Half the science with twice the religion

So, that's how the answers got in the back of the book. I always wondered about that...

Textbook definition of a Straw-Man Argument. Wow. Very Impressed.

Textbook definition of a Straw-Man Argument.

Excellent PZ. Captured what IDC is all about. I passed it one to my friends in Grantsburg, WI that were subjected to the DI's "Icons of Evolution" video at a school board meeting last year. I think that they will enjoy this.

Anyone who hasn't read Wikipedia's article on Dembski should do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dembski

It's remarkably current, featuring something which happened just last week.

Does anyone else see a striking resemblance between the man in the white coat and Dembski?

People like T. Russ exemplify why creationists are seen as deviously obvious, smugly stupid bores by everyone, including themselves, when outside their "Grand Order of Water Buffaloes Lodge."

Now, back to trying to understand what I can about the wonder that is, and will forever be, the current state of the ToE.

Textbook definition of a Straw-Man Argument. Wow. Very Impressed.

Textbook definition of a Straw-Man Argument. Wow. Very Impressed.

I had a thought about "too complex to be random". Has an ID advocate ever taken an hour or two out of their busy schedule to look at snowflakes through a microscope?

Snowflakes come straight from heaven; they are God's dandruff.

I'm no scientist, but I think I can offer an experiment that can be done to finally debunk the "irreducibly complex" argument (not that it hasn't already been, but this experiment would be too much fun NOT to do anyway). I believe everyone would agree that the human brain is the most complex part of a human. My hypotheis would be that if you took 399 scientists from the Discovery institute and removed their brains, that they would wake up screaming "NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS"!!, abolishing any possible "irreducibly complex" argument.

wow, that guys other cartoons are filled with a lot of 'Reality based' bull. ID is a dirty trick perpetrated by lax creationists, but that cartoonist is a moonbat. I am left wondering what kind of cartoon would have been produced if President Bush had said that Evolution is a fact...

"monolithfoo" sez: "wow, that guys other cartoons are filled with a lot of 'Reality based' bull. ID is a dirty trick perpetrated by lax creationists, but that cartoonist is a moonbat. I am left wondering what kind of cartoon would have been produced if President Bush had said that Evolution is a fact..."

Now, this sounds like a late-in troll, due to the lack of proper capitalization and punctuation as much as the apparent attempt ("Reality based" [sic]) at some sort of, um, joke? at the end, and if it's parody, it needs a lot of work!
If "sincere" (in that odd way trolls, and indeed 99% of creationists are sincere), may I lob back the observation that I am very sure you are no doubt "left" wondering by everything that a normal human being revels in actively wondering about, and in trying to understand.

It is alarming that the best efforts of trolls at "humoure" are often very, very difficult to distinguish from parodies of said humor. For me, the giveaways are that true parodies usually show a certain flair with language, which NO troll ever does, while true trolls always reveal a petty, bitter, feces-throwing temper, however subtle their intentions.
All Creationist writing, perhaps especially the IDots, are the very embodiment of spiritual and/or intellectual yahoos.

I take that as a deep insult darwinfinch. I am in NO WAY a creationist, IDist, or troll. I viewed that cartoon with high amusement, but his other stuff is depressingly crazy moonbat tripe. I call em like I seem them.

Perhaps he just got confused. I sure as hell get confused. Sometimes I'm unable to remember if so and so is a creationist, and therefore, that there's no point arguing with him. The only reliable rule I notice around here is, people who use their real names are more considerate than people who don't, but that's not my own novel insight, that sociological observation predates the internet.

The only reliable rule I notice around here is, people who use their real names are more considerate than people who don't, but that's not my own novel insight, that sociological observation predates the internet.

It may be off topic or covered elsewhere but why don't we cut to the chase and tell 'em it like it is:

"There is ain't no intelligent designer 'cos there ain't no god".

Incidentally as a schoolboy in London in about 1960 delivering milk for pocket money, a customer gave me closely printed leaflet which discussed "all the wonderful things in nature" and how they must have been created by a "Great Designer". I lost the sheet years ago but the ID idea has been around for years and I am surprised at how many are perplexed at what they see as a new concept. It was crap in 1960 and it is still is today.

Comment #45049 Posted by Maquis de Sade on August 26, 2005 08:42 PM (e) (s) The only reliable rule I notice around here is, people who use their real names are more considerate than people who don't, but that's not my own novel insight, that sociological observation predates the internet.

Half science, twice religion, and five times the spam?