Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

The site is called Able to Know LW. And bearing that in mind this thread has nowhere near worn itself out yet if, after all this time you have been reading here you have neither realised that " Why mislead the ignorant?" is nothing but a supercilious assertion that you are not ignorant nor explained why such an inverse, invidious comparison has no meaning beyond that of you admiring yourself in a mirror.

It would seem you have no wish to be abled to know anything and are satisfied with smirking complacently at your own qualities and looking down your nose at those you consider below you in the social hierarchy.

I imagine that were you to be contemplating a becalmed sailing ship you would be lecturing your companions, poor souls, on the waste involved in them having masts.

And your obsession with having been in fairly close proximity to various types of modern weapons systems is rather tiresome to those A2Kers who have actually operated the ******* things.

A2Kers will decide when this thread is worn out and your opinions on the matter are neither here nor there.

I was specifically commenting on the BBC documentary "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," not this forum, so your taking statements out of context is a sample of your usual dirty work.

I also stated that there are new discoveries which could wind up this thread again, but that windbag crock of accusations is far worse than my stating the thread was wearing down. It's thread bare, thanks mostly to you, but for want of starting another thread on evolution (there are already several), this one seems to suffice even with the sidetracks. Your diatribe is stated as if you're a moderator or administrator on A2K which you are not.

How do you know what is tiresome to A2Kers -- it's only tiresome to you methinks. So what. I don't remember anyone on this forum who's commented on actually flying a stealth aircraft and very much doubt there is anybody who has. TKO Diest has let me know before he was in the aircraft industry but there is no personal message feature at A2K even though I have privately prodded that we all miss it.

Your opinions have added up to not being here nor there which is why all the IDers have left the thread.

BTW, I was invited along with my staff to visit Lockheed and we were able to fly in the stealth simulator. So poo-poo to you.

Well- I took --"I think this thread has worn itself out" as referring to this thread.

And in the unlikely event you were referring to the BBC documentary it might be better if you conveyed your thought to the BBC rather than to us. The best way to get the subject out of existence is for you to ignore it.

If it is theadbare "thanks mostly to" me who else have you in mind?

And if you are addressing me why do you think it necessary to remind me that there are other threads on the subject when,as you know, I regularly contribute to them.

"All the IDers" you refer to were not IDers at all. They were Creationists. The one who might be said to be a sort of IDer, Frank Apisa, left because of the anti-IDers refusing to see the simple and obvious point he was making. He didn't leave because of me.

I didn't say the vicarious association with the killing machine was tiresome to A2kers. I qualified the remark strenuously. And I referred to any weapons technology. A tank commander in Iraq for example. A Marine with an M16.

Civilians trying to scrape machismo off their jobs is always a sorry sight.

I know you want Creationists to come on here. And I know why as I have often said. They are easy meat for somebody who has read what somebody else has read about what somebody's carbon dating machine printed out.

All you seem to wish to do is tell us your dramatic life story.

I've heard that those are intelligently designed.

Yes, it's quite a plane and a phenomenally intelligent design. I never quite figured out why they wanted the lighting in the panels to be teal, but that's Lockheed's little quirk, that it's suppose to be better than the Navy red or the Airforce blue light. The color of the symbols and windows on aircraft cockpit panels is suppose to provide the least fatigue on the pilot's vision as possible. These were all finally measured on a photometer.

After meeting with General Dynamics engineers on the F 18 weapons keyboard design, I can easily state they were very intelligent designers who made one teensy-weensy mistake, somewhat like evolution has made. Their firing command keys after I built the prototype were meant to be pushed solidly down on the momentary switches but were too high and operated as toggles. Kind of an evolutionary miss-fire (if a pilot pushed an AAM -- air to air missile -- he could accidentally toggle and operate the button beside it, AGM -- air to ground missile). Now that would be a fighter jet Bush would have loved. Needless to say, the design was changed to recessed keys. That's better, geniuses. I can affirm that while all the engineers I worked with were extremely smart, their communication skills were as tradition seems to state -- poor. Maybe or maybe not, this could be a good analog to genetic drift which is one of the mechanisms attributed to the Neanderthal not surviving.

You're itching to tell us all what a Big Dick you are aren't you LW?

Well--go ahead. Strut it a bit more though. It's not hair-raising enough as it stands.

I'm not sure whether ID is more damaging to science or to religion.

ID can't lay a glove on science. ros is confusing science with those circling the honey-pot in its name.

Religion is too generalised a term for serious discussion. ID certainly undermines the religion of atheism.

Still nothing but blather from the big S.
Hmm. Roz is confusing science. Hmm. Uh. No.

Doesn't have a grasp on what religion might be but purports there is a "religion of atheism".

Joe(two doubleback flips in three lines of prose. gah!)Nation

Hardly two double back-flips Joe. More like falling off a log.

Science is a way of thinking. You can't go near it and neither can ros. Nothing can lay a glove on it.

Of course atheism is a belief system. It takes more faith than any other religion.

Try to get a grip on what thinking means.
Science is a way of thinking, but that is just the beginning, not the whole story. What does science think about? The evidence of it's claims. That's why it's called critical thinking.
Atheism is a way of thinking, it doesn't require any faith or belief, it requires evidence in the same way that science does. You don't think so? Okay, provide the evidence of a supernatural entity existing and atheism will disappear with the same speed as the Heliocentric Theorists did after they checked the math.

Joe(stop comingling hopes with facts. They aren't the same.)Nation

Thinking doesn't mean anything in a meaningless universe. How could it? If the universe is meaningless then everything in it is meaningless and thinking is in it so thinking is meaningless. Are you off your meds? It is only by giving the universe meaning, which is that it was created by a thinking entity, that thinking can possibly be thought of as having any meaning. So anybody who thinks that thinking has a meaning has conceded an intelligent designer or even a ******* stupid designer. A designer anyway. Intelligent or otherwise.

Science is the exercise of the disinterested curiosity. As soon as a vested interest arises science is out of the window and special pleading of the Oliver Twist variety is the name of the game. Vested interest doesn't just mean money either. Babies are scientists. When they are hungry they are tit mad and when they are full a tit is of no further interest. Science is too stupid to know when it has had enough.

"Critical thinking" is just an expression of the ego like posh curtains. It sounds good, nobody practices it, and in a meaningless universe, the atheist imperitive, it means nothing because it's a feature of a meaningless universe.

Atheism requires tremendous faith. To think there is no meaning or cause for lingerie shops requires a fantastic belief. They do stock some rather elaborate and fanciful mechanisms. Especially the up-market ones.

Why should I provide evidence of a supernatural entity and you are not required to provide evidence that there is no supernatural entity. I can't and you can't. So we are even.

If we assume that everybody who believes in God is only pretending to believe in God for various reasons and that anybody who believes there is no God is also only pretending to believe there is no God for various reasons isn't it sensible to compare the consequences of the two pretences and the personality characteristics of the respective believers in the two possibilities.

I have found that there is not one word worth reading that was written by a person who believes that there is no God except for the purpose of taking the piss out of them as a form of entertainment since growing secularism has reduced entertainment to the equivalent of listening to paint dry in stereo headphones the expense of which is the only consideration.

Awesome. Hey, we have PMs now.

T
K
O

Yes PM's work so we can take most of the side discussions away from prying eyes.

Okay, how does the PMs work?

Little hole-in-the-corner secret conclaves eh? The most fundamental enemy of democracy and free speech known to mankind.

They are totalitarians folks.

Easiest way to get there is to click on "Inbox" just following your screen name:: at the top of the page. PM actually stands for the Paranoid Misanthropes who would would claim they would never use it and are in darkest fear someone is writing something they cannot read. Just like an Orwellian desire to listen to private conversations.

I know what you mean. They are talking about me, even as we speak.