No Evolution No Way
- Started
- Last post
- 191 Responses
- flagellum0
Lemmy: Everything I listed in my evidences above are positive observations and logical inferences. Back to your debate 101 class now.
- lemmys_wart0
dawkins is irrelevant.
id makes no positive observation.
postive observation IS science.
the end.
(i win.)
- Witt0
has anyone read it?
http://darwin-online.org.uk/cont…
or just summaries of summaries and opinions?
i never did.
- bolus0
those aren't reviews, that are people who are offended and say so....
- lemmys_wart0
flagellum,
no.
- flagellum0
brookoioi: Note how brook doesn't deal with the evidnces i listed, but rather dodges them. Instead he/she regurgitates Dawkins's rediculous argument about an infinite regress, not realizing that the finger is pointed squarely at she and Dawkins. Because if I postulate purely materialistic causation for matter and energy, I end up in an infinite regress of finite causes. Got that? Write that down.
And no, NS most certainly does not produce specified complex information which is required in producing biological novelty. And I challenge you to produce one paper which demonstrates that it does. I won't hold my breath.
- lemmys_wart0
that"s because your a crazy foolish god boy...
duh.
- flagellum0
i'm pretty sure lemmy is mrdobolina with another alias, saying silly(er) things that mrdobolina doesn't want to be seen saying.
- Witt0
anyway, forget Darwin if you're not a biologist. that's too small understanding.
Get your hands on Lee Smolin for a debate up to God's size.
- bolus0
this is a review:
- flagellum0
The problem is that Darwin and his contemporaries started with a faulty premise -That the cell (the foundation of life) was a simple blob of protoplasm. Now, with the advent of biochemistry, we know that opposite is true and that Darwinian gradualism cannot explain the irreducible code and machinery we observe.
bolus: you're intellectually dishonest if you read those reviews and came to that conclusion (i know you didn't read them though ;)).
- lemmys_wart0
Respond i'm pretty sure lemmy is mrdobolina with another alias, saying silly(er) things that mrdobolina doesn't want to be seen saying.
flagellum
you people are paranoid.
now back to "this can't happen" that can't happen" god boy flim flam.
- bolus0
witt:
http://noorderlicht.vpro.nl/doss…
click:
* Bekijk de Noorderlicht-aflevering 'De levende kosmos', met Lee Smolin. 22 Mei 1998, breedband
from the people that brought you
of beauty and constellation
- flagellum0
If you want to read halfway decent attempts at refuting theism, read Voltaire. Don't waste your time with Dawkinian tirades. He is silly and only helps to advance theism, ultimately. Even his atheist colleagues think so.
- lemmys_wart0
lol at attcking darwin.
...about as logical as countering the evidence of behaviorism with the specualtion of frued.
you fail.
- bolus0
i read the spectator and csmonitor ones, very long toes there indeed
- flagellum0
lol, lemmy you know we can't discuss anything because you just don't "get" the arguments. You just try to get a rise out of people. I do find it entertaining though. :)
- lemmys_wart0
He is silly and only helps to advance theism, ultimately. Even his atheist colleagues think so.
flagellum
(Jan 10 07, 10:59)dawkins won't kill organised religion, science will.
we've been putting you out of business for the last 500 years.
and the best is yet to come.
- Witt0
ty, bolus.
- bolus0
your welcome
most of it is in english