RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: The technical details of evolution, A thread for teleological blog.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2010,08:48   

Over at Cornys blog TB said

 
Quote
thort: Would you like to discuss any of the technical details?

I would, but unfortunately it would be beyond your comprehension level. Iíve suspected your ignorance in science and youíve just proved your ignorance by your list of links as evidence to support your fairytales. Only a rube would believe anything that comes out of those irrational atheists pimping for their amoral religion.


As I know there are many actual biologists here who'll be able to comprehend TB's points I thought I'd extend an invitation to TB to discuss evolution with some experts, as he obviously wants to.

TB has his own (empty) blog here

http://teleologicalblog.blogspot.com/

Which contains 2 posts, one of which is a link to this site: http://teleological.org/theology/

So I think I can tell how this is going to go.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2010,09:10   

The crack about "irrational atheists" is pretty amusing given that the links in question all point to articles authored by Douglas Theobald, who is a theist.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2010,13:12   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 11 2010,15:10)
The crack about "irrational atheists" is pretty amusing given that the links in question all point to articles authored by Douglas Theobald, who is a theist.

But surely Wes you must know that the definition of an atheist is someone who doesn't believe precisely as I do. ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2010,17:48   

That's why YOU'RE an atheist, Louis, and I am the Chosen One.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2010,04:16   

Quote (Doc Bill @ July 11 2010,23:48)
That's why YOU'RE an atheist, Louis, and I am the Chosen One.

If I believe you does that mean I'm not an atheist?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2010,22:18   

That probably depends on who/what did the choosing of the chosen one. :p

Henry

  
Aardvark



Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2010,04:47   

I suspect that TB may in fact be a sock for JoeG/IDguy.  I've never seen anyone else argue against common descent like that.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2483
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2010,12:24   

I'd agree with you -- the tu quoque stance is classic GI Joe -- but TB doesn't use the word "asshole" enough.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2010,12:56   

Quote (fnxtr @ July 13 2010,10:24)
I'd agree with you -- the tu quoque stance is classic GI Joe -- but TB doesn't use the word "asshole" enough.

He can't.  That's Corny's one actual rule: no swears.  You can get away with a "hell" or a "damn", but anything stronger and you risk post deletion.  Say what you will about CH, at least he's clear about what isn't allowed over there and a very light hand with the moderation.  He'll even let you mock and insult him directly.  Very unusual for an ID/Creationist blog.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2010,13:20   

Quote (didymos @ July 13 2010,12:56)
Very unusual for an ID/Creationist blog.

My guess is that as ID/Creationists have a hard time when using metrics such as these for measuring success:

A) Citations
B) Publications
C) amount of ground breaking original research
D) amount of normal research on everyday stuff, filling in the details
E) Experiments.
F) Hypothesis construction
G) Hypothesis testing
H) Amount known about what they are criticising

I think they've taken to measuring success by number of page views*number of comments.

Corny should be using the number of defunct ID journals and the number of times the bible is mentioned on UD as his metric. Those numbers are guaranteed to increase.

Corny sees a graph on the control panel on his blog. The graph is on an upward trend. He shows this to others at his university. He wins.

What he does not see is the similar graph for UD that's now on a downward trend. Well, more of a downward trend then it was anyway. It's rate of decline has just increased.

BTW, how long is it before we can officially declare that http://bio-complexity.org is moribund?  :p

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  9 replies since July 11 2010,08:48 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]