Sal316
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-05-11 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #115 |
| 118. I'll take that as a "no", then. |
|
When all else fails, default to ad hom.
|
| -Intelligent Design: Atheists to the Rescue |
rug |
Nov-29-11 12:50 PM |
#0 |
 -
If you're like me and terminally cynical, you'll look to what they're trying to accomplish. |
DCKit |
Nov-29-11 12:56 PM |
#1 |
| -
Sorry, any article not correctly identifying Behe is dishonest. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 12:57 PM |
#2 |
  -
Whatever else you call him he's a professor of biochemistry with a PhD from Penn. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:07 PM |
#4 |
| -
He is a paid wanker for the Discovery Institute. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:17 PM |
#7 |
| -
I see. He's No True Scientist. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:20 PM |
#8 |
| -
He is a paid wanker for the Discovery Institute. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:33 PM |
#11 |
| -
Saying it twice does not add any veracity. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:48 PM |
#13 |
| -
No it makes me wonder if you understand who the players are. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:59 PM |
#16 |
| -
I know exactly who the players are. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 02:11 PM |
#17 |
| -
"I'm looking at the entire issue without any dogma whatsoever." |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 02:31 PM |
#20 |
| -
There's plenty of dogma to go around. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 03:28 PM |
#23 |
| -
LMAO! +1,000 |
Sal316 |
Nov-29-11 04:40 PM |
#31 |
| -
"Behe...tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism" |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 04:51 PM |
#36 |
| -
So he's not a "True Scientist"? |
Sal316 |
Nov-29-11 05:12 PM |
#38 |
| -
To anti-science right wing christian conservatives, he's a whore with a degree. |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 05:25 PM |
#39 |
| -
Essentially he's like Paul Cameron |
NMMNG |
Nov-29-11 07:19 PM |
#44 |
| -
ugh. |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 07:37 PM |
#45 |
| -
I can see you're clueless |
skepticscott |
Nov-29-11 07:48 PM |
#46 |
| -
Educate me, o wise one |
Sal316 |
Dec-01-11 08:59 AM |
#83 |
| -
It's funny you play on the NTS fallacy while invoking an argument from authority. |
darkstar3 |
Dec-02-11 01:26 AM |
#94 |
| -
Keep on shufflin' PZ |
Sal316 |
Dec-02-11 05:38 PM |
#97 |
| -
"But I will tell you this, I sure as heck know more about theology than they do." |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-02-11 06:06 PM |
#98 |
| -
Keep on shufflin' |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 10:40 AM |
#106 |
| -
The Courtier's Reply was written about critics like you. |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-03-11 11:18 AM |
#107 |
| -
Thanks for proving my point.. |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 03:07 PM |
#110 |
| -
Keep digging. |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-03-11 03:12 PM |
#111 |
| -
Yeah, cause I'M shufflin'. |
darkstar3 |
Dec-02-11 07:41 PM |
#99 |
| -
I don't support Behe's bs. It's crap science. |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 10:33 AM |
#104 |
| -
Really? Because your contributions all over the thread strongly suggest otherwise. |
darkstar3 |
Dec-03-11 01:17 PM |
#108 |
| -
No, they don't. |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 03:06 PM |
#109 |
| -
Oh really? |
darkstar3 |
Dec-03-11 04:33 PM |
#112 |
| -
Are you a farmer? |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 06:49 PM |
#114 |
| -
That pole you're stirring with, |
darkstar3 |
Dec-03-11 06:57 PM |
#115 |
| -
I'll take that as a "no", then. |
Sal316 |
Dec-05-11 10:03 AM |
#118 |
| -
Isn't that what you did in #114? |
trotsky |
Dec-05-11 10:19 AM |
#119 |
| -
No, you're clueless in spite of all that. |
skepticscott |
Dec-02-11 08:08 PM |
#100 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-02-11 08:29 PM |
#101 |
| -
Nice. |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-02-11 08:36 PM |
#102 |
| -
He's a theologian, so presumably, he knows. n/t |
laconicsax |
Dec-04-11 08:04 PM |
#116 |
| -
And Dawkins needs to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin before debunking IDiots. |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-04-11 09:14 PM |
#117 |
| -
*self delete* |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 10:34 AM |
#105 |
| -
No, go ahead. Say what you were going to. |
laconicsax |
Dec-03-11 05:52 PM |
#113 |
| -
Well, I've never heard of the guy |
rrneck |
Nov-29-11 06:16 PM |
#41 |
| -
He's a paid schill for the ACSI, too. |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 05:05 PM |
#37 |
| -
I don't understand why they'd HAVE to be "intentions". Why not just super-super ordinate, macro, |
patrice |
Nov-29-11 01:03 PM |
#3 |
| -
Intention can be ascribed to such things, but it isn't necessary to the phenomena themselves. |
patrice |
Nov-29-11 01:07 PM |
#5 |
| -
Oh and "What Darwin Got Wrong" is a joke. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:14 PM |
#6 |
| -
It's always nice to get an objective view. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:22 PM |
#9 |
| -
PZ Meyers is an actual reputable biologist. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:29 PM |
#10 |
| -
And he's an actual biochemist. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:49 PM |
#14 |
| -
William Demsbki is a scientist now? |
AmericaIsGreat |
Nov-29-11 01:36 PM |
#12 |
| -
Actually, a mathematician. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:53 PM |
#15 |
| -
Right |
AmericaIsGreat |
Nov-29-11 02:22 PM |
#18 |
| -
You do realize that arguments from authority are useless right? |
Humanist_Activist |
Nov-29-11 02:27 PM |
#19 |
| -
To a degree. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 03:30 PM |
#24 |
| -
Considering I didn't use either, your mention of them is inapplicable.. |
Humanist_Activist |
Nov-29-11 03:34 PM |
#25 |
| -
Of course there's "to a degrre" here. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 03:47 PM |
#27 |
| -
to a degree |
deacon_sephiroth |
Nov-29-11 04:23 PM |
#29 |
| -
Yes, get them on the line, please. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 04:42 PM |
#34 |
| -
they agree with me, and further point out that the tactics you are |
deacon_sephiroth |
Nov-30-11 03:11 AM |
#55 |
| -
I didn't say you should do anything, I pointed out facts about the ID movement and their tactics... |
Humanist_Activist |
Nov-29-11 09:12 PM |
#48 |
| -
Like post #9, yes. |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:25 AM |
#56 |
| -
#57 is closer. |
rug |
Nov-30-11 05:27 PM |
#64 |
| -
Glad you admit you launched an ad hom! |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 05:51 PM |
#65 |
| -
Not at all. |
rug |
Nov-30-11 06:00 PM |
#66 |
| -
No, you did indeed admit it. |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:12 PM |
#67 |
| -
And this? |
rug |
Nov-30-11 06:22 PM |
#69 |
| -
What can I say? |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:41 PM |
#71 |
| -
OOO...the Meyers shuffle! |
Sal316 |
Nov-29-11 04:41 PM |
#33 |
| -
I don't understand this reference, but I find it ironic that even here, creationist cretins... |
Humanist_Activist |
Nov-29-11 09:23 PM |
#49 |
| -
What it comes down to is fear and hatred of atheists, I guess. |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:27 AM |
#57 |
| -
That I don't get, why discredit yourself in this way? |
Humanist_Activist |
Dec-01-11 03:05 AM |
#77 |
| -
Considering I'm not a creationist... |
Sal316 |
Dec-01-11 09:00 AM |
#84 |
| -
I don't believe that claim was made. |
trotsky |
Dec-01-11 11:14 AM |
#88 |
| -
I didn't say you were... |
Humanist_Activist |
Dec-02-11 01:41 PM |
#96 |
| -
Really? So you don't believe that the universe was created in some fashion by God? |
darkstar3 |
Dec-02-11 11:54 PM |
#103 |
| -
And Dobson is a psychologist, that doesn't make HIM any less an idiot. |
Odin2005 |
Nov-29-11 09:59 PM |
#51 |
| -
"What Darwin Got Wrong" was widely derided by philosophers |
muriel_volestrangler |
Nov-29-11 02:54 PM |
#21 |
| -
Why are you posting creationism "theories" from right wing conservative christian "think tanks"? |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 03:25 PM |
#22 |
| -
Are you saying only sources you approve may be posted? |
rug |
Nov-29-11 03:45 PM |
#26 |
| -
I didn't say you're not allowed to post crap from the religious right. In fact I applaud your choice |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 04:20 PM |
#28 |
| -
I'll be glad to after I remove the assumptions, misstatements, snark and opinion from your post. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 04:28 PM |
#30 |
| -
I read the article before I posted. It's bullshit and doesn't merit rational discourse. |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 04:41 PM |
#32 |
| -
That explains your irrational comments. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 04:43 PM |
#35 |
| -
It's amazing is it not? |
EvolveOrConvolve |
Nov-29-11 06:26 PM |
#43 |
| -
We've been told we don't deserve protection under the Constitution because we're not a true minority |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 07:55 PM |
#47 |
| -
I don't think that's what gave rise to the movement |
Major Nikon |
Nov-29-11 06:10 PM |
#40 |
| -
It's been a while since I read "What Darwin Got Wrong." |
Jim__ |
Nov-29-11 06:21 PM |
#42 |
| -
See #21 - philosophers destroyed their point #1 |
muriel_volestrangler |
Nov-30-11 06:32 PM |
#70 |
| -
I've seen post #21. |
Jim__ |
Nov-30-11 08:30 PM |
#73 |
| -
If this is your response |
skepticscott |
Nov-30-11 09:25 PM |
#74 |
| -
Did you miss my citation from the book? |
Jim__ |
Nov-30-11 10:07 PM |
#75 |
| -
The excerpt from the book doesn't explain anything |
muriel_volestrangler |
Dec-01-11 05:40 AM |
#78 |
| -
The excerpt from the book addresses, in part, the excerpt from the review by Block and Kitcher. |
Jim__ |
Dec-01-11 07:09 AM |
#80 |
| -
It implies that biologists do not take 'endogenous factors' into account |
muriel_volestrangler |
Dec-01-11 07:55 AM |
#82 |
| -
No, it doesn't imply that at all. |
Jim__ |
Dec-01-11 09:10 AM |
#85 |
| -
And by not limiting it to biology, they step away from Darwin |
muriel_volestrangler |
Dec-01-11 09:53 AM |
#86 |
| -
Their argument is against the Theory of Natural Selection as the primary driver of evolution. |
Jim__ |
Dec-01-11 11:28 AM |
#89 |
| -
Not sure this will get anywhere; you say "the authors are right", but don't give reasons |
muriel_volestrangler |
Dec-01-11 11:52 AM |
#90 |
| -
I didn't say the authors are right. |
Jim__ |
Dec-01-11 02:20 PM |
#92 |
| -
I read Fodor's book and it's one giant straw-man argument. |
Odin2005 |
Nov-29-11 09:56 PM |
#50 |
| -
Hey! I had the same reaction to The God Delusion. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 10:42 PM |
#52 |
| -
And a non-sequitur from rug. n/t |
laconicsax |
Nov-29-11 11:52 PM |
#54 |
| -
You expected more? |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:29 AM |
#58 |
| -
Sorry if I went too fast for you. |
rug |
Nov-30-11 01:24 PM |
#60 |
| -
Except it's not |
edhopper |
Nov-30-11 01:59 PM |
#61 |
| -
If Intelligent Design exists then there should be a blue print |
Angry Dragon |
Nov-29-11 11:45 PM |
#53 |
| -
Unrec for posting right-wing garbage on DU. n/t |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:30 AM |
#59 |
| -
Isn't it interesting how readily it's embraced here? |
laconicsax |
Nov-30-11 06:17 PM |
#68 |
| -
Back in 2000 my fundy sister confidently predicted... |
Silent3 |
Nov-30-11 04:10 PM |
#62 |
| -
Dembski's probabalistic arguments have been thoroughly debunked by |
MarkCharles |
Nov-30-11 04:24 PM |
#63 |
| -
I think "irreducible complexity" is an intriguing idea... |
Silent3 |
Nov-30-11 07:52 PM |
#72 |
| -
I think the problem with "irreducible complexity" is that it is an argument from ignorance... |
Humanist_Activist |
Dec-01-11 02:59 AM |
#76 |
| -
And you nailed it right there. |
trotsky |
Dec-01-11 06:05 AM |
#79 |
| -
Its particularly funny when they use the eye... |
Humanist_Activist |
Dec-02-11 01:32 PM |
#95 |
| -
Developing the idea would mean factoring ignorance out... |
Silent3 |
Dec-01-11 07:53 AM |
#81 |
| -
Evolution predicts irreducibly complex systems. |
laconicsax |
Dec-01-11 11:10 AM |
#87 |
| -
True and any intelligent microbiologist would know how this works in the |
MarkCharles |
Dec-01-11 01:25 PM |
#91 |
| -
It's a damn good try and might give one pause, but only pause |
deacon_sephiroth |
Dec-01-11 02:53 PM |
#93 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread