97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 03:21 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
1-Icke's treating the result of a referendum to suit whatever argument he is making at the time and his assuming we have forgotten how he treated another one in the opposite way to suit another argument he made a few minutes earlier.



Spendius why do you take Icke so seriously? Do you think that everyone else does? He happens to be correct about many things but this guy is way out there.
Why do you think I said that I would share a {little} truth with you. Now do not get me wrong because I do think that he may be onto something in some of his videos but he still has some far out ideas.{kind of like believers}but even believers can be very intelligent about many thing.

Quote:
And the advantages of an atheist lover, the video was under the sponsorship of an atheist lover dating agency, over a sweet Christian lass who hasn't been shagged up hill and down dale by every Tom, Dick and Harry as I suspect female members of an atheist dating agency to have been assuming they have got past the novice stage as I would anticipate most of them have.


Very observant but what is the connection? Sounds like someone is trying to promote their business. I do not even read the adds I close them out.
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 04:02 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Be specific as to the question you would like me to answer and I will. exactly which points?


You should have kept that promise rl instead of blowing smoke.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 04:10 pm
@spendius,
You should have been specific and included a ? so that I would know what your question was.
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 04:16 pm
@reasoning logic,
If I wrote to a lady saying "will you come to my room my leetle cheekadee and allow me to place this diamond necklace around your beautiful neck" do you think she wouldn't come over because I had forgotton the ******* question mark.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 04:19 pm
@spendius,
No because the word {will} is begging an answer.

Quote:
do you think she wouldn't come over
Is this lady a slut and finds you attractive? if so she might but if she thinks you are a perv she may send her husband instead.
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 05:31 pm
@reasoning logic,
Really scraping the bottom of the homophobic subconscious with that one rl.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 05:34 pm
@reasoning logic,
Have you an objection to sluts as well rl?
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 05:42 pm
Yes Virginia, Intelligent Design IS religion. That needs to be said every few pages so that the errant visitor wont think that this is the sole property of our own little erikonig spendi
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 05:43 pm
Yes Virginia, Intelligent Design IS religion. That needs to be said every few pages so that the errant visitor wont think that this thread is the sole property of our own little erikonig spendi
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 05:48 pm
@spendius,
If that is the way you like to roll I'm OK with that. Everyone needs someone. Cool
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 05:57 pm
@reasoning logic,
I'm rolling your punches rl. Homophobia I can live with up to a point but slut deprecation is beyond the pale.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 06:01 pm
@farmerman,
Our errant visitor should know that it is science as well. The sort of science fm refuses to admit is science of course.

We can't have other sciences getting in the way of his print-outs on dating machines now can we?
north
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 09:15 pm

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

its a tough question really

from what I learned from investigating our ancient past , I'm talking 6000yrs and greater , our genetics were changed by what we at the time would view as a god , just a very advanced being , hence a god , as our simple minds would understand it , at that time period , and even now really ( we could grasp better now because we could relate better with a more advanced being , so rather than saying god , we would say an advanced being )

so to really answer this question we really have to delve , explore our ancient past
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 09:16 pm
@north,
Isn't that what anthropology and paleontology does?
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sat 21 Jan, 2012 09:19 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
I'm talking 6000yrs and greater , our genetics were changed by what we at the time would view as a god , just a very advanced being , hence a god , as our simple minds would understand it


Do you have any evidence of this happening that you would like to share?
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 05:55 am
@reasoning logic,
Perhaps this might help a little rl. It is the passage in Queen Sheba's Ring where Rider Haggard describes the approach to the Abati stronghold of Mur which is virtually impregnable and also rich in the provision of basic material necessities.

Quote:
Our ride from the plains up the pass that led to the high tableland of Mur was long and, in its way, wonderful enough. I doubt whether in the whole world there exists another home of men more marvellously defended by nature. Apparently the road by which we climbed was cut in the first instance, not by human hands, but by the action of primaeval floods, pouring, perhaps, from the huge lake which doubtless once covered the whole area within the circle of the mountains, although to-day it is but a moderate-sized sheet of water, about twenty miles long by ten in breadth. However this may be, the old inhabitants had worked on it, the marks of their tools may still be seen upon the rock.

For the first mile or two the road is broad and the ascent so gentle that my horse was able to gallop up it on that dreadful night when, after seeing my son’s face, accident, or rather Providence, enabled me to escape the Fung. But from the spot where the lions pulled the poor beast down, its character changes. In places it is so narrow that travellers must advance in single file between walls of rock hundreds of feet high, where the sky above looks like a blue ribbon, and even at midday the path below is plunged in gloom. At other spots the slope is so precipitous that beasts of burden can scarcely keep their foothold; indeed, we were soon obliged to transfer ourselves from the camels to horses accustomed to the rocks. At others, again, it follows the brink of a yawning precipice, an ugly place to ride or turn rectangular corners, which half-a-dozen men could hold against an army, and twice it passes through tunnels, though whether these are natural I do not know.

Besides all these obstacles to an invader there were strong gates at intervals, with towers near by where guards were stationed night and day, and fossés or dry moats in front of them which could only be crossed by means of drawbridges. So the reader will easily understand how it came about that, whatever the cowardice of the Abati, though they strove for generations, the Fung had as yet never been able to recapture the ancient stronghold, which, or so it is said, in the beginning these Abati won from them by means of an Oriental trick.

Here I should add that, although there are two other roads to the plains ­that by which, in order to outflank the Fung, the camels were let down when I started on my embassy to Egypt, and that to the north where the great swamps lie ­these are both of them equally, if not more, impassable, at any rate to an enemy attacking from below.


The general characteristics of a population in this position is described throughout. Sergeant Quick refers to them as "skunks" taking care to make an exception of Maqueda, their beautiful queen.

It struck me that Haggard is making a general point about easy living and if genetics, at the simple level at least, represents outcomes in behaviour, flying, swimming and the like, then the general state of the Abati is a derivative of such easy and safe living conditions and may be said to be a scientific result.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 06:51 am
@north,
Quote:
I'm talking 6000yrs and greater , our genetics were changed by what we at the time would view as a god , just a very advanced being , hence a god , as our simple minds would understand it , at that time period , and even now really ( we could grasp better now because we could relate better with a more advanced being , so rather than saying god , we would say an advanced being
If we look at the human genome (as well as any other species) , we see that the genetic information that replaces the earlier genetic information, is never really lost. It lies there like a story book of our past. Also, our genome records and preserves our "polar wanderings" So e have genetic evidence in populations that shows when and where a mutation or a new gene combination becomes embedded within the population. We then can look back at the geography and holocene geologic history of that area and compare the genetic adaptation to the environment.
Very cool, gods need not apply.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 06:55 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Our errant visitor should know that it is science as well. The sort of science fm refuses to admit is science of course.
spendi believes that necromancy and astrology are sciences.
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 07:06 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Very cool, gods need not apply.


It's only cool if you specify conditions in complex societies in which gods do not apply. Otherwise you are punching a resistance free training aid which is not much use when you get into the ring.

There are new gene combinations with every successful reproductive event except possibly for the "splitters". I suppose you mean new gene combinations your instruments can detect. Which makes your point circular.

You may well draw conclusions from your instruments, ignoring that they might be crude and partial, for utilitarian purposes, but this debate is in other zones of utility where mechanical instruments are of little use. So you have an apples and oranges job on your hands I'm afraid fm.

As usual.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 07:15 am
@spendius,
Quote:
I suppose you mean new gene combinations your instruments can detect. Which makes your point circular.

When you have no idea about what you speak you should refrain from making an ass out of yourself.

Quote:
You may well draw conclusions from your instruments, ignoring that they might be crude and partial, for utilitarian purposes, but this debate is in other zones of utility where mechanical instruments are of little use.
So now, this becomes the heart of your thesis. Kind of lame spendi. Lets assume (just for grins) That you are right. Does that mean we shpould throw up our hands and NOT attempt to further "improve our instruments" or should we, as you seem to suggest, just give up and claim that "A miracle happened"? Poor logic there spendi, more like one of gungas. You sure that you two arent conferring by PM?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/17/2025 at 11:02:37