95
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 03:33 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I took university level biology and chemistry before you were even a lurid gleam in your pappy's eye.
Ahh... That would explain your long out of date knowledge of biology.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 03:41 pm
@Leadfoot,
I provided a source for the distinctions between archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes. Do you now allege that you know more about these distinctions than my source? That kind of conceit does not surprise me. There is nothing out of date about the information in the source i provided. This thread is being trashed by a pair of theistically tendentious contrarians. But you're entertaining, occasionally, at least. Your posts are so often wonderfully, hilariously fact-free.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 03:48 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I provided a source for the distinctions between archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes.
That was very sweet of you. But I wasn't discussing those distinctions. All I said was that bacteria predated eukaryotic cells (by a lot).

And that is a fact. Unlike your hilariously wrong assumption of my age!
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 03:56 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
This thread is being trashed by a pair of theistically tendentious contrarians.
Yeah, it was so much better when it was stuck on atheists making fun those silly pictures & sculptures of 'Jebus' & ma Mary. Bet you got off on that!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 03:58 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
. . . they had all this complicated inter and intra cellular languages all worked out j. . .


This is the bullsh*t to which i objected, as my post made clear. As for your age, when you post like an ignorant, immature know-it-all when you are clearly posting BS, don't be surprised by such an assumption.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 04:04 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
This is the bullsh*t to which i objected, as my post made clear.
Like I said, In that case your argument is with Bonnie B., the molecular biologist. I tend to take her word and her young team of Princeton educated researchers over that of some novice who went to college back in the early 40s (according to you).
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 04:09 pm
@Leadfoot,
Like i said, your incoherent recounting of what someone else says is not evidence of any failure of understanding on my part. of course, i never said or implied that i had attended university in the the 1940s, which is just further evidence of your compulsion to lie.

You do, however, answer the question of the thread--"ID" is religion, not science.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 04:14 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
i never said or implied i had attended university in the the 1940s, which is just further evidence of your compulsion to lie.
If there was a lie there, it was yours. You said you took bio and chemistry before I was a gleam in my daddy's eye, not me...

You go off half-cocked way too much Set. I was born in 1947.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 04:16 pm
@Leadfoot,
You peddle bullsh*t way too much, and don't call me Set, that's what my friends call me. As i said, if you are that old, and have learned no better in all those years, you just make yourself look more childish, more jejune.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 04:18 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
don't call me Set, that's what my friends call me.
You have friends? I'm impressed!
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 04:21 pm
@Leadfoot,
Maybe you can attain that consummation so devoutly to be desired . . . some day. As usual, you're trying to divert the discussion because you can't sustain your claim.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 04:27 pm
@Setanta,
OK, back to Jebus photos...
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 04:30 pm
Riiiigt . . .

http://cdn1.relevantmediagroup.com/sites/default/files/import/thumbnail/Article_JesusWasFunnierthanWeThink.jpg

The topic of this thread, which you seem determined to avoid, is whether or not "ID" is religion or science. Due to the lack of evidence from you, i can only conclude that it is indeed, religion.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 04:35 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
And since bacteria were first (billions of years ago) and they had all this complicated inter and intra cellular languages all worked out long before eukaryotic cells came about, that was some pretty clever and fast accidents to come about without all that much time for evolution to work it's magic.

This was your exact statement. Somebody hadda call you on it . You seem to get things "half right" but that doesnt count when you start being a smart-ass.

Can you quickly find which chemical we look for in the sedimentary record that distinguishes Archea from bacteria and when doyou think cyanobacters first appeared?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 04:40 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
The topic of this thread, which you seem determined to avoid, is whether or not "ID" is religion or science.
Gee, I started out by discussing the findings of a molecular biologist about early life forms and I'M the one diverting!?

You are a gift to ID Set.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 04:47 pm
@farmerman,
Oh ****, you're right, I meant to say inter/intra ORGANISM, but in context you (and probably Set) knew what I meant.

Becides, I have an excuse, I had my evening cocktail before posting. PUI again...

Edit: Set can correct my spelling later.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 04:50 pm
Theists of a certain sort (by which I mean mainly western tradition theists) had a big problem when scientific methods and Darwin came to town. An alternate, comprehensible, rational means of explaining the universe and living organisms evolving towards greater complexity was made available for consideration. And theological authorities were consequently seriously threatened in their prior status as sole truth-sources.

Because they could no longer just tie dangerous voices to a pile of kindling, different strategies had to be advanced. One has been the vector of pretending that scientific inquiry, along with the intellectual integrity attached to it, is the basis for arguments from design. That's historically false, rather obviously. The second was a strategy of claiming that science is itself exactly like religious belief. Or in other words, "You sciencey people are as bad as we are!"

But I think we're stuck with these nincompoops. No big problem. The rest of us will just keep doing what we're doing to actually try and make the world a better and more rational place.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 04:56 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
"You sciencey people are as bad as we are!"
No! I'm not saying that at all. I say Those anti ID sciencey people are incapable of being scientific! They just declare victory and go home...

Or just say "That's BS", and then go home.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 05:11 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
No! I'm not saying that at all. I say Those anti ID sciencey people are incapable of being scientific! They just declare victory and go home...

I wasn't speaking of you but of a broad and readily apparent defensive strategy on the part of theists in the west.

So what is it that makes those who reject arguments from design incapable of maintaining scientific integrity?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2016 05:14 pm
Lead now uses that silliest and most transparent of defenses--"you knew what i meant." He is certainly a gift to those who point out that ID is religion, and not science.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 12/07/2022 at 01:36:23