E = mc^jesus

A pretty serious Brains although he couldn't see so good, or so it is said, which comes in handy if you're a six feet four nerdy goofball and all skin and bones who couldn't pot the black off its spot more than once in fifty and has been bred up down the AIDser's line.

I respect him as an author, but I'm surprised that you say he came up with this ridiculous thesis:

Aldous Huxley



I'm not trying to crush your spirits or anything, but if you're keen on proving the existence of God, you better look someplace else. I suspect you'll be looking for a long time.

That depends on where you look.

It isn't maths and that's for sure. Or Aldous Huxley.

Frank Harris is what you need.

Re: E = mc^jesus

No, it never stops being a theory, and yes, gravity is still called a theory in physics textbooks. So is wave optics, aerodynamics, and other scientific findings we trust enough to bet our lives on. Daily.

From what I have seen Thomas I would advise you to avoid betting.

Even with small amounts.

Good point Nick. Well it only went "down" because of the coordinate frame newton chose. It actually went "towards" the largest mass closest to it's initial position. The vector for "down" when placed on the other side of the earth is the the vector for "up."

So nerdy...

The optimist says the cup is half full
The pessimist says the cup is half empty

The engineer says the cup was designed exact twice as large as it needed to be.
K
O

The Alcoholic say 'stick the cup up your arse and give me the friggin
bottle' hick'''o0..

I wonder what the creationist would say..... then again I probably wouldn't care

I think you need to make a distinction between a "scientific" theory and a theory in general.

Science has certain rules, and scientific theories need to meet those rules. Theories outside of science are not bound by any rules and can take on ANY form.

ID is a theory, just as "I'm asleep and this is all a dream" is a theory. Both of those theories are equally valid as theories, but neither one is a valid "scientific" theory.

ros wrote-





Ellen Sturgis Hoopers.

Tell us ros what the duties are. It would be scientific to say that certain accepted duties led to a certain style of social organisation.

You're being superficial as usual. You have no reading. All you have are easy to do banalities. Are you habituated to a captive audience of inferior people?

I've never actually seen a scientific argument for Intelligent Design. I've only ever seen supporters of ID try to disprove evolution. I'm very curious as to what the science behind ID is.

No one has seen anything that even remotely sounds scientific when ID is conjured as a "theory". Ken Miller stated that ID's basis is derived from disproving science. AND, as a counterpoint,if science is evidenced , that, in turn disproves ID. SOunds like the IDjits didnt quite get what they wanted.

BTW, member "spendius" establishes his a2k personna as some kind of wit who is stuck here among we dolts. Yet he continues to hang on trying to change peoples minds. SO , should you post anything (after having established your own personna), he will automatically engage in gainsay to whatever you post. Hes quite predictable and , some say that he is entertaining. (But after youve heard his repetitive act several thousand times, he becomes quite a bore)

There is no science behind ID once you have conveniently dismissed the psychosomatic realm as non-existent and have ignored the possible effects of emotional states on cell function.

Our group of psuedo-scientists refuse to do that. They haven't the guts to go that far as the materialist theorists on mind do. They prefer to keep silent on the matter and pretend they are having a scientific discussion with their heads in a soundproof bag when they are not holding forth.

Attempts to justify this position by sarcastically calling me a "wit among dolts" , a rallying cry, and a "bore" only work with dolts and hence the attempt involves rallying dolts by the logic of the case.

There would be no need for the repetition if you would answer the questions on the psychosomatic realm and the effect of emotional states on cell function and, I might add, social organisation. You have been asked the questions effemm. A good few times. Your silence on them is objectively boring and especially bearing in mind that there are many thousands of books and articles on the subject which you needs must have on Ignore as well.

And anybody who stubbornly gets bored by the variations to my repetition is merely blowing snow.

Josie- watch him not answer again and decide for yourself how boring that is.

And look how he tries to denigrate "wit". How he makes it something not even worth attempting. Makes it into a fault. He must be a real bundle of laughs. No wonder he doesn't go in pubs. He's probably banned.

He's half way to being a wit.

Who? effemm- are you kidding?

This is on another thread-



So much for-



Furthermore it seems as if effemm has to read my posts several thousand times in order to discover they are boring. That's seriously slow on the uptake.

He simply brings the charge of "boring" out to try to cover over the fact that he daren't answer the questions on the psychosomatic realm and the effect of emotional states on cell function and social organisation.

He thinks A2Kers are too stupid to notice. It's a characteristic of anti-IDers that they think everybody else is stupid.

He daren't say that there is no such thing as the psychosomatic realm or that emotional states have no effect on cell function and social organisation because he knows a ton of bricks will descend upon him and he daren't say the opposite because he then concedes the whole case he has presented all these years.

So he says I'm boring after reading several thousand of my posts.

And he's a high flying academic with a teaching function. Can you believe that?

You see- the coalition for which he speaks gets $$$$$$s out of cures and not out of prevention. Prevention would be bad news for the whole anti-ID coalition. Bad for Media, bad for the medical profession, bad for the legal profession, bad for the scientific profession, ( not Science itself of course) and all the others who benefit from people being unhappy and alienated. All palliative salepersons.

On the few occasions he has mentioned his diet it has not been one to recommend.

That's really boring eh?

He hasn't even read De-Schooling Society and Medical Nemesis by Ivan Illich nor Food is a Wonder Medicine by Dr. Barnard. He just reads stuff that confirms his views which itself suggests that he's in constant need of reassurance.