Un-intelligent Design Theory

[Guest]

 

[Kassiana]

Loki is a bastard sometimes. isn't he?

According to my Norse Pagan friends, yes. Yes, he is.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Lucifer_Carroll,

am calmer than my use of capitalization might imply.
(or one might infer from it)

I often use UPPER case for EMPHASIS...is fatser than italics or bold or both of course all THREE takes as long as the two.....then there is COLOR


ooooo and COLOR&SIZE

I believe I am far from "science dumb". Admittedly ignorant in many details or specifics of certain disciplines (spelling typing fer instance).

I understand it...even subscribe to it...but will not be limited by it.
Nor...I hope... to be limited by any of my own current misconceptions.

I didn't state that you were science-dumb, merely that you were sounding science-dumb by defending the wrong thing in the wrong place. Intelligent design as a belief, as a humanities theory of how the world works is perfectly valid, but it has no right to be presented as a scientific theory until it has gone through and defended itself in the trials of scientific theory. Those who would bypass this process because they believe in their hearts that it is right (despite whatever truth may show) are doing a disservice to science. Let science come to its own conclusions on whether or not it is true to science, whether it can work for science, and whether it produces results for science.

Truth itself is far removed from just science and contains much much more, perhaps much that science simply cannot account for or whose very nature disconnects it from the laws of science, causality, or perhaps even reality. Who knows? It's what makes things interesting. I have my own theories, but they are always my own and I keep them separate from my scientific theories always, because I do not pollute my science like that. I have too much respect for the field and what it's purpose is.

That's my point. What is happening is a crime against science. Who knows about truth or reality and all that jazz? But science has its set guidelines and what is happeneing in Kansas is an insult to that.

I'm not asking you to believe science as truth and morality inmutable and unchanging. Cause it aint. Just that you shouldn't defend the teaching of non-science hypotheses and guesses as science, because by definition it isn't and the proposed changes to the definition are simply inexcusable. It is an attempt to destroy the very core and nature of all science and turn it into nothing more than a worthless extension of humanities and social science with no ability to produce real effects. This is in my opinion, very very bad.

Color issues, aside.

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

Have you ever wondered what a chair would look like if your knees bent the other way?

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

hmmmmm. nope.
NOW I am.

fun project!

all other joints the same?
A BIT like how many quadrupeds...have high ankles.

No, No. They still have knees above those ankles. Think about the knees.

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

another direction...
a CHEST "chair"...and the "desk would be LOW...and computer monitor facing upward.


Ok...enough distraction! i can get into this!

That's just begging for inuendo. Or is it "In you end. OH!

 

[Guest]

 

[shereads]

--Ass-crack hair: certain proof that God does not exist.

"Nipples for men. The size of the pit in avocados."

~ Satan providing additional proof in the movie, "Time Bandits"

 

[Colleen Thomas]

hey Doc. you should get a patent. With Kansas's new definition of science your theory could be taught and you will miss out on the roayalties for all those text books if it isn't patented

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[cantdog]

I'm not sure the betterman is much better. Zoot may be misleading himself.

 

[Guest]

 

[cantdog]

I rather think carpeting would suffer from the excretory placements.