This answer exposes you as a fraud. Under certain circumstances, G=G+1 does hold. I'm not telling you when. If you want to know, take freshman calculus.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
This answer exposes you as a fraud. Under certain circumstances, G=G+1 does hold. I'm not telling you when. If you want to know, take freshman calculus.
(Too bad we don't have a "bell" emoticon)
Stupid Design
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw
***************************************************************
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw
***************************************************************
Also there is an equal chance for a Intelligent Designer to exist, though the biggest problem with him or her (oooooooh :eek: ), is that he is not omnipotent. Looking at his work; he has a limited amount of resources to work with, very limited knowledge and very cruel like those stupid moms/dads (who are always like this 
)
*******************************************************************
)*******************************************************************
If there is no Intelligent Designer but only Intelligent Design, the question is; is this Intelligent Design just randomly an Intelligent Design or is there a source for this, if there is a source who and what is it?
********************************************************************
********************************************************************
In the end my personal belief is this; there is a God, he is a loser, a total loser, worthless and cheap, trying to get rid of the pain of feeling void and worthless he turned to mankind to have them obey him by force of future pain and possible future pleasure.
When people die they will end up somewhere, somewhere even worse than this world, something between real and illusion, they won't have a brain to think but only a mind that holds all the past memories, putting them in a hell like state of mind and existence.
It really sucks to be human, but there is no surprise in this, since it sucks to be God too, why else is he so sick minded.
And by the way what does God have to do with the creation of everything, just because he claims he did, doesn't mean he really did do it, I think he's a real liar too, but even if he is right, he is still a loser.
***********************************************************************
When people die they will end up somewhere, somewhere even worse than this world, something between real and illusion, they won't have a brain to think but only a mind that holds all the past memories, putting them in a hell like state of mind and existence.
It really sucks to be human, but there is no surprise in this, since it sucks to be God too, why else is he so sick minded.
And by the way what does God have to do with the creation of everything, just because he claims he did, doesn't mean he really did do it, I think he's a real liar too, but even if he is right, he is still a loser.
***********************************************************************
Scientists at the University of Edinburgh are busy imitating natureâs design by building nanomachines.
Two things to note: First, these new designs are not perfect, and yet they were clearly designed by intelligence. I hope ID critics will finally put to rest the inane charge that if a system has a flaw in any senseâthat is, if it is not optimal in every sense (which is impossible)âthen that system was not designed. As the scientists note, the nanomachines they are making are not even as good as natureâs nanotechnology.
Second, if nature is full of such poorly designed systems, why is it that some of the best scientists in the world keep looking to nature for lessons in design?
Itâs one thing to steal an idea. It is another to add insult to injury.
Logan Gage
Two things to note: First, these new designs are not perfect, and yet they were clearly designed by intelligence. I hope ID critics will finally put to rest the inane charge that if a system has a flaw in any senseâthat is, if it is not optimal in every sense (which is impossible)âthen that system was not designed. As the scientists note, the nanomachines they are making are not even as good as natureâs nanotechnology.
Second, if nature is full of such poorly designed systems, why is it that some of the best scientists in the world keep looking to nature for lessons in design?
Itâs one thing to steal an idea. It is another to add insult to injury.
Logan Gage