Intelligent Design in the Amazon Rainforest

We’ve posted numerous times about one of the Discovery Institute’s principal claims — that there is design in nature and they have the ability to detect it — see The Discoveroids and Their Magic Filter, and most recently Aliens & the Discoveroids’ Design Filter.

They claim that “secular scientists” routinely use Discoveroid methodology, but won’t admit it, because that would somehow unmask the fraud of evolution, to which they derisively refer as “Darwinism.” For example, see Aliens & the Discoveroids’ Design Filter, and also Discoveroids: Salmon Can Navigate, Therefore …, and also Intelligent Design Is Science: Cryptology Uses It. But sometimes they slip up and admit the truth, as in Intelligent Design Is All About God.

The problem is that the Discoveroids don’t have a design filter. When they see something they already know is the product of design (like Mt. Rushmore), they say it’s designed. When they want something to be the product of design (like DNA), they declare that it is. When they don’t want design (as with alien signals) they say the signals are natural. In all those cases they start with their conclusion and then retrospectively claim that their design filter told them so. But whenever they feel like it, they point to something not yet fully understood — at least by them — and start yelling “Goddidit!” That’s because their only “evidence” for intelligent design is either the god of the gaps argument or else William Paley’s watchmaker analogy.

That was a lot of introductory material, but it’s necessary to put the Discoveroids’ latest post in its proper context. It’s titled Research Showcases Intelligent Design Principles. It has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

One of our responses to critics of ID is that scientists use it every day. If intelligent design were not scientific, we would have to throw out forensics, archaeology, cryptology, informatics, optimization theory, engineering and SETI. Here are some instances of ID in action that recently showed up in the journals. The principles for inferring design are similar. If some of these examples seem weak for inferring design, it makes our favorite cases stronger when we argue for design in the genetic code, molecular machines or the fine-tuning of the universe.

Yeah, yeah — we all use intelligent design “theory.” Then they refer to some research discussed by PhysOrg in this article: Ancient peoples shaped the Amazon rainforest. A couple of excerpts should be sufficient:

An international team of ecologists and social scientists has shown in a new study published 3 March in the journal Science that tree species domesticated and distributed throughout the Amazon basin by indigenous peoples before 1492 continue to play an important role in modern-day forests. These new findings strongly refute the idea that Amazonian forests have been largely untouched by humans.


The team made the discovery by overlaying data from more than 1000 forest surveys of the Amazon Tree Diversity Network on a map of more than 3000 archaeological sites across the Amazon. By comparing forest composition at varying distances from archaeological sites, their analysis generated the first Amazon-wide picture of how pre-Colombian peoples influenced Amazonian biodiversity.

Okay, back to the Discoveroids, as they claim that this argues “for design in the genetic code, molecular machines or the fine-tuning of the universe.” They tell us:

What is etched in the landscape of Amazonia? Something strange and unexpected has come to light. For decades, the rainforests of Brazil exemplified wild, untamed nature. Its few human inhabitants, portrayed romantically as noble savages, carried on their simple lives in harmony with nature as a rebuke to us European-American polluters and ravagers of the planet. This was Darwin’s world, a land of competition and cooperation producing ecological systems by unguided natural law (especially the “law” of natural selection).

Did you follow that? Those foolish scientists thought Amazonia was “Darwin’s world.” Ah, but now we know better. The Discoveroids continue:

A new picture of this region reveals evidence of purpose, intent, and plan: i.e., intelligent design.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Let’s read on:

Additional clues reveal that the ecology was intentionally modified by these unknown people. By studying charcoal, plant fossils and carbon isotopes, and by following patterns between geoglyph sites, the researchers inferred that the inhabitants transformed the rainforest to enhance the production of fruits, nuts and other plants they found useful. The team was also able to infer which species were modified and which were ‘natural’ for the climate, and even to determine how the people used fire for controlled land clearing.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Skipping to their final paragraph, we get this:

Actually, the evidence for design in DNA and cosmic fine-tuning is far stronger … . They illustrate that common-sense reasoning about intelligent causes is alive and well in the sciences, published readily in leading journals — except when the implications might favor a certain world view.

So there you are. Every science uses the Discoveroids’ intelligent design “theory” — except those infernal Darwinists. Isn’t it time the Discoveroids got the respect they deserve?

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

63 responses to “Intelligent Design in the Amazon Rainforest

  1. Yeah yeah – and the Intelligent Designer (blessed be He/She/It) designed evolution and natural selection in such a way that chimps, bonobos and human beings descend from a common ancestor.

  2. Michael Fugate

    So humans can do things purposefully? Shocking!

  3. You may have meant principal claims in the first paragraph.

  4. You’re right, Draken. All fixed now.

  5. The Discoveroids are getting the respect they deserve, none.

  6. This is some of the thinest gruel the Discoveroids have ever served up. An absolute Big Mac of a Nothing-Burger…

  7. Ross Cameron

    Unknown people? Are you saying they`re not in the Bible? Funny how the holy screed misses the Chinese, Inuit, Aussie Aborigines, Incas, etc.. Seems almost like a provincial take on life with superstitious overtones.

  8. Mark Germano

    ISTM that Intelligent Design has become both theory and the method to prove itself true.

    How do we know Intelligent Design is true? Because there is evidence people design their environments!

    How do we know people design their environments? Because we used Intelligent Design to investigate!

    FWIW, they didn’t have to use the Amazon to make this argument; they could have gone to any Great Plains state and observed wheat and corn fields in Winter. There, Intelligent Design researchers could infer that people design their landscape to grow plants. For uses!

  9. The team was also able to infer which species were modified and which were ‘natural’ for the climate…

    Notice the scare quotes around “natural.”

    This is a key difference. Scientists use logic and evidence to distinguish between things which appear to be the result of human activity and those which appear to be natural. As far as I can tell, ID cannot do this. ID only finds design. Has there ever been an instance of an ID advocate using his or her understanding of ID to find that something biological was the result of natural processes?

  10. Dave Luckett

    The same is true of the Australian forests, where eucalypts have been heavily favoured by the Aboriginal practice of firing sections of forested land to drive game and to clear underbrush. Eucalypts generally regenerate faster after fires. Humans do what benefits them. This is news?

  11. Are you assuming that there are not supernatural processes?

  12. TomS delivers the coup de grâce:

    Are you assuming that there are not supernatural processes?

    Bingo! The Discoveroids could just as easily claim here–as they make similar claims elsewhere–that the higher incidence of beneficient plants in the vicinity of human habitation is further ‘evidence’ that we dwell on a planet that has been privileged with no end of oogity-boogitian intervention by The Grand Ole Designer (Blessed be He/She/It/Them!).

    And how thoughtful of Our Blessed Creator to design Eucalypts to regenerate faster than other species after fires! What foresight in His/Her/Its/Their Loving Care!

  13. @Megalonyx
    As demonstrated by the design of the super-fast microevolution of species after the design of the Deluge! That care to design defense mechanisms of new prey to combat the new design of predators!

  14. Some one please tell me which things they observe, or can think of, that have no cause.

  15. Do you accept that “chance” is a cause? How about “act of God”? Would it be a satisfying answer to say: I don’t have the slightest idea of what the cause is, but it must have some cause? Is there a cause for the whole of reality, or is it a fallacy (composition) to ask about the whole? How about the cause of something not existing? How about the cause of mathematical truths?
    I’m not trying to be snarky. I am not sure what I would say to questions like these.

  16. I believe you are saying that you know of nothing without a cause. Why not think about that when you are lambasting and ridiculing the creationists. Also look in the dictionary for the definition of ‘supernatural’. You are so busy telling what ‘isn’t’, that you can’t come to grips with what ‘is’.

  17. Roy Stanford believes he has a killer question:

    Some one please tell me which things they observe, or can think of, that have no cause.

    A rebel.

  18. Michael Fugate

    Feedback loops? Which is the cause and which the effect?

  19. @Roy Stanford
    I said nothing of the sort.
    What I was trying to understand whether you were trying to make a standard argument against evolution. So, it seems you were. No surprise. No argument for … No, not even a description of an alternative.
    No, not even an argument against evolution. Even by the standards of creationism, a exceptionally weak performance.
    BTW, here are some possibilities of the cause-less:
    Quantum events.
    A perpetual motion machine.
    The number googolplex.
    The totality of all facts.
    A sake.

  20. I don’t think anyone here is trying to make the case that there are necessarily phenomena without a cause. The point is that the cause needn’t be an intelligence, let alone one with humaniform properties.

    But for example nuclear decay is thought to be causeless.

  21. Michael Fugate

    I think Roy wants a god to give his life purpose… instead evolution gives us a porpoise.

  22. The prime interest, as I understand it, in this blog is explaining the variety of life with reference to descent with modification or evolution.
    Those who don’t like the idea that humans are related to the rest of the world of life (especially insofar as where it is more obvious, chimps and other apes, or other primates, especially because it is most obvious) have no alternative explanation, and have such a poverty of arguments against evolution as an explanation, are reduced to manufacturing arguments, such as they are, against whatever they can imagine.
    For example, standard evolutionary biology does not depend on there being events without causes, but that does not stop creationists from arguing that point. I guess that they think that they can distract the audience.

  23. Michael Fugate

    Maybe Roy has been watching Ray Comfort’s movie discussed here previously – where Ray, after showing people a colorful book, asks, “Do you think the pages and ink could ever fall together to produce the words and pictures on this book?”

  24. Creationists are getting so desperate that anything is possible for them

  25. Actually, the evidence for design in DNA and cosmic fine-tuning is far stronger … . They illustrate that common-sense reasoning about intelligent causes is alive and well in the sciences, published readily in leading journals — except when the implications might favor a certain world view.

    The evidence for “design” in DNA is . . . well, not that strong. Creationists argue that because genes do things (surprise!) they must have been consciously designed to do those things by Jeho—er, that is, by some unnamed Designer.

    As for “cosmic fine-tuning,” to say that we and the universe we inhabit wouldn’t exist if any of a host of physical parameters were different to even the tiniest degree would be fascinating if it were true, but it is being viewed with growing skepticism these days. And even if it were true, arguments against evolution based on it would rest on the assumption, stated or otherwise, that the universe is the way it is because it was designed for us, when it can at least as easily be asserted that we are simply an accidental product of the universe and that it could have gone on quite well without us. But creationists want the universe to need humanity, the “image of God.” (Why an omnipotent, all-wise and all-benevolent deity would need to create little replicas of Himself, Herself or Itself remains unaddressed, but never mind; apparently, that’s a Mystery, something Man Was Not Meant To Know.)

  26. If the argument involving the Anthropic Principle were sound, then the laws of nature are designed to make human life possible. According to other arguments, laws like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Information make supernatural intervention needed for human life.

  27. I believe in evolution. I also believe that evolution is guided by intelligent design factors in the cells and not by random occurrences. I think non-random, guided events are produced by an intelligent cause, as are all events. I think the cause is supernatural by definition. Therefore, it follows that the universe, if created, was done so by a supernatural force. What else could it be? I do not believe in the God figure created by man.

  28. Dave Luckett

    I expect to be flabbergasted by the answer, but I’ll ask anyway: Roy, why do you think that evolution is guided by intelligent design factors in the cells, or anywhere else? Why do you think that the cause of this is supernatural? What evidence do you have for these propositions?

  29. I don’t understand what you mean by “intelligent design factors in the cells”.
    I don’t understand what definition you have in mind when you say that “the cause is supernatural by definition”.

  30. Michael Fugate

    I don’t believe in evolution – it is not a matter of belief – it is a matter of evidence. Selection is by definition non-random – easily seen in human selection in the domestication of plants and animals mimicking what we see in other organisms without human intervention. Mutations are thought to random in respect to an organism’s fitness, but not that mutations have no cause. We know organisms can do things to increase mutation rates, but they cannot target specific genes or bases. Given the ratio of beneficial to neutral to deleterious mutations – it seems unlikely they are directed. The fitness increase or decrease of a specific mutation is also environment dependent – it is not universal. Nothing points to the need for of involvement of intelligence.

  31. Supernatural..something that scientists cannot explain. Cells reproduce by the direction of information encoded in their RNA. This information directs all of the chemical reactions of evolution and life processes to do their own specific job. This is a repeatable and predictable process which produces a predictable result each time. The information used is created by an intelligent source or else it arrives out of thin air and is random.
    Common sense would say there is a cause or a source for this predictable, guided,repeatable information. Common sense would also say these evolutionary biochemical reactions were designed by an intelligent agent.
    The universe is not random, it is not chaotic. There is order and physical law in the universe. There is orbiting, spin, mathematics, the four natural forces, and specific particle behavior. These things do not indicate randomness, they indicate the presence of an intelligent force or cause.
    What is this force or cause? I do not know, but it is definitely Supernatural.

  32. Common sense–aka ‘intuition’–also tells us

    * the earth is flat
    * the sun orbits the earth
    * heavier objects hit the ground faster than lighter objects dropped from the same height
    * parallel lines meet at the horizon
    * lunar eclipses are caused by demons biting chunks out of the moon

    and much else besides! Hooray for intuition!

  33. Michael Fugate

    “The information used is created by an intelligent source or else it arrives out of thin air and is random.”

    Imagination – not your strong suit – eh Roy?

  34. Michael Fugate

    It is also a classic ploy to switch from evolution to the origin of life – as if they are the same. When one tries to introduce an intelligence into the mix, then one needs to be able to say where and when it intervened. What exactly did it do? The age old question of what is designed and what isn’t. One can contrast a human-designed watch with a stone, but what about the stone? Why is or isn’t it designed? It is a complex collection of molecules and given a certain environment, it structure is predictable.

  35. Ok, all you foolish Darwinists, if the power of intuition still doesn’t convince you of the error of your ways, then the power of teleology most certainly will, viz.

    In order for me to exist, it was essential that all of my great-great-grandfathers married (decency demands we presume benefit of clergy here) my respective great-great-grandmothers. But in choosing their spouses, where did the information come from to make the correct selection that enable me to exist? And exist I most certainly do!

    No way could that have been the result of randomness! Some great supernatural power of Oogity-Boogity clearly guided them in their selection of partner–and my existence is proof positive of that fact, as your intuition must surely show you!

    …All of which also demonstrates the YUGE power of narcissism, which can even propel an uneducated moron into the White House!

  36. Why don’t you fellows read up on a little on the chemistry involved in cell division and evolution. Use your Google.
    Fugate, why not give us your version of evolution and what forces created and hold the universe together?

  37. I must have made a mistake. I thought I might have some intelligent conversations here, but then I read Megalonyx comment.

  38. Wouldn’t it be nice to have someone here who actually knows something about evolution? It is actually a very complex and interesting series of chemical and particulate reactions.

  39. ISTM that you have some notion that evolution has something to do with the forces that create and hold the universe together.
    Moreover, that you have some notion that mentioning the supernatural helps in explaining either evolution or the creation of the universe – or anything else, for that matter.
    It would be interesting if we would hear from someone who gives a hint of what the supernatural does, when and where, why or how, so that something in the natural world turns out as it does – and not otherwise.

  40. @Megalonyx
    Benefit of clergy
    I suggest that you look at the article on “Benefit of clergy” in Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with marriage.

  41. Michael Fugate

    Roy, I have a PhD in biology. Want to try again?

  42. Michael Fugate

    What? “Information” is not the most important factor? Poor creationists, sad.

  43. Let me ask you geniuses a couple of questions?
    1. How do you think the universe came to be?
    2. Do you think that information exists outside the human brain?
    3. How do you think information occurs?
    4.Do you understand the chemistry and reactions in the evolutionary process?
    Do you think events and objects can occur without cause?

  44. Dave Luckett

    1. How do you think the Universe came to be?

    Nobody knows before a tiny fraction of a second after the initial moment of the expansion of the singularity. No, nobody knows where the singularity came from, or what caused its expansion, or whether either needed a cause. That’s because there is no observable evidence, and science only operates on observable evidence. At the earliest moment for which evidence exists, the Universe was a rapidly expanding mass of incredibly hot, incredibly dense energy that hasn’t got a name. It wasn’t even plasma; no particles had yet begun to condense. In its expansion and condensation, matter formed from the energy, particles first, then the first atoms. From that, all things came to be, and we know a great deal about the natural processes that formed them.

    Now, sure, you can say we don’t know the ultimate cause, or even that an ultimate cause exists or is needed, and that leaves room for God as ultimate cause. Sure. But it’s only one explanation, not THE explanation, and it has no priority over any other. Maybe the singularity irrupted from other Universes. Maybe by some natural law we haven’t yet discovered, absolute nothing is impossible, or is intrinsically unstable. But “we don’t know” doesn’t predicate “Therefore, God.”

    2) Do you think information exists outside the human brain?

    Yes. Manifestly so. Water gains information as it flows downhill, creating coherent drainage patterns of dendritic form. The form is added information. Snowflakes form patterns from the basic properties of water, too. The pattern is added information. Water adds information to light, by separating it into its wavelengths – and creates a rainbow. Waves on a beach add information by sorting pebbles into sizes and weights. Even simply a hole adds information by only passing objects of less than given dimensions. Information is added everywhere we look, by natural processes having nothing to do with the human mind.

    3) How do you think information occurs?

    As above. Any process that classifies, or filters, or separates, adds information. Evolution is a system that separates by characteristics and culls some through natural selection. Evolution therefore adds information.

    4) Do you understand the chemistry and the reactions in the evolutionary process?

    I don’t, no. But scientists who work in biochemistry have gone far along that road, and if the road goes ever on, that’s the nature of knowledge. We will never know everything. All the biochemistry of the evolutionary process is not known, and may never be known. But there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that life is anything other than chemistry – enormously elaborate and complex chemistry, to be sure, but still, chemistry. You are, by implication, making a false argument: that God is to be found in what we don’t know – ie, “God of the gaps”. But that is also a demand that a universal absolute negative be proven: that God is NOT involved in life. Maybe He is. I don’t know. But I do know that there is no observable evidence for it. Nobody has ever observed the ghost in the cell, or found anything that requires its work.

    5) Do you think events and objects can occur without cause?

    Yes, I do. Virtual particles in vacuum blink in and out of existence without any cause – it’s called the Casimir effect, and it is observable and has been observed many times. Atoms appear to decay, (individually unpredictably but at statistically observable rates) without cause. Paired particles react to each other without observable cause, or communication. Humans can predict and use these events.

    That’s five questions, not “a couple”, and I have answered them fully, honestly, and politely, making no claim to be a genius. May I remind you of mine, above?:

    “…why do you think that evolution is guided by intelligent design factors in the cells, or anywhere else? Why do you think that the cause of this is supernatural? What evidence do you have for these propositions?”

  45. Dave Luckett

    Oh, and “supernatural” does not mean “something that scientists cannot explain”. There are plenty of things that science doesn’t explain. Scientists work on them all the time. As a result of their work, explanation often results.

    No, “supernatural” means “beyond natural”. Not just that science doesn’t explain this, but that it has cause and the cause can never be explained by any natural process, ever. This is conceptually the empty set. All events have at least the potential for explanation by natural cause. Even the set of events for which no natural cause is yet known has been steadily shrinking for millennia, and is now quite small. It will never disappear entirely, but there is no reason to suppose that there is any caused event where the cause is anything but natural.

  46. @ TomS: I know. But using the phrase as a comic euphemism is sufficiently hackneyed (like describing someone as a “confirmed bachelor”, or to say that a couple “know one another in the Biblical sense”) to make the Oxford dictionary; and I thought it appropriate for someone who would denounce “foolish Darwinists”.

    But jokes just don’t work if you have to explain them 🙂

  47. There is a standard argument from creationist which depends on our not knowing everything about everything from an evolutionary point of view.
    On the one hand, it depends on the innuendo that if we do not know everything, then that it is a fatal flaw in our knowledge. “Innuendo”, that is, for even the creationists are sufficiently aware that they cannot bring themselves to offer such fallacious argumentation in plain words.
    On the other hand, creationists attempt to direct attention from the fact that they have no knowledge of anything.

  48. @Megalonyx
    It interests me that the OED would mention the “comic euphemism” meaning of “benefit of clergy”, but I could not find that in the on-line edition. The only citations that I could find were the deadly serious ones of exemptions for clerics from penalties of secular law. BTW: “Confirmed bachelor” is mentioned without any special notice needed (hackneyed, comic, etc.). “In the Biblical sense” has its first citation from the early 20th century, which surprises me that it isn’t earlier.

  49. @ TomS: not the OED, but the ‘Oxford Living Dictionary’, published online under the aegis of OUP: Benefit of Clergy.

    Similarly, at (the less authoritative) benefit of clergy

    And I wouldn’t expect the OED to note colloquial use of phrase ‘confirmed bachelor’ to indicate a homosexual!

  50. Mark Germano

    Credulous person: “Wouldn’t it be nice to have someone here who actually knows something about [subject]?”

    Scientist: “I have a PhD in [related field].” / “I’m a working scientist who researches [related subject].”

    No matter the topic, be it evolution, or the twin towers, or the moon landing, or climate change, there are three responses.

    A. Ignore it and carry on.
    B. Roy’s method, which is to ask a question about something unrelated.
    C. The Shill Gambit.

    If we wait long enough, Roy will probably admit he thinks Mr. Fugate is in the pocket of Big Biology.

  51. And if Mr. Fugate isn’t, then Dr. Fugate certainly is! 🙂

  52. @Megalonyx
    According to Wikipedia, apparently “confirmed bachelor” is mostly right-pondian as a euphemism for “homosexual”, and, even at that, is largely a usage in the publication “Private Eye” (which, as a provincial left-pondian, I have never read).

  53. Michael Fugate

    Roy needs to stop reading creationist apologetics and read some science. Creationists have been spreading misinformation about information for decades. Peter Godfrey Smith and John Wilkins have some done some good philosophical work on genes and genes as information.

  54. About the creationist usage of the word “information”, I am not aware of any reason to accept that one should expect that “information” refers to a conserved quantity. That is, that we should expect that there is a cause for an increase or decrease of it.
    Apparently, spontaneous decrease of “information” is accepted as occurring without there being wonder about its cause.
    Likewise, for small increases. Formation of snowflakes being the obvious example.
    Most conservation laws of nature apply equally to human activity. No one makes exceptions for conservation of momentum or of quantum color charge when humans are intervening in the experiments.
    Have there been experiments testing whether there is conservation of “information”?
    If there is a logical, mathematical or philosophical proof of conservation of “information”. If so, then it is not merely a natural law, but also applies to the supernatural. (The supernatural is also subject to logic.)

  55. For Dave Luckett, where in any of my comments do you see the word God? I plainly stated that do not believe in man’s concept of God.
    That leaves us with general observations:
    1. The universe exists, it was either created ( caused ), or not caused.
    2. The universe follows physical laws, which were either created, or not.
    3. If you say these are naturally occurring events, please describe how you describe ”natural”. Is ”natural” a force which causes things to happen, or not?
    4. Life exists, was the process initiated by something, or by nothing?
    5. The process of evolution and cellular activity is an extremely complex process carried out by millions of chemical reactions yielding predictable results, guided and directed by some agent..or not?
    So what we have is an infinitely large ( or not ) stable universe obeying certain physical laws or rules, a phenomenon called life which also obeys physical laws and all this points to an intelligent force. After all, human beings possess intelligence, so what was the source? The reproductive apparatus is run by intelligence and is predictive. You don’t find intelligence floating around in primeval ponds,what is it’s origin? Was it created ,or not?
    There are those of you who might think logically about these questions, and the evidence you see. What are your conclusions?

  56. Anyone else notice how Roy Stanford’s previous posts babbled about “information”, but he is now switching to the term “intelligence” instead?

    Tells you pretty much everything you need to know…

  57. Y’all lemme know when you get bored with the guy.

  58. Michael Fugate

    Yawn…. I’m bored.

  59. Mark Germano

    Roy tells us that “The reproductive apparatus is run by intelligence and is predictive.”

    As the great American philosopher and entrepreneur Michael Scott so wisely remarked, “that’s what she said.”

  60. I see that what we have here is a cabal of empty minds that don’t want to be bothered by thinking outside their little boxes, led by a dictatorial curmudgeon who thinks he has a handle on ultimate truth. Since you guys are all marching in lock step with your ignorant leader, I say carry on! You guys don’t want to learn anything new and you substitute snarky comments for deep thought.Talking to ignorant people does nothing but dull the senses, so I’ll be moving on to some groups that actually have some intelligent and thoughtful comments. Enjoy your ignorance.

  61. Dave Luckett

    I see that Mr Stanford thinks the proper response to having his questions answered is to shift ground, while refusing to answer – or, apparently, even consider the questions directed at him. Since he lacks the common courtesy even to respond, I, too, am done with him.

  62. Dave Luckett

    Oh, and I should add, his latest set of questions and assertions are both philosophically vapid and evidentially void. But I’m not going to argue with someone who can’t do it honestly.

  63. Michael Fugate

    Still bored….I think I will turn in.

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s