Comments on: Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, with brief comments http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/podcasts-in-the-intelligent-design-controversy-with-brief-comments-2/ Serving The Intelligent Design Community Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:45:48 +0000 hourly 1 By: avocationist http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/podcasts-in-the-intelligent-design-controversy-with-brief-comments-2/comment-page-1/#comment-341375 avocationist Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:01:14 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=10082#comment-341375 Wait a minute! 9-11 Truth has a lot of very compelling questions to ask. Why paint it as ridiculous? Wait a minute! 9-11 Truth has a lot of very compelling questions to ask. Why paint it as ridiculous?

]]> By: Mung http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/podcasts-in-the-intelligent-design-controversy-with-brief-comments-2/comment-page-1/#comment-341370 Mung Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:13:07 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=10082#comment-341370 If we're 98% similar, there sure is a huge amount of dissimilarity in that remaining 2%! If we’re 98% similar, there sure is a huge amount of dissimilarity in that remaining 2%!

]]> By: GilDodgen http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/podcasts-in-the-intelligent-design-controversy-with-brief-comments-2/comment-page-1/#comment-341343 GilDodgen Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:27:09 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=10082#comment-341343 <em>...the Darwinist is not long into his rant before he proclaims that we are 98% chimp and we only flatter ourselves that we are smarter than chimps...</em> I think the average person, when confronted with this line of argumentation, might reason as follows: If chimps are 98% like humans, where is the 98% chimp-Mozart? (Perhaps a composition with 2% wrong notes would validate the correlation.) Or, where is the 98% chimp-bow-and-arrow maker? (Oops, the chimp failed to figure out how to put feathers on the back of the arrow, but got everything else right -- at least a 2% difference.) It is quite obvious that a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology, or thorough indoctrination in irrational Darwinism, is required to not recognize the obvious. Fortunately, most people don't have a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology, and therefore can think rationally and clearly concerning Darwinian claims. The immediate response of a common-sense, rational person, when confronted with the 98% chimp-human similarity hypothesis, is: "Are you kidding me?" Obvious idiocy is a hard sell, which is why skepticism remains. …the Darwinist is not long into his rant before he proclaims that we are 98% chimp and we only flatter ourselves that we are smarter than chimps…

I think the average person, when confronted with this line of argumentation, might reason as follows: If chimps are 98% like humans, where is the 98% chimp-Mozart? (Perhaps a composition with 2% wrong notes would validate the correlation.) Or, where is the 98% chimp-bow-and-arrow maker? (Oops, the chimp failed to figure out how to put feathers on the back of the arrow, but got everything else right — at least a 2% difference.)

It is quite obvious that a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology, or thorough indoctrination in irrational Darwinism, is required to not recognize the obvious.

Fortunately, most people don’t have a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology, and therefore can think rationally and clearly concerning Darwinian claims.

The immediate response of a common-sense, rational person, when confronted with the 98% chimp-human similarity hypothesis, is: “Are you kidding me?”

Obvious idiocy is a hard sell, which is why skepticism remains.

]]>