Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum (Page 12): "According to Lyle's principal the best explanation is the one that invokes a cause which we know from our experience which...

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

"According to Lyle's principal the best explanation is the one that invokes a cause which we know from our experience which can produce the effect we are trying to explain."- Stephen Meyer. <<<<< Intelligent Design fits nicely within this scientific principle, Neo Darwinian evolution however does not. There is NO scientific bases for darwinism...it is based purely on speculation and over active imaginations. :)

LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley

James Shaw wrote:

You state "more than 1.2%," but provide no support for that statement. So, if I may humbly ask, what is the source of that information that you state. Many of us would like to know where is the wrong, if indeed wrong is correct.

Did you miss the "key" word likely?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

LarJgrip wrote:

Did you miss the "key" word likely?

James and Eddie have no evidence that there is ONLY 1.2% of scientists that support Intelligent Design. :) But then again, we really don't care about numbers do we LarJ? We care about what is true not on consensus, consensus must accompany that which is true.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

LarJgrip wrote:

Did you miss the "key" word likely?

Obviously missed it.

I had no intention of replying to him ...

James Shaw

Quote:

James Shaw wrote: br So you CLAIM, LarJ. But neith... (show quote)

LarJgrip wrote:

And you cling to your faerie tale as you will

And my "faerie tale" is ............. ?

James Shaw

Racmanaz wrote:

"According to Lyle's principal the best explanation is the one that invokes a cause which we know from our experience which can produce the effect we are trying to explain."- Stephen Meyer. <<<<< Intelligent Design fits nicely within this scientific principle, Neo Darwinian evolution however does not. There is NO scientific bases for darwinism...it is based purely on speculation and over active imaginations. :)

The Clown is clearly delusional, most likely bipolar.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

LOL amazing, still spewing personal attacks due to the lack of evidence to refute what I have posted....more of the same vitriolic attacks...how fun lol

James Shaw

Quote:

LarJgrip wrote:
Did you miss the "key" word likely?

Racmanaz wrote:

James and Eddie have no evidence that there is ONLY 1.2% of scientists that support Intelligent Design. :) But then again, we really don't care about numbers do we LarJ? We care about what is true not on consensus, consensus must accompany that which is true.

No one with sense believes you, Clown. ID is myth, just like the creation story (sex with his own rib) in Genesis.

James Shaw

Racmanaz wrote:

LOL amazing, still spewing personal attacks due to the lack of evidence to refute what I have posted....more of the same vitriolic attacks...how fun lol

"lack of evidence to refute" (your words Clown). The onest is on you to convince, Clown, not on others "to refute," and you, Clown, have yet to convince anyone.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

LOL this is flipping hilarious! You see this LarJ? LOLOL

James Shaw

Racmanaz wrote:

LOL this is flipping hilarious! You see this LarJ? LOLOL

You are the laughing stock, Clown.

LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley

Racmanaz wrote:

LOL this is flipping hilarious! You see this LarJ? LOLOL

Yea, I'm seeing it :roll: <<<<sigh>>>>>

He's just plain delusional and content in it

I would love to sit across the table from him.

James Shaw

Racmanaz wrote:

"According to Lyle's principal the best explanation is the one that invokes a cause which we know from our experience which can produce the effect we are trying to explain."- Stephen Meyer. <<<<< Intelligent Design fits nicely within this scientific principle, Neo Darwinian evolution however does not. There is NO scientific bases for darwinism...it is based purely on speculation and over active imaginations. :)

ID is myth; pseudoscience. Clown chooses to remain science ignorant. If Clown had anything reasonable to say he would have said it by now. He continues to repeat the same nonsensical things over and over again. He is an ignoramus, and he is science illiterate.

What a loser.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

LarJgrip wrote:

Yea, I'm seeing it :roll: <<<<sigh>>>>>

He's just plain delusional and content in it

I would love to sit across the table from him.

LOL wow...and he says I repeat the same things over and over? How bizarre lol

James: ID is myth; pseudoscience. Clown chooses to remain science ignorant. If Clown had anything reasonable to say he would have said it by now. He continues to repeat the same nonsensical things over and over again. He is an ignoramus, and he is science illiterate.

What a loser.

slocumeddie Loc: Inside your head, again

Racmanaz wrote:

I mostly agree, I believe there is much to consider for a scientist when deciding coming out in the open about faith in God and the support of ID.

Faith in god and the support of ID are two separate issues.....you attempt to conflate them.....the Discovery Institute claims it does not.....

Coming out about faith in god has nothing to do with science.....faith requires no evidence.....science requires much evidence......

Racmanaz wrote:

Those scientists that openly question the validity or have valid doubts about the evidence of Darwinian evolution end up getting ostracized and insulted by their peers.

There is little to no evidence supporting the statement above. Who has been ostracized or insulted??? If you have good evidence, bring it on.....

Racmanaz wrote:

There is very little freedom of expression in the scientific academia when it involves a ANY critique of Darwinism, it should be open to valid opposition and critiques.

It is open to valid opposition and critique.....It has been opposed and challenged for 150 years.....However "god did it" is not valid opposition.....

Racmanaz wrote:

I also have total faith in God as the Divine Creator even without any scientific evidence. I came to God because of His calling not because of any physical evidence, as billions have since the creation of this Earth.

Good for you.....you are entitled to your belief. Stop trying to prove the existence of your god to others using science.....Scientifically literate individuals just won't buy it..........

Another view of ID and it's proponents.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM