jump to navigation

The Say of the Week: ID take that! January 7, 2009

Posted by dorigo in humor, religion, science.
Tags: ,
trackback

“Why do dogs do the squashiest, most unpleasant turds that hide in the grass and spread themselves in the indentations on the bottom of your shoe, but don’t start smelling until you get indoors and then render the place uninhabitable until you’ve left every window open for a month? Why, why, why?
Come on intelligent design people, the questions you have to answer have barely begun.”

(Mark Steel, What creationists really hate is that we emerged by accident.)

Comments

1. island - January 7, 2009

LMAO!

But seriously… I get so tired of this crap.

What creationists really hate is that we emerged by accident.

Who says that we did?… not Darwin.

This is just an example of why there is a very basic logical flaw in the leap of faith that both sides of the debate eagerly make to wrongly assume that a non-random occurrence that brings us into existence necessarily equates to an ID:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990

Gee, it would be nice if both sides of the culture war weren’t so bent on killing plausible science with their ideological zeal.

Silly me, I know…

dorigo - January 8, 2009

Island, your message confuses me a bit, but I guess it is normal. At the start it reads as if you claim to be a creationist…
T.

2. Gerald Berry - January 8, 2009

If you believe that you are just an animal, that is OK with me. I myself am not an animal.

Intelligent Design points out all the shortcomings in the Theory of Evolution. Darwin’s theory tries tells us that Intelligence contained within the DNA molecule evolved. That is a ridiculous statement, that only a Darwinist could believe.

dorigo - January 8, 2009

Dear Gerald,

first of all I object to the use of the capital on “intelligence”. Any style guide would tell you you are wrong in capitalizing it. Second, the theory of evolution never speaks of intelligence within the DNA, so I advise you to do some good reading. Third, your anger toward darwinists is evident from your last sentence, so I advise you to be more pacate when you discuss science (evolutionism) or even pseudoscience (ID).

Cheers,
T.

3. RZ - January 8, 2009

But at least “Darwinist” should be capitalized, don’t you think?

dorigo - January 8, 2009

Sure, it should. But not capitalizing a word is a typo, while capitalizing one is a willful error.

Cheers,
T.

4. island - January 11, 2009

T, my point was that a non-random occurrence is not necessarily a determining factor in whether or not there is an ID involved, so the leap of faith by both sides to *automatically* conclude that it is, is not only thoroughly bogus, but is also killing plausible science like the example that I gave.

Sorry that it took so long to get back to this.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: