Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 2:41 PM
46 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, xongsmith (6 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,554 Year: 3,591/19,786 Month: 586/1,087 Week: 176/212 Day: 18/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6675
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 256 of 294 (849035)
02-21-2019 5:21 PM


It's quite interesting how far creatists have come over the last couple of centuries.

When Darwin was working on the problem of how species arose the widespread belief was that species were immutable, that god created all the living things on earth as they are seen today; unchangeable and unchanging, his perfect creation.

Now even the most ardent YEC allows for divergence within what they call kinds from leaving the ark and the ID movement accepts evolution from simple to complex but claim that the development of species is directed by god.

It's an enormous volte-face that would have their Christian predecessors crying heresy and demanding burning at the stake.

They're being backed into a tight corner which is already pretty full of other flat earth, tin hat science deniers. As even more discoveries will be found, that corner is going to get even smaller and even wilder claims will be made. I'd love to be around in another 100 years to see what becomes of them.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3810
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(5)
Message 257 of 294 (849038)
02-21-2019 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by WookieeB
02-21-2019 4:18 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
That may be, but again, it is irrelevant. I don't have a census of all ID proponents, but I do know that there are a significant number that do not claim to be Christian. But even if the "vast" majority were, so what?
ID definitely has unique properties with implications that may apply to religion. But the reverse is not the case.

Oh, BS. Of course it is relevant. It has always been relevant. The only reason for IDs existence is for the religious purpose it serves.

Some of us know well ID’s history, its lineage. We watched creationism get its butt kicked out of every school curriculum in the USofA for being insistently non-science and insufferably forced religious indoctrination. We’ve seen the subterfuge creationists have engaged in ever since.

We watched as creationism tried to don a lab coat and a test tube just to have its new incarnation, creation science, rebuffed again at the schoolhouse door for being, yet again, non-science and obvious religious indoctrination.

Then came ID, a new mustache and glasses, “cdesign proponentsists” and the world watching as ID was bitch slapped all the way down the courthouse steps in the Dover case for being, as yet again, obvious anti-science and thinly disguised religious indoctrination designed solely for the purpose of brainwashing young children in our public schools into Christian religious servitude, a constitutional no-no.

It has been near 15 years since you bloodied your nose in Dover. This, now, is a further attempt to worm your way back into the schools by trying to give ID a new non-religious (wink-wink) identity with sciencey-sounding words and concepts that most of your adherents do not even comprehend.

Your subterfuge is laid bare. You have nothing to peddle here, charlatan.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by WookieeB, posted 02-21-2019 4:18 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by WookieeB, posted 02-22-2019 1:19 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 258 of 294 (849048)
02-22-2019 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by AZPaul3
02-21-2019 10:23 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
Tangle writes:

It's quite interesting how far creatists have come over the last couple of centuries....


AZPaul3 writes:

Some of us know well ID’s history, its lineage....

Conflation and Ad-Hominem. Nice way to avoid the science in a this-is-supposed-to-be-a-science-forum.

Tangle writes:

As even more discoveries will be found, that corner is going to get even smaller and even wilder claims will be made. I'd love to be around in another 100 years to see what becomes of them.


Love this because in reality it is applying much better to Dawinian explanations. It seems that new papers are coming out weekly that put another nail into the old evolutionary explanations and the ID paradigm is becoming stronger. No wonder that more and more scientists are publicly coming out as skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

AZPaul3 writes:

It has been near 15 years since you bloodied your nose in Dover. This, now, is a further attempt to worm your way back into the schools by trying to give ID a new non-religious (wink-wink) identity with sciencey-sounding words and concepts that most of your adherents do not even comprehend.

Dover is so overblown by evolutionists. It figures though, since the scientific support is fast waning, they have to rely on a federal judge giving a legal decision as their new science authority. Nevermind that his ruling is like +90% copied from an amicus brief provided to hiim by the ACLU. And ignoring reality seems to be the norm for evolutionists. Never mind that ID is stronger than ever now.

Please do elucidate. Where is the "further attempt to worm your way back into the schools" happening? As far as I know, the Discovery Institute publicly is against trying to teach ID in public schools.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by AZPaul3, posted 02-21-2019 10:23 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by JonF, posted 02-22-2019 2:55 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 261 by AZPaul3, posted 02-22-2019 4:45 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 262 by Tangle, posted 02-22-2019 6:19 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 272 by JonF, posted 02-24-2019 11:30 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1994
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 259 of 294 (849049)
02-22-2019 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by WookieeB
02-21-2019 3:17 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
If you are asking about how "Design would be detectable", it is a technique that is used in other scientific endeavors.

Can you describe how these techniques can be applied to living organisms? What specific techniques from other scientific endeavors would be used and how would they differentiate design by an undetectable agent and the appearance of design resulting from evolution?

Information theory has a big hand in it, but design detection is used in Archaeology, Forensics, Crytography, search endeavors like SETI, and in many historical sciences.

This seems overly broad and yet completely unspecific. Identifying artifacts made by humans seems to have little relationship to identifying organisms created by an undetectable agent.

It can produce some things very easily, but they are usually small changes that correspond to minor phenotypic traits, what is often referred to as micro-evolution.

Can you demonstrate that micro-evolution is a different process than evolution?

There are other features though that would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, for it to produce. Things that would be considered irreducibly complex would rarely, if ever, be able to be formed.

This assertion has not been demonstrated.

Things like new body plans and regulatory networks.

This is a total strawman argument. Can you show any examples of biologists claiming that evolution produces new body plans and regulatory networks?

What do you consider a new body plan?

What regulatory networks are you talking about?

Anything that require an measure of complex and specified information have never been demonstrated to be formed via a random process,

Can you describe anything that requires a "measure of complex and specified information"? Can you describe a measure of complex and specified information?

I would note that living organisms with or without a measure of complex and specified information have never been demonstrated to be formed via an undetectable intelligent agent.

but in all cases where we do have knowledge of the origins, it has always been by a mind, intelligence.

Where we have knowledge of the origin of artifacts, it has always turned out to have been man-made. It also turns out that humans are detectable.

M + NS are just not up to the task of producing such things.

An assertion without any supporting evidence. ID is a religious fantasy depending on an undetectable designer and magic. Grow up.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by WookieeB, posted 02-21-2019 3:17 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by WookieeB, posted 02-25-2019 12:32 AM Tanypteryx has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 260 of 294 (849050)
02-22-2019 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by WookieeB
02-22-2019 1:19 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
Conflation and Ad-Hominem. Nice way to avoid the science in a this-is-supposed-to-be-a-science-forum.

The history of any of the movement is relevant evidence.

It seems that new papers are coming out weekly that put another nail into the old evolutionary explanations and the ID paradigm is becoming stronger.

Name some of those papers.

(Just to point out that you can't).

No wonder that more and more scientists are publicly coming out as skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

No knowledgeable person has claimed that random mutation and natural selection alone account for the complexity of life in the last 50 years or so.

Nevermind that his ruling is like +90% copied from an amicus brief provided to hiim by the ACLU.

Which is common and accepted practice. But you don't have the facts right, of course. One 6,004 word section was, according to one analysis, 90.9%. copied from the brief. That's 17% copied in the 32,830 word ruling. According to another arguably more rigorous analysis the percentage copied was 48%. I can't dig that up right now, it'll take a day or two, IIRC Ellsberry had a very good discussion of issues with the 90.9% figure.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by WookieeB, posted 02-22-2019 1:19 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3810
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 261 of 294 (849051)
02-22-2019 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by WookieeB
02-22-2019 1:19 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
Conflation and Ad-Hominem. Nice way to avoid the science in a this-is-supposed-to-be-a-science-forum.

Whine all you want. Blow all the smoke, shake all the mirrors. There is no science to ID. There never was.

And this forum is here to show just that.

The most entrenched and desperate of fundamentalist Christians have to fight evolution because the facts of evolution expose the core beliefs of your catechism to be not just false but to be absurd.

For the last 150+- years creationists have had to invent the most ludicrous fantasies about energies, physics, geology, astronomy, humanity, in a constantly loosing effort to show life on this planet might maybe have been planned, artificial and designed by their god.

You have lost at every turn. Every invention from Paley's watch to Behe's irreducible complexity have dissolved in the face of the science.

Yes, your efforts here are an attempt to salvage what little may be left of a creationist following dedicated to resurrecting a religious supremacy that you all lost almost a century ago.

It's been a long time since you creationists were so publicly shown to be lying in open court about your means, your methods and your goals. I'm sure the hope is that with this new generation of kids all that history has been forgotten and now may be a good time to infest their young minds with your religious poison.

The new wrinkle this time is to hold your deity at arms length from the processes so as to not offend the court too directly.

Not a Quote:

See! Here is our 'creation pseudoscience' showing that the diversity of life on this planet, if you squint just right, was designed and made specifically by some undefined supernatural deity who has not been identified as the one true christian god, the one and only supreme being who made everything in the universe but is still unidentified and therefore not any part of the philosophy presented ...none whatsoever ... nope.

Pay no attention to the god behind the curtain.

The only value your philosophy has left to offer is as some comedic relief for a bored forum, which is all we can hope for given the degenerate nature of the creationist efforts these past few decades.

So, please, do show us your "science" again, blow that smoke again, rattle those mirrors again, misrepresent again, misunderstand again, just outright lie again, so we can destroy it all with real science again and have a fun time on the internet.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by WookieeB, posted 02-22-2019 1:19 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by ringo, posted 02-23-2019 10:49 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6675
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 262 of 294 (849053)
02-22-2019 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by WookieeB
02-22-2019 1:19 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
Wookie8 writes:

Conflation and Ad-Hominem. Nice way to avoid the science in a this-is-supposed-to-be-a-science-forum.

So no attempt to take on the points made then? Creationists accept that life is no longer immutable and evolution happens. Heresy!

Love this because in reality it is applying much better to Dawinian explanations. It seems that new papers are coming out weekly that put another nail into the old evolutionary explanations and the ID paradigm is becoming stronger.

ID was stillborn years ago. I remember being really excited about it but when I went to study it, it fell apart almost immediately. Just more religiously motivated nonsense - stronger? It's been dead for years.

As for Darwinian explanations, it seems that creationists are keener on them than scientists. He was 150 years ago, before the discovery of the gene. I suppose it's something about their desire to find absolute truth in an ancient book. Science isn't like that Wookie - it moves on. We know there's more to evolution that Darwin could possibly imagine. We also know that it doesn't require an invisible, enevidenced and unnecessary intervention to work.

No wonder that more and more scientists are publicly coming out as skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

Who do you think you're fooling? Is it yourself?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by WookieeB, posted 02-22-2019 1:19 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-22-2019 10:04 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(1)
Message 263 of 294 (849055)
02-22-2019 6:39 PM


I see not much has changed
Hey all! Long time no speak! Thought I would drop in and see how the debate has been moving along. I see that the arguments for ID have still not moved from where they were 6 years ago.

Wookie was asking for an example of poor design, so I would guess I need to point out the Giraffe Weekend: The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve


The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov

If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a persons body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson

What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams


Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by AZPaul3, posted 02-22-2019 7:02 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has responded
 Message 266 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2019 3:11 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not yet responded
 Message 270 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2019 1:37 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not yet responded
 Message 284 by WookieeB, posted 02-25-2019 4:52 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3810
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(4)
Message 264 of 294 (849056)
02-22-2019 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
02-22-2019 6:39 PM


Re: I see not much has changed
Welcome back, Chicken.

You gotta lotta nerve posting that giraffe thing.

Yep.

A lot of nerve. Up and down.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Sorry. Welcome back anyway.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-22-2019 6:39 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-25-2019 5:21 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1994
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 265 of 294 (849060)
02-22-2019 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Tangle
02-22-2019 6:19 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
Tangle writes:

WookieeB writes:

No wonder that more and more scientists are publicly coming out as skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

Who do you think you're fooling? Is it yourself?

At first, I read it as "No wonder that more and more scientists are publicly coming out as skeptical of claims for ONLY random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

Considering all the components we now know can operate within the process of evolution, pretty much every scientist I know acknowledges my quote above.

It is quite extraordinary that these guys keep making claims like this as if there is some huge groundswell of scientists who have become convinced by the ID argument. In my life I have only encountered one scientist who suddenly became a proponent of ID, but he refuses to discuss it so his colleagues who I know are all puzzled what happened. The most bizarre part, to me, is he's a paleontologist.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Tangle, posted 02-22-2019 6:19 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6675
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 266 of 294 (849063)
02-23-2019 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
02-22-2019 6:39 PM


Re: I see not much has changed
Chicken writes:

Wookie was asking for an example of poor design, so I would guess I need to point out the Giraffe Weekend: The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve

I would also offer the pancreatic cancer which is currently killing my brother-in-law. The only respect that that could be considered good design is if the designer was a psychpathic torturer - in which case it's exquisite.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-22-2019 6:39 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(3)
Message 267 of 294 (849064)
02-23-2019 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by WookieeB
02-21-2019 3:17 PM


problems with detecting design
Thanks WookieeB,

Please see Is ID properly pursued? -- an old thread but still valid methinks.

Yes, an old thread. From the OP, I can say there are some parts that I agree with, but I also was finding some things that are badly mis-characterized. On the whole, unfortunately, since I was finding many of the axioms put forward are not true, it ends up being a flawed argument.

And yet neither you nor anyone else on that thread actually identifies any mis-characterising or axioms that are not true. It is facile to make a criticism without substantiating it. I'd be happy to discuss it further on that thread if you actually have an argument.

If you are asking about how "Design would be detectable", it is a technique that is used in other scientific endeavors. Information theory has a big hand in it, but design detection is used in Archaeology, Forensics, Crytography, search endeavors like SETI, and in many historical sciences.

Where we have known examples of things created by humans to compare them to. We have no examples of anything created by an IDr to use for comparisons. Appealing to information theory has other problems, such as definition of information and ways to actually measure it.

If you are asking about what Standard evolutionary theory can produce? It can produce some things very easily, but they are usually small changes that correspond to minor phenotypic traits, what is often referred to as micro-evolution. This is demonstrable, has an empirical justification, and ID doesnt dispute this kind of natural change.

And yet "microevolution" is the only mechanism of change used in the study of biology and evolution. I can walk across the room and I can walk from Maine to California: one is micro-trekking the other is macro trekking, but the process - putting one foot after the other, even if it is not on a direct path - is the same. This is demonstrable, has an empirical justification, and doesn't need ID to accomplish or justify it.

There are other features though that would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, for it to produce. Things that would be considered irreducibly complex would rarely, if ever, be able to be formed. ...

And yet we have evidence of evolution producing such systems. Not one such system proposed by IDolgists has stood up to testing. See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for an example where a purported irreducibly complex function evolved.

... Things like new body plans ...

Please define what you mean by a "new body plan" so that we may discuss this further and be on the same page.

As far as I can see all quadrupeds have the same body plan with modification via microevolution, and we can see it's origin in Tiktaalik. This does not seem to be a real problem for evolution for the development of diversity in the biological world.

... and regulatory networks. ...

Again, please define what you mean by a "(new) regulatory network so that we can discuss this further and be on the same page.

Similar argument that this is not a problem for evolution. Perhaps you can elucidate more what you mean?

... Anything that require an measure of complex and specified information ...

SO how do you actually measure that, something you obviously need to be able to do in order to make this assertion anything more than an empty claim: what is your metric?

... have never been demonstrated to be formed via a random process, ...

Nothing in the known biological world has been demonstrated to be incapable of being formed via evolution. Perhaps you have an example?

... but in all cases where we do have knowledge of the origins, it has always been by a mind, intelligence. M + NS are just not up to the task of producing such things.

A bland assertion. Can you provide and example of an instance where evolution is not up to the task?

The BIG problem for ID is nested hierarchies:

Why do modified features in the evolution of species fall into nested hierarchies if design is involved? As a designer myself I can say that design elements are frequently borrowed from one system to another, which would show up in cross-fertilization from one line of descent to another and not in nested hierarchies.

For instance the eye. Mammal eyes use a lens that can be flexed to change the focal length to make images focus on a fixed retina. The Cephalopod eyes use a fixed lens and a flexible eye/retina to change the position of the retina to put images in focus. A design eye could combine these two mechanisms to make a zoom lens eye that could see microscopic items (bacteria) and telescopic items (planets) with equal clarity, but such an eye does not exist in any biological species known.

There is no known evidence of borrowed features.

Instead of borrowed features, what we see is convergent evolution: the flying squirrel and the sugar-glider for one of many examples.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added

Edited by RAZD, : clarity


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by WookieeB, posted 02-21-2019 3:17 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by WookieeB, posted 02-26-2019 5:33 PM RAZD has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16231
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 268 of 294 (849065)
02-23-2019 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by AZPaul3
02-22-2019 4:45 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
AZPaul3 writes:

The new wrinkle this time is to hold your deity at arms length from the processes so as to not offend the court too directly.


I wonder if their insecure God is offended by their denial of Him.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by AZPaul3, posted 02-22-2019 4:45 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by AZPaul3, posted 02-23-2019 11:33 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3810
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 269 of 294 (849066)
02-23-2019 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by ringo
02-23-2019 10:49 AM


Re: Older never responded to message
So, they fear the court more than they fear their god?

Interesting.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by ringo, posted 02-23-2019 10:49 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by dwise1, posted 02-23-2019 1:48 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 270 of 294 (849074)
02-23-2019 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
02-22-2019 6:39 PM


Re: I see not much has changed
I would nominate the liver and lung cancer that is causing the 2 year old daughter of a friend to have to receive chemotherapy. She will probably die in the next couple months. It will a long lingering death as the doctors do what they can to defeat the cancer.
What would I say to the "Intelligent Designer"?
Fuck you, I will fight you with every fiber of my being.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-22-2019 6:39 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019