Journey Inside The Cell

Originally posted by twhitehead
How was I to know it was a parody? It certainly was not 'plain to see' to me. I also do not see why I should even begin to address what intelligent design really is, when the thread doesn't seem to be about intelligent design, but rather appeared to be about insulting those who don't believe it, though now it appears it is about Carl Sagan.

Ok, perhaps you were not to know, infact, perhaps he was being serious and i have misinterpreted it. Do you really think that RBHill thinks that you are ignorant and evil? Did you watch the video presentation? It was about intelligent design, was it not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ok, perhaps you were not to know, infact, perhaps he was being serious and i have misinterpreted it. Do you really think that RBHill thinks that you are ignorant and evil? Did you watch the video presentation? It was about intelligent design, was it not?

No, I did not watch the video. And yes, RBHill is the sort of person who would think I am ignorant and evil - at least that is how he came across in this thread. I haven't interacted with him very much elsewhere. The few times I remember he just appeared in a thread made some outrageous statement then disappeared without defending it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Why dont you espouse them publically?

Ok.
I will. I'll put my ideas up to be shot down, but just give me a couple of days ,ok.

I'm preparing for my Primus concert, and after the Tool debacle , I'm trying to focus on preparing for this momentous occasion.



(just "bump" this thread if I forget, cheers Rob)

Originally posted by twhitehead
How was I to know it was a parody? It certainly was not 'plain to see' to me. I also do not see why I should even begin to address what intelligent design really is, when the thread doesn't seem to be about intelligent design, but rather appeared to be about insulting those who don't believe it, though now it appears it is about Carl Sagan.

In this apparent misunderstanding about the thread title or the subsequent responses, I hope you ,for one at least, can see why I just wanted to PM my ideas on intelligent design.
As your post succinctly summed up, this thread is uncertain (at best) as to what is actually up for discussion here.

If there is a link between intelligent design and Carl Sagan, I , for one, would like to hear it. I may even learn sumthing

Originally posted by RBHILL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg

How could you not believe in intelligent design after watching this?

To not believe in intelligent design you are Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, and Wicked.

YouTube
How could you not believe in intelligent design after watching this?
By studying the evolution theory?
Anyway this doesn't seem the fabrication of an omnipotent god, rather the work of a scatterbrain. It is clearly a product of very lengthy process with numerous tries and errors.

To not believe in intelligent design you are Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, and Wicked.
And gay.

Originally posted by Dasa
Agreed.......and to deny intelligent design is to deny the trillions of examples that are all around you every day.

Persons who deny intelligent design are criminals to mankind, and are part of the problem and not the solution.

You have the attitude that the English church showed at the time Darwin found the key to the evolution riddle and explained how all living beings on earth are connected with each other. A picture much grander than any religion has ever given to mankind.
Darwin was scared for reactions as you and Rhbill spout here. With the consequence a delay of decades before he dared to publish his findings. Luckily we live now in a more enlightened time. Thanks to Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
look at the replys, not one of them actually addresses what intelligent design actually is, not not one! You have Whitey whinging about RBhills insults even though its plain to see its a parody, Caissad4 whinning about the existence of evil, you fabricating theories and speculating what your version of intelligent design could be. RBhill doesn't ac ...[text shortened]... ur eye is simple, your whole body shall be bright', what do you think that means? Any ideas?

I watched the video. If RBhill was actually asserting that one would need to be, as you say, as "thick as mince" not to conclude that intelligent design was at the root of cell biology, I would have to disagree. To conclude that that which appears to be too complex to be evolved or which we don't understand is "god's work" seems to me more likely to be the "thick as mince" option.

Originally posted by souverein
You have the attitude that the English church showed at the time Darwin found the key to the evolution riddle and explained how all living beings on earth are connected with each other. A picture much grander than any religion has ever given to mankind.
Darwin was scared for reactions as you and Rhbill spout here. With the consequence a delay of decades b ...[text shortened]... kily we live now in a more enlightened time. Thanks to Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.

Put lip-stick on a pig.....its still a pig.

Originally posted by RBHILL
I was just mocking what Carl Sagan said about Creationists.

Evolution might be real because Carls hair is from the stone age. 🙄

It wasn't even Carl Sagan, it's a Dawkins quote. Here's it is in full -

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.

The full article is here.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html

Originally posted by RBHILL
I am only repeating what Carl Sagan said about creationists.

I am still waiting for a reference. So far all I have been able to find myself is a remarkably similar quote from Richard Dawkins - but it was not identical and carried quite a different meaning.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...all you have in fact done is state the usual platitudes that perfectly illustrate RBHills point, that materialists really are inexcusably ignorant of what intelligent design actually is, that being the very antithesis of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

RBHill made his point quite clearly, and that was not it.

Should we read this as your opinion on the subject?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Did you watch the video presentation? It was about intelligent design, was it not?

No, it was not about intelligent design.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I watched the video. If RBhill was actually asserting that one would need to be, as you say, as "thick as mince" not to conclude that intelligent design was at the root of cell biology, I would have to disagree. To conclude that that which appears to be too complex to be evolved or which we don't understand is "god's work" seems to me more likely to be the "thick as mince" option.

and that my dear putty cat is why the battle is raging. What the matter comes down to is an interpretation of the SAME scientific data. It is ludicrous from the theists point of view that these utterly astonishing molecular mechanisms have arisen through sheer chance, to them it reeks to the high heavens of design and intelligence, to the materialist, he sees no evidence of this and tries to explain his position without reference to the divine. Thus it becomes not a matter of who is the thickest, for each is aware of the others position and the tenets which bolster that position, but of which position seems more plausible based on an evaluation of the very same scientific data.

This i think is the point that RBHill is trying to make, for the materialists have used propaganda to diminish the position of and label as stupid, insane, wicked and gay anyone who opposes their point of view. RBHill was merely demonstrating the absurdity of this position in reflecting the very same attitude from a creationists perspective. You cannot cry about it, creationists have been subject to it for years.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This i think is the point that RBHill is trying to make, for the materialists have used propaganda to diminish the position of and label as stupid, insane, wicked and gay anyone who opposes their point of view.

Interestingly though he has yet to substantiate that claim. Are you perhaps able to give me a reference to support the claim that Carl Sagan said anything to that effect?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and that my dear putty cat is why the battle is raging. What the matter comes down to is an interpretation of the SAME scientific data. It is ludicrous from the theists point of view that these utterly astonishing molecular mechanisms have arisen through sheer chance, to them it reeks to the high heavens of design and intelligence, to the materiali ...[text shortened]... ationists perspective. You cannot cry about it, creationists have been subject to it for years.

In this instance, quite apart from wrongly attributing the quote he was allegedly lampooning, RBHill butchered Dawkins' original quote to dramatically change the meaning. Dawkins, a very respected scientist, asserted that ignorance or stupidity or insanity or wickedness would be at the root of any rejection of the process of evolution, a process that has been clearly demonstrated to take place in the real world. RBHill, a man whose scientific credentials remain unclear, asserted that one would have to be ignorant and stupid and insane and wicked to reject the theory of intelligent design, a theory which has not been demonstrated to have a basis in reality and which is now recognised in law as not constituting a credible scientific alternative to evolution.