Debate over evolution now allowed in Tenn. schools

[SniperFire]

This is child's play.


L O L

 

[Si modo]

Such as Irreducible complexity, for example.

It is only supported by the arbitrarily imposed presumption that complexity requires a designer.

Wrong again. There is 'complexity,' and there is IRREDUCIBLE complexity.

Up your game.

So your god is reducible?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

That is your opinion. Not shared by the vast, vast majority of Americans.

The vast, vast majority of Americans? Really? Teach creationism in philosophy class, not science class.

The vast, vast majority of Americans aren't knuckle dragging anti-science people. The vast, vast majority of Americans recognize fable when they see it.

So I understand you and SeaWytch are saying it's OK to teach creationism as long as it's not in science class.

We need redundancy....when teaching fairy-tales??????

 

[NYcarbineer]

Such as Irreducible complexity, for example.

It is only supported by the arbitrarily imposed presumption that complexity requires a designer. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Of sorts, for sure. Also an argument from ignorance, among other things.

It's a back door way of trying to prove the existence of God by a claim that certain things could not exist without there being a God to create them.

Since they do exist, then God must exist.

The problem is, the claim is never proven, or even substantively supported by evidence.

 

[SniperFire]

Over 100% of humans will think the floating apple theory is accurate after I release the next section of never before seen Biblical writings.

Great. Produce a supportable theory and we will take a look at it.

We're waiting for support for ID.

That you choose to stick your head in the sand concerning the volumes of support for ID does not equate to there being no support for it.

 

[SniperFire]

It's a back door way of trying to prove the existence of God

Perhaps. You fear that, then?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Such as Irreducible complexity, for example.

It is only supported by the arbitrarily imposed presumption that complexity requires a designer.

Wrong again. There is 'complexity,' and there is IRREDUCIBLE complexity.

Up your game.

What is 'reducible' in God?

Is God definable, identifiable, describable within the realm/discipline of human science as we know it?

 

[SniperFire]

It is only supported by the arbitrarily imposed presumption that complexity requires a designer.

Wrong again. There is 'complexity,' and there is IRREDUCIBLE complexity.

Up your game.

So your god is reducible?

Poor deduction. You aren't very good at science, are you?

 

[Si modo]

I've come to the conclusion that ID correctly belongs in a Poli Sci class. It's for hacks.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It's a back door way of trying to prove the existence of God

Perhaps. You fear that, then?

You're projecting, you don't have to be scared. Evolution doesn't say god doesn't exist. If your god exists you're not scoring brownie points with him right now by denying the way he made the world.

Trust me, I asked him in our teleconference this morning.

 

[SniperFire]

What is 'reducible' in God?

You are rambling.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It is only supported by the arbitrarily imposed presumption that complexity requires a designer.

Wrong again. There is 'complexity,' and there is IRREDUCIBLE complexity.

Up your game.

What is 'reducible' in God?

Is God definable, identifiable, describable within the realm/discipline of human science as we know it?

He's too powerful for definitions. He'd knock a definition out with one upper cut.

 

[Si modo]

Wrong again. There is 'complexity,' and there is IRREDUCIBLE complexity.

Up your game.

So your god is reducible?

Poor deduction. You aren't very good at science, are you?

It was a question, not a deduction. The punctuation should have given you your first clue.

Again, is your god reducible?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a back door way of trying to prove the existence of God

Perhaps. You fear that, then?

There is what people want to believe, and what people like to believe,

and then there is the Truth.

Which of those applies to a debate about the science of the origins and evolutions of life?

 

[Si modo]

It's a back door way of trying to prove the existence of God

Perhaps. You fear that, then?

You're projecting, you don't have to be scared. Evolution doesn't say god doesn't exist. If your god exists you're not scoring brownie points with him right now by denying the way he made the world.

Trust me, I asked him in our teleconference this morning.

And, I can affirm that. I was there too...dialed in, but just listened.

 

[SniperFire]

It's a back door way of trying to prove the existence of God

Perhaps. You fear that, then?

You're projecting

Not at all. Is a theory either more or less valid based on the motivation of those promoting it?

You suck at this.

 

[SniperFire]

So your god is reducible?

Poor deduction. You aren't very good at science, are you?

It was a question, not a deduction.

It was a declarative which begs the question.

Up your game.

 

[Si modo]

Perhaps. You fear that, then?

You're projecting

Not at all. Is a theory either more or less valid based on the motivation of those promoting it?

You suck at this.

Is your god reducible?

This is the third time I've asked.

I can understand why you want to dodge the question, though.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So your god is reducible?

Poor deduction. You aren't very good at science, are you?

It was a question, not a deduction. The punctuation should have given you your first clue.

Again, is your god reducible?

You have to admit, he knows all the classic dance steps of someone who isn't equipped to intelligently and substantively defend his position.

 

[SniperFire]

Damn. This has been a freaking turkey shoot.


LOL