Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

As I once said--"Trip the clite fantastic".

I love your approach to answering an attack. You post generalities then quickly ignore the essential data that you embrace. I assume you do this so you will look somehow knowledgeable and wise. Actually I find it like a student who memorizes a simple phrase answer without understanding its meanings.


WHAT artifacts , data, historical data?? You never grace us with hard examples why is that?.

I already have done. You probably had it on Ignore. My last post contained a bit of it.

We are where we are. Faustian science. The mathematics of pure, dynamic space. Your boat radar is a minor offshoot.

Show us which other culture got near that? You're always on about how long we have been here. What's your explanation of our sort of science?

What do you want me to do? Pot the last 2000 years in a jar and put it on a stall at the Country Fair hoping you will come along and buy one. 10% off--buy one get one free.

You didn't "attack" either. You pulled your tongue out and went Mmrruuhhhh!

If ever somebody rote learned simple phrases it is you. You seem to think that the last 1000 years or so can be distilled into a few high-sounding, sweet and easy noddle squirts. It can't.

Once again your post has no meaning. It's designed to impress the simple minded. Or possibly to motivate me to educate you.



You haven't got to grips with Media yet.

Why is a mosque designed to exclude direct sunlight and a cathedral designed to capture it and play with it?

Why is a mosque a cave and a cathedral a space explorer?

Thats a copout, were it not for pre European Arab and Indian math of motion and trigonometry, Newton would have no "shoulders on which he could stand". (I actually dont consider Newton the Father of calculus anyway, he was just a mediocre alchemist who had one good idea),

!5 lines of tripe and you could only muster one poor example. Im thinking that you are without clues spendi.

why do you poison your liver and mind?

Why do you keep blurting bombastic, belligerent bullshit bereft of the beef?

Frank, can you clarify this (given what you said above you aren't holding out for a possible reward... so why are you an agnostic?): you refuse to accept there is no God… but you are an agnostic… which includes the belief that there may be a God… apart from you saying there is no proof there isn’t a God… what other reason do you have? You could just have no position and say: 'the question of the existence of God is irrelevant so I don’t need to take sides in an irrelevance.'

Hi, RL…I’m back again. Got hung up on the Championship game last night.

I appreciate that we are discussing this without the anger and insults that have started.

In response to my comment, “If you don’t know….why not simply say, “I do not know?”…you wrote:



But, RL…even if every god ever proposed on planet Earth were proven to be man-made (obviously a difficult thing to do), that still would not mean that the answer to the question “Is there a god or are there gods involved in the Reality of existence?” would be “NO, they do not exist”…and for certain, it would not mean that the response, “I do not know” would be illogical.

Even if you could prove that unicorns do not exist on planet Earth (also a difficult thing to do) that would not mean that it would be illogical to answer the question “Do unicorns exist?” or “Do animals exist on Earth that we have not yet seen?” with the reply, “I do not know.” Unicorns may exist…and in an infinite universe with infinite time, more than likely do. Somewhere. And some undoubtedly have pink skin with purple polka dots!

We really do not know…and a response of “I do not know” is not illogical. I simply refused to get in a discussion about that because it is not a discussion about what the nature of Reality is. The discussion of whether or not gods are involved IS.

There may be a GOD…(you may be that GOD, since YOU are the only thing you conclusively know exists)…or the GOD may be an outside force but not yet reasonably described by humans. The fact that many of the gods worshiped on the planet does not impact on that possibility.

It is entirely possible, reasonable, and logical to say, “The gods I see proposed so far are absurd and there is no way I could “believe” they exist, in fact, I can easily “believe” they do not…but as to the question of whether or not a god or gods are involved in the Reality of existence….I DO NOT KNOW.



The reason I do not answer that way to the unicorn question or to the purple accountant working on a moon of Saturn or Flying Spaghetti monsters, is because those questions are only proposed by atheists in discussions with agnostics…and are questions that do deserve a response. They could be answered with “I do not know” “Yes” “No” “maybe” and it would have no impact on whether or not the question “Are there gods involved in the Reality of existence?”

I still have not heard an argument from you that truly sounds logical for not saying, “I do not know.” Honestly, RL…the arguments you are offering sound contrived and offered just to make “I do not know” seem an illogical stance, when it obviously is logical…and vastly more logical than the (inferred or expressed) NO, THERE ARE NO GODS—which is really the classical atheistic position.

Hey Eorl. How ya doing?

Hey McTag...good to see ya.

Frank, can you clarify this (given what you said above you aren't holding out for a possible reward... so why are you an agnostic?): you refuse to accept there is no God… but you are an agnostic… which includes the belief that there may be a God… apart from you saying there is no proof there isn’t a God… what other reason do you have? You could just have no position and say: 'the question of the existence of God is irrelevant so I don’t need to take sides in an irrelevance.'

This is a very confusing post, RL. You lost me completely.

I'm not evading anything here...just not sure what you are asking.

What Frank really meant was that the times being recorded in the OT and thus the contemporary religion, the two being so intricately blended as to be inseparable, despite the Constitution, disgusted him. Whether they would have disgusted him had he been living through them is another matter. He might well have been quite contented to lie on a grassy slope flicking sun-dried sheep-**** pellets, at a prominent stalk of grass in competition with his sheep-herding pals. Not all that unlike golf when you get down to reality and ignore expense. And we all know how obsessed with ******* reality every intelligent person is thought to be. The word I mean. Not the actual REEEEEAHHLEEETEE!!.

The NT was written by those who were also disgusted and who were offering what Mr Obama offered: change. Some being gruesomely martyred in order to further the cause. Another way was sought. And the Sermon on the Mount is the manifesto. Scoffing at it is the same as scoffing at the way of life it lead to, often with two or three steps back for every one forward, more sometimes. Assuming you can't write you're own NT, I mean, and offer an alternative manifesto. Even Darwin didn't bother trying that.

People stand over this grand, majestic record of those days as if real people were not involved doing real things in an ordinary way day in and day out for generation after generation. The history teaching profession selects people like that in because they know all the dates, and the names of the battles and the top brass geezers who supervised them. And who won. And we don't know who won WWII yet. And they pass it on. They round up all the kids, lock them in, and make the little monsters have it.

It's the sitting on a cloud position looking down upon mankind with a knowing complacency.

You don't sit and read the Bible saying "Oh--isn't that really awful" to get your gold star in compassion. You say why did they do that? What was it that necessitated such actions and conventions?

And you certainly don't read it in order to say you have read it. That causes speed reading which is a serious brake on comprehension.

When Frank said that he was ignoring behaviourist psychology and those aspects of its technological applications which get us running around like blue-arsed flies in the service of 4% growth.

In the build up to 2008 the rewards swamped the punishments. The resultant Gaderene rush is being held on the cliff edge with giant bungee jump straps by our fiscal co-ordination experts.

Say a prayer for them.

Thanks for the help with what I actually mean, Spendius.

By the way, when I wrote the words "The god described in the Bible disgusts me…and the most I can muster for it is revulsion."...obviously I was thinking of the god described in Leviticus and Deuteronomy...where most of the description of the god of the Bible is found.

As I have mentioned often, the best guess is that the ancient Hebrews decided to invent a very vicious, jealous, vengeful, murderous, barbaric, quick-to-anger, petty god to protect themselves from the vicious, jealous, vengeful, murderous, barbaric, quick-to-anger, petty gods of their neighbors. I have no problem with that...and as you pointed out, Spendius, I probably would have helped with insuring that the god be depicted as vicious, jealous, vengeful, murderous, barbaric, quick-to-anger, and petty as possible.

But that still leaves us with a vicious, jealous, vengeful, murderous, barbaric, quick-to-anger, petty god.

Why be an agnostic as an alternative to being a theist or an atheist; if as you've said there is no reason for the certainties that theists and atheists have? That makes them irrelevant to you as they offer you nothing that you require so why appose their beliefs with agnosticism? Why not drop the baggage or all three concepts? There are uncountable concepts in this world we don't have to have a concept about the irrelevant ones we can just let go of those we don't need.

Or do you have some hidden need not to exclude the possibility that there might be an afterlife created by some God for you to go to after death?

Igm…allow me to take your post last part first.




I am not sure why you and RL have raised that issue with me. I’m not sure how to convince you that there is no fear of punishment or expectations of reward that play any part in my agnosticism. If there is a god so petty that it would be concerned with insignificant carbon life form on a tiny speck of dust in this vast universe…and if that god actually is SO concerned that it would consider reward or punishment for individual specks of that carbon form…then I am in a heap of trouble, because as far as I am concerned, the god can shove the rewards as far up its ass as it can reach comfortably…and as for the punishments it can kiss my ass—not on the right cheek and not on the left cheek…but square in the middle taking care to avoid the hemorrhoid if possible. The afterlife bullshit IS NOT the reason I am an Agnostic…I am an Agnostic because I am agnostic. **** the afterlife…**** any god actually so petty it would give a **** whether I am an Agnostic or not. ‘Nuff said???



Because an Agnostic (my definition) is someone who acknowledges he/she does not know the answers to the questions we are dealing with here…and who does not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction. I have no problem with people who do see evidence (or are otherwise motivated) to head toward theism; I have no problem with people who do see evidence (or are otherwise motivated) to head toward atheism…but I am an AGNOSTIC.



What “certainties” do you have?



How am I opposing their beliefs???? Where do you get this from?

I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE GODS OR NOT! How does that oppose theism or atheism? All it says is that I do not know!



What “baggage” do you see in me acknowledging that I do not know something?



What does that mean? Why are you suggesting that there is something wrong with my acknowledging that I do not know the answers to some questions? Why are you suggesting that I ought somehow to stop doing that?

What do you do when you're inside a New Jersey farmhouse, and you hear hoofs pounding the floor outside? Do you believe there are horses out in the yard? Or do you believe they are zebras? Do you believe that, in addition to the horses (or zebras), there's a flying spaghetti monster hovering above the farm inaudibly? Do you refuse to believe any of the three, remaining truly agnostic until you get a look at them? How would you react?

Being agnostic is a point of honor for fRANK. i THINK WEVE TESTED HIS RESOLVE ENOUGH ON THIS MATTER. His belief is unwavering, and really, as atheists, why should we care? cause we dont waste any thinking time with that "controversy".

Yes--but the God that stopped Abraham knifing his son started the discontinuation of human sacrifice. A ram replaced Isaac. Jesus, being a lover of hapless furry creatures, substituted bread and wine.

I think Abe had an existential moment and because nobody knew what one of those is he pieced together a poetic explanation. The critic's obsession with the poetic explanation has seemingly put them in blinkers regarding their attitude to reality.