pawiz wrote:Praise Jeebus

evolutiondebunked wrote:

pawiz wrote:Praise Jeebus

That's it? No refutation? No debunking?

pawiz wrote:

evolutiondebunked wrote:

pawiz wrote:Praise Jeebus

That's it? No refutation? No debunking?

Show me your credentials and than if you're man enough I'll come and play

evolutiondebunked wrote:

pawiz wrote:

evolutiondebunked wrote:

pawiz wrote:Praise Jeebus

That's it? No refutation? No debunking?

Show me your credentials and than if you're man enough I'll come and play

Oh, so since I don't have any scientific credentials I don't deserve an explanation? I'm starting to see how evolutionists think. When you ask questions about evolutionism, they ignore you if you don't have a Phd. Well, the folks at the discovery institute do have their degrees. So you're not responding to me. Watch the video and respond to THEM. What is your critique of their video?

I know I'm not going to get an answer. You'll just laugh, or say "aw this is TOO funny." "EDB is soooo stupid."

dionysus wrote:Why did you make me watch that pile of crapola? Congratulations, you've wasted 5 minutes of my life, are you proud of yourself?

evolutiondebunked wrote:

dionysus wrote:Why did you make me watch that pile of crapola? Congratulations, you've wasted 5 minutes of my life, are you proud of yourself?

Here we go again, more joke and assertions that it's crapola. Tell me WHY it's crapola. Obviously nobody here can debunk what they're saying. The more you play games and dance around the issue, the more I believe in creation.

tytalus wrote:Well, having watched the 'homology problem' video and after a small amount of research, it's interesting to find the answer; it seems to be the difference between homologies and analogies. And with the greater ability of modern science to track embryonic development and gene expression, it becomes easier to tell one from the other -- not something they could necessarily do in 1843 when the term was coined, or in the time of Aristotle the YEC's video cites. Or perhaps not in the time of the clip at the front of that video, since it's a bit fuzzy and B&W.

In the end, it seems that the cdesign proponentsists are merely identifying analogies as homologies in order to attack the term -- a sort of straw manning that takes a few minutes' time to identify. Which must be beyond the average YEC to perform.

pawiz wrote:

evolutiondebunked wrote:

pawiz wrote:

evolutiondebunked wrote:

pawiz wrote:Praise Jeebus

That's it? No refutation? No debunking?

Show me your credentials and than if you're man enough I'll come and play

Oh, so since I don't have any scientific credentials I don't deserve an explanation? I'm starting to see how evolutionists think. When you ask questions about evolutionism, they ignore you if you don't have a Phd. Well, the folks at the discovery institute do have their degrees. So you're not responding to me. Watch the video and respond to THEM. What is your critique of their video?

I know I'm not going to get an answer. You'll just laugh, or say "aw this is TOO funny." "EDB is soooo stupid."

Not at all. I'm just trying to determine your basic level of understanding. Once I have that, I can talk to you at the appropriate level.

evolutiondebunked wrote:Here we go again, more joke and assertions that it's crapola. Tell me WHY it's crapola. Obviously nobody here can debunk what they're saying. The more you play games and dance around the issue, the more I believe in creation.

evolutiondebunked wrote:
thanks for the condescending smug. It's becoming clear that you can't critique the video.

evolutiondebunked wrote:

dionysus wrote:Why did you make me watch that pile of crapola? Congratulations, you've wasted 5 minutes of my life, are you proud of yourself?

Here we go again, more joke and assertions that it's crapola. Tell me WHY it's crapola. Obviously nobody here can debunk what they're saying. The more you play games and dance around the issue, the more I believe in creation.

tytalus wrote:I see the YEC is hot to trot over this video, so I'll just repost for the record.

tytalus wrote:Well, having watched the 'homology problem' video and after a small amount of research, it's interesting to find the answer; it seems to be the difference between homologies and analogies. And with the greater ability of modern science to track embryonic development and gene expression, it becomes easier to tell one from the other -- not something they could necessarily do in 1843 when the term was coined, or in the time of Aristotle the YEC's video cites. Or perhaps not in the time of the clip at the front of that video, since it's a bit fuzzy and B&W.

In the end, it seems that the cdesign proponentsists are merely identifying analogies as homologies in order to attack the term -- a sort of straw manning that takes a few minutes' time to identify. Which must be beyond the average YEC to perform.

evolutiondebunked wrote:
thanks for the condescending smug. It's becoming clear that you can't critique the video.

DaveD wrote:So since the "point" raised in the OP, has already been dealt with in another thread, shouldn't the two threads be merged?

hotshoe wrote:

So since the "point" raised in the OP, has already been dealt with in another thread, shouldn't the two threads be merged?

Eh, six of one, half dozen of the other. The "homology" derail from the other thread should really be split off to come here -- leaving the "chimp" content for that OP.

On the other hand, that's a lot more work for the moderators.

Not like we're going to get any substantive discussion between us and the dancing boy either way.