Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

UK region only: Results 1 - 10 of about 79,600 English pages for "almost forgotten".

You've really got to get out more, Spendi, or read more, or do something to expand your provincial nature.

Impossible and when he does, he's drugged on brew.

I used a thread once to start logging the meaningless things people said when they were stumped for words.

Such things as "get a life" and "are you off your meds". I remember that "you should get out more" was one of them.

I have been out in busy pubs with a vast range of people from all walks of life every night for more years than I care to think about. From 18 onwards. And I have worked with hundreds, possibly thousands, of others in the miltary, in the scientific civil service, in colleges and universities and in business dealing with members of the public, suppliers and interfering busybodies. I have played in football teams, cricket teams and card games and have organised annual festive dances for 400.

What on earth are you talking about JT?

I have also read more books of fine literature than you lot put together and then some. And I can read pretty good too.

i'd almost forgotten almost forgotten

spendius quite creditable

tell us about the cards

ps. a speed reading school asked me to work for them but i was too fast

Meaningless things that people say doesnt alter the fact that the phrases are true. Heres another one about your pomposity
"you are a legend in your own mind".

Sad, meaningless, but true.

Including any of the irrelevant assertions by one of the members This thread has sufficiently destroyed any scientific credibility that ID may claim.

Were now just teasing the little mouse from UK .

i thoroughly enjoy spendius posts if you dont mind

The approval of members of the male species means nothing to me effemm.

They can gnash their teeth and indulge in witless, rote-learned vituperation to their heart's content for all I care when I waltz away into the magic night with those creatures of divine design which I cannot imagine having evolved whichever way I have looked at it and pondered its resolute defiance of Darwinian simplicities and scientific certainties.

One might think that evolution, with its aeons of dispositional perfectionisms under the basic principle of efficiency of energy expenditure, might have resulted in an organism somewhat less troublesome and more adapted to our needs than seems to be the case once all the evidence has been gathered and examined objectively with a keenly attenuated critical mind.

Does it make sense that a determined, purposeless and meaninglessly futile process, such as evolution is presented to be by its fans, cavaliere serventes and doting enamouratas, should have played such an underhanded dirty trick on us saps without rhyme or reason. And does it make sense to allow such an unpitying confabulation of grinding inevitabilities to work their way to some final conclusion without our at least trying to inhibit, however ineptly, its obvious denoument in some unthinkably abject surrender of our natural pride resulting in humiliation, degredation and resigned despondency from which I see no possible means of escape once fully established.

He fancies himself our Dr. Pangloss, stringing together row and rows of multi-syllabic words, continually paraphrasing himself, that seem to defy Darwin simplicity (if you can bother to try and decode his boxcar sentences and roving paragraphs). Darwin is only simple to a convoluted and confused Machiavellian mind. What Darwin discovered and what he suggested as natural selection has been elaborated on for over 200 years and the details are hardly comprehensive to those who don't pay any attention to them. But, then, he also fancies that scientific specialists are only mathematicians of the 1920's. Screw those astronomers, anthropologists, physicists, biologists, cosmologists, and geologists throughout the ages who irrevocably solidify the evolution of the Universe, Earth and Mankind. He's the anachronism, along with the other IDiots and Creationuts, belonging to the distant past when Christianity produced King Phillip IV (who, like Bush II, thought he was Jesus), Pope Clement V and the Knights Templar.

The ancient "specialist" like Eratosthenes in his experiments in Egypt confirmed what the Egyptians had conjectured from as early as 500 BC, that the Earth was a sphere and the diameter was even calculated. Again, Christians threw out any such science as being counter to their beliefs and didn't come to the party for centuries.

Many do the same. The fact that they are irrelevant to the subject at hand is just one of my little quirks. We can alays hope that someday he will be done masturbating and try his hand at deeper discussion. His narcissism is a legend on this thread. His "respect" for anyone save himself is almost a clinical case.

Yeh, what we take as normal procedures for scientyific inquiry was considered Heresy in most Christian religions well into the 17th century .
da Vinci could have been hanged for conducting dissections on human corpses, yet today we take such for granted , even at Bob Jones and Liberty U.

The Da Vinci who, in another one of his comical moods, produced The Shroud of Turin? That Da Vinci? It was a pretty funny joke on the church that he used those corpses to form the body and his own face to complete the image. The left side of the Mona Lisa and one of his self portraits as the right side, perfectly match the face on the Shroud. No wonder the Catholic church put it away a la "Raiders of the Lost Ark," after the latest revelations. It's the MO of the church to hide things, to distort science, and to offer metaphysical explanations aimed at the uneducated. A very large percentage of people who have completed their education through a BA, and MA and a Phd believe evolution is true, based on Darwin's original theory through all the DNA science, archaeological and fossils discoveries.

DQ Vinci created the Shroud of Turin? where did that come from? The C14 analysis of a section of linen was found to be a few hundred years BEFORE da Vinci even lived. That section of linen was then found to have been overweaved so it was probably of a much older date.

What % of the population do you think are uneducated LW? It needs to be a high figure of course because if it isn't being educated would be common.

You self-evidently have not studied the Mona Lisa for yourself with sufficient concentration to see the real subject of it and it is thus fair to assume that your comments upon it, which display artistic ignorance of a high order, are merely second-hand rehashes of the teleological conceits of another similar ignoramus.

It is the hallmark of an unreformable snob to be passing out fanny couched in quasi-artistic language about subjects he knows nothing about. That's funny although not as funny as you thinking A2K consists of the sort of people you are evidently habituated to holding forth at.

Nice try, Spendi.

With such a varied existence, how is it possible that you've missed "almost forgotten"?

There was a question mark behind that sentence but the non-specialist IDiots here would not notice any details, like ignoring the details of evolution. Par for the course for the eternally stupefied.

There was testing that was declared unreliable on a piece of the linen that was a patch and turned out not to be the original cloth. With the other dating processes, including radiation scans, it's determined to be made about 100 years before Da Vinci. If he did pull off the hoax, he would have used an old piece of linen. Discovery recently had shown a documentary which, I believe, is now on You Tube. Here's some of the latest news from the Vatican who seem to be loosening up on information about the Shroud and the Knights of Templar.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6040521.ece

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/28/shroud-of-turin.html

On the same documentary an art expert (or specialist which the dumbbell posters here is not) measured the proportions of the features on the Shroud and Mona Lisa and they were identical to a full face portrait in a drawing and a painting by Da Vinci.

This is not new news -- it's been suspected for many years by art historians that the Mona Lisa is a self-portrait and Da Vinci's sense of humor could have definitely been involved. What other artist of the period would have been tempted to paint himself in drag?

More later -- I'll try to find the You Tube, but if you get the Discovery Channel, I'm sure it will be repeated.

You got it off Discovery Channel eh? How very ******* scientific I must say. In awe to the weavers of the wind are you?

They have ads that tell barefaced lies on there that go on 24/7/365 (in leapers 364 and when ladies can propose without losing face). Not only can you not trust it as far as it can be thrown but it can't even be thrown,

It's the voice overs saturated with "looking over hornrimmed spectacles" integrity and musical accompianments derived from arrangements designed, intelligently, for cathedral services that are skewing your powers of obsevation LW. It makes you feel you are an important person you see being abled to appreciate the wall to wall crap and computer similations.

It's a small ess JT--as in "spendi". Look you my girl and ponder.

It was this I was referring to-



I would like you to point out where I have done anything to justify your allegation. If I have I will apologise and beg forgiveness.

He went a little further than that my dear. Have you been reading articles about art in Cosmopolitan, Hello or The Ladies Home Journal of Good Housekeeping?

You know those hidden face in the tree foliage puzzles in comics. Study them for a few years and see if you can get the hang of it.

Besides the Times Online, which is not the Discovery Channel, I've been following and reading the scientific and art expert reports for nearly thirty years on the shroud and Da Vinci's work, his most important still being the Mona Lisa. Of course, there has to be some learned speculation in some of the findings -- learning Spendi (with a capital "S" as he spends so much time on taking the trouble to type in his bullshit on the computer keyboard -- I do hope he's not a hunt and pecker) does not obviously have. Spendi wants to pay for Discovery as he obviously watches it or would not know about the commercials, instead of sponsors paying for it. Go to it -- get out your checkbook. I don't think they will turn down a donation even though they never ask for one like PBS.

Spendi get his art knowledge from Cosmopolitan and Good Housekeeping. That figures. I prefer the art specialist (which he is not) journals.