Joined: May 2007
|Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 17 2008,05:44)|
|Man, UD has been a veritable volcano of stupidity the last week. First we had beavers, then we had Lopez' dishonest misquote, then we had multiple banninations. Now we've got Fundy wingnut Ray "rayray" Martinez going at it hammer and tong with IDiot refrigerator repairman Joe Gallien.|
“It is very rude to come to a discussion with only red herrings and strawmen to offer.”
You are ignorant, unable to refute. This explains your angry comment, gross misrepresentation of my message. Anyone can scroll back and see that my post was quality.
“Again the debate is NOT ‘natural’ vs ’supernatural’, it is ‘undirected’ vs ‘directed’.
“Directed” implies and corresponds to Director (= supernatural, God).
“Undirected” implies and corresponds to unguided material forces (= Materialism, Atheism, non-existence of God, supernatural). This is why all Atheists are Darwinists.
But you have admitted ignorance concerning Philosophy, upthread.
The word "Supernatural" used around 54 x in 25 posts by 15 avatars.
ALL SCIENCE SO FAR.
....and they can't all decide what is/isn't
g$d ...ooops ...er designer
...now where was I?
...Oh that's right they can't all decide what is/isn't SUPERNATURAL!!!
One thing they are all sure of though GODDIDIT ....or hrmmm super secret Aliens...do we still have to say that?
...NO,.... YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY ALIENS ANYMORE CREOTARDS BECOZ THAT LOST IN DOVER....REMEMBER?
Just how thick is DonaldM?
|The January issue of Scientific American is focused entirely on the Evolution of Evolution.|
.... the article laments the fact that Science still has to deal with “creationism”…the favored term over Intelligent Design for purely pejorative reasons.
WELL FUCK ME "Intelligent Design" IS NOT Creationism?????
I'm stunned ...
Let me check what THE LEGAL DEFINITION IN THE USofA for "Intelligent Design" ACTUALLY IS?
From the wiki KvD page On 20 December 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:
|"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24) |
"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)
"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)
"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)
"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86–87)
"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (page 89)
"Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause." (page 132)
YES THAT'S RIGHT Supernatural (...or not if you so choose) ID Creationist dickwads THE LEGAL DEFINITION is thus "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism"
All you Supernatural (...or not if you so choose) ID, Creationist ,dickwads have to do is get up another scopes trial to get the LEGAL DEFINITION CHANGED or APPEAL ....please ...please .....please appeal .....make my day.
It's obvious to any adult or child.....guffaw
ETA ..and if you dumb UD bastards, Barry in particular ran an open shop I could post ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; will have to be tested in a court OF LAW to have that FACT changed.
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his
clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin