[kneexyFreedly]

I was looking over another spirituality thread and saw that intelligent design was looked down upon by someone here. Some politician running for office had affirmed it, but someone here described it even with a vulgarity. Is vulgarity allowed?

Returning, I was reading recently about a new discovery that a weevil uses a screw and nut as part of its structure. I do not have the link off hand, but normally when we see a nut and bolt combination, we think that it was designed by someone, and this example could be multiplied probably a million times over. Things we see are so exquisitely made. Why is it so intelligent to conclude from things that looked designed that they were not designed?

[ringtonesmannq]

Link:

Weevils Evolved Nut-and-screw Joint - Science News

And yes, trying to pass off so-called intelligent design as science is a load of horse sh!t.

[TeveVikep]

Weevils wobble but they don't evolve. Or, wait. The other way around.

[gundos]

*starts frothing at mouth*

[VioletttaJosetta]

I don't like to label people, but these people into Intelligent Design are at best intellectually lazy. Because we can't explain everything right now, that means God or something like God must have been responsible.

Maybe humans aren't equipped to even understand concepts like "nothing" and "infinity". We don't even have a law of time. Those clocks we have represent time, but they follow the sun. The universe does not follow our sun and, really, time probably can't be measured accurately by numbers linearly. In fact, time doesn't really exist. That's a human concept. So, really, God must have created time. Or something like that.

[dubGucKcolo]

I was looking over another spirituality thread and saw that intelligent design was looked down upon by someone here. Some politician running for office had affirmed it, but someone here described it even with a vulgarity. Is vulgarity allowed?

Returning, I was reading recently about a new discovery that a weevil uses a screw and nut as part of its structure. I do not have the link off hand, but normally when we see a nut and bolt combination, we think that it was designed by someone, and this example could be multiplied probably a million times over. Things we see are so exquisitely made. Why is it so intelligent to conclude from things that looked designed that they were not designed?

Guess who!

[Gmvkgkmn]

Guess who!

Affirmed!

[Tamawaipsemek]

Is vulgarity allowed?

Why the h3ll would God fcking design vulgarity in the first place if the sh!t wasn't allowed?

[paralelogram]

Why the h3ll would God fcking design vulgarity in the first place if the sh!t wasn't allowed?

Well that one's easy...either "the Lord/L*rd/L-rd works in mysterious ways" or "it's a create of the Devil".

[duminyricky]

On the one hand you say time doesn’t exist but then say God (or something) must have created it. Can you unpack that a little? The two statements do not seem to go together.

I don't like to label people, but these people into Intelligent Design are at best intellectually lazy. Because we can't explain everything right now, that means God or something like God must have been responsible.

Maybe humans aren't equipped to even understand concepts like "nothing" and "infinity". We don't even have a law of time. Those clocks we have represent time, but they follow the sun. The universe does not follow our sun and, really, time probably can't be measured accurately by numbers linearly. In fact, time doesn't really exist. That's a human concept. So, really, God must have created time. Or something like that.

[harriettvanders]

On the one hand you say time doesn’t exist but then say God (or something) must have created it. Can you unpack that a little? The two statements do not seem to go together.

I believe that was his point. Time does not exist, it's fallacy. Creationists claim, among other things, that God created time. Since time doesn't really exist, it's just a human perception, the claim that God created something that doesn't exist suggests that human perceptions about the existence of God are equally fallacious.

[kazinopartnerkae]

While we're talking about concepts of time, thought I might share this short interview for the benefit of applecartt:

Conan Video - Dr. Michio Kaku Interview 12/9/10 - tbs.com

[Aztegjpl]

Before Gravity, before Physics, before Meteorology...It was God.

[orapope]

Before Gravity, before Physics, before Meteorology...It was God.

You're right. Before we had explanations for anything we just said, "God did it!"

[neguoogleX]

I was looking over another spirituality thread and saw that intelligent design was looked down upon by someone here. Some politician running for office had affirmed it, but someone here described it even with a vulgarity. Is vulgarity allowed?

Returning, I was reading recently about a new discovery that a weevil uses a screw and nut as part of its structure. I do not have the link off hand, but normally when we see a nut and bolt combination, we think that it was designed by someone, and this example could be multiplied probably a million times over. Things we see are so exquisitely made. Why is it so intelligent to conclude from things that looked designed that they were not designed?

a belief in intelligient design is faith, not fact. certainly not science.

why is it so bad to just admit that believing the biblical story of earth's creation is faith? why does it have to be "science"?

[JakeBarkings]

I don't know, Bob, until applecartt starts lifting articles wholesale, I'm keeping an open mind as to identity.

As far as ID though- hell no.

[Qrhzbadu]

I don't know, Bob, until applecartt starts lifting articles wholesale, I'm keeping an open mind as to identity.

Really? "Some politician running for office had affirmed it, but someone here described it even with a vulgarity." If that's not Humber, I'll buy your damn piano, then eat it.

[Poeetiol]

Sold! With ketchup.

[Symnunidanimb]

I was looking over another spirituality thread and saw that intelligent design was looked down upon by someone here. Some politician running for office had affirmed it, but someone here described it even with a vulgarity. Is vulgarity allowed?

Returning, I was reading recently about a new discovery that a weevil uses a screw and nut as part of its structure. I do not have the link off hand, but normally when we see a nut and bolt combination, we think that it was designed by someone, and this example could be multiplied probably a million times over. Things we see are so exquisitely made. Why is it so intelligent to conclude from things that looked designed that they were not designed?

Applecart,

I think what you're witnessing is boiled over result after countless attempts to correct a dishonest poster. The ID movement in and of itself is largely a dishonest marketing attempt to deconstruct the science curriculum of public schools.

Why is it intelligent to conclude that their is a designer present when only a select few have claimed to witness the designer?

Also, why is it intelligent to assume that the select few that supposedly witnessed the designer do not have any other motivation at play to mislead the public, or that they are of sound mental health and did not have a hallucination?

[himecthekWiff]

Really? "Some politician running for office had affirmed it, but someone here described it even with a vulgarity." If that's not Humber, I'll buy your damn piano, then eat it.

And the example...? Pure Humber playbook. Do you have any more piano and ketchup? I could eat a house.