Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Then don't lie about my position. It isn't hard to figure out what it is and you know very well that you were trying to make fun of a position I had disputed many times and pass it off as my own.

Word redefinition was and is a tactic usually employed by dictatorships and I can't help but notice that Creationists and ID proponents use it to its fullest extent.

Even words such as species, get a redefintion.

spendius wrote:
And you can easily see what twits they are because they not only do cut off points but they are supporters of bringing evolution theory into classrooms and shoving it up the kid's arses and the message, the main one, from evolution its very self about gestation is accompanied by what one might imagine is a smirk of satisfaction, could evolution do such a thing, a baby's smile, say, at having found for the carriers of its message the safest place yet, Huxley's bottles being as silly an idea as bothering about singularities, it got him out of a hole in the plot construction which he couldn't have got out of without them, and in comes these weavers of the winds, in the name of science, and evolution theory is left with its head up where fm often says mine is. Except that I provide evidence for my assertion.


Please stop drinking before writing this stuff.

The speaker was saying that the "sun" has all the elements necessary for life. How it may have been "transferred" to earth was not clear to me, but the explosions of suns has something to do with it. Maybe, someone can find a link on this.

Well, it's just like the USA PATRIOT act. Who wants to vote against that? You against patriotism or the USA or somethin'?

Same for the "academic freedom" bills. Who wants to vote against academic freedom? The more accurate title would be "insert creationist pseudoscience into the classroom because they have trouble convincing scientists and other adults". That isn't quite as catchy or misleading, though .

I think it's pretty telling when the best they have to offer is this kind of nonsense.

It is also strange that they call it "academic freedom" and then single out evolution as the only subject to be affected by such legislation. If the bills are passed and then challenged, no federal judge would be fooled about the real intent behind the bills.

The fact that our sun contains all the elements necessary for life is not surprising because it formed from the same stellar debris which formed our entire solar system.

Where did I lie? I took it that you have rationalised to yourself that abortion under conditions you approve of is morally permissable and not counter to evolutionary principles.

I have no clue what the naturalistic fallacy is. I know it is a nice phrase which you have obviously become habituated to using to throw debating opponents off their balance but it has no effect on me. And if I don't know what it is it is impossible for me to imply, insinuate, suggest or assert that you subscribe to it. Maybe others have done that but I not only haven't but couldn't.

I don't know why you accused me of moral relativism in the first place and I only mentioned you subscribing to a cut-off point after which it was okay to withdraw evolved protections for the mite of evolutions highest species on the say-so of a bunch of wheeler-dealers as a way of suggesting that any moral relativism I showed was small potatoes compared to that.

And also, if I don't know what a NF is I can't stop doing what I'm supposed to be doing with it.

It's quite obvious to me, it's a theme in all your posts and not just those responding to me, that you feel yourself superior to us all.

And when you get stumped you get out these words and phrases intending to tie us all in knots and thus avoid yourself facing up to the fact that not only are you stumped but your trotting out these magical words and phrases, interlarded with insults, is proof that you are stumped and are at the blustering game and even snowing yourself in the service of being a superior being who, by definition, cannot be stumped by an inferior being which is what I must be if all your assertion blitz is true.

Another trick you use is to declare that someone can't write coherently which allows you to not understand what they have said without it being plain that it is your subjective comprehension which is the principle factor.

I'm as proud of that as much as anything I've ever written.

It means that the Fundies are the true evolutionists and the rest of them are faking it.

It is also strange that they call it "academic freedom" and then single out evolution as the only subject to be affected by such legislation. If the bills are passed and then challenged, no federal judge would be fooled about the real intent behind the bills.

Yes ros--but you could say that about the peanut butter recycling from **** and the wing-mirror recycling from inorganic material not forgetting that the peanut butter is also part of the larger scheme but participating in the life process which, as you will know from your advanced science courses, is essentially recycling ****, in its wider connotations, with an added magical ingredient. God or oil.

You have heard On Ilkley Moor Ba'at 'At haven't you?

The fact that our sun contains all the elements necessary for life is not surprising because it formed from the same stellar debris which formed our entire solar system.

Religious people would be quite susprised I think. Christians don't think God is in the sun. And they say that not only is God a necessary element but is the BE ALL AND END ALL.

Hence it is the remark of a Pagan. Or so it seems to me.

It seems to say that these "necessary elements" POOFED life into existence from the energy/inorganic whatnot.

Just like that, as Tommy Cooper R.I.P. used to say. And with the capacity to construct a decent English pub on a Friday Night (Thursday is Grab a Granny Nite) with its myriad of brilliantly lit manifestations such as the couple who are trying to prove they are more in love with each other than others around them are.

A bunch of hydrogen thingies with no light. It's hard to buy into that when Judy gets a glass off the bottom shelf.

Where does light come from? Was it all pitch black once and you couldn't see your hand in front of your face. It's a bit much to ask.

I do think there are abortions which are entirely permissable and ones which are not. I'll ask you to not think much more deeply into it for now since you're having huge issues in figuring out the details of what I've explained about it.

Unless you're an intellectual invalid, there's google right over there ->. Look it up. I don't throw it in there to put you off-balance any more than I would for listing any other fallacies you inaccurately imply that I subscribe to.

Why would you be proud of that paragraph? It's incomprehensible. As in literally almost impossible to understand.

rosborne979 is clearly talking about the chemical elements, spendius. You know, the atomic particles we order by atomic number (protons).

I really shouldn't have to explain this