The Truth about the Dover Intelligent Design Trial

Bob

unread,

Jun 18, 2017, 6:18:19 AM6/18/17

to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYcpzZF7LVo

--
"When atheists are presented with critical reasoned arguments, they often
respond with either personal insults, twisted logic and reasoning along
with semantics with excessive detail of complete speculation presented
as truth, to deviate from the critical argument at hand, and talk at
cross purposes to evade it." --Retro

a322x1n

unread,

Jun 18, 2017, 7:50:02 AM6/18/17

to

Boob <nu...@null.null> wrote in news:oi5k18$1f25$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch-creationists-under-cross-examination/

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-to-
creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm>

<http://tinyurl.com/kzzmt4g>

John Locke

unread,

Jun 20, 2017, 1:23:38 PM6/20/17

to

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 06:18:17 -0400, Bob <nu...@null.null> wrote:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYcpzZF7LVo
>
...here's the real truth:

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of
ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective
observer, adult or child.

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that
despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as
a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID
proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is
the God of Christianity.

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the
progeny of creationism.

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious
view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
Case closed. Live with it.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Bob

unread,

Jun 20, 2017, 1:49:06 PM6/20/17

to

On 6/20/2017 1:23 PM, John Locke wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 06:18:17 -0400, Bob <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYcpzZF7LVo
>>
> ...here's the real truth:

I know that's your way of saying, "I sure hope this is the way it really is,
but I somehow know it's not."

It's tough when you see your world falling apart and crumbling down
around your feet, isn't it?

I suggest you better get used to it.

It's only going to get worse.

We're just getting started.

You never can successfully refute anything in the videos.

That's why those whom God has chosen to receive salvation, and
enjoy fellowship with Him, innately know that you are a liar.

"A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they
do not know the voice of strangers."
(John 10:5)

Those whom God has chosen to condemn to Hell instinctively choose
to believe your lies.

"Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe
what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe
the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
(2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)

What God has sovereignly decreed to happen, will happen.

Your words are empty and worthless.

Your words have no effect on what anyone believes.

Everything will remain just as it was before you were born, and will be
long after you're dead.

You are only wasting what little bit of time you have left.

a322x1n

unread,

Jun 20, 2017, 2:44:10 PM6/20/17

to

Boob <nu...@null.null> wrote in news:oibn6e$tmo$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 6/20/2017 1:23 PM, John Locke wrote:

>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 06:18:17 -0400, Boob <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch-shit-come-out-of-Bob's-mouth/

Oh, "Bob", you're so deluded. Try a dose of the truth:

<http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2014/12/19/intelligent-design-
still-dead/>

<http://tinyurl.com/kwyrtku>

<http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/08/ken-hams-10-facts-
that-prove-creationism-debunked/>

<http://tinyurl.com/hor4bam>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-
to-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm>

<http://tinyurl.com/kzzmt4g>

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Jun 20, 2017, 3:18:24 PM6/20/17

to

There is no ID science, and there is no scientific evidence for a
designer.

So it becomes a question of where the belief originates - which is
pretty clear from the arguments from ignorance...

"I can't think of any other explanation therefore it must hve been
designed", and there is only one reason to "conclude" this because
it's a non sequitur - one already believes it.

And they have to be remarkably stupid if they expect people to fall
for it.

aaa

unread,

Jun 23, 2017, 11:59:55 AM6/23/17

to

On 06/21/2017 03:18 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:23:44 -0700, John Locke
> <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 06:18:17 -0400, Bob <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYcpzZF7LVo
>>>
>> ...here's the real truth:
>>
>> "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of
>> ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective
>> observer, adult or child.
>>
>> A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that
>> despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as
>> a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID
>> proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is
>> the God of Christianity.
>>
>> The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the
>> progeny of creationism.
>>
>> The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious
>> view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
>> Case closed. Live with it.
>
> There is no ID science, and there is no scientific evidence for a
> designer.

But this is ID philosophy, and there is philosophical evidence called
intelligence for the designer based on the second law of thermodynamics.

>
> So it becomes a question of where the belief originates - which is
> pretty clear from the arguments from ignorance...
>
> "I can't think of any other explanation therefore it must hve been
> designed", and there is only one reason to "conclude" this because
> it's a non sequitur - one already believes it.
>
> And they have to be remarkably stupid if they expect people to fall
> for it.
>

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, peace, freedom, and life itself.

Smiler

unread,

Jun 23, 2017, 2:41:42 PM6/23/17

to

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 23:59:42 +0800, aaa wrote:

> On 06/21/2017 03:18 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:23:44 -0700, John Locke
>> <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 06:18:17 -0400, Bob <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYcpzZF7LVo
>>>>
>>> ...here's the real truth:
>>>
>>> "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of
>>> ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective
>>> observer, adult or child.
>>>
>>> A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that
>>> despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as
>>> a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID
>>> proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is
>>> the God of Christianity.
>>>
>>> The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the
>>> progeny of creationism.
>>>
>>> The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious
>>> view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
>>> Case closed. Live with it.
>>
>> There is no ID science, and there is no scientific evidence for a
>> designer.
>
> But this is ID philosophy,

Nope. ID belief.

> and there is philosophical evidence

Merely your unevidenced belief.

> called intelligence

Merely your unevidenced belief.

> for the designer

Merely your unevidenced belief.

> based on the second law of thermodynamics.

based on your bastardised version of the second law of thermodynamics.

>> So it becomes a question of where the belief originates - which is
>> pretty clear from the arguments from ignorance...
>>

>> "I can't think of any other explanation therefore it must have been

>> designed", and there is only one reason to "conclude" this because it's
>> a non sequitur - one already believes it.
>>
>> And they have to be remarkably stupid if they expect people to fall for
>> it.

--

Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

Cloud Hobbit

unread,

Jun 23, 2017, 3:52:45 PM6/23/17

to

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:18:19 AM UTC-7, Bob wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYcpzZF7LVo
>
>
The truth is your side lost because they had shit for evidence and shitheads for clients. Most importantly, your side was/is populated solely by liars and fools.

aaa

unread,

Jun 24, 2017, 2:31:53 AM6/24/17

to

Philosophy is knowledge of the truth and reality. It's not just a mere

belief.

>
>> and there is philosophical evidence
>
> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>
>> called intelligence
>
> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>
>> for the designer
>
> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>
>> based on the second law of thermodynamics.
>
> based on your bastardised version of the second law of thermodynamics.

All you have is just blind denial.

>
>>> So it becomes a question of where the belief originates - which is
>>> pretty clear from the arguments from ignorance...
>>>
>>> "I can't think of any other explanation therefore it must have been
>>> designed", and there is only one reason to "conclude" this because it's
>>> a non sequitur - one already believes it.
>>>
>>> And they have to be remarkably stupid if they expect people to fall for
>>> it.
>
>

--

Smiler

unread,

Jun 24, 2017, 10:54:03 PM6/24/17

to

But you do not know, merely believe.
To know, you must have evidence, and you have none.

>>> and there is philosophical evidence
>>
>> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>>
>>> called intelligence
>>
>> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>>
>>> for the designer
>>
>> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>>
>>> based on the second law of thermodynamics.
>>
>> based on your bastardised version of the second law of thermodynamics.
>
> All you have is just blind denial.

All you have is just blind denial, paedophile.

>>>> So it becomes a question of where the belief originates - which is
>>>> pretty clear from the arguments from ignorance...
>>>>
>>>> "I can't think of any other explanation therefore it must have been
>>>> designed", and there is only one reason to "conclude" this because
>>>> it's a non sequitur - one already believes it.
>>>>
>>>> And they have to be remarkably stupid if they expect people to fall
>>>> for it.

They _are_ remarkably stupid.

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Jun 25, 2017, 9:47:35 AM6/25/17

to

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:41:38 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 23:59:42 +0800, aaa wrote:
>
>> On 06/21/2017 03:18 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:23:44 -0700, John Locke
>>> <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 06:18:17 -0400, Bob <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYcpzZF7LVo
>>>>>
>>>> ...here's the real truth:
>>>>
>>>> "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of
>>>> ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective
>>>> observer, adult or child.
>>>>
>>>> A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that
>>>> despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as
>>>> a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID
>>>> proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is
>>>> the God of Christianity.
>>>>
>>>> The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the
>>>> progeny of creationism.
>>>>
>>>> The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious
>>>> view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
>>>> Case closed. Live with it.
>>>
>>> There is no ID science, and there is no scientific evidence for a
>>> designer.
>>
>> But this is ID philosophy,

Liar.

>Nope. ID belief.
>
>> and there is philosophical evidence

Liar.

>Merely your unevidenced belief.
>
>> called intelligence
>
>Merely your unevidenced belief.
>
>> for the designer

WHAT FUCKING "THE DESIGNER"?

>Merely your unevidenced belief.
>
>> based on the second law of thermodynamics.

Liar.

>based on your bastardised version of the second law of thermodynamics.
>
>>> So it becomes a question of where the belief originates - which is
>>> pretty clear from the arguments from ignorance...
>>>
>>> "I can't think of any other explanation therefore it must have been
>>> designed", and there is only one reason to "conclude" this because it's
>>> a non sequitur - one already believes it.
>>>
>>> And they have to be remarkably stupid if they expect people to fall for
>>> it.

They also seem to imagine personal and other lies should convince
people.

Gronk

unread,

Jun 25, 2017, 7:34:02 PM6/25/17

to

Bob wrote:
>

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178-astrology-is-scientific-theory-courtroom-told/

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same
criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify
his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not
be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external
community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it,” he says.

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s
definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a
hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.

Gronk

unread,

Jun 25, 2017, 7:37:49 PM6/25/17

to

John Locke wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 06:18:17 -0400, Bob <nu...@null.null> wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYcpzZF7LVo
>>
> ...here's the real truth:
>
> "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of
> ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective
> observer, adult or child.
>
> A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that
> despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as
> a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID
> proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is
> the God of Christianity.

https://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/highlights/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf

aaa

unread,

Jun 26, 2017, 3:23:50 AM6/26/17

to

I do have evidence for myself. I just don't have evidence for you
because the spiritual evidence is what everyone has to find for
themselves. I did show you what they are with my signature.

>
>>>> and there is philosophical evidence
>>>
>>> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>>>
>>>> called intelligence
>>>
>>> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>>>
>>>> for the designer
>>>
>>> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>>>
>>>> based on the second law of thermodynamics.
>>>
>>> based on your bastardised version of the second law of thermodynamics.
>>
>> All you have is just blind denial.
>
> All you have is just blind denial, paedophile.

No. That is what you do to deny the spiritual.

>
>>>>> So it becomes a question of where the belief originates - which is
>>>>> pretty clear from the arguments from ignorance...
>>>>>
>>>>> "I can't think of any other explanation therefore it must have been
>>>>> designed", and there is only one reason to "conclude" this because
>>>>> it's a non sequitur - one already believes it.
>>>>>
>>>>> And they have to be remarkably stupid if they expect people to fall
>>>>> for it.
>
> They _are_ remarkably stupid.
>

--

Lucifer Morningstar

unread,

Jun 26, 2017, 7:40:52 AM6/26/17

to

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:02:31 +0800, aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote:

We all missed it. Please repeat it, er, I mean post it for the
first time.

>>>>> and there is philosophical evidence

Philosophy is never evidence.

>>>> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>>>>
>>>>> called intelligence
>>>>
>>>> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>>>>
>>>>> for the designer
>>>>
>>>> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>>>>
>>>>> based on the second law of thermodynamics.
>>>>
>>>> based on your bastardised version of the second law of thermodynamics.

Not a law. A suggestion.

>>> All you have is just blind denial.
>>
>> All you have is just blind denial, paedophile.
>
>No. That is what you do to deny the spiritual.

Do you ever wonder why God chose to make you a pedophile?

Smiler

unread,

Jun 26, 2017, 6:49:54 PM6/26/17

to

Nope. Not evidence, merely your belief.

> I just don't have evidence for you
> because the spiritual evidence is what everyone has to find for
> themselves.

IOW, you have NO EVIDENCE.

> I did show you what they are with my signature.

There's no evidence in that. Again, merely your beliefs.

>>>>> and there is philosophical evidence
>>>>
>>>> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>>>>
>>>>> called intelligence
>>>>
>>>> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>>>>
>>>>> for the designer
>>>>
>>>> Merely your unevidenced belief.
>>>>
>>>>> based on the second law of thermodynamics.
>>>>
>>>> based on your bastardised version of the second law of
>>>> thermodynamics.
>>>
>>> All you have is just blind denial.
>>
>> All you have is just blind denial, paedophile.
>
> No. That is what you do to deny the spiritual.

That would be the 'spiritual' for which you cannot show any evidence.
You deny flubdescrunts, paedophile.

>>>>>> So it becomes a question of where the belief originates - which is
>>>>>> pretty clear from the arguments from ignorance...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I can't think of any other explanation therefore it must have been
>>>>>> designed", and there is only one reason to "conclude" this because
>>>>>> it's a non sequitur - one already believes it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And they have to be remarkably stupid if they expect people to fall
>>>>>> for it.
>>
>> They _are_ remarkably stupid.

--

Cloud Hobbit

unread,

Jun 26, 2017, 6:50:30 PM6/26/17

to

I stand corrected.

> >>> All you have is just blind denial.
> >>
> >> All you have is just blind denial, paedophile.
> >
> >No. That is what you do to deny the spiritual.
>
> Do you ever wonder why God chose to make you a pedophile?

What grown person would ever involve themselves with someone who wants to pretend they are brain damaged moron.

For all but a few crazies that is a description of unattractive.