Comments from Uncommondescent Posts

Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Bettawrekonize -> Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 11:46:24 AM)
Uncommondescent has some issues where many of my posts wind up deleted. It's probably a flaw in their spam filter but I still wanted to respond to some of their posts so I will do so here. _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Kenneth Miller on The Colbert Report ________________________________________ My response quote: “Science is open to debate”? If science were really so open to debate then why doesn’t he invite a prominent proponent of ID or creationism or critic of evolution to debate him in front of such an audience (ie: Michael Behe or William Dembski). I’m sure most prominent proponents of ID and creationism and critics of evolution would be glad to debate against him in a public debate. Instead, they put him up against someone who seems to agree with him. How scientific. I know why he won’t debate a prominent proponent of ID and creationism or a prominent critic of evolution. Evolution can’t defend itself and ID can. _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Teaching the Non-Controversy — An Immodest Proposal __________________________________________ My response quote: Intelligent design advocates argue that life contains IC and SC structures and characteristics (ie: the flagellum) and that whenever such characteristics emerge and the origins are known (ie: a car or a mousetrap), they are always a product of design. Based on this, they infer that life is designed. They argue that ID is falsifiable and that if one observes an IC or SC characteristic emerge independently of design, it would falsify ID. Students should be able to defend evolution against such criticisms and opposing views (ie: ID and creationism) (ie: by showing examples of IC and SC structures emerging independent of design). If evolution really is scientific then students in relevant fields should be familiar enough with it to defend it against the strongest non-strawman criticisms and opposing views. If evolution is scientific and students can’t defend it against the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views then that suggests that they aren’t really that familiar with evolution and so they should not be allowed to pass. Of course, in order to defend against the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views, students should be familiar with those criticisms and opposing views (ie: ID and creationism). _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ I posted these on their site but for some reason they got deleted.

Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 12:10:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Uncommondescent has some issues where many of my posts wind up deleted. Hehe. Others have observed this as well which led to one of the funniest statements ever in the creo v. evo debate. The only missing links are at Uncommon Descent

Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 12:19:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize “Science is open to debate”? If science were really so open to debate then why doesn’t he invite a prominent proponent of ID or creationism or critic of evolution to debate him in front of such an audience (ie: Michael Behe or William Dembski). I’m sure most prominent proponents of ID and creationism and critics of evolution would be glad to debate against him in a public debate. Instead, they put him up against someone who seems to agree with him. How scientific. Debate in science involves original research. Behe doesn't have any, therefore there is nothing to debate. In order to have a position you must first do the research and publish. quote: Intelligent design advocates argue that life contains IC and SC structures and characteristics (ie: the flagellum) and that whenever such characteristics emerge and the origins are known (ie: a car or a mousetrap), they are always a product of design. Based on this, they infer that life is designed. You can't infer something from an argument. Inference comes from experimentation. quote: They argue that ID is falsifiable and that if one observes an IC or SC characteristic emerge independently of design, it would falsify ID. You need positive evidence as well, which would include observations of the supposed designer actually designing something. I could just as easily claim that evolution is falsifiable because if we observed a supernatural deity producing IC structures evolution would be falsified. This is not satisfactory because we also need positive evidence of evolution at work. quote: Students should be able to defend evolution against such criticisms and opposing views (ie: ID and creationism) (ie: by showing examples of IC and SC structures emerging independent of design). Students should be shown how ID is being applied in scientific research. Right now, there is nothing to show. quote: If evolution really is scientific then students in relevant fields should be familiar enough with it to defend it against the strongest non-strawman criticisms and opposing views. The opposing view boils down to "evolution is impossible" with zero research behind it. Students are not trained to defend scientific theories against religious dogma. They are trained to develop theories based on observation and experimentation and then apply those theories to their work. quote: Of course, in order to defend against the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views, students should be familiar with those criticisms and opposing views (ie: ID and creationism). Where can we find these criticisms in the peer reviewed literature?

drj11 -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 12:28:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize “Science is open to debate”? If science were really so open to debate then why doesn’t he invite a prominent proponent of ID or creationism or critic of evolution to debate him in front of such an audience (ie: Michael Behe or William Dembski). I’m sure most prominent proponents of ID and creationism and critics of evolution would be glad to debate against him in a public debate. Instead, they put him up against someone who seems to agree with him. How scientific. I know why he won’t debate a prominent proponent of ID and creationism or a prominent critic of evolution. Evolution can’t defend itself and ID can. Ken Miller has debated Michael Behe... in court no less. Guess who lost? Guess who was prepared and who wasnt? Guess who had volumes of research to back up his claims, and guess who didnt? quote: If evolution really is scientific then students in relevant fields should be familiar enough with it to defend it against the strongest non-strawman criticisms and opposing views. If evolution is scientific and students can’t defend it against the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views then that suggests that they aren’t really that familiar with evolution and so they should not be allowed to pass. Of course, in order to defend against the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views, students should be familiar with those criticisms and opposing views (ie: ID and creationism). If only you would heed your own advice about straw-man arguments (ie "UCD is unfalsible!!!11). Here's an argument against ID, no straw-men included. There isnt a single piece of evidence that exists anywhere else but in the fanciful speculations of a couple mentally unhinged 'scientists' with extreme religious agendas.

Jhud -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 12:31:27 PM)
quote: Ken Miller has debated Michael Behe... in court no less. Guess who lost? Guess who was prepared and who wasnt? Guess who had volumes of research to back up his claims, and guess who didnt? One doesn't 'debate' in court, and courts don't decide science issues - except in the case of evolution, which can't suppport itself outside of the protection of a sympathetic judge.

drj11 -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 12:35:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Ken Miller has debated Michael Behe... in court no less. Guess who lost? Guess who was prepared and who wasnt? Guess who had volumes of research to back up his claims, and guess who didnt? One doesn't 'debate' in court, and courts don't decide science issues - except in the case of evolution, which can't suppport itself outside of the protection of a sympathetic judge. Actually they were quite worried about the judge in the dover trial because of his conservative/religious bias.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 12:35:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method You need positive evidence as well, which would include observations of the supposed designer actually designing something. Aside from the fact that there is no positive evidence for UCD, there is positive evidence for ID. In the case of ancient pyramids or in the case of ancient archeology or if we find an alien spaceship on mars, we do not need to know how the object was designed (and we don't even need to know how to design such an object) in order to infer design. quote: You can't infer something from an argument. Inference comes from experimentation. Inferences come from evidence. quote: Debate in science involves original research. Behe doesn't have any, therefore there is nothing to debate. In order to have a position you must first do the research and publish. More lies or delusion. ID does do research and we have referenced it several times on other forums. I guess you just choose to ignore it. Behe used to do research, but as soon as it was discovered that he was an ID advocate, the secular community no longer funds his research but they fund their own dogma with tax dollars. Then they deny tenure to those who disagree with them (ie: Gonzales). If such misbehavior has no effect on the alleged consensus, then there is no reason for such behavior to occur because the secular community has no reason to believe that the lack of their misbehavior would change the consensus. quote: I could just as easily claim that evolution is falsifiable because if we observed a supernatural deity producing IC structures evolution would be falsified. This is not satisfactory because we also need positive evidence of evolution at work. The difference here is that we never observe evolution producing IC and SC structures (independent of already existing IC and SC characteristics) but we do observe design doing such. quote: Students should be shown how ID is being applied in scientific research. Right now, there is nothing to show. I would say that we have shown this to be false several times on these forums. Keep ignoring. Jhud, for example, showed how it was ID advocates that came up with frontloading and evolutionists that have stole it (ie: that one person advocating the universal genome who said he hates ID advocates). Creationists have come up with the notion of natural selection, evolution acquired traits. Creationists and ID advocates have had a history of being right and evolutionists have had a history of being wrong. Darwin was wrong about so much that I am better off using a horror scope for making predictions. Even a horror scope gets it right sometimes. In the case of evolution, it's a hit and miss thing, they get very few things right but the majority of things they get wrong. Or they try to hedge their bets (as has been shown on these forums several times, but keep ignoring). Different authors would make completely opposite predictions and they would cover the entire pool of predictions and those who get it right get remembered and those who get it wrong get forgotten (ie: some evolutionists predicted dinosaurs would have feathers, others predicted they won't).

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 12:38:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Hehe. Others have observed this as well which led to one of the funniest statements ever in the creo v. evo debate. I got banned from there today. Don't know why. If I try to make a new account with my E - Mail address, it says there already exists an account with that address. However, when I try to login, it says wrong username or password. When I try to change my password, it says something like invalid key or something. Somehow, I don't think the moderators of that forum are behind this (more like those at wordpress or something). quote: The only missing links are at Uncommon Descent Sometimes I wonder about them. Creationists and ID advocates should host their own stuff. There are too many dishonest committed naturalists (though not necessarily all are) that would try to get themselves in a position to regulate anything that opposes their views.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 12:42:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 Actually they were quite worried about the judge in the dover trial because of his conservative/religious bias. As if "they" aren't bias.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 12:45:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Where can we find these criticisms in the peer reviewed literature? You mean peer reviewed literature that agrees with you? Creationists do have their own peer review literature you know. quote: The opposing view boils down to "evolution is impossible" with zero research behind it. Keep ignoring what our criticisms are. It's not about how much "research" there is behind something, it's about how much "evidence" there is behind something. One can do a lot of research to prove that the moon does not exist, but it does not mean that the moon does not exist. The opposing criticisms are that there isn't enough evidence to show that evolution can produce new IC and SC structures independent design or existing IC and SC structures and that whenever we observe IC and SC structures and the origins are known, they are always a product of design. Please, feel free to keep ignoring. quote: Students are not trained to defend scientific theories against religious dogma. They are trained to develop theories based on observation and experimentation and then apply those theories to their work. If students in relevant fields are unable to defend evolution then that either suggests that evolution is not defendable or that students are not very familiar with evolution. Students in relevant fields should be familiar enough with evolution to defend it if evolution is scientific. In order to defend evolution, students should be familiar with criticisms and opposing views.

drj11 -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 12:49:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 Actually they were quite worried about the judge in the dover trial because of his conservative/religious bias. As if "they" aren't bias. By "they" I mean the plantiff's represented by the NCSE and their witnesses. "They" were worried about the judge leaning in favor of ID. Fortunately, he looked at the issue objectively.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 12:53:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 By "they" I mean the plantiff's represented by the NCSE and their witnesses. "They" were worried about the judge leaning in favor of ID. As if "they" are somehow immune to bias. quote: Fortunately, he looked at the issue objectively. As if your opinion is the only objective one. You are somehow the ultimate authority over what constitutes objectivity. The students should be the authority. They should be exposed to all sides of the issue and they should be allowed to decide for themselves what to believe, not you. But seriously, does anyone have any reasonable arguments to put forth. Is this the best you can do? It seems that many naturalists continuously take up time and message board space with bad arguments over why they want students brainwashed with their religious naturalistic beliefs at taxpayer expense while having criticisms and opposing views censored from public schools because they know that their views can't be defended in the face of criticisms and opposing views. Method seems smart enough to realize this. The arguments for brainwashing students with naturalistic nonsense at taxpayer expense are nonsensual and I think that most committed naturalists (even the ones on these forums) know this. I really don't know why they continue to bring flawed arguments over and over to defend their nonsense, arguments that have been refuted over and over on these forums. The fact is that UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are not defensible in the face of scrutiny. If this weren't so, committed naturalists should be glad to expose students to the strongest criticisms and opposing views in public schools because they would be able to refute them. But they can't, so they resort to censorship instead.

drj11 -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 1:02:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 By "they" I mean the plantiff's represented by the NCSE and their witnesses. "They" were worried about the judge leaning in favor of ID. As if "they" are somehow immune to bias. What does the bias of 'they' have anything to do with the judge? Your not making sense. quote: But seriously, does anyone have any reasonable arguments to put forth. Is this the best you can do? There are full threads dedicated to that purpose filled with contributions that you simply rebuke with your same old line of "Unfalsible, unfalsible unfalsibel!". My Evidence for a young earth thread however, was a chance for you to put forth some honest scientific evidence for your creation myth... if any on-the-fence potential young earthers were to stumble across that thread, it really wouldnt look to good for your side.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 1:07:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 What does the bias of 'they' have anything to do with the judge? The point is that everyone is bias. quote: Your not making sense. The only ones not making sense are those who think their naturalistic religion should be funded at taxpayer expense while all criticisms and opposing views should be censored. I'm making perfect sense. It makes perfect sense that everyone is bias, including the judge, including you, and including (as you call them), "them." This is why students should be exposed to all sides and they should decide for themselves what to believe. People like you shouldn't try to decide for them what to be exposed to.

drj11 -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 1:17:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize The point is that everyone is bias. What is your point? I said there was a concern the judge was not only biased, but biased in favor of the defendants cause. quote: The only ones not making sense are those who think their naturalistic religion should be funded at taxpayer expense while all criticisms and opposing views should be censored. I'm making perfect sense. It makes perfect sense that everyone is bias, including the judge, including you, and including (as you call them), "them." This is why students should be exposed to all sides and they should decide for themselves what to believe. People like you shouldn't try to decide for them what to be exposed to. Whatever positions I may personally hold on the funding of scientific research and educational institutions has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever on the issue. I havent discussed those views. I can tell you what shouldnt be allowed, is the misappropriation of science to teach religion, which is what you advocate.

Veritas -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 1:20:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Ken Miller has debated Michael Behe... in court no less. Guess who lost? Guess who was prepared and who wasnt? Guess who had volumes of research to back up his claims, and guess who didnt? One doesn't 'debate' in court, and courts don't decide science issues - except in the case of evolution, which can't suppport itself outside of the protection of a sympathetic judge. Quite right. The courts don't decide science issues; they rule on matters of law. It is illegal to promote religion in public schools. Based on the evidence, the courts have consistently determined that the teaching of creationism/ID is promoting religion and is a violation of the First Amendment.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 1:29:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 What is your point? The point is obvious, but keep ignoring it. quote: I said there was a concern the judge was not only biased, Concern by people also subject to bias. quote: but biased in favor of the defendants cause. Just because there may have been concern by some that he would be bias for the defendants cause (academic freedom) does not mean that he wasn't bias for the plaintiff's cause (naturalistic brainwashing). Why do you overlook something so obvious? Do you have a decent argument to make? quote: Whatever positions I may personally hold on the funding of scientific research and educational institutions has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever on the issue. I havent discussed those views. I can tell you what shouldnt be allowed, is the misappropriation of science to teach religion, which is what you advocate. Who are you to tell me what I advocate. I advocate academic freedom. If anything, what you advocate is that students be brainwashed with unscientific naturalistic philosophies (ie: UCD) at taxpayer expense with the censorship of criticisms and opposing views. That's is the misappropriation of science. Science welcomes criticisms and opposing views and if you advocate that criticisms and opposing views be censored and that only your views be taught at the expense of taxpayers, you are advocating the misappropriation of science. Advocating your religious views (naturalism) and only your religious views is advocating religion. Teaching your views and criticisms and opposing views is advocating science because science welcomes criticisms and opposing views. Or else, they should remove UCD and other naturalistic philosophies from the curriculum.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 1:44:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud One doesn't 'debate' in court, and courts don't decide science issues - except in the case of evolution, which can't suppport itself outside of the protection of a sympathetic judge. If committed naturalists could defend their views, they should be happy to expose students to the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views and they should not be happy with denying Gonzales tenure for being an ID advocate and they should not endorse unfairly discriminating against scientists who question evolution or who may support ID or creationism. The reason many committed naturalists resort to such dishonest tactics to promote their naturalistic philosophies is because they simply can't defend their views in the face of criticisms and opposing views.

Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 1:53:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Aside from the fact that there is no positive evidence for UCD, That is a lie. You should be honest and admit that you will never accept any evidence that supports UCD. quote: there is positive evidence for ID. So scientists have observed this supposed designer making such things as flagellum and a blood clotting cascade? Where can I read about these observations? quote: In the case of ancient pyramids or in the case of ancient archeology Pyramids don't reproduce. Also, we can observe those designers right now, and we know that they did not exist during the time that the structures under questioned were formed. quote: or if we find an alien spaceship on mars, What spaceships? quote: we do not need to know how the object was designed (and we don't even need to know how to design such an object) in order to infer design. Yes, we do need to know that. quote: Inferences come from evidence. Then why did you say they came from arguments? quote: More lies or delusion. ID does do research and we have referenced it several times on other forums. I guess you just choose to ignore it. Original, peer reviewed literature? Let's see it. quote: Behe used to do research, but as soon as it was discovered that he was an ID advocate, the secular community no longer funds his research but they fund their own dogma with tax dollars. Then let's see the grant proposals that were turned down. Let's see how ID was applied in those grants. quote: Then they deny tenure to those who disagree with them (ie: Gonzales). No, they denied tenure to a researcher that was not doing research. quote: If such misbehavior has no effect on the alleged consensus, then there is no reason for such behavior to occur because the secular community has no reason to believe that the lack of their misbehavior would change the consensus. Then show us the ID work that is being denied funding. Show us the research that Gonzalez was doing at ISU. Show us the experiments that Behe wants to do but is denied funding. quote: The difference here is that we never observe evolution producing IC and SC structures (independent of already existing IC and SC characteristics) but we do observe design doing such. We observe humans producing these structures. Humans were not around when the structures under question came about. You lack a designer. quote: I would say that we have shown this to be false several times on these forums. Keep ignoring. Present it here. I would be very interested in discussing it. [quoet]Jhud, for example, showed how it was ID advocates that came up with frontloading and evolutionists that have stole it (ie: that one person advocating the universal genome who said he hates ID advocates). Then let's see it. quote: Creationists and ID advocates have had a history of being right and evolutionists have had a history of being wrong. So it was creationists and ID advocates who predicted that the transitional species Tiktaalik rosae would be found in a specific strata of a specific age? Was it Cdesign Proponentists who predicted that orthologous ERV's would be fall into a nested hierarchy? quote: In the case of evolution, What about ID? Can ID stand on it's own or do you have to bad mouth evolution when the going gets rough?

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 1:54:43 PM)
More examples are that creationists used to argue that most "junk" DNA (junk DNA being defined by the secular community at the time as being useless) would turn out to be useful and many naturalists used to argue that it was useless and they used this as evidence for UCD. We are starting to find out more and more that it's useful. Also, Darwin argued that the appendix and many other organs were vestigial (useless or so close to useless such that they are no longer subject to natural selection) and creationists have long argued that they were useful. We have found out that many of the alleged vestigial organs are far more useful than Darwin predicted. Face it, Darwin was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. He was wrong about so much and evolution got so much wrong. Like I said, I might as well use a horror scope, even a horror-scope gets it right sometimes.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 1:55:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Then why did you say they came from arguments? Don't put words in my mouth. quote: That is a lie. You should be honest and admit that you will never accept any evidence that supports UCD. When evolution has evidence supporting it, I'll admit that it does. The fact is that it doesn't. Unlike good science, evolution can't even stand up to criticisms and opposing views. Instead, committed naturalists insist on brainwashing students with naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) and censoring criticisms and opposing views. That's unscientific. Why should I take a philosophy (ie: UCD) that resorts to tax funded brainwashing to maintain itself and that can't even withstand criticisms and opposing views seriously. When evolution can maintain itself independently of such dishonest tactics, then I'll consider taking it seriously.

Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 1:56:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize If committed naturalists could defend their views, They do just that in peer reviewed literature and scientific conferences, the scientific arenas that ID advocates avoid like the plague. Why doesn't Behe write a paper and then defend it in front of his peers at a scientific conference? I think we all know why. I have done the same for my work and I don't see why ID advocates can't do the same.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 2:01:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method They do just that in peer reviewed literature and scientific conferences, the scientific arenas that ID advocates avoid like the plague. Why doesn't Behe write a paper and then defend it in front of his peers at a scientific conference? I think we all know why. I have done the same for my work and I don't see why ID advocates can't do the same. The fact is that if Behe or Dembski were invited to any of these conferences, they would attend in a heartbeat. Why aren't Behe or Dembski ever invited? The reason they aren't invited is because those at the conferences can't defend their views against criticisms and opposing views. So they only invite those who assume that UCD is true and ID is false from a scientific perspective. Behe and Demsbki do not avoid those conferences, the fact is they would be more than happy to attend if they ever got invited. Where are their invitations? You seem smart enough to know that Behe or Demsbki would be glad to attend one of these conferences and that your arguments are nonsensual. Show me their invitations.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 2:21:54 PM)
Method, the reason I'm harder on you than most others on these forums who take the position that criticisms and opposing views of evolution should be censored while only UCD and other naturalistic philosophies should be taught at taxpayer expense is because you seem smarter than most of the others. Most of the others seem to actually believe that this position is correct no matter how bad the logic. They seem delusional. You seem smart enough to realize that such a position is nonsense which makes me wonder, why do you try to defend such a nonsensual position? What is the motive?

drj11 -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 2:34:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Method They do just that in peer reviewed literature and scientific conferences, the scientific arenas that ID advocates avoid like the plague. Why doesn't Behe write a paper and then defend it in front of his peers at a scientific conference? I think we all know why. I have done the same for my work and I don't see why ID advocates can't do the same. The fact is that if Behe or Dembski were invited to any of these conferences, they would attend in a heartbeat. Why aren't Behe or Dembski ever invited? The reason they aren't invited is because those at the conferences can't defend their views against criticisms and opposing views. So they only invite those who assume that UCD is true and ID is false from a scientific perspective. Behe and Demsbki do not avoid those conferences, the fact is they would be more than happy to attend if they ever got invited. Where are their invitations? You seem smart enough to know that Behe or Demsbki would be glad to attend one of these conferences and that your arguments are nonsensual. Show me their invitations. Being a tenured professor, Behe certainly has access to any conference he wants to attend. Your just making this up.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI