Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

farmerman wrote:

Need another 80 posts or so.

We'll get there. This horse ain't dead yet.

Oh I think it is, though that won't stop us from beating it.

@farmerman,

What about all the marine fossils up mountains fm. I think your missing the point by being pedantic. It is that all the present land has been underwater at some point. Noah was a old version of Star Trek. An ancient romance story. Stories were all they had for entertainment. It solves the sort of problems you daren't grapple with which I caricatured in my damson tree tale. If irreducible complexity is a mental problen it might be best to give it the Gordian knot treatment than inventing a load of circular teleological bullshit.

0 Replies

@thack45,

Quote:

Need another 80 posts or so.

We'll get there. This horse ain't dead yet.

Oh I think it is, though that won't stop us from beating it.

I have to say thacko that your remark displays a total ignorance of what it at stake here. This horse has hardly been born and if I live long enough you will see what I mean. It is but a wet foal staggering about on spindly legs looking for a teat.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I have to say thacko that your remark displays a total ignorance of what it at stake here. This horse has hardly been born and if I live long enough you will see what I mean. It is but a wet foal staggering about on spindly legs looking for a teat.

I'll certainly concede the very real possibilty of my ignorance on the matter. This may be because I don't feel that anything is really, as you say, at stake. I am however open to having my mind changed on the matter... Carry on.

1 Reply

@thack45,

The debate has been a heated one for thousands of years. How do you explain that if you feel there's not much at stake. A whole way of life and cultural position is at stake. Materialism is much more than a word.

There is, Sir, in our resident anti-IDers (materialists and proud of it), a singleness of mind which has misled them so far adrift of the irreducible complexities of Nature that it is difficult to conceive of it. They have a simple and plain way of thinking, a gross insult to Nature and a compliment to their own egos, combined with such an unmistrusting ignorance of the plies and foldings of the female heart that they stand, and we all will stand if they prevail, naked and defenceless before it once it has become imbued with unmitigated materialism.

If they allow any mitigation to inhibit such scientific considerations their whole case goes down the tube.

They are the worst sort of misogynists because they don't even know that they are misogynists just as Yogi Bear wasn't aware he was stealing picnic baskets. The man who is aware of his culturally conditioned misogyny can correct himself but that option is not available to the man in denial of his misogyny. He gets by with a few meaningless politenesses and calling others misogynists as if them being so detracts from his own and absolves him. At the point of no return he is a dyed-in-the-wool misogynist and expects women to bear the burdens of it such as 40 odd million abortions since Roe/Wade mostly performed in secrecy.

The question is, and it's a complex one, will women as a whole rather than just those few in Media and elsewhere who promote materialism to draw attention to themselves and make money, benefit from the materialist project. I think not but accept that it is merely an opinion.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Bach has the human soul singing soprano. The word anima ends in an a. Hester Prynne was a woman with child. Is that what you mean?

0 Replies

@spendius,

Let me see if I understand you spendi

Science is materialistic and puts science over religion.
Science is simplistic and an insult to Nature
Materialism leads to women getting abortions.
Abortions are really hatred of women.

Did I leave anything out?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quite a bit. Materialism, the elementary sort, puts itself first and last and all points in between and religion nowhere.

Science is simplistic but not an insult to nature because it seeks to understand it. It becomes an insult to nature when those speaking its noble name in vain think it does understand nature and draw bigoted conclusions, usually self-serving, from the delusion. Science should disown such people as they are the cause of the general mistrust and fear of scientists.

Materialism is not the direct cause of abortions. Selfish men are the cause of abortions and dilettante materialism incubates selfish men. I used abortions as a symbol of the result of that whole system of thinking which denigrates the teachings of Christianity on sexual matters. Those who reject those teachings for their own reasons seek to use materialism to justify themselves despite them not adhering to its precepts in other aspects of their lives and thus not being materialists at all.

That women are demeaned by artificial birth control, adultery, easy divorce, abortion, promotion of homosexuality (maybe not so much homosexuality itself if it is assumed to be innate rather than acquired, a moot point), and the notions of eugenicists, seems to me to be axiomatic.

Once rape is designated a serious felony women have complete control of their bodies. I think that control is lessened by the approval of abortion and its easy availability.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

You appear to very complacently accept the notion that these self-interested professional legislators know what's best for us all. Many don't see it that way.

I wonder what you think about Prosperity Christianity.

Quote:

I used abortions as a symbol of the result of that whole system of thinking which denigrates the teachings of Christianity on sexual matters. Those who reject those teachings for their own reasons seek to use materialism to justify themselves despite them not adhering to its precepts in other aspects of their lives and thus not being materialists at all.

Which view on sexual matters? The Vatican? Or Christiannymphos?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

That women are demeaned by artificial birth control, adultery, easy divorce, abortion, promotion of homosexuality (maybe not so much homosexuality itself if it is assumed to be innate rather than acquired, a moot point), and the notions of eugenicists, seems to me to be axiomati

Yes, how demeaning spendi. Women would be so much better off if they had to worry about getting pregnant when they had sex, if they had to stay in bad marriages rather than other options. I'm so glad you are willing to speak up for women and I am sure they are all glad you are willing to do so as well.

2 Replies

@parados,

I sincerely hope spendi never has been and never will be in a relationship with any woman or man.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Your hopes are comprehensively dashed ed. And your words are not worth a blow up a frog's arse. You could blurt that shite out under any circumstances you thought fit. It answers nothing. It means nothing.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Women would be so much better off if they had to worry about getting pregnant when they had sex, if they had to stay in bad marriages rather than other options.

How do you go, in your mind I mean, from "women" to a subset of women, those in what you say are bad marriages, and from the subset derive a principle for the whole. That's pathetic. You can prove anything you want that way.

Women should worry about getting pregnant when they have sex. Yes. Unless they want to get pregnant. Is sex where a woman wants to get pregnant the same as sex when she doesn't? It is for men eh? Is that what you mean?

We are talking about general principles.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Which view on sexual matters?

You know very well which view. You wouldn't be on here otherwise.

I think Prosperity Christianity a very good thing.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

How do you go, in your mind I mean, from "women" to a subset of women, those in what you say are bad marriages, and from the subset derive a principle for the whole. That's pathetic. You can prove anything you want that way.

Are you arguing that your statements about science are pathetic? You certainly are using a subset of science to prove your principle for the whole of science.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

I think Prosperity Christianity a very good thing.

So materialism is a good thing then? Or is it a bad thing?

1 Reply

@parados,

It's a bad thing when it oversteps it's territory.

I'll tell you what para. Why don't you give it a try. Twelve months isn't that long. Just say to your chick "Look babe-leave this stuff to me. I'll see you are alright. I don't want to put you to any trouble on my account. I love you."

And see what happens once you have practiced enough for her to trust you to be a man of honour. If you find a need for some vitality chemicals that's not a sin as far as I know. The thought of her standing at a pharmacy counter asking for some morning after pills is not my idea of love; assertions notwithstanding.

How do you know it's no good until you've road tested it.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Congrats in place, you have made a nice resume on it.
Thanks for sharing your view !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I presume this is part of the post referred to dating five years ago--

Quote:

"EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE, it is nothing more than another religion. It is a guess at something that cannot be tested, experimented, or anything else. It is a big guess that is sugar coated with "science" The only reason anyone still believes it is because it is the only thing that they can claim as evidence to the nonexistance of God. They want to do whatever they want, and if the "logical thought" b.s of "science" says that there doesn't have to be a God, everyone will jump on board."

To which Setanta responded-

Quote:

Leaving aside the issue of a lack of clarity of expression in that statement, the aspect of an irrational fear of the teaching of a theory of evolution leaps out at one. I don't have a dog in this fight.

Well Fil, I don't think the statement lacks clarity. I know what it means to say. It's quite concise actually.

I'm not as convinced the response has any clarity at all.

After it there was a "what a wonderful chap Setanta is" spiel but I've read enough of that to not have read on with much attention. The "potted meat" history lesson is patently ridiculous.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Simply enlighten all of us, SHOW us the Observed, Reproducible Experiment that demonstrates that NATURE is capable of creating LIFE from DEAD MATTER, the basic tenet of vertical evolution. Every time that such an hypothesis is placed to the test, it is falsified and the Law of Biogenesis supported which is Observed and Reproduced on a daily basis in nature.

If Physical Science cannot demonstrate something to be a FACT through the scientific method, then it is not a FACT, but merely ONE of many possibilities as established by the facts that are Observable Today, i.e., Prima Facie in nature.....not Scientific in the least, but rather a way of THINKING, aka, Philosophy. Thus, Vertical Evolution of Dead Matter into LIFE is indeed not based upon Demonstrated Scientific Facts but is simply an IDEOLOGY.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know