Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
What, that inanimate matter can, by virtue of natural selection and random mutations, become alive and communicate with me by saying, "Intelligent Design has nothing to do with my existence?" You're right. I don't understand the concept, and neither you nor your cheerleaders have done well at explaining it. You've done even worse by promoting the notion that there is no other answer worthy of consideration where learning and education are concerned. The Inquisition never died. It only changed shoes.
Uh huh. Equally, the evidence is just as strong for wood sprites and Reynard the Fox and Rigelian lizard people, however, science is prejudiced toward selecting answers to questions that involve the least necessary leaps into assumptions about what we don't yet know.
It amuses me in a queer way to hear an intelligently designed being tell me there is no such thing as intelligent design involved is his existence.
I suppose then, that all post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments amuse you.
Galileo would be rolling his eyes. The proponents of ID are the modern day Galileos, and this time folks like you are on the side of ignorance.
Much bravado, little sense or evidence. At least you're consistent.
Were it not for the fact that this book was received also among those in the church, who in that day were nearly the sole supporters of scientific endeavor, your statement would almost make sense.
Your proposal is audacious and innovative. It makes more sense than ID. But then, that's a rather low standard.
Mathematical method of boiling water given a match, an idle stove, a kettle of cold water: light stove with the match, put the kettle on.
Mathematical method of boiling water given a match, a lit stove, a kettle of cold water: turn off the stove; now we've reduced the problem to the previous case.
Indeed! That underwire plays heck with microwaves. :-)
(gets hot too) Oops... Should I have let on about that???
What, that inanimate matter can, by virtue of natural selection and random mutations, become alive and communicate with me by saying, "Intelligent Design has nothing to do with my existence?"
No one's talking about "inanimate matter." How many times has this been pointed out?
You're assuming 1) intelligence and 2) design, without having demonstrated either. Therefore, you're begging the question.
You're right. I don't understand the concept, and neither you nor your cheerleaders have done well at explaining it.
Please do not mistake your willful ignorance for the others' failure.
You've done even worse by promoting the notion that there is no other answer worthy of consideration where learning and education are concerned. The Inquisition never died. It only changed shoes.
Again, you appear confused. All the posters here are saying is that anything presented as science must be science. If you want to claim that ID is scientific, kindly point out where the science is in ID. I have yet to see anything remotely scientific about it.
Please excuse me for saying so, but someone who has problems with basic scientific concepts is not in a good position to be accusing other people of ignorance. This is not to say that you can't have an opinion, but you should know that you are just not going to be considered an authoritative voice on the subject.
Remember however, if you can observe it and test it, it ain't supernatural by definition.
If you'll tell me how to do an e-raspberry, consider it done.
Have you seen them? I haven't. Have you even heard serious reports of their existence? I haven't.
But I've seen intelligent design, and everytime I've seen it, I've reasonably assumed a designer is behind it. There IS evidence for intelligent design, far more than there is for natural selection and random muatations as agents in performing meaningful functions, let alone communicating information.
Okay, I'll bite. What about that entity evidences intelligent design? Could it be the jaw too small for the dentition (hence problems with wisdom teeth)? Could it be the back incompletely evolved for an upright stance (leading to back problems as one gets older)? Could it be the knees, which are subject to overstressing? Could it be the eyeball with the optic nerve lying over the center of vision? Enquiring minds want to know.
I beleive the correct form is, "Thphth!"
Blindness. God's allowance of man to ignore God.
Dude! And I thought you were so butch! ;^)>
I think there's a song ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.