Skip navigation.
Home
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

AE Public BB

Joe G.'s Tardgasm

AE Public Forum - Mon, 2014-04-21 13:19
Post by Quack
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 21 2014,04:51)... or he has started talking to himself.
I wish he would, that should be something to watch!
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Mon, 2014-04-21 13:14
Post by NoName
Quote (N.Wells @ April 21 2014,08:36)...
But the interesting point is that Gary identifies genetic algorithms as simple.  They are indeed impressively simple as well as being astoundingly powerful, which is why I can't see what Gary has against natural selection and why he keeps misunderstanding it.  Especially, I cannot understand why he rejects it in favor of an alternate mechanism whose existence and effects he can't even demonstrate at the levels that he is interested in.
It's because he's self-assembled.  And assembled wrong.
He's reminiscent of the chef on Metalocalypse, 'sewn together wrong'.

He believes in an alternative because he has a desperate need to be the underdog who eventually triumphs, usually by means of a "and then a miracle occurs' step, coupled with an equally desperate need for opposition so he can justify any and all of his shortcomings as due to external oppression, not internal flaws.
That he cannot demonstrate the existence or effects of his preferred approach is part of its glory -- he thinks it allows him to shift the game to one where his opponents must present something better than his never explained, never identified, never clarified "alternative".  He thinks he can make it a game of "heads, he wins, tails we lose."
Like I said before, attempting to win a poker game by shouting 'checkmate'.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-12 23:19
Post by Glen Davidson
Quote I dislike those animations. Had a gf years ago who studied that protein, i forget, i think actin or myosin, that they show trucking around the cell like little pedestrians, and she had actually done experiments on the things were you could, if the planets lined up, barely see them, and she said they were little fuzzy strands that barely manage to make 11 steps 'forward' every 20.

Those little animations, with their separate colors, and their oversimplified activities, make shit look a million times more designed than it looks under a 'scope.

That's another thing that makes it sound like a lie.  If she really were a biology major, she should know how fake the animations are.  And they're meant to be fake, to leave out the stochastic jitters and to show basically the resulting functional movements.

They really shouldn't be shown without a good explanation of how much is left out--probably one included in the animation itself.  

No biology major has an excuse, regardless, even if she's not very far along.  So if she did exist, let's hope she got out long ago, or learned a whole lot more than the junk you get from the DI.

Glen Davidson
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-12 23:10
Post by stevestory
Quote (REC @ April 12 2014,18:29)I call Bullshit.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014.......71.html

  Quote We had an experience a couple years ago where some of the Discovery scientists were traveling with one of our supporters. So that night, we were at this cowboy steakhouse feeding the troops.

Ok....Didn't know the DI had a travelling circus....but whatever....

  Quote So I jumped in and offered the Discovery Institute credit card to pay for the Discovery Institute scientists, and this young waitress came back with the bill and the credit card. And she looked left and looked right and lowered her voice and said, "Can you tell me what the Discovery Institute is?"

Nope. Not happening. Waited tables, and you know damn better than to ask about a company credit card when people are entertaining. Or to express even passing interest at all in peoples' plastic which they are very protective of.

Though my bigger objection should be "Discovery Institute scientists," of which there are 0. Anti-science-ists, plenty.

Quote
Well, I said, we're a scientific think tank, and we're investigating the evidence for intelligent design and challenging standard Darwin. She says, "I thought so!"


I'll poll 300 "U" students right now. Odds of even one having heard of the Discovery Institute? Lol.

Quote She said, "Our professors hate you." And then she motioned to three other waiters and waitresses. She says, "I'm a bio major at the U, and so are they, and, I'm telling you, our professors hate you.

How did this come up? In Bio 101, the profs announce "F-intelligent design idiots and the Discovery Institute we hate them", and this woman happens to remember it when she sees your credit card? We don't bring up the "controversy" in college classes. There is no controversy. Outside of idiot school boards in red states, you don't even exist.

Quote But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'

Nope. But how proud are you that the total of your "science" can be expressed in an emotional reaction?
Nope. We're no relative of apes. Nope that's complex-no way it evolved." God done it!
I dislike those animations. Had a gf years ago who studied that protein, i forget, i think actin or myosin, that they show trucking around the cell like little pedestrians, and she had actually don't experiments on the things were you could, if the planets lined up, barely see them, and she said they were little fuzzy strands that barely manage to make 11 steps 'forward' every 20.

Those little animations, with their separate colors, and their oversimplified activities, make shit look a million times more designed than it looks under a 'scope.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-12 23:09
Post by Glen Davidson
Well, it's Colonel Klinkhoffer, quoting the great Meyer, so it's pretty much unbelievable from the get-go.

But what about this?

  Quote But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'" So this is a little, in microcosm, a picture of what's happening. The establishment is terrified of this idea. -

Yeah, they have to go to EvolutionBullshit for animation, when for Expelled the IDiots had to take out XVIVO's animation, which they at first copied, and make one of their own.  

Terrifying, indeed.  Because we only have poofs as explanations.  No, wait, that's Meyer and (other) morons.

No, the whole story reeks of made-up garbage, possibly based on a few flimsy facts.  If there was a waitress who said such things, obviously she was just a creationist bigot--who else says that professors hate the worthless frauds?--who is so damned ignorant that she doesn't know that science made the first and best animations of molecular machines, and that it also has the evidence of evolution of a good many, if not all, of them.

The only thing scary about these jerks is that they'd make a whole lot of science illegal if they ever had power firmly in their grasp.

Glen Davidson
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-12 22:55
Post by stevestory
Larry Moran says Nick Matzke says this may be the worst post in UD Herstory.

So I KNOW reading that shit directly would require All Teh Alcohols!
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-12 22:29
Post by REC
I call Bullshit.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014....71.html

Quote We had an experience a couple years ago where some of the Discovery scientists were traveling with one of our supporters. So that night, we were at this cowboy steakhouse feeding the troops.

Hmm...cowboy steakhouse....feeding the troops?

[QUOTE]So I jumped in and offered the Discovery Institute credit card to pay for the Discovery Institute scientists, and this young waitress came back with the bill and the credit card. And she looked left and looked right and lowered her voice and said, "Can you tell me what the Discovery Institute is?"[QUOTE]

Nope. Not happening. Waited tables, and you know damn better than to ask about a company credit card when people are entertaining. Or to express even passing interest at all in peoples' plastic which they are very protective of.

Though my bigger objection should be "Discovery Institute scientists," of which there are 0. Anti-science-ists, plenty.

Quote
Well, I said, we're a scientific think tank, and we're investigating the evidence for intelligent design and challenging standard Darwin. She says, "I thought so!"


I'll poll 300 "U" students right now. Odds of even one having heard of the Discovery Institute? Lol.

Quote
She said, "Our professors hate you." And then she motioned to three other waiters and waitresses. She says, "I'm a bio major at the U, and so are they, and, I'm telling you, our professors hate you.

How did this come up? In Bio 101, the profs announce "F-intelligent design idiots and the Discovery Institute we hate them", and this woman happens to remember it when she sees your credit card? We don't bring up the "controversy" in college classes. There is no controversy. Outside of idiot school boards in red states, you don't even exist.

Quote But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'

Nope. But how proud are you that the total of your "science" can be expressed in an emotional reaction?
Nope. We're no relative of apes. Nope that's complex-no way it evolved." God done it!
Categories: AE Public BB

Board Mechanics

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-12 22:09
Post by Cubist
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2014,16:16) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 12 2014,12:51) All in all, I have about a half-dozen legacy Drupal installs, about the same number of WordPress installs, and this IkonBoard install to try to migrate. Fun, fun, fun.
Yes, yes, yes. But what are you going to do after breakfast?
Another six impossible things, of course.

Quote Seriously, I think we all appreciate the effort you put in.
For values of "all" which include anybody who has a clue about how much of a hassle all this is, definitely.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-12 22:07
Post by stevestory
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 11 2014,23:38) Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)VJ Torley:             Quote When I’m wrong

I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.

Glen Davidson
Torley is actually having a bit of a Friday Meltdown™.

This is the climax of a catastrophically stupid (and hilarious) series of threads between vjtorley and Larry Moran.  It's one of the best I've ever seen on UD.

Larry Moran's side of the thread starts here.  You can pick up the links to the torley pieces from the articles.


A creationist illustrates the argument from ignorance while trying to understand population genetics and Neutral Theory:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......om.html

A creationist tries to understand genetic load:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nd.html

Breaking news: Creationist Vincent Torley lies and moves goalposts:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nt.html

Vincent Torley tries to understand fixation:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nd.html

On being "outed" as a closet Darwinist:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......st.html

On the frustration of trying to educate IDiots:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......te.html

I have never seen anyone beat themselves up as thoroughly as Torley does here.

Edited to remove meaningless tripe.
Holy Toledo, from the second link by Salvador Cordova

Quote Ok, so let’s do an experiment. Let’s subject bacteria or plants or any organism to radiation and thus increase the mutation rate mutation rate by a factor of 1 million or 1 billion. Do you think the above formula will still hold? We tried it in the lab, it killed the plants, and at some point rather than speeding evolution we are doing sterilization.

Well Check-Goddam-Mate Evilushunists!
Categories: AE Public BB

Board Mechanics

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-12 21:16
Post by Bob O'H
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 12 2014,12:51) All in all, I have about a half-dozen legacy Drupal installs, about the same number of WordPress installs, and this IkonBoard install to try to migrate. Fun, fun, fun.
Yes, yes, yes. But what are you going to do after breakfast?

Seriously, I think we all appreciate the effort you put in.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-12 19:23
Post by Glen Davidson
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2014,04:19) Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)VJ Torley:       Quote When I’m wrong

I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.

Glen Davidson
Nope, it's surprisingly short. And it's a flat out "I was wrong", without any weaselling.
Yes, I did see it, although I didn't bother reading it, because, dull (Torley wrong--oh the news value...).  I wouldn't call it short, though, except by comparison.

Although I knew it was on the obscure side, I hoped that it would be recognized that I was referring to the subject, that when he is wrong he writes 20 pages of meaningless drivel (tripe, what-not).

Perhaps this is why this post was relatively short.  For once he wasn't wrong in the post itself.
Glen Davidson
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-12 18:12
Post by BillB
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2014,10:19) Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)VJ Torley:     Quote When I’m wrong

I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.

Glen Davidson
Nope, it's surprisingly short. And it's a flat out "I was wrong", without any weaselling.
It almost gives you hope ...
Categories: AE Public BB

Board Mechanics

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-12 17:51
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 11 2014,12:18) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 10 2014,20:52)The server powered itself off for reasons unknown, and was claiming the boot disk had no bootable partition. This evening it decided there was a bootable partition after all. That's certainly a spur toward the host transfer I've been plotting for months now.
Good luck.
I have transferred files and database contents as they stood on the 11th. I'll try and do some testing to see if I can instantiate the DBs on the new system and get the web apps running. If so, I'll try to do a new snapshot, install, and switch over. The new snapshot might fail or the old server might fail. On the other hand, differences in underlying versions might prevent getting the old stuff running on the new server. In that case, I'll likely step this forum to PHP-BB or something similar on the new host, and see about updating the static "aebb-archive" pages for the old system, then pull those across.

All in all, I have about a half-dozen legacy Drupal installs, about the same number of WordPress installs, and this IkonBoard install to try to migrate. Fun, fun, fun.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-08 11:35
Post by BillB
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 08 2014,01:55)Sal Cordova really should have seen this coming. In posting a thread titled 'Questions college students should ask science professors' he should have anticipated:
1. Someone (i.e. Roy) might actually answer his questions
2. UD regulars (in this case Barb) would use it to go into full Big Daddy? mode, suggesting more questions. Sample:
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?

I can just see that atheist materialist darwinist professor withering under an onslaught like that.
UD link
I LOL'd
Quote 13. I’ll consider it if it happens. Until then, it’s no more a problem for science than asking “What if Moses returns and she’s female and tells the world that the Bible was written by a drunken con-artist with diarrhoea?” is a problem for religion.
Categories: AE Public BB

Board Mechanics

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-08 09:19
Post by Quack
I don't know if I am the only one experiencing this problem but some threads, like the Uncommonly Dense opens ok, but I can't get the Joe G or Young Cosmos threads to open.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-08 07:16
Post by N.Wells
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,22:23)Offer a better wording that does not leave out required qualifiers including "image" and "likeness" otherwise I have to stay with what I now have for a first sentence.

Even though (to some) the grammar agreement seems wrong that's the way it is where "trinity" of science and religion exists in a sentence. At that point it's to early to mention the trinity from multiple intelligent causation events, otherwise gets wrongly operationally defined as more than one event, but it's there causing the sentence to seem out of place to those who are new to the concept of "Trinity".

Genesis scripture/theory ends up operationally defining our creator in plural form, where singular is expected, which can at first seem wrong but that's what I ended up having to explain for scientific theory.

There is no real grammar agreement problem. That's simply the way it is, in modern religion too.

You're only wasting your time and mine, trying to make it appear that what many in theology and elsewhere would expect to happen to sentence structure by properly scientifically operationally defining the "intelligent cause" part of the process.

There is also the challenge for all from Planet Source Code and other things that cannot be argued away, which are now done and in the past. Arguing semantics will not make that go away.
1) Already did: just add "or".    
"... each in its own image or likeness."

2) To everyone (but you, and you're wrong) the grammar is wrong.  It has to be, "each in its own..."  And that's "too".  Your whole trinity argument is irrelevant at this point, so why bring it up here?  The reader can only process what you have written, not what you are thinking and not mentioning.

3) (All the rest of your last round of comments.)  BS.  Your writing is truly crappy, and cannot be followed without a lot of guessing about your intentions, which means that you are effectively NEVER getting your point across.  This isn't semantics or me disagreeing with you about science or you being clever about theology - this is just you not knowing how to write a comprehensible sentence.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-08 03:23
Post by GaryGaulin
Offer a better wording that does not leave out required qualifiers including "image" and "likeness" otherwise I have to stay with what I now have for a first sentence.

Even though (to some) the grammar agreement seems wrong that's the way it is where "trinity" of science and religion exists in a sentence. At that point it's to early to mention the trinity from multiple intelligent causation events, otherwise gets wrongly operationally defined as more than one event, but it's there causing the sentence to seem out of place to those who are new to the concept of "Trinity".

Genesis scripture/theory ends up operationally defining our creator in plural form, where singular is expected, which can at first seem wrong but that's what I ended up having to explain for scientific theory.

There is no real grammar agreement problem. That's simply the way it is, in modern religion too.

You're only wasting your time and mine, trying to make it appear that what many in theology and elsewhere would expect to happen to sentence structure by properly scientifically operationally defining the "intelligent cause" part of the process.

There is also the challenge for all from Planet Source Code and other things that cannot be argued away, which are now done and in the past. Arguing semantics will not make that go away.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-08 02:02
Post by N.Wells
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,20:21)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)   Quote Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.

In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.
What the heck is all that supposed to mean?

See "Law of unintended consequences"[/quote]
I understand all about unintended consequences.  The problem, however, is that your prose is indecipherable, so your meaning is entirely opaque.


Quote   Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)   Quote The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship.       Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness. So maybe in a century or three you'll have whipped it into a reasonable sentence and a decent idea.  However, until then both the concept and the sentence remain atrocious.
image, likeness   needs "or"

"and" would be more precise, but comma shortens without worry about which (or/and) to use.
Once again, only in your mind. "And" implies two separate things.  "Or" would imply two synonyms.  A comma simply leaves the reader wondering what the heck is going on in your mind.

Quote   Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
each / their         non-agreement

I don't think you are fully comprehending what the sentence is saying. I see no other agreement that makes sense.  Of course I am not fully comprehending what the sentence is saying - I have to guess at what you meant because you aren't following standard and comprehensible rules of grammar.  If you want others to comprehend your ideas, you need to get the thoughts out of the tangles in your mind and into good (i.e. grammatical) English. "Each" would be matched by "its", or you could rewrite the sentence in some other way that is grammatical and conveys what you want to say.

Quote   Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
systematically      empty assertion

That is a vital QUALIFIER to operationally define intelligent cause in the context of Systems Biology.

Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.
If it is vital then it needs to be justified and its vitality needs to be explained, because it is in no way vital to anybody other than you.

Quote   Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
self-similar           empty assertion

Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option. Again, without backing up your claim, your assertion is hollow.  If you want to claim that something is self-similar then we need to see an equation that specifies the fractal dimension and a specification of the orders of magnitude over which it applies.  If the claim is self-evident, we could dispense with the math because everybody would be nodding in agreement.  However, with your claims of this nature, no one is seeing what is obvious to you, so no one is buying a thing that you are saying, so you have to provide the math to convince people that you know what you are talking about.

Quote   Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
for it to control    
at the next          I think you mean at the new level, not at the next, but worse......

The word "new" implies this intelligent causation never happened anywhere else in the universe, which the theory does not. There is just the "next" level, that would always have still been there, all along, just not achieved yet. Say what? In your mangled context, "whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level [say, level A] combine to create another (Logos, animating) level [that would be level B] of intelligence for it to control at the next [i.e., level C, except that you meant to refer to level B again].  You're clueless.

Quote Expecting me to suggest things that are contrary to the theory only indicates that you are still trying to change the subject to a red-herring theory that you invented, instead of the theory that actually exists.  All I was trying to get you to do in that post was to write your ideas in clear and grammatical English so that people can understand what the heck you are trying to say.  

I am confident that once you do this it be even more clear than it already is that you are stuffed to overflowing with B.S., but I do so love a gilded lily.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-08 01:44
Post by Texas Teach
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,20:21) Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)   Quote Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.

In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.
What the heck is all that supposed to mean?

See "Law of unintended consequences"


  Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)   Quote The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship.       Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness. So maybe in a century or three you'll have whipped it into a reasonable sentence and a decent idea.  However, until then both the concept and the sentence remain atrocious.
image, likeness   needs "or"

"and" would be more precise, but comma shortens without worry about which (or/and) to use.

  Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
each / their         non-agreement

I don't think you are fully comprehending what the sentence is saying. I see no other agreement that makes sense.

  Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
systematically      empty assertion

That is a vital QUALIFIER to operationally define intelligent cause in the context of Systems Biology.

Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.

  Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
self-similar           empty assertion

Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.

  Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
for it to control    
at the next          I think you mean at the new level, not at the next, but worse......

The word "new" implies this intelligent causation never happened anywhere else in the universe, which the theory does not. There is just the "next" level, that would always have still been there, all along, just not achieved yet.

Expecting me to suggest things that are contrary to the theory only indicates that you are still trying to change the subject to a red-herring theory that you invented, instead of the theory that actually exists.
This is why Gary is hilarious.

1) He thinks he can change the use of grammar and punctuation so it will be shorter without turning his sentences into gibberish.

2) He never learned that there are rules about singular and plural word compatibility.

3) He thinks he's justified in claiming something because he needs it to be true.  He's totally clueless that this is bass ackwards.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-04-08 01:39
Post by Richardthughes
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 07 2014,19:55)Sal Cordova really should have seen this coming. In posting a thread titled 'Questions college students should ask science professors' he should have anticipated:
1. Someone (i.e. Roy) might actually answer his questions
2. UD regulars (in this case Barb) would use it to go into full Big Daddy? mode, suggesting more questions. Sample:
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?

I can just see that atheist materialist darwinist professor withering under an onslaught like that.
UD link
And that atheist materialist darwinist professor....was Hitler!!!111
Categories: AE Public BB
Syndicate content