Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendi, Your responses are most often non-sequiturs without much content except your well-read "read this" suggestions.

The lies are inherent in how people answer the questions posed; take for example the world flood. The claim there are many witnesses other than Noah to prove that a world flood occured. The big question that is being ignored is "how did they survive the world flood?" Simple logic.

The answers they propose are based on lies; they have no evidence of a) a world flood, and b) they propose many witnesses without the slightest proof. The only simple conclusion is that they are lies.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

c.i. wrote-

Quote:
IDers have to lie to make their case sound plausable.

Where have I lied c.i. You really didn't ought to be calling people liars without offering some proof. That's a totalitarian procedure. And the most vulgar of breaches of TOS. But I don't suppose you notice.

Why don't you come out and support totalitarianism properly. It's the logic of your case.

And as you never answer the points I make it can only be that they are all too plausible and you daren't debate them, a wise decision. Stick to attacking The Flood and nutcases on street corners. They are easy targets. Nothing to do with this topic mind you and that has you trolling and even worse than that trolling with no development. Same stuff as when you started. Same old record. Minds shut like gin-traps with you stuck fast in them.

Not to worry Spendi. To those with such glaring reading comprehension deficiencies--I prefer to look at it that way than to come to the other conclusion that they INTENTIONALLY distort what is said--they must interpret the truth as a lie in order to defend their obvious prejudices. They do this by rewriting what has been said into something they think they can more easily attack.

The Christian thing to do is pat them on the head and try not to be too condescending when we smile indulgently at their feeble efforts to contribute something meanngful to the debate.

0 Replies

Fox wrote: No. I think it quite plausible that there WAS a flood and that it became woven into the legends and lore of ancient cultures most of which were more myth than fact but that were based on real events. Do I find the Noah story plausible as history? No. Do I find it plausible as a legend built around a real person? Personally, I think it quite possible that there was a man named Noah, but as to the flood and ark story related to Noah, no. But I don't need to believe that Noah was real to believe the theological lesson to be learned from the story of Noah. Nor do I have any evidence that there was not a Noah nor does anybody else, and as I believe in a very great God, I have no problem with anybody who accepts the Noah story as real.

All her argumenst based on poofism. Where's the beef?

0 Replies

FACT: All the available sciences today show there was never a world flood.

0 Replies

Who are you addressing c.i.?

There's nobody on here saying those things. Why don't you address your ignorant remarks to them?

You invent these people. Why do you keep on droning the same mantras out when they have no relevance on here.

When did I lie? Answer that instead of flanneling.

What are my non-sequiturs? Answer that.

My posts have no content have they not. I think I'll let the viewers decide on that. They self-evidently have too much content for you to deal with.

And what is wrong with a "well-read" invititation to read something. Are you anti-education as well. And anti-Able2Know.

Any young person who views here and has taken up my reading suggestions will have gone past where you're stuck as if you're not there.

Were you really a teacher? God bless America.

You have said nothing about the ancients knowing about sea creature fossils which my well readidness has informed me that they did. You have said nothing about a tectonic statistical accident where all the land gets pretty much levelled out, including the ocean floor, and where the whole earth would be flooded. You have said nothing about stories deriving from such sources as explanations.

You have said nothing about anything I have ever written. It's as if you only ever listen to yourself.

Saying one of your meets is a HUGE success is a bit of an overstatement IMO on a site with 70,000 members when there's only half-a-dozen turned up.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

wande-

Instead of trotting out this banality-

Quote:
If we were any more open-minded, our brains might fall out!

why don't you try to be open-minded about my previous post. It is supposed to be a debate from which we all hope to be Abled 2 Know something we hadn't previously known. Your post, as with most of them, are devoid of such characteristics.

Your responses to my posts in general are a symptom of close-mindedness of the alpha category. You are scared witless at the mention of de Sade or sex and de Sade was the original and brilliant exponent of AIDs-ing and suffered years of tormenting incarceration for it. Could it be because you don't wish to know what's on the end of the AIDs-ing.

And what say you to my charge that by not sending a contribution to Barney's opponent you are "armchair Americans". You have been maintaining for three years now that if Barney & Co win America will go down the tube. From the things you have said you ought to be down there in Dallas helping the frail lady out and not letting her take the heat.

Isn't it a fine old American tradition to get your finger out for the cause you believe in. And stopping America going down the tube is as good a cause as many another that others get their cash and the finger out for.

What say you wande? Never mind these head-in-a-bag witticisms which Foxy can bend the barrel of through 180 degrees ahead of the discharge.

Our viewers want a debate?

Here's one of your latest non-sequiturs. "sex and de Sade and AIDsing?"

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

How about the highest creation of evolution being one that can dominate the rest of the animal world, even to the extent of patronising endangered species and keeping them going artificially, by distancing itself from the determined laws of the evolutionary process itself in the teachings of Jesus.

The fact that human beings revert to evolutionary principles a great deal is not only seen as degenerate by most civilised people but it detracts not one whit from those teachings.

We are imperfect but our imperfections cannot be allowed to bury the ideal and that is what AIDs-ers seek to do whether they know it or not.

"Teachings of Jesus?" Where's the proof that Jesus even existed? Only the bible seems to be the only "evidence."

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

What serious writer ever belittled the Bible?

Robert Green Ingersoll

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

FACT: All the available sciences today show there was never a world flood.

That's being economic with the truth. I presume you mean all the science you know about.

Every piece of land on earth must have been underwater at some point.

The Himalays are rising at 5 mm /year which gives, if I've calculated properly, 200,000 years from sea level. A nothing period compared to the 4 billion years life has been around.

"How many years can a mountain exist before it is washed to the sea?"

Foxy- I'm not patting any ushers of totalitarianism on the head.

0 Replies

spendi wrote: Every piece of land on earth must have been underwater at some point.

"Must have been?" That's new information?

spendi also wrote: That's being economic with the truth. I presume you mean all the science you know about.

No economy on truth: what other sciences are there? Please inform us, dear wise one?

0 Replies

Non-sequiturs on top of non-sequiturs. You're batting a thousand, spendi.

0 Replies

Two negatives usually equals a postiive, but I'm hard-pressed to find it in your posts, spendi.

0 Replies

Did Mr Ingersoll ever say that the Belle of the Ball is, in the words of Ted Hughes, a uterus on the loose, uholstered with breasts and other parts, resembling a mobile tub on trotters and intent on providing herself with a serviceable meal ticket for life?

And him being all out against blasphemy too. Was he blind?

Not on your life. And any good night in the pub provides plenty of evidence of Mr Ingersoll's delicacy. And many an ancient writer held a similar view as do Jungian psychologists.

Serious writer my Aunt Fanny.

He did say one thing I liked though-

Quote:

Colleges are places where pebbles are polished and diamonds are dimmed.

So that's your "Major" gone up in smoke. I can't see any of this lot of AIDs-ers as diamonds.

The great writer the AIDs-ers put forth tells them they are pebbles who have been finished off with a velvet cloth and some Brillo.

I'm having a laughing fit.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Here's one of your latest non-sequiturs. "sex and de Sade and AIDsing?"

You might explain. Or tell me what page it is on and I will.

Quote:

Non-sequiturs on top of non-sequiturs. You're batting a thousand, spendi.

Meaningless. Worthless foam from the spout.

0 Replies

It probably helps to know what a non sequitor is I would think. I'm pretty sure that Spendi could accurately define the term and use it in its proper context.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

c.i. wrote-

Quote:
Here's one of your latest non-sequiturs. "sex and de Sade and AIDsing?"

You might explain. Or tell me what page it is on and I will.

Quote:
Non-sequiturs on top of non-sequiturs. You're batting a thousand, spendi.

Meaningless. Worthless foam from the spout.

At least I still enjoy your "spouting" about nothings.

0 Replies

Non sequitur, logical fallacy. The conclusion not deriving from the premiss. Like when c.i. ( and he isn't particularly exceptional on here) starts with the premiss that he is intelligent and concludes from it that what he says makes sense. Even Judge Jones indulged himself in such luxuries.

Or-

Non sequitur, a comment which has no relation to the comment it follows such as "Can't we talk about Octavia's new hairstyle" when the going is getting tricky.

AIDs-ers on here, and notice I don't include other AIDs-ers, are walking, talking, sleeping, walking non-sequiturians and commonly embracing both the above definitions simultaneously.

0 Replies

If you AIDs-ers can grit your teeth and try to extend your attention spans a little you might get some value from this.

You accept conventional ideals implicitly--and they are Christian ideals.

You are focussed upon them, as were such people as W.S. Gilbert and many a stand-up satirist, in relation to those ideals not being lived up to which you then say constitutes a failure and can thus be mocked and criticised.

A proper AIDs-er does not accept the ideals. He has gone past the categories of good and evil and is engaged with personal pragmatism as evolution theory demands. He is, by definition, anti-social in his heart however sociably he acts for strategic reasons.

When a person's ideals break down due to their incongruence with the facts of life as evolution theory shows them he is merely ridiculous. When he doesn't live up to them he is odious. A whited sepulchre.

Ideals soon breakdown under stress. (see Orwell). In some places even under the mildest stress. But AIDs-ers on here never say that there's something wrong with the ideals and allow the possibility that other ideals may not break down in the face of the ineluctable modalities of existence. That would be altogether too much for them to deal with. Where is personal honour and heroism in evolutionary theory. Nowhere. What is a perfect lover or a gentleman in Darwin's view of life? I'm not sure I ever read about a more selfish man.

In what way is the world built to fit in with chivalric ideals? Ask Cervantes about that. Or Flaubert. Or Frank Harris. Or William Burroughs. Or Joseph Heller. Or many another.

When such ideals as I have mentioned break down through proving impractical, honesty is another example, the only course the AIDs-ers on here ever take is to declare the world a farce. They do not see that the error is in the ideals because they are their precious ideals and it flatters them to think they adhere to them. So all the world is at fault and not them. Human nature is the villain.

In fact, the very concept of breakdown is false in evolutionary terms and can always be traced back to personal subjectivity presented in words. The breakdown of the American aboriginal society under the pressure of invaders is seen by the invaders as a glorious destiny.

The reason you like to keep strictly to the simple things (there was no flood; Jesus wasn't a real person etc), and restrict yourselves to conditioned, rote-learned cliches is that they allow you to hide from yourselves the chasm that exists between your aspirations and your abilities.

A better method for bolstering your self-esteem in preference to engaging with a Science forum would be to take up Theosophy, the Hermetic arts, the Lost Cities of Atlantis, Bermuda triangles, Re-enactment of historical battles or Yetis and by dint of regular attendance to such things you might eventually become Praemonstratix in the Ineffable Order of the Golden Dawn and thus a pillar of respectability.

Dump Christianity and you will see things such as that breaking out all over the place. What am I saying? They are already broken out. Starting life in a lab.

Your giant strawman is your lack of understanding of Christianity. Which is a bomb-sequitur.

0 Replies

Spendi - You must be lonely. You desire attention so bad that you will post anything to get a response. I pity you.

T
K
O

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

You accept conventional ideals implicitly--and they are Christian ideals.

Perhaps if you would enumerate some of these ideals we could discuss whether or not they are indeed Christian ideals.

Quote:

Your giant strawman is your lack of understanding of Christianity. Which is a bomb-sequitur.

Said as if the term Christianity had some sort of universal meaning.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know