| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Smurfette" |
| Date: |
16 Dec 2005 09:02:12 AM |
| Object: |
sketch... |
Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific theory'
what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very establishment.
Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with it?
Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous, that's
what's wrong with it!
Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the controversy'...
Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when I see
one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated. Remarkable
theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look at all these
books and articles: millions and millions of words...!
Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead. It's a
non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics. This
'theory' generates no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond
extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the
'Designer' was. Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it
has no scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist
pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of attacking decades of
discomfiting scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up daisies!
It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS IS A
NON-THEORY!
Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around]
Sorry, squire: looks like that's all we've got...
Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture.
Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human
tibia, if you squint at it...
Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological and
biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of observed
homologies and the nested hierarchy of life?
Salesman: Not really.
Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS IT?
----------
Mich.
.
|
|
| User: "Jesus H Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: sketch... |
16 Dec 2005 11:24:51 PM |
|
|
"Smurfette" <Smurfette@t.com> wrote in
news:UFAof.46819$uR.14481@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net:
Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific
theory' what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very
establishment.
Sheer Brilliance.
jesus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: AQOTM Re: sketch... |
17 Dec 2005 01:19:01 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:02:12 GMT, "Smurfette" <Smurfette@t.com> wrote:
Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific theory'
what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very establishment.
Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with it?
Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous, that's
what's wrong with it!
Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the controversy'...
Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when I see
one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated. Remarkable
theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look at all these
books and articles: millions and millions of words...!
Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead. It's a
non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics. This
'theory' generates no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond
extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the
'Designer' was. Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it
has no scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist
pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of attacking decades of
discomfiting scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up daisies!
It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS IS A
NON-THEORY!
Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around]
Sorry, squire: looks like that's all we've got...
Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture.
Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human
tibia, if you squint at it...
Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological and
biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of observed
homologies and the nested hierarchy of life?
Salesman: Not really.
Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS IT?
----------
Mich.
I know it's long, but nominate the entire post.
Kate
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: sketch... |
16 Dec 2005 10:43:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:02:12 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Smurfette" <Smurfette@t.com> wrote in
<UFAof.46819$uR.14481@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>:
Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific theory'
what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very establishment.
Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with it?
Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous, that's
what's wrong with it!
Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the controversy'...
Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when I see
one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated. Remarkable
theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look at all these
books and articles: millions and millions of words...!
Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead. It's a
non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics. This
'theory' generates no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond
extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the
'Designer' was. Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it
has no scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist
pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of attacking decades of
discomfiting scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up daisies!
It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS IS A
NON-THEORY!
Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around]
Sorry, squire: looks like that's all we've got...
Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture.
Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human
tibia, if you squint at it...
Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological and
biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of observed
homologies and the nested hierarchy of life?
Salesman: Not really.
Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS IT?
----------
Mich.
Well done.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: sketch... |
16 Dec 2005 03:10:10 PM |
|
|
Smurfette wrote:
Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific
theory' what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very
establishment. [...]
Wonderful smurfette. Simply wonderful. Thumbs up! :)
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Kaufmann" |
|
| Title: AQOTM Re: sketch... |
16 Dec 2005 01:02:27 PM |
|
|
Smurfette wrote:
Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific theory'
what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very establishment.
Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with it?
Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous, that's
what's wrong with it!
Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the controversy'...
Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when I see
one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated. Remarkable
theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look at all these
books and articles: millions and millions of words...!
Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead. It's a
non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics. This
'theory' generates no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond
extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the
'Designer' was. Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it
has no scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist
pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of attacking decades of
discomfiting scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up daisies!
It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS IS A
NON-THEORY!
Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around]
Sorry, squire: looks like that's all we've got...
Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture.
Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human
tibia, if you squint at it...
Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological and
biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of observed
homologies and the nested hierarchy of life?
Salesman: Not really.
Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS IT?
----------
Mich.
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!
Seconds?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM Re: sketch... |
16 Dec 2005 02:40:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:02:27 -0500, Carl Kaufmann <ckaufmann@cox.net>
wrote:
Smurfette wrote:
Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific theory'
what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very establishment.
Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with it?
Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous, that's
what's wrong with it!
Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the controversy'...
Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when I see
one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated. Remarkable
theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look at all these
books and articles: millions and millions of words...!
Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead. It's a
non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics. This
'theory' generates no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond
extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the
'Designer' was. Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it
has no scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist
pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of attacking decades of
discomfiting scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up daisies!
It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS IS A
NON-THEORY!
Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around]
Sorry, squire: looks like that's all we've got...
Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture.
Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human
tibia, if you squint at it...
Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological and
biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of observed
homologies and the nested hierarchy of life?
Salesman: Not really.
Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS IT?
----------
Mich.
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!
Seconds?
Absolutely. And I think Cleese, Palin, Idle et. al. would agree. <G>
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM Re: sketch... |
21 Dec 2005 05:46:44 AM |
|
|
In article <of96q1943qt93qilsptjghcl8db898pula@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:02:27 -0500, Carl Kaufmann <ckaufmann@cox.net>
wrote:
Smurfette wrote:
Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific
theory'
what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very establishment.
Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with it?
Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous, that's
what's wrong with it!
Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the controversy'...
Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when I
see
one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated. Remarkable
theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look at all these
books and articles: millions and millions of words...!
Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead. It's
a
non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics. This
'theory' generates no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond
extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the
'Designer' was. Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it
has no scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist
pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of attacking decades of
discomfiting scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up daisies!
It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS IS A
NON-THEORY!
Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around]
Sorry, squire: looks like that's all we've got...
Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture.
Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human
tibia, if you squint at it...
Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological
and
biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of observed
homologies and the nested hierarchy of life?
Salesman: Not really.
Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS IT?
----------
Mich.
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!
Seconds?
Absolutely. And I think Cleese, Palin, Idle et. al. would agree. <G>
Recorded.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM Re: sketch... |
19 Dec 2005 01:46:24 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:40:18 -0600, John Baker wrote
(in article <of96q1943qt93qilsptjghcl8db898pula@4ax.com>):
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:02:27 -0500, Carl Kaufmann <ckaufmann@cox.net>
wrote:
Smurfette wrote:
Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific
theory'
what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very establishment.
Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with it?
Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous, that's
what's wrong with it!
Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the controversy'...
Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when I
see
one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated. Remarkable
theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look at all these
books and articles: millions and millions of words...!
Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead. It's a
non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics. This
'theory' generates no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond
extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the
'Designer' was. Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it
has no scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist
pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of attacking decades of
discomfiting scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up daisies!
It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS IS A
NON-THEORY!
Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around]
Sorry, squire: looks like that's all we've got...
Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture.
Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human
tibia, if you squint at it...
Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological and
biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of observed
homologies and the nested hierarchy of life?
Salesman: Not really.
Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS IT?
----------
Mich.
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!
Seconds?
Absolutely. And I think Cleese, Palin, Idle et. al. would agree. <G>
thirded! Lovely, absolutely lovely.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
"The space time you are trying to reach has been disconnected..." Stony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
