97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Sun 21 Jan, 2007 05:53 pm
Quote:
Get your stinkin' paws off me, you damned dirty ape!
Charlton Heston Planet of the Apes 1968
Quote:
Don't run for cover when the cultural cannons roar. Remember who you are and what you believe, and then raise your hand, stand up, and speak out. Don't be shamed or startled into lockstep conformity by seemingly powerful people. The maintenance of a free nation is a long, slow, steady process. And it is in your hands.

Although my years are long, I was not on hand to help pen the Bill of Rights. And popular assumptions aside, the same goes for the Ten Commandments. Yet as an American and as a man who believes in God's almighty power, I treasure both.
Excerts from the National Rifle Association First Vice President Charlton Heston Delivered at the Free Congress Foundation's 20th Anniversary Gala December 7, 1997
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 21 Jan, 2007 06:00 pm
timber wrote-

Quote:
DR. Jane Goodall, DBE - the woman who redefined mankind.


I'm not shagging that. But everyman to his own tastes.

I prefer scrubbers and slatterns myself. Slappers at a pinch. Women without the slightest spark of decency like Henry Miller said.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 21 Jan, 2007 06:20 pm
spendi Posted January 17:
In a materialist world too. That's very odd. One would think, on well established scientific economic principles, that it would be the other way round considering the discrepancy in working conditions and the demand for the service if it remains undistorted by spiritual considerations as it would under the exigensies of materialist rigour.
They certainly did build a better mousetrap did those ****-shifters but the world doesn't beat a path to their doors. It steers around them.

spendi Posted January 15:
In a materialist future one might envisage a ci counter built in to the TV to tell us when to laugh.

spendi Posted January 13:
Schoolchildren don't need to be taught ID because it can't be taught.
It is a feeling. To nurture the feeling a certain style of education is necessary.
A mechanical materialist style education inhibits the feeling but cannot eradicate it.

Timber posted on January 13:
In the sense they are employed by proponents of the Creationist/ID-iot proposition, the terms "Materialist" and "Materialism" are phantoms, boogeymen, "not like us", "scare the kiddies" buzzwords; they are but manufactured "enemies of all that is moral, righteous, and good"; signal example of the characteristic mendacity which reveals and typifies the foundtionally insurmountable illegitimacy of the proposition itself.

Spendi responded with:
…use the word as exactly as I can. It's all been thrashed out years ago. IDers can have variations of style and committment but materialists are just materialists.
They demand solid evidence for every proposition and solid evidence is only in material. It is no bogeyman to scare anybody with. It is scary as a fact.

Wandel wrote:
There is no theory of intelligent design.

To which spendi wrote:
It's the only competition materialism has left. It's the last ditch. It's about stopping materialism or, at least, slowing it down a bit. The march of the Materialist Party with stock market prices for guidance.

Spendi, Materialism is not a "competitive" theory. One can have materialism and religion at the same time. Nobody demands solid evidence for every proposition. Materialism doesn't inhibit anything. Materialsm just is; it has a past and a future as long as humans occupy this planet. Materialism is economics. There is no way to separate the two.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 21 Jan, 2007 06:36 pm
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
One can have materialism and religion at the same time.


For which fact you can be forever grateful. That's what half-baked means.

You AIDsers are like the vicar complaining about all this disgraceful shagging.

Quote:
Nobody demands solid evidence for every proposition.


I understood timber and fm to have a contrary view to that. Are you saying that they only have such a view when it suits them.

Quote:
Materialism doesn't inhibit anything.


It doesn't understand the meaning of "inhibition" either.

Quote:
Materialism is economics.


For sure. Your body when you cark it is rendered down to avoid wasting any lubricating oils and the protein is recylced.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 22 Jan, 2007 04:17 pm
Eiadeo wrote-

Quote:
Jane Goodall has her feet planted firmly on the ground, and unlike a number of other humans does not have her head in the clouds.


Claiming the right to assert that whilst not conceding equal weight to those who are said to have their heads in the clouds when they say that others have their heads stuck in the ground like an ostrich is closet totalitarianism.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 08:09 am
wandel, this seems to be floundering about. Izzit time topull the plug? or do you wanna get it to 10000 posts.

I dont think I can sit around and read anymore spendi-speak.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 08:37 am
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42482000/jpg/_42482783_micro_chatt_203.jpg


Quote:
Flying dinos had bi-plane design
The first flying dinosaurs took to the air in a similar way to a World War I bi-plane, a study shows.
A fresh analysis of an early feathered fossil dinosaur suggests that it dropped its hind legs below its body, adopting a bi-plane-like form.

This contrasts with earlier reconstructions showing the dinosaur maintaining its wings in a tandem pattern, a bit like a dragonfly.

Details appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

The ancestors of modern birds are thought to have been small, feathered, dinosaurs.

Microraptor gui , which lived 125 million years ago, was one of the earliest gliders. It appears to have utilised four wings, as it had long and asymmetric flight feathers on both its hands and feet.

Spread 'em

An initial assessment of Microraptor fossils from China suggested the animal spread its legs out laterally and maintained its wings in a tandem pattern, in a similar manner to dragonflies.

Now, researchers Sankar Chatterjee and R Jack Templin offer an alternative hypothesis.


Their evaluations of the limb joints and feather orientation indicate that a tandem wing design would neither have achieved suitable lift, nor enabled Microraptor to walk on the ground easily.
Instead, the scientists report that its hind legs were positioned below the body, in a bi-plane fashion.

Dr Chatterjee, from Texas Tech University in Lubbock, US, explained that two lines of evidence had led the team to this conclusion.

Firstly, the researchers argue, dinosaurs and birds move their legs in a vertical plane, not sideways as the tandem flight pattern requires.

Secondly, the feathers on Microraptor 's hind legs are asymmetrical; one of the two vanes that extend either side of the shaft is narrower than the other.

Forward facing

Aerodynamically, the narrow leading edge of these feathers should face forward in flight, against the direction of airflow. This would have given the flying reptiles lift.

In the tandem pattern, these would have faced sideways.

"We had no other choice but to go for the bi-plane configuration," Dr Chatterjee told BBC News.


A computer flight simulation using this design showed that Microraptor would undulate up and down, an ideal approach for gliding between trees.
The research might also shed light on a contentious debate over the evolution of bird flight.

Some researchers argue that this evolutionary development occurred from the ground up. Others contend that small, feathered dinosaurs were already living in treetops and developed flight in order to get from one tree to another.

This "trees down" model is the one favoured by Chatterjee and Templin.

Alternatively, the bi-plane-like phase could just represent a failed evolutionary experiment.

The Wright stuff

If one accepted the evolutionary importance of the bi-plane formation, there were striking parallels between bird flight and the development of aircraft, said Dr Chatterjee.

Archaeopteryx , regarded as the earliest fossil bird, has what could be described as a monoplane design.

The shift from a bi-plane to a monoplane design could have been facilitated by a much broader wingspan which would have provided increased lift. This mirrors historical developments in aviation.

"We see that the Wright brothers came up with a design for which there was no precedent in nature at the time," said Dr Chatterjee.

"This shows us that if there is a problem in engineering, sometimes there are only one or two possible solutions."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6287367.stm

Published: 2007/01/22 23:14:50 GMT
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 08:45 am
farmerman wrote:
wandel, this seems to be floundering about. Izzit time topull the plug? or do you wanna get it to 10000 posts.

I dont think I can sit around and read anymore spendi-speak.


I'm surprised you've endured the endless and inane assertions of the trash troll this long.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 08:55 am
Internet Addiction Test
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 09:11 am
farmerman wrote:
wandel, this seems to be floundering about. Izzit time topull the plug? or do you wanna get it to 10000 posts.

I dont think I can sit around and read anymore spendi-speak.


Sorry, I just saw this post. (I really haven't been paying attention.)

My original question was thoroughly answered by Judge Jones' 138 page opinion.

I kept this thread going to give spendi something to do.

(Actually, I don't know how to pull the plug on a thread.)
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 09:35 am
fm wrote-

Quote:
wandel, this seems to be floundering about. Izzit time topull the plug? or do you wanna get it to 10000 posts.

I dont think I can sit around and read anymore spendi-speak.


Don't read my posts fm. That's easy enough to manage. You might as well not anyway as you never even attempt to answer any points I raise simply dismissing them as invalid.

What you've said constitutes a flounce. A lip-trembler. A stalk off.

The subject as originally posited was worth a page at most. One answer really. ID is NOT science intrinsically although it is of great interest to social science in its consequences. If you don't recognise the social sciences it has nothing to do with anybody else. It simply shows you have a closed mind.

And what does "seems" mean?

And what's significant about the 10,000? That it has a magical significance is entirely a spiritual concept. Nothing to do with science.

And with 139,205 views somebody is taking an interest. The ratio of posts to views has completely rubbished timber's analysis.

You simply don't respect the positions of people you disagree with. You never have. It is a feature of those who adhere to the scientific method that they are bigoted. I've met plenty. Zero tolerance.

You are certainly not going to be allowed the last word while I'm around and especially when it is one of that nature. You need a door to slam to get away with such a ladylike trick as that.

And this is really ladylike of ros-

Quote:
I'm surprised you've endured the endless and inane assertions of the trash troll this long.


What a very, extremely silly thing to say, Do you curtsy nicely ros? Such a statement is the exact definition of a troll's style. Why are you reading here? Why don't you go and read a comic. You obviously don't seek to debate but rather to just bray like a donkey. And what an insult to our esteemed viewers you have delivered. As if they are going to take any notice of a real troll with nothing to say except a couple of assertions in school playground style. I think they are a bit more intelligent than you give them credit for.

wande- I don't think you can pull the plug on a thread. I should hope not.
What you can easily do is cease to view it or contribute. I do that to 99% of threads. It's a piece of cake.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 09:52 am
spendius wrote:
wande- I don't think you can pull the plug on a thread. I should hope not. What you can easily do is cease to view it or contribute. I do that to 99% of threads. It's a piece of cake.


Spendi has a point, everyone. If we keep this thread going, all other threads on A2K may benefit. :wink:
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 12:53 pm
Picasso said that there were two types of women; goddesses and doormats.

In Soylent Green they were furniture.

In Brave New World pneumatic.

Of course, goddesses are a bit scary but hey! Ulysses gave 'em a run for their money.

Veblen thought women were a male vanity display unit desgned to put on view the success of their owner.

I'll not tell you what Frank Harris said.

Nor Henry Miller.

Bob Dylan has one version in Jokerman-

"Standing on the waters casting your bread
While the eyes of the idol with the iron head are glowing.
Distant ships sailing into the mist,
You were born with a snake in both of your fists, a hurricane blowing.
Freedom just around the corner for you
But with the truth so far off, what good will it do?"

What does evolution theory have to say about respectable ladies. Forgetting bats and chiclids for a moment.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 01:23 pm
spendi wrote:
Don't read my posts fm. That's easy enough to manage. You might as well not anyway as you never even attempt to answer any points I raise simply dismissing them as invalid.

Were you to raise a valid point, it likely would not be dismissed as invalid.

Quote:
What you've said constitutes a flounce. A lip-trembler. A stalk off.

The subject as originally posited was worth a page at most. One answer really. ID is NOT science intrinsically although it is of great interest to social science in its consequences. If you don't recognise the social sciences it has nothing to do with anybody else. It simply shows you have a closed mind.

And what does "seems" mean?

And what's significant about the 10,000? That it has a magical significance is entirely a spiritual concept. Nothing to do with science.

Now, there's a meaningless essay - a waste of electrons amounting to a "Look at me! Look at me!" cry from the peanut gallery.

Quote:
And with 139,205 views somebody is taking an interest. The ratio of posts to views has completely rubbished timber's analysis.

Nonsense - this thread's views-to-posts ration is well within the entirely unremarkable range - thoroughly ordinary.

Quote:
You simply don't respect the positions of people you disagree with. You never have. It is a feature of those who adhere to the scientific method that they are bigoted. I've met plenty. Zero tolerance.

You are certainly not going to be allowed the last word while I'm around and especially when it is one of that nature. You need a door to slam to get away with such a ladylike trick as that.

And there you have it in a nutshell - spendi's Raison d'Être is to see himself a "winner", a "finisher"; he has no interest in the discussion beyond his desire to overwhelm it with his unceasing, atopical, irrelevant inanities.

Quote:
And this is really ladylike of ros-

Quote:
I'm surprised you've endured the endless and inane assertions of the trash troll this long.


What a very, extremely silly thing to say, Do you curtsy nicely ros? Such a statement is the exact definition of a troll's style. Why are you reading here? Why don't you go and read a comic. You obviously don't seek to debate but rather to just bray like a donkey. And what an insult to our esteemed viewers you have delivered. As if they are going to take any notice of a real troll with nothing to say except a couple of assertions in school playground style. I think they are a bit more intelligent than you give them credit for.

spendi, ros and most others following this thread keep up the excercize despite the intellectual polution your posts inflict on the discussion.

Quote:
wande- I don't think you can pull the plug on a thread. I should hope not.
What you can easily do is cease to view it or contribute. I do that to 99% of threads. It's a piece of cake.

Again spendi makes clear his interest is simply to splatter troll droppings throughout this discussion, saynig nothing more substantive than "Look at me!" Look at me!" Amusing to note is that via the "Block User" feature available in earlier versions of the Firefox browser, eliminating spendi's caterwaulings cuts the thread by around 15-20% while having negligible effect on the views-to-posts ratio. There's insignificance for you.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 02:17 pm
Well, timber, do you think we should pull the plug on this thread?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 02:23 pm
Prolly not - the only benefit I can see there would be to please spendi, and why on earth should that be a factor?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 03:28 pm
Wandel, I try to keep up with the legal side of ID-evolution cases in our country, and you've been very good about sharing them on this thread.

I, for that one reason, want to keep this thread alive and well. Wink

Thank you for keeping us appraised.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 03:32 pm
It wouldn't please me at all timber. I don't know where you get a foolish idea like that from unless it is the same place you got all the foolishness displayed in your previous post which was nothing but a bunch of the usual assertions larded up with some simple insults.

The viewers who visit this thread with interest are well aware by now what to make of such things even if the coterie of mutually congratulating ego stroking anti-IDers are not.

And if they don't know which is the "Look at me" brigade by now I would be very surprised. We have been treated to a fair number of descriptions and broad hints regarding the superior machismo of certain participants from that fine body of men relating to big powerful machines, derring do and firearms brought to bear upon God's little helpless creatures when sat on a branch having a snooze.

Oh- I nearly forgot- the "pretty nice" restaurants you are fortunate to have in the vicinity of your off road ranch.

Musn't forget those. They are places for practicing the basking in the "Yes sirs" and "No sirs" and the "Can I kiss your arse sirs".

Patchy baskburn is messy like the patchy sunburn one sometimes sees in Baywatch derivatives.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 04:13 pm
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
Wandel, I try to keep up with the legal side of ID-evolution cases in our country, and you've been very good about sharing them on this thread.

I, for that one reason, want to keep this thread alive and well.


I'll second that wande.

My strictures the other day were merely a reminder, or a suggestion, that you be a little more selective and, if you have the time and inclination to search wider sources, but even so I prefer what you had been providing us with to nothing at all.

And I second the thanks as well.

You shouldn't take me too seriously. Whenever I see a reflection of myself, in a dressing table vanity mirror for example, I have it all to do to prevent my self falling down laughing.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 04:22 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Wandel, I try to keep up with the legal side of ID-evolution cases in our country, and you've been very good about sharing them on this thread.

I, for that one reason, want to keep this thread alive and well. Wink

Thank you for keeping us appraised.


Thanks, c.i.!

There still is some legal maneuverings going on. After Judge Jones' decision, anti-evolution is "mutating" to adapt to the legal environment.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 05:28:18