I’ve read some of the posts that you pea brained losers have come up with as to available scientific data and you are just full of shit. You obviously haven’t read anything by William Dembski and fail to consider the abundance of evidence as to ID being as valid a scientific theory as evolution.
http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Message%20theory.PDF
According to your own press you believe that the universe was created by spagetti which is a theory of ID anyway. ID makes no claim as to what intelligence created humanity and the world although most sensible people know this to be God. Moreover, Atheists fail to consider such abundance of evidence such as stigmata, appearance of the virgin at Fattima and other occurances reported by relyable witnesses. Since when is it that only a scientist is able to make and record an observation? Scientists are more biased then anyone closing off their minds to any possibility of divinity.
You should all just get fucked!
Wolf
The FSM theory of creation is equally valid to your version, which is the point.
Eyewitnesses are not reliable. They might be “relyable”, whatever that is…
And why do Christians always command us to “get fucked”? I thought you were against premarital sex. I like fucking. What’s wrong with fucking? In fact, I’m going to go do some of it right now!
Whoo!
I was reeeaaally hoping you’d tell us to go to Hell like every other fundie around here, I hear the weather is quite nice this time of year. Why is it that you people feel the need to come onto our website and harass us? Do we come to your false religion websites and call you “full of shit” or “pea brained losers” and tell us “You should all just get fucked!”? We believe in something different than you, much like every other religion that has and will exist? Please provide us with incontrovertible evidence to prove us wrong. Have you ever had stigmata? Seen the virgin with your own eyes? Have picture? Science backs up its claims with evidence and guess what, we have some evidence ourselves as proof of His Noodlyness. In fact, we have a whole section devoted to it under the title “Evidence”. Your view of untelligent design is that of your christian god, it’s just a bottled up and condensed version of creationism. The problem is teaching religion as science, just without the facts and all that stuff that makes it, you know, science. And as for Wolf, You should just get fucked!
RAmen
“You obviously haven’t read anything by William Dembski”
.
Dembski?
Are you serious Wolf? Hahahahahahahaha
You mean the Discovery clown…Dembksi? This Dembski from the Dover trial?
A few comments from the Dover trial descision reguarding Mr.William Dumbski and Discovery’s Intelligent Design ideas:
.
“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)
.
“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.”
.
And there’s plenty more where that came from Mr Wolf :) which can be found at:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
.
“You obviously haven’t read anything by William Dembski”
.
Oh yes Mr Wolf, I’ve read nearly all of Dembski and Behe’s musings reguarding an Intelligent Design.
Hahahahahaha.
Have you ever read any biology Wolf? Looked at the mountain of evidence for it collected over the past 165yrs per chance? Read any of the latest molecular research findings?
.
“and fail to consider the abundance of evidence as to ID being as valid a scientific theory as evolution.”
.
Care to produce some of this abundance of evidence? Have you got any that hasn’t already been completely discredited and embarrassingly (for ID) laughed out of existence by reputable science? Why haven’t the ID assertions been published in any reputable science journals Wolf?
Yours in sympathy
Nikki
RAmen
Oops…sorry folks..didn’t realise how long that post was. Please pretend there was a length warning at the top of it. :)
@Mr. Wolf
“According to your own press you believe that the universe was created by spagetti which is a theory of ID anyway.”
Please do some homework first Mr. Wolf!
Firstly He’s a Flying Spaghetti Monster, not “spaghetti”
Secondly his Noodlyness created the universe via an unintelligent design plan..so while still from an intended design plan….. His Noodlyness’s creativity was quite the opposite of ID!
Again Ramen
@Wench Nikkiee.
ahahahaha!! God, Wolf, that’s taking fundie stupidity to a new low.
RAmen.
@Wolf
I read the article you linked to, despite not wanting to finish it after a few paragraphs. I will respond to it bit by bit:
.
1.) Evolution does not contradict itself. The authors of the article claimed that evolution and the origin of life theories contradict themselves. The origin of life theories may be different, and thus may contradict each other, but none of them contradict evolution. In fact, the opposite is true; they all accept evolution as being very likely correct. Eventually one of the origin of life theories will be accepted, and the others rejected because of new evidence. Like in evolution, only the best theory will survive to be taught.
.
2.) “Message Theory” is not a testable claim for ID. The authors state that the fact that elephants and yeast contain similar genetic code is proof of the same designer. The problem is that such a study was reasoning after the fact. They formulated the hypothesis, namely message theory, after they already knew that the DNA was similar.
.
Furthermore, it still would not constitute proof even if he did the study properly. The conclusion that only one intelligent designer was involved only makes sense if life was designed in the first place. If life was not designed, then the similarity in DNA would mean nothing but that a common ancestor species of all terrestrial life is probable.
.
Furthermore, they authors wouldn’t even be able to disprove polytheist creation stories with that reasoning because the gods could have worked together to design life as a group. In short, the authors didn’t actually say anything substantial in this segment.
.
3.) The theories about multiple universes have no relation to the origin of life discussions. They are completely separate. The authors of the article are trying to equate the theory of evolution with all of science for the sole reason of saying that controversy in one segment of science disproves the established theories in the other. They could just as easily state that because people disagree about the origins of life, gravitation and “round earth theory” are still under dispute. To use a metaphor from outside the sciences (because science does not appear to be your forte), they could state that just because Americans (scientists) disagree about gun control and the Second Amendment to the Constitution (multiple universes), Americans must also have disputes about the Third Amendment and whether or not citizens should have soldiers forcibly quartered in their homes during peacetime (evolution).
.
The article, as you should be able to see, was written by people who don’t know science and mock it anyway in the hope that you would believe their un-provable flawed assertions.
-Avatar of Reason
@Wench Nikkiee
“And there’s plenty more where that came from Mr Wolf :) which can be found at:”
Yep. One of my personal favourites is how Behe was forced to admit that if you admitted ID you’d have to admit astrology as well to be consistent. Grand science indeed.
@Wolf (again)
I forgot to respond to something earlier!
You asked, “[s]ince when is it that only a scientist is able to make and record an observation?”
.
I have an answer for you! Anyone can do that, but only some of them get to be taken seriously by the scientific community. Only those who attempt to disprove their hypothesis with an experiment are considered reliable. ID theorist don’t do that, and therefore get disrespected.
.
Furthermore, making real observations backed by hard evidence, and testing them to verify them, is what science is all about. Therefore, if said ID theorists made a legit observation, and tested it, they would be scientists by definition. Their claim cannot be tested, so they get stuck on that step and are only “pseudo-scientists”. To make a non-scientific metaphor, pseudo-scientists are to scientists like gilded lead is to pure gold. They might look the same and feel the same, but only one is legitimate and valuable.
-Avatar of Reason
The irony of the original post is superb. So you want evidence? What about the “evidence†for your beliefs? Assuming you are a Christian and that you believe in Jesus:
There are no (none, not one) substantiated non-Christian sources that support the argument that Jesus ever existed as a real historical character.
Think about it: born of a Virgin, visited by three kings, caused Herod to kill all boy babies (wrong Herod by the way - and no record of such an atrocity), raised people from the dead, cured diseases, argued with senior Judaist priesthood, fed thousands from a loaf of bread and a basket of fish. This man would have made headlines everywhere.
How come there is not a word from any contemporary Roman, Greek or Jewish commentators? Universal and deathly silence speaks volumes.
As for the Gospels:
• They were not written by anyone who knew Jesus personally.
• They were not written by any of the disciples.
• They are not contemporary records - the earliest was written 85 - 100 years after the death of the alleged Jesus.
• They conflict with one another:
• Mark had never heard of the virgin birth or the Nativity
• Matthew and Luke disagree about the ancestors of Jesus. Matthew tried to show that he was a descendant of Abraham and David. Luke tried to show that he was a descendant of Adam.
• Matthew states that there was a guard on the tomb of Jesus - not so in Mark and Luke.
• Matthew seems to have made up the story about the slaughter of the innocents.
They are only a selected four from the many “Good News” gospels (about 27 in total - including Thomas - the one they would prefer not to talk about) that were written during the first and second century. They were selected and edited by early church leaders to fit in with the Jesus myth they were creating. The names “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John”, first appeared in the second century. No-one knows who they were or if they were simply made-up names.
I could go on but it is, quite frankly, tedious.
In summary, science most certainly doesn’t explain everything but it is surely the best means at our disposal of finding the answers.
Do not dismiss evolutionary theory with pseudo science and ancient myths that really do lack evidence.
Ramen to the rest of the posts – I love this section.
@DutchPastaGuy Mar 13th, 2007 at 1:57 am
“One of my personal favourites is how Behe was forced to admit that if you admitted ID you’d have to admit astrology as well to be consistent. Grand science indeed.”
.
Hi DPG
I was looking for that quote..but in my hurry (s’posed to be reading some papers here :) , I couldn’t find it.
.
@ScottishAthiest Mar 13th, 2007 at 2:21 am
“Ramen to the rest of the posts”
.
I’ll second that…your post included.
RAmen
Dogpile!
.
.
So good I threw the scroll rule out the window for this one!
.
Carryon………..
By the way guys…there’s another one (a stayer too :) over on the “Comment on the Open Letter” thread. I haven’t had much time to get too deeply into probabilities of abiogenesis with Lou just yet. Anyway just to let you know he’s there :) I’m sure he’ll be around for a while…he seems to have come prepared. Just wouldn’t want him to get too bored ;)
.
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/discussion/#comment-71282
@Wolf (take 3)
Stigmata is not the result of a miracle. I’ve checked with a doctor, and she confirmed that stigmata is a medical ailment with natural biological causes.
.
Sightings of the Virgin Mary are rendered unreliable by the fact that no one knows for sure what she looked like. For the same reason, Jesus sightings aren’t trustworthy. Also, how does the Virgin Mary get to walk around earth? Isn’t that reserved for Jesus? I don’t recall the gospel mentioning that she got resurrected from the dead.
-Avatar of Reason
Aw, with this, people might not send so much hatemail anymore… that is, if they read any of this first… and grow a brain… and stop being stubborn… haha, this won’t really make a difference, huh? ^_^
Oops….the link I gave was or Lou’s last post. Here is his initial post (week or so ago)
.
Lou Feb 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
“I think you have missed the point of intelligent design. It is not a religous explanation. It is a scientific critisism of Evolution. There is only 1 Intelligent Design percisely because it doesn’t posit the source of the intelligence. That is the significant difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism.”
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/discussion/#comment-57865
@Koujin Mar 13th, 2007 at 3:00 am
“if they read any of this first… and grow a brain… and stop being stubborn… haha, this won’t really make a difference, huh”
.
Nope! :) One just needs to have a look through the posts on hate mail archive threads for evidence of that.
RAmen
@Avatar
Maybe also good to mention that the ‘virgin’ Mary is a mistranslation. In the Hebrew text it said ‘young woman’. This was then translated into Greek as ‘virgin’. Easy mistake to make, but one that had extensive consequences indeed: two millenia of nonsense virgin worshipping (and still counting).
.
Also: why this obsession in the various religions with virginity? It’s not as though two people who don’t have a clue as how to go about it have a better time while at it, right?
@ Wolf
‘You should all just get fucked!’ Thats very christian of ye sir.
This looks like a fake post. I doubt any real religiosos would be posting here.