Tony Pagano's version of the Catholic "Penny" Catechism

[Martin Harran]

The Catholic "Penny" Catechism was a concise summary of Catholic
teaching used up until the 1960s, mainly targeted at children learning
their Catholic Faith it got it's "penny" nickname from its price.

As a catechism, it operated in the form of a series of questions and
answers.

http://www.catholictreasury.info/catechism/cat1.php


Here is Tony Pagano's version of the first three questions.

Q1: Who made you?

A: An Intelligent Designer made me.


Q2: Why did the Intelligent Designer make you?

A: Sorry, I haven't a clue as I know nothing whatsoever about this
Intelligent Designer.


Q3: To whose image and likeness did the Intelligent Designer make you?

A: Sorry, I haven't a clue as I know nothing whatsoever about this
Intelligent Designer.

[T Pagano]

The emotionalism and anger is clouding your thinking. Not only are your
answers from the Catechism rubbish, they are irrelevant to ID Theory.

Suggestion: Breathe into a bag for a few minutes to stop
hyperventilating, get a good night's rest, crack open a few of William
Dembski's books, educate yourself, and return with a reasoned argument.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:24:57 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:22:05 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> The Catholic "Penny" Catechism was a concise summary of Catholic
>> teaching used up until the 1960s, mainly targeted at children learning
>> their Catholic Faith it got it's "penny" nickname from its price.
>>
>> As a catechism, it operated in the form of a series of questions and
>> answers.
>>
>> http://www.catholictreasury.info/catechism/cat1.php
>>
>>
>> Here is Tony Pagano's version of the first three questions.
>>
>> Q1: Who made you?
>>
>> A: An Intelligent Designer made me.
>>
>>
>> Q2: Why did the Intelligent Designer make you?
>>
>> A: Sorry, I haven't a clue as I know nothing whatsoever about this
>> Intelligent Designer.
>>
>>
>> Q3: To whose image and likeness did the Intelligent Designer make you?
>>
>> A: Sorry, I haven't a clue as I know nothing whatsoever about this
>> Intelligent Designer.
>
>
>
>
>The emotionalism and anger is clouding your thinking.

Possibly but at least they are not clouded by utter idiocy.

> Not only are your
>answers from the Catechism rubbish, they are irrelevant to ID Theory.

They are perfectly relevant to how you explain ID - that it points to
a designer but you can tell us absolutely nothing about the designer
to which it points.

>
>Suggestion: Breathe into a bag for a few minutes to stop
>hyperventilating, get a good night's rest, crack open a few of William
>Dembski's books, educate yourself, and return with a reasoned argument.

I'd really like to see a reasoned argument from you, something a tad
more convincing than "I can't see how nature created it so it must
have been a supernatural entity that created it."

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:24:57 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

>On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:22:05 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:

>> The Catholic "Penny" Catechism was a concise summary of Catholic
>> teaching used up until the 1960s, mainly targeted at children learning
>> their Catholic Faith it got it's "penny" nickname from its price.
>>
>> As a catechism, it operated in the form of a series of questions and
>> answers.
>>
>> http://www.catholictreasury.info/catechism/cat1.php
>>
>>
>> Here is Tony Pagano's version of the first three questions.
>>
>> Q1: Who made you?
>>
>> A: An Intelligent Designer made me.
>>
>>
>> Q2: Why did the Intelligent Designer make you?
>>
>> A: Sorry, I haven't a clue as I know nothing whatsoever about this
>> Intelligent Designer.
>>
>>
>> Q3: To whose image and likeness did the Intelligent Designer make you?
>>
>> A: Sorry, I haven't a clue as I know nothing whatsoever about this
>> Intelligent Designer.

>The emotionalism and anger is clouding your thinking.

I see no emotionalism nor anger. I *do* see frustration over
the inability or unwillingness of some here to think or to
post anything meaningful.

> Not only are your
>answers from the Catechism rubbish, they are irrelevant to ID Theory.

There is no "ID Theory"; there's only the conjecture "We
think life was designed because we think we see design in
nature, even though we can neither define how to detect
design which isn't human design nor provide a list of
characteristics which *all* design must share".

In effect, what Martin posted is *exactly* the content of
the purported "ID Theory".

If you disagree, post at least a synopsis.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Earle Jones]

*
Be sure to include Dembski's book, "Intelligent Design" and especially
page 206:

"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if
its practitioners do not have a clue about him."

"My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ
and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ."

--William Dembski, 'Intelligent Design', p 206

earle
*

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:20:33 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

So, you agree? Good to know.