Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Quote:

Additionally, the bill would presumably require school officials to determine what constitutes legitimate religious expression, subjecting them to an explosion of costly and protracted litigation that would have to be defended at taxpayers expense."

"Objection your Honour!!!"

"Objection over-ruled. I cannot see any problems arising from subjecting taxpayers to an explosion of costly and protracted litigation. Is that not what taxpayers are for. Please stay on topic."

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

You still haven't explained Dumbski's claims. All you've done is name drop. It looks like you don't know.

I've listed his main claim directly to you once and alluded to it many times. It's called 'specified complexity' or 'complex, specified information'. He also does other rather inane things, but they're mostly peripheral and just make him look silly.

Now, don't be lazy. If you're not willing to use google or Wikipedia to look up a term, why should I assume that you care?

spendius wrote:

And the NF is a bit more than your explanation which is itself but simple common sense to an atheist.

Nope, it isn't. Not the one I was alluding to and which I have explained already at least three times.

spendius wrote:

There's no such thing as good or bad to an atheist. There's only pleasure/unpleasure like animals go by.

Consistency alert! How have I been committing the naturalistic fallacy whenever you want to find a negative connotation and read in the fallacy, then?

Yay for OK's governor!

0 Replies

If we can spend 12 billion dollars every month in Iraq, a few million here or a few million there to pay for religious-based litigation is justified; both are a huge waste.

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

See, guys, you cannot say Spendi doesn't make sense..

You're not actually reading his posts are you? That would be silly.

0 Replies

Mr S. wrote-

Quote:

I've listed his main claim directly to you once and alluded to it many times. It's called 'specified complexity' or 'complex, specified information'. He also does other rather inane things, but they're mostly peripheral and just make him look silly.

Well, as is often said, I'm a bit thick and I either don't remember your explanation or didn't understand it so could you please go over it again but this time avoid, if you can, saying that the sodium chloride bottle contains sodium chloride.

We all know what is is called. You are asked what he has claimed not what he calls it.

What is his main claim? Give us a good laugh S. Sum it up succinctly like c.i. has asked Francis to do with my post about why you AIDsers are all up a gum tree and a creek without a paddle simultaneously.

Quite a feat really.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

You're not actually reading his posts are you? That would be silly.

Not as silly as joining a thread and not reading the posts of the others. That's like fm's discussion technique it seems to me.

And it's an assertion which has no supporting evidence other than that everybody who reads my posts is silly.

With a successful march on Washington ros you could be the next phucking Nero.

0 Replies

as the metaphors pile up even deeper, I assume that the Gov of OK has failed to sign? Hes gonna her it from the true believers.

0 Replies

Set said the Gov. is a "She" fm.

So change "King" in my earlier post to "Queen". Sandy was it?

Dry desert grit.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
Most classes don't seem to even teach evolution besides a very basic overview, likely extremely oversimplified.

I think we all know that. wande's quotes are sufficient to disabuse even the most devout pedagouge that it could be otherwise. The leading lights can hardly read and write.

Well, I suppose you can contradict yourself however you'd like. On the other hand, in my anecdotal experiences with people from other countries, my high school experience was about the same as everyone else's in terms of what was covered (with the exception of the German's who went to Gymnasium).

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
As for biological work, it depends on how inclusive we are getting. It isn't absolutely necessary for someting like biochemistry, but it tends to enrich it and help people understand relationships even on that level. For other parts of biology, it is the subject matter itself.

It is self evidently the subject matter for the other parts of biology where it is the subject matter.

And for other subjects as well. Virology benefits immensely from studying the evolution of viruses.

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
What is the 'it' which is proposed? Teaching evolution or something else?

The former. I thought it followed from the previous paragraph.

It didn't, as you claimed it was 'proposed', when it isn't. You presented a straw man version of evolution but you should at least know that evolution is covered, or supposed to be covered, in essentially every public school, with huge degrees of variation in how much they are taught.

Now that I know what you were saying, I don't see the point. Evolution is taught in cities and rural areas.

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
And social activity in Montana? What are you referring to, exactly?

Oh---ya know-- rural goings on. I meant in the wide open spaces where the turd pipe from the upper fifty stories doesn't run just on the other side of the avant garde wallpaper on the the plaster board behind the bed-head and no spiced hot fat stench pervading every nook and cranny.

But I've only seen Montana in films.

It's really not much different, just more people (and thus slightly different relationships). Pollution varies from city to city (and from rural area to rural area).

spendius wrote:

I'm sure it has and is. Most things these days are "quite good". Like most things also that are "quite good", it, Montana education if you've forgotten, has been intelligently designed. A race of men who arrange things to be "quite good" can be expected to think up an intelligent designer for a Creator unless they believe there's no creator. An act of faith. Put two in a room and you have a religion.

LOL, what a cop-out.

spendius wrote:

This race of men have in their hand, in the deck chair, at the village cricket match on a hot afternoon when the bees can be heard hovering around the honeysuckle, a very cold can of John Smith's Extra Smooth which a cream and peaches English Rose, one who knows on which side her bread is buttered, in a fresh, floral print frock with white buttons up the front, or of a light pastel shade, the top three having somehow come undone, has poutingly delivered personally (you can switch those three about as takes your fancy your worships) from the back seat bar in the Roller, with an easy to pull opener and a widget inside you can shake to keep it, the beer inside the can I mean, frothy, like it is in the pub all the way to the bottom.

How could a man in such a position think that happened randomly and had not been intelligently designed.

A couple things wrong with the implication.

First, the alternative to "intelligently designed" is not automatically "random" unless that's simply how you're defining it, which would be misleading as you should very well know that regularity is something scientists attempt to tease out.

Second, Intelligent Design is quite different from any old intelligent design, as it's an antievolution movement based on all kinds of specious reasoning. You seem to have equivocated here, given the subject matter. You may also want to know that evolution is in no way incompatible with an intelligent designer in general, but it does make one superfluous, just like dualism or transdimensional leprechauns.

Third, in going back to "random", evolution is anything but randomness, as it is constrained by natural selection. It is exceedingly complex and has a huge history on earth, however the evidence for it having happened is massive. So when you ask how someone could think we are here via evolution (which is surely your implication) rather than created some other way, it's quite simple: the evidence points at such a thing being true.

spendius wrote:

You do know don't you that Robert Mugabe is an atheist who thought it possible to dispense with bishops and stuff. Inflation at 2 million percent,which then makes necessary his policies.

Robert Mugabe has done a lot more than mess with the church, so your reasoning in the comparison is faulty. Also, you're aware that he claims to be a catholic, right? How do you support the claim that he is an atheist?

Additionally, I don't advocate anything coercive when it comes to an individual's religious beliefs, and the coercive actions you listed don't follow from atheism nor would they reflect an apt comparison between a state which was full of believers and one which was not - in fact you don't even list the relative rates of belief. I bet for all you know, they went up even as he went on his power trips.

spendius wrote:

If creationists are causing US science to take a nose-dive one can as easily say that atheists cause 2 million % inflation. I'll take the nose-dive.

lol, that's just stupid. It doesn't deserve any more of a response.

spendius wrote:

spendius wrote:
It isn't as if the Biologic people have a monopoly on silliness.

It certainly isn't. Not by a long chalk

..... Good job on replying to yourself?

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
Of course you're probably trying to imply that more legitimate scientific work compares to writing a computer program to compare 2D projections of abstracted 3D molecules to various Chinese characters and imply design and "specification". LOL.

I would have a go at defending that proposition if the money was right. I'd need a research assistant of course. Francis might have one whose at a loose end.

Of course you would, as it's very apparent that invention and baseless rationalization are just as good as knowledge for you. You'd fit right in! Need I mention again that it's writing a computer program to compare protein folds, very specific ones (ignoring other folds), to the Chinese language in order to assert 'design'? Perhaps I've assumed too much knowledge...

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
The NCSE takes a rather neutral approach to religion and tends to argue the science aspects. They are criticized for it by more 'militant' atheists . Your listing of the ACLU is just hilarious, though, as they often represent 'conservatives' and religious people, always concerning civil liberties.

I know who they represent.

Skipped the NCSE part. Anywho, apparently you know who they present but are A-OK with misrepresenting them, then. Or you're wrong about knowing who they represent Wink

.

You've asserted that they're trying to promote atheism and that they don't care about liberty. Basic knowledge of their situation proves otherwise, so how do you support those assertions?

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
I think you have a funny idea about the prevalence of individuals involved in agriculture in the U.S. Even in the rural states agribusiness is the norm and much of the population is city/service-oriented. But hey, have fun with another one of your rationalizations that you treat as accurate .

That may be so but the real point is the drift of city values into the countryside mainly through national media outlets which are megalopolitan through and through even in nature programmes. A city person does things for a purpose and he is easily persuaded that a dung beetle pushing a ball of dried **** uphill has a purpose as well. Which it obviously hasn't.

Yeah, I'm not seeing this dichotomy. There have been plenty of 'rural' areas before the modern media machine was around which were quite practical and taught evolution. Like I said before, have fun with another one of your rationalizations that you treat as accurate. We both know that you're just inventing things in order to make the situation seem unfair.

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
spendius wrote:
City people want it all to go their way and they are completely dependent on food none of which they produce themselves.

Yeah, those city-slickin' bastards! How dare they live in cities! Next thing you know they'll be providing the R&D, services, and economic strength which provides those "farmers" with a high quality of life.

I said nothing about mutual dependence. I was talking of pushing viewpoints from an environment where they are popular to a different environment where they are not.

You're right, you didn't say anything about mutual dependence, you implied that it was one-way exploitation (they don't even grow their own food!).

Concerning "pushing viewpoints", this has only to do with state laws + regulations along with the Constitution, not city-slickers asserting their will over the poor rural folk. You might want to educate yourself on the federal system of government.

------ another post

spendius wrote:

First of all I can't see any point in being agnostic. Who, in his right mind, is not going to convert on his deathbed when it is a bet to nothing. Didn't Voltaire famously do it? Last rites and all that jazz. So an agnostic is a temporary atheist with a fall-back position in reserve. Hobson's choice.

Someone who understands Pascal's Wager wouldn't convert, spendius. And no, Voltaire didn't famously do it, nor was he exactly an atheist.

spendius wrote:

In fact, claiming girlfriends successfully is a sign of being an alpha male (see Norman Mailer) from an evolutionary point of view. fm will confirm that I think. Much of what is strictly business can be subsumed in the other categories with some fancy footwork.

Obviously these powerful and complex forces cannot be allowed to operate freely if a civilised society is to develop, be maintained and prosper and therefore distortions of them are necessary. Freud was well aware of that.

These distortions are clearly unscientific and thus scientific arguments to remove them are arguments for returning to the general promiscuity which must result from female approval being the decisive factor.

Congratulations on yet again arguing that we should accept the naturalistic fallacy. Heck, I'm just going to start calling it the 'Appeal to Nature' since you're having huge issues in figuring out that I'm talking about a slightly different concept.

Or, let's just call it the 'is-ought' fallacy in this case to try to avoid your inevitable confusion. Science is descriptive, tries to get at the 'is'. It does not say what 'ought'.

It's simply amazing that you don't notice that you're repeatedly forwarding this fallacy. Oh, but we all believe that you know what it is, sure.

spendius wrote:

Darwin's evident insistence on rigorously excluding man from his observations shows, I think, that he saw man as not an animal.

Oh, you mean like that book he wrote after ToS, entirely on man and evolution? "Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind."

Oh no, you mean actually reading what you cite means you're wrong? By all means, don't read the Descent of Man.

cicerorone imposter:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Francis, Since you seem to understand spendi's last post, can you summarize it for us neophytes?

Science says we're evolved to have lots of lady friends and that we should do that. If we do that, we get the dystopia of Brave New World. Yes, it's just that stupid.

Oh, and this follows from how agnostics act.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

The spiel the G put out had obviously been written by bureaucrats. There is not the slightest chance that they "unfortunately" overlooked the faotC.

ros must think he was the only one who remembered the faotC which is quite normal for AIDsers. They think everbody else is stupid you see.

You seem to have missed ros's point, but I'll let him correct you if he feels like it.

Do you possess the dignity to support your use of the term "AIDsers" yet? You always seem to want to avoid that topic.

spendius wrote:

Suppose the Senate voted 48--0 and the House voted 100-- 0 to shove Darwin into classrooms and a fundie G vetoed it.

lol, shoving "Darwin" into classrooms. Welcome to last century.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Additionally, the bill would presumably require school officials to determine what constitutes legitimate religious expression, subjecting them to an explosion of costly and protracted litigation that would have to be defended at taxpayers expense."

"Objection your Honour!!!"

"Objection over-ruled. I cannot see any problems arising from subjecting taxpayers to an explosion of costly and protracted litigation. Is that not what taxpayers are for. Please stay on topic."

No one tell spendius what the word "additionally" means!

spendius wrote:

Well, as is often said, I'm a bit thick and I either don't remember your explanation or didn't understand it so could you please go over it again but this time avoid, if you can, saying that the sodium chloride bottle contains sodium chloride.

Read a little bit farther to the part where I say: "Now, don't be lazy. If you're not willing to use google or Wikipedia to look up a term, why should I assume that you care? "

The word 'specified complexity' is easy to look up. Heck, you could read what Dembski says himself. I somewhat doubt that you'd even trust my summary. Do I really have to say something like, "Dembski says 'specified complexity' shows design?" Five minutes of research would've told you that and more.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Francis, Since you seem to understand spendi's last post, can you summarize it for us neophytes?

CI, I'm sorrry I can't do that.

I'm denied such ability by my late education in English language.

I certainly would make a fool of myself if I undertook a task that obviously even native English speakers are at a loss to achieve.

However, I think I've a rather good grasp of what Spendi intend to say.

I do believe he doesn't care enough about religion to do an exegese of the bible or other religious writings.

But he is aware of the sociological implications of the religion he lives with.

In addition, but it's maybe the stumbling block for the Americans, he has an ulterior background of sarcasm, derived from ancient European spirit.

That being said, I see people took for granted that I was talking about me when I referred to agnostics.

Therefore, the several girlfriends stuff was seen fit.

People, you are mistaken, it's a myth.

Even I see some logic in Spendi's utterings, I often do not agree with their content and/or the way he expresses them.

However, I appreciate the traps he cleverly prepares for people who don't take his circumvolutions with a grain of salt.

Ah, and no, Voltaire didn't convert on his deathbed..

Darwin also is said to have converted on his deathbed..

0 Replies

Francis

Quote:

Darwin also is said to have converted on his deathbed

At last, something concrete to discuss.
This story has been debunked by Darwins biographer and his own children. There was a much spread story by "Lady Hope"about his deathbed wish to recant. This story had no basis in fact and actually, the Lady Hope character may not even have seen Darwin before his death as she claimed.

Another common fabrication was that Darwin was the naturalist on the BEagle, when actiually he was hired, as was common in that time, to be a companion for Capt Fitzroy. The actual naturalist was the ships surgeon, so Darwins own departure from the normal naturalists reports etc, were a self imposed passion and not, as lore claims, that it was a job "requirement".

0 Replies

Francis wrote-

Quote:

But he is aware of the sociological implications of the religion he lives with.

Very nicely understated.

Quote:

In addition, but it's maybe the stumbling block for the Americans, he has an ulterior background of sarcasm, derived from ancient European spirit.

Gentle irony more like which serves to tease and, hopefully, enlighten and entertain. It is an acquired taste and can only derive from the source suggested conditioned as it is with the essential humility of the Christian spirit and that sense of absurdity which a scientific appraisal of the facts of life, as they appear, ineluctably demands. It is, it must be admitted, beyond the scope of people who take themselves seriously whilst they are enjoying the extravagant luxuries of the life it has brought forth which is why it is deserving of the most strenuous protections.

Sarcasm implies an intention to hurt people's feelings and is more satirically inclined and censorious.

J.K. Galbraith and Thorstein Veblen are both outstanding practitioners of the art of gentle irony. Darwin allowed himself a few flirtations with it.

Quote:

WITH animals which have their sexes separated, the males necessarily differ from the females in their organs of reproduction; and these are the primary sexual characters. But the sexes often differ in what Hunter has called secondary sexual characters, which are not directly connected with the act of reproduction; for instance, the male possesses certain organs of sense or locomotion, of which the female is quite destitute, or has them more highly-developed, in order that he may readily find or reach her; or again the male has special organs of prehension for holding her securely.

for example.

I particularly enjoyed "certain organs of sense". One might, if one was to read carefully enough, see "the male has special organs of prehension for holding her securely" as a reference to Christian theology.

Quote:

Ah, and no, Voltaire didn't convert on his deathbed.

No one can ever know about that. The story I have read is that he was persuaded to submit to the administration of Extreme Unction for reasons outside his own interests which he recognised as being asymptoting with nothingness. His words were reported to be something along the lines of "Well- there's no sense in making any unnecessary enemies at this point."

Quote:

Darwin also is said to have converted on his deathbed

He did cry out shortly before he died--"Oh God, oh Lord God" and he was buried in Westminster Abbey after some argument.

The landlord of the George and Dragon accused the politicians of chiselling. He said- "All the people wished to have Mr Darwin buried in Downe, but the Government would not let him. It would have helped the place so much, for it would have brought hosts of people down to see his grave."

And, one hardly need add, to take refreshment in his pub which was hard by the churchyard of St Mary's.

The Standard intoned silkily--" True Christians can accept the main scientific facts of Evolution just as they do of Astronomy and Geology, without any prejudice to more ancient and cherished beliefs."

The toffs wiped the floor with the village and so it came to pass that the fallen hero ended with his toes turned up in consecrated ground and is still there to this day.

After all Darwin did dismiss "equality" as un-natural and deemed the idea an "impossible figment". An imaginary friend. A delusion. And he cheerfully assigned every man to his allotted place "to help England (Gawd bless us little cotton socks) work (sic) with God for the progress of 'all mankind', as Desmond and Moore have it and whose deeply ironic tone I will now, with your Worship's permission quote- Darwin's words in bunny rabbit's ears--

Quote:

Natural selection was "by no means alien to the Christian religion"---not if it was rightly understood, with selection acting "under the Divine intelligence" and governed by "the spiritual fitness of each man for life hereafter."

How can you not laugh? Equality dismissed. It's a foundation stone of The Republic ain't it. Should AIDsers be rounded up do you think?

At the service, which began with "I am the Resurrection" and continued with a specially commissioned hymn (£15 grand at today's prices) with lyrics taken, Lloyd Webber style, from the Book of Proverbs, the high priests of Science rubbed shoulders with the nobility and clergy and that's before the piss-up got into full swing later.

Schubert and Beethoven and the Dead March ended the formal ceremonies.

The carpenter in Downe said that you could shave in the shine of the coffin which was brought from London to replace the one he had fashioned and, he hinted, Mr Darwin had tried for size and approved of.

As an afterthough, a stiff bow to our friends across The Channel, the Bishop of Carlisle told the congregation --" Had his death occured in France, no priest would have taken part in the funeral. or, if he had, no scientific man would have been present,"

The last two sentences in the D&M biography are-

Quote:

Society would never be the same. The 'Devil's Chaplain' had done his work. [.quote]

* And no!-- Francis, I did not think you were seeking intellectual justification for having many girlfriends. I just pretended you might have been on behalf of any reading here who's confidence in that matter is faltering.

0 Replies

Perhaps I ought to add, for those of a scientific disposition to whom fluffing up the language in the full flow of the Naturalistic Fallacy in full cry is a tiresome reminder of the lengths some people will go to push their own boat out upon a disembodied ocean, that the principle criteria for the privilege of being put under the sods of Westminster Abbey is the potential of the last resting place for attracting vistors to pay their respects.

Which is exactly the same principle upon which the landlord of the George and Dragon was applying. By collecting together in the spiritual heart of the capital city all the cadavers of those having this magnetic charm, from which much is to be expected, the provinces are starved of a lucrative source of income which is then concentrated in the hands of the most devious bastards who ever walked the earth and who the Designer must wish he had left at the drawing board stage.

And what with the landlord having the same basic heartsense as the great and the good in such a profound and basic a faith as that is there is provided some evidence that all men are equal, at bottom, and thus that Darwin was no scientist and was basically a bullshitter and completely at odds with the Greatest Scientist, Jesus, who died in ignominious circumstances to promote equality. A foundation stone of The Republic I might remind you.

So really--it seems to me--you AIDsers are in a bit of a fix. You have talked yourself into a corner from which there is no escape. All you can do is yelp.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

FrancisQuote:
Darwin also is said to have converted on his deathbed

At last, something concrete to discuss.

"Also is said" is hardly concrete fm unless we focus on who is said to have said what Darwin is said to have said and what motives they might have had for saying what Darwin is said to have said.And do you mean "discuss" or discuss?

0 Replies

The story of how Darwin got on the Beagle is a fascinating one and very well told in D&M.

I don't know what the "lore" is but going as FitzRoy's companion was the main reason he did go. The previous captain having shot himself from the despair and isolation a captain was subjected to on long trips. Some captains might have settled for a dog or even a concubine for any brave enough to take such outrageous risks. I think the companion could well have passed the voyage perfecting conjuring tricks for all FitzRoy cared. An agreeable companion was what FitzRoy sought after a friend of his had turned down the first offer for obvious reasons.

That history is owed so much by one man's incapacity for celibacy is a remarkable enough thing but it was Mr Henslow's job for the asking also at some stage and it was his wife's misery at the prospect of his long absence which opened the door for the young bachelor. Mr Henslow is possibly a figure of some importance in this story. Darwin was something of a protege of his.

What fantastic forces are swirling around in this tale and they are very easy to forget by those who think such things can be reduced to a few sentences and trotted out to impress an awe-struck audience.

The evidence for the theory was available, to some extent, closer to home but maybe not quite so easily seen.

* Going back to the Westminster Abbey commercial operation, the great and the good could stand accused of body-snatching without stretching the language any further than the landlord of the George and Dragon probably did and, it must be faced up to, not without some justification.

0 Replies

Mr S. wrote

Quote:

Do you possess the dignity to support your use of the term "AIDsers" yet? You always seem to want to avoid that topic.

I have explained twice already. I began a long while ago to use ID and anti-ID to save typing time. AIDsers, before they were AIDsers, then starting using ID-iots and ID-jit for IDers. I complained, much as you are doing but they persisted so I retaliated with AIDsers. This had an effect and I went back to anti-IDers. But they started with ID-iots and ID-jits again so here we are. AIDser is short for anti-intelligent design proponent. What other meanings you put on it are your affair but when you complained I thought up the Artificial Insemination by Donor acronym AID because it fitted, to me, what they were attempting to do to the classroom.

Is that clear? If AIDsers were to apologise for reintroducing ID-iots and ID-jits after being warned I would be happy to reconsider the position as honour would be satisfied. I don't bear grudges.

Quote:

Suppose the Senate voted 48--0 and the House voted 100-- 0 to shove Darwin into classrooms and a fundie G vetoed it.

lol, shoving "Darwin" into classrooms. Welcome to last century.

They seem to be doing a lot more than shoving. I was employing understatement.

Quote:

The word 'specified complexity' is easy to look up. Heck, you could read what Dembski says himself. I somewhat doubt that you'd even trust my summary. Do I really have to say something like, "Dembski says 'specified complexity' shows design?" Five minutes of research would've told you that and more.

Oh--I know what it is supposed to mean to those who use it. But it makes no sense. It's just elitist.

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

In addition, but it's maybe the stumbling block for the Americans, he has an ulterior background of sarcasm, derived from ancient European spirit.

Yeah, not so much. I get a bit tired of the implication that Americans don't understand irony or sarcasm, or don't appreciate nuance. As it turns out, sometimes dull predictable irony/sarcasm isn't funny.

Francis wrote:

However, I appreciate the traps he cleverly prepares for people who don't take his circumvolutions with a grain of salt.

Oh, I do both. I step right in the trap on purpose and know that he's talking out of his ass: he's like the explorer whose traps all have rubber teeth and who keeps catching angry bears, having brought guns with no ammunition. Now, this isn't to say we're intellectual giants: the trapper's just a bumbler.

Or perhaps I should just take the phrase "talking out of his ass", turn it into a paragraph of attempts at literary wit, and sit on it Wink

.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

So really--it seems to me--you AIDsers are in a bit of a fix. You have talked yourself into a corner from which there is no escape. All you can do is yelp.

That's the only sentence I found to both be straightforward and have a point. I'll not be guessing about your meanings anymore Wink

.

I will predict that you've involved both the genetic fallacy and fallacious ad hominem, though. Both are common and unless you're a complete incompetent, you can look them up without complaining about whatever invented personal reasons I could possibly have for listing them.

spendius wrote:

The evidence for the theory was available, to some extent, closer to home but maybe not quite so easily seen.

Look, another point discovered! This time you managed to get one right. At the same time, the island species made it all a bit more obvious.

You know that he had concentrated more on geology and such at the time of his voyage, yes? He was also recommended as naturalist on the Beagle by George Peacock (along with someone else), and I'm fairly certain Darwin's interests in exploration and science were a large part of the deal.

spendius wrote:

I have explained twice already. I began a long while ago to use ID and anti-ID to save typing time. AIDsers, before they were AIDsers, then starting using ID-iots and ID-jit for IDers. I complained, much as you are doing but they persisted so I retaliated with AIDsers.

Yes, you've said this before. I've explained how it doesn't compare. Every ID proponent I've met has been tragically ignorant, a complete idiot, a liar, or a combination of the three. There's at least some semblance of reality here. Concerning 'AIDsers', there is no such thing. The implication pertains to a horrific disease.

spendius wrote:

This had an effect and I went back to anti-IDers. But they started with ID-iots and ID-jits again so here we are. AIDser is short for anti-intelligent design proponent.

And like I said, your attempt at shortening failed miserably. 'anti-intelligent design proponent' reduces to AIDP. If you wanted to shorten it to 'anti-intelligent-design-ers', it'd be AIDers. But that doesn't ring quite bastardly enough, so you there's an 's' added Wink

.

spendius wrote:

Is that clear? If AIDsers were to apologise for reintroducing ID-iots and ID-jits after being warned I would be happy to reconsider the position as honour would be satisfied. I don't bear grudges.

Perhaps if any of you would provide any evidence whatsoever that the three words I used to describe their invariable qualities, I'd be more understanding. Take your own obfuscatory method of dealing with criticism, the many fallacies, switching topics, and proud ignorance of scientific ideas (which you probably still deny, as you kindly ignored my response last time when I brought up examples). Is that a sign of both of the following being true: a lack of ignorance and honesty? One has to be sacrificed.

spendius wrote:

They seem to be doing a lot more than shoving. I was employing understatement.

It's still hilariously wrong. No one is shoving, pounding, or supersonically launching "Darwin" into classrooms.

spendius wrote:

Oh--I know what it is supposed to mean to those who use it. But it makes no sense. It's just elitist.

LOL, no it isn't. It's available to anyone who spends five minutes looking it up and applied directly to the situations I described. It still applies to many of your implications. Before you reply, remember which version I was referring to so you don't make yourself look too silly.

Double-lol on "it makes no sense", as not too long ago you were calling it "common sense" and referring to mum's sherry. Are you now finallly on the same page as me and acknowledging the more specific fallacy I was referring to (I'm using the term 'Appeal to Nature' now)? In that case, which part doesn't make sense?

0 Replies

Mr S. wrote-

Quote:

Yeah, not so much. I get a bit tired of the implication that Americans don't understand irony or sarcasm, or don't appreciate nuance. As it turns out, sometimes dull predictable irony/sarcasm isn't funny.

How can anything possibly be funny to an American chap who doesn't appreciate it? The whole point of "funny" is that only a few appreciate it.
Apart from custard pie and foxed bloomers jokes I mean.

The very essence of piss taking is that the one being taken the piss out of is unaware of it.

I can only deal with one point at once at this time on a Sat. nite.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know