Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

c.i wrote-

Quote:

spendi, You're the one that keeps crying this is a "science" forum, so how does Hitler fit?

In order to bury Godwin once and for all.

Quote:

you have not listened to our constant refrain that most of what you claim are hogwash.

Well, I'm not particulary interested in claims of that nature. Neither is anybody else who has an brains at all. I want to know why they are hogwash.

If Mrs Clinton says that most of Mr Obama's claims are hogwash is everybody going to vote for Mrs Clinton? And suppose Mr Obama's replies that most of Mrs Clinton's claims are hogwash. And she says "no their not" and he says "yes they are" and she says and on and on until the men in white coats come a lead them away to a padded cell.

You can sing such refrains until you are hoarse for all the difference it makes to me.

I could have fluffed up what I said about the elected representitive by suggesting that he "hinted darkly" that there were "controversial issues".

And he did too. But not so most people would know. A bloke that that wouldn't be bothering about stem cell research because they haven't a clue what it means.

Quote:

Some "enlightenment" by a professional will/should do you some good.

I've been a bloody professional.

You walk into a room at an "at home" and there's a photograph on the telly in a tasteful frame with filigree gilt edgings showing your hosts on their wedding day on the steps of the cathedral with the officiating bishop and their respective immediate families (most of whom are thinking money and advantage) all dressed up to avoid looking like Naked Apes which is what they aqre according to Mr Darwin. He has often been caricatured as an ape trying to look up respectable ladies' frocks with his tail stuck straight up. Our cartoonists do that sort of thing.

Anyway--you walk into the room. Do you start talking dogshit about the photograph or is that only permissable when no harm can become one as everybody knows that spendi doesn't report people for disgracing the thread. I would have it left on the record for everyone to see and be able to refer to.

It's obviously a habit when anybody doesn't quite meet with approval.

0 Replies

I see that spendi is still speaking in tongues. Well, at least I can stop by and count the number of ways that he tries to engage us with his wit and charm.

Like the old toothless evil bums in Dean Koontz novels

Quote:

I've been a bloody professional.

Being a dildo isnt a profession

0 Replies

Are you kidding?

It's the oldest profession in the world.

Don't believe that other stuff about the second oldest profession.

0 Replies

With three "wives" Mr Dawkins is trying to not upset any delicate sensibilities.

There was no mention of No 3 in those reports of the hype for the April 18 1000 theatre extravanganza.

And a bloke like that feels empty and disillusioned if he's doesn't get a shag every night and in hotel rooms in distant locations he either has to do the decent thing or tune into the porn channels the five star hotels provide and have a wank.

0 Replies

Why do you think that all the serious scientists are at pains to emphasise their disapproval?

0 Replies

spendi, It's good of you to share your own sexual habits, but it's okay if you refrain from further details.

0 Replies

They are all blissfully married, the serious scientists I mean, to ladies who deplore men wanking and consider it as a personal insult and who can do steak and kidkey pie with gravy to kill for after a day atom smashing, bring the slippers into the study, and run the show, and who graciously allow a shag about once a week if you keep the lawns in good trim and the money rolling in. They think of honeymoons as graduation ceremonies.

Did you realists not know that?

Check out Mame's cynical remark about ugly women. Proper science that.

0 Replies

Has anybody pointed out to people who insist on claiming that Hitler was inspired by Darwinism that of the books that were banned in Nazi Germany, Darwin's works were amongst them?

Source: http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm

And also that "All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk" were to be blacklisted according to the
Schwarze Liste für öffentliche Büchereien und gewerbliche Leihbüchereien (Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries).

Also, the only reason, Spendi, that you have so many posts here is that (most of the time, you don't have any points relating to the discussion... like for example, Richard Dawkins' wives or lack of) plus you double and even triple post. Use the Edit button for crying out loud.

On pretty much nearly every single decent forum out there, double-posting is either frowned upon or looked on as a violation of terms of use.

0 Replies

Quote:

Also, the only reason, Spendi, that you have so many posts here is that (most of the time, you don't have any points relating to the discussion... like for example, Richard Dawkins' wives or lack of) plus you double and even triple post. Use the Edit button for crying out loud.

I dont know Wolf. Spendis writing style is so loosely constructed that he inadvertently offers us some rather humorous , frantic thoughts, and he lets his posts sort of trail off into a series of add-on clauses that give great joy and senses of superiority to many of us who are poor writers. SO when spendi gets another thought he feels like he should just post again.
I agree that hes not too familiar with the edit function but who am I to talk.

Earlier in this thread, when it was more intense a number of people were posting about how Darwin was banned in the Third Reich and that Hitler himself was a Young Earth Creationist. I think all that was in response to a memebr named Gungasnake, who makes curious illogical claims on subjects from a right wing POV. He claimed that Both Hitler and STalin practiced a form of Natural Selection when just the opposite was what history supports.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

permissable

i think not

0 Replies

I read a funny thing about Stalin you might not have heard before.

Lenin's widow went to the Kremlin and gave the assembled leading lights such a fierce bollocking that Stalin was moved to remark-

"If she does that again I'll appoint Lenin another widow."

I didn't know I double posted other than the odd glitch in the works and I use the edit function a lot. I always read through a post once I can see what you are seeing and if I spot an error, or an opportunity to fit in a tuner, I take it. I think you deserve to have the best I can do in those respects even though you are a bunch of toss-pots. I have to be my own proof reader and I'm hopeless at it by average standards. I'm better than the proof readers who check the stuff wande puts out though.

0 Replies

What farmerman said, but also in defense of spendi to some degree, the "Edit" can sometimes be a pain in the butt when somebody posts a response before you hit the Submit button. There's often a long delay, and all that "work" is for naught.

0 Replies

If you like funny edits, there is a great one near the end of this thread between Edgar and myself!

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=114600&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

0 Replies

All what work? This is entertainment. Virtually free.

BTW- So you can get your bearings, I didn't mention Hitler. wande did. Then Settin' Aah-aah got going on one of his favourite subjects; Godwin's Law, and I just took Godwin's Law off the radar for those viewers with the good sense to realise it because it's a load of bullshit and I like to think of our viewers having the bullshit shifted from their persons as it is a heavy burden and sticky with it.

Hitler was nuts. But a gigantic fact.

0 Replies

Quote:

Common Sense 'Expelled' in New Movie
(By Benjamin Radford, LiveScience, April 04, 2008)

Ben Stein freely admits he isn't a scientist. He's a lawyer, an actor with a signature deadpan delivery, and an eye-medication pitchman.

He's also the star of the new film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which casts Stein as a "rebel" with "political dynamite" who is blowing the lid off a conspiracy of scientists to silence critics of evolutionary theory.

An underlying premise of Expelled is that creationism (or intelligent design theory, as it's called in the film) is a competing theory to evolution, and that schoolchildren should be exposed to all explanations about human evolution.

On one level, this makes sense. If there are differing theories and explanations for an observed phenomenon, they should be considered.

The problem is that not all theories are equally valid. Some theories (such as evolution) have overwhelming evidence to support them, and other theories (such as intelligent design) have no evidence whatsoever to support them. In fact, intelligent design is not a scientific theory at all, and makes no testable claims.

There's a place for creationism/intelligent design theory in schools. It's in religion and social studies classes, not science courses. If Ben Stein and other creationists are truly concerned about giving fairness and equal time to competing theories, they should be demanding that students be taught that mankind came from a tree, as the Maasai tribe of East Africa believe; that according to Hindus, the gods Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma created the world and humans; and that the Incans believed that mankind first arose on two small islands on Lake Titicaca in Bolivia. There is just as much evidence for these creation stories (and many others) as for the one told in Genesis.

One refrain is "teach the controversy," but among scientists there is no controversy about whether evolution is true. Evidence of evolution is all around us; for example, flu vaccines need to be reformulated each year because the flu viruses are constantly evolving and adapting to older vaccines.

Other than Ben Stein and a handful of other activists, relatively few people of any expertise, stature, or authority seem particularly concerned about the issue. In fact, when the issue was addressed in a 2005 courtroom (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District) Judge John Jones III rebuked the intelligent design promoters, citing their "breathtaking inanity" and dishonesty: "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions." In 1997, Pope John Paul II stated that "New knowledge leads us to recognize the theory of evolution [as] more than a hypothesis," and declared that there was no conflict between faith and evolution.

"Expelled" tries to criticize the theory of evolution for not providing answers to the origin of life. Yet that is a red herring; neither Charles Darwin nor his theory of evolution by natural selection ever claimed to explain life's origins. The question of how life first emerged on our planet remains unanswered, but that has nothing to do with evolution. It's puzzling that Ben Stein and "Expelled" don't seem to understand that. Then again, Ben Stein is no scientist.

0 Replies

I think you will find wande that every point raised there has been dealt with along your thread. These reports of your's just go over the same old stuff. Try assuming that those coming on here to be Abled 2 Know have learned something and don't need to keep being told the same old things.

I dealt with this assertion only recently-

Quote:

He's also the star of the new film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which casts Stein as a "rebel" with "political dynamite" who is blowing the lid off a conspiracy of scientists to silence critics of evolutionary theory.

It's a business proposition. He is setting himself up as the spokesperson of those fainthearts who suspect that there might be a conspiracy of scientists to not only silence "critics of evolutionary theory" but critics of anything else they haven't peer-reviewed and approved as well. They only peer-review what they have peer-reviewed to peer-review mind you.

Mr Stein is obviously an ambitious chap. And even your post admits he's a "pitchman".

0 Replies

I enjoy the posts you install from various news media wandel. I think that the spendis of the world are merely pissed off at the post because they are beset with evidence and reason counter to their beliefs from all sides, from science itself, to public opinion, news, and even mainstream religion.

So when a movie , championing a "Non theory" , funded by an Intelligent Dsign concern, has been able to pay Ben STeins fee demands, and he is stupid enough to do it, I doubt if his concerns are purely monetary. I conclude that hes a card carrying IDjit. I see Stein in a whole new light, I see him as rather narrow minded.

0 Replies

Well you would wouldn't you fm? It's understandable.

You have lost faith in the Great-crested American artist/conman for the simple reason that you have no possible evolutionary explanation for its existence. You don't just have gaps trying to explain it: you have nothing out of which it was composed. Or even might have been.

But you may be right. We would have to get Mr Stein into a tight corner to find out.

I just think my explanation is the most likely but then I'm a bit of a cynic I suppose.

But the thing about my explanation is that it provides a fund of merriment whereas your explanation causes gnashing teeth. So on the social consequences argument, and with Rabelais insisting that merriment was better for the health than teeth grinding, as in a bulldog chewing a wasp, and him being so expert at things, I'm sticking to the business proposition line.

If you enjoy wande's posts one might imagine you enjoy repetition in general because they are very repetitive as Foxy pointed out.

Where do you think she has gone?

0 Replies

spendi wrote: If you enjoy wande's posts one might imagine you enjoy repetition in general because they are very repetitive as Foxy pointed out.

It's only repitition to those who continue to push for ID in our classrooms.

Wandel's posts are otherwise the latest news both from school districts and legal procedures.

0 Replies

"Legal procedures" eh?

Read Rabelais on that art. It was quite well developed even then.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know