Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
They weren't about molecular biology. They were about not second-guessing the Designer. That's pretty unbeatable science, but not very informative.
Why am I reading your posts? Where is that bozo filter?
Mere Creation conference, originally titled "Redesigning Science."
William A. Dembski, Ph.D.
Center for the Philosophy of Religion, University of Notre Dame
The linked article makes claims but does nothing to substantiate them.
I do not exclude pseudo-random number generators nor cryptographic work. Perhaps you could explain how the existence (or non-existence) of a pseudo-random number generator has bearing on evolutionary biology.
I was. How quickly you walked away from differences between eukaryotes and prokaryotes and the molecules that define them.
Because you know I know a lot more than you (an understatement) on the topic and that I am making very valid points that you understand.
Interesting rhetorical approaches.
Anyhow then, what was that program Dawkins wrote and talked about distributed with Blind Watchmaker? I forget the name.
Ahh, the truth comes out...! You make sweeping generalizations, but specify nothing.
To paraphrase the old line from Top Gun, "your ego's writing checks your intellect can't cash..."
Put up or shut up. Facts or silence... A lack of facts on your part is a demonstration that you have no facts...
Of course, since you have no leg to stand on, I wonder what the next lame tactic will be, from you...?
No doubt, it'll be as empty-headed and factually vacuous as the rest of your posts... Now that I really think about it, you're simply amusing. You're a joke, and you don't even know it...
Actually, you're totally irrelevant. Cover for the Luddites. Only you don't succeed at this.
How quickly you walked away from differences between eukaryotes and prokaryotes and the molecules that define them.
That does have a relevance for this thread, but you haven't made a dent in it. Even the mitochondria which you mentioned also have a relevance of which I assume you're aware. The likely history of such bodies in eukaryotes is another thing that guy whose posts you claim to have not read would toss out with his big ID-er shrug.
You see, you jumped into a conversation. That guy whose posts you have not read thinks you take the fossil evidence for life on earth and say, "Well, He did it that way. Who can say why?"
Can you defend this? Want to stay with mitosis and meiosis for a while? Why does sex matter?
What is the story of mitochondria in eukaryotes?
You see, my point is not that I can baffle with BS. That's your point, that you hope you can.
My point is that there is a story, not that I'm perfect at telling it. The irrelevant Luddites whose posts you don't read are throwing away the story.
I forget the name.
You're . . . incredible.
Please focus and remember coherence is important.
False accusations?
Strange flame-war thread diversion.
I kill no robber.
Come on up, it's toothless!
What is-- the platypus?
Um, are you familiar with the term reading things in to things? Kind of like projection.
You have a very fixed and limited view and seem to only be able to relate to preconceived notions in your own little noggin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.