"Intelligent design" legislation in New York dies

National Center for Science Education ^ | 26 June 2006 | Staff

[RightWhale]

all aspects of the controversy surrounding evolution and the origins of man

It is probably beyond the ability of most schoolkids to get all aspects of the controversy. Even the reading list-o-links is more than most have time for.

[ahayes]

My my, stop dancing and answer the question: Do you think giraffe's necks are too short?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You get to show where I stated that "an example of excellent design is evidence for a designer" and that "an example of lousy design is also evidence for a designer".

Is that what you got your panties all twisted up about? I assumed you meant the heart of my post where I showed YOU as the one calling the giraffe's design into question, yet attacking another poster for pointing it out to you. You creos are so wimpishly whiny.

"Now if you consider that lying that's fine with me but I never used the word. :-} :-} :-}"

Is that you Mr. Clinton? You don't consider saying someone made something up out of whole cloth is calling them a liar?


"I get to do whatever I please here at FR until I am asked to leave."

I should have added you can't tell me what to do or not to do with it actually MEANING anything. :)

"And right now it pleases me to make you eat your words. Salt and pepper?"

I have nothing to take back. Why won't you now address where it was YOU who called the design of the giraffe into question while scolding another poster for pointing out your own words. YOU scolded him for saying WHAT YOURSELF HAD SAID. That was the subject and meat of the post. That is what you won't address now.

[jwalsh07]

Whether or not the genome is intelligently designed calls into question whether or not the "design" of Monsanto can be detected.

:-} Right. Of course you never asked me how or if design can be detected, you asked me how intelligent design as a mechanism to change allel frequency can be TESTED. I told you how, you obviously didn't like the answer because you went home to the barn and got out the design detection strawman.

But FWIW, Monsanto uses markers.

[ahayes]

Some of them can simultaneously move the goalposts and dance around the issue.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Do you have an opinion on why natural selection left the giraffes neck too short other than God forgot to cross the t?"

Too short for what?

[jwalsh07]

LOL. You made crap up, you got called on it and now you're whining like a Dixie Chick.

Whine on!

[PatrickHenry]

Surly you know you're being trolled.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Evolutionary biologists don't study the origins of life, biochemists do.

From RD's first link:

In 1924, the Russian plant biochemist and evolutionary biologist Aleksandr I. Oparin questioned Haeckel’s scheme. Oparin could not reconcile his Darwinian view—that simple organisms had gradually evolved into more complex ones—with the prevalent belief that life had suddenly appeared on Earth with a self-sustaining metabolism. So he proposed an alternative scenario. He posited that a long period of abiotic synthesis on early Earth had caused organic compounds to accumulate in a prebiotic soup, which had preceded life.

[jwalsh07]

What do you think?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"LOL. You made crap up, you got called on it and now you're whining like a Dixie Chick."

I made nothing up. I merely posted the implications of your illogical position. YOU did make things up though. You scolded someone who only reposted YOUR words saying the giraffe was poorly designed and then you took him for task for allegedly not giving the designer the ability to do whatever he wanted.

You set the game up as "heads I win, tails you lose".

What's worse is your inability to admit it was YOU who called the giraffe's design into question.

[jwalsh07]

Oh the horror, Patrick Henry has deemed me a troll.

Quick, quick, ping the list!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Oparin was a biochemist. He didn't study what evolutionary biologists study, and his field was not the ToE.

Try again.

[jwalsh07]

OK, now you're dissembling. Words made up out of whole cloth taste better with that salt and pepper Guitarman. I suggest you simply admit there wasno basis for your claims and "move on", as the saying goes.

Or not.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Surly you know you're being trolled."

Yes I do, and don't call me Shirley.

If they could only troll WELL it would be more fun.

[freedumb2003]

IBTP? IBTZ?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I suggest you simply admit there wasno basis for your claims and "move on", as the saying goes."

I'll do no such thing, as what I said was the logical implication of your posts. You want it both ways. It doesn't work that way.

You STILL won't address the point I made about YOU being the one calling the designer's design into question, not the other poster. Yet you had to be so smug about attacking him for his alleged audacity when it was YOU who questioned the giraffe's design.

Every time you ignore this point will be another indicator of your low level of integrity.

[jwalsh07]

I'll do no such thing, as what I said was the logical implication of your posts.

I imply, you infer, Your inference had no basis in fact, thus crap out of whole cloth. Integrity? LOL.

You want it both ways. It doesn't work that way.

No I want it one way. I want you to state your opinion and me to state mine. When you state yours and mine it is very unseemly.

I suggest you go play your guitar, you're not doing very well here.

[jwalsh07]

This is a misstatement of science. Explanations presented as scientific theories must be falsifiable.

Live and learn. So the demarcation between science and non-science below the hierarchial structure of the theory is not falsifiabilty?

Wow!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Your inference had no basis in fact,"

Yes it did. You have been critiquing the design of the giraffe while chastising people for pointing this out, saying since we never designed anything who are we to say what the designer could or couldn't do (even though it was YOU who were do just that). That means that bad design is still, in your world, evidence of a designer. It is not much of a stretch to infer you also think good design is evidence for a designer as well. Do you deny you find good design in nature to be evidence of a designer? My statement was the logical conclusion of your position.

Now, I see you STILL won't own up it was YOU who was criticizing the design of the giraffe, further demonstrating you lack of integrity.