Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Which is why divorce is not of prime importance whereas abortion, homosexuality and birth control are. By supporting those your party is anti-evolution and unnatural and thus your keel is cracked.

Atheism exacts no disciplines outside whatever regulation those happening to be in power at any particular time decide to enforce.

I do not, for example, see how an atheist can decide to postulate a point in time in the gestation process before which a mite can be killed and after which it is protected by the law. That there is a time fixed at all suggests a sort of backswell of guilt deriving from Christianity. A fundamental Christian conscience.

And I don't bring abortion up in order to force attention on the issue. I do it because the other issues of importance, birth control, homosexuality and divorce are far too sensitive to discuss once you get beyond talking in abstract labels and go in under the sheets. Which is where scientists do go.

But what say you to Darwin having declared "equality" pure moonshine when it is one of the prime American values along with the others taught by Jesus.

And the importance of his stuff about finding and reaching her and holding her down as the powerhouse of evolution, given an environment, and in any environment, seems only to have been appreciated by Francis who expressed a degree of shock.

I'm asking whether those ladies wande often quotes are aware of those somewhat more dramatic aspects of Darwin when they seek to promote his works in the classrooms.

They ought to be appraised of the fact that science embraces a little more than putting a magnifying glass to a white band in the rock 30 ft above sea level, seeing some compressed sea-shells and corals, which are not sea-shells and corals, but plaster casts of them, and writing a report which tells of their size, colour and shape, and even their age give or take a million years or two, and producing the sensational conclusion that they were once beneath the waves, maybe more than once, and thus that the land must be going up and down or the sea or both.

In fact, that's not science at all. Not "our" science I mean. It's field trip stuff.

You lot don't even know what I mean by "our" science. That's why you don't know how we came by it.

And that explains why you think I don't know anything about science. Your science is not my science. Your science is "Sunday Best" science. You can put it on when it suits you, in order to make a noise I presume, anything else would be really silly, and you can take it off on other occasions as you see fit.

So it is easily explained why you don't know what I'm talking about, which, of course, doesn't mean nobody does.

An atheist can't really understand confession. Humility is impossible to an atheist. He can only be cowed. Spengler thought the institution to be of major importance in Western civilisation.

georgeob1 wrote:

. . . however, he is a man of great insight and discernment.

Jesus Christ, O'George, i almost puked . . . even a Jesuit theologian, attempting to justify the claim of papal infalibility, wouldn't stoop to such a blatant and obvious lie . . . shame on you, O'George.
...
That's some of the worst bullshit i've ever seen you spread here, O'George.

if creationists damage further the younger generation's understanding of science, they will be less likely to be able to compete in a science/tech/health economy and we will continue to lose economic ground in those sectors.

Nah, it's (also) because lots of Christians go around using their religion to justify complete inanity all the time.

As it turns out, paleontologists and geologists are quite scientific, thanks, and you're still laughably ignorant of them.

We don't understand confession, because we don't have anybody to confess to.

LOL, all this time and you still don't know what the appeal to nature is.

My sister keeps telling me it's not too late to accept god

LOL, no it isn't. It's a recognition that at some point a fetus becomes both viable and "sentient" to the point where it begins to look like a form of infanticide. As it turns out, being an atheist doesn't automatically turn you into a heartless, brutal experimenter who bathes in the blood of innocents, nor does avoiding such a thing imply fundamental Christianity. But one can be very comfortable that no such thing is happening with the embryo.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

if creationists damage further the younger generation's understanding of science, they will be less likely to be able to compete in a science/tech/health economy and we will continue to lose economic ground in those sectors.

That's meaningless as well. But I'm going to pass on why.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Nah, it's (also) because lots of Christians go around using their religion to justify complete inanity all the time.

I know that. What am I supposed to do about it?

I would never be a draft dodger, but I wouldn't torture.

I presume your (also) concedes some truth to the proposition you were responding to.

My experience has taught me that miltant atheists decry Christianity because at some point they have become emotionally involved in a social behaviour which the Church condemns without reservation.

There you go. Like I said before --your science is not my science.

No more time.

I thought it was that if it happened it was good because it had happened and that everthing that happens is natural and therefore good because it had happened and as nothing could happen unnaturally it, whatever it is, is thus good by the internal logic of the ----well----the logic.

Is that incorrect?

I have seen some mind numbing assertions in my time but that one is in the top one.

I did read the preceding post. Spurious is a waste of bandwidth.

Thank God for Texans
(Advocate Opinion Page, June 10, 2008)

Thank God for Texans. If Louisiana adopts creationism through the skullduggery of political and religious zealots, we probably won't be alone.

The Texas Board of Education is debating a policy of ordering science teachers to deal with the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. The board might adopt that policy after pressure from the national lobbyists for a Bible-based theory of the origins and development of life on Earth.

Advocates in Texas, no more than in Louisiana, will not admit they're pushing their theological views into public school classrooms. But of course they are. They add dishonesty of purpose to the dishonesty of their presentations about science.

With luck, the board will see through this charade and block the move this time. But a well-funded movement, impervious to logic, is leading this national charge.

In Louisiana, we're on the verge not only of adopting the same fraudulent proposal, but of doing so by giving it the éclat of approval by the Legislature and the governor. Legislators or Gov. Bobby Jindal might yet turn away from it, but that's not likely.

So while we mean no ill will toward the good people of Texas, we hope their board of education does something stupid.

That way, Louisiana won't be so alone.

Advocates in Texas, no more than in Louisiana, will not admit they're pushing their theological views into public school classrooms. But of course they are. They add dishonesty of purpose to the dishonesty of their presentations about science.

spendius wrote:
My experience has taught me that miltant atheists decry Christianity because at some point they have become emotionally involved in a social behaviour which the Church condemns without reservation.


Good job!

And nope, I don't accede some truth because the statement reads as an overarching generality - rephrase it and we'll see.

spendius wrote:

Atheism exacts no disciplines outside whatever regulation those happening to be in power at any particular time decide to enforce.


That's because "atheism" is a pretty weak and small belief, merely the rejection of belief in a God. You are aware that it's possible to think beyond just rejecting Gods as an atheist, right? I hear some of them even like to eat and sleep, occasionally work and maybe even be nice to other people. Atheism doesn't tell them to do that, though, so clearly they're a bunch of dummie hypocrites cuz atheism is their complete worldview, right?

spendius wrote:
But what say you to Darwin having declared "equality" pure moonshine when it is one of the prime American values along with the others taught by Jesus.

lol, Jesus owns equality, huh? Those deists who rejected religion sure were Jesus freaks somehow.

spendius wrote:
I'm asking whether those ladies wande often quotes are aware of those somewhat more dramatic aspects of Darwin when they seek to promote his works in the classrooms.


A too verbose version of "they're tryin' to teach Darwinism!" We promote teaching modern evolutionary theory, thanks. That stuff you're completely ignorant of (but it doesn't stop you from pretending!).

spendius wrote:
In fact, that's not science at all. Not "our" science I mean. It's field trip stuff.


I guess you'd reply to my last point by saying, "I agree, scientists aren't that stupid, but the people I talked about aren't "real" scientists". As it turns out, paleontologists and geologists are quite scientific, thanks, and you're still laughably ignorant of them.

I'm not sure what that "thesis" you referenced in the last paragraph is supposed to be...

Reply with quoteBack to topReport this post to the moderators
Mr S.--

See this that Setanta wrote-

Quote:

I did read the preceding post. Spurious is a waste of bandwidth.

Why are you not objecting to Setanta's usage? Is it just my usage you take exception to.

And he is the spurious one.

What it is you see is that human beings are necessarily insincere. If everything was open and above board society would cease to function. And Setanta is a human being. And more devious than average.

Hence, if he can persaude everybody else to be sincere then it's obvious he has an advantage over the rest of us. Like a card sharp at a kid's Christmas party.

That quote contains un unsupported assertion. In my view, and possibly George's, he didn't "read" the post referred to. He just looked at it with a view to finding a self-flattering witticism. Me being "spurious" proves his arguments to be valid you see. To him I mean. Probably to you as well as you're into ad hominems on a grand scale, as he is.

I know it's not a very good witticism but that's by the way. "Spurious" obviously counts as one in his circle where, seemingly, if anybody just blurts out such things they are seen as truth on the evidence of Setanta having blurted it because he is a superior person and the fount of A2K wisdom. A sort of oracle if you like such as Cassandra or Sybil or the Delphic one from which men averted their eyes.

And he asserts that I'm a waste of bandwidth which makes your responses to my posts, and those of others, look silly. You have been profoundly insulted and you have been deemed unfit to know what a waste of bandwidth is and in need of Setanta's guidance.

The idea behind such an assertion, not a very profound one you must admit, ladies use the type regularly, is to stop you all responding presumably because he thinks I'm winning the argument and he has no arguments to counter me with except another blurt that I'm a waste of bandwidth which rather calls into question the presence of A2K in the world because, fundamentally, we are all a waste of bandwidth and never more so than when we are asserting that someone else is.

This whole subject is insincere because the "controversial issues" which an elected representitive from Texas mentioned in one of wande's quotes are seriously unmentionable in polite company.

And if Setanta reads this thread he will have seen that and has chosen to ignore it. If he doesn't read the thread then he's trolling. And, as far as I know, he hasn't been elected or even offered himself up for such scrutiny.

In either case he is the spurious one and once again we have an example of "projection".

And by using such a term he grants me permission to use any term I choose to smear him with unless, as is probably the case, he thinks the technique is one which only he has the right to deploy.

Which is totalitarian to the core in principle and lacks only power to become the law of the land.

Such are your allies.