Posted: Jan 21, 2011 5:58 am
by Царь Славян
Flat out bold faced lie. ID is creationism in every possible way. Fuck, we even have the transitional forms in the books that were written after the 1987 courtcase that struck down creationism. Almost every single ID proponent, and certainly all of the founders of the ID movement and the members of the ID-"thinktank" The Discovery Institute have openly admitted to religious motivations.

Just because you invent a new label and attempt to avoid naming who's doing the designing doesn't mean we suddenly forget the history of the ID movement. Noone is fooled. It's Creationism, deal with it.
Derive the creation story from the main ID postulates and compare it to any other form of creationism and let's see if it's the same.

Wait... you are actually going to defend cherry picking data? ROFL.
I didn't say data. I said it edpends on WHAT is going to be picked. If we are going to be picking cherries, then yeah, I'll cherrypick...

It's simply obvious that you have no clue how changes can result in phenotypic and morphological change.
You base this assertation on?

Especially your complete lack of understanding of proteins have been made explicit for all to see in this thread.
Cite us all an example.

Your consistent handwaving at all the papers presented that shot down your assertions testify this fact quite convincingly.
What exactly did I handwave?

I guess he read this thread.
That doesn't explain how he came to that conclusion.

Says the guy who once again equivocated a horribly oversimplified Abiogenesis with Darwinian Evolution.
I don't remember saying that abiogenesis = evolution.

There you go with your "from rocks" nonsense again, equivocating Abiogenesis with Evolution through mutation and natural selection.
No, I'm not equivocation anything. I'm just combining those two flawed ideas and presenting your creation story to you.