On Jan 3, 4:14 pm, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

On Jan 2, 11:47 pm, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:

Intelligent design does not "unite" anything. It is a mystical belief
which
at some level I suppose I share, but which has no place whatsoever in a
science classroom. It is not science.

Aw, heck, but think how much easier it makes things for high school
kids who don't give a hoot about biology (except maybe as it applies to
human sexuality). They don't have to worry any more about memorizing
all those odd-sounding geological periods: Cambrian, Ordovician,
Silurian, Devonian etc. No need to grapple with such difficult concepts
as cladistics, exaptation, Dollo's law etc. No need to ponder tough
issues such as how prokaryotes became eukaryotes, or whether endothermy
arose separately in birds or was inherited from dinosaur ancestors. All
they need to do is say "God did it," and presto! End of story.

I wish it were simply a matter of laziness and stupidity (what has become
the American Way). Actually I.D. carries a hidden agenda.

I was ascribing laziness to high school students, not to I.D.
proponents. I would agree that the latter are quite energetic with
their agenda.

LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
Let me if I understand this.

When I criticized the teaching of creationism as science, you thought I
was criticizing "science as a religion" which you understand to be
Scientology.

So you responded to what you thought was a criticism of Scientology by
quoting Newton and Einstein to the effect that religion and science can
and should co-exist.

Are you trying to say that you believe that religion and science can
and should co-exist as they do in Scientology?

Nope, Scientology is very different. Science as a religion is
nonsense, although others are into it.

So I was correct when I said that you misconstrued my position in order
to create an absurdity. The only question is whether you did so
deliberately or carelessly.

What I believe is that science
can and should co-exist with religion. Einstein and Newton were the
proponents for this beleif. Capice?

I still don't understand why you labeled them idiots.

LiamToo wrote:

Vince Hart wrote:
Liam, on the other hand, prefers to
deliberately misconstrue my position in order to create an absurdity
that he can dismiss without saying anything intelligent.

Yep, you'd rather stoop down to the level of Holsby instead of having a
civil discussion.

Don't be ridiculous, Lance. Nobody else is anywhere near as low as I
am.

You cannot read, you cannot reason, you cannot argue, and from the
evidence which you present in these groups, you have no redeeming
qualities whatsoever.

Insulting Vince will get you nowhere.

Insulting me will get you flamed. Over and over and over again until
you

SHUT THE **** UP, MORON.

Vince Hart wrote:
I still don't understand why you labeled them idiots.

I'm not surprised, everybody understood though that they're NOT really
idiots. Everybody knows that you were the first one to invoke the word
"idiot" and I was only responding to it.

LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
I still don't understand why you labeled them idiots.

I'm not surprised, everybody understood though that they're NOT really
idiots. Everybody knows that you were the first one to invoke the word
"idiot" and I was only responding to it.

Actually, anybody who bothers to read knows that I was not the first
one to invoke the word and also knows that your use of the word was not
reponsive to anything that I wrote.

Vince Hart wrote:

LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
I still don't understand why you labeled them idiots.

I'm not surprised, everybody understood though that they're NOT really
idiots. Everybody knows that you were the first one to invoke the word
"idiot" and I was only responding to it.

Actually, anybody who bothers to read knows that I was not the first
one to invoke the word and also knows that your use of the word was not
reponsive to anything that I wrote.

Not so, Vince. What prompted the illiterate moron Lance to embark upon
this whole sorry episode was your having described *Dawkins* as
regarding *those who teach Creationism, etc. as "science"*, as
"idiots". When I suggested "deluded", you evidently agreed, and began
using that instead.

Lance is too dumb to tie his shoelaces. So he misconstrued your
meaning. Like he misconstrues the meaning of most every sentence which
his eyes happen to be scanning.

Vince Hart wrote:
Actually, anybody who bothers to read knows that I was not the first
one to invoke the word and also knows that your use of the word was not
reponsive to anything that I wrote.

Alright, maybe somebody else in this newsgroup invoked the word first.
And then you did. Then, I responded directly to your post with the
word, with my own words.

I won't be surprised if you will never comprehend any or all of these,
but that's fine with me.

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:

LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
I still don't understand why you labeled them idiots.

I'm not surprised, everybody understood though that they're NOT really
idiots. Everybody knows that you were the first one to invoke the word
"idiot" and I was only responding to it.

Actually, anybody who bothers to read knows that I was not the first
one to invoke the word and also knows that your use of the word was not
reponsive to anything that I wrote.

Not so, Vince. What prompted the illiterate moron Lance to embark upon
this whole sorry episode was your having described *Dawkins* as
regarding *those who teach Creationism, etc. as "science"*, as
"idiots". When I suggested "deluded", you evidently agreed, and began
using that instead.

Lance is too dumb to tie his shoelaces. So he misconstrued your
meaning. Like he misconstrues the meaning of most every sentence which
his eyes happen to be scanning.

My comment was a response to Angelo's comment regarding the people
Dawkins' regards as idiots.

LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
Actually, anybody who bothers to read knows that I was not the first
one to invoke the word and also knows that your use of the word was not
reponsive to anything that I wrote.

Alright, maybe somebody else in this newsgroup invoked the word first.
And then you did. Then, I responded directly to your post with the
word, with my own words.

I won't be surprised if you will never comprehend any or all of these,
but that's fine with me.

The problem is that you did not understand what my post meant.
Therefore, your post did not respond to any of the ideas in my post.

Vince Hart wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
Actually, anybody who bothers to read knows that I was not the first
one to invoke the word and also knows that your use of the word was not
reponsive to anything that I wrote.

Alright, maybe somebody else in this newsgroup invoked the word first.
And then you did. Then, I responded directly to your post with the
word, with my own words.

I won't be surprised if you will never comprehend any or all of these,
but that's fine with me.

The problem is that you did not understand what my post meant.
Therefore, your post did not respond to any of the ideas in my post.

"I still don't understand why you labeled them idiots."--Vince Hart

You were the one who said that not I. Where's Dr. Blair when I needed
him?