In this post: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/venemas-epilogue-a-response/
.. steno displays more of his stupidity and gullibility. I'm going to have some fun with a few of his comments:
"Supporters of evolution love the ‘big story’, or the ‘just so’ stories, but often skim over the detail leaving that to our imagination."
Your beliefs are totally in your imagination. And where is the "detail" in the so-called 'ID theory/inference'?
"Many of us find this unsatisfactory and we think scientists should pick through the complex detail if it is to be a genuine science."
What the fuck do you think scientists are doing, if not looking for and "pick(ing) through the complex detail"? Do you think they're just sitting around making shit up like you dimwitted religious zombies do? What "genuine science" are any of you IDiots doing?
"On this basis I wonder why I should give up the biblical ‘big story’ when such weak arguments in science are presented by evolutionists."
Yeah, why should you give up the total bullshit, and weak arguments (actually fairy tales) in the bible? Yep, the bible is just a big (fictional) story.
"The response as Venema intimates is that sceptics are not sufficiently gifted intellectually to understand evolution, and somehow evolution believers live at a higher level of thinking."
Well, if that's the intimation, it's correct.
"But instead, we have worked out that the reason why we don’t understand how evolution works is because it is logically incoherent at many levels."
See, you just proved my comment above. You admit that you don't understand how evolution works. And maybe you can tell me what is logical and coherent about believing in your ridiculous, imaginary god and associated fairy tales?
"For instance, evolution is based upon weak analogies (animal A looks like animal B)..."
Uh, no. That is not what "evolution" is based on. It's also not what evolutionary theory is based on.
"...whereas design relies upon univocal thinking from the doctrine of the Imago Dei;"
What the fuck does that nonsense mean?
"..Evolutionary thought also often uses self-evidencing explanations, what we might loosely call circular reasoning."
That's pretty funny coming from a religious wacko like you. All you godbots ever do is go around in circles. Crazy circles.
.. steno displays more of his stupidity and gullibility. I'm going to have some fun with a few of his comments:
"Supporters of evolution love the ‘big story’, or the ‘just so’ stories, but often skim over the detail leaving that to our imagination."
Your beliefs are totally in your imagination. And where is the "detail" in the so-called 'ID theory/inference'?
"Many of us find this unsatisfactory and we think scientists should pick through the complex detail if it is to be a genuine science."
What the fuck do you think scientists are doing, if not looking for and "pick(ing) through the complex detail"? Do you think they're just sitting around making shit up like you dimwitted religious zombies do? What "genuine science" are any of you IDiots doing?
"On this basis I wonder why I should give up the biblical ‘big story’ when such weak arguments in science are presented by evolutionists."
Yeah, why should you give up the total bullshit, and weak arguments (actually fairy tales) in the bible? Yep, the bible is just a big (fictional) story.
"The response as Venema intimates is that sceptics are not sufficiently gifted intellectually to understand evolution, and somehow evolution believers live at a higher level of thinking."
Well, if that's the intimation, it's correct.
"But instead, we have worked out that the reason why we don’t understand how evolution works is because it is logically incoherent at many levels."
See, you just proved my comment above. You admit that you don't understand how evolution works. And maybe you can tell me what is logical and coherent about believing in your ridiculous, imaginary god and associated fairy tales?
"For instance, evolution is based upon weak analogies (animal A looks like animal B)..."
Uh, no. That is not what "evolution" is based on. It's also not what evolutionary theory is based on.
"...whereas design relies upon univocal thinking from the doctrine of the Imago Dei;"
What the fuck does that nonsense mean?
"..Evolutionary thought also often uses self-evidencing explanations, what we might loosely call circular reasoning."
That's pretty funny coming from a religious wacko like you. All you godbots ever do is go around in circles. Crazy circles.
