Here's my deal. It seems pretty obvious to me that Intelligent Design is just a way to try to sell Creationism with some scientific sounding words. Say I give you the benefit of the doubt, and agree that it isn't. You really believe in the logic that life is too complicated to evolve on it's own and someone/thing had to intelligently design it. I have a question for you:
Who designed the designer? By your own logic, we are too complicated to evolve, we had to be designed. Thus, our designer had to be even more complex; thus requiring his own designer. That designer, would require one, etc., out to infinity. Not only is ID completely unsupported by any science, it can't even stand up when examined under it's own underpinning logic.
IDiots.
Intelligent Voters defeat Intelligent Design
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Posted by Generation Xsquire at 1:35 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I agree, Intelligent Design is not based in science, It should not be taught in a science classroom. Phlilosophy or Religion fine.
It was those assholes who promted my first public rant way back in November.
http://eatthestupid.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_eatthestupid_archive.html
Unlike those chokers, I'M still here! HAH!
Wow. I'd like to say bravo to the people of Kansas. Obviously, you're not all Bible-toting, ignorant hayseeds.
let see what replacement they find, well big bang sounds good to me, is still some "power" isn't it?
Jesus, religious people are so insecure about the God they create in their minds.
Newsflash, science does not have to replace God. Evolution is evolution and that's all that it is. If you want to believe that there is a great big bearded white man in the clouds watching and judging you for all eternity, that's fine. You can believe he created everything and got the ball rolling and then evolution took it from there.
The point is that evolution does not try to replace or refute God, it is simply explaining human evolution using the scientific method. The problem is when creationists/IDers try to refute evolution with "belief."
How good is their belief? It's total crap. To wit: Genesis can't make up it's mind. Was Eve created from a rib or was she created from clay of the Earth? How can two completely different creation stories both be true? They can't! Hello! It was written by people who thought the Earth was flat!
Ut oh! Belief police!!!
Fine. You don't like ID in science class. I agree.
But why are you so insecure that you have to imply that Christianity is a relgion of idiots?
Sir Isaac Newton, the father of physical science and calculus believed in codes strewn throughout the torah. You believe him, don't you?
Einstien was a ferverent believer in God.
What is your fucking problem with God anyways? Afraid that you might have to answer to a higher power some day?
Childish...
well AV that is just your opinion, I am a Christian and I am not insecure at all, that is just your outside point of view...besides when anything is gone (I mean materially speaking) I have something to turn to.
Jesuits; Scientist priests.
Can't trust them. Never turn your back on a Jesuit.
I just did. And I brought a shutgun to the haunted house.
No, it's not my opinion. It's a fact. Read the Genesis book, there are two creation stories. Two different creation stories cannot be both fundamentally true.
Then how do you explain all the paradoxes in math, like Zeno's paradox?
How do you explain Schrödinger's cat paradox in science? Or the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics?
Ultimately, two things can be the same, but different without invalidating each other.
Did you stop reading about math and logic in 1980?
I don't have to! I'm not killing anyone because they believe in the wrong Math! Two different fairy tales in the Bible about the smae event isn't a paradox, it just makes it a work of fiction. No paradox there.
So, does that make Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics fairy tales?
They both can describe the same events very differently.
What you mean is not that 'you don't have to', you mean you can't. And you apply your logic selectively. That's the sign of a poor thinker.
Again, no one is killing to prove quantum physics right. You are going a long way round to avoid the fact that Genesis is internally inconsistent and therefore cannot be fully true. Calling someone a poor thinker is the weakest of rhetorical devices. Ad hominem attacks are for talk radio.
Bible = fiction.
You're throwing out the entire Bible as fiction? Even though there are many historical accounts in there?
Your civics book from High School was just as much fiction.
All history is a fictional recreation of what might have happened. We have no proof before pictures, except for writing and oral history.
Throw it all out.
"Calling someone a poor thinker is the weakest of rhetorical devices. Ad hominem attacks are for talk radio."
I'll remember you said that. I won't even point out that you are guilty of the same tactic on a daily basis.
And what's wrong with talk radio? CNN is just as bad. Why not say Ad hominem attacks are for politicians, biased media personalities, and their cronies."
You laugh when James Carville does it. What's the matter?
I laugh because James Carville sounds like a hick! No jury would convict me of using Ad Hominem attacks.
Yes, it's fiction. It's a book of stories, highly interpretive stories. Just because they mix some facts and history in there doesn't make it non-fiction. Aesop's Fables have plenty of facts in them, but they are fiction. Stories used to teach a lesson.
Fiction is not a bad thing. People trying to pass off fiction as a fundamental truth of the universe is a bad thing.
even for science how everything started is fiction because there is no fact to support it, they can only think that "Matbe this, maybe that" so what are we debating here?
Bones? Fsiles.. oh they have found thousands, yet they are unable to figure out how everything started.
I had sex with a pony last night.
did you enjoy it?
No. I got paid though. And I got Deeeeeerunk!
at least you enjoyed that uh!
Post a Comment