| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"just john" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2005 06:52:52 AM |
| Object: |
So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
Here's a question for you proponents of Intelligent Design: Since ID
claims to be a NEW movement -- only a couple years old -- how about
telling us what made you convert to it, and what you believed
beforehand?
This is a legit question to ask, and I'm sure you guys are just
bursting with inspirational stories about how you saw the light, right?
(also x-posted, kinda, to HuffPo)
--
* Radio Free Entropy: http://just-john.com/cn/rfe.shtml *
.
|
|
| User: "The Good Reverend Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
27 Sep 2005 12:03:16 AM |
|
|
"Intelligent design", my *****.
WTF? A tool using species with ONLY TWO ARMS?
What kinda garbage is THAT?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bradley123" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
28 Sep 2005 07:29:40 PM |
|
|
-- how about
telling us what made you convert to it, and what you believed
beforehand?
I used to be a strict Darwinist. I was privileged to attend a series
of lectures by Noam Chomsky, who was explaining linguistics and the
scientific method to a group of philosophers. It was a shock to me to
find out that the assumptions that science rests on were only
assumptions and could not possibly meet the high standards for truth
that the scientific community usually sets.
What finally destroyed my confidence in the ability of the scientific
community to deal with questions of origins, was the very, very poor
rebuttals to Well's "Icons of Evolution", in the literature and
in this forum. Why should the scientific community not care that the
case studies were so paper thin, and in one case known to be fraudulent
for about 100 years. If evolution is so pervasive and so powerful, why
not have better case studies?
I now see the biological world in terms of design. Where you see
'proof' of evolution, I now see evidence of design. For example I
read an article the other day about how humans and chimps share
something like 97% of their DNA. The article talked about how this was
strong proof of evolution. I'm sure there are cars that have a lot
of parts in common, but that's not proof of evolution. I'm sure
the work will have payoffs for public health, and our understanding of
biology, but as a proof of evolution it's pretty darn lame, unless
you already believe.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that natural selection is extremely
powerful, and I think that the ID folks are in for some surprises, but
I don't think the blind watchmaker did the whole thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Good Reverend Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
28 Sep 2005 08:26:55 PM |
|
|
"I now see the biological world in terms of design. Where you see
'proof' of evolution, I now see evidence of design."
So...who is the designer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
28 Sep 2005 08:32:34 PM |
|
|
The Good Reverend Roger wrote:
"I now see the biological world in terms of design. Where you see
'proof' of evolution, I now see evidence of design."
So...who is the designer?
I believe we've established that on another thread. His name is Rube
Goldberg. I understand he used to do political cartoons on the side.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Good Reverend Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
28 Sep 2005 08:37:17 PM |
|
|
Well, I have a bone to pick with THAT *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bradley123" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
29 Sep 2005 01:35:16 PM |
|
|
The Good Reverend Roger wrote:
"I now see the biological world in terms of design. Where you see
'proof' of evolution, I now see evidence of design."
So...who is the designer?
I must concede that given enough luck, random chance, filtered by
natural selection could have been the "designer", but the more luck
you need the more you raise the suspicion that there was intelligence
involved.
For example in 2002, Derrick Davis won a huge horse racing prize and
claimed it was luck.
-------------------------------
http://www.ccchronicle.com/back/2002_fall/2002-11-18/sports2.html
"On a Breeders' Cup day marked by numerous upsets, when even one
winning Pick 6 ticket among the millions purchased nationwide would
have been surprising, suspicions were raised when it was revealed that
one bettor-Davis-held the only six live tickets.
"That was a red flag," Liebman said.
Questioned a day after the races, Davis told a New York newspaper that
he had been "just lucky.""
-------------------------------
For the people who regulate the gaming industry, that fact that there
was an astonomically small chance that Davis could have won by luck did
not send the investigators home. Nor did the fact that at the
begining, they could not name their suspects stop the investigation
from occuring.
Did you ever notice that if you consistantly win at a casino, they take
your picture and throw you out? If you ever open a casino, let me
know! The way you guys think, if I win the jackpot over and over and I
can prove there was even the slightest chance that it could happen by
chance, you'll never even entertain the possibility of a fix.
You are welcome to your option. I say there are far too many lucky
(though remotely possible) coincidences to not be interested in
investigating the possibllity of a fix, even if the name of the fixer
is not known at this time.
Got to go, I'd love to debate, but job and family call.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Good Reverend Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
29 Sep 2005 08:14:03 PM |
|
|
"I must concede that given enough luck, random chance, filtered by
natural selection could have been the "designer",
Makes more sense than a designer (ie, God), that can't figure out the
whole "appendix" thing.
"but the more luck
you need the more you raise the suspicion that there was intelligence
involved."
Nonsense. It just implies that you need more TIME.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rodjk #613" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
29 Sep 2005 09:28:18 PM |
|
|
Bradley123 wrote:
-- how about
telling us what made you convert to it, and what you believed
beforehand?
I used to be a strict Darwinist. I was privileged to attend a series
of lectures by Noam Chomsky, who was explaining linguistics and the
scientific method to a group of philosophers. It was a shock to me to
find out that the assumptions that science rests on were only
assumptions and could not possibly meet the high standards for truth
that the scientific community usually sets.
Can you offer more details on this?
You are saying you have lost confidence in *all* science?
What finally destroyed my confidence in the ability of the scientific
community to deal with questions of origins, was the very, very poor
rebuttals to Well's "Icons of Evolution", in the literature and
in this forum. Why should the scientific community not care that the
case studies were so paper thin, and in one case known to be fraudulent
for about 100 years. If evolution is so pervasive and so powerful, why
not have better case studies?
Ok, here is something we can deal with.
What claims of Wells do you believe are accurate?
Pick one so we can discuss it.
I now see the biological world in terms of design. Where you see
'proof' of evolution, I now see evidence of design. For example I
read an article the other day about how humans and chimps share
something like 97% of their DNA. The article talked about how this was
strong proof of evolution. I'm sure there are cars that have a lot
of parts in common, but that's not proof of evolution.
Did you ever see a Nissan self-replicate?
<I'm sure
the work will have payoffs for public health, and our understanding of
biology, but as a proof of evolution it's pretty darn lame, unless
you already believe.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that natural selection is extremely
powerful, and I think that the ID folks are in for some surprises, but
I don't think the blind watchmaker did the whole thing.
Ok, can you point to a place that the "ID" stepped in?
Rodjk #613
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "polar bear" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
29 Sep 2005 04:13:37 AM |
|
|
In article <1127953780.380301.245030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Bradley123" <Bradley.nospam@verizon.net> wrote:
-- how about
telling us what made you convert to it, and what you believed
beforehand?
I used to be a strict Darwinist. I was privileged to attend a series
of lectures by Noam Chomsky, who was explaining linguistics and the
scientific method to a group of philosophers. It was a shock to me to
find out that the assumptions that science rests on were only
assumptions and could not possibly meet the high standards for truth
that the scientific community usually sets.
What finally destroyed my confidence in the ability of the scientific
community to deal with questions of origins, was the very, very poor
rebuttals to Well's "Icons of Evolution", in the literature and
in this forum. Why should the scientific community not care that the
case studies were so paper thin, and in one case known to be fraudulent
for about 100 years. If evolution is so pervasive and so powerful, why
not have better case studies?
I now see the biological world in terms of design. Where you see
'proof' of evolution, I now see evidence of design. For example I
read an article the other day about how humans and chimps share
something like 97% of their DNA. The article talked about how this was
strong proof of evolution. I'm sure there are cars that have a lot
of parts in common, but that's not proof of evolution. I'm sure
the work will have payoffs for public health, and our understanding of
biology, but as a proof of evolution it's pretty darn lame, unless
you already believe.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that natural selection is extremely
powerful, and I think that the ID folks are in for some surprises, but
I don't think the blind watchmaker did the whole thing.
"Anything sufficiently complex is to the layman indistinguishable from
magic." --Arthur C. Clarke
pb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Bad Monkey" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
29 Sep 2005 04:21:37 AM |
|
|
thanks for the toddler time happy lesson with quotes we learned 25
years ago, poopy bore!
.
|
|
|
| User: "polar bear" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
30 Sep 2005 01:51:36 AM |
|
|
In article <1127985697.547222.116880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Rev. Bad Monkey" <jbearden246@gmail.com> wrote:
thanks for the toddler time happy lesson with quotes we learned 25
years ago, poopy bore!
Really got your back up over that Dylan slam, didn't you fanboi?
Not to worry. You'll be blowing in the wind too someday.
pb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Bad Monkey" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
30 Sep 2005 08:25:27 AM |
|
|
not really. it wouldn't be so easy for you in person. on the other
hand it's real easy to be quirky little smart ***** in canada.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Bad Monkey" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
30 Sep 2005 08:31:04 AM |
|
|
there's no need to really comment. you made yourself look pretty
fucking stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
29 Sep 2005 10:46:01 AM |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2005 17:29:40 -0700, "Bradley123"
<Bradley.nospam@verizon.net> wrote:
-- how about
telling us what made you convert to it, and what you believed
beforehand?
I used to be a strict Darwinist. I was privileged to attend a series
of lectures by Noam Chomsky, who was explaining linguistics and the
scientific method to a group of philosophers. It was a shock to me to
find out that the assumptions that science rests on were only
assumptions and could not possibly meet the high standards for truth
that the scientific community usually sets.
The assumptions of science are good enough to make the difference
between life and death for you and everyone else on a daily basis.
What higher standard, exactly, are you looking for.
What finally destroyed my confidence in the ability of the scientific
community to deal with questions of origins, was the very, very poor
rebuttals to Well's "Icons of Evolution", in the literature and
in this forum.
All of Wells's anti-evolution claims, without exception, have been
demolished utterly. If you cannot see that, you are not looking.
Why should the scientific community not care that the
case studies were so paper thin, and in one case known to be fraudulent
for about 100 years. If evolution is so pervasive and so powerful, why
not have better case studies?
It does. I recommend you start by reading the last 10 years of
_Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics_ (recently renamed _Annual
Review of Evolution, Ecology, and Systematics_ because ecology and
systematics are impossible to discuss without evolution).
I now see the biological world in terms of design. Where you see
'proof' of evolution, I now see evidence of design.
How do you reconcile your view with the plain fact that life looks
undesigned?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bradley123" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
29 Sep 2005 06:05:34 PM |
|
|
Oh, well if Wells' icons seemed demolished to you, I guess you are
welcome to your opinion. What I read at the time may have been quite
comforting to darwin's faithful, but seemed poor indeed to me as I was
sitting on the fence.
A thought to consider: Even if evolution were true, how do you explain
the low numbers of people in the USA who embrace evolution with no
intervention? Perhaps the scientific community has done a really poor
job educating people, and not that 85% of the populace is too stupid to
see what science sees as a "fact".
Yes, science has tremendous power to make life better for lots of
folks. You have the faith to believe it can explain origins, I do not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Good Reverend Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
29 Sep 2005 10:56:09 PM |
|
|
"A thought to consider: Even if evolution were true, how do you explain
the low numbers of people in the USA who embrace evolution with no
intervention? "
Sheer stupidity.
"You have the faith to believe it can explain origins, I do not."
Since when does science = faith?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
02 Oct 2005 03:46:56 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2005 20:56:09 -0700,
The Good Reverend Roger <rogerepenrose@comcast.net> wrote:
"A thought to consider: Even if evolution were true, how do you explain
the low numbers of people in the USA who embrace evolution with no
intervention? "
Sheer stupidity.
"You have the faith to believe it can explain origins, I do not."
Since when does science = faith?
If science is a leap of faith, then believing what you see, hear and feel is
an act of faith.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Good Reverend Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
02 Oct 2005 05:24:38 PM |
|
|
"If science is a leap of faith, then believing what you see, hear and
feel is
an act of faith."
And so, apparently, is calculus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
02 Oct 2005 07:15:12 PM |
|
|
The Good Reverend Roger wrote:
"If science is a leap of faith, then believing what you see, hear and
feel is
an act of faith."
And so, apparently, is calculus.
But a very small leap. Arbitrarily small, in fact.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eddie Vroom" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
02 Oct 2005 05:07:37 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
If science is a leap of faith, then believing what you see, hear and feel is
an act of faith.
Everyone's heard of Descartes' statement "I think, therefore I am". Few
seem to be aware that he was suggesting that's ALL that is absolutely
certain.
--
the Tortured Spark - a Light in the Dark
the Mystical RevvedErrand Doktor Eddie Vroom
23
Nine megs for the secretaries fair,
Seven megs for the hackers scarce,
Five megs for the grads in smoky lairs,
Three megs for system source;
One disk to rule them all,
One disk to bind them,
One disk to hold the files
And in the darkness grind 'em.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Good Reverend Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
02 Oct 2005 05:25:26 PM |
|
|
"Everyone's heard of Descartes' statement "I think, therefore I am".
Few
seem to be aware that he was suggesting that's ALL that is absolutely
certain."
Jump off a building. After all, it isn't certain that you will become
a greasy spot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
29 Sep 2005 06:35:22 PM |
|
|
"Bradley123" <Bradley.nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1128035134.067590.112520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Oh, well if Wells' icons seemed demolished to you, I guess you are
welcome to your opinion. What I read at the time may have been quite
comforting to darwin's faithful, but seemed poor indeed to me as I was
sitting on the fence.
A thought to consider: Even if evolution were true, how do you explain
the low numbers of people in the USA who embrace evolution with no
intervention?
A combination of religious persuasion and soft science education.
Perhaps the scientific community has done a really poor
job educating people, and not that 85% of the populace is too stupid to
see what science sees as a "fact".
Partly right. Science education si "watered down" by many school boards so
it doesn't offend the religious reich.
Yes, science has tremendous power to make life better for lots of
folks.
Yup.
You have the faith to believe it can explain origins, I do not.
Your opinion noted. BTW, what definition/context of the word "faith" are
you using?
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rodjk #613" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
29 Sep 2005 11:47:22 PM |
|
|
Bradley123 wrote:
Oh, well if Wells' icons seemed demolished to you, I guess you are
welcome to your opinion. What I read at the time may have been quite
comforting to darwin's faithful, but seemed poor indeed to me as I was
sitting on the fence.
Ok, what did you read?
Would you mind discussing Wells?
Pick one Icon...
A thought to consider: Even if evolution were true, how do you explain
the low numbers of people in the USA who embrace evolution with no
intervention?
Because most people in the US are religious, and that is what they are
taught.
That explains the numbers of people who accept evolution with god,
otherwise known as theistic evolution.
Knowledge of basic science in the US is very poor.
Perhaps the scientific community has done a really poor
job educating people, and not that 85% of the populace is too stupid to
see what science sees as a "fact".
That is true, also. Not to mention that many people just don't want to
take the trouble to understand science.
Yes, science has tremendous power to make life better for lots of
folks. You have the faith to believe it can explain origins, I do not.
<Shrug> No faith, just the evidence.
Care to discuss it?
Rodjk #613
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zapanaz" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
29 Sep 2005 10:43:25 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2005 16:05:34 -0700, "Bradley123"
<Bradley.nospam@verizon.net> wrote:
Oh, well if Wells' icons seemed demolished to you, I guess you are
welcome to your opinion. What I read at the time may have been quite
comforting to darwin's faithful, but seemed poor indeed to me as I was
sitting on the fence.
A thought to consider: Even if evolution were true, how do you explain
the low numbers of people in the USA who embrace evolution with no
intervention? Perhaps the scientific community has done a really poor
job educating people, and not that 85% of the populace is too stupid to
see what science sees as a "fact".
Yes, science has tremendous power to make life better for lots of
folks. You have the faith to believe it can explain origins, I do not.
I have yet to run into a critic of evolution who shows any evidence
that they have any real understanding of science.
Whether an argument has been 'demolished' or not is not 'just
somebody's opinion'. There seems to be this idea that whether
something is scientifically valid or not is 'just somebody's opinion'
because, after all, everybody's entitled to their opinion, and what
they do or don't find convincing.
Which is, of course, true, but that doesn't mean that opinion is
necessarily valid scientifically. The validity of scientific ideas
depends on logical consistency, first and foremost.
Saying you don't find Wells' arguments convincing isn't an argument.
It's a lack of one. Then arguing that a lot of people don't 'embrace
evolution' isn't an argument either. It has nothing to do with
anything. Babbling on about "Darwin's faithful" is just idiotic, it
shows precisely where you are unable to understand science. Darwinism
isn't a religion. Darwin provided one explanation for how life came
to be. Parts of it were right, parts were wrong. Nobody who has any
udnerstanding of science is "faithful" to Darwin. Where his ideas
have a better explanatory power than any alternative, they should be
accepted until an alternative is found.
There is no question but that the basic idea of evolution of species
has tremendous explanatory power and fits what we see in the world
with tremendous precision. If a superior idea is found, then it will
be adopted. It is very unlikely though, at this point, that any
possible alternative would not bear a very close resemblance to what
we have now.
If you can provide such an alternative, then you have something to
say. But you not only haven't, it's obvious you don't even grasp that
that would be important. All you are saying is "I don't find it
convincing, so it's not right". You haven't given any indication at
all what you find unconvincing. The closest you have come to an
alternative is where you allude to "intervention" above. It isn't an
explanation. It isn't even an idea. It's just a fuzzy area in your
thinking.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Of course, there's the tits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bradley123" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
30 Sep 2005 01:09:23 PM |
|
|
Zapanaz wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 16:05:34 -0700, "Bradley123"
If you can provide such an alternative, then you have something to
say. But you not only haven't, it's obvious you don't even grasp that
that would be important.
You mistake the limits of science as the limits of truth.
So, if you say 2+2=5 and I can't come up with a better answer, then I
don't have something to say and don't even grasp what's
important?
Do you refrain from criticizing a movie unless you can make a better
one, or refrain from criticizing an athlete unless you are better? I
think not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zapanaz" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
30 Sep 2005 01:30:10 PM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2005 11:09:23 -0700, "Bradley123"
<Bradley.nospam@verizon.net> wrote:
Zapanaz wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 16:05:34 -0700, "Bradley123"
If you can provide such an alternative, then you have something to
say. But you not only haven't, it's obvious you don't even grasp that
that would be important.
You mistake the limits of science as the limits of truth.
Nonsense. I differentiate the limits of science from the limits of
discourse.
So, if you say 2+2=5 and I can't come up with a better answer, then I
don't have something to say and don't even grasp what's
important?
If you can tell me why you think two plus two doesn't equal five, then
you have something to say. If you can only say "no, that's wrong, but
I can't explain why" then you have nothing of scientific relevance to
say.
Do you refrain from criticizing a movie unless you can make a better
one, or refrain from criticizing an athlete unless you are better? I
think not.
I said very clearly that I was talking about what was meaningful or
not meaningful in a scientific context.
You should either read for comprehension better, or think harder.
What you are saying is totally irrelevant to what I said.
Personally though, I actually would refrain from criticizing a movie
unless I could at least explain why I'm criticizing it, and probably
at least suggest an alternative that would have been better. Why
would my opinion, unsupported by any detail or explanation, be of
interest to anybody? Would I expect that if I say "this movie sucks",
without any kind of reason why, that would be of any interest to them?
I suppose I have done that, but it is kind of vapid. I can't imagine
why I would criticize an athlete at all. Criticize them for what?
Not being good enough? Really, I can't think of a time in my life it
has ever crossed my mind to criticize an athlete, it really is a
strange thought to me.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"NOT ONE RED CENT FOR ENTROPY!"
- ggg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bradley123" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
30 Sep 2005 06:40:15 PM |
|
|
I'm highlighting the flaws of your thinking by putting them in a
different context to show how they don't work. If you don't get it,
then you don't get it.
America is therefore one of the countries where the precepts of
Descartes are least studied and are best applied.
Alexis de Tocqueville,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zapanaz" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
01 Oct 2005 03:16:17 PM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2005 16:40:15 -0700, "Bradley123"
<Bradley.nospam@verizon.net> wrote:
I'm highlighting the flaws of your thinking by putting them in a
different context to show how they don't work.
Well you're saying you're doing so, I don't see how you think you
actually are doing so.
If you don't get it,
then you don't get it.
Ah, I see. "It makes sense to me in my head, so if it doesn't make
any sense to anybody else, rather than clarify my point it's just
their fault and they're wrong".
America is therefore one of the countries where the precepts of
Descartes are least studied and are best applied.
Well that was a nice vague bit of hand-waving. You probably know in
your own head exactly which precept of Descartes you are referring to
and how it's relevant. Are you expecting anybody who reads this to
have ESP and know what you mean by that? Or have you learned that if
you never actually state your points, nobody can point out how stupid
they are?
Alexis de Tocqueville
Are you calling me Alexis de Tocqueville? Are you saying he said
something at some point which was somehow relevant to what you're
thinking about, but you won't tell us what because we aren't worthy?
Or are you just opposed to verbs in sentences on general principles?
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Why not have an adoption agency set up a desk in front of the abortion
clinic, and as soon as the protesters show up, they can say "Wonderful!
You like saving children? We've got LOTS of children you can take care
of!"
-- www.fridayjones.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zapanaz" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
30 Sep 2005 05:08:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:30:10 -0700, Zapanaz
<"http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl"@giganews.com> wrote:
On 30 Sep 2005 11:09:23 -0700, "Bradley123"
<Bradley.nospam@verizon.net> wrote:
Zapanaz wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 16:05:34 -0700, "Bradley123"
So, if you say 2+2=5 and I can't come up with a better answer, then I
don't have something to say and don't even grasp what's
important?
If you can tell me why you think two plus two doesn't equal five, then
you have something to say. If you can only say "no, that's wrong, but
I can't explain why" then you have nothing of scientific relevance to
say.
In any event though, if I were to say "2+2=5" and you were to say
"then there must have been some divine intervention which provided the
extra one" I would consider you to be an idiot.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
the last security patch for the buffer overflow apparently overflew the buffer
- kevbob the chilling
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bradley123" |
|
| Title: Re: So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand? |
30 Sep 2005 07:04:41 PM |
|
|
Enough about, me. Why do you feel the need to make up something you
think I might say and then say you would insult me? If there are so
many convincing proofs of evolution, why the near universal use of
mockery for it's defense?
Denying evolution has often been compared with embracing egocentrism,
or rejecting germ theory.
The phases of Venus where the turning point for unseating egocentrism,
Pasture's swan neck flask experiment unseated spontaneous generation.
Mmm... no killer experiment for evolution as the origin for life.
Let's see, germ theory has had so many benefits, there're
impossible to count. If we were still geocentric, the satellite
pictures that saved so many lives when Katrina came would not have been
possible. If evolution had never been 'discovered' we would never
had...well...mmm.
Perhaps there is no killer experiment, and no comparable benefits to
the other two because evolution is not in the same class as the other
two.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
