spendius wrote:I don't like mentioning them. They are so obvious and so shocking (not to me though) and why should I when I'm not pushing to bring them on. If the ones pushing for them don't have a clue about them they are like a baby playing with matches in an oil refinery.
In other words you're not going to say anything, because you know we'll be able to call you on your bullshit and expose it for what it is. Fair enough.
Quote:Don't think I don't know what they are. I've hinted at a few for those who can take hints and read carefully which you've admitted you don't.
I read carefully.
Quote:I trust you don't think the voters have any interest is this stuff about eyes evolving or DNA replication. That's for specialists who know a little bit about electrical impulses in the cilium, the centriol, the mitochondrion and the endoplasmic reticulum and suchlike which are only labels really for vast molecular worlds which will never be seen.
Never been seen? We can see them quite clearly with electron microscopes. We can see them quite well with light microscopes, but not as detailed.
You see, this stuff isn't really relevant to social consequences.
When somebody votes Conservative, they aren't going to think, "Hm, these people best represent the evolutionary processes". They don't think, "Hm, these people really know how an eye is formed." You ask any person on the street about a politician, they're not going to go on about scientific details and theories related to Evolution.
Quote:Have you ever seen an electron microscope picture of the muscle fibres that go into action when they turn the lights way down low and the music starts for a slinky dance. There will be some action, of a different sort, during dreaming and all changing from micro-moment to micro-moment posibly depending whether the dreamer has imbibed anyone one of a vast range of nutrient for supper or cocktail of them.
Each of my eyes, and hairs for that matter, are different in some way from each other and from every other eye or hair that ever existed, exists, or ever will exist.
Some Australian science claimed to show that they could roughly predict the year of a person's death from analysing one hair. Did you know that greying can be speeded up by bad lifestyle.
It's a bit like saying that 50,000 BC, 1249 AD and 2006 are all the same because they are all numbers representing a similar time period under varying exposures to sunlight and other changing factors.
See? You seem to think quantity is better than quality, despite the fact that you only end up writing so much because you go off on wild tangents.
Quote:The voters are interested in other things. The ones interested in DNA and eye evolution at crude levels are probably no more that 0.0001% of the population and they are probably arguing among themselves all the time.
Parties getting 5% of the vote never win a seat in parliament and lose their deposit every time they stand before the electorate.
Yes, but they're going to be interested in whether people teach proper science to students in a science class, which ID is not. You've agreed it isn't and you have agreed that ID shouldn't be taught in science classes. So when some politicians comes along saying they'll ensure ID is taught in classes, a larger number of voters will vote against his proposal.
Quote:That's why anti-IDers shy off social consequences and greet people like rl like a long lost brother who they can argue with whilst showing off until the end of time with no possibility of resolution.
So, basically, you spouted out a lot of stuff about science, stated that very few voters are interested in science and then state that is the reason anti-IDers shy off social consequences?
Because people aren't interested in science?
Here's a question for you, spendi. If you believe so few people are interested in evolutionary science, and therefore the anti-ID debate, why do you think anti-ID will have any social consequences at all?
If they're not interested, they're not paying attention. They cannot be influenced by anti-ID, if they're not paying attention. There cannot be any social consequences from an ideal if it exerts no influence.
Quote:To get halfway to solving irreducible complexity will take so long that the scientific culture will be long gone and have been returned to the magma for a retread.
An assertion without proof, Spendius. You don't know how long it may take, and it's not irreducible complexity. It's answers to questions we don't have. Irreducible complexity is complete bullshit that simply boils down to, "IDers cannot believe it happened, so therefore it is evidence of God".
Quote:If the Pope had authority and declared unneccesary travelling a mortal sin the carbon dioxide emission problem would disappear as would any chance of the oil running out.
Another paragraph that has no relevance to the topic at hand.
Quote:You lot just want to continue your binge of self indulgence with no thought for future generations and the limit is a natural and terrible one which you have no institutions to control other than directives and terror to enforce them and surveillance to spot infringements.
On the contrary. Our lot are also the ones advocating less carbon dioxide emissions, the research of greener alternatives and any other solutions that may decrease or remove the impact of Global Warming.
You have made an assertion without proof and an illogical assertion at that.
Quote:Anyway- the A2K censor would cut out any feeble attempt to describe the social consequences of scientific materialism with no religious inhibitions.
Well, I didn't realise your delusional fears contained so many swear words as I suspect that is the only thing A2K will censor out.
Besides, you fail to link scientific materialism with no religious inhibitions with anti-ID. As I pointed out to you before, anti-ID can include Creationists as well. They are religious and also anti-science, which kinda blows your argument out of the water.
Quote:ID is your best friend because without it you would get fundamentalism voted for. Aldous Huxley has been called "obscene" by readers good enough to follow his trains of thought which were a bit bourgeiose all through. ID is a political trimming exercise.
Once again, you're redefining ID in a way that suits you but doesn't reflect what ID is really about.
The only feeble thing here is your attempt to link Evolution with bad social consequences. No evidence provided. Illogical connections between disparate themes with no real justification for their connection and so forth.
And when somebody calls you on your complete bullshit, you dismiss them as either too young or too stupid.
Perhaps, Spendius, perhaps you're the one that doesn't quite get it.
