Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I can't speak for everyone, but I find FM's contributions informative, concise and entertaining. Whereas yours are incoherant, ignorant and often hostile (particularly in your implied belittling of women, which I find so distasteful that I cringe whenever I see one of your posts).

None the less, we have invited you to start your own thread, in which I at least, would try to tolerate your mysoginy if I thought you were seriously trying to discuss something. But you have refused to start your own thread, instead prefering to haunt others.

Sometimes you surprise me RL. How can you get so many of the details wrong, but then get the general outcome right?

Why do you anti-IDers keep banging on about the thread being ended.

It has hardly begun.

We are not having anymore ******g Hitlers if we can help it and you better make yourself cogniscent of that. Or bloody Napoleons or any of that Pol Pot bullshit. We intend running the thread until you anti-Iders are yesterday's cold porrige.

Everyman knows best not some tw*t arsed flippi*g expert on flippi*g bats and Silurian deposits from 65 million years ago who is habituated to having the attention of a class the members of which are trying to discover how to get into the gravy he's in.

The man on the Clapham omnibus. Me for one. Leaning on the bar. Doing my bit and content to leave the important decision to those who won the election.

so, of course you must be aware that Gunga is a pro-IDer. He represents the mentality that listens to your jabber spendi. Behold yer constituency, yer brain trust if you will.
Happy association.
thus spake Homo satiens

fm wrote-



I'll take you word for it fm but there's nothing wrong with him being so. It's perfectly normal. Most folk are IDers on close scrutiny.

I wouldn't mind betting you are yourself if you took the trouble.

Well, according to you, nobody seems to be very sure of the details anyway. Just the outcome.

Anyway, one need not believe in evolution to understand what it is that others believe of it.

Have a good night, my friend.

That's very slippery of you, but we're sure of enough the details to know it's a fact. Which is exactly why it's a scientific fact.



I agree. But your arguments against, would be far more convincing if you demonstrated more knowledge of the actual theory, before arguing against it.

As it is, you submit so many absurdities that you undermine your own validity.

Normal intelligence is in fact normal.

A normal, intelligent person would not look at a Maserati engine and see all of those weber carburators, overhead cams, wires etc. etc. and figure that it just sort of happened, i.e. that all of that aluminum, steel, porcelin, rubber etc. etc. just sort of formed itself up into the Maserati engine via the actions of wind, rain, electricity from lightning storms and the like:



Now, the simplest one-celled animals on this planet are vastly more complex than the Maserati engine, and there is no reason for an intelligent person to figure that such one-celled animals ever arose via random processes, and normal intelligent people in fact DON'T figure that.

Only evolutionites believe in fairytale **** like that and their belief system has nothing to do with normal decent science. It has everything with wanting to feel good about perverted lifestyles.

ros wrote, assertions gushing-



I had allowed that fm's post (he chooses lower case by the way) are interesting in case, in your rush to blurt, you hadn't noticed.

My posts may well be as you describe them to you which (again) is not the same as them being those things to everyone.. This type of assertion,where anti-IDers simply assume that what they think is what everybody else thinks, seems to me to be the principle danger of allowing anti-IDers anywhere near the decision process. It is so constant, repetitive and infantile that one can hardly conclude that it is anything other than an ineradicable, ingrained characteristic and the most severe attack on education that can be imagined.

Why "we" have invited me to start a new thread is beyond me. One senses that you only lack the power to be able to insist upon it and apply it to anyone else you feel like and, if successful, thus turn the thread into a ros appreciation society and a sort of mirror into which you can fondly gaze and see a reflection tailored to your taste.

As to my so called misogyny (note spelling) what can I say in my defence.

I am quite popular on the Trivia threads with the ladies I have been told and the only resistance I get to my style in this regard comes from men.

Now- Ms Germaine Greer, who is a professor at one of out top universties, kicked off the debate on this subject with the statement that "All men are rapists". She sought to provide the proof and convinced me that she was nearly right and that I was one of the exceptions.

An important newspaper group here ran the headline in it's syndicated paper- "Romance is rape". The story derived from a Women's Studies department of another university which declared that pretty gifts, flattery, Valentine cards and such like flummery were nothing but a type of hypnosis with which to demand sexual favours from those females too desperate and too stupid to know any better.

In a long correspondence with the female journalists who ran this story I defended their position against those who attacked it.

I think the gist of your remark about my alleged misogyny is patronising of women and I am content to allow the ladies to decide on the issue. I don't see how you qualify to have an opinion on the matter. I find it exceedingly presumptuous of you.

I treat women as equals rather than as some little fluffy toy kept in a pretty little cage to be got out when it suits your purposes and which can be cajoled into acceding to your wishes with some cheapskate words and phrases rote learned off the Romance industry's literary productions which are run off printing presses by the square mile, chopped into neat squares with pretty edgings and positioned in a variety of locations to help you get your way on the cheap. And one thing they are is cheap which is as it should be to help the real misogynists get what they want for $3.99 a time.

On the end of your ministrations are such things as labour wards, lacerating debates about abortion, chemical poisons designed to reduce any inconvenience to yourself and plastic and rubber invasions of the most delicate and precious aspects of the female person.

Women are undervalued to the status of objects by your phoney, self-serving tripe and it is about time you discovered it.

The British government announced last week, with some fanfare, that soldiers injured in the middle-east were to receive an extra £10 a week whilst they were being treated. Not three months previously a woman was awarded in the courts some hundreds of thousands of pounds for being bullied (her assertions) in the comfortable posh offices of a major bank. There was no discussion of her own behaviour or whether it had caused the bullying.

On behalf of those soldiers ros I would like to offer a hearty round of applause for your dignified contribution to such justice.

Women can look after their own interests without your help and in my experience they have a contempt for your type of greaseballing which I think is eminently sensible.

Do you chuck them under the chin ros ? I don't. They are quite dangerous creatures and not to be trifled with. And they love a bit of fun with a tinge of needle in it. It grants them permission to reply in kind which I like. Perhaps you might not and are pre-empting them with your blitz of sweetness and coy cajolery.

So let's have less of this casual bandying about of such words as "misogynist". It ill becomes men of intelligence. It is so easy and at bottom constitutes self-flattery and complacency as if by your assertion that I am a misogynist allows you to believe you are not and thus God's gift to women.

You should engage Ms Greer's argument before you start on stuff like that and if you can't be bothered you should pipe down.

gunga wrote-



That is exactly what I have found. It is a convenience and a rejection of discipline.

As if a society can efficiently organise without discipline.

The problem as I see it is that evolutionism is basically stupid.

I mean, you don't really have to be stupid or profess to believe in stupid things in order to be a pervert....

Question is, would you rather get to the pearly gates and merely have to explain being a pervert, or explain being a pervert AND an idiot?

gungasnake



The No-Bell prize for science ignorance this year consists of a complete set of ear plugs, eye covers, and a plastic foam cover that snugly fits the epidermis so no information can get to the brain.

And the winner is...

The assertion there is the "no information". All information which fm doesn't approve of is covered.

gunga again, this was a beaut so I clipped it

Maserati hasnt used a carburetor since the early 90's but thats just a detail.

Im used to gungas world being based upon Extracting sense from William Paleys "obvious designer argument".This logic is about as far as Id expect your science savvy to be developed (Paley used a pocket watch metaphor) also he was hardly able to contain his smugness about the "evidences of Creation freom the Natural World". It took another 57 years or so before Paley's argument was shot down .

When we have so much evidence in many sciences and having the results of natural selection stare us in the face from island species to geological differences and now genetic similarities, It would seem that your "Creator" would be really pissed that all you seem to use your head for is a hatrack

And, for spendis sake, (He who denies the linkage between ID and Creationism ). You have just been handed the well worn, but still oft drawn basis of a Creationists core argument. Because a watch "had to be invented", so did a flamingo. The scientifc connectivity is amazing Unwashed ignorance at its finest.

Like I said, "farmerman", you can be a pervert without having to be an idiot in the bargain.

Evolution is idiotic and has been overwhelmingly disproven over a span of decades.

It has been shown to be totally incompatible with modern mathematics and probability theory:

http://www.evolutionisimpossible.com



It is incompatible with modern biology



It has been totally disproven by experiments with fruit flies conducted over a span of decades, i.e. involving more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of humans or anything remotely classifiable as proto-human on the planet:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

The time spans required by evo-losers for their dogma have been shown to be impossible i.e. to require quadrillions of years and not merely millions or tens of millions:

http://www1.minn.net/~science/Haldane.htm

and the supposed time spans which evo-losers believe in have been shown to be a total empty sham:

http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/headline_science/T-rex_soft_tissue.html



Like I say, you can be a pervert without being an idiot.

You just compared the process that built a maseratti engine, with the process that build a flamingo. Evolution is not what's stupid here.

About all I can determine from gunga's latest run of intellectual flatulence is that he leaves open the possibilty he also is a pervert.

Translation into plain English:

fm-

Just to get it straight.

I am not much interested what anybody "believes". It is a social product resulting from conditioning. I am interested in the effects of their beliefs.

Materialists have no reason to behave in any way not associated with self-preservation and the pleasure/pain principle. Any type of decency they exhibit can be nothing other than a cynical, hypocritical strategy. They are underneath, assuming they are proper materialists, feral.

Of course, members of the Christian culture can pose as materialists, and many do, so that they stand out in a crowd by using a superficial knowledge of a narrow specialisation in science to berate and insult and argue with their cultural compatriots in a manner which helps them to justify to themselves the throwing off of a disciplinary yoke which gets in the way of an indulgence they wish to participate in.

They might be seen as lapsed Christians and they usually return to the fold when their urges have been withered by age or experience.

The flat-out materialist is a social outcast if he lives his materialism. If he doesn't live it he's a fake.

How can a materialist give wished for presents to young children when he is conditioning the child on the reward principle to believe in fairy stories such as Father Christmas or that a birthday is different from any other day.

I think you take far too much notice of what people say rather than what they do and in my experience mild Christianity is a much pleasanter social experience than materialistic company which is, by definition, neither mild nor extreme because it can be no other than one single thing.

gunga munga. Thats cause its BIOLOGY . You remind me of the expert who said that bumblebees cannot fly . Of course gunga, only those who are not you emit ad hominems. Boy you are certainly a smug one. Ill bet you dont even defecate

Why not take this statement completely out of context even more. Youre wrong wrong wrong about the context. Did you know that Fred Hoyle was a believer in "


extra terrestrial" seeding?? and he was totally blind to any evidence. Just cause someone is accomplished in one field doesnt mean he knows doodly about others. where is Timbers "man -of -straw"?

You dont seem to give a damn about the overwhelming evidence that youre incorrect. I thought that the Creationist crowd gave up on these when all the radioisotope data fell neatly into line.
PS, Haldane stated later that he made an oops in his calcs.

Your last point about dino soft tissue is interesting and the Paleontologists are still working on this. The DNA information had already been published in Paleo and had been found to be fully converted to osteocalcin and adiposere. Its not unbelievable that soft tissue can be preserved in anoxic conditions (all the soft tissue samples to-date(and there have been 3 others since theyve discovered this one by acciodent) were all inside bone cavities like fossae and knees.
Remember, soft tissue is not unthinkable freom the deep past even. In the Ordovician we have waxes and adiposere from coal measures, we have oil, which is a low end hydrocarbon from living tissue, and we have fossil insects from permian amber. Wait till the research is final before you start reaching pro-Creationist conclusions.

And please, stop blaming others for ad-hominems when its you who start them.

If your brain is too tiny to process scientific data (I notice that you never have anything new, its always the same song that Im used to responding) then perhaps you should expand your reading lists.

Nobody (of any scientific substance) has proven or even found reason to disavow the workings of evolution and natural selection. You just need to live in your religious "comfort zone" so you attack without any understanding , poor baby.