Religions > Atheism > Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
03 Apr 2005 04:28:10 AM |
| Object: |
Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
From the article:
-------------------------------
By John J. Pexton, The Forum
Published Sunday, April 03, 2005
Spurious creationist arguments against the legitimacy of evolutionary
biology apparently reappear with a depressing regularity in America. A
thinly disguised re-working of these discredited ideas is the relatively
new concept of "intelligent design theory," as championed by Tracy Sayler
in The Forum (March 27 "Darwinism a religion in itself"). Sayler, in
keeping with fellow "intelligent design theorists," commits a number of
egregious errors in his reasoning and in his characterization of science.
Is science unfairly biased against the idea of an intelligent designer or
the idea that supernatural phenomena could account for various aspects of
the universe in which we live? Is neo-Darwinism only a philosophical
posture? The answer to both those questions is a resounding no!
---------------------------------
Read it at http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=87529
§ion=Opinion or http://tinyurl.com/4r6ll
(get a login ID at http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.in-forum.com )
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
08 Apr 2005 03:11:52 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Skt5e.170$%c1.37@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504072248.5bab8c86@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<GFl5e.121$%c1.32@fed1read05>...
Thanks for the conversation. You win, etc.
One more thing ... I just took a good look at Aquinas arguments. It's
kind of amusing to see his arguments, because they don't mention
anything about the christian god's attributes at all.
In fact, he doesn't even talk about a christian god. He just talks
about a initial prime-mover/causer equivalent, which he simply calls
'god'.
So Aquinas isn't even in the same ball-park. As I mentioned before, I
play on the same turf and ball-park as the christians. I use their own
fundamental description of their god. The arguments of Aquinas are
completely irrelevant in our discussion about the fatal flaw in the
christian teachings.
Um (why am I not plonking you?), Aquinas was a Christian writer, for whom
there was only ONE valid god. Any reference to "God" in the writings of a
Christian writer would, of course, be concerning said Christian god.
You're just jerking my chain with this thread, aren't you? Shame on me for
missing it for so long..
It should be myself that should be plonking you. In all of your posts,
you never provided anything to show exactly where you were coming
from with your 'your arguments won't hold up against the arguments of
Aquinas'. I asked you to provide me web information so that I could
check out your point. But from the time you first started responding
to my posts, your net help in this matter was essentially nothing. All
you did was just say that my arguments didn't hold up...but you used
absolutely no effort to show where they didn't hold up. So I'm
wondering what the hell you're playing at here?
Also...I believe that I've seen your tactics. You offer no useful
information, and when I used a lot of my efforts to explain something
to you, your previous post was a bloody pathetic one-liner, namely
'you win etc'. And now you try to make it out (appears that you may be
a troller) that I'm trolling. I see through your tactics. So go run
along ... I don't want to waste my time. I said that I was glad to
have the discussion with you in a recent post....because it showed
that there are people out there like yourself, who wastes my time when
they can't think of any solution to get around the self-evident
fatal-flaw-in-christian-teachings argument.
Discussion is over between me and you. But of course, you're both free
and welcome anytime to say whatever you want.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
08 Apr 2005 05:20:36 PM |
|
|
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504081211.623eadd4@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<Skt5e.170$%c1.37@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504072248.5bab8c86@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<GFl5e.121$%c1.32@fed1read05>...
Thanks for the conversation. You win, etc.
One more thing ... I just took a good look at Aquinas arguments. It's
kind of amusing to see his arguments, because they don't mention
anything about the christian god's attributes at all.
In fact, he doesn't even talk about a christian god. He just talks
about a initial prime-mover/causer equivalent, which he simply calls
'god'.
So Aquinas isn't even in the same ball-park. As I mentioned before, I
play on the same turf and ball-park as the christians. I use their own
fundamental description of their god. The arguments of Aquinas are
completely irrelevant in our discussion about the fatal flaw in the
christian teachings.
Um (why am I not plonking you?), Aquinas was a Christian writer, for whom
there was only ONE valid god. Any reference to "God" in the writings of a
Christian writer would, of course, be concerning said Christian god.
You're just jerking my chain with this thread, aren't you? Shame on me
for
missing it for so long..
It should be myself that should be plonking you. In all of your posts,
you never provided anything to show exactly where you were coming
from with your 'your arguments won't hold up against the arguments of
Aquinas'. I asked you to provide me web information so that I could
check out your point. But from the time you first started responding
to my posts, your net help in this matter was essentially nothing. All
you did was just say that my arguments didn't hold up...but you used
absolutely no effort to show where they didn't hold up. So I'm
wondering what the hell you're playing at here?
Also...I believe that I've seen your tactics. You offer no useful
information, and when I used a lot of my efforts to explain something
to you, your previous post was a bloody pathetic one-liner, namely
'you win etc'. And now you try to make it out (appears that you may be
a troller) that I'm trolling. I see through your tactics. So go run
along ... I don't want to waste my time. I said that I was glad to
have the discussion with you in a recent post....because it showed
that there are people out there like yourself, who wastes my time when
they can't think of any solution to get around the self-evident
fatal-flaw-in-christian-teachings argument.
Discussion is over between me and you. But of course, you're both free
and welcome anytime to say whatever you want.
Thus it ever is, has ever been, and will ever be, on Usenet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
04 Apr 2005 04:40:01 PM |
|
|
"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message news:<qPc4e.18588$DW.5293@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning, and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will
You assume that religious scholars haven't considered this? The Church
dealt with the issue of Free Will in the presence of an all-knowing,
all-powerful God long ago, and in excruciating detail. Aquinas in
particular, and Dante refers to it in his epic poems.
rms
Oh...they've considered it before alright. It's just that they never
explained it like it really is....in easy to understand terms. I've
explained it 'properly' to save everybody time.
If you start at the very beginning .... by first considering the
fundamental attributes of god (ie..all-knowing, perfect planning,
perfect designing) then you'll easily be able to understand that the
bible is fatally flawed. The religious scholars never start at the
beginning/basics. They always jump the gun and skip 'past' the
basics...and jump right into the contradictory bits...which is where
they've gone wrong.
So let me help you with my little guide ... start from the beginning.
god is all-knowing (A)
god is perfect planner (B)
god is perfect designer (C)
In the beginning...only god is around (D)
And in the beginning, the product is not around (E)
Given condition E, and due to (A,B,C), god already knows every future
mechanical action/movement for the future product.
So let's assign condition (F) to be, god already knows every future
'mechanical action/movement' for the product 'before' the product is
even hanging around.
But always remember condition E ...that is..the product is not even
around yet. And condition F is there at the same time.
The ONLY thing that is responsible for condition F is 'god' because of
condition E.
So if you sit down for say 1 minute and think about it. Condition E
and F combined means that the future product cannot have free will.
You should note that the above conditions are 'beginning' conditions,
and we do not talk about the 'created' product. The above is prior the
existence of god's product. So....the above simply tells you that the
future product cannot have free-will....because all of the mechanical
actions/movements for are already known in advance (condition A). And
the reason why those movements are known is because of Conditions
A,B,C combined. Condition A is already enough, but it's always good to
throw in some extra overkill by adding B and C to the pot...just to
make things really clear for the christians.
So...as you can see for yourself...you can easily show that free will
cannot exist if god has attributes related to conditions A, B, C. And
as I said...condition A is enough...but B and C really reinforce
things and drives the point home for those that are a little slow to
pick things up.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
04 Apr 2005 04:55:30 PM |
|
|
So you claim to be smarter than some of the greatest phisolophers of all
time, eh?
Yeah, right.
Dork.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
05 Apr 2005 05:21:51 AM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message news:<Xns962E97D35FDF0taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
So you claim to be smarter than some of the greatest phisolophers of all
time, eh?
Yeah, right.
Dork.
I didn't say that. You're the one that said that, you clown.
I'm saying that I prefer to convey this particular information in a
way that can be easy for everybody to understand. And actually....I do
believe that a lot of people out there have wasted a lot of their time
with useless, time consuming discussions about the credibility of
christian teachings.....especially when it's so easy to see that the
fatal flaw in their beliefs lies at the root level.
It's about time when folks realise that once everybody has agreed that
christians are taught that god is 1) all-knowing....2) a perfect
planner 3) a perfect designer .... THEN all the stories in the bible
discussing sin, judgement, and punishment become contradictions.
That's because a all-knowing, perfect planner/designer doesn't need to
create a product just to see what the product will do. It's because
such a creator already knows what the product is going to do, because
all of the future mechanical actions are chosen by that creator before
the product is made. If the creator loses even the slightest amount of
control over its product under any condition....then the creator
wouldn't be all-knowing, AND wouldn't be a perfect planner, AND
wouldn't be a perfect designer......in which case, would not be the
'god' which the christians follow.
Don't tell me that you can't understand the above. Because if you
don't understand...then you better sit down for yourself for a day to
work through the logic one bit at a time.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
05 Apr 2005 10:29:54 AM |
|
|
(Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504050221.67fcef44@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962E97D35FDF0taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
So you claim to be smarter than some of the greatest phisolophers of
all time, eh?
Yeah, right.
Dork.
I didn't say that.
Yes, you did, when you dismissed 2,000 years of writings by people a hell
of a lot smarter than you. Your objections were asked and answered before
any country in Europe today even existed. You're not one tenth as smart as
you think you are.
Dork.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
05 Apr 2005 05:08:49 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message news:<Xns962F567301183taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504050221.67fcef44@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962E97D35FDF0taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
So you claim to be smarter than some of the greatest phisolophers of
all time, eh?
Yeah, right.
Dork.
I didn't say that.
Yes, you did, when you dismissed 2,000 years of writings by people a hell
of a lot smarter than you. Your objections were asked and answered before
any country in Europe today even existed. You're not one tenth as smart as
you think you are.
Dork.
You said that I 'claim' to be smarter than some of the greatest
philosophers of all time. Try your little school-yard tactics
elsewhere dork (that's what you keep signing off with...so I'll just
call you that).
I didn't dismiss 2000 years of writing, you clown. I showed that
there's a fatal flaw in the christian teachings/beliefs. So it turns
out that it's you that is not so smart.
I never objected, you clown. I explained the obvious problem with the
christian teachings in a very easy-to-understand way, so that even
folks like you can understand it. You do understand the fatal flaw,
right?
You don't even know me...so it shows how weird you are to make
pot-shot guesses about how 'smart' I am. Anyhow...how smart I am is
none of your business. And smartness is subjective. Those philosophers
might be smarter than me in some areas, while I may be smarter than
them in some areas. Let this be a lesson from me to you.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
05 Apr 2005 06:18:39 PM |
|
|
(Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504051408.60cf2ec@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962F567301183taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
(Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504050221.67fcef44@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962E97D35FDF0taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
So you claim to be smarter than some of the greatest phisolophers
of all time, eh?
Yeah, right.
Dork.
I didn't say that.
Yes, you did, when you dismissed 2,000 years of writings by people a
hell of a lot smarter than you. Your objections were asked and
answered before any country in Europe today even existed. You're not
one tenth as smart as you think you are.
Dork.
You said that I 'claim' to be smarter than some of the greatest
philosophers of all time. Try your little school-yard tactics
elsewhere dork (that's what you keep signing off with...so I'll just
call you that).
I didn't dismiss 2000 years of writing, you clown. I showed that
there's a fatal flaw in the christian teachings/beliefs.
No, you didn't. You brought up the same grade school ***** that was
address 1500 years ago by people a whole lot smarter than you, and ignored
that writing. You've got nothing new, nothing clever. Just the same old BS
that people who don't know what they're talking about always have. You some
college kid trying to look kewl so you can get some ***** or something?
That's what you sound like.
Dork.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 03:48:35 AM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message news:<Xns962FA5EBE808Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504051408.60cf2ec@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962F567301183taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504050221.67fcef44@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962E97D35FDF0taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
So you claim to be smarter than some of the greatest phisolophers
of all time, eh?
Yeah, right.
Dork.
I didn't say that.
Yes, you did, when you dismissed 2,000 years of writings by people a
hell of a lot smarter than you. Your objections were asked and
answered before any country in Europe today even existed. You're not
one tenth as smart as you think you are.
Dork.
You said that I 'claim' to be smarter than some of the greatest
philosophers of all time. Try your little school-yard tactics
elsewhere dork (that's what you keep signing off with...so I'll just
call you that).
I didn't dismiss 2000 years of writing, you clown. I showed that
there's a fatal flaw in the christian teachings/beliefs.
No, you didn't. You brought up the same grade school ***** that was
address 1500 years ago by people a whole lot smarter than you, and ignored
that writing. You've got nothing new, nothing clever. Just the same old BS
that people who don't know what they're talking about always have. You some
college kid trying to look kewl so you can get some ***** or something?
That's what you sound like.
Dork.
Hey dork...Ialready told you not to try your school-yard tactic lies
on me kid. Doesn't work here....although it may work on your little
buddies you hang with.
I never said I had anything new or anything clever, you stupid little
twerp. You're the one that made that up. I already told you that I was
explaining the problem in a very easy to understand way, so that even
dumb-nuts like you can understand it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 04:01:26 AM |
|
|
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504060048.258893b2@posting.google.com...
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962FA5EBE808Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504051408.60cf2ec@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962F567301183taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504050221.67fcef44@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962E97D35FDF0taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
So you claim to be smarter than some of the greatest phisolophers
of all time, eh?
Yeah, right.
Dork.
I didn't say that.
Yes, you did, when you dismissed 2,000 years of writings by people a
hell of a lot smarter than you. Your objections were asked and
answered before any country in Europe today even existed. You're not
one tenth as smart as you think you are.
Dork.
You said that I 'claim' to be smarter than some of the greatest
philosophers of all time. Try your little school-yard tactics
elsewhere dork (that's what you keep signing off with...so I'll just
call you that).
I didn't dismiss 2000 years of writing, you clown. I showed that
there's a fatal flaw in the christian teachings/beliefs.
No, you didn't. You brought up the same grade school ***** that was
address 1500 years ago by people a whole lot smarter than you, and
ignored
that writing. You've got nothing new, nothing clever. Just the same old
BS
that people who don't know what they're talking about always have. You
some
college kid trying to look kewl so you can get some ***** or something?
That's what you sound like.
Dork.
Hey dork...Ialready told you not to try your school-yard tactic lies
on me kid. Doesn't work here....although it may work on your little
buddies you hang with.
I never said I had anything new or anything clever, you stupid little
twerp. You're the one that made that up. I already told you that I was
explaining the problem in a very easy to understand way, so that even
dumb-nuts like you can understand it.
Which all the great intellects of the past 2000 years who have wrestled with
the idea somehow never saw.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 10:39:08 AM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:QyN4e.4390$ZV5.1172@fed1read05:
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504060048.258893b2@posting.google.com...
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962FA5EBE808Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504051408.60cf2ec@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962F567301183taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504050221.67fcef44@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
message
news:<Xns962E97D35FDF0taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
So you claim to be smarter than some of the greatest
phisolophers of all time, eh?
Yeah, right.
Dork.
I didn't say that.
Yes, you did, when you dismissed 2,000 years of writings by
people a hell of a lot smarter than you. Your objections were
asked and answered before any country in Europe today even
existed. You're not one tenth as smart as you think you are.
Dork.
You said that I 'claim' to be smarter than some of the greatest
philosophers of all time. Try your little school-yard tactics
elsewhere dork (that's what you keep signing off with...so I'll
just call you that).
I didn't dismiss 2000 years of writing, you clown. I showed that
there's a fatal flaw in the christian teachings/beliefs.
No, you didn't. You brought up the same grade school ***** that
was address 1500 years ago by people a whole lot smarter than you,
and ignored
that writing. You've got nothing new, nothing clever. Just the same
old BS
that people who don't know what they're talking about always have.
You some
college kid trying to look kewl so you can get some ***** or
something? That's what you sound like.
Dork.
Hey dork...Ialready told you not to try your school-yard tactic lies
on me kid. Doesn't work here....although it may work on your little
buddies you hang with.
I never said I had anything new or anything clever, you stupid little
twerp. You're the one that made that up. I already told you that I
was explaining the problem in a very easy to understand way, so that
even dumb-nuts like you can understand it.
Which all the great intellects of the past 2000 years who have
wrestled with the idea somehow never saw.
Yeah, he's *so* clever.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 03:54:02 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<QyN4e.4390$ZV5.1172@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504060048.258893b2@posting.google.com...
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962FA5EBE808Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504051408.60cf2ec@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962F567301183taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504050221.67fcef44@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962E97D35FDF0taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
So you claim to be smarter than some of the greatest phisolophers
of all time, eh?
Yeah, right.
Dork.
I didn't say that.
Yes, you did, when you dismissed 2,000 years of writings by people a
hell of a lot smarter than you. Your objections were asked and
answered before any country in Europe today even existed. You're not
one tenth as smart as you think you are.
Dork.
You said that I 'claim' to be smarter than some of the greatest
philosophers of all time. Try your little school-yard tactics
elsewhere dork (that's what you keep signing off with...so I'll just
call you that).
I didn't dismiss 2000 years of writing, you clown. I showed that
there's a fatal flaw in the christian teachings/beliefs.
No, you didn't. You brought up the same grade school ***** that was
address 1500 years ago by people a whole lot smarter than you, and
ignored
that writing. You've got nothing new, nothing clever. Just the same old
BS
that people who don't know what they're talking about always have. You
some
college kid trying to look kewl so you can get some ***** or something?
That's what you sound like.
Dork.
Hey dork...Ialready told you not to try your school-yard tactic lies
on me kid. Doesn't work here....although it may work on your little
buddies you hang with.
I never said I had anything new or anything clever, you stupid little
twerp. You're the one that made that up. I already told you that I was
explaining the problem in a very easy to understand way, so that even
dumb-nuts like you can understand it.
Which all the great intellects of the past 2000 years who have wrestled with
the idea somehow never saw.
Yah....true, which is very interesting. Maybe they just skipped the
fundamentals and fell into the trap of debating various irrelevant
issues without seeing the fatal flaw at the entrance (entry point to
the bible). But now...having explained where the root problem
occurs....they'll all say 'oh gee...we didn't think of that before'
hehehe
Kenny
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 10:38:42 AM |
|
|
(Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504060048.258893b2@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962FA5EBE808Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
(Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504051408.60cf2ec@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962F567301183taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
(Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504050221.67fcef44@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962E97D35FDF0taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
So you claim to be smarter than some of the greatest
phisolophers of all time, eh?
Yeah, right.
Dork.
I didn't say that.
Yes, you did, when you dismissed 2,000 years of writings by people
a hell of a lot smarter than you. Your objections were asked and
answered before any country in Europe today even existed. You're
not one tenth as smart as you think you are.
Dork.
You said that I 'claim' to be smarter than some of the greatest
philosophers of all time. Try your little school-yard tactics
elsewhere dork (that's what you keep signing off with...so I'll
just call you that).
I didn't dismiss 2000 years of writing, you clown. I showed that
there's a fatal flaw in the christian teachings/beliefs.
No, you didn't. You brought up the same grade school ***** that
was address 1500 years ago by people a whole lot smarter than you,
and ignored that writing. You've got nothing new, nothing clever.
Just the same old BS that people who don't know what they're talking
about always have. You some college kid trying to look kewl so you
can get some ***** or something? That's what you sound like.
Dork.
Hey dork...
I know you are, but what am I?
Ialready told you not to try your school-yard tactic lies
on me kid.
Make me stop, dork.
Doesn't work here....although it may work on your little
buddies you hang with.
Works just fine on you, too, dork.
I never said I had anything new or anything clever, you stupid little
twerp.
Liar.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 06:00:32 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message news:<Xns963057F13B079taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504060048.258893b2@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962FA5EBE808Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504051408.60cf2ec@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962F567301183taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504050221.67fcef44@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962E97D35FDF0taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
So you claim to be smarter than some of the greatest
phisolophers of all time, eh?
Yeah, right.
Dork.
I didn't say that.
Yes, you did, when you dismissed 2,000 years of writings by people
a hell of a lot smarter than you. Your objections were asked and
answered before any country in Europe today even existed. You're
not one tenth as smart as you think you are.
Dork.
You said that I 'claim' to be smarter than some of the greatest
philosophers of all time. Try your little school-yard tactics
elsewhere dork (that's what you keep signing off with...so I'll
just call you that).
I didn't dismiss 2000 years of writing, you clown. I showed that
there's a fatal flaw in the christian teachings/beliefs.
No, you didn't. You brought up the same grade school ***** that
was address 1500 years ago by people a whole lot smarter than you,
and ignored that writing. You've got nothing new, nothing clever.
Just the same old BS that people who don't know what they're talking
about always have. You some college kid trying to look kewl so you
can get some ***** or something? That's what you sound like.
Dork.
Hey dork...
I know you are, but what am I?
Ialready told you not to try your school-yard tactic lies
on me kid.
Make me stop, dork.
Doesn't work here....although it may work on your little
buddies you hang with.
Works just fine on you, too, dork.
I never said I had anything new or anything clever, you stupid little
twerp.
Liar.
Hey dork....get a big plastic bin to catch the dribble flowing out from you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 06:14:10 PM |
|
|
(Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504061500.2c964c5a@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns963057F13B079taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
(Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504060048.258893b2@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962FA5EBE808Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
(Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504051408.60cf2ec@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns962F567301183taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
(Kenny Leong) wrote in
news:29154d7c.0504050221.67fcef44@posting.google.com:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
message
news:<Xns962E97D35FDF0taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>...
So you claim to be smarter than some of the greatest
phisolophers of all time, eh?
Yeah, right.
Dork.
I didn't say that.
Yes, you did, when you dismissed 2,000 years of writings by
people a hell of a lot smarter than you. Your objections were
asked and answered before any country in Europe today even
existed. You're not one tenth as smart as you think you are.
Dork.
You said that I 'claim' to be smarter than some of the greatest
philosophers of all time. Try your little school-yard tactics
elsewhere dork (that's what you keep signing off with...so I'll
just call you that).
I didn't dismiss 2000 years of writing, you clown. I showed that
there's a fatal flaw in the christian teachings/beliefs.
No, you didn't. You brought up the same grade school ***** that
was address 1500 years ago by people a whole lot smarter than you,
and ignored that writing. You've got nothing new, nothing clever.
Just the same old BS that people who don't know what they're
talking about always have. You some college kid trying to look
kewl so you can get some ***** or something? That's what you sound
like.
Dork.
Hey dork...
I know you are, but what am I?
Ialready told you not to try your school-yard tactic lies
on me kid.
Make me stop, dork.
Doesn't work here....although it may work on your little
buddies you hang with.
Works just fine on you, too, dork.
I never said I had anything new or anything clever, you stupid
little twerp.
Liar.
Hey dork....get a big plastic bin to catch the dribble flowing out
from you.
I know you are, but what am I?
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "scooter" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
03 Apr 2005 08:16:25 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-------------------------------
By John J. Pexton, The Forum
Published Sunday, April 03, 2005
Spurious creationist arguments against the legitimacy of evolutionary
biology apparently reappear with a depressing regularity in America.
A
thinly disguised re-working of these discredited ideas is the
relatively
new concept of "intelligent design theory," as championed by Tracy
Sayler
in The Forum (March 27 "Darwinism a religion in itself"). Sayler, in
keeping with fellow "intelligent design theorists," commits a number
of
egregious errors in his reasoning and in his characterization of
science.
Is science unfairly biased against the idea of an intelligent
designer or
the idea that supernatural phenomena could account for various
aspects of
the universe in which we live? Is neo-Darwinism only a philosophical
posture? The answer to both those questions is a resounding no!
---------------------------------
Read it at http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=87529
§ion=Opinion or http://tinyurl.com/4r6ll
(get a login ID at http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.in-forum.com )
J. Spaceman
This is a good article. The author cuts through all that post-modern
rhetoric. Nice one, Spaceman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enlightment_1774" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
03 Apr 2005 05:04:10 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the interest in the article guys!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
03 Apr 2005 07:27:20 PM |
|
|
Enlightment_1774 wrote:
Thanks for the interest in the article guys!
I liked it, John. I thought it was very well written and to the point.
EROS.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"It is misleading for creationists to characterize science in general
and to define evolution in particular as "godless." Science is
godless in the same way that plumbing is godless. Surely it is
unreasonable to complain of a "priesthood" of plumbers who only
consider naturalistic explanations of stopped drains and do not
consider the "alternative hypothesis" that the origin of the backed-up
toilet was the design of an intervening malicious spirit." - Robert
T. Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
03 Apr 2005 06:22:04 PM |
|
|
scooter wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-------------------------------
By John J. Pexton, The Forum
Published Sunday, April 03, 2005
Spurious creationist arguments against the legitimacy of
evolutionary
biology apparently reappear with a depressing regularity in
America.
A
thinly disguised re-working of these discredited ideas is the
relatively
new concept of "intelligent design theory," as championed by Tracy
Sayler
in The Forum (March 27 "Darwinism a religion in itself"). Sayler,
in
keeping with fellow "intelligent design theorists," commits a
number
of
egregious errors in his reasoning and in his characterization of
science.
Is science unfairly biased against the idea of an intelligent
designer or
the idea that supernatural phenomena could account for various
aspects of
the universe in which we live? Is neo-Darwinism only a
philosophical
posture? The answer to both those questions is a resounding no!
---------------------------------
Read it at http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=87529
§ion=Opinion or http://tinyurl.com/4r6ll
(get a login ID at http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.in-forum.com )
J. Spaceman
This is a good article. The author cuts through all that post-modern
rhetoric. Nice one, Spaceman.
Hear hear! It does cut out the fluff pretty effectively. Now if we
could get a few thousand creationists to read and understand it... :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
