Comments on: Stephen C. Meyer is a moron

By: AAA

AAA — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:23:15 +0000

I completely agree with you Bryan. These amateur Darwinists cannot tolerate the idea that not every scientist out there accepts their dogmatic Darwinian believes. Just make the slightest criticism to their theory and they will label you as a moron. Can’t they just grow up and have some open minded attitude? All of them share the following reasoning: “Oh he’s IDer, therefore he’s wrong!”& “Oh he said God, therefore he’s wrong!”. In other words, they attack their critics just because they have opposite views on evolution.

By the way, the person who made this childish and disrespectful post, if you think you can take on Stephen Meyer you can try his article titled: “The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang” where he proved how the Cambrian explosion totally contradicts Darwinian predictions and discredits the evolutionary models of gradualism and punctualism. In addition, all his arguments are backed up with tons of palaeontological data.

The article can be found on this link:

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Cambrian.pdf

So go ahead and refute it if you dare. At least this time you will be facing Meyer’s data and facts and not just some sentence fragments from his interview.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 05:16:50 +0000

Have you ever noticed how pseudo-intellecuals (like the author of this post) use language on par with drunken sailors to make their points instead of debating the science? I’ve found in my life that everytime someone starts swearing and calling others names, it’s usually to distract from the fact that they don’t want to engage in a real debate.

Is that supposed to impress or convince anyone? Is that really the image of a “good atheist” you want to leave with others?

What’s interesting is this post never challenges any of the points that Stephen Meyer makes. For instance:
- How does gradual evolution over time explain the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record?
- Bill Gates has stated ‘DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we’ve ever devised.’ That says something, since Microsoft employs tens of thousands of highly intelligent programmers to produce the software that it does. Information theory states that information always is the product of intelligence, then how does one explain DNA which does function like a computer program?
- How does one explain the function of all the biological machines within the cell outside of design?

I think the point is Stephen Meyer is making intelligent arguments. Your name calling and language are on par with a high schooler. Who comes off more credible in the debate?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:21:10 +0000

You know, I would ask what contributions are ID scientists, if they can be called that, making to the body of scientific knowledge?

None!!!!!!!!

They just keep crying “but god did it, I know he did”, like little children overwhelmed with things their little minds cannot comprehend.

By: Razzle

Razzle — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:15:28 +0000

He looks like an alien.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:56:28 +0000

I love pointing out that ID also supports the idea that aliens seeded the planet with life – it’s funny to watch them backpedal from that equally-inferable thesis while still trying to maintain evolution is wrong.

By: Isaac

Isaac — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:38:37 +0000

Pitiful. Simply pitiful.

By: Lukas

Lukas — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:18:36 +0000

Not only is the DNA/software analogy pointless, his assertion that all software must be written by humans is also wrong. Software can be created using evolutionary algorithms. So I guess if his analogy holds, that should prove to him that evolution is true.