Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Bet on it!!!!!

You guys don't bet. You probably don't smoke or drink either. You don't trust your own judgment enough for real betting and your incapacity for moderate smoking and drinking has created a climate injurious to those who have the capacity. You probably eat meat suffused with sadness hormones.

It's probably the result of grossly spoilt demands and an over-reaching sense of entitlement stemming from your forbears landing in a goldmine, defended by bows and arrows, with European technology at their disposal and laughing at the fat, tacky, hysterical overblown outcomes is one of the finest pleasures in life.

Your public notice style of literary endevour is not only valueless but unutterably boring and would not be allowed to survive for long in the sort of company I habitually mix with. It assumes everything is simple which comes in handy when the understanding is limited to simplicities.

I am a humble foot-soldier in the ongoing and continuous battle against the philistines and your joint paean of praise for philistinism has about as much effect upon me as the bird **** on the gate into the lower meadow does. It does, however, draw attention to an inabilty to respond to a few words about the founder of science and the principle of reducing all things to quantities and a deep need to get everybody else into the same hole.

See, even that was kind of lame. One always requires more time to write less.

That was knocked out during brew time on what has been a hectic, sweaty day.

And suggesting that animals kept in misery are unfit for human consumption is hardly "lame".

The idea of the Glorious Twelfth and the price of steak off bullring kill is based on the same psychosomatic notion which you deny.

Still--in declaring it "lame" you can reassure yourself. Be my guest.

no assurance needed, its merely the way you attempt to communicate. You dont give a **** about clarity, brevity, or even substance.

farmerman hit it on the pin head; spendi's post lacks "substance."

I hope you guys aren't just figuring this out now.

rosborne, If you've been a regular on this thread, you should know different by now!

Find me an A2Ker who will defend the proposition that my "Bet on it!!" post lacks substance or shows a want of clarity and brevity.

It would be pointless to debate such a matter with three plonkers who have, since I wrote that post, clearly demonstrated that their literary sense is that of a bunch of girls in a junior school.

One might have thought, had they wished to strut their stuff in the field, and impress viewers here with the notion that their posts have a substantive sub-text and are not just the sound of piss dribbling onto their feet, that they would have had something derogatory to say about my use of the rhetorical device hypallage in my last post if only to show that they had taken more than a cursory glance at their native language and are capable of saying something that would have had some meaning had they assumed, being consistent in that respect, that I had used the figure unconsciously, which, with their levels of expertise, is far too much to hope for.

The four posts above this one are as devoid of substance as the Milky Way is devoid of Rita Hayworths, Barbara Stanwyks, Olive Oils and Geoffrey Boycotts. Instead of searching the vacancies of the Milky Way for signs of such creatures the US government might better search the vacancies in the four posts and speculate on what it invested all those educational resources in.

And no one of sound mind would casually dismiss the possiblity that the costly effort involved had not bourne fruit when the bunches of it hang heavy laden on the straining boughs in clumps, for all to witness, waiting for the migrant workers to pick them off and place them in baskets en-route to the jam factory and hence, winging ever onwards, to the shelves with a pretty label reading "Olde Worlde Silly Twottle Jam" (Contains 100% Silly Twottle).

The level of expertise in the art of the insult, a smoking oily-rag, demonstrated above by ros, fm and c.i., can be easily judged by anyone interested by simply comparing their efforts to this response and which, I will say, was composed after a snooze and before I get warmed up.

Now- what about the Pythagorean discovery of a divine connenction, a symbiotically enhancing one, between substance and form and between quality and quantity and its applications in this day and age which has evolved from it. And the implied disconnection between anti-ID and science not only in the widest sense but concentrated narrowly in the four posts referred to above where it can be inspected at leisure.

The final implication being that for anti-ID to be connected to something it only has money left to connect with through technology or images in smoky mirrors.

Science has reached a point where it can only speculate on the form and quantities. And we need to know whether there will be more fun to be had believing in such speculations or believing in those things where the qualities are found.

Before I slope off to join the riff-raff in the pub I might say that one really ought to want one's imaginary friends to be fun.

Reality is looking a bit ragged and quite the opposite of fun.

Spendi can compress the greatest amount of words into the most miniscule of thoughts

I was aware fm that I was engaged in an extensive fluffing of "You're all a bunch of wankers" just for the hell of it.

I was passing the time.

If that is a miniscule thought I suppose it must be seeing as you said so.

I was attempting to validate what would otherwise have been a bald assertion. To suggest it was a warrantable assertion. A matter for others to decide of course. I already know your view.

...and sometimes, no thoughts.

And the other times?

see the box that ci quoted you moroni

If that represents a maxiscule amount of thought I'll stick at the miniscule end.

Visions of frothy pints float through my head.

We are all aware of that - fact; and kind of understand why many of your posts are without substance. You even slur your words sometimes, which makes it obvious you've had more than a few at your local pub.

I never have more than a few c.i.

3.5 pints of 3.4% is my exact dose.

I have found, after a great deal of trial and error, that that is what is necessary to avoid falling into a deep depression before tomorrow night at 10.40 pm and also avoids waking up with a pounding headache. It's a win/win situation.

Occasionally, on a Sat Nite when the titties are desperately trying to break the law, I go to 4.0 pints.

I never go over that in case I lose control and end up wishing I was dead.

I might take a chance with my self control if the bottoms tried to break the law one night but, so far, there are only desultory, pathetic even, attempts at that.

It's not really how much you consumer, but the time it's consumed - your body weight, your reaction to alcohol, and what you eat before, during and after.

In my young'un days, I was able to drink with the best of 'em; now, I limit myself to two bottles max of beer - with food.

I guess once the dead (ID) horse has been beaten long enough, even the smallest bit of fluff floating by becomes a welcome distraction.

Wandel, we need you to come by and nudge the carcass again so the beating can resume.