Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

wandeljw wrote:

TEXAS UPDATE

Faith-based science
(Houston Chronicle Editorial, December 28, 2007)

Your use of the word 'update' implies some new facts will be presented.

But what you posted is nothing more than a shrill op-ed piece.

0 Replies

It's in a newspaper rl for flipping heck's sake and you know what store these anti-IDers set from what they read in tomorrow's ass-wipes.

They select what to read mind you for the purpose of it reflecting back to them reassurances of one sort or another.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
TEXAS UPDATE

Faith-based science
(Houston Chronicle Editorial, December 28, 2007)

Your use of the word 'update' implies some new facts will be presented.

But what you posted is nothing more than a shrill op-ed piece.

Rosborne! Have you been irritating RL again? He sounds very touchy today. Smile

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Rosborne! Have you been irritating RL again? He sounds very touchy today.

He does seem a little touchy today. But I don't think it's my fault. Maybe it's the weather. Did you guys get hit with the ice storm in the midwest RL?

Even creationist whacko's deserve to have electricity and warm houses (courtesy of the science they are working so hard to undermine), so hopefully the lights are on for everyone out there no matter how nutty they are.

0 Replies

Their use of man's science such as heating/cooling systems, their vehicles, flying, and medical advances are but god's doings-all. It was in god's plans all along. Never mind that the second-coming has been delayed a few thousand months. But the end is near; like a few billion more years.

0 Replies

It beggars belief that two grown men, who have presumably had fifteen year long educational attention, could even think the infantile crassness of the posts above let alone type it onto an international debate forum and not expect people to laugh. Especially considering the position this thread self-evidently has on A2K.

Neither c.i.'s nor ros's posts are on topic and they are the first to thrum with indignation when they think, usually incorrectly, that I have so strayed.

They are both posited on the usual strawman that religious people are against science and trying to undermine it and thus hypocrites from benefitting from it. Which is patently ridiculous.

Einstein was quoted earlier giving a version of intelligent design thinking.

And, again, these two posters are keen to point out the strawman in my posts and, again, usually mistakenly.

Of course they do serve the purpose of ros avoiding an intellectually honest answer, something he called for from others, to my previous post but one and, as it happens so often, I am justified in thinking it sneaky. He was asked some straightforward questions which go to the root of the topic and he wallows around with that old guff, with c.i.'s help, so that he can slither away and hope nobody notices.

I'm well used to noticing that sort of thing by now as I am sure some of our viewers are.

And rl is deemed, asserted, to be "touchy" today and an explanation is offered as to why he might be. Pathetic.

Hey--ros just **** in his paints and its running down his leg maybe because the nutrient bed he was chomping through earlier had bred some shitmaking lergies during transportation.

Gee--innit easy.

My previous post but one being an aggravating factor.

Just scroll back and answer the questions and knock off thinking viewers are not going to notice if you don't just because you start tossing our chaff

0 Replies

Gee, spendi, did we hit a nerve or two? You mustn't take things so seriously; it's detrimental to your health.

0 Replies

You see right away dear viewers that c.i. doesn't even know his Rabelais.

15 years of expensive education which missed out Rabelais. Theft really when you get right down to it. Neurotic school boards I suppose.

That laughing is good for you. Health giving.

And I never laughed at movies like I do at some of the posts I've seen on here from anti-IDers. The idea that they are intelligent is as funny as when my Grandad on my mother's side thought he was Napoleon.

And another strawman appears. He thinks he's hit a nerve.

I have no nerves c.i. I am just a bit sympathetic to the religious sensitivities of anti-IDers.

0 Replies

I laugh at movies all the time, and also when I read your posts - more frequently. Sometimes, when you're on the sauce too much, your compositions don't make much sense, but I take it all in stride - making considerations for your daily pub visitations.

You're one of the few comic-reliefs on a2k - even for an IDer that can't explain yourself. .

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
Rosborne! Have you been irritating RL again? He sounds very touchy today.

He does seem a little touchy today. But I don't think it's my fault. Maybe it's the weather. Did you guys get hit with the ice storm in the midwest RL?

Even creationist whacko's deserve to have electricity and warm houses (courtesy of the science they are working so hard to undermine), so hopefully the lights are on for everyone out there no matter how nutty they are.

Don't take offense, wandeljw. Just pointing out that your 'update' was really nothing of the kind. Laughing

No new info was offered, just the same rehashed opinionated stuff.

Actually ros we did have an ice storm two weeks ago. (And several snowstorms since. Very unusual for this area. I've lived in this area for 48 years and I can count on one hand the times we've had any significant snow before Christmas. Must be all that global cooling. But that's for another post.) I was without electricity on two separate occasions for about 12-16 hours each time. Nothing at all like some friends of ours in Tulsa endured. 12 days without power.

Care to show why you think believing in creation would undermine electricity for the masses? No? Didn't think so. Laughing

So I am the one who is 'touchy', but you're the one sinking to the level of labelling others 'whacko' and 'nutty'. Hmmmmmm. Strange perspective you have there. Ad homs are 'normal' and those who discuss rationally are 'whackos'. Ok.

0 Replies

Spend says quote.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's in a newspaper rl for flipping heck's sake and you know what store these anti-IDers set from what they read in tomorrow's ass-wipes. unquote.

Tomorrows newspapers sure make better arse wipes than your holey bible newsbook, thats for sure... plus the bilebook to small for starters and cost to much to replace. Though I must admit, it really would be of more use as a arsewipe than anything else, seeing it's thousands of years old news.

0 Replies

That's quite a display of ignorance.

0 Replies

I take it that nobody can try to provide answers to my post 3011472 on page 1284.

All that is forthcoming so far is just a parade of nonsense about nothing in particular.

Anybody with faith in science could have a stab at describing a godforsaken future. I wonder what bothers anti-IDers so much to consistently duck this challenge. Are they scared of it? Anybody who cares to read the thread can see them duck it every time it's been put to them.

The suspicion arises that their faith in science is only skin deep, half-baked, so they have an interest in maintaining the status-quo then they can argue about nothing in particular for ever and ever but not about whether societies need religion which all the folk wisdom of the masses says they do. I daresay Mr Dawkins wouldn't touch the subject with a bargepole and I doubt he is qualified to as well.

And they all believe in monogamy!! Sheesh!!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Care to show why you think believing in creation would undermine electricity for the masses? No? Didn't think so.

Sure, my comment refers to the strategy defined by the wedge document from the Discovery Institute which undermines the foundation of all science by allowing non-naturalistic explanations. This was exemplified by Michael Behe during the Dover ID trial where he admitted that the creationist definition of science would include astrology (and other bunk). It's pretty obvious that if you undermine the foundation of science, you are attacking every aspect of science, including our understanding of electricity and everything else. This is all pretty obvious actually, I'm surprised you needed me to spell it out for you.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So I am the one who is 'touchy', but you're the one sinking to the level of labelling others 'whacko' and 'nutty'.

Tolerance of people's beliefs is fine, but there comes a point where you have to ridicule the ridiculous, and let's face it, anyone who believes the earth is around 10k years old, that Eve literally had a conversation with a talking snake and that Noah gathered animals on an ark before a global flood (and on and on), is just plain crazy. What better word would you use for beliefs like that? Would you say they are confused? Misguided? Those words are woefully inadequate to describe the depth of the delusion.

If someone on the street came up to you tomorrow and told you that a snake spoke to them and told them to do something, and that person was convinced that it really happened, what would you think about that person's mental state? Be honest now.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
So I am the one who is 'touchy', but you're the one sinking to the level of labelling others 'whacko' and 'nutty'.

Tolerance of people's beliefs is fine, but there comes a point where you have to ridicule the ridiculous, and let's face it, anyone who believes the earth is around 10k years old, that Eve literally had a conversation with a talking snake and that Noah gathered animals on an ark before a global flood (and on and on), is just plain crazy. What better word would you use for beliefs like that? Would you say they are confused? Misguided? Those words are woefully inadequate to describe the depth of the delusion.

If someone on the street came up to you tomorrow and told you that a snake spoke to them and told them to do something, and that person was convinced that it really happened, what would you think about that person's mental state? Be honest now.

Aside from the fact that you misunderstand the account of the Garden of Eden, (where does it say there was a talking snake?), I am more interested in your diagnosis of Christians as mentally ill, and curious as to what 'final solution' you may be interested in proposing .

Please elaborate.

If , as you say, the overwhelming % of the population of the US is 'just plain crazy' (this implies a mental illness of some sort and I would like you to be specific in your diagnosis as to exactly what illness it is) , what steps should be taken to cure the mentally ill?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Care to show why you think believing in creation would undermine electricity for the masses? No? Didn't think so.

Sure, my comment refers to the strategy defined by the wedge document from the Discovery Institute which undermines the foundation of all science by allowing non-naturalistic explanations. This was exemplified by Michael Behe during the Dover ID trial where he admitted that the creationist definition of science would include astrology (and other bunk). It's pretty obvious that if you undermine the foundation of science, you are attacking every aspect of science, including our understanding of electricity and everything else. This is all pretty obvious actually, I'm surprised you needed me to spell it out for you.

Aside from the obvious fact that Michael Behe doesn't speak for all creationists, I think it should be understood that science is limited in what it can and cannot effectively address.

Do you think it is a scientific statement to propose that all phenomenon MUST have a natural cause?

If so, where did you obtain the omniscience which allows you to draw such a conclusion?

0 Replies

real life said

Quote:

Aside from the fact that you misunderstand the account of the Garden of Eden, (where does it say there was a talking snake?),

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?..." Gen chap 3 v 1

But perhaps it was mental telepathy. Or maybe he assumed Eve was deaf (a woman, after all) and so he signed the communication.

Or maybe your personal omniscience vests you with a unique and blessed access to the singular proper understanding of this text.

0 Replies

Biblical Literalist Creationists have little in common with the Intelligent Design Guys while still remaining as their "Founder population".

Sort of like whales had been hoofed animals in the PAleocene .

0 Replies

Galloping leviathans Batman!

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know