2008,12:39) For point of reference, most Protestants who affirm inerrancy do so along the lines of the Chicago statement. Rich, you live in Chicago, right? By never defining the term Holy Scripture, it almost makes you forget what a debate there was over deciding what was scripture and what wasn't.  :p Actually, if I understand you correctly, you may be surprised that several if not most of the signatories to the Chicago statement would affirm, in the words of one of them (John Gerstner)     Quote The bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. That is, I think, your point. They acknowledge that scripture is inspired, but (and this is what may surprise you) that our collection of what we take to be the canon of scripture is not. The official Roman Catholic position is stronger, they would say the bible is an infallible collection of infallible books. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,12:34    Icd: Quote That is what many I know who feel that Evolution is deception from evil at it's very worst accuse Evolutionists as. You aren't Denise, are you? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,12:37    Quote (dheddle @ July 29 2008,12:26) Quote (dvunkannon @ July 29 2008,12:12)     Quote (dheddle @ July 29 2008,12:39) For point of reference, most Protestants who affirm inerrancy do so along the lines of the Chicago statement. Rich, you live in Chicago, right? By never defining the term Holy Scripture, it almost makes you forget what a debate there was over deciding what was scripture and what wasn't.  :p Actually, if I understand you correctly, you may be surprised that several if not most of the signatories to the Chicago statement would affirm, in the words of one of them (John Gerstner)     Quote The bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. That is, I think, your point. They acknowledge that scripture is inspired, but (and this is what may surprise you) that our collection of what we take to be the canon of scripture is not. The official Roman Catholic position is stronger, they would say the bible is an infallible collection of infallible books. Doesn't this make the policy of inerrancy a giant example of goalpost moving? The word is inerrant, now let's argue about what the word is. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,12:41    where is lenny when you need him? i betcha Wes knows more about the Dr Dr position on inerrancy.  I'm starting to get more interested.  Is it time to fly a little ol puppet? just kidding DaveTard.  that'd be waaaaayyyyy too easy for you my little cheesy poof snarfing friend.  i promise to be more cryptic.  anyway, they banned lazarus for that already. -------------- 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

lcd Posts: 137 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,12:47    Quote (blipey @ July 29 2008,12:34) Icd:   Quote That is what many I know who feel that Evolution is deception from evil at it's very worst accuse Evolutionists as. You aren't Denise, are you? Nope. Sorry. Ed

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,12:52    Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,12:47) Quote (blipey @ July 29 2008,12:34) Icd:   Quote That is what many I know who feel that Evolution is deception from evil at it's very worst accuse Evolutionists as. You aren't Denise, are you? Nope. Sorry. Ed Hmmm.  "E" and "D" are both in "Denise".  The sentence structure is the same... Bible Code! You're Dr. Dr. hisownself, looking in on your fan club! p.s. "It all happened over the water.  Water. Sea. C. Catwoman." "Your logic is impeccable, Boy Wonder." -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,12:56    Quote (blipey @ July 29 2008,12:37) *snip* Doesn't this make the policy of inerrancy a giant example of goalpost moving? The word is inerrant, now let's argue about what the word is. No, but that is beyond the scope of this thread. Or at least it is way too off-topic. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,13:03    Quote (dheddle @ July 29 2008,13:26) Quote (dvunkannon @ July 29 2008,12:12)     Quote (dheddle @ July 29 2008,12:39) For point of reference, most Protestants who affirm inerrancy do so along the lines of the Chicago statement. Rich, you live in Chicago, right? By never defining the term Holy Scripture, it almost makes you forget what a debate there was over deciding what was scripture and what wasn't.  :p Actually, if I understand you correctly, you may be surprised that several if not most of the signatories to the Chicago statement would affirm, in the words of one of them (John Gerstner)     Quote The bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. That is, I think, your point. They acknowledge that scripture is inspired, but (and this is what may surprise you) that our collection of what we take to be the canon of scripture is not. The official Roman Catholic position is stronger, they would say the bible is an infallible collection of infallible books. No, my point was that it's easy to think about "Holy Scripture" as a unified whole when looking at the result of the historical process, without acknowledging that a historical process of selection and human controversy was involved. Rabbi Akiba had to pull out all the stops to get Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs included. The Chicago Statement is ahistorical. It lacks an axiomatic definition of the texts included, and why. Does it mean the Catholic version of Esther or the Jewish one? Does it include the Gospel of Thomas? Why or why not? -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,13:17    Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,10:47) Quote (blipey @ July 29 2008,12:34) Icd:   Quote That is what many I know who feel that Evolution is deception from evil at it's very worst accuse Evolutionists as. You aren't Denise, are you? Nope. Sorry. Ed For the record, I think Blipey was alluding to the horribly mangled (and basically uninterpretable) syntax of the sentence he cited. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,13:26    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 29 2008,10:41) where is lenny when you need him? Louis harassed Lenny so much he left asked Lenny various perfectly reasonable questions for which Lenny refused to provide answers. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

lcd Posts: 137 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2008,13:30    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 29 2008,13:17) Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,10:47) Quote (blipey @ July 29 2008,12:34) Icd:     Quote That is what many I know who feel that Evolution is deception from evil at it's very worst accuse Evolutionists as. You aren't Denise, are you? Nope. Sorry. Ed For the record, I think Blipey was alluding to the horribly mangled (and basically uninterpretable) syntax of the sentence he cited. Again, I posted without going through Word. Let's see: That is what many I know who feel that Evolution is deception from evil at it's very worst accuse Evolutionists as. Should read: Many people I know who feel Evolution is evil incarnate and deceptive believe that Evolutionists are dishonest and deceptive. If the good Dr. Dembski is hiding behind double talk and purposely confusing things, he is being deceptive.  I certainly hope that is not the case.  Those who believe in God's Word have nothing to fear.

Pages: (500) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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