[_ Old Earth _] See the Movie EXPELLED - atheist darwinism vs God

[Barbarian]

Bob's back to "I know what Patterson meant, even if Patterson says he meant something else."

It's all he has left. Let's see how many times we can make him repeat it.

 

[BobRyan]

Case in point is this Patterson thing. Using only quotations is third hand evidence at best, especially when the validity of the statements has any level of doubt cast upon it. I am a little surprised he doesn't drop the Patterson thing though, that argument has been utterly shot to pieces over the last few threads

That repeated attempt at wild empty claims relying on revisionist history and arguing out of the void of compelling arguments you have not yet provided - will never be swallowed by those objective unbiased readers here that are not simply devotees of the dogma and doctrine of atheist darwinism.

Surely you knew that before posting -- right?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob's back to "I know what Patterson meant, even if Patterson says he meant something else."

It's all he has left. Let's see how many times we can make him repeat it.

There is no "meant something else" regarding anything I have posted. There is only Patterson saying that Sunderland's conclusions where not the same as Pattersons. But as aLL objective unbiased readers have noted -- a quote of Sunderland's conclusions were never brought in as an argument against DArwinism or against Patterson.

once again you argue out of the void of what has not transpired on these threads NOR can it be found in anything PAtterson stated!!

Try not to dodge the point -- There is no "quote of SUNDERLAND saying what Patterson MEANT" on ANY of these threads as an argument FOR or against Darwinism.

But of course "you already knew" that there was no substance in your argument BEFORE you posted it. (Still it is amazing that you keep doing it.)

Time to leave fantasy Barbarian -- begin to embrace facts... substance.

Imagining history is not going to serve your argument in this case.

(or maybe in using these transparent fallacies you were thinking that you were "on my side' in this?? AS XoM claims ;-) )
Bob

 

[Barbarian]

It always comes down to that. Bob thinks he knows what Patterson meant, even when Patterson clearly denies it.

Maybe if you post in Big Red Letters again, it might be more convincing. Or maybe not. But it does brighten up the board a bit.

Have you tried "caps lock"? That might make you even more credible.

 

[Guest]

Have you tried "caps lock"? That might make you even more credible.

CAPS-LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!!!!111


Oh and also,

That repeated attempt at wild empty claims relying on revisionist history and arguing out of the void of compelling arguments you have not yet provided - will never be swallowed by those objective unbiased readers here that are not simply devotees of the dogma and doctrine of atheist darwinism.

Revisionist? Me? I don't think anything needs to be changed to the scientific method. It's perfect as it is, it promotes intelligence, makes useful discoveries and perhaps most importantly keeps ignorant people like you, Stein and the rest of the ID crowd out of the loop. I have provided a hundred arguments, none of which you have managed to refute, most of which you haven't managed to understand and a few you have managed to misinterpret and so far everyone's swallowing it, except for you. If you can look into your heart and say you speak on evolution without bias, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

[/quote]

 

[VaultZero4Me]

It always comes down to that. Bob thinks he knows what Patterson meant, even when Patterson clearly denies it.

Maybe if you post in Big Red Letters again, it might be more convincing. Or maybe not. But it does brighten up the board a bit.

Have you tried "caps lock"? That might make you even more credible.

What I do not understand is, what does Bob even think the quotes would accomplish, even if they were accurate descriptions?

Why does he think 25 year old quotations mean more than actual data?

"Here Bob, take a look at the ERV's and some of the interesting things discovered from sequencing the human genome."

"Yeah, whatever, in 1973 Patterson said this." - Bob

"But Bob, this data comes from 2005."

"Whatever, what about Simpson's horse from over 50 years ago?" -Bob

 

[Snidey]

I am in the "ignoring Bob would be better for discussion" camp here - his posts are easily identified by the average person as overzealous and rambling. We don't need to address him.

 

[John]

So, Expelled is coming to Canada i here :wink:

 

[Snidey]

It bombed in the US, it will bomb in Canada.

 

[John]

It bombed in the US, it will bomb in Canada.

Hmmm, Where i come from if something "bombs" it rocks.

 

[Snidey]

So you rate movies based on the same criteria you apply to scientific theories.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I think I would rather sit through the classes the kiddies were forced to sit through on "The Wonder Years" that ol' dry eyes gave, then sit through that movie of his.

 

[BobRyan]

So, Expelled is coming to Canada i here :wink:

Indeed AND some key segments are available on youtube. The "deny-all" dark-ages censorship of the atheist darwinist camp would RATHER that people not SEE the evidence. But their whining not withstanding -- we can SEE!


True Believers in Atheist Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible (as a kind of a-factual Aesop's fable text) is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, characters and events!

http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778



Animated Cell shows Protein Synth – argues ID
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSasTS-n ... re=related


EXPELLED – Animated Cell 1:59 minute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxZ3bhQpz5s


Evols Contradicting their own storytelling AND relating bananas to Dogs!
AND claiming there is no difference between breeding dogs (micro-variation within a species) and reptiles breeding birds (macro-evolution) -- given enough application of "billions" and imaginary fossil sequences of course.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk

If Darwinists can not scientifically argue from the fossil data that “this one thing came from that other one†and that B shows genetic improvement or “evolution†in it’s progress from “A†then – we have a problem Houston! No wonder Dawkins gets so flummoxed when asked to show an example of this genetic advantage accumulating up the chain from species to species.

Dawkins; 11 Second flummox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

No wonder the darwinist religionists take the position "ignore the data" and "ignore the posts" -- "ignore the arguments against our religion".

What "else" do they have?

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

I am in the "ignoring Bob would be better for discussion" camp here - his posts are easily identified by the average person as overzealous and rambling. We don't need to address him.

You are probably right. But every now and then, such as his recent "humans and chimps have different numbers of chromosomes" gaffe, he actually provides science a service by presenting a misconception we can correct.

BTW, Bob is probably unaware that the cell animation he linked to, was plagiarized by Stein:
http://blog.darwincentral.org/2008/04/1 ... ns-father/

 

[BobRyan]

hint --

click --
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31852&start=165#p397421

Read and follow the links.

then post some insightful comment.

Bob