Religions > Atheism > In the News: Controversial notion could be making its way into public schools
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
28 Aug 2003 06:20:59 PM |
| Object: |
In the News: Controversial notion could be making its way into public schools |
From the article:
-------------------------------
ABC13 Eyewitness News
(8/27/03 - MONTGOMERY CO) — It's a controversial move that some say
could open the doors to teaching creationism in public schools. A
local group is gathering signatures that would require science
teachers in Montgomery County to teach a concept called 'Intelligent
Design'.
Intelligent Design is a concept that suggests all of us and everything
we know in this world were created intentionally by one single being.
And volunteers have collected more than 1,000 signatures supporting
the teaching of Intelligent Design at schools throughout Montgomery
County.
---------------------------------
Read the rest at http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/82703_local_intelligentdesign.html
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Klaus Hellnick" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Controversial notion could be making its way into public schools |
29 Aug 2003 04:12:30 AM |
|
|
"Cheezits" <cheezits32@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93E5C90185D61cheezitsnetzeronet@129.250.170.96...
jspaceman@linuxquestions.net (Jason Spaceman) wrote:
ABC13 Eyewitness News
(8/27/03 - MONTGOMERY CO) - It's a controversial move that some say
could open the doors to teaching creationism in public schools. A
local group is gathering signatures that would require science
teachers in Montgomery County to teach a concept called 'Intelligent
Design'.
I know they don't mean Montgomery Co., PA, but I still shudder to see it.
Then again, it doesn't actually say which state it is in. <shudder>
I think it may be Texas. There is a Montgomery County near Houston, and ABC
is on channel 13. I will look into this.
Klaus
And volunteers have collected more than 1,000 signatures supporting
the teaching of Intelligent Design at schools throughout Montgomery
County.
As usual, people who nothing about science expect science teachers to
teach
according to what is popular with the masses. Someone ought to remind
these people that there is NO theory of Intelligent Design!
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Controversial notion could be making its way into public schools |
03 Oct 2003 01:53:37 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0308281521.278bb8f@posting.google.com...
From the article:
-------------------------------
ABC13 Eyewitness News
(8/27/03 - MONTGOMERY CO) - It's a controversial move that some say
could open the doors to teaching creationism in public schools. A
local group is gathering signatures that would require science
teachers in Montgomery County to teach a concept called 'Intelligent
Design'.
Intelligent Design is a concept that suggests all of us and everything
we know in this world were created intentionally by one single being.
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "observa" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Controversial notion could be making its way into public schools |
05 Oct 2003 09:51:02 PM |
|
|
"Chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Ozjfb.46041$vj2.7885@fed1read06...
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0308281521.278bb8f@posting.google.com...
From the article:
-------------------------------
ABC13 Eyewitness News
(8/27/03 - MONTGOMERY CO) - It's a controversial move that some say
could open the doors to teaching creationism in public schools. A
local group is gathering signatures that would require science
teachers in Montgomery County to teach a concept called 'Intelligent
Design'.
Intelligent Design is a concept that suggests all of us and everything
we know in this world were created intentionally by one single being.
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
You know, the best candidate for the "God" of ID is, as far as I can figure,
Io. "He's" a Maori god who simply flipped the light on, and let everything
go from there. Has no influence on what happened afterwards, and doesn't
have temper tantrums like most other gods (especially the XTian one).
Unfortunately he did it around 400 CE. I'll post some stuff about him later
as an indication about how gods can *devolve*, and even "primitive" people
can develop some fairly sophisticated ideas.
That is, if anyone is interested. Let me know.
Alan Jeffery
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Intelligent design requirments |
04 Oct 2003 12:44:01 AM |
|
|
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be intelligent.
--
We know government conspiracies are impossible because it is
impossible for hundreds of people in the government to convince
70% of the American people Iraq was involved in 9/11. Someone
would certainly have spoken up and exposed the conspiracy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2874
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Thomas Grisham" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
29 Oct 2003 10:20:41 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<latfb.3290$qw.426781@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be intelligent.
"Intelligent" from our perspective as a species is relative.
When men walk across the African Savanna, the lions aren't thinking,
"Oh, they're too intelligent... it's better not mess with them!".
They're thinking, "Those animals walking on their hind legs are
crazy... it's better just to ignore them!".
There is no less intelligent creature that truly views humans as more
intelligent. It would be inconsistent for humans to view a more
intelligent creature as truly a more intelligent creature. Therefore,
intelligence is irrelevent as a measure of any design beyond our own,
because we are naturally predisposed to ignore any intelligence other
than our own.
A more appropriate scientific basis for such a theory might be
"Quantum Design" or "Superstring Design". However, that would create
controversy in the field of Physics which is now diverted to ID.
Perhaps, it is best not to think of ID as a science, but as a safety
valve to keep those with religious and atheistic views from corrupting
research in Physics.
Of course, I could be wrong.
JTG 10/29/03
JTG 10/29/03
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
31 Oct 2003 05:34:07 AM |
|
|
John Thomas Grisham wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<latfb.3290$qw.426781@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be intelligent.
"Intelligent" from our perspective as a species is relative.
It is like pornography, I know it when I see it.
When men walk across the African Savanna, the lions aren't thinking,
"Oh, they're too intelligent... it's better not mess with them!".
They're thinking, "Those animals walking on their hind legs are
crazy... it's better just to ignore them!".
We are talking design ability here. Whoever that jerkoff was it is like deisgning a
bridge to collapse and then getting his supporters to say there is some mystery in why it
was intelligently designed to collapse. It is no secret. The designer is a fucking
incompetent.
There is no less intelligent creature that truly views humans as more
intelligent. It would be inconsistent for humans to view a more
intelligent creature as truly a more intelligent creature. Therefore,
intelligence is irrelevent as a measure of any design beyond our own,
because we are naturally predisposed to ignore any intelligence other
than our own.
The bridge collapsed because of the ineffable intelligence of the designer. What a
fucking stupid copout.
A more appropriate scientific basis for such a theory might be
"Quantum Design" or "Superstring Design". However, that would create
controversy in the field of Physics which is now diverted to ID.
Perhaps, it is best not to think of ID as a science, but as a safety
valve to keep those with religious and atheistic views from corrupting
research in Physics.
It is best to realize ID is an idea conceived by idiots and promoted by idiots. The best
you is I for incompetetant or imbecilic.
Of course, I could be wrong.
You are so fucking wrong it is proof of an incompetant designer. Or perhaps extremely
intelligent and simply malicious and sadistic.
--
If Israelis can call for Beirut to be incinerated why
cannot anyone else call for Tel Aviv to be incinerated?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2884
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
04 Oct 2003 12:18:00 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be intelligent.
If you mean to suggest the postulated designer can be stupid, then
that's a new spin on the matter. However, if you mean to suggest the
design could be random, that is, not directed by an intelligence, then
how is that different from evolution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
04 Oct 2003 12:35:29 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 4 Oct 2003 17:18:00 +0000 (UTC),
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be intelligent.
If you mean to suggest the postulated designer can be stupid, then
that's a new spin on the matter. However, if you mean to suggest the
design could be random, that is, not directed by an intelligence, then
how is that different from evolution?
Just speaking for myself, it sounds more to me like he's suggesting
that the design itself isn't intelligent, regardless of how
intelligent any postulated designer may be. Whether or not that's
what he's saying, it's a sentiment with which I'd have to agree.
--
L8r,
Avender
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
Common is the man who can be fashioned into a
reflection of the era in which he lives.
Rare is the man who can take the era in which
he lives, and fashion it into a reflection
of himself.
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
05 Oct 2003 02:57:48 AM |
|
|
L. Raymond wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be intelligent.
If you mean to suggest the postulated designer can be stupid, then
that's a new spin on the matter. However, if you mean to suggest the
design could be random, that is, not directed by an intelligence, then
how is that different from evolution?
I mean stupid. What kind of idiot would give humans such a shitty design for a
back? It is the rare human who lives to a ripe old age without some kind of back
problem.
In fact who would have designed humans with their throat and belly exposed in the
front to any attacker? Who in the hell would hang organs off of a vertical spine
in the first place? You would almost think humans were an afterthought and no time
was spent modifying quadruped design to a biped design. And don't get me started
on flat feet.
And who in the hell made was the idiot who designed women's birthing anatomy?
Maybe it was an apprentice designer and this world is one of its discarded first
exercises but that is about the only excuse possible.
--
If the US treated Irish like Jews it would have bombed London
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2834
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
05 Oct 2003 10:43:47 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism
L. Raymond wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be
intelligent.
If you mean to suggest the postulated designer can be stupid, then
that's a new spin on the matter. However, if you mean to suggest the
design could be random, that is, not directed by an intelligence, then
how is that different from evolution?
I mean stupid. What kind of idiot would give humans such a shitty design
for a back? It is the rare human who lives to a ripe old age without some
kind of back problem.
Do other apes who walk on all fours not have such back problems?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
05 Oct 2003 03:35:08 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism
L. Raymond wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be
intelligent.
If you mean to suggest the postulated designer can be stupid, then
that's a new spin on the matter. However, if you mean to suggest the
design could be random, that is, not directed by an intelligence, then
how is that different from evolution?
I mean stupid. What kind of idiot would give humans such a shitty design
for a back? It is the rare human who lives to a ripe old age without some
kind of back problem.
Do other apes who walk on all fours not have such back problems?
None have so far turned up at a back clinic.
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
06 Oct 2003 12:01:46 AM |
|
|
"John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1g2ea8m.1jmzjn5npltn7N%wilkins@wehi.edu.au...
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
snip
Do other apes who walk on all fours not have such back problems?
None have so far turned up at a back clinic.
They know better than to go to chiropractors.
Lane
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
06 Oct 2003 01:14:46 AM |
|
|
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@@@@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1g2ea8m.1jmzjn5npltn7N%wilkins@wehi.edu.au...
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
snip
Do other apes who walk on all fours not have such back problems?
None have so far turned up at a back clinic.
They know better than to go to chiropractors.
Or, as doctors of my acquaintance call them, crack practicers.
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
07 Oct 2003 01:36:08 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism
L. Raymond wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be
intelligent.
If you mean to suggest the postulated designer can be stupid, then
that's a new spin on the matter. However, if you mean to suggest the
design could be random, that is, not directed by an intelligence, then
how is that different from evolution?
I mean stupid. What kind of idiot would give humans such a shitty design
for a back? It is the rare human who lives to a ripe old age without some
kind of back problem.
Do other apes who walk on all fours not have such back problems?
I have never asked one, have you?
But quite immaterial. The human design is so fucked it must have washed YHWH out
of god school.
--
The UN standoff on Iraq can be summed up in one phrase.
You break it you buy it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2857
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
28 Oct 2003 09:15:14 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be intelligent.
If you mean to suggest the postulated designer can be stupid, then
that's a new spin on the matter. However, if you mean to suggest the
design could be random, that is, not directed by an intelligence, then
how is that different from evolution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
29 Oct 2003 04:06:57 AM |
|
|
L. Raymond wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be intelligent.
If you mean to suggest the postulated designer can be stupid, then
that's a new spin on the matter. However, if you mean to suggest the
design could be random, that is, not directed by an intelligence, then
how is that different from evolution?
Incompetant at least if you look at the human back and how the idiot hung organs off of
it as though the design started four legged. Then look at the rest of the designed in
defects. Eye sight, diabetes, susceptable to diseases, painful births. The list is very
long and should have gotten the incompetant SOB fired from his designing job long before
he got the earth project.
--
Free enterprise and capitalism are polar opposites.
Capitalism differs for communism in terms of who
controls the economy. With free enterprise no one
controls the economy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2885
.
|
|
|
| User: "LisaKay" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
29 Oct 2003 03:28:01 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<djMnb.93123$ox6.1256435@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
L. Raymond wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be intelligent.
If you mean to suggest the postulated designer can be stupid, then
that's a new spin on the matter. However, if you mean to suggest the
design could be random, that is, not directed by an intelligence, then
how is that different from evolution?
Incompetant at least if you look at the human back and how the idiot hung organs off of
it as though the design started four legged. Then look at the rest of the designed in
defects. Eye sight, diabetes, susceptable to diseases,
CARPAL TUNNEL!!!!!!
painful births. The list is very
long and should have gotten the incompetant SOB fired from his designing job long before
he got the earth project.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
30 Oct 2003 06:28:37 PM |
|
|
In article <1dbe2aec.0310291327.f97110d@posting.google.com>,
(LisaKay) wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<djMnb.93123$ox6.1256435@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
L. Raymond wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be
intelligent.
If you mean to suggest the postulated designer can be stupid, then
that's a new spin on the matter. However, if you mean to suggest the
design could be random, that is, not directed by an intelligence, then
how is that different from evolution?
Incompetant at least if you look at the human back and how the idiot hung
organs off of
it as though the design started four legged. Then look at the rest of the
designed in
defects. Eye sight, diabetes, susceptable to diseases,
CARPAL TUNNEL!!!!!!
painful births. The list is very
long and should have gotten the incompetant SOB fired from his designing
job long before
he got the earth project.
*
Carlin said it best:
"But I want you to know, I want you to know something, this is
sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in god -- I
really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there
is a god who created each one of us in his own image and likeness,
loves us very much and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to
believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you
look around, the more you realize -- something is FUCKED-UP.
Something is WRONG here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger,
filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and the Ice Capades.
Something is definitely wrong. This is NOT good work. If this is the
best god can do, I am NOT impressed. Results like these do not belong
on the resume of a supreme being. This is the kind of ***** you'd
expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you
and me, in any decently run universe, this guy would have been out on
his all-powerful ***** a long time ago."
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
31 Oct 2003 05:26:16 AM |
|
|
Earle Jones wrote:
*
Carlin said it best:
"But I want you to know, I want you to know something, this is
sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in god -- I
really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there
is a god who created each one of us in his own image and likeness,
loves us very much and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to
believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you
look around, the more you realize -- something is FUCKED-UP.
Something is WRONG here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger,
filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and the Ice Capades.
Something is definitely wrong. This is NOT good work. If this is the
best god can do, I am NOT impressed. Results like these do not belong
on the resume of a supreme being. This is the kind of ***** you'd
expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you
and me, in any decently run universe, this guy would have been out on
his all-powerful ***** a long time ago."
--George Carlin
Draft Memorandum
1 January 2000
From: Supreme Deity, Department of Race Development
To: Human Race
Subj: Change of Command
This is to inform you, effective this date, I am assuming command from Yahweh God.
It has come to the attention of the Universe Department of the United Dieties of Space and
Time by means of persistent performance complaints that Yahweh God is more concerned with
his career than with his job.
It is noted his concentration on and his purient interest in such trivial matters as human
sexual behavior and general interpersonal nastiness which humans are more than capable of
dealing with themselves rather than such larger issues of curing disease, eliminating war
and the like. It is noted his constant negative "don't"s rather than positive "do"s have
caused serious problems for the progress of the human race.
It is further noted Jahweh God was very long on promises but regularly failed to deliver
being more occupied by personal matters. Specifically he invited prayers and then failed
to respond to them. He would promise great rewards and comfort to those who followed him
and would neglect in which they suffered and often died. He would blame their lack of
faith and smirkingly say he was "testing" them. (For your forbearance with this in
particular we are truly grateful.)
Also Yahweh God was noted his sparsity of description of the ultimate rewards (holding
being in his presence was sufficient description, a personality trait that should have
alerted us millenia ago) while at the same time developing in minute detail the
punishments for the most trivial infractions of his arbitrary and capricious rule making.
Within the next millenium a full time god will be appointed to the human race. He will
announce himself in such manner as he sees fit at the time. He will specifically not hide
the fact in any manner, he will not play coy, he will not play any "guess who I really am"
techniques. The essence of a true god is knowledge, not faith.
In the interim and working with my staff I have developed a schedule of revelations that
will attempt to make up for the damage the human race has incurred.
The Ten Commandments and all regulatory additions are hereby rescinded. The human race can
handle anything they address without my help.
Within 30 days everyone will be receiving a formal contract of belief and acceptance
providing specifics which are binding upon both sides and giving the procedure for
arbitratation of differences. A simple summary brochure will be included. This will be a
freely entered into contract and rejection of same will entail no penalties. However, if
you would like an individual negotiation or clarification a prayer will be provided.
You will have 90 minutes of free prayer before you sign in order to determine if you like
the terms of this contract. I personally assure you, all prayers will be listened to and
if rejected a detailed reason for rejection will be provided in return.
Within 60 days of receipt of the signed contract a set of guidelines will be provided
which, if followed, will lead to the advancement of the arts and sciences, the elimination
of the recurrent ills of the human race and the propagation of universal brotherhood and
the like.
As I expect it will take no more than 200 years for the implementation of those to result
in complete success and make up for the failings of Yahweh God, get you up to speed so to
speak, the next set of guidelines will get down to the really important things.
Your cooperation will be appreciated. We at the Department of Race Develop hope you will
not judge all gods by Yahweh God. We regret any inconvenience his assignment to the human
race may have caused.
Remember our motto, Gods are on your side.
Respectfully,
/s/
PS This memo is on platinum. Please do not lose this like you did the stone one.
PPS I back date my copyright interests in this to Matt Giwer in the year 1993 as he will
become my good and faithful partner real soon now.
--
If you do not fully understand and sympathize with a man's
motives you do not have the moral authority to kill him.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2875
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
31 Oct 2003 05:18:49 AM |
|
|
LisaKay wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<djMnb.93123$ox6.1256435@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
L. Raymond wrote:
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be intelligent.
If you mean to suggest the postulated designer can be stupid, then
that's a new spin on the matter. However, if you mean to suggest the
design could be random, that is, not directed by an intelligence, then
how is that different from evolution?
Incompetant at least if you look at the human back and how the idiot hung organs off of
it as though the design started four legged. Then look at the rest of the designed in
defects. Eye sight, diabetes, susceptable to diseases,
CARPAL TUNNEL!!!!!!
Right!!!
The jerkoff was too stupid to know computers were coming? Would you trust it with
designing anything? In fact we lose muscle tone in space. The jackass never thought of
space travel? Did his father own the company?
--
If we are required to believe the stories of court historians
then we are to be as dumb as court historians.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2890
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Salt" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
28 Oct 2003 08:38:40 PM |
|
|
We have a new theory... Stoopid Design...and reading some of the posts
here... im starting to think it has strengths :-)
--
Steve
The are no stupid questions.... but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent design requirments |
04 Oct 2003 08:36:32 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 05:44:01 +0000 (UTC), Matt Giwer
<jull43@tampabay.rr.com>, Message ID:
<latfb.3290$qw.426781@twister.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Chosp wrote:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
There is also no requirement in intelligent design that the design be intelligent.
As is sustained by many species.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Controversial notion could be making its way into public schools |
03 Oct 2003 03:12:02 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0308281521.278bb8f@posting.google.com...
From the article:
-------------------------------
ABC13 Eyewitness News
(8/27/03 - MONTGOMERY CO) - It's a controversial move that some say
could open the doors to teaching creationism in public schools. A
local group is gathering signatures that would require science
teachers in Montgomery County to teach a concept called 'Intelligent
Design'.
Intelligent Design is a concept that suggests all of us and everything
we know in this world were created intentionally by one single being.
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Controversial notion could be making its way into public schools |
04 Oct 2003 12:05:45 AM |
|
|
"Chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:VQkfb.46046$vj2.43263@fed1read06...
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0308281521.278bb8f@posting.google.com...
From the article:
-------------------------------
ABC13 Eyewitness News
(8/27/03 - MONTGOMERY CO) - It's a controversial move that some say
could open the doors to teaching creationism in public schools. A
local group is gathering signatures that would require science
teachers in Montgomery County to teach a concept called 'Intelligent
Design'.
Intelligent Design is a concept that suggests all of us and everything
we know in this world were created intentionally by one single being.
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
Then why isn't it called Intelligent Designers?
I've never heard them even suggest a plural.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Controversial notion could be making its way into public schools |
03 Oct 2003 03:47:19 PM |
|
|
"Chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in news:VQkfb.46046$vj2.43263@fed1read06:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0308281521.278bb8f@posting.google.com...
From the article:
-------------------------------
ABC13 Eyewitness News
(8/27/03 - MONTGOMERY CO) - It's a controversial move that some say
could open the doors to teaching creationism in public schools. A
local group is gathering signatures that would require science
teachers in Montgomery County to teach a concept called 'Intelligent
Design'.
Intelligent Design is a concept that suggests all of us and everything
we know in this world were created intentionally by one single being.
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
Except, of course, the term "ID" has ben co-opted by the Wedge
propogandists, so, yes, now there is. A a very specific one at that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Controversial notion could be making its way into public schools |
03 Oct 2003 03:53:36 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0308281521.278bb8f@posting.google.com...
From the article:
-------------------------------
ABC13 Eyewitness News
(8/27/03 - MONTGOMERY CO) - It's a controversial move that some say
could open the doors to teaching creationism in public schools. A
local group is gathering signatures that would require science
teachers in Montgomery County to teach a concept called 'Intelligent
Design'.
Intelligent Design is a concept that suggests all of us and everything
we know in this world were created intentionally by one single being.
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Controversial notion could be making its way into public schools |
03 Oct 2003 08:37:54 PM |
|
|
"Chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in news:HNkfb.46045$vj2.17723@fed1read06:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0308281521.278bb8f@posting.google.com...
From the article:
-------------------------------
ABC13 Eyewitness News
(8/27/03 - MONTGOMERY CO) - It's a controversial move that some say
could open the doors to teaching creationism in public schools. A
local group is gathering signatures that would require science
teachers in Montgomery County to teach a concept called 'Intelligent
Design'.
Intelligent Design is a concept that suggests all of us and everything
we know in this world were created intentionally by one single being.
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
And there's no evidence in science of any designer, intelligent or
otherwise.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Controversial notion could be making its way intopublic schools |
03 Oct 2003 10:20:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:53:36 +0000 (UTC), "Chosp" <chosp@cox.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
Repeating an error 3 times doesn't make it correct. It does make you
look quite desperate, though.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Controversial notion could be making its way intopublic schools |
03 Oct 2003 10:58:05 PM |
|
|
<snip>
A "controversial notion"? {=-O Oh, no! {=-# It's finally happened,
hasn't it? They've finally decided that our children's minds are
important enough to warrant adequate funding towards educating them,
haven't they? My _stars_, how could they do such a thing?
--
L8r,
Avender
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
Common is the man who can be fashioned into a
reflection of the era in which he lives.
Rare is the man who can take the era in which
he lives, and fashion it into a reflection
of himself.
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Controversial notion could be making its way intopublic schools |
08 Oct 2003 02:14:35 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7ffsnvoo12567picaamq5d087ps21258ui@Pern.rk...
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:53:36 +0000 (UTC), "Chosp" <chosp@cox.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
There is no requirement in Intelligent Design for creation by one single
being.
Repeating an error 3 times doesn't make it correct. It does make you
look quite desperate, though.
First, I only posted once. I don't know why it showed up 3 times.
Second, show me the error. Where, specifically, is there a requirement
in ID for creation by one single being?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
