Peanut Gallery

Yeah, there's not really any dialog with him developing over at Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not? either. He does quote what he's responding to, but it's usually just so it can serve as a jumping off point for another of his fallacious examples. And when you explain what's wrong with his latest example he responds with a different example that's wrong in the exact same way. We're a third of the way through the thread and he's still doing this.--Percy

I'm beginning to think pcver from the ERV thread is an escapee from the evolution fairytale forum.

Did you get banned from there (evolution fairy tale)? I'm on there and it seems Richard Townsend as well.Edited by CosmicChimp, : link addedEdited by CosmicChimp, : ID theft

Nope, I have access.I have a hard enough time dealing with people in denial of reality on this site. I suspect I'd blow a fuse over there. Although it is fun to follow posts from people like 'assist' until they inevitably get banned for knowing too much.I caught his parting comment though before it got edited into oblivion. Great stuff. He said he was posting at the request of Adam777's sister to try and help him out and he didn't really care about the site owner's flock of single digit IQ sheep he had grazing there and "you mouth breathers could continue circle jerking until your arms fall off"..Besides, before posting I'd have to learn the manners of the protocol droids..Edited by shalamabobbi, : additionEdited by shalamabobbi, : addition

I shouldn't have gone back. I came across this in response to a christian theistic evolutionist who was trying to warn the poster that his source was discredited even by the evangelical community, that he was weakening his argument by using a disreputable source. IOW he was trying to help him out. Here was the response to his help..

quote:

---

Yes, but you are an evolutionist worshipper, so how are we supposed to trust you, or your sources??? Evolutionist are known for lying, and being untrustworthy... about 99.9% of the time, simply because atheist are evil, and they hate God.

---

I need an aspirin..

I was on EFT for a little bit, but I was disabled for similar reasons. Ikester7579 seemed really upset at the content of my replies being "too balanced" etc etc. I especially destroyed his thread on latex condoms having holes. That is probably what sent him over the tipping point, so he simply refused to acknowledge any of my statements, and claimed I was being deceitful by providing my age as 99, and my location as everywhere. He even went so far as to claim he was doing this in protection of his "flock". That guy has a serious ego.He pretty much claimed I was an alt account of assist24, and that was the end of it. lolEdited by Michamus, : Corrected from EvC to EFT. (Thanks Percy)Edited by Michamus, : No reason given.

EvC? Did you mean EFT?--Percy

quote:

---

Evolutionist are known for lying, and being untrustworthy... about 99.9% of the time, simply because atheist are evil, and they hate God.

---

I love the "about" 99.9% of the time. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say "about" 100% of the time. The "atheists hate God" comment is always baffling to me also.I always like to reply with "do you hate unicorns?".It's almost like their self-centered egos can't fathom that people actually don't believe any of that religious crap and feel like we simply have animosity toward their specific mythical character. I haven't visited that website but I hate it already.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

That makes about 0% sense. How can one hate something that does not exist?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Yeah, I meant EFT. Thanks for the heads up! (Fixed it)

I just want to toss in my support for Subbie in the Points for a Creator thread. Pick any one of Subbie's posts at random and it's a good bet it will be informational, thoughtful and an interesting read. Obversely, alaninnont has done next to nothing to support his end of the debate, and has certainly not live up to the dream of atheists everywhere to present evidence contrary to their beliefs. He's ignored questions directly asked of him preferring to change the subject at every turn, responded with 25 word or less, off-the-cuff macninery and regarded being asked for sources and evidence as detrimental to moving the discussion I thought it was a debate forward.Now subbie is having to contend with alaninnont's contemptuous retorts.Alaninnont, you have not earned a gram of your arrogance.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

In Modulous' thread about eternal life, Jaderis made a good comment here: I have been trying to explain exactly this to my family and other people in my church for a very long time, and it's just nice to hear it coming from somebody else.Of course, how can you use that logic to explain yourself to somebody when that logic is the very thing that the people you want to explain it to think you shouldn't trust?Religious thinking gives me such a headache: I think, secretly, that's the reason most religious people believe thinking should be avoided.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

In "cdesign proponentsists" (Fallen and subbie only) Fallen would have us accept at face value the claims of ID advocates like William Demski that ID is "the science that studies signs of intelligence." But there is no evidence of any science in ID. The fundamental claim of ID is that design in nature is readily apparent because of the complexity of life. The rebuttal is that design in nature is as obvious as that lightning is the anger of the gods, or that the planets' perfect orbits are God's handiwork.There is no science in observations of this nature. When Michael Behe claims that "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself," there's no real data for ID's conclusions to flow from. ID is simply an extended observational exercise describing the many ways that life is very complex. Behe can characterize the blood clotting cascade in great detail and draw as many analogs as he likes between flagella and real machines, but in the end these are just detailed observations and descriptions. Life is complex. We get it.The state of ID research is the same this year as last year and the year before that and before that and before that, ad infinitum. This is because research cannot progress if no one is doing research. Statements like, "We cannot learn anything about the nature of the designer or how he worked," are as anti-science as one can get, not to mention the delicious irony of claiming both that the designer can't be studied scientifically and that one is doing research.The Templeton foundation funds work that brings insights into the relationship between science and religion, but they will no longer fund Discovery Institute projects because of its almost wholly political focus. Templeton doesn't want to fund yet another ID video for use in presentations to church groups and school boards, they want to fund research, something that the Discovery Institute doesn't really do. What the Discovery Institute really does is carry out an aggressive advertising campaign promoting the wonders of the research that they're not doing. Unfortunately for them, and as they learned to their regret in Dover, rank and file Christians hear "ID" and think "creationism". ID's popularity among evangelicals stems solely from its perceived value as a weapon in the war against evolution, and its lack of advocacy for a young earth and a global flood comes as a great surprise to them, if they ever even learn about it.The adoption of ID by the evangelical community represents an alliance based upon common goals, not common outlook. Just as our alliance with the Russians against Germany during WWII didn't make us communists, evangelicals alliance with ID against evolution doesn't make them IDists. The only difference is that we knew we weren't communists, while evangelicals don't really know what ID is, and so many of them can claim to accept ID even though they obviously don't.The Discovery Institute is aware that its senior fellows who define its views and guide its activities represent a religious elite whose views contrast sharply with rank and file evangelicals, and so in order to claim a significant constituency it is forced to obscure the fact that ID is a very different beast from the actual creationist beliefs of evangelicals. If ever there was an ivory tower lording it over the masses it is the Discovery Institute, they just have better PR than mainstream science. They carry on with what they see as scientific activities amongst themselves content in the knowledge that the hoi polloi will never comprehend what they're really advocating and will only understand pithy slogans like, "Teach the controversy." (To their credit, ICR's elite understands the Discovery Institute's elite very well and rejects their views.)--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add Title

I find it interestign that Fallen chooses to focus on the young Earth issues - which are a red herring - while ignoring clear evidence that "Of Pandas and People" simple relabelled "creation" as intelligent design. And it is fundamentally silly to say that Old Earth Creationists aren't creationists.This is the smoking gun. The definition of "intelligent design" in "Of Pandas and People" is This is pretty clearly a definition of creationism in the general sense - and it originally WAS a definition of "creation".There's a lot more from the Kitzmiller trial that could be considered. Behe's testimony for instance - both his argument that the definition of science should be broadened and his treatment of the evolution of the immune system are highly relevant to showing that ID is less than scientific.

I originally intended to also comment about Fallen's attempt to pick and choose among definitions, in fact among mere parts of definitions, in order to claim creationism and ID are different beasts, but I was already running long with my first couple points. Anyway, I agree with you.There is a clear difference in the reasons for rejecting evolution of those who truly understand and accept ID versus traditional creationists. If you take their statements at face value, IDist views seem to stem from awe and wonder at the marvelous complexity of life. Young Earth creationist views stem from a literal interpretation of Genesis, and they reject much of modern science, too. There's not much commonality outside rejection of evolution.But I don't take IDist views at face value. No matter what they say and probably sincerely believe about their own beliefs, underneath it all hides not just religion, but evangelical religion. Dembski is now at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who are they kidding?--Percy