Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Come on, spendi. There's been numerous times that your sentences were so garbled, nobody could make any sense of it.

It's fair that you would ask me to research the archives for your English boners, but I'm sure most on this thread will agree with me about my charges against you. When I have a whole lot'sa free time, I may entertain your request, but don't hold your breath old boy.

Why not show us and then explain to us the "fossil record" for religion?

Have there ever been any assumptions that you're aware of made in religion?

Sheesh! This is getting embarrassing.

Are there no Americans reading here who wish to disassociate thenselves from the infantile claptrap being presented on this thread by anti-ID Americans who, by their own admission, are a fifth, at best, of the American population. The impression is being given that these contributions by a mere three or four of this small minority represent the position and method of interaction of the American intelligence.


They are even quoting themselves. "(as ros best described)".

I'm sure that the crime rate in North Korea and Iran is much lower than that in the US but I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from that. One presumes it is only reported crime anyway. And crime itself is a debateable category.

One has to wonder whether the high US crime rate is associated with the method of proceeding in social interactions displayed in the posts above coming from that country.

What?

In just three lines fm managed four heavy-handed assertions all of which are untrue in every respect as anyone who reads these threads properly will know.

And who might those people be?

I must admit to not understanding science and government as much as I would like (there isn't the time) but I have far more understanding of it than the two posters concerned do. They display a knowledge of both subjects asymptoting with zero. It might even be necessary for them to start their education on empty again for them to begin to gain even a modicum of understanding of either such are their prejudices and the reflexivity of their assertiveness.

spendi, You just admitted not understanding science and government, then lambast the very people who have expertise in their fields of science and geology.

I would bet good money that neither could read a chapter of Spengler and get 1 out of 100 in an examination on it. They had never even heard of Vico and La Mettrie. It goes without saying that their understanding of the humanist de Sade is nothing. They can't even read Joyce. They don't know Veblen's works. They know nothing of the Materialist Theory of Mind.
They think Dylan is a folk singer. They are intolerant, bombastic and bigoted.

Looks who's talking about "bigoted." LOL

And the evidence is up in lights on our back pages. Flashing impertinently in every direction. They have not one answer to any of the serious questions they have been asked. They are in opposition to 80%, at least, of the American population and to the President and any of his likely successors. Also to the British government and, judging by wande's earlier quote, the German government. They are only in step in a room by themselves and if they were in that situation they would soon be falling out and reaching.

All they can do is blurt. Loud and long and to no effect. They haven't even got on board yet that their assertions are water off a duck's back.

What in the world are you talking about?

Try answering this one-

Quote:

Can you not see that by using assertions you empower others to do the same unless you assert that only your assertions have validity.

which is simple enough.

Can you not see that by using assertions you empower others to do the same unless you assert that only your assertions have validity.

JTT wrote-

Quote:

Have there ever been any assumptions that you're aware of made in religion?

Plenty. How about that women are butter doesn't melt in their mouth sweet virginals tweeters when they actually are the most devious bunch of snake oilers ever known since Eve got in tight with You Know Who.

Does that answer your question JTT?

No, it doesn't, Spendius. Not even close. And the disappointment is palpable.

We had a good discussion at the Chancellor of the Exchequer's alcohol interface tonight on which is the most famous character in American movie history.

It ended up with no definite decision between Yogi Bear, Mickey Mouse, Boo Boo, Bilko, Olive Oil, Road Runner, Oliver Hardy and Officer Diddle.

I was supporting Yogi on the picnic basket principle and Olive on the shapely leg display.

Nothing else got a mention.

And charts like these are the ONLY places you will find fossils lined up like this in order.

It certainly doesn't happen at ANY location on the globe that you can name.

Fossils are found halfway around the world from each other, and shoehorned into the evolutionary scheme.

wandeljw wrote:

Quote:

Improving Evolution Education
(Kevin Padian, Geotimes, February 2008)


They're not getting it in textbooks, not even the ones that focus on evolution and paleontology, as I found in a recent study. To get across what we know and how we know it, we need more illustrations like the one shown at left, which was developed for the Dover trial by Brian Swartz, a graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley. It shows the fossils themselves, so people can see the basis for our work. It shows the comparable parts of the skeletons color-coded, so the evolution of form is clear. It gives reconstructions of the animals in life.

How the hell do you even explain fossils in their stratigraphic sequences and locations wrt plate tectonics.

Any Creationists find any oil deposits? (Answer=NONE)

The illustration wande, from a scientific point of view, is a congeries of ink inserts on flattened out wood pulp made to look good in the service of some sort of sales drive.

Don't forget that we did discover a while back that there is a flourishing market in fossils and, as one might expect, a steady supply of fakes.

Your credulity is astounding. Perhaps it is due to your eagerness to believe, the reasons for which we can only guess at.

While the bible is held together by the reader's imagination only. tsk tsk