Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I answered it quite clearly spendi. I believe that only a minor species not yet attaining the abilities for abstract thinking would have missed it. Recognizing that it IS muzzled says way more than asking such a question . Its like asking
"Do you think tvwill be a success?"

0 Replies

This thread is becoming remarkably similar to The Game that Nobody Understands Game.

If it weren't for Wandel's periodic infusions of something related to the basic topic, this thread would be trolled down to total nonsense by now.

0 Replies

I resent that. Spendi is making perfect sense to me whenever I turn my glasses upside down.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

I answered it quite clearly spendi. I believe that only a minor species not yet attaining the abilities for abstract thinking would have missed it. Recognizing that it IS muzzled says way more than asking such a question . Its like asking
"Do you think tvwill be a success?"

Not at all. We all know Science is muzzled now. The question is- "Do YOU want Science to be muzzled? That's what was asked and that's what I answered in the affimative. You have not answered that yet to my knowledge. And it is you who have confessed to not reading the posts of others.

BTW- "wattle" is a middle-English equivalent of "wallet" and as wallets contain hidden riches I assume your use of "wattle" was a compliment.

ros the wildly projecting troll wrote-

Quote:

If it weren't for Wandel's periodic infusions of something related to the basic topic, this thread would be trolled down to total nonsense by now.

Until wande, and the "experts" he periodically quotes, offer us an answer to the muzzling question neither he, nor them, is anywhere close to being on topic. Dover was a pure theatrical performance to make an ambush look respectable to people like you who are hypnotised by long scientific words and phrases in the interests of self-flattery.

Your crass assertions have no meaning. That's trolling. And you pop in and out. That's trolling too. And you make no constructive contributions to this thread. That is also trolling.

You must be quite difficult at close quarters I should imagine. The sneering troll.

This thread is nothing like the Trivia game you mentioned.

And you have insulted our legion of viewers. wande, whose thread it is has not called anyone a troll as I remember.

And you need "wasn't" not "weren't and the comma after "topic" is a solecism.

So you might try learning your own language before you come on this thread with your drivel.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

jeet?

and

farmerman wrote:

nope its Tennessee

Not just Tin-a-sea. An Okie i knew used to say:

Jeetyit?

Nope.

Wanna?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

If it weren't for Wandel's periodic infusions of something related to the basic topic, this thread would be trolled down to total nonsense by now.

Wandel deserves a medal. However, considering that this thread is haunted by Spurious, and has recently been pissed on repeatedly by Fox, why would that be a problem?

0 Replies

I'd like to point out that the topic of this thread is "ID: Science or Religion". It is absolutely NOT "should science be muzzled".

0 Replies

What Hokie?--you gonna get all pedantic on us just 'cos you wanna have a quiet pedal along the canal bank?

Nobody has defined ID, Science or Religion yet. They are not just pretty labels like you see on the toffee-shop jars for you to have a little juggle with. They effect the action on the street. On all the streets. And freeways and even canal banks.

We have had recipes before today. Where were you then? An unborn and unthought of yet A2Ker one supposes.

I can take things like that in my stride. I welcome little diversions. They give the thread a peculiar charm.

But really- whether Science should be muzzled or not is the foundation on which wande's original question is based. You go down a coal mine to get coal not to ride up and down in lifts.

You ought to be able tell how significant it is by the simple fact that anti-IDers are so reluctant to nail their colours to the mast. They would soon have an answer to a rabid dog in a ladies lingerie department- muzzle it.

0 Replies

Your posts are so diluted with nonsensical babble that it's no wonder everyone shuns you. Your arguments would be much more effective if you would take the time to compose them with a little more grammatical precision and leave out the rhetoric.

From the posts I've read, everyone has agreed, excepting you of course, that ID is not a science and should not be taught as such.

0 Replies

Explain, if you will be so kind Hokie, exactly what it is you mean.

Anyone can say-"diluted with nonsensical babble" and that my grammar was "imprecise".

That's nonsensical babble without the justification.

Rewrite my post making the same points another way if you can.

You might also try to explain how any communication outside of speaking clocks is rhetoric free.

The very last thing a serious person does is tell someone else how to make the points he is trying to make. What a serious person does is answer the points or keep stum. Nonsensical babble, the real thing, does neither.

Quote:

From the posts I've read, everyone has agreed, excepting you of course, that ID is not a science and should not be taught as such.

The phrase- "From the posts I've read" renders that statement nonsensical babble as well.

And even then the rest of it is factually incorrect. We have all been agreed that id is not science for months. Since rl departed anyway. I'm the only one who says id cannot be taught let alone that it shouldn't. Anyone who thinks id can be taught doesn't understand the concept at all.

Of course, your "of course" is a mere rhetorical device. Obviously. As is "nonsensical". You had to use "babble" to avoid "nonsensical nonsense" which even you might have thought looked stupid but if "babble" = nonsense, as it does, then that is effectively what you wrote.

And everyone doesn't shun me. That's another example of nonsensical babble. Settin' Aah-aah tries to shun me but he can't resist having another snap now and again when I wind him up a bit.

And I'm quite well liked on the Trivia threads.

Still- it's only the posts you've read that you're going on isn't it and they would be from a handful, at most, of anti-IDers. So that squares the circle I suppose.

0 Replies

Quote:

And I'm quite well liked on the Trivia threads.

.

0 Replies

However shocked you are fm it is neverthelass true. I'm quite well liked on the Brit thread as well.

You should go on Trivia sometime old boy. Give your brain a bit of exercise. You're coasting.

Anything on the muzzling question yet?

0 Replies

set

Quote:

Jeetyit?

Nope.

Wanna?

Thats the proper interlocutory form for Tennessee and lingua matra most Other states that end in the "A" sound.

0 Replies

I would like to ask the constitutional experts whether the authors of that epoch making document had any worries about the effects of Science as a lot of people do now.

At that time surely Science was 100% bunce.

Why would the same principles apply now when the miles of legislation muzzling Science provides objective evidence that it is no longer all bunce and the Faustian bargain is much more apparent. That legislation is scientific evidence is it not? That's the muzzle. Designed entirely by religious sentiment or pure fear of Science which some regimes may not have.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Thats the proper interlocutory form for Tennessee and lingua matra most Other states that end in the "A" sound.

Be careful fm. Hokie will be onto you. Don't forget that he wrote-

Quote:

I'd like to point out that the topic of this thread is "ID: Science or Religion". It is absolutely NOT "should science be muzzled".

Maybe he lets anti-IDers off from obeying his strictures in the interests of scientific rigour.

0 Replies

yeh youre right, I should have said, "Excluding Virginia"

0 Replies

Your response to my post proves my point. You pollute your posts with some much extraneous crap, for lack of better term, that it's nearly impossible to discern your points. I can't rewrite your posts make your points because I can't even figure out what the hell you're talking about. Nothing I wrote was babble or rhetorical. It was short ant to the point, just as this.

I think you just like to hear[read] yourself talk[type]. It's quite tiring.

0 Replies

Well my advice is to go lie down in a quiet room with the lights down low and some MOR records playing but not too loud.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bible literalists prepare for holy museum
(By RYAN CLARK, Gannett News Service, April 22, 2007)

PETERSBURG, Ky.
Jeremy Huff is sawing, measuring and shaping the planks that will make up part of Noah's Ark.

He is a carpenter. He also is a Christian. And he never thought this would happen to him.

He never thought that one day, he would find the church again. Or that one day, he would read the Bible to his children, and together they would discuss its meaning.

He most certainly did not expect that he would be "saved" on the job.

But amid the construction and painting, workers at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum in Petersburg say they are completing something special.

For Jeremy Huff, it was personal.

"I've been working here for a few months. And being around everybody, I've started to get closer to the Lord," says Huff, a 28-year-old father of two from Union, Ky. "I guess I was always on my way. I used to go to church, but I got away from it. And I wanted to accept the Lord into my heart, but I didn't really have anyone to help me. Now I think God put me here for a reason, and I'm working for God."

Huff says he owes his transformation to the Creation Museum, the $27 million project in Boone County, Ky., scheduled to open May 28. The museum will incorporate science into the literal history of the Bible and serve as the headquarters for the global Answers in Genesis ministry.

At the museum, each day begins with a morning prayer. Each permanent employee must sign a statement saying he believes the teachings of the ministry. Each must write out his beliefs and turn that in with his resume and references.

It's a nonprofit organization, paid for entirely with private money, so that practice is legal. But the requirements are not mandatory for temporary workers like Huff. He found the Lord on his own, he said, because of the environment in which he was working.

"I didn't know enough before I came here," he says. "I realized I needed more, and I've learned a lot. And I think a lot of other people are going to learn, too."

The 217 staff members in the Answers in Genesis ministry believe in the Bible as a literal truth.

They believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days on a planet just 6,000 years old -- even though accepted scientific theory says Earth and its life forms evolved over billions of years. They believe the Grand Canyon was formed not by erosion over millions of years, but by floodwaters from the biblical Great Flood in a matter of days or weeks.

There's 20-year-old Travis Wilson, originally from a small town about 45 minutes north of Detroit. Wilson was home-schooled, and a bit of an art prodigy who became a sculptor.

After listening to an Answers in Genesis speaker at a local church, he became interested in the literal Bible. When he heard through the church that the ministry was looking for artists to work on the Creation Museum, he decided to move to Kentucky and has been working as a sculptor at the museum for two years.

"I came to faith and the Christian world at 15," Wilson says. "Creationism started it. I learned about Creationism and I thought, "This is it.' Now I feel like there's a greater importance to my life and what I do."

There's Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist in charge of making sure the museum's theories are scientifically accurate.

"Growing up, I always thought the Bible represented science," says the 32-year-old Lisle from Cambridge, Ohio. "I was a teacher, but I didn't feel comfortable knowing that there were other beliefs besides evolution and that I could not teach those beliefs."

And there's 60-year-old Patrick Marsh, the museum's design director. A Los Angeles native, Marsh is a former designer for theme parks like Universal Studios and is charged with making the museum fun. But he also has a deep-rooted faith in Creationism.

"A friend told me about the plans for the museum, and I immediately wanted to be involved, so I wrote a letter to them," Marsh says. "I'd always known about Answers in Genesis, and I was always excited about what they were doing. Now I can create a fun space for people here, but it will be something that will have a lasting impact."

Gene Earnest, a 72-year-old from Cincinnati, has been volunteering for Answers in Genesis since 1995, when he first heard of the ministry.

"Each day is different," he says. "They give me something to build and I do it. This is a ministry I believe in."

While volunteers will always be needed, even after the museum opens, some workers have contracts that will expire at the end of the year. Others say they have been told they will be retained after May 28. But all say they have been affected by their work.

Maybe none more so than carpenter Jeremy Huff.

"My life has definitely improved over the past year since I came to work here and accepted the Lord," he says. "This is the first job I've had where I really enjoy coming to work."

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

If it weren't for Wandel's periodic infusions of something related to the basic topic, this thread would be trolled down to total nonsense by now.

To what extent ros do you feel that wande's latest infusion is related to the topic of this thread bearing in mind the following considerations-

1-It is an example of but one line of action out of a very large number of possible choices.

2-It is likely to have some supercharged exaggeration which is normal for journalese.

3-$27 million (about £13m) would hardly pay for a week's beer in the PX in Baghdad.

4- A $27 million project is not always a $27 million cost.

5- The Gannett News Service has annual revenue of $7.4 billion and employs 52,000 people some of whom can be relied upon to be Satanists, Atheists, Free Lovers, Divorcees, Users of abortion services and a whole raft of other stuff which genuine iders are opposed to such as snake-oil sales techniques to peddle useless junk on the very same page as the article will be printed.

6- That the distortions involved in choosing to display the piece is designed to try to discredit id by linking it to such strange behaviour as is described and thus underlines the importance of Foxy's and my own strictures regarding such a fraudulent and cheapskate trick and bears out my remark that teaching doesn't always result in learning and often, as in this case, no learning at all. And that makes a mockery of fm's statement that the link between the two being so obvious that I must have had a "smacked ass" to think otherwise which once again highlights the utter emptiness of easy to do assertions and provides ample proof that fm's post on that occasion falls well short of being to the point of this thread.

7- Which again shows that you don't apply your highly discplined principles to fellow anti-IDers which is ample proof that your words cannot be trusted.

8- Which shows that they are not related to the basic topic or, indeed, to any topic.

Troll your way out of that troll without any schoolgirl assertions.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know