You can't expect anyone to bother following a creationist link.
I'll bet you never read my links.
I'll bet you never read my links.
Proof of intelligent design
- Thread starter TheERK
- Start date
spuriousmonkey said:
People have no right to criticize content on a link that they didn't even open, creationist or not.
Also, I've never seen any of your links, but if I did, I wouldn't bother responding to the content of the link unless I had actually read it.
I read the link and didn't immediately realize it was a joke. I have read many articles on religious sites and judging from some of the stuff I have read it could be virtually impossible to differentiate some of that serious material from the subtle humor(less subtle once you realize what it is) in the article you linked.TheERK said:
TheERK said:
And I only bothered to respond to what was posted here.
This reminds me of a thread I posted in sciforums with pictures of ancient south american aritifacts that looked like airplanes or spaceships with animal heads.
link to thread
I think it was more obvious that it was a parody and in pseudoscience it should almost be allowed.
And when Banshee was still moderator there she did remove several of my posts that were similar in nature.
Find your own moral here, but don't gloat on the fact that people responded. The whole ID/creationism debate is a parody and a farce. I didn't see any difference with what was said in this thread. Congratulations on being a believable farce.
edit - Path beat me to it.
If only you had some 'intelligent discussion'.
Who? I'm not the one that fell for an OBVIOUS parody.
Did you see my statement? Nature is red in tooth and claw. God is good. LOL.
IG is virtually antithetical to conservative xianity and the Garden story and God's "pre-sin" earth. It could fit some liberal forms but still, come on, Irreducible Grotesqueness
Did you see my statement? Nature is red in tooth and claw. God is good. LOL.
IG is virtually antithetical to conservative xianity and the Garden story and God's "pre-sin" earth. It could fit some liberal forms but still, come on, Irreducible Grotesqueness
I fell for your parody and was about to froth at the creationist stupidity. You're mimicry was too perfect, even down to the pseudo-scientific jargon and use of acronyms.
Creation vs. evolution is a typically stupid argument. Neither side has enough irrefutable, substantiated facts to address anything concrete.
I mean bacteria and dogs, or a really old book that idiots kill each other over? Take your pick, I guess....
Creation vs. evolution is a typically stupid argument. Neither side has enough irrefutable, substantiated facts to address anything concrete.
I mean bacteria and dogs, or a really old book that idiots kill each other over? Take your pick, I guess....
Yeah, I was duped, but only because I've seen such types of arguments before and there was absolutely nothing to differentiate yours from them. The fact is your parody so closely reflects the real arguments of some of these nut cases that, when at first I read such arguments I assumed they were joking only to find they were deadly serious. I wouldn't be proud of going out to provoke such a repsonse, what are you trying to prove? That there are evolutionist who are going to take the bait? Or that there are evolutionists who have seen the bait many times before and it has become so irritating that responding to such ignorance is barely held in check?
And you don't think calling someone a communist is a put down?
And you don't think calling someone a communist is a put down?
For the people who claim that this article is indistinguishable from real ID articles:
There are several reasons why this is not so. The only similarity is basically the "It's complicated, so it couldn't have happened by chance" argument. Actually, that's really the only argument that ID's *ever* use.
Anyway, the reasons it is obvious:
-The Richard Dawkins quote is absurd. I don't think even ID proponents would try to claim he said that. Yes, they make take things out of context, but this is a bit beyond that.
-I can't imagine any ID proponent who's main point is "Look how disgusting and painful some of these things are, and how complex the mechanisms behind them are. There must be a God." This is because this may convince people God exist, and he's evil as all hell. Real ID proponents tend to focus on positive complex attributes, like the functioning of the eye.
-No real ID article would ever say "Complex things, ergo Goddidit." Hilarious, Winace
-Similar to what has already been said, Michael Behe would never focus on a single "slaughter-related system" when there are equally complex systems that don't make you cringe. The same point applies to calling something "irreducible grotesqueness." LOL.
There are several reasons why this is not so. The only similarity is basically the "It's complicated, so it couldn't have happened by chance" argument. Actually, that's really the only argument that ID's *ever* use.
Anyway, the reasons it is obvious:
-The Richard Dawkins quote is absurd. I don't think even ID proponents would try to claim he said that. Yes, they make take things out of context, but this is a bit beyond that.
-I can't imagine any ID proponent who's main point is "Look how disgusting and painful some of these things are, and how complex the mechanisms behind them are. There must be a God." This is because this may convince people God exist, and he's evil as all hell. Real ID proponents tend to focus on positive complex attributes, like the functioning of the eye.
-No real ID article would ever say "Complex things, ergo Goddidit." Hilarious, Winace
-Similar to what has already been said, Michael Behe would never focus on a single "slaughter-related system" when there are equally complex systems that don't make you cringe. The same point applies to calling something "irreducible grotesqueness." LOL.
Just wanted to point out that actually they did, notably Epicurus, Greek philosopher and teacher. Found this snippet for you:
"There is no divine interference in the natural order of things, according to Epicurus. Far from having been created by the gods, he said, this world has endured for an infinite time. ( "We can see that nature, free from divine tyranny, can accomplish all by itself.") Following certain of the earlier Greek naturalists, he also spelled out the crude beginnings of a theory of natural selection in evolution -- anticipating the discoveries of Charles Darwin by over two thousand years. For example: "And many races of living things must have died out and been unable to beget and continue their breed. For, in the case of all things, either craft or courage or speed has from the beginning of its existence prohibited and preserved each particular race."
MacZ said:
How is this evolution? I see extinction. I don't know this particular greek philosopher, but is this really a strange idea for its time and does it have anything to do with evolution?
if I remember correctly the traditional ancient greek (plato) view was one of a our world who with its constant cycle of creation and demise was a fake copy of the perfect and never changing (real) world.
Then aristotle broke with this view in the sense that he wanted to study the inperfect world we live in because according to him it would generate more knowledge on the perfect world. That is why he studied living beings.
That sly ol' Scratch and his fossil planting! Why, if Satan hadn't fooled those gullible astronauts with that round Earth mirage and convinced early inventors of the lie known as "electric current," we'd all be back in the caves singing hymns and washing ourselves with dirt like the Good Lord intended! In fact, the whole internet is just a grand hoax perpetrated Mr. Morningstar to make us humans believe that light can actually come from a screen! Every thinking person knows light comes from angel eyes, the Earth is flatter than a can of New Coke, and thunder is the sound of God taking a bigger-than-usual dump.
Shame on you so-called "scientists" and rational skeptics for not believing a red guy with horns and a pitchfork buried those bones! Dinosaurs! Pffft! What evil lies will you God-haters think of next? Cars that run on electricity?
Josh
Argh... got me too. Oh well.
The only commentary I'll give is that the argument presented is actually used by Creationists. I've run into the complex life cycles of parasites 'argument' before:
"Complex obligate life cycles, as shown within the Ascocotyle complex require that all of the special structures and features be in place or the system will fail and the organism will not live to bear offspring... Chance alone cannot account for this system or the structures it displays. An argument from intelligent design, however, might be made on the basis of the "irreducible complexity" of the structures and features found in this group."
http://www.icr.org/research/ma/
MacZ, I would argue that this is observation and speculation and doesn't really constitute what we would today call biological science (which is why I was careful in selecting my terminology). As far as I'm aware the Greeks never developed the methodologies that make modern science so successful. Still it's very interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.
~Raithere
Oh well. The only commentary I'll give is that the argument presented is actually used by Creationists. I've run into the complex life cycles of parasites 'argument' before:
"Complex obligate life cycles, as shown within the Ascocotyle complex require that all of the special structures and features be in place or the system will fail and the organism will not live to bear offspring... Chance alone cannot account for this system or the structures it displays. An argument from intelligent design, however, might be made on the basis of the "irreducible complexity" of the structures and features found in this group."
http://www.icr.org/research/ma/
MacZ, I would argue that this is observation and speculation and doesn't really constitute what we would today call biological science (which is why I was careful in selecting my terminology). As far as I'm aware the Greeks never developed the methodologies that make modern science so successful. Still it's very interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.
~Raithere
WinAce said:This thread has been most entertaining and informative. Thanks to all the participants. And now I'm off to write some more parodies...
A parody on creationism would result in describing evolution in a scientific manner.
The attacks you began with (complete with superlatives, overgeneralities and itlisizing/bolding) really disgusted me. I figured it was just more ID assholes attacking my beliefs in a less than scientific discussion, so I stopped reading it.
When you revealed it was a hoax, I finished reading most of it. Hilarious, cause why would God give us Guniea worms? Except to possibly plague Philistines....
When you revealed it was a hoax, I finished reading most of it. Hilarious, cause why would God give us Guniea worms? Except to possibly plague Philistines....
Am I a bad, bad man for stringing along this fello
« Thread started: Jul 20th, 2005, 06:33 am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone assumed Organisms That Look Designed, my self-described "pro-creationism essay," was real. Obviously, it's satire, containing tidbits like the following:
Quote:
"By irreducibly grotesque [IG] I mean a single slaughter-related system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
- Michael J. Behe
Quote:
Heathen, God-hating evolutionists like Kenneth Miller [the prominent anti-intelligent design Roman Catholic biochemist]
Quote:
Moreover, the life, miracle-working, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ is better attested historically than Augustus Caesar, World War II, and George W. Bush's incompetence put together.
Quote:
Complex Things, ergo Goddidit [a chapter heading]
Quote:
"All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all."
- Monty Python
And that's just in the first few paragraphs!! I'm still amazed people continue to take it seriously, when it has so many plainly visible tipoffs. Anyway, here's the guy's email:
Quote:
Your "organisms that look designed" essay is nothing but mean-spirited bashing and misinformation. NONE of those animals confuse scientists in the manner you speak of, and "irreduceable complexity" is a myth...nothing in nature is irreduceably complex. I refer you to a good article on this:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/art icle.html
Evolution does not even contradict creationism. An intelligent designer would surely have a PROCESS to creating life...they would not all appear in a puff of magic smoke.
Amusingly enough, that article he linked me to is by Kenneth Miller himself, the aforementioned Christian biologist I accused of being a God-hater in the body of the article.
At first, I thought of replying "dude, it's satire," but then decided to mess around a bit. Once before, at this SciForums thread, I had put on a creationist hat instead of admitting to the gag when someone took this seriously. Hilarity ensued as, among other things, biologists started quoting their peer-reviewed articles at me to demonstrate creationism was bunk, despite the fact my posts were LADEN with stuff no fundamentalist could ever write. (As an example, I wrote "psionic mechanisms" explained miracles performed by Jesus, AS WELL AS those from other religions.)
Behaving like the most weasel-resembling lawyers, I will write in a way where nothing in my reply will actually be false. I won't lie, merely make hints that naturally lead to the incorrect conclusions. And in my defense, I'll drop enough clues that I'm not being serious that I probably won't feel any guilt about it, either.
WinAce
Totally Enchanted
This was posted on The Divine Comedy site, by the author of the site. I see he has already moved on but wanted you all to know that you can't believe what everyone says or acts like they are or meaning on the internet.
« Thread started: Jul 20th, 2005, 06:33 am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone assumed Organisms That Look Designed, my self-described "pro-creationism essay," was real. Obviously, it's satire, containing tidbits like the following:
Quote:
"By irreducibly grotesque [IG] I mean a single slaughter-related system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
- Michael J. Behe
Quote:
Heathen, God-hating evolutionists like Kenneth Miller [the prominent anti-intelligent design Roman Catholic biochemist]
Quote:
Moreover, the life, miracle-working, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ is better attested historically than Augustus Caesar, World War II, and George W. Bush's incompetence put together.
Quote:
Complex Things, ergo Goddidit [a chapter heading]
Quote:
"All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all."
- Monty Python
And that's just in the first few paragraphs!! I'm still amazed people continue to take it seriously, when it has so many plainly visible tipoffs. Anyway, here's the guy's email:
Quote:
Your "organisms that look designed" essay is nothing but mean-spirited bashing and misinformation. NONE of those animals confuse scientists in the manner you speak of, and "irreduceable complexity" is a myth...nothing in nature is irreduceably complex. I refer you to a good article on this:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/art icle.html
Evolution does not even contradict creationism. An intelligent designer would surely have a PROCESS to creating life...they would not all appear in a puff of magic smoke.
Amusingly enough, that article he linked me to is by Kenneth Miller himself, the aforementioned Christian biologist I accused of being a God-hater in the body of the article.
At first, I thought of replying "dude, it's satire," but then decided to mess around a bit. Once before, at this SciForums thread, I had put on a creationist hat instead of admitting to the gag when someone took this seriously. Hilarity ensued as, among other things, biologists started quoting their peer-reviewed articles at me to demonstrate creationism was bunk, despite the fact my posts were LADEN with stuff no fundamentalist could ever write. (As an example, I wrote "psionic mechanisms" explained miracles performed by Jesus, AS WELL AS those from other religions.)
Behaving like the most weasel-resembling lawyers, I will write in a way where nothing in my reply will actually be false. I won't lie, merely make hints that naturally lead to the incorrect conclusions. And in my defense, I'll drop enough clues that I'm not being serious that I probably won't feel any guilt about it, either.
WinAce
Totally Enchanted
This was posted on The Divine Comedy site, by the author of the site. I see he has already moved on but wanted you all to know that you can't believe what everyone says or acts like they are or meaning on the internet.