Posted on 08/24/2005 6:51:49 AM PDT by Quick1
Then what *does* it postulate?
I wasn't talking to you, but you did miss the point. Then you went off on some tangent that ignored what I was actually addressing to someone else.
Look at this.
ROFL!!!
This thread is a hoot! :-)
Um, you're posting on a public forum. That means you're talking to everyone here.
Then you went off on some tangent that ignored what I was actually addressing to someone else.
No, it didn't ignore what you adressed. It just mocked your statement.
I am not a fan of NS, but if you post a response to a 100 ago post without any references, don't expect people to treat you better than a meatball without sauce.
DK
I loved reading Algernon Blackwood, August Derleth, and H.P. Lovecraft when I was a kid. :-)
IOt postulates an intelligence which designed life.
It does not say that this intelligence:
(1) Created matter and energy from nothing
(2) Is omniscient, or even much smarter than we are
(3) Is omnipotent
(4) Is immortal, or even still alive
(5) Is a spiritual, as opposed to a material, being.
Yet all these qualities are normally associated with divinity.
But it is still not science.
So you say. However, it fits all standard criteria for science, regardless.
Okay, then at least have a clue when you reply to a post not addressed to you.
Divinity takes away from the true discussion. How can you discuss divinity and the origins of life when divinity doesn't have a yolk? It's not even a true egg religion!
Go back to a true noodle. I would suggest Rotini, but everyone on this thread knows my calling. Can you even imagine divinity in the great collander? Nothing would remain.
DK
You forgot omnipresent.
Quick1 wrote in #32 (and not to you, BTW):
When was Intelligent Design elevated to the level of Theory? It has no testable, falsifiable hypothesis.
You responded in #136:
You're not clever, not funny, not even original...just another follower of the 1960's attack the underpinnings of our law and culture movement.
Considering just how much of a non-sequitur your comment was, I don't think you have much of leg to stand on when you tell others to "at least have a clue when you reply to a post not addressed to you."
And it is not pasta either.
DK
No, you blew it again. You just took a guess and responded without a clue to a post not addressed to you, just a bum guess. Must have struck a nerve for you to have such a jerkey knee all ready to react.
Bless me Flying Spagetti Monster, for I have sinned. Often have I consorted with Angel Hair Pasta. I have soaked it with thy holy sauce, mixed it with thy holy lamb and pork, and adorned it with thy chantrelles and morels (the latter first dehydrated, then reconstituted in cream and wine).
Amusing subterfuge.
If ID postulates a divinity, you claim it is not science. If ID does not postulate divinity, you claim it is not science.
Evolution begins with minimal assumptions as well - is it also not science?
No physics? No chemistry? And you want to pass this off as science?
Evolution, as postulated by darwin, began without the slightest clue as to how traits were transmitted. No mechanism was provided. Yet I would doubt that you would deny evolution as "science" at that time, despite its shortcomings in that regard.
...shakes head in disbelief...
How quaint.
(Evolution=Fact)
Evolution = 150-year old uproven theory
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.