(March 12, 2012 at 1:33 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Gradual? You mean they reproduced prior to having reproductive organs? You're funny.

This one is dumb as a bag of rocks.

You know what, Black. Stick with your fucking bible. It's all you can handle.

Leave the heavy thinking to others.

I'm beginning to have my doubts. I guess I'm just an old romantic. I find it very hard to accept that anyone smartenough to find its way to this forum could be as ignorant and purblind fucking STOOPID as this one presents.

It HAS to be a Poe,surely?

PS Min, is our native genius (Abra) still around,or has he given up casting his pearls before swine?

(March 11, 2012 at 9:46 pm)black36 Wrote: ID theory

ID is not, never was and never will be a scientific theory. ID is creationism in a lab coat.

---

(March 11, 2012 at 9:52 pm)Insanity x Wrote: Once again not a theory...

He is to stupid to understand. Next thing he will say is evolution is just a theory then I will tell him to jump off a building cause gravity is just a theory.

---

(March 11, 2012 at 10:29 pm)black36 Wrote: Rhythm, just as I can recognize that your post was designed, based on its specified complexity, I can then theorize that it was designed. The same goes for scenarios in the natural realm.

For Ed's sake you're a fucking moron. You are comparing a post with a biological system? BTW, there is no such thing as specified complexity except in IDiots mind.

Back, Black. Told you it was a bad idea to get me all riled up about sexual organs. Now, to your question. No, I wouldn't ask you to believe such things, nor would I make such claims to you. But that's an entirely unrelated aside. You said there was a design, care to elaborate? How have you determined that reproductive organs are designed? I don't want to hear "There is a design :insert random complaints about misrepresentations of scientic explanations you don't like:". I want to hear "There is a design, and here is the evidence".

I seem to recall summarizing ID as a running joke of complaints, you can understand why your response is unsatisfying, yes? It matters very little why you personally "cannot believe" in this or that, that's your own problem as it applies to well evidenced explanations. What is required, if you want to call ID a theory, or science, is evidence for your own pet explanation. There might just be a little more to evolution, if we simply ran around saying "this evolved" your criticism would have merit, and "godidit" would be equally as valid. This is simply not the case.

"If not, how did they appear?" Well, lets just throw evolution out for our conversation. You've probably seen me do this with other posters. Everything we know is complete and utter bullshit, now explain to me why your explanation is correct. Nothing evolved, how does that default to god? This seems to be your thought process on the matter. "If not evolution then god." Well, that's not how it works.

(March 11, 2012 at 10:45 pm)Insanity x Wrote: I was actually talking about your post.. but sure ill bite.

The lack of any reasonable evidence.

Evolution - Vast fossil records and variation in billions of species around the world
ID - We think god did it.

Plus we see speciation happening.

If reproductive organs are designed, why did god create the foreskin if he just wants you to lop it off?

I'm disappointed the IDiot didn't bring up eyes.

Maybe that argument will fall by the wayside like so many creationist arguments before it.

(March 12, 2012 at 8:21 am)Faith No More Wrote: Maybe that argument will fall by the wayside like so many creationist arguments before it.

Yeah but if the IDiot brings up eyes I get to talk about the eyes of my favorite arthropod. Did you know they are calcite? IOW, when a trilobite gave you a stony gaze, it was really a stone staring at you. But if the IDiot dismisses that since trilobites are extinct, then I get to bring up the Brittlestar (type of starfish) that has the same calcite eyes. Id is stupider than creationism. At least they are honest about their religious agenda.

Actually, ID is pretty honest about it as well. They had to go on the defensive in a courtroom and wriggle this way and that, but lets not confuse that with dishonesty, that's standard courtroom shit. You don't win or lose a case by being honest or dishonest, you do so by being skillful, which sadly for them, their lawyers were not. ID proponents desperately wanted to be able to teach their beliefs in our schools, so they labored to make their beliefs roughly fit the guidelines for what was appropriate. Unfortunately they failed to accomplish this (and I say unfortunately only from their point of view).

If anyone wants ID to be science, and thusly appropriate for a highschool biology course, they need only do some science. I'm all for it. If they can find design in nature, that would be nobel prize worthy shit, and our knowledge of the world around us would be increased. There's just no point in sidestepping science if you want to call something science. That's my only gripe.

(March 12, 2012 at 8:38 am)Rhythm Wrote: Actually, ID is pretty honest about it as well. They had to go on the defensive in a courtroom and wriggle this way and that, but lets not confuse that with dishonesty, that's standard courtroom shit. You don't win or lose a case by being honest or dishonest, you do so by being skillful, which sadly for them, their lawyers were not. ID proponents desperately wanted to be able to teach their beliefs in our schools, so they labored to make their beliefs roughly fit the guidelines for what was appropriate. Unfortunately they failed to accomplish this (and I say unfortunately only from their point of view).

If anyone wants ID to be science, and thusly appropriate for a highschool biology course, they need only do some science. I'm all for it. If they can find design in nature, that would be nobel prize worthy shit, and our knowledge of the world around us would be increased. There's just no point in sidestepping science if you want to call something science. That's my only gripe.

ID is honest? They are claiming it is science in order to get in public schools but thankfully the courts are smart enough to see through their lies. Since when was lying an honest act? You might want to read this.