Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

My God........page number 980. You guys got balls.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

farmerman wrote:
foxy
Quote:
I would probably be somewhere in between Darwin and his religious friends as I don't have any problem reconciling ID and the Theory of Evolution nor do I need to reject one in order to accept the other.
_________________
Nothing that a bit more education couldnt resolve

More education for whom? Your side? Or mine.

Some people aren't prepared to learn, Farmerman. But as you guys have demonstrated, slugging it out can be fun.

0 Replies

Try to avoid distilling your assertions into a concentrated stew fm. It is unbecoming in polite company. One at once is bad enough without composing a tapestry of them although both methods are equally meaningless. You don't even know how to rant without descending into cliche.

Tell me what you find "prolix" and I will endevour to learn from what you say. Intelligent people don't just say it. Any fool can say it.

And how do you propose to debate the Religion v Science issue in short posts when it is such a complex subject and how does one debate at all without drawing attention to oneself. You're projecting again.

The quote is hardly four days old I think so you are admitting not reading the thread or having a memory problem. They might be evasion tactics though and any of the "folks" you vainly try to line up behind you will hopefully be able to decide that for themselves. Those that can't are of little consequence to me.

0 Replies

Lola, I feel that we are down to the extremely short hairs of the subject. The barrels bottom, having been repeatedly troweled, is bright and shiny.
Now that we are disentangled from the responsibilities of enlightenment, Its pretty much been strait insult for about 100 pages or so. (with the exception of wandels informative posts)

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Lola, I feel that we are down to the extremely short hairs of the subject. The barrels bottom, having been repeatedly troweled, is bright and shiny.
Now that we are disentangled from the responsibilities of enlightenment, Its pretty much been strait insult for about 100 pages or so. (with the exception of wandels informative posts)

Sharpening one's insult skills is a worthy endeavor. As a reader, I'm appreciative.

FYI:

Lola at the Coffee House

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Try to keep posts relevant and shorter and maybe folks will actually engage you dipper.

Like asking the leopard to........

0 Replies

Have you anything against that Chum?

Are you not the same yourself.

Wouldn't it be nice if everybody thought as you think. You could all go around agreeing with each other and all having what is asserted to be a nice day until you all end up one big heap of sucrose jelly with a little pink bow neatly tied (knot by kind permission of the the professor of pretty knots at Princeton) on the top and some silver gilt imitation horseshoes to assist your complacency to burgeon and render what Lola lately called the "sordid business" quaintly respectable.

The leapord may well change the colour of its spots but not suddenly so you could witness it. Mr Darwin would have fair chortled at the sublime innocence of the idea. But over long stretches of time I feel sure they would automatically change colour to adapt to different conditions. Theologians work very slowly but not so slowly as the leapord would.

Any cliches there fm?

0 Replies

only that youve mispelled leopard twice, so Im assuming its not a typo .

0 Replies

I can't see any big deal in spelling "leapord" correctly. That everybody knows which animal I was referring to is the only thing that matters.

Are you one of those pedantic twits that diverts attention from the nitty-gritty with a trivial technicality. It might be spelled "chaserofeasymeat" in some dialects. They "leap" don't they. They don't "leop" as far as I know.

Why don't you get a large thick blanket and pull it over your head. The viewers on here are not going to be distracted from your failure to address the human sexuality control issue by your received wisdom from your Jesuit masters of the American spelling of the previously agreed spelling of an animal's name when none of the animals concerned have the faintest idea how their name should be spelled in bourgeoise circles or even that they have been labelled in this patronising manner or that there may be hundreds of spellings for the name and often in scripts you can't even read. Maybe thousands.

Your solipsism sticks out like a sore whatsit.

0 Replies

Lola wrote-

Quote:

You guys got balls.

Do you know any way for us to avoid that very common state of affairs.
It is an extremely trying condition which we would be well rid of if only we knew how.

You ladies will be in a fix if ever we find out.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Hey ros, I see the Rt 91 Troll is seeking attention again.

Trolls will be trolls. But some seem to enjoy feeding them, so carry on I guess.

0 Replies

We have had trolls defined ages ago.

They are people who occasionally inteject into conversations without having anything to contribute except calling the regulars trolls.

It's a very elementary case of projection again.

Nothing to worry about though. It goes away when you get educated a bit.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Lola wrote-

Quote:
You guys got balls.

Do you know any way for us to avoid that very common state of affairs.
It is an extremely trying condition which we would be well rid of if only we knew how.

You ladies will be in a fix if ever we find out.

I wasn't complaining, Spendi love..........I admire balls. And I always enjoy being in their presence, especially when they are being displayed.

0 Replies

Spoken by a true anti-IDer.

From what I have seen, heard and read the female fundamentalist anti-IDers soon get bored by simply being in the presence of displayed balls. They take to entertaining themselves with them. Often in groups too. And why not? Anything for a giggle eh Mrs?

I presume that Bill Greenwell's famous line-

"The last rasping gasp of the mantis's groom"

was inspired by such things as was a Robarts movie I saw once.

Roy "Chubby" Brown made a movie about a society in which female fundamentalist anti-IDers had achieved total control. I suppose it helped to inspire Footballer's Wives which I don't think Americans were allowed to see on their own networks. Dangerous Liasons was the probable original if one discounts The Eleusinian Mysteries and The Courts of Love of the Dark Ages. The Marquise de Merteuil position.

Anti-ID has a very long and interesting history and then, as now, it is only the monastic movement which saved us from it and hence created this lush world of luxury most of us seem to take for granted as if it had been "poofed" into existence.

One can even go back to the Venus figurines and some of the best cave paintings which Wikipedia refrain from reproducing.

It's a good job it is only a small, cranky,contrarian 3% who adhere to such wrecking tactics in order to escape the disciplines of Christianity as de Sade attempted to do before he was incarcerated.

But thanks Lola for raising the tenor of the debate above the superficial level. If I was a beautiful woman I might be tempted to anti-ID myself but as I am only one of those woeful supplicants at the shrine of the Goddess who Dr Greer likened to carrots because they are cheap and plentiful and easily cooked I will continue to fight for the young lads of the future. It makes a change to be aiming at the enemy rather than at one's own rear positions where the stores are processed and Minderbinderism rules.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Yours of course. Had you had more training in deductive reasoning, youd know Id probably be responding to your question. You dont surprise me with your responses.

The fact that you reconcile evolution and religion means that you probably are opinionated about one with not enough information about the other.

Hey ros, I see the Rt 91 Troll is seeking attention again.

I think your use of insult rather than cognitive analysis says far more about you than it does about my training in deductive reasoning. Think about it. Who is not using deductive reasoning?

S/he with experience who can see that his/her experience does not conflict with accepted scientific theory?

Or the one who professes the scientific theory to be all that there is and denies that which he has not personally experienced?

I would deduct the one with the experience plus the scientific knowledge to have the more complete education.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

0 Replies

Foxy--

Quote:

I think your use of insult rather than cognitive analysis says far more about you than it does about my training in deductive reasoning

. Do you now? I didnt see anything in what you said that even required any analysis, and I was totally up-front to Lola when I stated that these pages had become insult center for the last 100 pages.

However, show me where Im wrong . Ill come straight at you with facts and figures. I wont evade the issues or dwell in Victorian "fine writing". I think debate , if it covers the topic and doesnt waffle all over "Creation", serves a good purpose to enlighten all sides. I take much from this thread that I use as oblique references in my teaching life.
Im going to include a brief section on the differences between Ken Millers POV vs the official religious views on ID.

0 Replies

foxy

Quote:

S/he with experience who can see that his/her experience does not conflict with accepted scientific theory?

Or the one who professes the scientific theory to be all that there is and denies that which he has not personally experienced?

Without miring yourself further, can you explain in more detail how you used deductive reasoning to arrive at these points?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Foxy--
Quote:
I think your use of insult rather than cognitive analysis says far more about you than it does about my training in deductive reasoning
. Do you now? I didnt see anything in what you said that even required any analysis, and I was totally up-front to Lola when I stated that these pages had become insult center for the last 100 pages.

However, show me where Im wrong . Ill come straight at you with facts and figures. I wont evade the issues or dwell in Victorian "fine writing". I think debate , if it covers the topic and doesnt waffle all over "Creation", serves a good purpose to enlighten all sides. I take much from this thread that I use as oblique references in my teaching life.
Im going to include a brief section on the differences between Ken Millers POV vs the official religious views on ID.

Trust me, there are no official religious views on ID, other than various (and diverse) teachings within some denominational groups, so any differences between Ken Millers POV vs the 'official religious views on ID' are based on faulty assumption from the beginning.

However, a discussion of Evolution vs ID and/or a discussion of Evolution within ID does not need to be an exchange of insults. I am from the school that reasonable people can converse amicably within a framework of disagreement. Without such discussion, there will be no education but rather only indoctrination.

There is no need for you to rebut facts and figures re Evolution as we are likely in agreement on those.

What facts or figures are you going to use to rebut ID especially if that was the basis for Evolution?

If you agree that it is, why do you think the notion of ID not necessarily being in conflict with the Theory of Evolution seems to be so disturbing to those who don't accept that?
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

0 Replies

foxy

Quote:

Trust me, there are no official religious views on ID, other than various (and diverse) teachings within some denominational groups, so any differences between Ken Millers POV vs the 'official religious views on ID' are based on faulty assumption from the beginning.

Hadda laugh at this. Your comment is so open ended .
1There are no "official religious views

2However there are diverse teachings within some denominational groups

3Therefore ken Millers views (v the nonextistent (according to you) official views on ID )are just based upon faulty assumptions that hes made'.
FYI Ken Miller ays exactly what youve stated. He gets his views from the Catholic Church , which is, even now, internally wrestling with ID as a convenient dodge where they can appear to be scientific , yet practice their "old time religion" unmolested by evidence

DO you even know what the hell youre talking about? You wanna have it so many ways that you leave yourself free of any positions at all.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

If you agree that it is, why do you think the notion of ID not necessarily being in conflict with the Theory of Evolution seems to be so disturbing to those who don't accept that?

I think fm will be unable to provide a proper answer to that and in the event he is able he will probably think himself wise to evade it as he does most questions of substance.

The answer is, of course, as a few discerning viewers may well know, that the alliance set against ID is disturbed by such a notion because if it wasn't, feigning being disturbed aside, it would lose its only acceptable lever to prise open the money pot it sees glowing invitingly on the horizon once the forces of darkness are let loose.

Obviously such an alliance has infantry as well as officers and very few of the former have any experience of the forces of darkness being let loose, having been brought up in the manner of motherly decorum, and are thus completely oblivious to their existence and easily led into not only underestimating them but to not even allowing them any consideration.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know