Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Youre losing control (and maybe bladder function from the sound of it). WHy do you always resort to name calling and hostility? Does that make your argument stronger? I think not.
If I can get under your skin this easy, think of the mischief I could knit were I similarly disposed as you.

Youre thesis is the acceptance of ID as a possibility. Ive told you that evidence shuts this down quite convincingly. Whats your argument based upon really? Is it that the world seems so ordered? IS your inability to take a stand as a closet theist an annoyance to you? Ive no idea on what your beliefs rest on, certainly not logic or reason, despite your protestations .

CAlm down, Ill check back sometime this evening, to see your compelling ID argument that will, Im sure, knock me over with a feather.

I don't want to take up too much space in this long-running soap, but ... .

FM might have availed himself of a wee bit of punctuation, but what's wrong with the grammar or the "syntax", Frank?

There is only one way to defend his position Frank and it is to extoll the benefits, we can't say the virtues, of atheism. The social implications of it. The reason he can't do that is because he is clinging to Christian ethics and is not up for a discussion of situations where they don't apply. He is a married man you know. And he has an ugly dog.

And I have known that from the start of this thread. He's a Christian really. Like a lady driver not knowing how a car works under the bonnet is still a competent motorist.

Well--it is more tasteful from what I've heard from chaps daft enough to be present at the events. And if you are not going to consider good taste what can anybody say?

I think "flat" is a gross error. It implies that there are bumpy and uneven incorrectnesses. Incorrect needs no further emphasis.

And it does not follow that because Frank is "unsopported by anything logical" he is incorrect. One might rule out irony, statistically, because effemm has never shown the slightest sign of having an ironical bone in his body.

I'm not entirely happy with the comma after "punctuation" either.

I must assume that this meaning of 'flat' is not found within BrE, so it clearly doesn't matter what it implies to you, Spendi.



The issue was one of grammar, Spendi.



Three strikes and you're out.

I find it petty nitpicking pulling up sentences in this or any other forum and start grading them like this is a class in English composition. Especially when the spelling is more obviously a typo and posting in haste one sometimes composes an awkward sentence. But is not used with a comma before if it is a compound sentence (not two complete sentences joined together), but who in the hell cares? We all have different writing styles to begin with and it reveals a recognizable syntax which can produce harmony or discord. I won't mention any names.

Since I keep Discus in my aquariums (yes, I'm a masochist), a cichlid species, I was always fascinated by one of the most incredible examples of natural selection -- the cichlids of Lake Tanganyika:

The Evolution of Cichlids

Lake Tanganyika is famous for its amazingly rich profusion of different cichlid species. Many of them are endemic to the lake and can be found nowhere else in the world, not even in nearby lakes and waterways. Even though several other lakes in the African Great Rift Valley are home to a larger number of described cichlid species, Lake Tanganyika is where we find the most specialized and diverse cichlid collection. Over 95% of the described cichlids from Lake Tanganyika are endemic to the lake. The reason behind this high degree of specialization is a series of contributing factors and we can learn a lot about evolution by studying the situation in Lake Tanganyika.

Lake Tanganyika is a very old lake " it was formed by tectonic forces approximately 20 million years ago " and the cichlids have therefore have plenty of time to evolve into different species. The environment in Lake Tanganyika is also very stable, and has been so for millions of years, which gives us a chance to see the result of millions of years up uninterrupted evolution. This sets Lake Tanganyika aside from many other famous freshwater lakes. Lake Victoria, the largest lake in Africa, is for instance no older than 400,000 years and has dried out completely no less than three times during its relatively brief history. Lake Victoria was actually completely dried out 14,800 years ago, so the aquatic life in it is not very old. The main reason behind this instability is the fact that Lake Victoria has a large surface area combined with a very limited dept; the deepest point is no further down than 84 meters and the mean dept is only 40 meters. Lake Tanganyika on the other hand is a narrow lake with a small surface area and a maximal depth of 1,470 meters. This makes Lake Tanganyika much more stable and less influenced by climate changes.

For millions of years, the cichlids of Lake Tanganyika has branched out; gradually becoming more and more specialized and evolved into a myriad of different species. It is no uncommon for a cichlid species in Lake Tanganyika to be adapted to a very limited environment and cichlids found just a few hundred meters away may very well have evolved into a completely different species. It is also common for cichlid species to display a rich profusion of colour variants depending on geographical location " unsurprisingly a fact that much treasured by aquarists.

Lake Tanganyika is a rather closed system and this effect the fish fauna in at least two different ways. To begin with, it has caused a situation where a majority of the species hail from one single ancestor species who managed to get into the lake millions of years ago Secondly, it has lead to an extremely high degree of endemic species. When a new species evolve in Lake Tanganyika, it is very difficult for it to spread to other lakes and waterways. A large portion of the Lake Tanganyika cichlids are therefore endemic to the lake.

Over 200 species of cichlids have been described from Lake Tanganyika and fish experts suspect that the number will increase dramatically as the lake is more thoroughly explored by scientists. Today, several new species are found and described each year, despite the fact that large parts of Congolese and Tanzanian shore habitats are being far from methodically explored. If scientists were given a chance to survey the Congolese and Tanzania shores more systematically, the number of new discoveries each year would probably increase radically. New technology can also help us learn more about the situation in Lake Tanganyika, e.g. the advanced fishing equipment that is necessary in order to research the deeper regions of the lake.

A dire quandary is of course how environmental problems, such as pollution, over fishing and the introduction of invasive species, can cause endemic cichlids to vanish before we even have a chance to find and describe them. A lot of fish species within the African Great Rift Valley lakes are under threat today without even being known to us. Time, money and efforts must therefore be focused on conservational efforts; simply collecting, describing and researching the fauna is not enough

Light, Interesting info on cichlids of Tanganyika Lake. Thanks for sharing it.

Ive stated many times before that , due to the results of an explosion, Ive suffered wounds to my hands, eyes, and torso. I have a severely crippled left hand that causes me no amount of troubles in my typing. However, because my time is limited and Im usually doing my A2k with other things going, I cannot waste a lot of time in redoing and spellchecking (beyond a cursory run-through to catch the "big chunks"). My left hand , like the Poe tale, has a mind of its own and often hits keys that are not within standard spelling . Ive apologized and I repeat my apologies for those of you who believe that Im some hillwilliam who believes spelling is arbitrary Were I able to keep my typos to a minimum , I guess Id be happy, but its not to be. I just typed this missive extremely slowly so that id minimize my errors.(I have a day off today so no early AM conference calls) However , normally, in a post my mind is cruising along and my fingers (those that I still have) dont always hit the right keys. I struggle through, and if you can, try to interpret what I write. AFter a while my typos are easily recognized , and most of the errors are typical of left hand misplacements ona QWERTY keyboard.

I see that Fraqnk has not posted his Compelling argument for ID. Perhaps compelling was too strong a word.

I've never criticised effemm's typos. Or anybody else's.

I took up a small challenge to JTT for a bit of fun. "flat" qualifying "incorrect" is incorrect. It isn't a typo. It's a wasted word.

Such things are common in England. I use them myself in speech. I try to avoid them in writing but I'm sure I don't always succeed.

It was JTT who caused me to comment. I was teasing her. I like teasing uppity broads.

When you thoroughly answer my question over in the other thread...I'll get to yours.

I think Frank extends the concept of being logically right so far that he ends up ultimately wrong.

Frank's logic eventually convinced me that I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic with extreme atheist tendencies

I've been on the same side of arguments as you so often, Farmerman, I've just never realized how full of **** you actually are at times.

So that there is no question about what I actually said (apparently you were too lazy to do a cut and paste) here it is in context:

Wandel had said:


To which I replied:




So obviously what I was doing in that post was agreeing with Wandel that using ID as evidence that there is a god (which would be circular reasoning at its worst) was bullshit...and...

...that a compelling case for ID as one POSSIBLE component of Reality...is easily made in the same way a compelling case that a GOD is one POSSIBLE component of Reality.

And of course, the latter is a cinch!

But I'm not even going to do it...not the latter or the former, because I can see that you are either too stupid to understand my explanations or too pigheaded to acknowledge them.

If you want to make a case that I am wrong when I say: “...a compelling case can be made that a GOD is one POSSIBLE component of Reality”...present it...and I will rebut your argument.

If you acknowledge, however, that a GOD IS, in fact, one POSSIBLE component of Reality"you are in effect, acknowledging that ID is one POSSIBLE component of Reality.

If there is a GOD...the god could have designed how evolution was going to occur...and probably would have designed it exactly the way it exists on our planet...via the way science is now discovering.

There is no getting away from my reasoning or my logic, Farmerman...unless a person is pigheaded, of course.

But that is not the core of the argument which has been explained to you lot dozens of times, if not more. The core of the argument takes place in a social setting and not in some abstract territory separated from that social setting and I have been arguing that since the beginning.

You can't get past Frank's argument. Nobody can. Nobody ever will.

The core of the argument, which you lot are trying to evade, is that some belief system is necessary and we try to choose the one most useful to us.

I made a case yesterday for the focus to shift to the social consequences. I might have made a bit free with some psychological stuff which is well known but the essential matter is what happens in society.

It has been completely ignored. That tells me something. It is that you are scared of it and my inclination is to think that you are scared of it because you know that if you do shift your focus to the social consequences, as any responsible person would, you are in another world where your trite platitudes and simplicities are of no use and you would have to put in a lot more study of the matter which you are self-evidently either too lazy or too incapacitated to do. You would rather spout the same old things over and over again and hope that if you shout loud enough society will adopt them and you have not the faintest idea of what would be the result if society did so.

You are into self-validation of asserted big dick status and that's the only explanation I can think of why you continue with your useless and pointless mantras. You have not the slightest interest in the kids in the classroms and you never have had. Or what sort of citizens they will become if they accept nothing but pure and severe scientific guidance which you certainly don't understand and probably don't care about.

You might as well be playing chess.

You may be correct, spendi, that I have failed to be enlightened by your many posts. However, I can describe the contents of a ping pong ball in one word. For you it would require several paragraphs.

SAid in otherwords,"I cant come up with anything bright so I will try to toss it back onto Farmerman, even though I raised the argument that a "compeeling aregument can be made"

The problem with you Frank is that you fail to distinguish and idea (natural selection) from an ideology (gods and othert bullshit logs in the road).
You are the carpenter. You have a hammer, and you see all the worlds problems as a nail. Try to relax, do away with the crap and think it through. SCience doesnt even give one **** about the presence or absence of gods and the resultant ways that ID drives evolution. You seem to dwell on this too much and yanking your chain is waay too easy.

Ive stated that ID has been swept away by evidence against it. In my world thats as compelling as you can get, in your world its just another facet of an ongoing focus on everything religious. (Course Im pretty much focused on the science behind evolution and theres not even a teeny space for some mythological viewpoint since mythological viewpoints are totally untestable-).

What, do you want a pat on the head? Whether anyone agrees or disagrees is not in my sights. I take many sides of many issues and thats just me. I think that e-mail alliances on BBs are for weak intellects .Im here to discuss facts, and maybe truth, what about you?


Hee Hee, You sound like many other people "from the block" , usually Incorrect but never in doubt.

Good point FM.

Contrary to popular belief "reality" is about what works for the observer within his paradigmatic niche.