Search results

As I already pointed out to Jem, as a creationist one of the many problems you will encounter through quote mining from Creationist websites is, you are likely to get a lot of misinformation. A Nobel Prize winner talking of the need of 100 amino acids for a small protein when only 20 are...

None of the de Duve's quotes say any such thing. A de Duve quote does state categorically chance. But as an ID'er, you are of course all about misinformation, misrepresenting , misquoting and misunderstanding. There is plenty of science showing life from non life. But you've already...

You were wrong. You're not going to have any credibility until you acknowledge it. Asking for links to divert away from the mess you've already made but can't acknowledge is not going to help your credibility. Fact is, there is nothing in science that supports intelligent design or even...

Still purposely misrepresenting everything you can as a form of argument. It's no use telling me I'm saying something different to what I am, any more than it is trying to pretend your selective quote mining from Nobel prize winners are saying something different to what they are. There is...

An all quotation marks "nature". Getting emotional again. Not natural then, so despite your earlier protestations, you are a creationist , wishing for an intelligent designer.

There is a universe of what you call non ID staring you in the face. But of course if it's good enough for you, then were intelligent design of that same reality, your current absurd argument should suffice. "Still waiting for evidence of ID. Of course you have none, but still waiting...

You think there is evidence of intelligent design. You are an ID'er. Unlike you I do say there is proof of design. There are designs. There is design. There is NO evidence of intelligent design . By calling what you clearly mean to be Intelligent design , design, at best you're being...

The above quote of Dr. Duve starts with the word If. So don't you think you should include a hypothetical in your alternatives? Nevertheless, put this against it, or alongside anything de Duve provides, whether it is opinion, statement of fact, or science, as there is nothing he has...

What type of person? Why, a de Duve type of person that's what type, who said the answer is chance and chance alone. You won't get science to support intelligent design creationism no matter how much you absurdly and pointlessly re-quote the same stuff whilst all the time ignoring and...

What de Duve said is unambiguous So you try to make it ambiguous by introducing silly and confused arguments like the one below. You seem to think that creating blurred misunderstanding about a categorical statement is a form of argument. It's dishonest and deceitful. It is quite clear...

Let you get this? Be honest, you just don't want to get this. I understand your argument yes. It's bizarre, self-contradictory, batty, shallow.... but funny too. At least you have that much going for it. Don't be so upset. There is an overbearing self-importance in your argument also...

From the non-religious perspective, Newberg has been criticized for not ultimately reducing religion to brain function. There's the kicker. Sure he does the science, and is extremely good at it, but he focuses only on people who are religious. You don't need a PhD to realize that although...

Well then let's get more info..... Matthew W. Anastasi, B.S. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Andrew B. Newberg, M.D. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. ABSTRACT Background: Various rituals have been shown to have both psychologic as well as physical effects...

Faults? Where are the comparisons? Something tells me focusing those tests on keen football or baseball fans while likewise meditating their <strike>religion</strike> game and favorite moments might well have produced same and similar results. What about considering the obvious, that...

No need for some Satan. Most can worship god and jesus AND manage all those things.

You don't understand your own argument, so reminiscent of the flat earthers. Thinking in absolutes is no foundation for coherent argument.

Then pleasure must be a total stranger to you. Any time you can illustrate a coherent argument would do.

You're welcome.

You can only play the denial card so many times until it turns into deceit and dishonesty, which in your case happened many posts ago. "....chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on...

Lol No, seriously, that is funny. :D Dumb yes and crazy too.....but definately funny.