Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

see my above answer .

Which was no answer. It wasn't even an excuse for an answer.

I take it you are admitting that it is not possible.

you are not the arbiter. Ive answered in an honest logical fashion. If we disagree, just say so. Don't make believe that someone died and left you in charge

I don't intend to be the arbiter.

You might have said "yes" and you might have said "no".

Or you might have said that there are no such things as motives in biological systems. Which would make "The Selfish Gene" an anthropomorphic idea.

"Selfish" and "lowest" and "sordid" are concepts which are only derivable from religion.

and you can call me Ray
or you could call me Jay

That there are no gods ... I will not undertake to maintain, against the concurrent and unvaried testimony of all ages and all nations. There is no people, rude or learned, among whom apparitions of the gods are not related and believed. This opinion, which perhaps prevails as far as human nature is diffused, could become universal only by its truth; those that never heard of one another would not have agreed in tales which nothing but experience can make credible. That it is doubted by single cavillers can very little weaken the general evidence; and some who deny it with their tongues confess it by their fears.

Mainly Samuel Johnson.

The evolution of Gods and "legends of Gods" follows a path similar to that of human cultures. The god legends begin to fuse and are liberally "borrowed and repurposed" by later and later cultures during the time nodes when "professional priesthoods" develop. Being able to verbalize a more complex "god story" required (usually) an existing priesthood network against which a "NEw revelation" could rebel and develop. (Christianity, for example liberally borrows from Dynastic Egypt, Greece, Judaic legends, and Mythrianism among others)
First "religion -practices" were mostly animist and involved"kitchen god" types.As cultures began to develop, more and more sophisticated tools, they began to create effigies of "gods" that had purposes that we still can only ponder about.
Even Neanderthal cultures have recently been interpreted with their own animist worldviews. Paintings on several caves have been shown to have been Neanderthal and not later Cro Magnon culture.
The development of a legend like all that leaves cultural tracks. One need only follow them to begin to speculate on the "Evolution of gods"

From religion to business to clinic.

Spendi might know, but I am not sure. Why don't you explain this to us?!

By definition: Design is a specification of an object (the non-compliance with morality in the case of atheism), manifested by an agent (people without any scruples), intended to accomplish goals (driving without breaks), in a particular environment (the big bang theory of the casino evolution), using a set of primitive components (red herring, straw-man and other logical fallacies), satisfying a set of requirements (misrepresentations of the world ... of any kind), subject to constraints (avoidance of the truth).

The state of being against something (rather than being something), and to present yourself as not being something else (in order to hide what you actually are) is special understanding of the world ... and in the capacity of being so could not happen without ID.

The truth of the matter is that the casino evolution theory based on the atheistic cross-scientific misunderstanding of the world falls like a house of cards.
There is nothing so melancholic than a beautiful theory ... or pseudo-theory, destroyed by an ugly verification & validation test ... and its relics entombed without mercy with the time.

What use is to explain a concept that obviously is alien to you?

Any explanation of mine will be measured by the the prejudice seen in your above quote. (And that's an euphemism).

Atheism goes well with morality, again despite the efforts religious people put into it.

That's what ID has presented, except that its not very "beautiful".

You've been asked many times and you always avoid---the issue of evidence, where is the evidence that favors ID. All you've done so far is try (not very well) to ismiss evolution by a series of rather wacky mind dumps of default and Biblically based conclusions.
Kinda weak arguments though.
Wouldn't you like to have the same stuff I can quote you? Stuff like a
1robust ascending fossil record
2genetic evidence showing species interrelationships and genetic hierarchies
3A planetary history where the record of life matches the history of the earth.
4Critical "intermediate fossils" found in "Rocks of a right age" and a proper stratigraphic location?
5 embryological evidence for the development of a phenotypes body features(such as seeds, feathers, scales, wings, sbare toothness, etc etc)

Id feel real comfortable in the supportive data and evidence that science has discovered that underpins evolution and natural selection.
_____________________

Meanwhile, Intelligent Design has , since its inception in history , given us a promise that evidence supporting its "belief" would be forthcoming.(It still hasnt shown up with anything compelling)

If your only argument revolves around some idiotic accusation that science is atheistic, just try to run your car without hydrocarbons, or don't use a refrigerator to keep your beer cool.

Ill bet youre frustratesd when all you've got to peddle is some fairy tales .

Did you compose that beauty yourself Herald? Not a lot of adjustment is needed to render it brilliant.

I can make a case that there is design in atheism. One need only look at who promotes it.

As Huxley said in a speech concerning the downtrodden masses--



He was probably frothing at the mouth.

D&M go on--" This ' lowly-origin, noble future' picture would have fallen flat among the port-swilling aristocracy, but the idea of promotion through the ranks was devoured by the aspiring sweeps and enterprising shopmen.

"Oysters to aldermen" some wag had it.

Design by oysters. Oh--how ironic. (That's a D.H. Lawrence yoke).

It's an exercise in counter-jumping. The entire population of Media are counter-jumpers to a man and woman.

Dearie me fm!!!! Where does "ascending" come from? Not feeling a bit special are you? The microbes have you lot looking up your own arses. Tigers are in intensive care and holding out a begging bowl. Even you think that the whales can't handle things without your help.

Do you wear a bib when you get carnivoring. Posh eh?



That's simply because human behaviour does not do sliding down incline planes predictably nor refracting itself through a prism in a pretty pattern. What it does do the court has declared inadmissible.

if you cant refute it with anything other than mindumps of bumper stickers, just accept fact. Anyway, you are but a fly on the windshield. You haven't been abke to dust off anything substantive in 7 years (or is it 8?). Why start now?

The only one that seems to have specified atheism has no morals is you Herald. It certainly isn't practised that way by any atheist I know.

By the way interpreting something or discovering it doesn't mean you designed it ot that it was designed.

I'll specify that atheism has no morals. Imitating Christian morals for social reasons is not grounded in anything but pragmatism. Trained dogs do that. Atheists would practice whatever morality they are caught up in as a strategy to avoid losing caste or being ostracised.

Stuck for words again eh fm?

Darwin rejected "ascending".

Are you at such a loss for arguments as to put forth such nonsense, Spendi?

This atheist doesn't fall in that category and has no need for a strategy.

You, on the other hand, seem to be in need of a better one..

Spendi has to rely on unfounded allegations of atheist immorality in an effort to draw attention away from the fact that his arguments against science have no traction.

Which raises the question of why Christians are no better than trained dogs since they merely imitated morals of others.