oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
On a blog called "uncommondescent" jerry notes that
| Quote | | ID says nothing about common descent. |
I guess jerry also walks into massage parlors in the seedy side of town and asks for a massage and expects a massage. This is the very pinnacle of avoiding the "elephant in the room" for IDiots. If common descent is not true, they why bother even talking about the minutia of it? They should be working on their explnation for the evidence, but as Joe has shown us, search and replace is about the height of it (that and searching papers for the word "design" and then claiming then as ID positive research!)
| Quote | | what you are witnessing here is mainly what ID does best, namely dispute gradualism as a mechanism for species origin. |
Yes, what ID does best is the same thing that drunk hobo's do best. Dispute reality in a unintelligible manner. At the top of their voice, with absolute conviction, yet all the passers by do their best to ignore it. | Quote | | So all this does is shed some more doubt on gradualism. |
What, finding a fossil throws doubt on evolution does it? It's ironic really as a good % of the people over at UD are closet young-earthers, and would dispute the fact that the fossil was that old in the first place
| Quote | | The argument for a gradualistic transition from one species to another is fairly suspect and all this does increase the doubt that Darwin’s ideas were involved in the origin of new species. |
Huh? Darwin's ideas were written down in a book. New species would happen with or without the book! Increase what doubt anyway?
| Quote | By the way if you dispute my assertion
“The argument for a gradualistic transition from one species to another is fairly suspect ”
then step up to the plate and show us why ID is mistaken here. No one ever has on this site or any other site we have read so you can be the first one. |
It's not really possible to dispute "fairly suspect" IMHO. And anyway, why "fairly" anyway? That implies that jerry has some doubt about his position. Otherwise he would have said "The argument for a gradualistic transition from one species to another is wrong"
So it's nice to see a UD'er admitting that their position is based on what they hope is true rather then what the evidence points to.
Oh, and I can't let this gem go unnoticed.
DaveScot blurts:
| Quote |
Does ID say that we do not have apelike ancestors?
No. It says we have ape-like anthropologists.
|
Nice dodge there DS. Don't answer the question, but make a "funny" instead. No wonder you and FTK get on so very well.
--------------
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
|
