You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Oh, snivel, snivel...
and to think I thought you would be grateful and thanking me for pointing out an obvious error, you know, after incessently positioning yourself as some kind of professional man to whom exactness is important as not to mislead anyone...
After all, you wouldn't want someone to think you actually talked to the man, or made the whole thing up.
No, I don't think you ever lie. Really, I don't. Truly I don't. No never, ever, ever...
Bwaahaaahaaahaaaaaaa.....
Again, when I think you have topped yourself, now you position yourself as one who think he knows what is amusing to all rational people...
Oh man, oh man...
p.s. Waiting for the next obvious comeback from you...clock is ticking.
It must be comforting to you that San Diego liquor stores are open late.
Quote from kjkent1:
I don't care. I've talked directly with the source of your quote. He says you are misinterpreting/misunderstanding the subject matter.
Game over.
I was hoping he would mention me in your conversation, would you mind sharing the emails. I was wondering did he call me J-E-M or did he just run the letters togehter and say gem.
In those emails did he repudiate his declarations he made about the universe looking designed?
If I wanted to get to the bottom of this debate instead of giving him my summary of one part of his argument
I would have asked the following Hypothetical:
if the science behind string theory proves wrong and it is determined we only have one universe, is there any evidence of design.
did you ask him that KJ?
Oh wait we already have the answer to that question at the end of the new scientist interview.
Quote from kjkent1:
It must be comforting to you that San Diego liquor stores are open late.
Is Z in relapse again? Has he tried another one of his language-based obfuscations? I don't have time to review the thread but this is what I assume.
When Z begins to feel uncomfortable, when his arguments start to tie him in knots, he generally either posts a bizarre image, starts cutting and pasting, or tries to change the subject by singling out a word or phrase and making up some outrageous fallacy based on it.
Hey Z... you were mentioning things you find amusing. Do you still find it amusing to suggest that a fellow member's kids might be the victims of pedophilic attack?
Also, why were you banned from this site twice. I myself have never been banned.
kjkent, have you ever been banned?
Oh yes, Z, one more thing... I noticed you fucked up your call in the football thread as well. Oh well, I don't expect you to have a laugh and admit it. You will prbably attack someone for something they said, which is more your style.
Quote from kjkent1:
I don't care. I've talked directly with the source of your quote. He says you are misinterpreting/misunderstanding the subject matter.
Game over.
Absolutely amazing job of pulling the rug right out from under the ID/C argument here, kj. The only thing you will be left with is Z's blatherings.
Your efforts here just show what a committment to truth and fairness can accomplish. The ghost-and-goblin brigade has been busted. jem is completely discredited. Z has been that way since his first banning, way back. Z's aliases are silent.
Thread closed.
-------------------------------------------------
Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade
iustus ignarus troll
Quote from Turok:
In other words:
Jem:
"Susskind means 'A'"
Susskind:
"No Jem, I mean 'B'"
Jem:
"Susskind still means 'A' -- because I say so"
Freakin' hilarious.
JB
Turok you also are distorting the debate.
I do not need to change the plain meaning of Susskind quotes. Many times I have responded to challenges by cutting and pasting Susskinds own words.
You can see it is KJ doing the interpreting and KJ is now speaking for the oracle and coming back with some special message.
I have provded Susskinds quotes from magazine articles and the introduction to his book. There is need no for intrepretation he quite clearly has stated there are serious astrophysicsts who state the universe appears designed.
Tradenik
the rug has really been pulled out from underneath the design argument.
KJ has come back and somehow Susskinds following quote does not mean what it says.
I thought you might care to read this from Susskind again.
In his book "The Cosmic Blueprint," the astronomer professor Paul Davies concludes that the evidence for design is overwhelming:
Professor Sir Fred Hoyle-no sympathizer with Christianity- says that it looks as if a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.
And the astronomer George Greenstein says: As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency, or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a supreme being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially created the cosmos for our benefit?
Is it any wonder that the Anthropic Principle makes many physicists very uncomfortable?
Davies and Greenstein are serious scholars, and Hoyle was one of the great scientists of the twentieth century. As they point out, the appearance of intelligent design is undeniable.?
Did you read that -- As they point out, the appearance of design is undeniable.
the rug has really been pulled out from underneath the design argument.
KJ has come back and somehow Susskinds following quote does not mean what it says.
I thought you might care to read this from Susskind again.
In his book "The Cosmic Blueprint," the astronomer professor Paul Davies concludes that the evidence for design is overwhelming:
Professor Sir Fred Hoyle-no sympathizer with Christianity- says that it looks as if a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.
And the astronomer George Greenstein says: As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency, or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a supreme being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially created the cosmos for our benefit?
Is it any wonder that the Anthropic Principle makes many physicists very uncomfortable?
Davies and Greenstein are serious scholars, and Hoyle was one of the great scientists of the twentieth century. As they point out, the appearance of intelligent design is undeniable.?
Did you read that -- As they point out, the appearance of design is undeniable.
Uh, until what 100 years ago, nobody had any idea what the universe was , or even might be.
Flat earth, dragons, faeries and ectoplasm, superstitious goddidit claptrap.
Did the universe look "designed " then, or was that really due to the invention of the microscope?
Who gives a rats if intelligent design is'nt creationism,
thats like saying spilling animals blood on the altar, is better than cutting peoples heart's out to appease gods, both absurd and pointless arguments, fervently grounded in preposterous superstition.
Flat earth, dragons, faeries and ectoplasm, superstitious goddidit claptrap.
Did the universe look "designed " then, or was that really due to the invention of the microscope?
Who gives a rats if intelligent design is'nt creationism,
thats like saying spilling animals blood on the altar, is better than cutting peoples heart's out to appease gods, both absurd and pointless arguments, fervently grounded in preposterous superstition.
Jem:
>Turok you also are distorting the debate.
"You'd like to think so, wouldn't you" (credit to Princess Bride)
>I do not need to change the plain meaning of Susskind
>quotes. Many times I have responded to challenges by
>cutting and pasting Susskinds own words.
Yes, and unless you are calling KJ a liar (again), Susskind as stated that KJ's interpretation of his words is correct and yours flat out wrong.
This has now entered the realm of NoNonsense's Albert Einstein (mis)-quote. Actually, this clearly surpasses that nonsense as Susskind is here to correct you and STILL you claim he supports things that he does not.
JB
>Turok you also are distorting the debate.
"You'd like to think so, wouldn't you" (credit to Princess Bride)
>I do not need to change the plain meaning of Susskind
>quotes. Many times I have responded to challenges by
>cutting and pasting Susskinds own words.
Yes, and unless you are calling KJ a liar (again), Susskind as stated that KJ's interpretation of his words is correct and yours flat out wrong.
This has now entered the realm of NoNonsense's Albert Einstein (mis)-quote. Actually, this clearly surpasses that nonsense as Susskind is here to correct you and STILL you claim he supports things that he does not.
JB