Inteligent Design

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:43 pm

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:20 am

i think that you, minimalist, must get a percentage of the cut to post those cartoons here.

until something interesting breaks here, like a decxent converstaion ithink i will leave this topic for now and return to the biblical arch. one and post more on the exodus.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:29 am

ithink i will leave this topic for now

hooray

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:08 am

There will never be a discussion that YOU find decent, arch. You are too wedded to your superstitions.

As the comic, Lewis Black, said of people who believe that dinosaurs and man lived together.

"They are stone, fuck, nuts. I can't be kind about this...."

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:52 pm

There will never be a discussion that YOU find decent, arch. You are too wedded to your superstitions.

first off, they are not superstitions, secondly, the same can be said of evolutionists who, like what happened in kansas, refuse to discuss intelligently their point of view. preferring to remain hidden in the shadows until they have their monopoly forcing everyone to take their word for it ansd not be required to prove their theory.

one of the fatal weaknesses of evolution is that the researxhers take unrelated species and mutations to prove something they claimed to place millions of years ago.

that is like saying creation happened on earth because there are canals dug by whomever on mars. it is funny to watch evolutionary researchers (hopefully this is a generic enough term not to insult anyone here), proclaim their theories with the scant amount of evidence they claim proves their point, especially when said evidence doesn't even come close to proving what they said.

scientists, sorry, evolutionary researchers will never admit to using conjecture or fanciful tales to fill in the blanks that remain after their experimentations because they have too much to lose if they do so. threat of loss of reputation,stature, or of expulsion {and soon} should not be motivating factors when it comes to science. objectivity is yet is hardly adhered to.

modern day science {maybe from the beginning} is not geared to provide answers just questions and the time period required by scientists to finally declare an answer means that everyone will be long dead when it happens and does no one any good.

if science and research is to be of any value then it needs to realize that it is only a tool to understand this world a lot better. it has no authority to declare what or whom created the universe, that is beyond its scope and jurisdiction.

science has been constructed to keep the answers away from people and those who foolishly, blindly follow science are only allowing themselves to be deceived because unless you start with God,you will never have the answers.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:58 pm

science has been constructed to keep the answers away from people

Oh, stop it. Religion has spent millenia trying to convince the masses that they already have all the answers.

Science tries....that's more than I can say for your collection of folk tales.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:24 pm

first off, they are not superstitions

superstition definition

A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.

if the hat fits

science has been constructed to keep the answers away from people and those who foolishly, blindly follow science are only allowing themselves to be deceived because unless you start with God,you will never have the answers.

science definition

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

maybe you should update your dictionary to the one the real world is using Arch

grunabona246 · Post by **grunabona246** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:25 pm

perhaps it is significant that there seems to be a universal human belief in a higher power, demonstrated over and over again, in every culture, throughout recorded history.

sometimes one cannot see the forest for the trees.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:38 pm

yes
its called hope
and sometimes
superstitious hope

sometimes one cannot see the forest for the trees.

i think you should think that one through a little longer

grunabona246 · Post by **grunabona246** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:57 pm

marduk wrote:yes
its called hope
and sometimes
superstitious hope

sometimes one cannot see the forest for the trees.
i think you should think that one through a little longer

again, there would be no such thing as hunger if there were no such thing as bread (food). the fact that there is hunger predisposes the fact that there exists something to satisfy that hunger.

i find it difficult to believe this spiritual hunger exists with no possibility of
satisfaction.

looking critically at specific religions is like looking at specific trees and failing to see that the trees are part of a forest.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:06 pm

i find it difficult to believe this spiritual hunger exists with no possibility of
satisfaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:08 pm

grunabona246 wrote:perhaps it is significant that there seems to be a universal human belief in a higher power, demonstrated over and over again, in every culture, throughout recorded history.

sometimes one cannot see the forest for the trees.

There are an awful lot of people with a vested financial interest in continuing to peddle spiritualism.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:09 pm

A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance

if you notice the last few words in that definition...'by...chance'... kind of puts evolution in perspective doesn't it. you see Christianity doesn't fall under this definition as it goes according to the laws of nature, the ones that God created not the ones invented by man.

so far evolution has fallen short of every law considered and if you were honest you would admit to it as well. especially in the reproductive region.

Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena

self-admittance to bigotry, bias and refusing to accept all data thus using incomplete material to draw its conclusions.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:14 pm

Christianity doesn't fall under this definition as it goes according to the laws of nature

Arch.

Christianity is the worst offender. Whatever isn't available is invented and then sworn to.

Try to remember that there is not a single, non-biblical, reference to your boy Jesus.

Whenever they needed a tale to fill in a blank, they simply invented it.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:18 pm

self-admittance to bigotry, bias and refusing to accept all data thus using incomplete material to draw its conclusions.

transference
tut tut