Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

Re: Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

ebrown_p wrote:

I have been thinking this and am suprised that this has not been brought up.

Intelligent Design is Ebonics for science.

Ironically the liberals who support Ebonics as an alternative to English are unwilling to support Intelligent Design as an alternative to Science.

The theory in Ebonics is that a cultural group was not brought up with the grammatical constructs of standard English. It was therefore unreasonable to expect them to use "correct" English (at least not right away)-- and what is correct English anyway.

Intelligent design has a cultural group that is that lacks the logic and reason of standard science.

It is therefore unreasonable to expect them to use "correct" science-- and what is correct science anyway.

So what of it. Is there anyone who supports both Ebonics and intelligent Design?

Isn't it inconsistant to support one without the other?

This is a silly argument. Do you equally validate non standard mathematics?

0 Replies

You made the statement that your understanding was superior to mine: " I don't know why you don't have the understanding that I do."

This is just another example of your habit of portraying yourself as possessed of a religious virtue others do not possess. You tout your viture--QED.

Are you really so witless as to think that idiotic emoticons reinforce your point?

0 Replies

MA thinks by voting against gay and lesbian marriage, she can control their "behavior." She's a sick (in the head) woman.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:
You are the one with trouble grasping the fact that restricting the rights of homosexuals does squat to restricting sin. It may however have a severe impact on the persons. I will remind you of that fact every time I see that same silly statement made.

Well, perhaps if you would quit thinking I am voting against it to restrict sin, it might help? I am voting that way because if I vote for it, to me, that is condoning the behavior. I said nothing about it actually restricting sin.

Silly statement?

I hope you also note the lack of support from your cheerleading group when you get way over there on the right with fringe group.

Yes it is absolutely a silly statement.

0 Replies

Setanta,

WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE. I stated a simple fact. So what? It makes neither of us superior, only different.

C.I.,

Always the gentleman?

Mesquite,

I don't need a cheerleading group, thank you very much. It matters not what you think, what they think, etc. It only matters to me what God thinks.

0 Replies

How do you know what god thinks? You got a special hotline to her bedside?

(and stop shouting at me, that's rude)

0 Replies

Cicerone Imposter Wrote:

Quote:

MA thinks by voting against gay and lesbian marriage, she can control their "behavior." She's a sick (in the head) woman.

Didn't read what I said about that, did you? I did not say I thought I could control anything. I said if I voted for it, to me, that would be condoning it. Clear enough for you now?

Setanta Wrote:

Quote:

How do you know what god thinks? You got a special hotline to her bedside?

(and stop shouting at me, that's rude)

I know what the Bible says. Rude? Pot meet kettle.

0 Replies

So how do you know that bobble can be relied upon as a true accounting of what god thinks? It is a human production, so it can be wrong, no?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

So how do you know that bobble can be relied upon as a true accounting of what god thinks? It is a human production, so it can be wrong, no?

This is where the muslims win. Because as they are keen to let you know, the Koran is actually the perfect word of God, without any translation or typos.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I know what the Bible says.

MoAn, how do you personally reconcile more recent translations of the source materials with what the bible versions currently in standard use suggest ?

0 Replies

I tell ya, Steve, them Muslims is slick . . .

0 Replies

We've been over this too. The Bible is divinely protected by God. His message has not changed.

And it's called a Bible, Setanta. Is that another one of your intellectually vacuous comments?

0 Replies

How do you know the bobble is "divinely protected?" (Oh my dog, you crack me up ! ! !)

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

How do you know the bobble is "divinely protected?" (Oh my dog, you crack me up ! ! !)

Actually, Set. It would not make much sense to put faith in the bible if one did not believe it to be divinely protected. Incredibly, I actually believe that God not only directed the writing but protected the copying and canonical selection.

Now I realize that many take issue with my stated belief, but I am prepared to offer evidence in defense.

And BTW, MA, I was referring to your priestly avatar. Have you taken up the cloth? What gives? Eh?

0 Replies

ya gotta read the finel print set. Its all in the limited warranty section

0 Replies

FM that's precisely why i don't buy religious . . . they got too many exceptions and exlusions . . .

Neo, you're full a horsie poop on this one . . . provide a "proof" if you please . . .

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Incredibly, I actually believe that God not only directed the writing but protected the copying and canonical selection.

and the copyright?

0 Replies

yep the big guys gt somma the best lawyers around. He hadda dip into satans team though, since heaven is Lawyer-free.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Neo, you're full a horsie poop on this one . . . provide a "proof" if you please . . .

I said evidence. You translated it as "proof". But, there is a difference, don't you think? For example, one bit of evidence I may offer for the authenticity of the OT canon is that neither Jesus nor any of the NT writers quoted from the books considered apocryphal. That hardly constitutes "proof", although it seems to me it is something one might expect.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

neologist wrote:
Incredibly, I actually believe that God not only directed the writing but protected the copying and canonical selection.

and the copyright?

No copyright that I know of. Go ahead and quote at will.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

yep the big guys gt somma the best lawyers around. He hadda dip into satans team though, since heaven is Lawyer-free.

According to Dante, pope free as well. Laughing

0 Replies

Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know