Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

LW...anyone who does not see the logic in the position I took...

...is a moron.

My logic and reasoning in the position I took is unassailable. I would defend it to any impartial judge...and I'd bet my house that my position would be vidicated. My argument could not have been more tight if I had been arguing that B comes after A in the alphabet we use.

Sorry if you don't see that...but you seem to be one of the serious people here...and I am willing to go over each element of my argument you think to be faulty...and we can discuss it.

Frank's "logical position" is based on the premise that everybody uses "know" like he does. Since the literature to the contrary is overwhelming, his position is at best tenuous even at barbershop level. At the philosophical level it is vacuous.

My choice of words , to distinguish the two battling etymologies, was chosen from the point of Frank being outside a "frame of reference" (sim to a window). SO I used that metaphor rather than talking him "DOWN". No biggy, I didnt scroll back to where that discussion came up just so I could give lil Franky a chance to comment on my comprehension skills with the kindness and love that is the badge of his very being. AND, No I wasnt ever a police negotiator BUT, I did stay at a Holiday Inn last week.


Im done with lil Franky , I dont think he even has an idea in hell of what Im speaking. Hes so married to this obsessive "Gods" crap that he has forgone logic . Im certain hes a closet queen whos here to "save souls" by trying to peddle doubt in anything except theism.

I noticed Terry's name as a contributor in your Reality construct thread, Fresco.

Go back there and let her kick ass on your silly belief system.

Ahhhh...ha, ha, ha...a third time he is leaving. Will the fun never end???




Yup...to a moron like you, someone saying, "I do not know if there are gods or are no gods..." would be married to Gods.

Jesus H. Christ...I never in a million years would have accepted that you are as shallow and stupid as you are...if I hadn't joined in this discussion.

You are a disgrace to reason and logic.

I'm still agreeable with most of what you've written, but I still believe the IDers have alienated their concept to the point that they've rendered it impossible. Intelligent design is in many things that we use, but not always very good. That is design by humans. I prefer modern designers, usually European, for interior furnishings as it's form follow function and has a sublime beauty. But trying to convince me that I was designed on some supernatural Cad Cam is too much to swallow, so therefore I remain somewhere between agnostic and theistic with the qualification that I can comprehend and accept the abstraction that we cannot know and don't have a word for the intelligence that could have created the universe. There's no parables like the Bible for any such concept -- even Hinduism comes closer with their more fanciful, more symbolic gods. There are scientists who state that there's only an imagined barrier between science, evolution specifically, and religions, but they would not identify as IDers. Darwin shook himself up along with his contemporaries. He remained a Christian.

There's also stupid, crappy design -- most of it is at Wal Mart. I mean, a garden pot that has no foot so it looks like it's just growing out of the ground? Cell phones that are designed only for small Asian fingers. Cars that look like piano boxes on wheels (thus the descriptive word "crate").
The Americana Hotel in NYC which looks like a piece of folded dress shirt cardboard. How about an unintelligent designer who didn't get it right in the first place. Is he, she, it, patient enough to wait for their little evolution parlor trick to get the design right?

My own objective opinion or personal taste is that there are perfect designs by humans. The Barcelona Chair, the Seagram's Building, the Getty Museum, the Stealth Bomber, my SONY LCD flat screen.

I'd have a better shot at thinking there was a schizophrenic designer. SD.

You still don't get it...and you did not take me up on my offer...so I gotta assume you want to go on thinking like these other people do.

No problem.

My thesis, reasoning, and logic are impeccible...whether you or any of these other people can see it.

I still offer to discuss it...and you will see that ALL of your reservations and/or concerns are completely dealt with.

. But you always follow that with a statement that says, "so there is the possibility of an IDer".

That is the copout cause you dont carry the point to its logical conclusions which is "there is also the distinct probability that there is not becasue all evidence supports conclusion 2 and no evidence refutes it"

. If youre too dimwitted to see that, Im certainly not gonna burst your lil bubble lil Franky. Keep yelling names and titles out like some wannabe Lil Pauley Walnuts, I enjoy getting under your pompous assed skin.

I asked you to explain your rationale waaay at the beginning and (when while you were still being somewhat civil) you then began to just lash out with diatribes and namecalling.
As my momma said about computer arguin
"The guy who loses tempers first, hes called "LOSER".

cappeesh

NO, YOU ******* MORON...the evidence does not support that there is no GOD. What does it take to get that through your thick skull?

NOTHING YOU HAVE PRESENTED IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO GOD.

I have no idea if there is a GOD or not. My comments only have to do with the possibility that there is a GOD...AND IF THERE IS...the possibility that there has been ID. (NOTE ONCE AGAIN: I am not talking about the nature of the design...which, pretty obviously, at least to me, is being properly descibed by modern day science.)

You are a major league moron, Farmerman.





It is amazing that you are this stupid. Your lack of comprehension is staggering.



Thank you very much. I intend to do just that.




I love every bone in your head, Farmerman. "Get under my skin???"You provide me with more entertainment than you can possibly imagine.

You are full of ****. As a matter of fact--you simply decided I could not be correct.

Here is my first post on this issue:

http://able2know.org/topic/50511-890#post-3569534

This is your response:

http://able2know.org/reply/post-3569587

My responses to that...follow immediately...in the next two posts.

After those two...you responded again...and I responded to that:

http://able2know.org/topic/50511-891#post-3569605

You called it a cop-out.

It is not.

You simply are not intelligent and open minded enough to listen to my argument.

You are a close-minded moron. Sorry...but you are.

The discussion was "Intelligent Design Theory: Science of Religion?" Two choices. It's simple.

1. Religion: Intelligent Design is an oxymoron

2. Science: Intelligent Design is an oxymoron

Frank in a straw house atop a rock with a theory etched into its surface.
If nature sends him a hurricane, he'll be blown off the rock. If nature starts an earthquake, the rock will crack, fall apart and will no longer support the straw house.

A theory is very different from a supposition. Darwin did have many suppositions within his theory and it was impossible for him to make it any simpler. Those suppositions have been addressed to the point that there are only little nitpicking questions left. ID has suppositions that have no answers and never will. It's the old you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ears.

I cannot criticize Frank for having built-in reservations in his "what if" theory and it makes them fit his own open logic. That he summarily dismisses all other members backing scientific theories, considering a great deal of concrete and empirical evidence, as morons is Mr. Spock telling off Captain Kirk.

How in the ******* hell can you possibly think I have done that in ANYTHING I HAVE SAID IN THIS THREAD????

At no point have I ever done that.

I am as strong an advocate for the science in this discussion as any other person here.

The only way you can possibly be saying what you are saying is if you have NOT READ what I havse written...and are only discussing what you want me to have said rather than what I actually said.

What is it with you people????

Ive never criticized the lil guy for his belief basis, I just wished to be told how hes arrived at them from a "belief" or from "evidence" Hes ducked and jived so long and changed his position several times and still,
There is no "there" there.

HAving the testones to engage in namecalling is childish behavior especially if Im supposed to be enlightened by his self proclaimed "unassailable logic'.
I only continue on him because he never ends anything but with mean spirited insults. Noone deserves that , even the most untrained and unintelligent of us. After all, we all seem to be good at a few things but Ive yet to find one whose good at it all. Logic is just one of the areas that Franky needs some focused learning.

I do not have "beliefs", you ******* moron...and nothing I've said about this issue has to do with "beliefs."

I have not ducked anything, you ******* lying moron.

Read what I wrote...and deal with that.

Frank's argument is unassailable because, like most arguments on this thread, it is circular. All circular arguments are unassailable. A don't knower has to allow both possibilities and cannot rule out either. An atheist knower, faith, has to rule out an intelligent designer just as a religious knower has to rule it in.

Is the blue of the bottom of the blue bottomed monkey a quality of the bottom or exclusivly a perception in the mind of the viewer who uses the word "blue" to denote the sensation he subjectively gets when observing it. And is the confidence generated in believing the bottom to be blue a result of an agreed acceptance of it being blue in the social group a person has been socialised in?

As David Hume said--"what can we reason but from what we know?" And what we know is entirely subjective and nothing at all to do with the objects we claim to know about. So reason, logic and rationality have no objective base in reality but only in the practice of everyday life: the social consequences argument which is the only game for grown ups. They are merely qualities useful or agreeable to us and to claim that one's own versions of them are superior to those of others requires proof that they produce a superior practice in everyday life. Anti-IDers have flunked that challenge for four years probably because they know, or suspect, that the public won't buy into the logical consequences of their position. Just as the street furniture vandal won't attempt to convince people that they should all start vandalising street furniture because if he were successful he knows that life would not be worth living and all the street furniture would be already vandalised before he got there. He seeks to express his rage in a world where such expressions of rage are abnormal.

Hence, I think anti-ID proponents, not silent anti-IDers, are expressing rage which is only effective cathartically in a world of IDers.

And the language they use amply bears out my thesis. It is overloaded with violent images, invidious comparisons and other manifestations of control freakery relying entirely on assertions which only those who have stood for office and been elected are entitled to apply on the basis of what is known as the mandate.

Read your ducking out of my last comment HONEST Frank !

spendi, I'm afraid I don't understand your "circular" argument. If something doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it, it's not circular; it's pigheadedness.

Indeed it is circular, Spendius...which is one of the reasons why I've mentioned several times...that it really doesn't matter.

IF THERE IS A GOD...which is one of the two possibilities...then there IS the possibility of Intelligent Design.

That is like saying IF THERE IS A RAIN STORM...then there IS the possibility of someone getting wet.

Why that statement has caused all the consternation it has is beyond me...except that in Farmerman's case, obviously the guy is over his head when discussing the alphabet...or numerical counts above three.

None of that statement can be construed to mean that the silliness that the IDERS have been peddling has any ******* validity at all. I have never said or intimated that anything the IDERS have been peddling has any validity.

If these people are not morons, as I have suggested, is there any other explanation for their moronic lack of ability to comprehend my argument????

What last comment, asshole?