Deathlist Membership

[honez 79]

You are obviously not a fan of the Intelligent Design theory then.

From New Scientist Magazine on the subject of "Intelligent Design" [sic]

Whether or not the intelligent-design model is religious, it still exhibits the same logical flaw as creationism. The model postulates that some structures (x) are so complex that they cannot have arisen spontaneously, but must be the result of an intelligent designer. This leaves the question: "Where did the designer come from?"

 

Since the designer must be even more complex than x, clearly it cannot have arisen spontaneously, but must have been made by a designer of even greater power and complexity, which is even less likely to have arisen spontaneously...

 

Since this leads into an infinite series, let us stop at the first step. Now we have to choose between the spontaneous appearance of x, or the spontaneous appearance of something capable of designing x. The first is a much simpler proposition and, until the ID proponents can come up with a compelling logical reason to accept the second, I see no need to invoke ID.

[Lady Die 63]

From New Scientist Magazine on the subject of "Intelligent Design" [sic]

Whether or not the intelligent-design model is religious, it still exhibits the same logical flaw as creationism. The model postulates that some structures (x) are so complex that they cannot have arisen spontaneously, but must be the result of an intelligent designer. This leaves the question: "Where did the designer come from?"

 

Since the designer must be even more complex than x, clearly it cannot have arisen spontaneously, but must have been made by a designer of even greater power and complexity, which is even less likely to have arisen spontaneously...

 

Since this leads into an infinite series, let us stop at the first step. Now we have to choose between the spontaneous appearance of x, or the spontaneous appearance of something capable of designing x. The first is a much simpler proposition and, until the ID proponents can come up with a compelling logical reason to accept the second, I see no need to invoke ID.

But religionists stop at the first "where did the designer come from?" and say it's a mystery that we can't possiby comprehend.

[Josco 49]

From New Scientist Magazine on the subject of "Intelligent Design" [sic]

Whether or not the intelligent-design model is religious, it still exhibits the same logical flaw as creationism. The model postulates that some structures (x) are so complex that they cannot have arisen spontaneously, but must be the result of an intelligent designer. This leaves the question: "Where did the designer come from?"

 

Since the designer must be even more complex than x, clearly it cannot have arisen spontaneously, but must have been made by a designer of even greater power and complexity, which is even less likely to have arisen spontaneously...

 

Since this leads into an infinite series, let us stop at the first step. Now we have to choose between the spontaneous appearance of x, or the spontaneous appearance of something capable of designing x. The first is a much simpler proposition and, until the ID proponents can come up with a compelling logical reason to accept the second, I see no need to invoke ID.

But religionists stop at the first "where did the designer come from?" and say it's a mystery that we can't possiby comprehend.

I have trouble comprehending some simple ideas, never mind the intellegent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer of an intelligent designer ............

 

(Ed: That's enough)

 

Like for example:

Why doesn't water burn? I mean, Hydrogen and Oxygen together! You'd think that would be a dangerous combination.

[Deadornot 12]

I think they should pop a cap in all memberships that haven't posted (that'll show 'em)

[Dr Strangelove 14]

I think they should pop a cap in all memberships that haven't posted (that'll show 'em)

Indeed. How's about a simple rule - if you don't post within say 90 days of registering your account is deleted?

[in eternum+ 22]

however that article made me think. if todays bible has errors in it such as 666 instead of 616, what else could be wrong in it? there could be thousands more mistakes in the holy book, things being misinterpreted. so therefor people could be following a completely different faith than christianity originally was.

Perhaps his name was not really Jesus Christ? What if it had been, say, Popodopolous. Perhaps Bertie Popodopolous. Would some of you now be going to church to practice Popodopolousianity? Would the Romans have thrown Popodopolousians to the lions?

 

Of course he may have been called Smith.

 

I may need a lie down.

According to Handel, his name was supposed to be 'Colin, the Prince of Peas'.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

I think they should pop a cap in all memberships that haven't posted (that'll show 'em)

Indeed. How's about a simple rule - if you don't post within say 90 days of registering your account is deleted?

Guests can post so make it 30.

[Deadornot 12]

I think they should pop a cap in all memberships that haven't posted (that'll show 'em)

Indeed. How's about a simple rule - if you don't post within say 90 days of registering your account is deleted?

Guests can post so make it 30.

Guests tend to make mad and insulting posts to deathlist members so we should restrict guests to a few topics to post in.

[Tuber Mirum 125]

I think they should pop a cap in all memberships that haven't posted (that'll show 'em)

Indeed. How's about a simple rule - if you don't post within say 90 days of registering your account is deleted?

Guests can post so make it 30.

Guests tend to make mad and insulting posts to deathlist members so we should restrict guests to a few topics to post in.

Hmm, reminds me of that bus company a few years ago which announced the buses weren't going to stop to pick up passengers any more because it made it impossible to keep to the timetable.

 

But why bother to delete inactive users? They do nobody any harm, and it gives the site a more "lived-in" appearance to the casual visitor when he sees that we have 621 members and not just 60 or however many actually post.

 

We have to keep up with the Joneses. Oh no wait a minute, we are the Joneses.

 

With TheRoyalForums (sic) then.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

No skin off my nose what happens. Seems daft to join a forum and then never post though... This thread was started for opinions on the matter... nuff said.

[The Yeti 14]

i havent read much into intelligent design, although what i have read i do not agree with, intellegent design is only theory is it not? i think its only theory. an appearance of intelleigent design, could be just that, it appears as if it is. i dont like the theory, i prefer naturl evoltion, but that also doesnt fully explain what put us here in the first place, so i tend not to look to much inot the topic

Even evolution is only a theory, in the strict definition of the term.

But its a more well proven theory than ID.

 

What's a theory ?

 

A theory on theories

[Magere Hein 1,400]

Even evolution is only a theory, in the strict definition of the term.

But its a more well proven theory than ID.

More to the point, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

 

ID is just creationism in disguise and the same pseudo-scientific rubbish.

 

regards,

Hein

[Banshees Scream 110]

I think they should pop a cap in all memberships that haven't posted (that'll show 'em)

Indeed. How's about a simple rule - if you don't post within say 90 days of registering your account is deleted?

Guests can post so make it 30.

Guests tend to make mad and insulting posts to deathlist members so we should restrict guests to a few topics to post in.

Well a very clever idea - Restrict guests from certain topics.

 

Hopefully if it happens that means the Fidel Castro thread

will be open to only members. Excluding all of his constant

posting haters.