What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2013, 09:37 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 09:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well, we don't accept your groundwork as having any merit. Try again.

I don't expect you too right now. At this moment, this debate is a piss match. I don't expect you guys to give an inch. True victory for either side happens later...sometimes much later...in moments of self reflection.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 09:40 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 09:37 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 09:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well, we don't accept your groundwork as having any merit. Try again.

I don't expect you too right now. At this moment, this debate is a piss match. I don't expect you guys to give an inch. True victory for either side happens later...sometimes much later...in moments of self reflection.

There is no debate here. You mistake disagreement for debate. You presented some unsupported assertions.

When you have an argument supported by evidence, then we can debate.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
28-02-2013, 09:42 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 09:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 09:22 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I do have an agenda, but I have to lay some ground work first.

Well, we don't accept your groundwork as having any merit. Try again.

It Springtime.
All the loonie theists are coming out of their cacoons.
Time for Spring Break. They can convert each other which we have some good old fashioned liscentious debauchery, immorality, moral depravity, degeneracy, putrefaction, corruption, perversions, wantonness, evil acts, and all the other things we "athies" are prone to do.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 09:43 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 09:37 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 09:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well, we don't accept your groundwork as having any merit. Try again.

I don't expect you too right now. At this moment, this debate is a piss match. I don't expect you guys to give an inch. True victory for either side happens later...sometimes much later...in moments of self reflection.

Typical. Don't count on it. Arrogant theist, here to convert the masses for Jebus. Ho hum. Where do they get these people ? Next. (Maybe we can schedule theists each 15 min or so, as they stop by to "save" us ?)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 09:45 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 09:27 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  There lay your problem. Your attempting to shift the evidence to fit the conclusion you have already come to instead of letting the evidence lead you to the answer.

How much education do you have in the field of biology?

Answer the question.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 09:48 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 09:34 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 09:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  (It's "you're" genius).
It's perfectly obvious what you are up to here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide
You have chosen to use the word "guide" in a special, "uncommon" way. You get to say anything you want, but you cannot expect others to accept your special definitions. As I said, all you have done is set ID one step back, by saying the environnment was designed to produce the result. You have no evidenbce for that, and it's just as stupid and unsupported as ID, and essentially the SAME argument.

Uncommon way? I see guides all over the place. My pinball machine has rails which "guide" the ball. Today a funnel guided oil into my cars engine. I could go on forever.

Idiot. Someone, (not a god) obviously MADE your "guides", or functionally designed TOOLS, I repeat human tools. There is a world of difference between that and and the way, with no evidence, YOU are using the word, in this instance. You are equating tools with the environment. Fail. If you can't see the difference, go take English 101, (when you do Biology 101).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 09:51 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 09:23 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  With how many organisms there are on the planet, do you expect none to evolve similarily? I already said, there is convergence in some areas, divergence in others. What is this suppose to prove?

I don't expect any to evolve similiarly if evolution is blind as suggested by Dawkins. The reason we have divergence is because within that guide of selective pressure there exist a certain amount of "play" or wiggle room.

(28-02-2013 09:23 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  [Someone could construct an argument for god that involves evolution, and it would fail right off the bat because evolution explains the diversity of life without outside intervention.

Thats like saying the bible is true because it says so in the bible.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 09:54 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
How can this be a pissing match if one side has no pee, (or even a weenie) ? Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-02-2013, 10:00 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 09:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 09:37 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I don't expect you too right now. At this moment, this debate is a piss match. I don't expect you guys to give an inch. True victory for either side happens later...sometimes much later...in moments of self reflection.

Typical. Don't count on it. Arrogant theist, here to convert the masses for Jebus. Ho hum. Where do they get these people ? Next. (Maybe we can schedule theists each 15 min or so, as they stop by to "save" us ?)
I expect to challenge your world veiw...not convert you.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 10:02 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 09:51 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 09:23 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  With how many organisms there are on the planet, do you expect none to evolve similarily? I already said, there is convergence in some areas, divergence in others. What is this suppose to prove?

I don't expect any to evolve similiarly if evolution is blind as suggested by Dawkins. The reason we have divergence is because within that guide of selective pressure there exist a certain amount of "play" or wiggle room.

There is wiggle room for change, this does not mean evolution will always result in species that are increasingly different from the millions of species on the planet. There is no law stating that evolution must always be divergent.

(28-02-2013 09:51 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 09:23 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  [Someone could construct an argument for god that involves evolution, and it would fail right off the bat because evolution explains the diversity of life without outside intervention.

Thats like saying the bible is true because it says so in the bible.

Evolution isn't a book that makes claims without giving supporting evidence.

(28-02-2013 10:00 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I expect to challenge your world veiw...not convert you.

Then provide evidence in support of your view. Also stop deflecting the question, what is your level of education in biology?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: