you want proof

Published March 13th, 2007 by Bobby Henderson

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



666 Responses to “you want proof”

  1. Matt says:

    Tsk, tsk, tsk, in proving intelligent design, you actually disproved it. BY providing proof that god exists you proved that he doesn’t exist because fact beats faith, and since your god is based on faith, he is beaten. Luckily, FSM is based on fact so He is immune to this little trick.
    By the way, someone who names themeselves retards has no right to critisize others.

  2. CR the Ungreat says:

    “You should all just get fucked!”

    More of that wonderful Christian love.

  3. Rcat says:

    Fattima? relyable? Are evengelicals really ALL such bad spellers? Don’t they know that if God created man, and man created the dictionary, they can use it? There’s also spellcheck.

    RAmen

  4. Fable says:

    You spelt reliable wrong, hun.
    Ramen!

  5. A Voice of Reason says:

    Dear Sir, Madame, or Most Commendable Canine,

    I believe there have been some serious misunderstandings here. First off, let me say that telling people to get fucked does not make them particularly inclined to take you seriously. It does not speak particularly well of your confidence in your own position if you feel the need to resort to profaning others.

    I looked up the link you provided in your post and read it thoroughly, very interested and hopeful to see evidence for Intelligent Design. I’d never heard any convincing ID evidence before now, so I was eager to see if I could finally find some and learn enough about ID’s position to form an opinion on its validity.

    Unfortunately, I was disappointed. I personally think that you, your Mr. Dembski, and in fact a large part of the American public, have suffered a complete misunderstanding of the nature of science. Science is, quite simply, the practice of not jumping to conclusions. For example, take this “Message Theory”, which I have never heard of until now and, truthfully, find rather distressing. The premise, as I understand it, is that the similarity of the structure of all organisms is a sort of “message” indicating that they all have the same superhuman designer. Won’t you agree that this is jumping to a rather large conclusion? If we study life and find that most of it is quite similar, it’s quite a huge step to go from “Animals are made from the same molecules” to “There must be a superhuman being who designed all of this and made all the animals from the same molecules so that, once we matured enough to develop science, we would be able to figure out the existence of the superhuman being”.

    Now, don’t get me wrong, Intelligent Design is far from impossible. Personally, I’m quite fond of it. But scientifically — that’s the key, scientifically — it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If, tomorrow, it was announced that scientists had discovered conclusive evidence venerating Intelligent Design, I would be among the first to cheer and convert. It is quite possible that this will happen someday. However, science — true science — can be conducted only when the scientist has a mind free from any bias. You can’t find out what’s really going on if you interpret everything you see in the framework of an already-existing belief.

    You can believe whatever you want. You can worship who- or whatever you want. I don’t care. You can cry Intelligent Design in the streets, you can live your life by it, you can write pamphlets on it or do whatever your heart desires to do. It’s really none of my business. But it is, above all other things, a belief. And you cannot pass it off as science. You have a wonderful belief; call it a belief. Call it a religion. Don’t call it science, because it’s not. Saying “if we found some life that didn’t follow life’s basic rules, then the message would be false” is not presenting a testable theory. The fact that all life is carbon-based does not a mystical message from the realm of spirituality make.

    I would love to discuss this with you. I don’t want to attack you. I just wish to explain to you that you have misinterpreted some things, and I want to understand why you believe something that appears to me to be based on faulty logic.

    Yours,
    A Voice of Reason

    P.S. Just so you know, dear Monsieur or Madame Wolf, the FSM is not supposed to be a real religion. It’s a joke. It seems to me that getting so upset at a little poking-fun is not the hallmark of a reasonable, confident position. I think that it’s much more becoming to stay calm and keep one’s sense of humor, don’t you?

  6. beastlt12 says:

    *All together now*

    .
    .
    .

    rAaaaaaaaaaaaaamen
    .
    .
    .
    (Sorry, I was raised Catholic. I’m too used to really streching those replies out, into more of a chant really)

  7. DutchPastaGuy says:

    I’ll join in that beastlt12, RAmen to the post by A Voice of Reason. Welcome btw.

  8. Etay says:

    Funny how you mention “scientific” and “God” in the same paragraph…

Leave a Reply