In his book "Signature in the Cell" Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:
First, by any reasonable definition of the term, intelligent design is not "religion".- page 441 under the heading Not Religion
He goes on say pretty much the same thing I hve been saying for years- ID doesn't say anything about worship- nothing about who, how, why, when, where to worship- nothing about any service- nothing about any faith nor beliefs except the belief we (humans) can properly assess evidence and data and properly process information. After all the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
OK so that takes care of Dembski and Meyer- that is two for me and zero for the lying evotards.
It's not like they'd like to try and sneak it through the court and into schools, is it?
ReplyDeleteIts not like there a wedge document of 'find and replace' of creation to intelligent design in 'Of Pandas and people'.
You're either dishonest, stupidly naive or both.
No RichTard- you are dishonest and stupidly naive.
ReplyDeleteNo one is trying to sneak anything anywhere- you are dishonest and stupidly naive.
Wedge Document- So What?-
Yup add conspiracy theorist nut-job to RichTard's resume.
So why is it that RichTard thinks his false accusations and ignorant spewage are meaningful discussion?
Why is it that richTard NEVER supports any of his bullshit? Nevermind the answer is in the question- RichTard's bullshit can't be supported.
As for "Of Panda's and People" strange how the judge wouldn't allow the publisher to defend its book.
That is the only way you freak s can "win"- redefine things as you go and don't allow anyone to speak up in their defense and those that manage to speak up will just be ignored.
Fuck you you little crybaby.
And BTW if you asstards could just produce positive evidence for your position you wouldn't have to worry about ID.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you weren't trying to indoctrinate kids to atheism you wouldn't have any worries at all.
Any evidoence we provide, you respond taht its ether also alowwed by baraminology or ID. No amount of actual science and experimentation, like Lenskis work (please note - ID has no experiments, no labs) can get through to you.
ReplyDeleteAnd the 'wedge document - so what' mitagates nothing. They're a bunch of theocrats pushing a bad agenda, and you're onboard the tard train.
Hmmm...
ReplyDeletehttp://ncse.com/creationism/general/evolving-banners-at-discovery-institute
RichTardGasm:
ReplyDeleteAny evidoence we provide, you respond taht its ether also alowwed by baraminology or ID.
Your ignorance of ID and baraminology isn't a refutation.
Every time I try to explain what is being debated you always ignore it. Every time I explain what ID is you always ignore it.
And taken together that means you are ignorant of the debate and ID. Also it appears you are scientifically illiterate.
RichTardGasm:
No amount of actual science and experimentation, like Lenskis work (please note - ID has no experiments, no labs) can get through to you.
Unfortunately for you ALL of it gets through and none if it supports your position's claims.
It has all been addressed and placed in its proper place.
RichTardGasm:
And the 'wedge document - so what' mitagates nothing.
Not to an evotard, anyway.
So again with the substance-free accusations Rich- ID must be getting to you in a big way- Cool
RichTard links to known nazi thought police?
ReplyDeleteYeah, that helps...
Discovery Institute and ID FAQ
ReplyDelete"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
ReplyDelete"Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God "
QED. They (and you) can now lie all they want, the cat's out of the bag.
They were explicit. VERY clear indeed.
"RichTard links to known nazi thought police?"
ReplyDeleteDid they make that logo of God touching things, or did the DI. who was it?
NCSE-
ReplyDeleteNazi Center for Spewing Evolution
Nazi Center for Stifling Education
Nobody Cares for Students' Education
National Center for Shitting on Education
I bet the NCSE was all on board with the "living organisms in meteorites" until PZ Myers let the cat out of the bag.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteDid they make that logo of God touching things, or did the DI.
It's just a cool picture. And how do you know it is a picture of God? Just because someone sed it was?
"It's just a cool picture. And how do you know it is a picture of God? Just because someone sed it was?"
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Creation_of_Adam
*BITCHSLAP*
And yes RichTard, I understand your paranoia and your conspiracy theory mentality.
ReplyDeleteCut and pasting stuff doesn't help you. I can do the same from teh document you ignore.
"It's just a cool picture. And how do you know it is a picture of God? Just because someone sed it was?"
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Creation_of_Adam
I KNOW what the picture is you retard. But you just proved my point and you don't even understand why.
Let's get this straight:
ReplyDeleteYou ask
"It's just a cool picture. And how do you know it is a picture of God? Just because someone sed it was?"
I clearly show you IT is God, in fact its god going about creating man, in one of the best known pieces of art anywhere.
then you say "Cut and pasting stuff doesn't help you. I can do the same from teh document you ignore."
WTF? You ask me to show that it's god and I do.
Have another *BITCHSLAP* for being so dense.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteI clearly show you IT is God,...
No RichTard- someone just sed it was a picture of God.
You know soemthing else- the painter was not present when God created Adam- but don't let the facts get in the way of your stupidity.
I know its a picture of God, Joe, because the work is called "The Creation of Adam", it comes from a church, it's number 4 in a series of works showing bilblical genesis and it was comissioned in 1508 by Pope Julius II.
ReplyDeleteWorst red herring ever, pathic even by your standards. The DI used a well know picture of god creating something in their logo. Fact.
ReplyDeleteYea, I'm with Rich, they were very clear in the Wedge Strategy when they said, "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" and "Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
ReplyDeleteMajor Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God "
I didn't see any explanation for these points Joe. You, just like the Discovery Institute, seem to have missed clarifying them for us.
I look forward to your response.
~Atomic Chimp
Yet when Moses saw God God was a burning bush.
ReplyDeleteDoes the picture depict a burning bush?
So RichTard just accepts someone's say-so that it is a picture of God.
Science Richtard- if we are the Creation of God then it is science anyway.
Hi Atomic Chimp-
ReplyDeleteI provided a link to the DI's explanation of the wedge document. Read it.
And if the materialistic position is as wrong as it appears then it needs to be thrown out.
Deal with it. Atheism sucks, grow out of it...
Sometimes a child (like yourself) will doodle with crayons. One can ask "what is that?" and the child will tell you what it's a picture of. You would not know otherwise. Pictures are representations of things, they may or may not be accurate of recognisable, but they are still pictures of things. And the artist knows.
ReplyDelete"Atheism sucks, grow out of it..."
ReplyDeleteHey design theorist - your religion is showing. Might want to tuck that in.
So now "atheism sucks" is a religion?
ReplyDeleteYou are totally clueless.
RichTardGasm nomination of the year:
ReplyDeleteSometimes a child (like yourself) will doodle with crayons. One can ask "what is that?" and the child will tell you what it's a picture of. You would not know otherwise. Pictures are representations of things, they may or may not be accurate of recognisable, but they are still pictures of things. And the artist knows.
As I said- someone's say-so.
You don't need to keep making my point.
You are aware that pictures can be abstract representations, aren't you?
ReplyDeletethey're not photographs.
*bitchslap*
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteYou are aware that pictures can be abstract representations, aren't you?
As I said- someone's say-so
But it is all moot for the reason provided.
Again:
ReplyDeleteRich Hughes said...
I know its a picture of God, Joe, because the work is called "The Creation of Adam", it comes from a church, it's number 4 in a series of works showing bilblical genesis and it was comissioned in 1508 by Pope Julius II.
2:32 PM
Rich Hughes said...
Worst red herring ever, pathic even by your standards. The DI used a well know picture of god creating something in their logo. Fact.
By 'Moot' you must mean facts you don't like.
*Bitchslap*
Again, what?
ReplyDeleteAgain you don't understand that all you have is someone's say-so?
Do you not realize that most people know that is NOT a picture of God?
Science Richtard- if we are the Creation of God then it is science anyway.
So RichTard "knows" it's a picture of God 'cause someone sed-so.
ReplyDeleteThen RichTard "knows" it is a well known picture of God- again 'cause someone sed-do.
And all that confirms what I said in the first place.
I just drew a picture of you sucking blipey and swallowing.
ReplyDeleteIt must be real and depict a real-life scenario- after all I have the drawing....
"Do you not realize that most people know that is NOT a picture of God?"
ReplyDeleteProve it. You are so full of shit it's incredible.
http://www.brooklyn-art.com/product.php?productid=16217
AGAIN:
ReplyDeleteI know its a picture of God, Joe, because the work is called "The Creation of Adam", it comes from a church, it's number 4 in a series of works showing bilblical genesis and it was comissioned in 1508 by Pope Julius II.
*Bitchslap*
Prove it?
ReplyDeleteI told you you ignorant fuck- the artist was not present when Adam was Created and never saw God Creating Adam.
No one on this planet thinks God looks like that- No one.
Well maybe you but you are nothing.
AGAIN- BECAUSE SOMEONE SED SO.
ReplyDeleteYet no one has seen God so no one can paint God.
"Yet no one has seen God so no one can paint God."
ReplyDeleteYou are so unbelievably dense.
Do you know what 'abstract' means?
Also, I'd like to know how you KNOW "Yet no one has seen God"
ReplyDelete"It must be real and depict a real-life scenario- after all I have the drawing...."
ReplyDeleteYou are so stupid. The characters and events can be real or fictional, but people still now the characters and events. And the picture is the creation of Adam (by god).
*Bitchslap*
Joe:
ReplyDeleteNo one on this planet thinks God looks like that- No one.
Well maybe you but you are nothing.
Rich:
You are aware that pictures can be abstract representations, aren't you?
they're not photographs.
*bitchslap*
Science Richtard- if we are the Creation of God then it is science anyway.
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
ReplyDeleteYou are aware that pictures can be abstract representations, aren't you?
Right and that means it is just someone's say-so, just as I have been saying.
Thank you.
"Right and that means it is just someone's say-so, just as I have been saying."
ReplyDeleteHmmm - so let's go with this line of 'reasoning'. A car is a car because the inventor called it a car. But this is just someone' say-so, I might not be driving a car at all.
You are one disingenuous prick.
Joe - what is this a picture of:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.johnleestudio.com/artforums/111306_falltree.jpg
?
RichTad:
ReplyDeleteA car is a car because the inventor called it a car.
Citation please.
The painting is first and foremost a WORK OF ART and a damn good one too.
The sheer size and scope of the project has been unmatched.
A WORK OF ART-
So who is being the disingenuous prick?
If, having never seen it, someone pointed me to this and asked what that is a picture of, The Creation of Adam by God, wouldn't be my answer.
ReplyDeleteAnd when I first saw it, decades ago, I knew it was a religious painting but thought it was Abraham and Isaac.
"..thought it was Abraham and Isaac."
ReplyDeleteSo you have a bearded flying dude surrounded by angels touching a naked (before he knew it was wrong) man in a garden.
Abraham and Issac.
And you're a design detective, you say? Hmmmmmm.
what does the work of art represent Joe? (this work of art is a picture) . You claim "Do you not realize that most people know that is NOT a picture of God?"
ReplyDeleteBaseless. In my experience, Everyone I've ever discussed this with knew it was Adam and God, apart from you (and Jim) and your honesty problems.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteSo you have a bearded flying dude surrounded by angels touching a naked (before he knew it was wrong) man in a garden.
A bearded MAN wearing clothes-What angels? and it does not look like he is touching the naked man.
And I was 7 years old at the time.
And even at 7 I knew God was not a man. Yup that is pretty good design detection work.
RichTard:
ReplyDeletewhat does the work of art represent Joe?
What does it matter? It is still just a work of art.
Just because you and the nazi thought police at the NCSE can be disingenuous pricks that does't impress me.
RichTard:
In my experience,
Your experience means hit.
If you showedthat picture t someone who has nver seen nor heard of it they would not say it is God, angels and Adam.
The only people who will say what it is are the people who have already been told.
And that means someone's say-so, just as I have been saying.
Hi Joe,
ReplyDeleteI already have read the document you linked to. I can see they try to deal with many things they mentioned in the Wedge Strategy. Though I don't think they have truly justified those points, I let them slide.
What I found odd about the DI is that the two points Rich mentioned did not get the close examination as other points in the 'Wedge'. As a matter of fact, I could not find anywhere where they directly dealt with those comments. Since both are very telling as to the intent of the strategy, I find it strange they did not try to diffuse any misunderstanding one might be drawing from them, such as a very obvious religious goal.
Joe, I see the document you linked to no different than the DI method of trying to punch holes in ToE. You might be able to give their individual excuses and explanations about the fine details of the matter some thought & consideration, but when you look at all the evidence together, it is very obvious what conclusions should be drawn. ToE is well Supported and the DI is driven by religion & ID is just a modern creationism. It reveals the fact that DI is only crow baring gaps in knowledge and muscle in religious views. Discovery institutes input to science only server to obfuscate the public understanding of the evidence supporting ToE and privation of evidence for ID.
If look forward to hearing your opinion on this. Thanks!
~Atomic Chimp
Atomic Chimp:
ReplyDeleteToE is well Supported
By what? I hear that quite a bit yet when push comes to shove I get nothing but crickets.
So here is your chance- produce a testable hypothesis or hypotheses along with supporting evidence and we will see how well supported it is.
My prediction is you won't do as I requested...
Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.
ReplyDeletePhase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.
Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.
SOLID SCHOLARSHIP RESEARCH AND ARGUMENT
Not quite what one would expect from a religion.
"If you showed that picture t "someone who has never seen nor heard of it they would not say it is God, angels and Adam."
ReplyDeleteNo - most people get it. Sorry you're a little different/slow.
It is one of the most celebrated and well known depictions of god creating man. So why would the DI use it in their logo?
As a 'design detective', what are the odds of them using it but not being religiously motivated?
10 most famous paintings:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.touropia.com/most-famous-paintings/
"If you showed that picture t "someone who has never seen nor heard of it they would not say it is God, angels and Adam."
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
No - most people get it
No, they don't. I have already started the test and so far the only people who knew what it was a picture of already seen it and were told what it was a picture of.
The people who have never seen it didn't say "God and Adam".
RichTard:
So why would the DI use it in their logo?
Because it is a celebrated work of art.
I bet if someone sed the Mona Lisa was a painting of Mary, you would believe them.
ReplyDeleteScience Richtard- if we are the Creation of God then it is science anyway.
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeleteArt often has a language or sort of code to it. Depending on the purpose of the art, its language can be sometimes be very obvious and well known.
The language of Christian art is one of those that has very obvious application of symbols and such. A bearded man in a robe, being on a cloud, cherubs are all very obvious Christian Symbols used in art of a particular period. If you were brought up as a Christian, you are exposed to these images and symbols in their classic and modern application. Even if you aren't you still are exposed to it through commercial and entertainment application using or borrowing them to communicate ideas already attached to them.
With that in mind, your claim that the DI did not intended to apply the symbol of god creating Adam to ID is incorrect. Though I'm sure there are people who would not connect god and Adam with the image, does not matter. Most people are well aware of the symbols, style and application of this period art and even this particular piece and would.
The fact that the DI representatives are more than well enough educated and also Christian, you cannot deny that they were well aware of the implication of the image and how its message resembles the ID claims.
As I mentioned before, its not one particular detail that shows the DI's religious motivations and goals, its how glaringly obvious all of them together make it.
~Atomic Chimp
"Because it is a celebrated work of art."
ReplyDeleteReally? Let's look at the context:
http://ncse.com/files/images/CRSC-logo-dna.jpg.jpg
In this logo, they have god (from the creation of Adam) touching the double helix that is DNA (the implication being creating it).
What are the odds of that happening by chance, design detective?
Having you in a courtroom would be more fun that midget wresting.
"SOLID SCHOLARSHIP RESEARCH AND ARGUMENT
ReplyDeleteNot quite what one would expect from a religion."
Saying and doing are two different things. ICR and other Christian organizations claim they are doing just that.
Also, you still have not explain why they skated around trying to explain some very obvious signs of religious goals in the Wedge that Rich and I mentioned.
You can't say you'll practice real science and research but then in your next breath you start to reveal your religious bias in your goals, and expect people to not see that its religion not science you want to promote.
Instead of skating around it like them, please expalin the context of the points mentioned.
~Atomic Chimp
John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:
ReplyDelete"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteIn this logo, they have god (from the creation of Adam) touching the double helix that is DNA (the implication being creating it).
Some bearded dude pointing to DNA.
Science Richtard- if we are the Creation of God then it is science anyway.
Richtard:
Having you in a courtroom would be more fun that midget wresting.
Except evotads would be the midgets, wrestling, squirming and shitting themselves.
If I am ever involved in an ID court case you bet your ass the anti-IDists are going to face some serious questioning that ill expose their position as the bullshit it is.
By the time they get to me the point will be moot.
Atomic Chimp:
ReplyDeleteYou can't say you'll practice real science and research but then in your next breath you start to reveal your religious bias in your goals, and expect people to not see that its religion not science you want to promote.
Said the materialistic atheist.
Science Atomic Chimp- if we are the Creation of God then it is science anyway.
Also I take it you aren't going to produce that testable hypothesis.
Another one bites the dust...
1. What is Discovery Institute?
ReplyDeleteClick here for video
Founded in 1990, the Institute is a national, non-profit, non-partisan policy and research organization, headquartered in Seattle, WA. It has programs on a variety of issues, including regional transportation development, economics and technology policy, legal reform, and bioethics. The Institute's founder and president is Bruce Chapman, who has a long history in public policy at both the national and regional levels. Mr. Chapman is a former director of the United States Census Bureau, and a past American ambassador to the United Nations Organizations in Vienna, Austria. Mr. Chapman has also served as a member of the Seattle City Council and as Washington State's Secretary of State.
2. What is the Center for Science and Culture?
Click here for video
The Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program that supports the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design, as well as advocating public policies that encourage schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution. Discovery's Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities. The Center's Director is Dr. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University.
3. Is Discovery Institute a religious organization?
Click here for video
Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. In fact, it sponsored a program for several years for college students to teach them the importance of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.
Seeing that Intelligent Design does NOT say anything about who, what, where, when, why nor how to worship, and it says nothing about giving service, how the fuck can anyone say Intelligent Design = religion?
ReplyDeleteWhat is your retarded and twisted definition of religion?
"If I am ever involved in an ID court case you bet your ass the anti-IDists are going to face some serious questioning that ill expose their position as the bullshit it is."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you waiting for? Pussy!
oh - right - no school will listen to the local crackpot.
"Discovery Institute is a secular think tank"
ReplyDelete...
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
"Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God "
They're about as honest as you (and Jim!)
"If I am ever involved in an ID court case you bet your ass the anti-IDists are going to face some serious questioning that ill expose their position as the bullshit it is."
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
What are you waiting for?
Are you really that ignorant? I have to wait for a Court case you moron- one that involves me.
RichTardGasm:
ReplyDeleteThey're about as honest as you
Cried the admitted liar.
LoL!!!!
I can admit mistakes Joe, which is something you can't, which is why this thread is such funny reading.
ReplyDelete"Are you really that ignorant? I have to wait for a Court case you moron- one that involves me."
ReplyDeleteYou're not very good are you? No school taking you up on your kind offer?
I am still waiting for some atheistic nut-job to try to stop my Intelligent Design Awareness Day.
ReplyDeleteIt's not my fault they are chicken-shit cowards- or perhaps they realize they don't have a case...
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteI can admit mistakes Joe,
I have only seen you admit to a lie- a lie isn't a "mistake". Fuck your whole position is a mistake- when will admit to that?
Richtard,
ReplyDeleteThe DI is almost finished with a dream machine- a machine that allows them to read Bible werses into everyone's dreams.
The hour is nigh! Don't sleep Richtard- they will get you too (although it only works on people with a brain so you should be spared).
"The DI is almost finished with a dream machine- a machine that allows them to read Bible werses into everyone's dreams."
ReplyDeleteThat woudl envolve science and experimentation Joe - something beyond both them and you. So I can still sleep soundly.
"I am still waiting for some atheistic nut-job to try to stop my Intelligent Design Awareness Day."
Let us know when and where it is, Joe, and you can have your day in court!
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteThat woudl envolve science and experimentation Joe -
Which is something we have and you don't. If you had it Intelligent Design wouldn't exit- but instead of fighting ID with science you have to drool and stroke yourself.
RichTard:
Let us know when and where it is, Joe, and you can have your day in court!
Let me know when you move to my district and have kids in school there. Outsiders are not welcome.
So when is the NCSE going to admit is represents the Nazi thought police of atheism?
ReplyDelete"Which is something we have and you don't. " - Ah yes, Lenski, the great IDist.
ReplyDeleteCan you name 3 ID experiments?
"Let me know when you move to my district and have kids in school there. Outsiders are not welcome."
Chickenshit. You don't speak for your village - the idiots never do. Come on big boy, you can "feel like a hero again".
"So when is the NCSE going to admit is represents the Nazi thought police of atheism?"
ReplyDeleteIt's in our wodge document.
Joe,
ReplyDelete"I am still waiting for some atheistic nut-job to try to stop my Intelligent Design Awareness Day."
You can't stop what does not exist.
When and where are you hosting this?
Prove it exists. Prove it happens.
Richtard:
ReplyDeleteIt's in our wodge document
I'll have to take your word for it. I take it that won't be admissible in Court.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteAh yes, Lenski, the great IDist.
What did Lenski do? You are such a freak that you are clueless.
You think your ignorance means something and that is funny.
As for your charge of chickenshit, well seeing that you have proven to be nothing but a liar and intellectual coward, your spewage is meaningless.
OM,
ReplyDeleteI think it is funny that you think I have to prove anything to you.
Just keep telling yourself "It doesn't exist- it doesn't exist- it doesn't exist- someday I will find positive evidence for my anti-ID position- someday I will find positive evidence...."
BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAA
And if Lenski's experiments are any indication then baraminology is a safe and sound biological model.
ReplyDeleteIs that what you wanted to say Rich?
"And if Lenski's experiments are any indication then baraminology is a safe and sound biological model.
ReplyDeleteIs that what you wanted to say Rich?"
Baraminology sure does 'borrow' a lot from real science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology
Just like you and Jim borrow each other's exact phrases and types.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteBaraminology sure does 'borrow' a lot from real science
Baraminology is real science. Also Linneaus was looking for the Created Kinds when he came up with binomial nomenclature. IOW evolutionists "borrowed" that from Creationists- and they also "borrowed" Mendelian genetics and natural selection.
And if Lenski's work is any indication baraminology is a safe and sound biological model.
RichTard:
Just like you and Jim borrow each other's exact phrases and types.
As you have already been told- that is by design.
Again your willful ignorance is exposed.
BTW RichTard- not that we haven't been over and over this already:
ReplyDeleteWikipedia openly admits that Wikipedia is not considered a credible source.
"Baraminology is real science"
ReplyDelete[CRS Link]
"CRS Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior."
Clearly you can't tell science from religion, and actually support religious indoctrination Joe. It's a repeated trend for you.
Feel free to click through wikipedia links to the source material then, Joe. ;-)
ReplyDeleteRichTard-
ReplyDelete1- I was just linking to an authorative site on baraminology
2- Science Richtard- if we are the Creation of God then it is science anyway.
3- And if Lenski's work is any indication baraminology is a safe and sound biological model.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteFeel free to click through wikipedia links to the source material then, Joe
I linked to the source material. ;)
"1- I was just linking to an authorative site on baraminology"
ReplyDeleteJust as there are authorative sites on Ufo-ology, Tarrot, Astrology, etc.
"2- Science Richtard- if we are the Creation of God then it is science anyway."
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html
"3- And if Lenski's work is any indication baraminology is a safe and sound biological model,"
Only the part that subsumes evolutionary theory. ;-)
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteClearly you can't tell science from religion, and actually support religious indoctrination Joe.
Whined the materialistic atheist who is also a proven liar and intellectual coward.
Same scene, different tard.
"I linked to the source material. ;)"
ReplyDeleteSo ICR has a monopoly on Baraminology, then?
"1- I was just linking to an authorative site on baraminology"
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
Just as there are authorative sites on Ufo-ology, Tarrot, Astrology, etc.
Except my link was one referenced in your wiki reference you moron.
"2- Science Richtard- if we are the Creation of God then it is science anyway."
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html
Your bald links mean nothing- make your case. BTW even Richard Dawkins agrees with me
"3- And if Lenski's work is any indication baraminology is a safe and sound biological model,"
RichTard:
Only the part that subsumes evolutionary theory
Only if there isn't any difference between baraminology and evolutionary theory.
"Whined the materialistic atheist who is also a proven liar and intellectual coward."
ReplyDeleteoooh, isn't someone a cultue warrior! Meeeeoooow! You'll be asking for fisticuffs again soon, isn't that your MO?
You christain/ muslim soldier/fridge repairman/tick studier who is a cripple that can bench 300lbs, takes DCA and feels like a hero. Ps - Jim isn't Joe, despite turning up just after Joe got banninated and using the exact same phrases.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteSo ICR has a monopoly on Baraminology, then?
The paper is just on their website. That doesn't mean they have a monopoly.
"Except my link was one (of several) referenced in your wiki reference you moron."
ReplyDeleteFixed that for you.
"Your bald links mean nothing" Not if you can read Englsih and are capabable of moderate levels of thought. But I'll accept they mean nothing to you.
"Only if there isn't any difference between baraminology and evolutionary theory."
I think they disgaree on biological origins, age of the earth, etc etc. But the bit of Barmaninology that subsumes evolutionary theory gets to be right in this case, because evolution is right.
RichTardGasm:
ReplyDeleteYou christain/ muslim soldier/fridge repairman/tick studier who is a cripple that can bench 300lbs, takes DCA and feels like a hero. Ps - Jim isn't Joe, despite turning up just after Joe got banninated and using the exact same phrases.
Yes I can bench 300 lbs, but the rest is all a lie.
It seems you have serious issues RichTard...
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteI think they disgaree on biological origins
The theory of evolution is silent on origins.
RichTard:
age of the earth,
The theory of evolution REQUIRES eons of time.
RichTard:
But the bit of Barmaninology that subsumes evolutionary theory gets to be right in this case, because evolution is right.
Yes I understand that you are an equivocating coward Rich. That doesn't impress me at all.
No I just like stringing internet cranks along for 100 posts.
ReplyDeleteSo how did you and "Jim" meet then? Is he local?
"The theory of evolution is silent on origins."
ReplyDeleteSo it doesn't talk about common ancestry then?
No RichTard- you are a screamer- you sit at your computer jerking off to these 100 comment threads you create.
ReplyDelete"The theory of evolution is silent on origins."
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
So it doesn't talk about common ancestry then?
The theory of evolution is silent on ORIGINS- common ancestry does not equal ORIGINS.
So to be clear - a common ancestor wouldn't be an origin for evolutionary diversity?
ReplyDeleteRich:
ReplyDeleteSo to be clear - a common ancestor wouldn't be an origin for evolutionary diversity?
The theory of evolution starts with some number of populations already in place. And that means it does not speak of "biological origins"- ie the origin of those unknown populations, aka abiogenesis.
But yes baraminology and the ToE disagree on the starting points of the diversity.
I have been over and over that already.
Baraminology can support theor points of origin whereas your position cannot.
"Baraminology can support theor points of origin"
ReplyDeleteHow? through scripture?
Through continued observations, experiences and experimentation.
ReplyDeleteWhat experiments are baraminolgists doing? How many critters can you fit in a wooden boat?
ReplyDeleteEven the experiments evolutionists are conducting support baraminology- that is the point.
ReplyDeleteAh, so baraminology is an intellectual parasite. Much like ID.
ReplyDeleteDo you base all of your conclusions on wild assumptions?
ReplyDeleteIf you feel the need to define me with a label, though I don't feel people can be nailed down to one simple group of though, I might suggest rationalist would be the best.
Joe I see your replies to me are void of any response to the points I made. I apologize for letting some off topic comment slip in. They obviously have distracted you from the theme of this thread.
With that said, could you please respond to the points I made concerning the theme of this thread? I too will try to keep on track.
ID ID & DI are not religious group promoting a modem creationism Joe, please explain:
1) The points from the wedge document (mentioned by Rich) that DI seem to avoid commenting on
2)Why they would use an obvious religious symbol that resembles the claim of ID so much that it has very obvious religious implication about the goals of their organization.
Thanks for you response,
~Atomic Chimp
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteAh, so baraminology is an intellectual parasite.
The theory of evolution stole its classifiction scheme, its genetics and ntural selction.
That would mean the theory of evolution is the parasite.
Oh and the theory of evolution doesn't have any evidence to call its own.
ReplyDeleteAtomic Chimp:
ReplyDeleteDo you base all of your conclusions on wild assumptions?
I never have.
Atomic Chimp:
Joe I see your replies to me are void of any response to the points I made.
What points?
Atomic Chimp:
ID ID & DI are not religious group promoting a modem creationism Joe, please explain:
You need to respond to MY points about that.
Seeing that Intelligent Design does NOT say anything about who, what, where, when, why nor how to worship, and it says nothing about giving service, how the fuck can anyone say Intelligent Design = religion?
What is your retarded and twisted definition of religion?
I look forward to your response.
Atomic Chimp:
ReplyDelete1) The points from the wedge document (mentioned by Rich) that DI seem to avoid commenting on
2)Why they would use an obvious religious symbol that resembles the claim of ID so much that it has very obvious religious implication about the goals of their organization.
Ask THEM, not me. Duh. But first answer my question and keep in mind taht the sistine chapel painting includes THREE religions- Judaism, Islam and Christianity- are you saying the DI is trying to merge those into one religion?
Joe: "Seeing that Intelligent Design does NOT say anything about who"
ReplyDeleteDembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory"
Discovery Institute: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God"
William Dembski wrote:
ReplyDeleteIntelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.
He goes on to say:
Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn't even require there be a God.
In his book "Signature in the Cell" Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:
First, by any reasonable definition of the term, intelligent design is not "religion".- page 441 under the heading Not Religion
And in the end Intelligent design does NOT say anuything about the designer(s).
I would love to RichTard the liar produce evidence to the contrary.
Seeing that Intelligent Design does NOT say anything about who, what, where, when, why nor how to worship, and it says nothing about giving service, how the fuck can anyone say Intelligent Design = religion?
ReplyDeleteWhat is your retarded and twisted definition of religion?
Joe: "Seeing that Intelligent Design does NOT say anything about who"
ReplyDeleteDembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory"
Discovery Institute: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God"
I would love to RichTard the liar produce evidence to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteeasy, and you already have it:
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
"Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God "
QED. They (and you) can now lie all they want, the cat's out of the bag.
They were explicit. VERY clear indeed.
oh - bonus:
http://ncse.com/creationism/general/evolving-banners-at-discovery-institute
Idists are clearly liars, Just not very good ones.
To quote you Joe, "Just because someone sed" ID isn't a religious view?
ReplyDeleteI've seen many people point out some facts that suggest it is which include but not limited to,
1) The Wedge makes many points show a religious goal.
2) Most if not all of the funding for DI is by religious organizations
3) DI uses obvious religious symbols
4) ID reads like watered down Creationism
5) Myer was involved in the Edition of "of panda's and people" mentioned in the Dover trial.
6) Key DI people have spoken of ID as being a religious view.
7) In court a Judge Jones said the overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view
8) In court Behe said that astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria
All you have offered so far is DI try to explain a few points in the Wedge Doc and avoiding others, or just saying its not a religious view.
Thats not enough to explain away all of the fact. At least we can agree that Behe pointed out its not science based on the current definition of it.
~Atomic Chimp
Atomic Chimp:
ReplyDeleteTo quote you Joe, "Just because someone sed" ID isn't a religious view?
The reason I choose ID is because it is a non-religious approach to the prigins and diversity questions.
1) The Wedge makes many points show a religious goal.
Only of the PEOPLE who wrote the document.
2) Most if not all of the funding for DI is by religious organizations
Prove it.
3) DI uses obvious religious symbols
That is the DISCOVERY INSTITUTE- and they employ agnostics as well.
Anthony Flew- a long time atheist switched to ID because of the EVIDENCE.
4) ID reads like watered down Creationism
As if that hasn't been refuted a thousand times.
5) Myer was involved in the Edition of "of panda's and people" mentioned in the Dover trial.
darwin flat out stated "Creator" in "On the Origins of Species".
6) Key DI people have spoken of ID as being a religious view.
Key DI people have spoken of ID as NOT being a religious view. And I have provided the quotes.
7) In court a Judge Jones said the overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view
The evidence shows the judge bought the lies of the anti-IDists and ignored the testimony of the ID experts.
8) In court Behe said that astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria
You are clueless- he was talking about when astrology and astronomy were tied together and linked to actual physical phenomena.
see also:
Dr Behe Responds to Judge Jones
Joe: "Seeing that Intelligent Design does NOT say anything about who"
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory"
William Dembski wrote:
Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.
He goes on to say:
Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn't even require there be a God.
ID DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE THERE TO BE A GOD.
FuckTard Hughes just doesn't get it.
And seeing the banner is representaive of THREE religions RichTard must think the DI is trying to merge all three into one.
And in the end Intelligent design does NOT say anything about the designer(s).
ReplyDeleteI would love to RichTard the liar produce evidence to the contrary.
Still waiting. The DI isn't ID, moron.
In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.
ReplyDelete"And seeing the banner is representaive of THREE religions RichTard must think the DI is trying to merge all three into one."
ReplyDeleteAh, you admit that the DI's banner represents 3 religions. It is therefore religious. Thank you.
"Still waiting. The DI isn't ID, moron"
ReplyDeleteIts the genesis of ID and the driving force behind it. Dippy Joe G amd telic thoughts aren't ID.
"In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism."
ReplyDeleteOr a billion Catholics. Idiot.
"Still waiting. The DI isn't ID, moron"
ReplyDeleteRichTard
Its the genesis of ID
Wrong.
and the driving force behind it.
Wrong.
Dippy Joe G amd telic thoughts aren't ID.
Liar Rich and lying NCSE sure as hell aren't ID
"And seeing the banner is representaive of THREE religions RichTard must think the DI is trying to merge all three into one."
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
Ah, you admit that the DI's banner represents 3 religions.
According to you.
William Provine:
ReplyDelete"In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism."
RichTard:
Or a billion Catholics. Idiot.
Catholics don't accept the blind watchmaker thesis you moron- most are YECs.
"The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false."
ReplyDelete"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.
ReplyDeleteNaturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
"As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism."
ReplyDelete"‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."
ReplyDeletehttp://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=36861
ReplyDelete"The Catholic Church leaves questions such as the literal age of the world to science. While it is theoretically possible that the earth is young, modern science indicates that the likelihood is that the earth is much older. Should science prove the earth to be millions of years old, the Church would not have any problem accepting such a determination."
ooops.
Joe shows his true colours by having a hissy over perceived 'atheism'.
ReplyDeleteJoe: Wrong.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-intelligent-design.html
"Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it..."
And they cleary are the driving force beheind ID. Almost all of the new contect comes from their membership.
According to you.
ReplyDeleteNo, according to you:
Joe:
"And seeing the banner is representaive of THREE religions.."
Thanks for playing. You're runners up prize is a daye with Jim.
RichTrd:
ReplyDeleteJoe shows his true colours by having a hissy over perceived 'atheism'.
No perception required. Will Provine said it all rather nicely.
And posting his words is a "hissy fit"?
RichTard quotes:
ReplyDelete"Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it..."
Known by who? Intelligent Design has been around for thousands of years.
Richtard quoites:
ReplyDeletehttp://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=36861
"The Catholic Church leaves questions such as the literal age of the world to science. While it is theoretically possible that the earth is young, modern science indicates that the likelihood is that the earth is much older. Should science prove the earth to be millions of years old, the Church would not have any problem accepting such a determination."
ooops.
Oops what? ooops you are fucking clueless?
Catholics do not acept the thory of evolution as it is currently presented. If anything some are theistic evolutionists or IDists.
Joe: "Catholics do not acept the thory of evolution as it is currently presented. If anything some are theistic evolutionists.."
ReplyDeletePriceless, You win a CAEK!
"And seeing the banner is representaive of THREE religions RichTard must think the DI is trying to merge all three into one."
ReplyDeleteAnd Richtard has been saying throughout this thread that the picture was of God and Adam- RichTard's claims.
"Catholics do not acept the thory of evolution as it is currently presented. If anything some are theistic evolutionistsor IDists."
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
Priceless
Yes, your ignorance is priceless.
Strange that you have failed to support your claim about 1 bilion catholics....
Joe: 'And posting his words is a "hissy fit"?'
ReplyDeleteThis whole thread is a Hissy fit. But keep going; it's great entertainment!
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteThis whole thread is a Hissy fit.
This whole thread is your doing.
Thanks for admitting to your hissy fits.
And yur hissy fits are due to your lies being exposed, again (see the OP).
Entertaining indeed...
OK so we have RichTard saying the painting in the sistine chapel is a religious painting. Richtard openly admits it was sanctioned by the Pope- a CATHOLIC Pope.
ReplyDeleteRichTard nows sez that 1 billion catholics accept the ToE.
So if catholics accept the ToE and the painting is from catholics then the painting has no bearing on the issue.
Thanks fer playin'
"This whole thread is your doing."
ReplyDeleteSimple causation is best expressed as counterfactual claims.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/
If Joe hadn't have writted his OP, there would be no thread.
You seem to think that catholics cling to inerrancy, Joe. They don't. But thanks for affirming my prior argument Joe and admitting you were wrong. Very big of you.
ReplyDelete"So if catholics accept the ToE and the painting is from catholics then the painting has no bearing on the issue."
ReplyDeleteErm, no. you're confalting 'catholic acceptence of TOE' with 'Does the DI use religious iconography', badly. Two different issues. I know that's hard for you.
The Pope:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ns/world_news-europe/
"LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteIf Joe hadn't have writted his OP, there would be no thread.
Right, my OP caused you to throw hissy fit after hissy fit.
"So if catholics accept the ToE and the painting is from catholics then the painting has no bearing on the issue."
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
Erm, no.
Erm, yes.
"Right, my OP caused you to throw hissy fit after hissy fit."
ReplyDelete;-)
I've just been gently poking you for the amusement of the audience.
Richtard:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think that catholics cling to inerrancy, Joe.
They do.
Richtard:
But thanks for affirming my prior argument Joe
You don't have any argiment so how can you have a prior one?
You still hven't supported your claim anout 1 billion catholics accepting the theory of evolution and you can't because that is a lie.
"So if catholics accept the ToE and the painting is from catholics then the painting has no bearing on the issue."
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
Erm, no.
Erm, yes."
Erm, quotemine:
Way to ignore the part that points out how very wrong you are:
"Erm, no. you're confalting 'catholic acceptence of TOE' with 'Does the DI use religious iconography', badly. Two different issues. I know that's hard for you."
Richtard:
ReplyDeleteI've just been gently poking you for the amusement of the audience.
Nope, you have been throwing hissy fits and lying, as usual.
RichTard misquotes:
ReplyDeletePope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
Yes EVOLUTION, NOT THE BLIND WATCHMAKER THESIS THAT THE CURRENT TOE ENCOMPASSES YOU FREAK.
Richtard:
ReplyDeleteWay to ignore the part that points out how very wrong you are:
Didn't ignore it- laughed at it, but didn't ignore it like you ignore everything I say about ID.
Richtard:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think that catholics cling to inerrancy, Joe.
They do.
Sorry, make that literalists. . Inerrancy can I suppose contained 'inspired by'.
They're not committed to a 7 day creation as depicted in the picture of 'The creation of Adam'.
"Yes EVOLUTION, NOT THE BLIND WATCHMAKER THESIS THAT THE CURRENT TOE ENCOMPASSES YOU FREAK."
ReplyDeleteahhh - evolution, NOT evolution!
Thanks for the all-caps hissy!
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteahhh - evolution, NOT evolution!
RichTard still thinks his ignorance means something
Neither ID nor YEC are anti-evolution.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteThey're not committed to a 7 day creation as depicted in the picture of 'The creation of Adam'.
Let's see- I was brought up a catholic and went to catholic schools complete with penguins and priests. I was fed catholicism for alomost 18 years.
I know for a fact tht most catholics agree with a 6 day creation and Adam & Eve were really the first humans- just don't talk about Lilith...
Also, moron, people are still debating what a "literal" reading is.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteThey're not committed to a 7 day creation as depicted in the picture of 'The creation of Adam'.
6 days of creation and it was depicted on the ceiling of the sistine chapel (sixteenth chapel to evotards), not just in the picture of "The Creation of Adam"- geez Rich are you realy that proud of your ignorance?
"6 days of creation and it was depicted on the ceiling of the sistine chapel (sixteenth chapel to evotards), not just in the picture of "The Creation of Adam"- geez Rich are you realy that proud of your ignorance?"
ReplyDeleteYes it is, I'm glad you can finally admit that. But having a picture of it ( a representaion) and taking it as *literally true* are two different things. But let's be clear, it represents GOD creating MAN.
"I was brought up a catholic and went to catholic schools complete with penguins and priests. I was fed catholicism for alomost 18 years."
ReplyDeleteYou also get most things wrong. QED.
"6 days of creation and it was depicted on the ceiling of the sistine chapel (sixteenth chapel to evotards), not just in the picture of "The Creation of Adam"- geez Rich are you realy that proud of your ignorance?"
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
Yes it is,
RichTard admits that it isd really proud of its ignorance.
Thanks Rich.
"I was brought up a catholic and went to catholic schools complete with penguins and priests. I was fed catholicism for alomost 18 years."
ReplyDeleteRichTad:
You also get most things wrong.
A bald declaration from a known liar and proven ignoramus doesn't mean anything Rich.
Is that the best you can do?
LoL!!!!
""6 days of creation and it was depicted on the ceiling of the sistine chapel (sixteenth chapel to evotards), not just in the picture of "The Creation of Adam"- geez Rich are you realy that proud of your ignorance?"
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
Yes it is,
RichTard admits that it isd really proud of its ignorance.
Thanks Rich.
"
Actually, if you don't quotemine you'll see I'm reaffriming that its a religios picture, a view that I've always held but youwere having trouble with in the post.
Rich:
ReplyDeleteActually, if you don't quotemine...
It bothers you to have YOUR tactics against you. Cool.
Rich:
that its a religios picture
Or a historical picture. I guess it depends on your point of view.
Ya see the ceiling is supposed to represent actual historical events. Not that you would understand that.
'Ya see the ceiling is supposed to represent actual historical events. Not that you would understand that."
ReplyDeleteIt's supposed to represent biblical passages. Not that you would understand that.
Umm Biblical passages are supposed to be actual historical events.
ReplyDeleteObviously you are too stupid to understand that.
BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA
OK so in the book of Genesis we have God breathing life into Adam.
ReplyDeleteIn the holy book of evolution we have:
”There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.- Charles Darwin in “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection” last chapter, last sentence (bold added)
Hmmmmmmmm....... What would RichTard logic mandate?
Geez RichTard gets bitchslapped and he runs away.
ReplyDeleteHe who gets bitchslapped last gets bitchslapped best...
Yes this thread is comedy gold- thanks for the comedy Rich!
"Umm Biblical passages are supposed to be actual historical events."
ReplyDeleteFor some they are historical accounts, for others they are metaphors. Taking the bible has a history book is wrong - science shows a literal 7 day creation didn't happen, and many religious folks accept this.
oh - *bitchslap*
"In the holy book of evolution..."
ReplyDeleteNo such book. Darwins text has been found to be wrong on many accounts. No Dogma there.
*bitchslap*
"Umm Biblical passages are supposed to be actual historical events."
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
For some they are historical accounts,
The Bible is supposed to depict actual historical events- period.
RichTard:
Taking the bible has a history book is wrong -
Nope, thta is how it was written- as an actual historical account of past events.
RichTard:
science shows a literal 7 day creation didn't happen, and many religious folks accept this.
The Bible doesn't say anything about a "literal 7 day creation" that is meaningless tard.
In the holy book of evolution..."
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
No such book
Yes, there is.
RichTard:
Darwins text has been found to be wrong on many accounts.
Name them. But that is irrelevant- that book started the religion that has become the modern synthesis- all dogma, no evidence.
RichTard:
ReplyDeletescience shows a literal 7 day creation didn't happen,
Except science hasn't shown any such thing and the Bible doesn't say any such thing.
And BTW RichTard- nice quote-mining
ReplyDeleteYes, there is.
ReplyDeleteNo there isn't, because that would make 'evolutionism' a religion, which it isn't. Grow up.
"Name them. But that is irrelevant.."
ReplyDeleteFucking hell you are a bad bad tard.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteNo there isn't, because that would make 'evolutionism' a religion, which it isn't.
It is based on faith and dogmatically applied and protected...
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteDarwins text has been found to be wrong on many accounts.
Name them.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteFucking hell you are a bad bad tard.
Of course- smart people make for for bad bad tards.
OTOH YOU are a very good tard- it must come naturally for you.
"Name them."
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm not keen on giving a creationist like you ammo, but HGT would be an easy one.
"Of course- smart people make for for bad bad tards."
No, smart people can spot a double negative.
"It is based on faith and dogmatically applied and protected..."
ReplyDeleteWrong. It's tested - Lenski, Tiktaalic, etc. And that's not even a passable definition of religion. But keep making stuff up..
"It is based on faith and dogmatically applied and protected..."
ReplyDeleteRich:
Wrong. It's tested - Lenski, Tiktaalic, etc.
Right- Lenski provides evidence for baraminology not the blind watchmaker and certainly nothing to do with universal common descent.
Tiktaalic- well that is another blown call. That is 0 for 2.
RichTard:
And that's not even a passable definition of religion.
Seeing that you have refused to provide a definition to support any of your claims about ID and religion, that is yet another hollow statement.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm not keen on giving a creationist like you ammo, but HGT would be an easy one.
How do you define "creationist"? And did Darwin say that HGT doesn't take place? How was he wrong about it?
Of course- smart people make for for bad bad tards.
OTOH YOU are a very good tard- it must come naturally for you.
Rich:
No, smart people can spot a double negative.
YOU are a double negative Rich. You are a walking contradiction, an equivocator and a lying ignoramus- all in one.
Tiktaalik- why it is a failed prediction
ReplyDeleteTiktaalik is still being used as a successful prediction of something. I know it was supposed to be a successful prediction of universal common descent because it is A) Allegedly a transitional form between fish and tetrapods and B) It was found in the "correct" strata because allegedly no evidence of tetrapods before 385 million yeqars ago- plenty of fish though and plenty of evidence for tetrapods around 365 million years ago- Tiktaalik was allegedly found in strata about 375 million years old- Shubin said that is the strata he looked in because of the 365-385 range already bracketed by existing data.
The thinking was tetrapods existed 365 mya and fish existed 385 mya, so the transition happened sometime in that 20 million years.
Sounds very reasonable. And when they looked they found Tiktaalik and all was good.
Then along comes another find that put the earliest tetrapods back to over 390 million years ago.
Now had this find preceded Tiktaalik then Shubin et al. would not have been looking for the transitional after the transition had occurred- that doesn't make any sense. And that is why it is a failed prediction- the transition occurred some 25 million years before, Shubin et al., were looking in the wrong strata.
That said Tiktaalik is still an interesting find, something tha no on else had ever found and it adds to our knowledge base of organisms that once existed. But that is all it does.
How was he wrong about it?
ReplyDeleteHe had a tree of life, not a "mangrove". Duh.
"YOU are a double negative Rich."
OOoh! Hissy-tastic. ALLCAPS would have made it better, though.
"Tiktaalik- why it is a failed prediction"
Oh that is priceless. Thank you! You might want to understand evolution before getting upset with it ;-)
"Tiktaalik- why it is a failed prediction"
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
Oh that is priceless. Thank you!
Nice non-response- exactly what I would expect from an ignorant intellectual coward.
RichTard:
You might want to understand evolution before getting upset with it.
Ummm I am not upset with evolution. ID is not anti-evolution- your ignorance is meaningless.
Also I provided an explanation. That you refused to address it proves you do not understand the point. But that is because you are an intellectual coward.
How was he wrong about it?
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
He had a tree of life, not a "mangrove".
Darwin had this
As for "mangrove", thanks for admitting there isn't a nested hierarchy, which would require that "tree".
ReplyDeleteDo you need a clue, Joe? Just ask, and I'll give you one.
ReplyDeleteIs for nested hierarchy - depends on what you're measuring. Genomic ally - no, Morphologically Yes for higher taxa.
Rich:
ReplyDeleteDo you need a clue, Joe?
No, you need a clue, Rich.
Rich:
Is for nested hierarchy - depends on what you're measuring.
Measuring? You need a clue Rich.
Rich:
Morphologically Yes for higher taxa.
Yup, you are clueless.
"Measuring? You need a clue Rich."
ReplyDeleteNo I've explained it in the next senstence: "Genomically - no, Morphologically yes..." - DOn't you think these things can be measured? IDists don't measure things but scientists do all the time:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=morphological%20measurements&rlz=1R2ADBR_enUS416&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=genomic+measurements&as_sdt=0%2C14&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
*bitchslap*