Search results

Of course you are arguing for ID. You've already stated on a number of occasions you want to see intelligent design taught in school. How come creationists have to be so dishonest in everything they say. There is no argument being made that resides completely on the concept of random...

Ok, so you jumped in, made a remark without checking the actual exchanges. But the same situation was again repeated later. I inserted a note to you in the post to mark it . Sounding emotional, then accusing the counterparty of being emotional, with the respondent then pointing out the...

No Jem, you try and control your emotion. "Fricken possible"??..... you should calm down. Notice that Ricter ? Perhaps it would be more warranted in future if you directed comment first in response to the initial 'emotion' accusation, rather than to my reply, which I'd say would have been a...

With no real argument to support intelligent design, mainly because there isn’t one, your arguing is always couched to turn attention away from that problem, trying to mislead, un-educate, allege science is wrong, suggest everyone else is wrong through making silly comparisons, just for not...

It's slightly intriguing then as to why you would make your comment in response to my reply and not to 777'zz earlier one, which had for no real reason already accused me of emotionalism. That's straight after making over a dozen posts in succession of creationists' nonsense in what might well...

Ok, now it's not so much emotionally attached then, but doggedness. Is persistence any kind of a problem to you? I take your point, but is there something perhaps wrong to your mind, in replying to posts on one specific subject? I would just mention in regards to quantity, you are also...

With the lowest total posts on ET between the three of us, I'm gonna claim the least emotional attachment overall.

The answers to your questions are be specific, and no In response to your other comment... There is actually no such thing as an intelligent design theory. It's conjecture at best. Wild and more often than not, just a silly guess. Trying to suggest science is wrong by getting science...

try being honest You talk about context... See that If right there.... In what context do you imagine that puts things in ? Now look below for Christian de Duve's non-conditional, unqualified, categorical statement. What context would that be in? Here we see in plain English why you...

.....perhaps you just didn't think. ID and creationists never make arguments for ID. ID only ever diverts making any argument for ID, by cranking out attacks on the logical proofs and knowledge from science with fallacy and misrepresentation, as you've just proved within your 9 post...

Yes, science without proof is an argument, and for good reason. But "Design theory"...?? lol, you mean intelligent design blind guessing.... is no argument, and for good reason. Frantically posting ID's own false assertions and misinformation 9 times on the trot is no argument either...

Ask yourself the same question. Why are you avoiding it? Science is most certainly an argument. Intelligent design is no argument at all. So there, I've answered your question for both of us. Hope that helps

If you think the question is good enough for me surely it is good enough for you, no matter who asks it first. So, do you have an argument to make or not?

well...? do you...?

Lol. So this is what a message board looks like when creationists get hysterical. You guys have made it quite obvious there is no real argument for your imaginary intelligent designer, other than needfull ignorance and antagonism toward science. here ya go Jem repeat this 20 times a...

That you want to remain ignorant and in denial of answers and explanations that have nothing to do with magic and makebelieve, is your problem, arrived at clearly through your own nonintelligent designs.

It's a funny blog alright, but then ID is constantly trying to help very silly people feel smart through making absurdly dumb remarks about the science they are purposefully and needfully ignorant in. Spontaneous generation comes from religion not science. From the Goddess Gaia, and the...

There is no absence of some other explanation. There is a great deal of science to support a strong possibility or probability for life to evolve from nonliving material. And you don't need to be a Nobel prize winner to realize that lack of, is not evidence for. The complete lack of any...

I understand being deceitful means you need to wriggle about like that until your brain fries. "Before we were arguing about whether De Duve was saying we have no proof. "Not true. This is what you were arguing.... "..... this may be a nobel prize winner saying there is an argument for...

What a pathetic excuse for an argument, even for you. Maybe I can help you though. Here's a list of some really dopey stuff you could use as a creationist, just to see if you can get any more absurd than you are being. Say things like "Well if you remember chemistry, that just disproves...