Inteligent Design

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:58 pm

i love it... as soon as i post i can count on minimalist to be there right on cue to say something...sort of like a puppet or that my name isn't good enough to be left on the board.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:24 pm

that my name isn't good enough to be left on the board

it isn't
you don't know anything about archaology post 1922 and this is a modern archaeology forum

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:28 pm

Actually, arch....that one was aimed at marduk more than you.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:30 pm

it missed

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:54 pm

I figured I'd give mardul a little help with his Sumerian dissertation.

then you tell me to open a sumerian thread as sumerians arent valid in the topic of intelligent design

fyi Arch there is no such thing as intelligent design for two reasons

1) your god isn't intelligent because he doesnt exist
2) you aren't intelligent so anything posted on topic in this thread is overlooked by you anyway as part of your in built design

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:42 pm

then you tell me to open a sumerian thread as sumerians arent valid in the topic of intelligent design

That wasn't me. Frankly, I can't think of a topic where intelligent design would be valid.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:22 pm

That wasn't me. Frankly

I know
i was talking to Arch

john · Post by **john** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:33 pm

marduk wrote:
I figured I'd give mardul a little help with his Sumerian dissertation.
then you tell me to open a sumerian thread as sumerians arent valid in the topic of intelligent design

fyi Arch there is no such thing as intelligent design for two reasons

1) your god isn't intelligent because he doesnt exist
2) you aren't intelligent so anything posted on topic in this thread is overlooked by you anyway as part of your in built design

once more into the breach..........

omnisicence (a quality supposed to the theoretical entity of "god') negates intelligence. the quality of intelligence presupposes that you don't know "all". it does presuppose that your life is a process of learning, and then you die. think of science as learning, yes?

and btw, archaeologist, now that i think of it you haven't once responded to the well known definition of the theoretical entity of "god" as omniscient. too hot to handle?

john

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:22 pm

and btw, archaeologist, now that i think of it you haven't once responded to the well known definition of the theoretical entity of "god" as omniscient. too hot to handle?

that is because it is a theological issue not an archaaeological one. in dealing with intelligent design and evolution we are granting God all His attributes while we discuss the physical results of His actions.

in other words 'it is a given' in this type of discussion.

then you tell me to open a sumerian thread as sumerians arent valid in the topic of intelligent design

since they come long after the origin of the universe and the world, yes. but i think beagle was the first one to do so so attack him.

your other 2 points are just ignored.

you don't know anything about archaology post 1922 and this is a modern archaeology forum

isn't it great how marduk parrots minimalist??? how does it feel to have a disciple, mini??

i have stated long ago my perspective on the intellligent design movement and i feel that it does not go far enough for God but is an attempt to compromise one's beliefs about the start of the world. it limits God's thinking and power while trying to make a point that is redundent and a waste of time.

God could have designed us with 3 arms if He wanted to and made it work. the design is not what is important in this issue and is merely a distraction that hinders any advancement for creationist's legitmate claims

john · Post by **john** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:05 am

archaeologist wrote:
and btw, archaeologist, now that i think of it you haven't once responded to the well known definition of the theoretical entity of "god" as omniscient. too hot to handle?
that is because it is a theological issue not an archaaeological one. in dealing with intelligent design and evolution we are granting God all His attributes while we discuss the physical results of His actions.

in other words 'it is a given' in this type of discussion.

then you tell me to open a sumerian thread as sumerians arent valid in the topic of intelligent design
since they come long after the origin of the universe and the world, yes. but i think beagle was the first one to do so so attack him.

your other 2 points are just ignored.

you don't know anything about archaology post 1922 and this is a modern archaeology forum
isn't it great how marduk parrots minimalist??? how does it feel to have a disciple, mini??

i have stated long ago my perspective on the intellligent design movement and i feel that it does not go far enough for God but is an attempt to compromise one's beliefs about the start of the world. it limits God's thinking and power while trying to make a point that is redundent and a waste of time.

God could have designed us with 3 arms if He wanted to and made it work. the design is not what is important in this issue and is merely a distraction that hinders any advancement for creationist's legitmate claims

from john -

your "argument' - which is as far as i can tell, as simple as accusing archaeology of actually being theology, and accusing theology of actually being archaeology holds up just as long as you can gag and bind the witnesses in your own fantasy world. In other words, if you posit a perpetual theological dictatorship, then you're good to go. i think you have somehow lost yourself as an heroic figger in a picaresque novel of the Second Inquisition (no, not the second coming), which will either cure the unbelievers or kill them. there is a word for this, narcissism, which came from the heathen greeks. narcissus, i believe, admired his reflection in a pool of water until he fell into it, in love with himself, and thereupon drowned.

good riddance.

john

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:07 am

how does it feel to have a disciple, mini??

I direct him to go out among the believers and smack some sense into them!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:26 am

good riddance

are you leaving?

it is amazing how abusive people get when you don't play their game.

I direct him to go out among the believers and smack some sense into them!

figures.

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:48 am

I can prove that there was no Intelligent Designer.

The existence of you lot proves it beyond any doubt! No intelligent being would ever allow such argumentative sods to be created!

So maybe we should be discussing Stupid Design?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 5:16 am

I can prove that there was no Intelligent Designer

such posts only undermine your own credibility. the very fact that you have a choice to dis-believe proves there is intelligent design, unfortunately it doesn't prove you use your intelligence wisely as evidenced by your post.

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:39 am

Clearly the intelligent designer omitted to design you with a sense of humour