My responses are in bold type
4.1
gpuccio
October 26, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Elizabeth:
You ask why????
I was just restating the fundamental consclusion of ID theory. Do you want me to explain it all again from scratch?
ID is not a "theory", at least in the scientific sense, and the only "consclusion" (sic) you IDiots have reached is that you are some alleged god's agents, here to crush science, and save sinners and the world. There are just three words needed to explain the so-called ID "theory" from scratch: god-did-it.
Because dFSCI is found empirically only in designed things.
Sciency sounding, but "dFSCI" is undefined and not empirical.
Because biological information has tons of dFSCI.
Prove it! You IDiots are all bald assertions and lies, and NO evidence.
Because you cannot explain that dFSCI in biological information in any other way, and the design inference remains the best explanation, indeed the only one we have at present.
The only best explanation "we" have? You've GOT to be joking! And who's "we"?
You IDiots can't even coherently define "dFSCI" or "CSI" or "FSCO/I" or "dFSCO/I" or whatever sciency sounding term you're using this week, or show that any biological thing has any. You're the ones who use those sciency sounding, but bogus, terms. YOU are the ones who need to define, explain, and prove them. Your so-called "best explanation" is based solely on your dogmatic, subjective, personal views (crazy religious beliefs).
And didn't you say that ID is a "theory"? Now you call it an "inference". You morons just can't keep anything straight.
Because the only other model explicitly proposed, neodarwinism, completely fails to explain what it pretends to explain.
blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Get a fucking clue and STFU.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinists-are-delegitimizing-science-in-the-name-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-4060194.1
gpuccio
October 26, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Elizabeth:
You ask why????
I was just restating the fundamental consclusion of ID theory. Do you want me to explain it all again from scratch?
ID is not a "theory", at least in the scientific sense, and the only "consclusion" (sic) you IDiots have reached is that you are some alleged god's agents, here to crush science, and save sinners and the world. There are just three words needed to explain the so-called ID "theory" from scratch: god-did-it.
Because dFSCI is found empirically only in designed things.
Sciency sounding, but "dFSCI" is undefined and not empirical.
Because biological information has tons of dFSCI.
Prove it! You IDiots are all bald assertions and lies, and NO evidence.
Because you cannot explain that dFSCI in biological information in any other way, and the design inference remains the best explanation, indeed the only one we have at present.
The only best explanation "we" have? You've GOT to be joking! And who's "we"?
You IDiots can't even coherently define "dFSCI" or "CSI" or "FSCO/I" or "dFSCO/I" or whatever sciency sounding term you're using this week, or show that any biological thing has any. You're the ones who use those sciency sounding, but bogus, terms. YOU are the ones who need to define, explain, and prove them. Your so-called "best explanation" is based solely on your dogmatic, subjective, personal views (crazy religious beliefs).
And didn't you say that ID is a "theory"? Now you call it an "inference". You morons just can't keep anything straight.
Because the only other model explicitly proposed, neodarwinism, completely fails to explain what it pretends to explain.
blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Get a fucking clue and STFU.
