|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cdesign proponentist troll recruiting center | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dirk Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 84 Joined:
|
Hi Dawn,
it seems you are not far removed from Hillary trying to control what people think and thier opinions to make them hate crimes. Sorry jr thats why they are private colleges so they dont have to be controlled by tyrants like yourself and Dawkins
No one here was trying to control what should or should not be taught at these institutions. Some well-meant suggestions were made, and a kind invitation by RAZD that their students could come and debate here if they wanted. For the rest, I would say, most participants are probably just ROFLing on this kind of "education"...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Species8472 Junior Member (Idle past 4882 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
Who designed the designer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The point is: ID is dressed up theology. Nothing more, nothing less. See here is your problem, you cant see the forest for the trees. your so intent on proving ID wrong or religious, you cant see that its simply, evidence of a thing, the same way evolution is not counter religious, but it does imply the eternality of matter Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
No one here was trying to control what should or should not be taught at these institutions. Some well-meant suggestions were made, and a kind invitation by RAZD that their students could come and debate here if they wanted. For the rest, I would say, most participants are probably just ROFLing on this kind of "education"... wrong. You have public guests at this site, when they read your comments, it influences thier thinking concerning those matters. A counterfactual presentation is required So what is the difference in DEBATING "real science" here, verses the public arena? I thought thry could not be conjoined with debate or public opinion Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
This is not another general creationism topic for Bertot to display his ignorance and everyone to pile on. Could we please limit discussion to the actual topic?
Thank you. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So what ID research are you going to discuss? Can you please reference the peer reviewed papers from scientific journals that we will be discussing? Observation, investigation, experimentation, conclusions, predictions, shalll i go on? Ive demonstrated that Id follows all the same rules as does you S&M. Since I am clueless, tell me what other test I need to conducted that have not already been demonstrated to constitute it as a scinentific investigation List them one, two, three Ill be waiting Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
This is not another general creationism topic for Bertot to display his ignorance and everyone to pile on. Could we please limit discussion to the actual topic? Thank you. Ok, so how do thier requirements, prevent thier qualifications from being science or ligitimate Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Observation, investigation, experimentation, conclusions, predictions, shalll i go on? Keep going until you get to the part that contains authors, name of journal, title of paper, volume, number, pages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
Ok let me retrace your steps
Hypothesis:the grate spagettie monster created the universe and desighned it Well science says cosmic strings colided and made the big bang go bang and these cosmic strings are the noodles of the grate spagetie monster what else could they be. Further proof of the spagetie monster can be found in the order you can observe in nature where else could it come from? And if you can listen to the spagetie monster you can se all the laws he made for us and all the other creatures. Look at nature you either eat or be eaten and if you follow his laws he rewards you look at all the ceos and buissnes owners they dont care abbout the poor they only care abbout themselves like the creatures in nature do and the grate Noodels rewards them for it they get lots of money women .... further proof of his exsistance You want more proof look at all the true doo gooders they are all poor and misorable, Noodles is punishing them for not obeying his laws that he bestowed on all creatures. You still do not belive in Noodels oservation: cosmic strings made the universe, and there is orderhypothesis: there is a desighner that has cosmic strings ergo Noodels predictions: If ou follow his laws that one can see in nature you are better off Testing: look at who makes the moste money = those who dont give a rats ass abbout others Conclusion: Noodels is real and if you do not follow his laws you will be worse off. NOW DENOUNCE YOUR FALSE GODS AND IDOLS AND WHORSHIPE NOODELS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Ive demonstrated that Id follows all the same rules as does you S&M. Quoted because, well, because it needed to be.[/snark]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
Hmmmm...
ID follows all the rules of S&M? Nice. Break out the whipped cream. Edit: Here is a more serious question, not for the proponents of ID though since they're so rabid about imposing their will that "it is absolutely science because I say so and anybody else who does not agree is stupid". Would test tube babies and cloning be considered serious evidence for the existence of a generic creator? And what would be testable evidence that there is a creator that real science would accept? Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Observation, investigation, experimentation, conclusions, predictions, shalll i go on? Since I am clueless, tell me what other test I need to conducted that have not already been demonstrated to constitute it as a scinentific investigation The cdesign proponentists need to actually do some "observation, investigation, experimentation, conclusions, predictions" rather than you reciting it like a mantra. That would be kinda the missing step --- the step between saying stuff and doing it. Instead it seems that they're too busy writing papers about the theological significance of their gibberish. It's really no substitute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This is not another general creationism topic for Bertot to display his ignorance and everyone to pile on. Could we please limit discussion to the actual topic? Oh, sorry, I missed that. At least I referred to the topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dirk Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 84 Joined:
|
Hi Dawn,
You have public guests at this site, when they read your comments, it influences thier thinking concerning those matters. A counterfactual presentation is required
Are you serious? Let me think, what's that thing called what christians do, you know, going from door to door, trying to influence people in thinking that there is a god? Evangelism, isn't that what it's called? Oh, and you know, they also got that book, I forgot the name, the one with the most copies printed ever (no, not the IKEA catalogue); doesn't that book try to influence people in thinking that there is a god? Me thinks, a "counterfactual presentation" is definitely required! Anyway, in order to stay on topic, you are saying that we are not allowed to comment on the courses that are given in those institutions? I mean, we even gave some suggestions for improvement. Surely that must be appreciated. And even if it's not, I'm sure that all comments were still made in the utmost sincerety, and that no one here was trying to set them up. Edited by Dirk, : No reason given. Edited by Dirk, : No reason given. Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined:
|
By "IT" I meant pointing out your plain idiocy regarding the EvC court cases and correct your misapprehensions about science, just in case anybody couldn't notice that for themselves and just in case anybody lurking was gullible enough to believe your ranting.
You refuse to consider something not derived from your idiosyncratic point-of-view and completely ignore any explanation of others. Rather than address the points raised, you get defensive and complain about "tyranny" and playing ad hominem games. People have explained dozens of times what science -- i.e. following the scientific method -- is and yet you still whine about scientists "setting up the rules .. in {their} own little world". You keep throwing out these keywords like evidence and reason and logic, thinking that somehow the person who uses them best is the person who uses the names most. You dig up rabbitholes to run through, ignoring the fact that everybody else is playing up on the surface. When presented with the evidence you request so often, instead of applying rationality to it, you dive off into another tirade of "No True Scotsman", begging the question and circular logic fallacies. It's a little difficult to tell whether you know you're wrong and are deliberately trolling, or whether you're just another moronic creotard with its own spin on science, reality, logic and the definitions thereof. Either way, I'm not dealing with you any more. It's not worth the effort.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024