Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Get them to apologise for "ID-iot" and "ID-jit" and I will desist. They started it. And I warned them. They persisted. I dropped it for a while in the hope they would reciprocate-- they didn't. AIDsers have only themselves to blame. I was using ID-ers and anti-IDers (which I initiated to save having to keep typing out Intelligent Design proponents and anti-Intelligent Design proponents) before they started with ID-iot and then ID-jit. They thought it clever and I thought it "tiresome", like c.i. does the other, so I thought I was entitled to compete. Do you expect a fight opponent not to counterpunch? I'm not that Christian.

Get fm to apologise to religious Americans. And properly too. That's all it takes. The ball's in your court.

Don't start defending them just because my riposte was smarter than their initial insult which was not just directed at me but to all religious people from your President down. As if the use of ID-iot won the argument.

DT- you are out of your depth by some many fathoms. You don't know the thread. You're a johnny-come-lately type who thinks the conversation began when he arrived. People who join conversations have a duty to pick up on it before they start spouting. (That doesn't apply in pubs late at night.)

I don't feel in the least persecuted. Your arguments from authority are based on nothing outside your own head. There is no authority for them. And neither is there for anybody else's when crude assertions, such as those your posts are riddled with, are deployed.

I'm the only one on here who comes close to a scientific rational mind. Why would I wish to say it was diseased. It meant anti-Intelligent Designers in the plural with an "ers" on the end like in "Forty Nine-ers" or pensioners.

I receive the attention and patience that people give me. It is an affectation on your part to say it is more than I deserve. Another useless assertion. It has no more validity than me saying I deserve more. Both stupid and the hallmark of a stupid person.

Quote:

You (sic) posts are useless and irrelevant.

Pointless drivel which saves you dealing with the performance enhancing drugs in sport post, because you can't, and the recognition by the Constitution that Sunday has a sanctity the other days don't have. I only presented those ideas for the panel to consider. I never thought they would strike a raw nerve like they seem to have done. They were mere discussion points.

All you have is fervid bluster and bombast to try to throw a cover over your intellectual bankruptcy and it's an insult to viewers here, and to A2K, that you think we haven't noticed.

0 Replies

"Apologize to religious Americans?" You are off your rocker.

0 Replies

It's just so amazing. It really is.

Defending Christianity is called a "shameless cry for attention". It is me seeking "adoration". It is "betraying" me. It is "useless and irrelevant". It's "dishonest". It's being "unkind".

With,of course, now I have educated viewers to the reverse invidious comparison, the implication that attacking Christianity is a selfless act of charity to save our civilisation, humbly undertaken for mankind's benefit, with integrity, honesty and steeped in the milk of human kindness.

That sounds like the DTs to me. And implying also that everybody with a sound rational scientific mind is signed up to it like one might when faced with a series of logical and obvious facts.

Good grief.

It is hard to believe anyone would have only such drivel to support their position and then say I " fail to support the other 1% with anything at all."

And then to make out that fm is a good Samaritan. That he gives his precious time to advising simple ID-iots and fools out of the goodness of his heart. Ye Gods.

I'll contact the Nobel committee and put fm up for the Tweert-Pie award for unflinching and stoical disinteredness in the face of overwhemling odds.

0 Replies

Quote:

Get fm to apologise to religious Americans. And properly too. That's all it takes. The ball's in your court.

show me where Ive insulted religious people. Ive only insulted hypocrites who profess to be "science minded" Creationists and IDjits. That position is totally inconsistent with all but the minor fringe elemnets of Christianity.

Other religions (like Wahabs and lubovitcher Jews and Ultra Orthodox Christians dont profess any beliefs in science).

Go look and show me where Ive done anything but critize poor logic or beliefs incompatible with facts and Ill go find someone in the Southern BAptist Conference and apologize.

Spenid merely trying to justify his presence in a room where hes recognized to be a real boob.

IRRELEVANT, RUN_ON< and BROWNIAN thats what spendi is. He writes in an IRB style.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Apologize to religious Americans?" You are off your rocker.

You just can't read can you c.i.?

I never asked you to do that. I asked you to apologise for bad manners. You have twisted the meaning. As usual.

If you can't apologise for bad manners and blatant disrespect then you can't complain when it is reciprocated. I thought Americans understood that more than most.

Will you explain why AIDsers are allowed bad manners and disrespect and not ID-iots. Go on c.i.--explain. I might accept what you say. I have an open mind. Assertions won't touch a hair of my head. It's amazing you haven't figured even that out yet.

Of course I'm related to ican. We are both distant cousins of a shrimp aren't we? As you are. It is well known that Royal Blood runs in the veins of every Englishman. Scientists have proved it. I'll be related to fm as well.

That you ask such a daft question for a science thread shows how far back you are.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Get them to apologise for "ID-iot" and "ID-jit" and I will desist. They started it. And I warned them. They persisted. I dropped it for a while in the hope they would reciprocate-- they didn't. AIDsers have only themselves to blame. I was using ID-ers and anti-IDers (which I initiated to save having to keep typing out Intelligent Design proponents and anti-Intelligent Design proponents) before they started with ID-iot and then ID-jit. They thought it clever and I thought it "tiresome", like c.i. does the other, so I thought I was entitled to compete. Do you expect a fight opponent not to counterpunch? I'm not that Christian.

That's not how it works. If you want to address FM's posts with it because of a particular beefyou've got with him, I won't stop you, but you address all people who believe in evolution in this thread with your catch phrase. I don't have to defend FM. He fights his own battles.

spendius wrote:

Get fm to apologise to religious Americans. And properly too. That's all it takes. The ball's in your court.

I don't have to do anything of the sort.

spendius wrote:

DT- you are out of your depth by some many fathoms. You don't know the thread. You're a johnny-come-lately type who thinks the conversation began when he arrived. People who join conversations have a duty to pick up on it before they start spouting. (That doesn't apply in pubs late at night.)

I've been in this thread for a long time. If I'm not posting in it, I'm reading it. I remember when it was created too so don't try to play the truency card with me.

spendius wrote:

I don't feel in the least persecuted. Your arguments from authority are based on nothing outside your own head. There is no authority for them. And neither is there for anybody else's when crude assertions, such as those your posts are riddled with, are deployed.

My education in the sciences does actually grant me some authority Spendi. Sorry.

Also, good to know you don't feel persecuted since you just above detailed how you are posting defensively.

spendius wrote:

I'm the only one on here who comes close to a scientific rational mind. Why would I wish to say it was diseased. It meant anti-Intelligent Designers in the plural with an "ers" on the end like in "Forty Nine-ers" or pensioners.

Above in red is the joke of the year.

but you use "ser(s)" so you can have the word AIDser instead of simply AIDer.

spendius wrote:

I receive the attention and patience that people give me. It is an affectation on your part to say it is more than I deserve. Another useless assertion. It has no more validity than me saying I deserve more. Both stupid and the hallmark of a stupid person.

Well if that's the way you feel, start contributing. Simple.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
You (sic) posts are useless and irrelevant.

Pointless drivel which saves you dealing with the performance enhancing drugs in sport post, because you can't, and the recognition by the Constitution that Sunday has a sanctity the other days don't have. I only presented those ideas for the panel to consider. I never thought they would strike a raw nerve like they seem to have done. They were mere discussion points.

They aren't discussion points. How could they possibly be disscussion points related to the evolution/ID debate?

spendius wrote:

All you have is fervid bluster and bombast to try to throw a cover over your intellectual bankruptcy and it's an insult to viewers here, and to A2K, that you think we haven't noticed.

Oh spendi, You see you don't understand a damn thing that's happenning around you. I quite enjoy the disscussion I've had with members such as Baddog1 or Neologist. I've even enjoyed disscussions with Intrepid and RL. You I don't enjoy becaue you don't understand the rules.

If I were to ask you for a drinking straw you'd hand me a napkin and then launch an inquisition as to why I don't believe that both the salt and pepper should be on the table when they most clearly are.

Confused?

Because the above is the closest I will ever come to being able to mimic your impossibly non-sensical posts.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Let's get back to performance enhancing drugs and Holy Sundays.

I just can't understand a scientific, atheistic, materialistic evolutionist having any view on the matter of drugs in sport. The, by now, obvious fact that you AIDsers condemn such things puts you in the same position as those who condemned Galileo. Which they didn't really if you would care to read up on the matter a little instead of parroting what you read in the arsewipes.

And that you would understand that historical event better if you saw it that way rather than with hindsight.

fm- you are defining "hypocrites" and thus justifying you picking them out for insults. I thought everybody was a hypocrite.

0 Replies

spendi, You "really" don't know who condemned Galileo?

0 Replies

From Wiki: Galileo affair
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Galileo before the Holy Office, a 19th century painting by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury
Galileo before the Holy Office, a 19th century painting by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury

The Galileo affair, in which Galileo Galilei came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy, is often considered a defining moment in the history of the relationship between religion and science.

In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope. These and other discoveries exposed major difficulties with the understanding of the heavens that had been held since antiquity, and raised new interest in radical teachings such as the heliocentric theory of Copernicus.

In reaction, many scholars attacked the theory because it contradicted several passages of Scripture. Galileo's part in the controversies over theology, astronomy and philosophy culminated in his trial and sentencing in 1633 on a grave suspicion of heresy.

0 Replies

Diest wrote-

Quote:

I quite enjoy the disscussion I've had with members such as Baddog1 or Neologist. I've even enjoyed disscussions with Intrepid and RL. You I don't enjoy becaue you don't understand the rules.

Of course you do enjoy those things. You won all the arguments. Now you're not doing and reduced to blustering assertions it is not as much fun. What's new?

I understand the rules alright. And they are not your rules. You'll win everytime with your rules. You must think I'm wet behind the ears.

Quote:

spendius wrote:

Get fm to apologise to religious Americans. And properly too. That's all it takes. The ball's in your court.

I don't have to do anything of the sort.

I didn't say you did. I qualified it. It was you who asked for something and I merely said you could have it, with pleasure, under a condition. Not only has the condition not been met but more insults have been bodied onto the airwaves.

Do you want me to bend over and hold my arsecheeks apart.

Quote:

My education in the sciences does actually grant me some authority Spendi. Sorry.

Oh yeah!!

I've known more scientists than there are days in the year. They were,mostly, a reasonable authority on their narrow, and I mean as narrow as a duck's arse, specialism. And people deferred to them on account of that. Rightly so in many cases. And it goes to their heads, not them all of course, enough, and they start thinking they know how to run the bloody country and save us all from whatever it is they are going to save us from and to which they give a bunch of horrible sounding names to keep us in a state of constant trembling and in need of their ministrations.

Oh yeah!!

Pub time.

0 Replies

c.i. quoted-

Quote:

From Wiki: Galileo affair
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Galileo before the Holy Office, a 19th century painting by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury
Galileo before the Holy Office, a 19th century painting by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury

The Galileo affair, in which Galileo Galilei came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy, is often considered a defining moment in the history of the relationship between religion and science.

In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope. These and other discoveries exposed major difficulties with the understanding of the heavens that had been held since antiquity, and raised new interest in radical teachings such as the heliocentric theory of Copernicus.

In reaction, many scholars attacked the theory because it contradicted several passages of Scripture. Galileo's part in the controversies over theology, astronomy and philosophy culminated in his trial and sentencing in 1633 on a grave suspicion of heresy.

You have to laugh.

Complete gibberish he posts complete with big long words with which he aligns himself like as if him being in a photograph stood next to Tom Cruise is a big deal.

Read Umberto Eco's take on the affair in The Island of the Day Before.

Read something decent c.i. Please. Those tabloids are not stretching you.
They are chucking you under the chin.

0 Replies

A Louisiana television station reports that Governor Jindal signed SB 733 today.

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

Do you want me to bend over and hold my arsecheeks apart.

no just keep your head up there where its been all along.

0 Replies

Quote:

A Louisiana television station reports that Governor Jindal signed SB 733 today.

Speaking of having ones head up ones ass. Jindal , if hes chosen by Mcain, will probably count on the savant vote

0 Replies

I fel quite sure that Mr Jindal has considered every option fm. Even some you haven't yet thought of.

What about PE drugs and the sanctity of Sundays in the Constitution?

Surely a man of your stature has a view on those matters and only spends a small amount of his time reacting to bits of factoid with sweet and easy verbal gestures of little or no importance.

That's having your head up your arse in my view. And having a good look round and coming to the conclusion that it really is a lovely sight to see.

Do you sense a trap from which there is no escape?

As well you might because there is no escape. Which explains your ditherings. And we all know it.

0 Replies

spendi, Who's the "we" in your statement?

0 Replies

All those who know it c.i. Obviously.

Those who don't are of little consequence.

What makes you think you can escape that argument? A2Kers can't all be as wise as you and fantasise that you have escaped by saying that you have.

Your avoidance of the matter is sufficient evidence for a gerbil.

0 Replies

In most environments, people who use "we" have sufficient credibility to support it, but in your case - especially on a2k - it's highly questionable. The reasons are obvious to the great majority of us who have tried to communicate with you on these threads, but the consensus seems to be that your style of writing leaves much to be desired for content and comprehension.

Now, getting back to the original question; who's the "we" in your statement?

0 Replies

Him~Him -- Him and Hymn -- him and him up there?????

0 Replies

c.i. himself is one of the "we". He knows as well that there's no escape from the PE drugs in sport argument. That's why he hasn't attempted to refute it and is left barking at it. If he makes some attempt to deal with it, he can escape from being one of the "we". Otherwise not.

As I said, his avoidance of it is sufficient evidence for a gerbil.

It's the same with the Constitution recognising the Lord's Day.

And the article I linked about the FLDS should have been manna from heaven for his position and yet it has gone unconsidered as he bothers about trivialities. Probably because it contained a statement about polygamy which "we" prefer to brush under the carpet.

And then he says--"The reasons are obvious to the great majority of us".

Who are the "us" and what are the reasons? If the reasons are obvious they should be easily presented.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know