Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Try answering the posts timber instead of chanting your mantras. Any clodhopper can rant assertions.

0 Replies

firefly wrote on a Trivia thread-

Quote:

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.
Immanuel Kant

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Try answering the posts timber instead of chanting your mantras. Any clodhopper can rant assertions.

Your apparent inability to recognize an answer is none of my concern ... pointedly, in fact, about the only concern I have regarding your case is tweaking your tail ... you're so cute when you get all pouty and angry.

0 Replies

timber-

I am neither of those things.

I am simply exposing to view your methods of avoiding answering posts in the hope that such methods are deemed inappropriate in a national education system and thus anti-ID input is at the least inhibited if not entirely eschewed.

A whole nation educated in such methods would become incapable of communicating with each other.

If this-

Quote:

Quite. Precisely why it is critically important to get the biblethumpers out of the excercize. Fortunately, the biblethumpers' own gameplaying hastens the demise of their pernicious influence.

is supposed to address those posts on the neuroscience article, the Spengler quote etc you must be joking.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am neither of those things.

I believe we need evidence to the contrary from what I would call a "credible" source, thank you very much.

0 Replies

The simple fact that I post is evidence enough. An angry or sullen person wouldn't post surely. Anger is bad for a person and I don't deliberately aggravate my nervous system and the essence of pouting is withdrawal.

Fancy a go at the posts mentioned fm or are you seeking to render anti-ID into laughing stock mode.

All you're doing are hrruumps with a semblance of grammar.

0 Replies

spendi, Your cool-headed, booze brain-damaged, posts are entertaining to many of us. Please keep it up; it's one of the few laughs left on a2k.

0 Replies

Here comes another.

3 out of 3. No answers in sight.

In Dvorak's Te Deum, which was in the first night Promenade Concert programme there is a reference to God being something for the angels to cry aloud to.

Do anti-IDers really wish to leave nothing for the angels to cry aloud to in their despair.

They either can't appreciate despair or they can't appreciate angels.

And what do they erect in God's place? Themselves of course and the medications they have invented at great expense.

Basically anti-ID is a form of "I'm alright Jack."

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

timber-

I am neither of those things.

I am simply exposing to view your methods of avoiding answering posts in the hope that such methods are deemed inappropriate in a national education system and thus anti-ID input is at the least inhibited if not entirely eschewed.

A whole nation educated in such methods would become incapable of communicating with each other.

If this-

Quote:
Quite. Precisely why it is critically important to get the biblethumpers out of the excercize. Fortunately, the biblethumpers' own gameplaying hastens the demise of their pernicious influence.

is supposed to address those posts on the neuroscience article, the Spengler quote etc you must be joking.

I'm not joking, spendi, but your failure to recognize that the style and substance of your interaction here IS the joke makes the joke all the richer. I assure you, the audience, convulsing with hilarity, is not laughing with you.

0 Replies

Here we go again.

Quote:

I'm not joking, spendi, but your failure to recognize that the style and substance of your interaction here IS the joke makes the joke all the richer. I assure you, the audience, convulsing with hilarity, is not laughing with you.

I should hope not. It is a serious subject.

But your approach is laughable. The idea that you think this series of posts by yourself, fm, and c.i. actually mean anything other than an example of the naffest method known to mankind of weaseling out of addressing your opponent's points is funny precisely because it isn't serious.

The Supreme Court would listen attentively to the points made in those posts of mine and elaborations upon them but they would throw you lot out for wasting the court's time.

You are just trying to make it look like there's still life left in the argument at the point where you have no answers.

I'll do you a post on the concept of psuedomorpheses soon and you won't be able to answer that either. Your failure to address the social consequences argument will not be copied in the SC. Quite the contrary.

I might not be much good at it but I do imagine I'm addressing the SC when I post. You lot don't. You are addressing the children.

0 Replies

when I see sshpendi nattering on about his most recent post being "important" I usually have an urgent need for a haircut.

SOmething more important, I heard that Dr Behe was leaving his post at Lehigh to go full time with Discovery Institute. Does anyone have a confirmation?I heard this on a CBC spot about the status of science ed in Canada.

0 Replies

The answer on dr behe might be here.

0 Replies

No, I just heard this last week, completely slipped my mind .

0 Replies

farmerman: currently there are no press releases from either lehigh university or discovery institute on dr. behe

spendi: the social consequences argument was made by william jennings bryan in the 1920's (teaching evolution encourages "animalistic behavior"). i am sure all the supreme court justices have heard that argument and do not take it seriously.

0 Replies

The "Social Consequences Argument" is the joke's punchline ... and the joke's currency expired with vaudeville.

0 Replies

wandel, One would think supreme court judges would have better judgement skills, but with politics and religion, one never knows how they will vote on issues - except maybe Judge Kennedy.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

No, I just heard this last week, completely slipped my mind .

Fancy that. It just slipped his mind like he forgot to put the cat out out and he's talking about the education of 50 million Americans on whom the future depends.

How wonderfully precious isn't he folks?

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

spendi: the social consequences argument was made by william jennings bryan in the 1920's (teaching evolution encourages "animalistic behavior"). i am sure all the supreme court justices have heard that argument and do not take it seriously.

One does have to wonder why wande?

0 Replies

spendi, Farmerman contributes a great deal more than you'll ever hope to achieve in this or later life. Your spin probably has greater value to your friends at the pub than it does on web-land.

Your primary premise falls apart with every post; only you don't seem to understand why.

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

The "Social Consequences Argument" is the joke's punchline ... and the joke's currency expired with vaudeville.

How do you define "vaudeville" timber?

Now that's an easy one. Perhaps you could have a go at an answer. But don't make it what you think it is. Not again. Please. It's not scientific you see.

If you have no answers except that I'm a ballooning load of bullshit, the opposite of a black hole, I'll understand.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know