10/23/09

Darwinism by Censorship – “Darwin’s Dilemma” Gets X’d

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

10 comments:

  1. Yes, scientists are big meanies for not legitimizing creationists, astrologers, and phrenologists.

    I don't know anyone who says that Intelligent Design *proponents* don't have peer-reviewed publications. The point is that the ideas of Intelligent Design have not passed peer review. Wikipedia has a list of peer-reviewed articles by Jonathan Wells. Of course, none of them have to do with Intelligent Design.

    I'd also appreciate a reference about Wells being censored. Something tells me that we're not getting the full story.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chewie: "I don't know anyone who says that Intelligent Design *proponents* don't have peer-reviewed publications."

    Mariano loves straw-men arguments. I haven't heard that either.

    Basically Ph.D = published papers (if you work in science institution that is, and some ID guys have Ph.D and work(ed) in their respective fields)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not a single experiment done.
    Not even a single experiment proposed.

    No scientific paper on ID ever published in a scientific journal.
    Not even a scientific paper on ID ever REJECTED by a scientific journal!

    Intelligent Design.
    Over twenty years of avoiding work.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good lord Mariano, is this where PZ's trolls hang around when not in his retarded embrace?
    You must keep the aspergers patients off the streets somehow I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "You must keep the aspergers patients off the streets somehow I suppose."

    Your mother keeps me warm at night, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Looks like Allabaster doesn't care for his own medicine.

    Next time, mind your manners.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Damn, now that's some humor: mom jokes. This is one happenin intellectual crowd - no wool pulled over their sharp beady little antisocial eyes.

    Given the heights of cynical brilliance here: Any takers for a computer that made itself from a can of Campbells Soup that exploded on the beach? Randomly programmed OS included. It's all scientifically plausible - 10^8 possibility, so I hear. (By direct scientific observation, of course. Peer reviewed and all that.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Damn, now that's some humor: mom jokes."

    Well, he started with an autism joke. What do you say about that kh123?

    "Any takers for a computer that made itself from a can of Campbells Soup that exploded on the beach? Randomly programmed OS included."

    Computers are not alive and do not reproduce therefore they are NOT proper analog to life kh123.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Any takers for a computer that made itself from a can of Campbells Soup...

    Where do you get this stuff from?
    Are you just making it up or are you cutting-and-pasting from some fundy web-site?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Computers are not alive and do not reproduce therefore they are NOT proper analog to life kh123."

    Well, you're right. The ability to repair and reproduce tends to make something a bit more specific and complex as opposed to a static computer. Thanks for bringing that up.

    "Where do you get this stuff from?
    Are you just making it up or are you cutting-and-pasting from some fundy web-site?"


    If by fundy you mean jihadi, then yes - jihadimatchmaker.com. There's a wealth of catchy one-liners from ibn-Tamiyya, al-Shawarma, and Abba Zabba. Great stuff.

    And it's more like "behead-and paste" - get the terminology right, you rascally kufr, you.

    In any case, after I've claimed harassment as the reason for my actions, I can work in your beheading session sometime next week, after you've passed the proper infidel psyche screening - Spoiled atheist westerners tend to fall behind homeless dwarfs and blind salamanders on the Islamic Counter-Strike Club's "to-do" list.

    ReplyDelete