Bolder-dash writes:
The topic is about when do we decide that something that appears to have design and to be intelligence is derived from an intelligent source.
No. Being intelligent has nothing to do with the topic
Now, as many of you say that its silly to subscribe an intelligent source for something if you can't see that intelligent source, I submitted that it is no more silly than attributing all of life to a materialistic source, when you have no more proof of that then the ones who feel the source is intelligent.
Since we can see this unintelligent source all around us (it's called nature), I'd say this statement isn't true.
In fact, I would argue you have even less proof, because things are indeed intelligent, in the way we understand intelligence, so saying that this came from absolute un-intelligence is less logical than the belief in a designed world.
What does the existence of intelligent things have to do withs omething being able to originate from a non-intelligent thing?
Now, after making these observations, and condensing the basic tenets of your theory down to its essence, that turtles, and tigers and monkeys and Richard Feynman all come from the same source, and an unintelligent one at that...
You never said that. Can't you even remember your own words? You said that tigers came from turtles and that Dickie came from tigers. And that, dear sir, is nonsense.
...I have to first listen to GM say that is fucking stupid I have to then listen to her claim that the empirical proof for the ToE exits in books without her giving any evidence to support that.
Don't tell me you've never heard of biology books? Also, you claimed she said more than that, which she didn't.
I then have to listen to Dr. A repeat the same banal, meaningless crap.
He never said such a thing.
I then have to listen to Ringo say nothing other than it takes intelligence to understand the explanation. And that's his entire contribution to the discussion.
And a quite true one at that.
I then have to listen to Dr. A AGAIN vomit his same tired lines-"Your abject ignorance of the theory is not a weakness of the theory" as his entire contribution.
And again, one that rings very true to the ear.
I then have to listen to Jumped Up Chimpanzee add his all important contribution to the subject "Why don't you read some books on the subject (written by evolutionary biologists who have constructed the theory, and not by creationists) and then come back with some intelligent questions about anything you may not understand?" Gee read a book-great debate stuff! You guys sure do know how to make an argument.
It's not our fault you know next to nothing about the ToE. There's little debate to be had if the opponent knows absolutely nothing about the subject you are debating.
I then have to endure Dr. A again saying "If you were suffering from bubonic plague, would you throw a temper tantrum every time someone advocated the use of antibiotics?" without his acknowledging that modern medicine NEVER uses the ToE to achieve its medical advances-besides of which what the heck does it have to do with this discussion?
See, it's sentences like "without his acknowledging that modern medicine NEVER uses the ToE to achieve its medical advances" that makes it painfully clear you know nothing about ToE and science in general, it seems.
Dr. A's next contribution is to blatantly proclaim that there is empirical evidence for ToE again without providing a shred of evidence to back that statement.
Not true, he said there was empirical evidence that a natural explanation is more likely. With reading comprehension like this, I find it no wonder you seem to know little about ToE.
But it gets better, you chime in with the oh so valuable contribution, "They never claimed that." Now is the time for rebuttal to nothing?
That's a rebuttal of your statement. The fact you can't point to the sentences in which they said what you claimed they said is rather to my advantage.
So now, after GM and Dr. A BOTH refuse to show any evidence in a book for their claims that the evidence is there, I get to read, "You know, if you told fewer really stupid lies, people would be less inclined to think of you as a really stupid liar. " Is this the point where I should begin the intelligent discourse with the enlightened?
That's because that is not what you said they claimed. We can read your posts back you know, no point in trying to alter what you said. That's why people are saying you are telling lies.
But it gets better, if not even more vacuous. Dr. A: 'I sometimes wonder whether people like Bolder-dash tell lies in the hope of actually deceiving someone, or whether it is merely a compulsion akin to Tourette's syndrome." The intelligent dialogue has begun?
Quite, for it would make a very interesting case study, I think. Also don't forget, it was you who stared off the "being an asshole" bit, so don't point fingers if people respond in kind.
Now so far, what is your contribution to this discussion? Oh, here it is: "Yes, they're quite the enigma, aren't they? " Powerful stuff I realize, but not much grist for discussion yet, now is it?
Since you're not providing anything of worth either, I don't see your particular gripe.
But of course we can't skip Parasomnium's valuable input: "Do they actually have to make you read it?"
Well seeing as how you've been acting throughout this thread, I thought that was a legitimate question.
Next we get to wade through Granny's spelling lesson, as she misspells "from" and "so'.
Like you never make spelling errors... Oh wait a minute, why in this very post you write "The topic is about when do we decide that something that appears to have design and to be intelligence is derived from an intelligent source." It's your first fucking sentence mate. Not only did you get the topic wrong, you said intelligen
ce, not intelligen
t.
Dr. A: "Why are you pretending that Richard Dawkins said that we are "descended from flecks of silicon"
Because that's what he says! Is that a good enough reply?
Since it's not what he says (come on, produce a source then), no, it's not, actually.
So should I take Theodore's advice to argue the points that were made? Whose points is he referring to? Who has addressed my initial point up til now with any intelligence at all?
What initial point? The point where you were completely wrong about what the ToE says?
I suppose I could answer Blue jays points, if I could somehow summarize what they are-but I must do so while reading all this other horseshit first?
No one is making you read this "horse shit" let alone making you reply to it.
So you are going to tell me there is rational material here worth replying to? There is a discussion worth having here? With who?
Not with you apparently. The slightest resistance to your views makes you fly into a ft.
So should I respond to you, since your responses lack as much substance as any?
You can certainly try, but please try and represent my views accurately, I'd hate to tell you that you've misrepresented someone
again.
Ok, then my response to you is, fuck you too, dick! When do your contributions start?
You might want to try and check out
Message 4. Yes, that's right the second reply to the OP. Is that good enough of a contribution for you, or would you like to continue to foam at the mouth and rave some more?
™ Version 4.2
