Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Science and religion can never coexist you silly moo.

Platting the sands of the shores is easier than that. (A 16th century joke out of Dante)

That's your BIG LIE. The liberal bullshit.

What's it like swimming around in it all day?

It's why all my posts are incoherent too.

I only ever told lies about lipstick on my collar. I can justify that out of Darwin. Dead easy.

spendi, Have you figured out why some scientists are also christians? There are even Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, and Hindu scientists; wonder of wonders.

It's amazing I agree.

spendius, this is getting ridiculous.



Firstly, I'm sorry, but what the hell. Do you not consider any ideas outside your belief? I find this astonishing. You call me closed minded? This statement reveals your extreme unwillingness to accept any other ideas but your own.

Secondly, what has society got to do with this? That is completely irrelevant. (And by the way, arguably the best societies in the world, namely a certain few Scandinavian countries, are also the most atheistic in the world.)

Thirdly, there is relevance in your blatant anti-academic views, even if you can't see it. Not being intelligent or hard-working is one thing, but hating other people who are? Even hatred seems mild compared to what you display. I can't debate with someone like yourself.

Fourthly, I was simply defending myself after your accusations of me smelling of rat.

Fifthly,

What is the title of this thread? What is this whole debate about? I am surprised that you say this, and that you only say this now.

Sixthly, don't try to impress me with stats such as "90% of Americans believe in intelligent design". I'm smarter than that. ID and Creationism are vastly different things. It's like confusing "religion" with "Hinduism". (Anyhow, does a trillion ignorami believing in a something make it true?)

Finally, you are going off on wild tangents. I don't see the relevance of any of it.

I am shocked. There is no way I can hold a decent conversation, let alone a debate with such a person. I thought real life was bad, but at least he was intelligent (well, intelligent enough not to reveal his own stupidity). You bring a new meaning to the face of the Creationist for me.

Farmerman, and anyone else trying to argue with spendius, give it up. You are banging on a brick wall.

And spendi, don't bother replying. I'm not setting foot on this thread even again.

ap- I never said anything about "my beliefs". You can't read properly.

What does "arguably the best" mean?

I have been saying that nobody can prove anything about the "final things" right from the get-go. All we can do is consider the effects, the social consequences, of the various beliefs.

I never said that a trillion people believing something makes it true. It makes it powerful though.

If you think I'm a Creationist you can't read at all in any meaningful sense.

Do you take your ball home if we don't let you win?

And fancy shouting orders at a long-standing and respected member of our discussion group. That's way out of order. fm and the others are quite capable of deciding for themselves about their presence on this prestigious thread.

As I said before, people are educated in a Manichean way of thinking.

They can only see it in black or white, science or religion.

What about all other 254 shades of grey?

a person
Ive been involved in this threads meanderings for a few years now. Im quite amused at how , just a week ago, you were chiding me for being hostile with spendi, and today you decide to drop out with a voice of deep frustration.

This thread is not about one person, its about the passing scene in the culture wars, wherein guys like spendi (and several others) have occupied several positions that express beliefs in ID . Spendi is a mere twit who tries to railroad the thread and to insert points that he wishes us to admit that they are valid. (Which of course would be madness)


Francis, Its unfortunate that this thread is populated by admittedly, the end members of "manis world". However, I work with several pros who , although heavily trained in natural science, still manage to profess a strong belief and practise their religions quite devoutly. In far away field camps, weve often had to arrange for special conveyances so many of them could attend Sabbathday services.

I would love to see folks who, while practicing their religions, dont see any exclusivity in science v religion. Spendi would probably be the closest to such a worldview, but, alas, hes lost any credibility by some of hias jerky pronouncements. I doubt that he could come back as a voice of reason since I believe hes too far beyond reasons expiration date.

fm wrote-



This is an example of reason being not yet ready to have its sell-by date stamped on it.

The reason that thinks its reason is the only explanation for arranging the conveyances.

Had the "pros" said that they were going into town for a piss-up, or to get away from the dry-sticks, the conveyances, paid for out of public money by the sound of it--thus intimately linking Church and State-- would have been refused. They may even have simply wanted a reminder of what civilisation looked like after a week in a field camp and where better to see it than in a Sunday morning service in the Christian faith.

Such "reason" applied to fossils produces all sorts of wierd and wonderful conclusions which are then ratified under the exigencies of peer-reviewing by similar "reasons" which are not only not past their sell-by date but are still in the process of being manufactured.

Kicking and screaming of course.

Attendance to sabbath services have been dropping for decades. With gas prices as they are, I'm sure many are giving it second thoughts before they jump into their cars to attend the church of their choice.

It's tragic in my estimation c.i.

Yeah, that guilt feeling won't go away.

Arthur Koestler wrote in his preface to The Sleepwalkers-




Which, of course, he can't do. But what is worse is that although he cannot provide a rational substitute for ethical insights derived from other sources he continues to assert that he is more "level-headed" and "dispassionate" than others merely on the strength of his own say-so.

That's when you arrive at the ultimate stupidity for which evidence is provided by the folk-wisdom of the "mad scientist" stereotype and the fact that scientists have not been given a leading part in world affairs.

I have read today that Mr Obama is advertising on Christian radio stations and that he favours the Bush policy of state funding for the social services programmes of religious groups.

I have also read that the Italian P.M. has called the judges a cancer on democracy.

scientists possess all the foibles and passions as do other folk. Science however, unlike religion, does not.

Precisely. Thank you Steve.

Science is a utopian dream just like religion. It is not an actual possibility until humans cease to be humans and become machines for keeping the God of Electricity's viens and arteries in a healthy state.

Just as you have a choice of circularities so also you have a choice of dreams.

Both science and religion are in the same business. Offering the human race salvation and it is a scientific fact that there is no salvation yet proved. Evolution has not got salvation in one fibre of its being.

So it's always just a dream and choices of methods are down to the voters. You have to be mad, like Tycho, to do Science. Everybody knows that. They do jokes about it in ads and programmes.

Spock was a right nutter. Was Kirk a Christian? I never watched it much.


If I could have myself beamed up I wouldn't be fetching up in that dump.

Do you think there was meant to be any point, no matter how short, where you could be medically defined as you again? Rather than a bright spark for as long as the producers thought they could have you watch it again.

Time is serious money to moviemakers.

spendi, Please show us where money is not serious to any business?

Love?

But I meant big. I thought that the expression "serious money" means big money to most people.

I don't think you have understood my post. It was an afterthought to the previous one.

I'm sorry for being so obtuse.

Here is a link to the official complaint filed in U. S. District Court for West Texas:

Comer v. Scott

As I said, I didn't watch it much but I learned a lot from that beaming up machine.

I had read earlier that if it could be thought up Science would make it happen given time and enough funds.

And it's basically "funds", in the widest sense of the term, that causes atavistic recidivism to barbarism in scientists who are unable to escape their animal nature.

But they had been simulating beamings-up for many years. Back and forth too like when they cut from face to face when the Sheriff said, on putting down the phone, "He's holed up in Beaver's Canyon" or some other witticism.

The two best I remember were Vivien Leigh in Streetcar and Peter Lorre in Arsenic.

From those two examples, and there are many more, you can see how naff science's beamings-up are compared to art's.

And I once saw a stripper beam up when she wafted the puff of blue smoke away with two ostrich feather fans, front lit suddenly, and art can't touch that. I was a virgin at the time mind you. Father Hall had told me not to rush things. "Get your bearings lad", he said, "they're too good for you at your stage."

And I had believed him. It was well known that he was infallible. The **** I've seen which the impatient got themselves into is much too sad a tale to relate on a thread known for its light-hearted banter.

Father Hall put me 4th in French. There were three swots whose parents had a French au-pair and he had to give them 1,2 and 3. The rest of us were gibberish and thus impossible to separate. It was my late cut past gully before he could move that did it.

The prizes went down in French to one more than the number of swots in his classes. No. 1 was presented with Voltaire's Epigrams (leather tooled and signed by Fatty, the headmaster). No. 2 got The Collected Criticisms of Charles Augustin Sainte-Beauve, who, incidentally, wrote " Love does not consist in gazing at each other but in looking outward together in the same direction." No. 3 The Emperor Napoleon. I got a mint second hand copy of Frank Harris, who could speak fluent French. I think Dylan got at that early. cavfancier (RIP) had as well.

Mr Reagan and his Lady were beamed up when they slid off the collapsing stage. They ceased acting for a few seconds.

Anyway--I've digressed. If that bothers anybody they should stop reading immediately because it's well known that bother is unhealthy.


Movies show nothing else but beamings-up really and Star Trek was a movie. Photographs too. Some more than others. It was a tiresome beaming-up they had in Star Trek and they kept repeating it using the same scenery and special effects. That's Science for you.

What I was getting at originally before I got a bit carried away was that meditating scientifically on the Star Trek scene led me to concluding that the cryogenics industry in Calif. should forget about vats of liquid nitrogen with 999 year leases which only the rich can afford, and why not if your loaded, and get into storage batteries which can be programmed to only beam back up when conditions are good such as all the Y chromosones having died out. They could be piled up in Beamatoriums.

That would be reasonably affordable if tailored to certain niche markets. And it would save on funerals. Inheritance regulations, only necessary through the institution of marriage and family, could continue normally once a person was declared officially "Stored". Obviously.

I daresay "pick-your-year after 2200" ones could probably be got into the market-place at $399.99.

Science doesn't sit listening to Johnny Cash records picking its nose.