Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

That's better.

No it isn't.

Although I'll admit getting paid for it is meaningful in one respect as is also doing the paying. In which case the similarities with the collection plate is quite striking except for the voluntary nature of the latter.

But I will respectfully consider any arguments you might have to support your assertion which is itself meaningless.

My clients don't really give a **** about the fcats in earths history. They only want a return on equity.

If I used the logic of ID/Creationism I would miss opportunities to "make money " for my clients (and by extension, me).
Mine is a business , not a religious crusade.

AND business is very good.

Well fm--that's very reasonable. I quite understand.

Are you denying there is any dickytalk involved? Or that your position originated in dickytalk and evolved to money through the years?

But still--I don't see why using the logic of anti-ID, if you don't believe it, is not a form of prostitution. To which I have no objection of course. Just as I have no objection to using the logic of ID/Creationism to make money.

You have raised a suspicion, in my mind at least, and I should think in others as well, that you have been having us on all these years. Cynically exploiting the more gullible members of A2K with your pop-science. In order to make money.

hingehead for example. He has just admitted to never having read a novel in his life. What can he know about these matters then? Novels are the only scientific publications where matters can be raised which are strenuously avoided in the average run-of-the-mill scientific publications which cater for the likes of ros by flattering a wannabee scientific sensibility.

And I don't see why using the logic of ID/Creationism would bother your clients as long as you make them a satisfactory amount of cash. If you were making me 60 cents per share annually I wouldn't give a **** if you made the sign of the cross every hour. Or even every minute.

After all--the old Arab gents who showed exploratory geologists where to drill were no less valuable because they adhered to the faith of Islam. Some of the religions which showed our botanists which plants were useful were pretty far out. One wouldn't stop drinking coffee because it derives from religions which practiced human sacrifice.

It has taken a long time to drag this confession from you.

BTW--would your clients be in favour of telling their customers the truth?

I think that politicians who fund research into "how life began" must be a pretty credulous bunch or have found taxes too easy to collect and thought fit to pass some of them out to people much like themselves.

Do you know anything about Goser the Traveler and the 2nd Reconciliation of Lothene?

No. Should I?

FM, the more fables about pseudoscientific conclusions and evidences you are telling to the population on the net, the more you start to believe them.
Look around you - everything you use in the everyday life - TV, Internet, automobiles, telephone communications, art galleries, medical services - everything, without any exception is a result of intelligent design - ours. What more evidences will you need?
You cannot deny that our intelligence exists - right?
You will never prove that the big bang has the capacity and the feasibility to create intelligence. If this was the case, taking into account that the big bang is omnipresent and still in operation the universe (or at least our galaxy) should be teeming with life forms. Cyanobacteria should be found all over the solar system at least.
Nothing of the kind is observed. Can you explain this with your 'real scientific evidences'.
There is more: science has not created anything from the universe and the life forms (if we exclude the GMOs). It is only observing. It is sitting in the box, eating popcorn and drinking cola and is watching the peepshow, and the hoax with the big bang has been invented to brainwash us with the idea about the omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of science as the creator and developer of everything as dominating presence. This is called megalomania ... and lack of scruples.

We all have a tendency to lack scruples Herald. So much so that one might easily assume it is an important feature of intelligent design.

Is this supposed to be some kind of"evidence"? Its an empty projection based upon nothing but an Evangelical worldview. If you need a religion with a superdude , why not make the god one that is transcendent not imminent.
Im sorry but none of that stuff you presented could be considered "evidence" anymore than a hot turd is evidence of a gourmet meal.

Just because we are intelligent doesn't mean that something intelligent had to create us. This sounds like that old "blind watchmaker" argument which evolution put to rest decades ago.


Science doesn't (and didn't) set out to try to prove that the Universe has the capacity to create intelligence. All science does is understand how nature works. But it is through this understanding that it has become clear that the biology we see today (including ourselves) has evolved naturally. It's only a logical inference that the Universe clearly DOES possess the capacity to evolve intelligence.

Ros, very profound observation. Given the pantheists' position, Her existence or non- is merely a semantic issue, just as all the activity constitutes Her thinking

It also put to bed the arrogant idea that we are not animals and that our "intelligence" was something other than a sort of colour code for mating like with the blue-bottomed monkey.

There's no such thing as progress in evolution. Progress is a notion that can only be coherent to an IDer.

There's no manifest destiny in evolution, no certainty of progress, but there is a possibility of progress, and a constant 'pressure' for it by way of competition for mating and survival.

Progress is a religious belief derived from Christian theology and from offshoots of it such as humanism and atheism.

Darwinism would not have raised an eyebrow in other cultures.

GM crops are a prosthetic. Green policy is like desperately plugging holes in a dyke which appear faster than they can be plugged. Its main proponents are among the earth's top 0.1% of polluters.

The earth has antibodies too.

Spendius said: "The earth has antibodies too"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you mean humans are the "germs" that the earth will rid itself of, David Attenborough seemed to be hinting at the same thing in a recent interview-

Somebody called it "disseminated primatemaia. A plague of people.

James Lovelock. An apt name for the only solution.

Send bags of flour and they just keep on *******.

One biological mechanism links stress with infertility. Birth rates usually reduce in economic depressions.

We might take the cameras away. It's too easy a route to fame and fortune is emotionally wrought hand-wringing. They are all at it. Multi-millionaires like Paxman even.

When they do patients getting it from nurses and doctors they never mention nurses and doctors getting **** of patients.

Doctors are charging £400 for a home visit. How did that come about?

Agreed. As I said Darwinism is not conflicting with the idea of progress. It is only conflicting with the idea that progress is certain to happen at all times. Evolution has gone through phases of mass extinctions. We are in the middle of one, caused by Homo sapiens.

However, what is considered as progress in a Darwinian world would include the effective spread of the AIDS virus in an era of sexual promiscuity, and can thus be very different from the social ideals we invest in the concept.