Recent content by Sanguine

Just the same old creationist - creationism confusion on the way, regardless of how explicit you are.

There's more of a backstory to this than most realize. It's a long read as far as articles go, but it provides a fascinating insight.

It's tenuous at best.

Fools!

:D

A badly decomposed corpse probably wouldn't have convinced any believers, it's just he said she said.

Probably for same reasons no one spends a great deal of time debunking modern day cults like Scientology.

Some worthwhile readings: Cell, 85: 793-8 Curr Opin Chem Biol, 1(4): 491-6 Proc Natl Acad Sci, 95: 6854-6859

Description of fossils yes, but explaining the presence of fossils (particularly the pratt favourite: marine fossils) at high elevations is for Geology. Asking for Evolution to explain it makes no sense. Did you read the link? It should explain uplift sufficiently.

Evolution doesn't, that is the domain of Geology.

Because they can ask it? I made a post quite some time ago on GA on that subject. I was proposing similar nonsensical questions (e.g. taste of purple, viscosity of fear etc) and the response from those asserting life must have a meaning was essentially "this is different blah blah blah". So I...

Anything to get rid of Norm.

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Secular Humanism (98%) 3. Liberal Quakers (83%) 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (79%) 5. Theravada Buddhism (78%) 6. Nontheist (75%) 7. Neo-Pagan (65%) 8. Bah�'� Faith (53%) 9. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day...

If you have faith in the legal system ;) .

What an intriguing little fantasy Dembski has. Conducting Science by trial has to be the single dumbest idea I've heard, yet still a politically savvy one; funny that. Their strategy quite clearly indicates that they have nothing.