LOL! I've never heard a talking Gerbil on a podcast before. Reminded me of Alvin of The Chipmunks fame.
However CH, the Gerbil identified you as still being a fellow of the DI. Oops! Looks like you lied a few weeks ago when you said you never received money from them.
But we know, lying for Jesus is OK with the Gerbil and it's OK with you.
The sound quality is awful. Can't Discovery guys afford to do an interview over Skype? I hear they have been able to buy a Mac or two, in addition to a fridge.
oleg: If 45 percent of the genome turns out to be junk, Hunter can still claim victory. You, guys, crack me up.
J: Implying CH is a liar is not an argument. There is no INDUCTIVE evidence for naturalistic UCA. This is the point, not what IS true. And no rational person is obligated to disregard INDUCTIVE evidence in favor of whatever it is that atheists mean by evidence but can't define. But given that lack of inductive evidence, why the hysteria of the Dawkin's, Dennett's, Shermer's, Myers's, etc, of the world? It sure seems like it's due to the realization that their non-stop equivocation of what is meant by "evidence" is being more and more exposed with time AND/OR that they are so stupid that they can't distinguish between philosophical ID/theism and specific religions with specific a-plausible historical claims.
You implied that he thinks there's something that would constitute a victory for him, to HIS mind. But science is tentative. There are no absolute victories in science even when something can, in the short term, seem more plausible.
But, yes, always more coffee, if it's good coffee!
LOL! I've never heard a talking Gerbil on a podcast before. Reminded me of Alvin of The Chipmunks fame.
ReplyDeleteHowever CH, the Gerbil identified you as still being a fellow of the DI. Oops! Looks like you lied a few weeks ago when you said you never received money from them.
But we know, lying for Jesus is OK with the Gerbil and it's OK with you.
If we have beautifully-crafted dining tables how come there are still wooden cable drums? Answer that!
ReplyDeleteThe sound quality is awful. Can't Discovery guys afford to do an interview over Skype? I hear they have been able to buy a Mac or two, in addition to a fridge.
ReplyDelete"Closer to a hundred percent than to zero percent" is a "clear and concrete prediction?" Luskin has a low bar for clear and concrete.
ReplyDeleteIf 45 percent of the genome turns out to be junk, Hunter can still claim victory. You, guys, crack me up.
oleg: If 45 percent of the genome turns out to be junk, Hunter can still claim victory. You, guys, crack me up.
ReplyDeleteJ: Implying CH is a liar is not an argument. There is no INDUCTIVE evidence for naturalistic UCA. This is the point, not what IS true. And no rational person is obligated to disregard INDUCTIVE evidence in favor of whatever it is that atheists mean by evidence but can't define. But given that lack of inductive evidence, why the hysteria of the Dawkin's, Dennett's, Shermer's, Myers's, etc, of the world? It sure seems like it's due to the realization that their non-stop equivocation of what is meant by "evidence" is being more and more exposed with time AND/OR that they are so stupid that they can't distinguish between philosophical ID/theism and specific religions with specific a-plausible historical claims.
Jeff,
DeleteI did not imply above that CH is a liar. I merely stated that his criterion for functionality of DNA is vague.
More coffee?
You implied that he thinks there's something that would constitute a victory for him, to HIS mind. But science is tentative. There are no absolute victories in science even when something can, in the short term, seem more plausible.
ReplyDeleteBut, yes, always more coffee, if it's good coffee!