Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

School and work! Just like this thread, some of the ones I was active in descended into insults, mostly at spendius for wasting everyone's time with his attempts at pretentious babbling (the babbling part has been achieved!).

In the others, people just stopped replying and I didn't have the time.

In order for sheep to work instead of cats spendi then all on this thread should be following the herd. So either you are one of the sheep in the anti-ID herd or your attempt to correct FM's analogy is incorrect.


I realize you think you are good at this literary stuff so I will chalk your mistake up to just getting back from the pub.

I would have just chalked it up to spendi's ignorance of the American vernacular. So, for his edification, a commercial that uses the concept of cat herding is presented below. I think its done rather well.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWymXNPaU7g

As far as a design, I'd rather subscribe to the idea of an Unintelligent Designer. There are far too many glaring mistakes. In science, fractals show there aren't really any mistakes, purely because there is no imperfect thinking entity messing around with the Universe.

That's pretentious babbling. A noise with no meaning. "everyone" is out of order. Some cats like my stuff. Some don't but if all they can manage is pretentious babbling what's that to me?



I'm quite familar with the expression man. I dig cats like Dylan and Mailer and Burroughs. They don't herd. And neither do real cats. The movie looks faked. effemm's usage was incorrect. No amount of flannel changes that.



From your anthropomorphic point of view that might be true. Are you a left-wingnut who knows, just knows, how everything should be?

"From your anthropomorphic point of view that might be true. Are you a left-wingnut who knows, just knows, how everything should be?"

Are you a right-wing nut who knows, just knows, how everything shouldn't be?

Mailer (who was distinctly a "right-wing nut" would hardly be described as a "cat," and I'm not even sure Dylan or Burroughs would have been receptive to that description, now or at any time. It's a term originating in Afro American jazz circles as in "cool cat." It was not normally or regularly utilized by the hippies or any particular "left-wing" group. I was a white jazz buff during the 60's and frequented the hi-fi high end equipment stores where I would generally encounter mostly other white guys -- the term "cat" was never used. Not even in college, excepting going out to the jazz clubs where I would hear it among Afro American jazz musicians and fans.

Obviously you are ahead of the game. You wouldn't be a wizard otherwise never might a light wizard. That's way past pulling rabbits out of hats.

effemm claimed the "vernacular" and as there are so few as special as your set it follows mathematically that it would have been dropped when it became a popular word for any old codger and then poo-poohed disdainfully thereafter. It became street cred for the third person we happen to be talking about. Like "comrade" became in the USSR (Now defunct.)

Like in "Hey-some cat stole my wheels." Another brilliant American invention which goes nowhere in a closed in esoteric sect who don't do flat-ribbed rock and roll.

I don't know how anything should be. I get a belly-full of what should be's in the pub. Night after ******* night. I know something should be done about the places they show harrowing pictures from. I think things are a bit finely balanced just now and one wrong should be could tip us into the belt tightening zone. It won't be mine. I have a parachute.

It's a groovy word man. But it's not groovy because a few specialists used it once. It's groovy because it was chosen to go into the language by general approval. In the Afro-American music scene it's a badge. Something exclusive.

The usage I gave an example of has a brotherhood feel to it. It's universal. It's not an assertion. It's cool man if you dig it? Using other words for the cat who stole your wheels is invariably aggressive and vengeful.

There's a group called Rampage on in the pub tonight. They are not bad. Good clean sons of the lower bourgeoisie notwithstanding. Quite orderly really compared to some stuff I've seen.

Hahaha, so your response is to just claim that what I write is pretentious babbling? That's some high-quality children's schoolyard jabbing you've got there. Please, tell me what's pretentious about it and how it compares to your inane paragraphs of fluff?

If you're not joking around or being dishonest with farmerman, you're definitely arrogant *and* ignorant when it comes to a single damn phrase. Why would you attempt to get pedantic on a subject you have no clue about? Oh, right. Pretending to be knowledgeable is all you bring to the table.

You started it with a pretentious babble constructed to try to hide the fact that you had no answers. Your declaration that my contributions are "inane paragraphs of fluff" is out of the same bag. The one marked PB.

Since when did "pretending to be knowledgeable" become something to be ashamed of? Do you wish to wipe A2K out?

Hide the fact that I have no answers? Again Dr. Spendius, internet psychologist makes his appearance. I've just answered some of your 'points' and given you the accurate reason I began with dismissal. I suppose expecting any decency at all was too much, though.

Bob Dylan speaking about some cat who had chatted to him and then written it all up twisted for some suckers to chew on.

"There's lies in there and that's sneaky **** talking to a cat, then writing about it."

circa 1970.

Anyway LW-- Bob can do Afro-American as well. It's easier now of course. MOR. You have a black president. It's mainstream. Maybe there'll be a dustbin-lid band at the inaug. Going on last.

Is that Blind Willie McTell song Afro-American? It gave me the heebie-geebies. I can hear them tribes a moanin' eh? I can hear the ancient footsteps- but that's another great song.

Oh, were you there? A Google link, perhaps?
More likely the only cat showing up in Dylan quotes is Cat Stevens.

Oh no. It's in Interview No 13 (of 31) in Dylan On Dylan: edited by Jonathan Cott.

A.J. Weberman is reporting on the incident in 4th Street. He was there. In fact he started it. I assumed he reports correctly as it is hardly complimentary.

I'm reading the thing. It's quite entertaining. Educational too as anything entertaining always is.

Well, I should have known -- the majority of interviews with Dylan have been either incomprehensible gibberish or, at least, so off-the-wall that one could only assume he is stoned to the gills.

Back to a string of insulting assertions the only purpose of which is to provide a smokescreen to cover for being unable to understand them.

Same old story. Stalled.

I did write of incomprehensibility -- not necessarily everything you write but I'm perplexed at, "Educational too as anything entertaining always is." Puff, the Magic Dragon -- I always felt that anything educational is always entertaining. But the, that's me. You can be entertaining, for sure, but educational. I think not. Sorry you became

Stalled.

I don't think everything educational is entertaining but I am using "entertaining" to mean on the plus side in the pleasure principle from a biological point of view. It's another matter psychologically. And therefore the dispute comes back to nurture versus nature. Whichever, if you use assertions with no backing, you can't lose. That must be pleasureable I suppose but it does stall you. With assertions you stay where you're at.

Once you go for incomprehensible gibberish you have censored yourself reading a book declared to be so. Even if you scan it your attitude blocks you off.

The Bible read negatively will teach you nothing.

The JAnuary 2009 Sci American has an entire issue devoted to Darwins Theory (in prep for his 200th birthday party on Feb 12 2009).
There are several good articles that discuss the theory and its use in everyday life , further it discusses why Darwin Matters and what about Creationism's newest incarnation (Intelligent Dsign), why it SHOULD NOT be taught in schools.

Spendi, if you want to argue the merits of ID in your own style of debate-- (or whatever it is you call your attempts at communication), why not go visit the Scientific American website and see if you have any greater luck convincing those folks than youve been having here.
Also, for gungsnake, his arguments of "A theory in crisis" are nicely dismissed in laymans language and good logic,(not to mention mountains of evidence).


Id love to hear peoples reactions to the issue(you can always visit it on line and many libraries have on-line reprints available )