Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

mesquite-

I do understand that if you are going to pile up bullshit it is admirable to pile it high.

Quantity is the main thing.

fresco would explain it for you if he is still around.

I can't be arsed.

Can you not do it in the long grass? It makes such a disagreeable sound on a concrete hardstanding under the floodlights.

mesquite quoted-



I'm on board for opposing counterproductive bills. Too right.

Why is the bill counterproductive? That's what we need to know.

Suppose opposing the bill is counterproductive.

Have you thought of that?

Exactly.

To be totally honest I think ID is completely and utterly ridiculous, but since I try to be fair, would you care to attempt to convince me that ID is a scientific theory? I will require solid definitions and logic. No unsupported wish-wash please. And would you care to answer my question about spendi?

a person. I believe youve got the debate condition quite reversed, YOU are the one who said that EVOLUTION was a religion.

I just saw ros post saying that you were an AID er.Sorry, I misread your post entirely. Perhaps a different lead up phrase to "its a religion".

A different lead-up phrase would indeed have been better, aperson. This thread has been around since April 2005 (long before you began posting on A2K.)

Oh. I am humbled.

Excuse my ignorance, for what does the A stand for in AID er?

Sorry for confusing you. My response was to the original post - I was saying creationism is not science.

no problem a person. BTW--The A in AIDer stands for "Anti" .
It was an attempt at labelling those who were sounding against the Intelligent Design "In our science classes". Spendi coined it. Hes been an imp and a troll since about the third week of this thread. At first he was merely being obtuse, then, as time moved along, he got a bit bitter and was all over the map with irrelevant drop-ins.

.

Certainly. Well all have opinions.

Y'all might consider this a commercial break, but Mr. S is also why I read this thred...

A nod to others as well, but without the lingerie, this thred would be just more dull debate.

(back to the action)

Are you one of those "thousands of viewers" that spendi is always boasting about, Rockhead?

aperson: sorry for misinterpreting you, I thought that might be the case yet for some reason just leaving what I said up there seemed like the best thing to do .

I admit to taking no small pleasure in reading spendis poats. I always try to imagine what hed say next in any social event.

His life as a card carrying misogynist, his cross dressing, his preference for the high mommie counts of silken underwear, and his taste for a product that goes by the appelation of "Extra Smooth", all make him a character unique in evolutionary folkway.

The fact that hes a contemporary of Marconi and was until recently employed as an alchemist to the crown, collectively make his life worth hearing about.
Maybe its just me.

I can't do cross dressing fm because I have a beard. Ladies would attack me with their rolling-pins, brollies and handbags if I tried it as they would correctly perceive that I was taking the piss out of them and that is something I steer clear of when conditions allow such as when they are in the kitchen rattling the pots and pans or reposing in a docile position thinking of England.

I consider shaving to be cross dressing or, at the least, hankering after it.

Your avvie proves my point. If that guy tried walking in on a flower arranging session in a print frock, silly hat, and high heels it would be obvious that there were two pillows inside the double-Dcups and he would be pelted with buttered buns and a guard put on the ladies powder room door. A clean-shaven chap with scented astringent dabbed on can do anything in the line that seems to engage your attention suspiciously often as Barry Humphries has proved.

As a matter of scientific interest I have noticed that high-heel shoes in sizes 10-15 are exclusively advertised in liberal newspapers of the type Baroness Trumpington disapproves of strenuously.

I have to go now. Some twot has just dropped a Cat D5N in a gully.

I always imagined that Spendi in person would be somewhat like Wallace (from Wallace & Gromit).

Wallace and Gromit Video Clip

ap wrote-



It would be completely and utterly ridiculous, not to say fatuous, to even think about trying to persuade someone who thinks ID is "completely and utterly ridiculous" that it isn't.

Such a person will have spent a long time with the idea that "ID is completely and utterly ridiculous" and will have burnt his boats on the matter in arguments he now can't go back on because of how completely and utterly ridiculous he would look if he did, and, as most dispassionate observers of the scene are aware that an American he-man can never be completely and utterly ridiculous no matter how completely and utterly ridiculous he gets (see Dick van Dyke show), then it is plain that when he says, with some emphasis, the jest about being "fair for example, that ID is completely and utterly ridiculous he speaks with the voice of authority which only those who are not completely and utterly ridiculous are able to command.

I think that English teaching in American schools, History too seemingly, is completely and utterly ridiculous so I don't see a problem in having something else completely and utterly ridiculous taught in the schools. Science looks a bit iffy as well. Exams in ID would be easier though and subjective enough to allow the examiners to give top marks to those students they liked rather than to the snotty little nerdy swots who tuck their shirts inside their underpants and sit up in their room all night studying how to get the jump on those who are leaning on the juke-box watching the girls warming up and who open the batting for the school team.

There's a subjectivity involved. I'm an IDer and ap is an anti-IDer.

And anyway--what's in it for me if I do convert him. I hope you don't think it will boost my ego or anything silly like that. Some of the things I've done banish notions of that sort to the outer-wilderness.

Thus the exercise of trying to convince ap that ID is a scientific theory, let alone it being the main load-bearing girder of Science, is futile. The difficulty of overcoming the barrier of self-worth is matched by the difficulty of finding words which he might be able to comprehend in the context of the patterns in which they could feasibly be arranged.

I might add, for future reference, that when a person's remarks are prefaced by the words "To be totally honest" I sort of smell a rat. When it is followed by "I think" I know I am in that land of smoke and mirrors in which I have great difficulty navigating.

From an evolutionary point of view it is of no consequence what you teach the kids. It's all an excuse for some adults, a minority, to play word games with. A few for money. All with control freakery on their mind and possibly outlets for pent up rage which the subject readily lends itself to.

It's a heady mix.

Like a lingerie shop window if you have the bottle to stand in the street studying one like any scientist might do who places his research above his dignity. Different textures mind you. Only similar in that they are both heady mixes.

My editor is frowning at me. It means I have to resist allowing my imagination to go off on one.

What life would be like, without such futilities?

From the words of your many posts , the only one who demonstrates any pent up rage is you spendi. Whats the reason? Certainly you diont expect all researching to stop because you and NEd are torqued off at science.

When you are ignorant of the issues entirely, it is much easire to mount opinions such as yours. That way you dont have to entertain any conflicting evidence, you merely forget to assimilate it.

c.i. wrote-



To which I asked-




It looks like the anti-IDers have decided to chunter amongst themselves about how to interpret each others posts, toss out their limited range of insults, generalisations and truth economies and arrange to bury the question posed above.

They claim that the idea of an intelligent designer is not scientific because it is not falsifiable and they can't answer to the question I asked in response to a statement by one of their own number.

Karl Popper, and it's been quoted on here, said that a theory can only be regarded as scientific in so far as it is falsifiable. Some people think that Darwin's theory failed that test when it was published and does so now.

Saying I'm a troll is all they can come up with and it has to be admitted that it seems to satisfy them as it has done on many occasions in the past. Mugabe doesn't answer questions either.

What does evolution have to do with monogamy? What are lingerie shops for? Why is advertising imbued with scantily dressed young ladies? To what extent did the founders of modern western science adhere to the principles of the scientific method? Feyerabend considered that beliefs regarded today as belonging to myth, religion, the occult, the mystical and the magical were central to the weltgeist of the founders of our science.

It is as impossible to falsify evolution theory as it is to falsify the ID theory. Both contain the same flaw: that mankind is not like the other life forms and that what man doesn't know about nature didn't occur.

As I have maintained, we have a choice between circularities which we will make for practical reasons and not from any principle. All circularities lack scientific principles. Anti-IDers just try to make their ideas look scientific. And after La. they are seemingly not convincing many people. That they convince each other on here is a trifling incident.