Now....where did I put that data...
2/3/2007 10:49:29 PM
Intelligent Design in 3 parts...
1. We don't know how *that* happened.
2. We'll never know how *that* happened.
3. Therefore, God did *that*.
1. We don't know if this is true.
2. This is almost certainly untrue.
3. This is a 'God of the Gaps' arguement. We're saying here 'anything we don't know was done by God'. The problem with this arguement is that as we learn more things, the gaps get smaller, and God disappears. Take, for example, thunder. At one time, we didn't know what caused thunder. So we had Thor, God of Thunder. Now we do know what causes thunder, and Thor is a comic book character. Keep up the God of the Gaps arguement, and Yahweh will join Thor in The Avengers comics...
2/3/2007 11:03:38 PM
Yeah but Yahweh will be lame like Moon Knight or Quasar!
2/3/2007 11:07:12 PM
by \"We rely on the data\" you meen you look for a few random facts the appeer to support the conclusion you have already drawn
2/3/2007 11:22:48 PM
Hey, Big Mac, Moon Knight is cool for a blatant ripoff of Batman...
2/3/2007 11:24:29 PM
I always thought Marvel was drawing a parallel between the Celestials and Yahweh, myself, so maybe he's already in the comics.
2/4/2007 8:25:02 AM
You misused the word \"data\".
2/4/2007 8:59:38 AM
How in the world does saying that make me a fundie? Hey this is the paltalk site right?
2/26/2007 10:07:09 PM
How is it possible to be that deluded?
2/26/2007 10:47:51 PM
Hey Nelson, show us these data and then we'll talk.
2/27/2007 12:20:04 AM
Guys , even Dawkins knows that life looks designed, and it has not been demonstrated that any large complex system has come about through random variation and natural selection. Plenty of non-fundies also do not think that the design is illusory, this site makes no sense. I remember when this site used to be called \"Christians say the darndest thing\", then you guys changed it to \"fundies\". But you're obviously all bigots.
2/28/2007 12:00:47 AM
You guys want to see people say the \"darndest things\" check out atheist Sam Harris:
Asked which cases are most suggestive of reincarnation, Harris admits to being won over by accounts of \"xenoglossy,\" in which people abruptly begin speaking languages they don't know. Remember the girl in \"The Exorcist\"? \"When a kid starts speaking Bengali, we have no idea scientifically what's going on,\" Harris tells me. It's hard to believe what I'm hearing from the man the New York Times hails as atheism's \"standard-bearer.\"
2/28/2007 12:04:32 AM
About the thor thing, I would like to know exactly where you got that from, what is the reference? Just curious.
2/28/2007 12:08:43 AM
Bullshit. Name one scientist doing serious lab work that supports ID. Name a credible paper that has been published in a credible journal.
Show me data that there was a designer involved. Name one person who has said that a \"future theory\" will explain something we don't fully understand now.
2/28/2007 12:12:20 AM
Erm, the data?
2/28/2007 12:14:40 AM
Nelson, buddy. If you're gonna quote-mine legitimate scientists, I'd stay away from Dawkins. That's too easy to refute. Just go with some unheard-of biologist in Missouri who mispoke at a conference or something.
Anyway, Dawkins has said the life appears to be designed, but that is merely our perception of how adapted most organisms are to their environment. He seems to prefer evidence over superstition, and thus would never, ever support any form of creationism. Pretty much every well-read atheist knows this, so you just end up looking like a goober when you misquote him.
You are indeed a fundie, for you have chosen the path of ignorance and made vocal your ill-concieved notions, putting yourself square in our sights. Face it padre, there is not one shred of evidence to support ID, no matter how much you close your eyes, put your hands over your ears, and wish it was otherwise. But relax kid, you're only a low 3 at the moment, so there's a little hope for you yet. We'll just have to see what happens when someone submits what you've written on this board...
<geek>Thor is the Norse god of thunder, present in a lot of popular media, most notably Marvel Comics, in which he was a member of the Avengers, a super hero team led by Captain America and Iron Man (depending whether or not Tony was on the wagon that day) until Ragnarok (Norse Armageddon) where he possible died, and at least dissapeared, until that dick Richard Reed cloned him, creating a monster which ultimately killed Goliath.</geek>
2/28/2007 3:28:14 AM
Hey, Nelson, about the bigot thing... do you even know what a bigot is? Say claptrap on the internet, and you'll be quoted here, simple as that. Nobody deleted your comments here.
5/20/2007 4:32:12 PM
Theistic Ev, for all its questions, is many times better than this copout of a compromise of an argument. ID wants to be pure creationism, but wants to take out the whole point of creationism (God did it). TE takes into account that Creation and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive.
5/20/2007 4:34:22 PM
Hey, Nelson Alonso.
The \"evidence\" for ID is entirely based on our perception of order. Get this into your brain: Order is not a universal concept, it's in your mind! Just like the beauty of a poem.
Example: I give you a random card from a deck. The chance of getting each given card is only 1/52. In retrospect, it may seem veeeeery unlikely that you would get the card you got, but there is nothing strange about it. Only when you could predict the card you got, we can talk of divine/supernatural invervention.
The lack of chaos in the creation of the world IS ONLY IN YOUR MIND.
5/20/2007 5:50:06 PM
Sorry, this Nelson brings out the Muntz in me.
5/21/2007 1:01:44 PM
Nelson, whether reincarnation is true or not, and whether there is evidence for it or not, has nothing to do with ID, so why did you quote that here?
5/21/2007 3:54:39 PM
\"I agree that ID has an unfair advantage\"
That's right, it does. They're called lies.
\"but this is simply because the evidence is in it's favor\"
Show one that can be proven and agreed upon by any scientist that doesn't prostitute themselves in the name of ID.
\"we don't rely on \"unknown steps\" or \"future theories\" as evidence for our theory.\"
You really need to read something other than the propaganda that's been shoved down your throat. Science being open to change and improvement on theories is actually a good thing. It allows us to have computers and vaccines and properly cooked food and turbine wind power and hair gel and all sorts of fun things. ID does not allow for any sort of change because to do that would move the goalposts, and we can't have that, now can we?
\"We rely on the data\"
Oh that pesky data must be around here somewhere. See above.
And Nelson, your comment is fundie because you are buying the line they are feeding you hook, line and sinker. Try reading out of the box for a change, maybe a book on critical thinking for a start.
5/21/2007 5:39:36 PM
if by \"rely on data\" you mean, totally take the data out of context, and lie about what you can't take out of context, then that is true.
5/21/2007 5:43:58 PM
Bullshit. ID \"data\" is about as concrete as the data Aristotle used to \"prove\" that bear cubs were born as amoebas and licked into shape by their mothers.
(for those unaware: Aristotle was a great mind who far too often fell into the trap of ignoring reality and pulling answers out of his ass.)
5/21/2007 6:13:31 PM
I think you're confusing the words 'Data' and 'Bible'. They are not in fact interchangeable.
5/22/2012 4:25:38 PM