Noodly James

Theory of Intelligent Design

How again do you think fossils support a designer? New organisms don't only present after mass extinctions and descendants can be present with ancestors simultaneously. In addition, there are sequences of development in the fossil record and there are transitional fossils. Your belief in a deity is irrelevant to science as science doesn't have anything to do with god. You cannot just insert magic everywhere you don't understand something or refuse to accept what science, by definition, is. (13 hrs ago | post #1857)

You DON'T know, that's the problem. (13 hrs ago | post #30444)

Theory of Intelligent Design

If evolution is not in your equation is not the issue. An axiomatic fact is a definition as I have describedOnce again....I don't give a rats ass whats in your definition. That isn't the issue. Of course I have a choice. You seek to insert magic in lieu of logicWhatever you wish to call your deityIt depends on what you mean. Chances are you think you are being cleverNo, the strata demand nothing. YOU are inserting a genie because YOU are departing from the definition of science. The layers are layers and that is all. The sequence is the key. If you insert a deity to account for the changes then you have done nothing but ally yourself with theistic evolutionists. The major issue is that instead of following the definition of science (once again) you seek to insert magic. This is the only way your idea works. Since this genie is not able to be shown then your lack of logic is axiomaticThat isn't a prediction. How in the world does a functional pseudogene show anything other than that a gene has a function? Duh. Evolution news, may they be eternally ashamed for their lack of honor, is the DI. They presuppose the existence of a designer, much like yourself, and are not worthy to be empoyed as a reference. (13 hrs ago | post #1856)

god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Incorrect. There is no proof of god. If there were there would be no atheists or agnostics. Evolution is well supported. FYI, evolution is unrelated to a proof or disproof of god. This means that evolution is not atheism, to clarify. (Sunday | post #7894)

What makes you think none are interested in evaluating 9/11? The difference is that we have evaluated all of the facts and not just those we want to accept. What 9/11 has to do with evolution I still don't understand. Either it was islamic fundamentalists, christian fundamentalists, or "capitalist extremists"™. Whoever they are, there is no relation to evolution. (Sunday | post #30410)

http://www.venganz a.org/forum/viewto pic.php?f=16&t =11848 - You interested in some Spaghetti Monsterism I shopped? (Sunday | post #162)

Evolution debate vote

Wasps are not gentle kindly insects. They are vicious carnivores. The first part describing genes is correct though excessively verbose. We are well aware of what a gene is. Genes aren't trained unless this is meant metaphorically likewise the claim of design. (Sunday | post #2676)

As the risk of stating the ultra-obvious, I do feel the need to point out it is a joke. Although, if interested: - http://blog.ted.co m/2007/04/susan_sa vagerum.php (Sunday | post #160)

http://www.newtech usa.com/ppi/main.a sp - Bad news for the programmers (Sunday Nov 8 | post #158)

http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/The_Arc hko_Volume - Just in case SOMEONE decides to bring up Piltdown again. (Saturday Nov 7 | post #30387)

Brother!!!! (Saturday Nov 7 | post #148)

Let alone that he finds all sorts of problems with evolution (even though evolution isn't atheistic), which has nothing to do with the formation of the universe, and describes basic chemistry as "blind". Meanwhile he has no problem with omnipotent invisible space genies not only being present but creating everything through an untestable magical process which is beyond evaluation by the realm of science, for no reason whatsoever. (Saturday Nov 7 | post #30384)