Mike Carmichael

In case you’ve been living under a rock for the last couple of years, and I know more than a few people who have, there is a person named “ Britany Spears” camped out on the Top 40 radio airwaves. She doesn’t sing particularly well and her songs don’t have a lot of meaning but she has had more than enough surgery and wears less than enough clothes to make her wildly popular. What we can deduce from this young woman’s success is that near naked women with breast implants sing much better than others.

The proponents of this so called “ Intelligent Design” crusade remind me a lot of Spear’s fans; it’s not that it sounds good, or has meaning, but they like the way it looks. They like their creationism with implants and a slit back black tuxedo with a great beat. It doesn’t change a damn thing as far as what it means, but dress it up right and you can make anything presentable.

If you’re working with WordPerfect word processing software, and hit the spell check once you’ve typed the word “creationism”, the best fit the software comes up with is “cretinism”. Rightfully so. Those who cling to the Santa Claus of life creation must ignore all facts to the contrary. They must ignore fossil records. They must ignore bacteria that evolve to become immune to antibiotics. They must ignore any and all facts that disagree with what they believe simple because that is what they choose to do.

Intelligent Design fans like the idea that they can argue that religion and belief have nothing to do with how they think the universe, and the life within, came to be. The “evidence” they cite smugly, is against everything being “accidental” as if those who don’t believe in a god of some sort believe that a ‘69 Chevy collided with a black hole and the universe sprang forth. There is more “evidence” that there are patterns in the universe, and that suggests, at least to some, that there has got to be a guiding force in the universe.

It’s called “ Physics”.


For reasons that escape me completely, the same people who decry evolution as a mere “theory” will not for one moment argue with the “ Theory Of Gravity”. Newton got gravity dead wrong when it comes to sub atomic parts, does this mean that gravity doesn’t exist? Does it mean that it is some god pulling things towards the center of massive objects and not gravity? Then why is evolution different? Why accept gravity as a part of life, yet decry evolution as a theory that states your grandma was a monkey?

The problem with the Intelligent Design crowd is that there are enough of them who are honestly not pure creationists, but far too few who understand science at all. To suggest that the universe is too orderly to have happened by accident is to display a woeful lack of knowledge of just how things in the universe work, and I suspect, reveal an even greater lack of knowledge of the theories that investigate the universe, and the life therein.

Were Newton’s theories on gravity to be some sort of dogmatic bible that everyone who studied science ascribed then quarks would be considered “evil” particles which threatened the order of the universe. Silly? No more so than Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is as credible a theory for how the universe and life came into being as Britany Spears is a true vocalist. In fact, considering that music is purely a matter of taste, Spears is a much more credible vocalist than Intelligent Design is a theory.

Thinking Freely,
Mike Carmichael

seebs

Man! I thought you were going to argue that Brittney's success was an argument against the belief that humans were designed by an intelligent Creator.

Your actual argument wasn't as much fun.

madmax2976

Agreed.

<strong> Agreed.

<strong> Agreed.

<strong> An unsupported assertion. She has clearly testified that she has not had any such surgery, thus you would be calling her a liar. You must now support your implicit accusation of her being a liar.

<strong> Agreed.

<strong> As the breast implants are an unsupported premise of your argument, it makes your argument unsound.

I suspect you could reword your argument to remove the parts you cannot/have not supported and you might still have a point. But I'll leave that effort up to you.

Mike Carmichael

The Evidence is firm and stands out pretty obviously. If you were really keeping abreast of these matters, you wouldn't be beating your chest on whether or not I'm right or wrong. Be that as it may, I think I've milked this for what it's worth.

<a href="http://www.britneyrumors.com/" target="_blank">http://www.britneyrumors.com/</a>

<a href="http://www.liquidgeneration.com/poptoons/britney_breasts.asp" target="_blank">http://www.liquidgeneration.com/poptoons/britney_breasts.asp</a>


Thinking Freely,
Mike Carmichael

Mike Carmichael

Well, it doesn't say that much for evolution either now, does it?

But then again, one of the points I was trying to make is that there isn't much substance to the woman's music, if I was merely "fun" then I would be guilty as she.

<a href="http://www.liquidgeneration.com/poptoons/britney_breasts.asp" target="_blank">http://www.liquidgeneration.com/poptoons/britney_breasts.asp</a>

Have fun!

Thinking Freely,
Mike Carmichael

rainbow walking

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Carmichael:
[QB]In case you’ve been living under a rock for the last couple of years, and I know more than a few people who have, there is a person named “ Britany Spears” camped out on the Top 40 radio airwaves. She doesn’t sing particularly well and her songs don’t have a lot of meaning but she has had more than enough surgery and wears less than enough clothes to make her wildly popular. What we can deduce from this young woman’s success is that near naked women with breast implants sing much better than others.

rw: Well, this beats the hell outta my argument! At least Brittany isn't dead. It should be interesting to see if any nearby theists are willing to tackle this one, Mike. BTW, luved the humor...and the point made. Glad to have you onboard. It'll take a few posts for folks to realize the value of your intellect as it adds flavor to the mix.

Jobar

Speaking as a mod, and as one of the regular posters here- Mike, I think you have found your virtual home. Your topic title is catchy, and has a beat you can dance to- and your logic looks really good dressed up so sexily, too!

Mike Carmichael

Thanks!!!!

I'll try not to drag popular culture into the fray anymore than I must.

advocate_11

Actually, there was a time when I saw the matter as being, I believe, much the same as you do.

You believe that it is somehow unreasonable for them to accept one theory while arguing against others as if their very lives depend upon them being as they say.

The problem is that there is simply nothing unreasonable about this in itself. Christians in this group are absolutely convinced (and I do not think that I can sufficiently emphasize the degree) that non-Christian scientists are deceived and deceiving others as to the nature of the evidence, and that they (these Christians) are interpreting it correctly.

On the other hand, they have no quarrel with the current interpretation of evidence having to do with gravity, and so there is nothing at all unreasonable about not calling it into question.

Given their beliefs about the evidence, I think that they function exactly how every one else does.

Why does the average Christian not see that Christian advocates of ID and Creationism might be biased and be cautious to accept their interpretations of the evidence? Many of them do, but less so than they believe non-Christian scientists to be biased and always trying to discount a theory that would suggest the involvement of an intelligent designer.

I personally try to comment on matters such as this evidence only so far as I believe my experience and knowledge to allow.

[edit: phrasing]

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: advocate_11 ]</p>

Jobar

I'm not enough of a historian to be sure- but I wonder if geocentrism experienced 'refinements' to it after being challenged by heliocentrism? Did some church-sponsored apologist attempt to explain the observations of Galileo using some incrementally more believable 'scientific theory' which was intended to bolster up geocentrism?

Also, I wonder if there were Catholics who continued to believe that heliocentrism was blasphemous even after the Pope reluctantly admitted it was true?

And while I am busy wondering- just how do the Catholics manage to carry off their doctrine of Papal infallibility after the shit they put Galileo through? Most curious...