Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Shirakawasuna,

Quote:

I was responding to *your* claim that something was stupid from an evolutionary point of view. Were you just bullshitting again?

Imagine an Ev pov intellectual. Even the grass in the park would look stupid to him. And almost everything he sees around him.

Quote:

No, you specifically said from an "evolutionary point of view", there's a lot of idiots around. Should I assume that you're backing down from that statement, since you sure seem eager to change your claim?

I wouldn't assume that. I disagree with the use of "a lot" which is meaningless. From the Ev pov the idiots are wall to wall. "A lot" doesn't do it justice.

It was you who did a tricksy switch. Probably unknowingly.

Quote:

Want to tell me how your vague allusion to idiots countermands an "evolutionary point of view"? I'll remind you, before you make yourself look comically ignorant, that evolutionary theory does not hold that intelligence is a 'goal' or that humans must get smarter and smarter, or even maintain their level of intelligence.

I wasn't referring to allusions countermanding anything. You needn't remind me that evolutionary theory does not hold that intelligence is a 'goal' or that humans must get smarter and smarter, or even maintain their level of intelligence. I already know that.

The odd thing is that schools hold intelligence as a goal and attempt to make people smarter. Don't play with guns Shira. You might shoot yoursel in the foot.

Quote:

What's a "pure evolutionary thought", spendius?

Might is right. A standing prick hath no conscience. Expansionist American foreign policy.

Quote:

the Christian justification for monogamy tends to be fairly relativist

Obviously. I meant justify it to themselves. The Ev pov can't justify it. In fact should attack it as Dawkins does. When there's no birth control involved I mean. I know Behe doesn't count.

Quote:

Can't what, justify marriage? Why should an "evolutionary point of view" justify marriage and why do you think that should be something it can/should answer right now?

I never said that an Ev pov should justify monogamy. I can't imagine how it could. It ought to be out spreading it's genetic material. And a bunch of monogamists promoting Ev theory is ridiculous. Especially in their Sunday best.

Quote:

Was it necessary to discuss whether promoting intelligent design violated the Constitution?

No. The Constitution is a device aiming to help getting on in life. There's nothing natural about it. I presume court decisions are in aid of getting on in life and the dispute is whether ID or Ev theory is best for that. You're getting pedantic. The Constitution is a life belt for floundering anti-IDers. This is a science thread. Science transcends the USA.

Quote:

The trial, unlike you, managed to stay on-task.

You're back to the "it" again. It stayed on the task in its own definition of what the task was.

Quote:

When did I claim to speak for the "EV pov"? I'm still not entirely sure what it is in your mind. Whenever I've replied and implied knowledge of it I've taken it at the basics I could glean: it's the viewpoint of one who understands evolutionary theory and applies it. Given your apparently piss-poor understanding of evolution, it's clear we'll disagree about what that actually is.

Is a neat answer to my question as to the correct position to take on the bared breast at the Superbowl, the stains on Monica's frock, Mr Spitzer's R&R, price gouging, porn and the Madoff case. It's evasive as well.

But I had thought you were speaking for the Ev pov. I presume, if you do apply Ev theory to yourself that you are either in jail or have not been apprehended yet.

And I don't blame you for avoiding my question about the law being anti-Ev pov.

Quote:

Why should anyone give you the "evolutionary point of view" on those matters, spendius? Because you're preoccupied with sex, so everyone should bend their realm of knowledge to meet your personal desires?

Not at all. Because the kids will not know what to think about the fuss about them once they understand the Ev pov. And price gouging and Mr Madoff are only tangentially related to sex.

Quote:

It's possible that little purple leprechauns from Neptune invented clam chowder.

It is not. What a silly answer to my projected conspiracy theory which is so eminently possible that Congress has discussed how to prevent a repetition. Do you really think you witticism was a responsible reply.

And don't forget that Dover was on the world scene for a few weeks and I imagine all the hotels, car hire firms and ladies of easy virtue were making hay with all those camera crews, reporters, sound recordists and various hangers-on who came from all over the world to report the case. And on Media-level expense accounts. 3 of our TV companies, at least, were there. It was probably quite festive once the court adjourned.

Miles Copeland always asked first--"Who gained?"

Don't play the Girl Guide with me mate. Actual knowledge indeed. Have you never seen a Media swarm. It's a very predictable occurence. The stuff in the reports is to render those footing the bill comatose.

Quote:

And the natural conclusion is that there was a conspiracy between the lawyers

Not at all. I said there was a possibility. One which a scientific mind cannot dismiss. Did you not notice that? There's nothing original in it. It's a tried and tested method. Costing a town millions might not be true. Costing some parts of the town you mean. Others will be well in pocket. Hardly "idiotic".

Quote:

Are you noticing pattern when it comes to your deviations?

Yes-- I'm attempting to get acceptance or denial of the psychosomatic realm being a major factor.

Quote:

Do you think that the functioning of cells in the body is affected by emotional states?

See above.

Whereabouts? Don't you wish to answer? A No will do. At least we would know where we stood. My answer is a Yes.

2 Replies

shewolfnm wrote-

Quote:

mmmmmmmm

adultery...

That's an Ev pov.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Leaving aside the bit of an assertion I can't back up the claim because I would have to get too personal. That's the disadvantage I labour under. You wouldn't dare ask me that in the pub.

Of course I would. You think out of the two of us, the person afraid of making a personal point would be me? LOL.

Again, you avoid my question. This would be a good time for me to justifiably challenge your confidence/manlihood/lack of cowardice, whatever you choose.

"How could sex be crippling to "their" position?"

spendius wrote:

That's ridiculous Shira. You were asked what "it" was and then you come back to "it".

After telling you what "it" was. Are you that stupid?

spendius wrote:

Anybody can say that they looked at "it" closely when they don't specify what the "it" was. It wasn't the "contoversial issues".

Anybody can see that I told you what "it" was.

spendius wrote:

I notice you avoided the senator. Again. They all have despite them bringing him up. They think that by "Ignoring" it thereafter it is rendered non-existent.

You mentioned a Texas Senator, I ignored it because you're so hard to keep on-topic. You do know that we're talking about the Dover, PA case, don't you?

spendius wrote:

No. I meant the people involved in the proceedings. The defence took a dive.

The people involved in the proceedings went through what they could handle going through? And the significance of this is? I'll remind you what my point on Dover was:

"This thread was started, and continued on as, an exploration of Intelligent Design. The Dover case is obviously relevant because a *conservative* Christian Judge went through [Intelligent Design], all the documents are available online, and a number of ID proponents (including Behe) testified and exposed their witlessness. If you didn't know that, you should be asking questions on this thread and learning. If you already knew it, you already had your answer to your Dover question."

Shall we see if you can even figure out what your Dover question was and then respond germanely?

spendius wrote:

What it does is allow you to assert that I am unfamiliar with the case and evolutionary theory in general and the statements by Judge Jones you have read when you have said nothing of the sort.

I've already corrected you on your interpretation of what I mean by "seem" before, and you jump to the same stupid and wrong conclusion again? There's a word for people who don't learn from experience...

I say "seems" because I am explicitly tentative on topics where I am uncertain or, in this case, nicely willing to grant a little benefit of the doubt. Given your implications about an "evolutionary POV", it looks like I should soon be removing that "seems" when it comes to evolutionary theory.

spendius wrote:

And that wasn't a particularly intelligent assertion either.

*yawn*. Your simple contrarian responses get boring real fast, spendius. You might want to work on way to answer points, in fact direct attacks, with something other than, 'nuh-uh, you're talking about yourself!' It's the silly response of a child who's run out of comebacks.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Imagine an Ev pov intellectual. Even the grass in the park would look stupid to him. And almost everything he sees around him.

Why? I keep asking you to clarify and then justify your position...

spendius wrote:

It was you who did a tricksy switch. Probably unknowingly.

When? Whenever I guessed, I made it clear I was uncertain, then asked you for clarification. You, being the only person who knows what you're actually talking about, presented conflicting accounts. Since your response to this kind of point seems to be simple contrarianism, I'll quote you.

spendius wrote:

What you don't seem to realise Shira is that everybody you meet is a complete, fucked-up idiot from an evolutionary point of view.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

I see no reason that anything is stupid or intelligent from an "evolutionary point of view".

spendius wrote:

Neither do I. The EV. pov says that things just happen without reason or purpose and without reference to language.

See, it's a pretty easy conversation to follow, on the basics. You say everyone is an idiot from an evolutionary point of view, I say I see no reason to conclude such a thing, and then you say, "neither do I". Either you didn't follow what we were talking about or you reversed your position.

Well I guess it's either that or you gave a false implication due to having terrible communication skills.

spendius wrote:

The odd thing is that schools hold intelligence as a goal and attempt to make people smarter. Don't play with guns Shira. You might shoot yoursel in the foot.

You don't need to worry about me. Want to clarify your position on school sholding intelligence as a goal and attempting to make people smarter? Don't just stop with a simple restatement, either: make a point, in its entirety, and justify it. See if you can avoid saying irrelevant things in between.

I'd say what stupid thing is seems like you're saying, but you get hung up on honest statements of uncertainty.

spendius wrote:

Might is right.

Bullshit. Nothing like 'might is right' follows from evolutionary theory, nor would it therefore fit in an evolutionary point of view nor a "pure evolutionary thought". Unless your point about a pure evolutionary thought had nothing to do with either evolutionary theory of an evolutionary point of view? Maybe one of these days you'll clarify wtf you mean by an evolutionary point of view so we can see if it's full of the usual nonsense.

spendius wrote:

A standing prick hath no conscience.

It's always about sex with you, isn't it? A "pure evolutionary thought" is that sex overrides some (or all, I don't give a crap) morality? Funny, that sounds more like your opinion than anything I've seen follow from evolutionary theory.

spendius wrote:

Expansionist American foreign policy.

No idea where you're coming from for that one.

spendius wrote:

Obviously. I meant justify it to themselves.

And it's a piss-poor justification to compare any other justification to. You might as well have said, 'at least Nazis could justify monogamy'.

spendius wrote:

In fact should attack it as Dawkins does. When there's no birth control involved I mean. I know Behe doesn't count.

Why should it attack it as Dawkins does? WTF is an 'evolutionary point of view', in your mind? I'd speculate some more on the trouble you're having with evolutionary theory, but clearly that just confuses you. The expected response to my guesses is clarification, not whining and changing the subject.

spendius wrote:

I never said that an Ev pov should justify monogamy.

Then what's the point of saying it 'can't' justify monogamy in the first place, if not to imply a weakness? You didn't just say it should justify monogamy, you then compared it to Christians and how "at least" their side could do so. Backpeddle away.

spendius wrote:

I can't imagine how it could. It ought to be out spreading it's genetic material.

Why ought it [the evolutionary point of view] be out spreading its genetic material? Points of view have genetic material?

spendius wrote:

And a bunch of monogamists promoting Ev theory is ridiculous. Especially in their Sunday best.

Why is it ridiculous?

I'll remind you that when I asked you these questions, I want you to clearly restate your position and then specifically justify it. It's the least anyone could be expected to do and it's sad that I even feel it necessary to remind you.

spendius wrote:

No. The Constitution is a device aiming to help getting on in life. There's nothing natural about it. I presume court decisions are in aid of getting on in life and the dispute is whether ID or Ev theory is best for that. You're getting pedantic. The Constitution is a life belt for floundering anti-IDers. This is a science thread. Science transcends the USA.

I'm going to quote the context of what you're replying to, since it was ommitted.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

spendius wrote:
The case was incoherent. They never discussed human behaviour and yet they were citing human institutions like the Constitution and happenings in the biological sphere in animals. And in relation to the human institution of formal education.

The trial, unlike you, managed to stay on-task. It was in no way incoherent except for when trying to get Behe or school board members to plainly give their opinions. Why should they have discussed human behavior, spendius? Was it necessary to discuss whether promoting intelligent design violated the Constitution?

So again, I'll ask why they should have discussed human behavior in the trial, as you implied they should have when they were "were citing human institutions like the Constitution." The point of the trial wasn't nearly as vague as you've just described, it was to determine the constitutionality of the consequences of the Dover school board's actions. Exposing Behe as an idiot and seeing the ID crowd fall apart when challenged was an added bonus.

You say that science transcends the U.S.A. as if we don't know that. Pitiful, dishonest rhetoric.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
The trial, unlike you, managed to stay on-task.

You're back to the "it" again. It stayed on the task in its own definition of what the task was.

Yes, that's how staying on-task works. You define what it is and stay on it. Congrats on stating the obvious. Now to see if you can reply to my actual point, which was to combat your silly notions that the case was incoherent and should have gone into issues like human behavior (apparently to remain coherent).

spendius wrote:

Quote:

When did I claim to speak for the "EV pov"? I'm still not entirely sure what it is in your mind. Whenever I've replied and implied knowledge of it I've taken it at the basics I could glean: it's the viewpoint of one who understands evolutionary theory and applies it. Given your apparently piss-poor understanding of evolution, it's clear we'll disagree about what that actually is.

Is a neat answer to my question as to the correct position to take on the bared breast at the Superbowl, the stains on Monica's frock, Mr Spitzer's R&R, price gouging, porn and the Madoff case. It's evasive as well.

Bullshit. The premise of your question, which was that I speak for the "Ev pov", is debatable and I explained what my position was.

I'll give you *my* position on Superbowl breasts, etc, if that's actually what you were after: I think they are a significant deviation from the topic and that you should stop trying to change the subject. But I don't think you were after my personal position, you were stupidly trying to make a point and are too cowardly to make it plainly now that I've called you on some of your BS.

spendius wrote:

But I had thought you were speaking for the Ev pov.

I explained what I'm speaking for and what arguments I make concerning an "evolutionary point of view". Any continued confusion is your own fault.

spendius wrote:

I presume, if you do apply Ev theory to yourself that you are either in jail or have not been apprehended yet.

I can't know what the hell you're talking about unless you make your point explicitly and tell me *why* applying evolutionary theory to myself should result in jail/apprehension. If you ever get the balls to have a clear and fully-presented position, maybe I'll have something to work with, sans your dithering.

spendius wrote:

And I don't blame you for avoiding my question about the law being anti-Ev pov.

So now whenever I try to keep you on a topic, I'm "avoiding" your question. Do you, or do you not agree to my challenge to you to present a cogent, coherent, and on-topic argument? If you did so by engaging me, you're now being entirely dishonest. In less-nice terms, it makes you a liar.

If you haven't accepted that rather simple challenge, you can be easily written off as an extremely irrelevant and rather daft character.

spendius wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
Why should anyone give you the "evolutionary point of view" on those matters, spendius? Because you're preoccupied with sex, so everyone should bend their realm of knowledge to meet your personal desires?

Not at all. Because the kids will not know what to think about the fuss about them once they understand the Ev pov. And price gouging and Mr Madoff are only tangentially related to sex.

Everything you listed seemed tangentially related to the topic, you'll excuse me for noticing that most of your references yet again had to do with sex.

What does the "evolutionary point of view" have to do with those matters? Please tell us your whole opinion spendius, we're dying to know.

I'll cut off this post here. They're getting too long. Perhaps if you tried being half-decent, we could make some kind of progress. So far, I've repeatedly asked your to state a position, make it clear, and make it on-topic, and gotten jack. Feel free to start over by doing so.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
It's possible that little purple leprechauns from Neptune invented clam chowder.

It is not.

It is. Please tell me how you have excluded the possibility of purple leprechauns from Neptune inventing clam chowder. I imagne they could have magical devices to manipulate the minds of people on earth.

spendius wrote:

What a silly answer to my projected conspiracy theory which is so eminently possible that Congress has discussed how to prevent a repetition. Do you really think you witticism was a responsible reply.

Of course it was, I'm saying that your "possibility" is damn unlikely and comments on your gullibility. Congress discussing how to prevent a repetition of Dover sure as hell doesn't establish your fantasy as having any likelihood.

But of course, this is yet another deviation. Prove to me that you can handle staying on-topic by, you know, staying on-topic. I'm starting to think you're unable to do so even if you try. State your position/argument in its entirety, back it up, and don't deviate. If I ask you to clarify, it means your argument requires more information to be "in its entirety".

spendius wrote:

And don't forget that Dover was on the world scene for a few weeks and I imagine all the hotels, car hire firms and ladies of easy virtue were making hay with all those camera crews, reporters, sound recordists and various hangers-on who came from all over the world to report the case. And on Media-level expense accounts. 3 of our TV companies, at least, were there. It was probably quite festive once the court adjourned.

Uh-huh, that's very nice.

spendius wrote:

Miles Copeland always asked first--"Who gained?"

The rallying cry of the slack-jawed conspiracy theorist.

spendius wrote:

Don't play the Girl Guide with me mate. Actual knowledge indeed. Have you never seen a Media swarm. It's a very predictable occurence. The stuff in the reports is to render those footing the bill comatose.

Uh-huh. A lot of bluster, but nothing to make your fantasies anything like realistic.

Again, if you want to show that you can stay on-topic, you'll drop this deviation. You'll notice that I don't start these little points where the topic switches.

spendius wrote:

Quote:
And the natural conclusion is that there was a conspiracy between the lawyers

Not at all. I said there was a possibility. One which a scientific mind cannot dismiss. Did you not notice that? There's nothing original in it. It's a tried and tested method. Costing a town millions might not be true. Costing some parts of the town you mean. Others will be well in pocket. Hardly "idiotic".

And I said that it's easily dismissable by referencing those leprechauns, an idea with similar credibility. If you aren't arguing for something which is *probable*, then I'll continue to lump it in there with the leprechauns. A tried-and-tested method is for all the laywers involved to collude to convince school board members to cost their district millions by doing something stupid and suable? Want to give a reference?

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Are you noticing pattern when it comes to your deviations?

Yes-- I'm attempting to get acceptance or denial of the psychosomatic realm being a major factor.

Wrong pattern, piss-poor failure.

spendius wrote:

Whereabouts? Don't you wish to answer? A No will do. At least we would know where we stood. My answer is a Yes.

Right here: "I don't care." I've all but given up on you having an ounce of honesty. I'll be dropping my challenge with your next response if it's similarly full of deviations, dithering over nonsense, and failing to clarify your position.

1 Reply

@Shirakawasuna,

Shira, I read your last post with some ineterest . I suppose that spendi can be diversion since he rarely mentions the topic except for a few tangential references (usually I have to strain to understand his points because he usually starts from an insane position) and of course, hes famous for his contrary remarks about whoever had posted immediately above. HES SO PREDICTABLE IN THAT. His comment about how the lawyers may have been in collusion at Dover may be some silly reference to how the Scopes trial was initiated. It was a "test case" for the TEnnessee law and was agreed upon by all sides that it would occur. No such anything occured at Dover and its an unfair and dumb headed characterization that spendi makes.
Ive been viewing your quotes and I noticed one thing, spendis name dropping sounds to me like someone who is attempting to sound intelligent re: a subject by inserting random names while all along he has little or no knowledge of the subject in the main.

Since I have him on ignore (Ive given up on him cause hes a waste of time to even attempt to advance a debate or even have a good knockdown-hes totally ignorant of the subject so I find his comments and posts, irrelevant and defeating to the subject). I am not checking hi fevered utterances, What I see is when you quote him and, I must say that, you actually make his points understandable because his fractured syntax destroys any continuity. Reading "The Book of Spendi" is actually fun when someone else does the heavy work.

However, I do hope we get back to the subject some day.

1 Reply

I would appreciate it if we got back to the subject, and i always appreciate Wandel's updates on the topic. But i've largely given up on this thread because just about every time i hit "new posts," that last member listed as having responded to this thread is the dipsomaniac, and i never read his posts. As a result, i miss much of what is still worth reading here.

2 Replies

Just to try to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear:
I was reading Millers book "IN SEARCH OF DARWINS GOD.
.
It was a good read and was, of course , an apologia for Millers own religious beliefs.His work, as an accurate chronicle of what happened at Dover will trump any revisionist views that anyone unfamiliar , or wishing a different outcome in the case , makes.
He sums up in a series of P.S.s at the end of the book.

1...The advocates of design had been given every opportunity to establish their views as science, and they failed, even infront of a Republican judge appointed to the Federal bench by George W. Bush

2...The judge in the SCopes trial did not allow any scientific evidence to be considered in his courtroom while the Dover judge did

Im now taking up "Only a Theory", Millers latrest attempt. Now Im sure that, one bit of fractionation that spendi will attempt to insert is an irrelevancy that Miller is "Mining the book publication vein for cash", to which I may add, SO WHAT? most all of his work was pro bono and he has been a regular unpaid contributor to anything dealing with science in education and , it must be said that he had curried the disfavor of the Bush regime by being so independent. He deserves remuneration for putting up with the Cretins and IDjits who even threatened him with harm.

1 Reply

@Shirakawasuna,

How can anybody deal with that lot Shira. It is shot full of assertions about myself and all your points are based on those assertions.

Anybody who thinks the possibility of purple leprechauns from Neptune inventing clam chowder is equally possible with funny stuff going on at Dover is obviously off their head. Street wise human beings on the make have no need for magical devices to manipulate the minds of people on earth.

There is no need for those actively participating in the hearing to be a party to the possibility I suggested.

Your and effemm's need to have Dover represent pure scientific integrity is understandable. It is also laughable.

Your style of debate is unsuitable for a scientific discussion. It flags up that, like the other anti-IDers on here, you haven't a scientific bone in your body and know nothing of significance about evolution theory nor why this debate has been so fierce for 150 years. That last fact must be inexplicable to you which it isn't to me.

You are, in my opinion, either very naive, or are using science to browbeat The Bible and religion in order to pursue your selfish interests regarding such things as homosexuality, birth control, abortion, divorce and adulterey which are all condemed under proper Christian discipline.

You are wasting your time insulting me. It has no effect other than that intelligent readers here, and I'm not bothered about unintelligent ones, will know what it signifies.

And it might be a good idea to desist with such things as "yawn" and that I'm a waste of time when you then take all that interest in my posts.

I hope all anti-IDers are in agreement that Miles Copeland was "slack-jawed" and that evolution doesn't operate the "might is right" principle. That will help the rest of us to determine the validity of their position which is hopeless.

You must be habituated to winning arguments on unsupported assertions and insults either because your companions are stupid, cowed
or too polite to tell you.

If I was you I would get on with what a "yawn" usually presages.

I stand by everything you have quoted me as saying. If effemm supports you it only means that effemm supports you. Rather you than me.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I would appreciate it if we got back to the subject, and i always appreciate Wandel's updates on the topic. But i've largely given up on this thread because just about every time i hit "new posts," that last member listed as having responded to this thread is the dipsomaniac, and i never read his posts. As a result, i miss much of what is still worth reading here.

You are either taking the piss Set or you are blissfully unaware that your post there is meaningless.

You have a circularity. You are asserting what the subject is. By doing so you render your arguments unassailable.

You have no explanation for why this dispute has raged, often in the higher spheres, for 150 years. If your definition of "the subject" is the only one there is there could never have been any dispute at all. I presume you will say that the disputants are all incoherent dipsomaniacs. Big deal.

You ignore my posts because you can't handle them. And you look stupid when you come on a thread where the only debater on the other side you are not listening to. Really, seriously stupid.

I hope you don't think that having the one voice from the other side on Ignore is clever. It is a form of naval gazing and self evidently so. You just want your ego stroking like you stroked wande's.

We will have to hope he resists reciprocating with a version of "Oh- gee- thank you very much Set for the nice things you say about me and I really appreciate how much you appreciate my efforts on this important subject. It shows what a brilliant mind you have. Don't forget to bring the Vaseline when you visit."

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I would appreciate it if we got back to the subject, and i always appreciate Wandel's updates on the topic. But i've largely given up on this thread because just about every time i hit "new posts," that last member listed as having responded to this thread is the dipsomaniac, and i never read his posts. As a result, i miss much of what is still worth reading here.

I agree. Even though we've been beating this dead horse for years now, it's still kinda fun when Wandel throws some chum in the water to get us riled up. Smile

Thank god the creationists continue their endless parade of insanity for our entertainment. What would we do without them.

1 Reply

If there were no creationists, it would be necessary to invent them. Which reminds me of a thread about science i've been wanting to start, but was just to lazy to undertake. Maybe i'll do it now.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

He deserves remuneration for putting up with the Cretins and IDjits who even threatened him with harm.

Our system does not apportion remuneration on the basis of an assertion who deserves what. If it did nurses would be paid more than bankers. Marines would be paid more than movie stars.

And if we assume that the assertion that Mr Miller was threatened with harm is true why are the cops not investigating and bringing those who allegedly threatened him to justice. It is a felony to threaten harm isn't it.

And persons doing the threatening, assuming the assertion is true, are risking a jail sentence so it is reasonable to conclude that they think the matter important enough to risk that. Dismissing them as cretins and IDjits is the standard Goebells tactic to soften up the population for more serious measures.

Isn't the fact that Mr Miller is writing on this subject and the fact that effemm is studying the matter and the fact that Mr Miller's publisher thinks there is a market for his polemic and the fact that there is this 150 year long fierce debate and many other obvious facts proof that there are two sides and that the issue is extremely controversial. Where is the debate about carbon dioxide turning lime water milky? Or about whether nicotine stimulates brain activity. Or about whether non smokers "deserve" others to constantly put up with the outpourings of unstimulated brains. Or about whether moderate doses of alcohol are beneficial to the health of individuals and society.

effemm needs to think about the reasons for the fact of this long running dispute. But he dare not. That's why he has me on Ignore. All his other justifications are pure bullshit.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

If there were no creationists, it would be necessary to invent them. Which reminds me of a thread about science i've been wanting to start, but was just to lazy to undertake. Maybe i'll do it now.

Stop pretending you are arguing here with creationists. That's just wishful thinking.

What's up with this thread for your science subject. We are tolerant and capable of taking in anything on here. And admitting you are "to lazy" is not very reassuring. Try a few pints of John Smith's Extra Smooth. That'll cure you as long as you don't go past three and loosen up your inhibitions.

Which of the world's leading politicians are not dipsomaniacs I wonder. I know the Mad Mullahs are not but what about our lot?

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

well, Im sure we can chum also. The only reason that an idiot like spendi even gets the time of day is because the entire thread is in a senescent funk.

Pa is quiet of late, (post Dover). Dover has had its beneficial effect at least on the schoolboard selection process. Several boards had "pro-Creationist" replacement candidates in 2006 and 2008(Bucks County and Chester County) but these folks were soundly defeated in the elections and apparently the main factor was how the electorate saw the fraud perped by the Creationists and IDers from the Dover case.

There was a case brought against several of the original Dover junta. The case was for fraud and misfeasance of office . However,Mr Buckingham, the board president flew to South Carolina where there was a difficult extradition process. So he and another two cronies have escaped their well deserved rewards.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

However,Mr Buckingham, the board president flew to South Carolina where there was a difficult extradition process. So he and another two cronies have escaped their well deserved rewards.

Suppose they were on 20% effemm. We can be fairly certain I think that the effect on the kids of reading out the paragraphs on the first day of a new term, given the language it was phrased in and a possible high-speed read in low tones, would asymptote with zero. Even if the kids could have understood it if they studied it closely.

You have been in a school classroom haven't you effemm. They are not like lecture rooms where the students are seeking your approval and diploma so they can get a job with Rio Tinto or Exxon Mobil looking for more stuff to convert into air pollution or into jewelled charms to adorn ladies with so that their sexual allure is fabricated beyond a scientifically rational appraisal.

0 Replies

Wow...you can stay away a very long time...and when you come back...things haven't changed at all.

Jeez, I feel so at home!

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Nobody really missed you, I think.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

C'mon, Farmerman...YOU missed me. (I think)

4 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Hi Frank. Has your handicap been adjusted to take account of the fact that you are 3 years more doddery than you were the last time we exchanged pleasantries.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know