It is ok to use the word “design”!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Andrew you have went up in my estimations no end, really, and i myself feel a little remorseful for mocking in the way i do, please forgive me for that, you guys are awesome really, and in future if i may, i will do my research and run it past you for confirmation, as you are really sincere in your beliefs and incredibly well informed as to the mecha ...[text shortened]... ege from the trinitarians and must prepare the castle accordingly - kind regards robbie carrobie

BTW 🙂

The trinitarians will make you suffer big time and vice versa if you become unable to prove that their religius concept is based on somebody else's concept who previously he had it analysed in full at, say, "Phaedon" . At that thread you all Christian dudes are able to keep up bubllin non stop for 39 centuries and countin, however this miserable atheist has difficulties to understand how come some single verses by a "prophet" to be "more deep" than a Plato's full analysis. What a Mystery!

Aye, o go ride now hard by the river roaring down, towards the wintry sea, and churge em wi yer ingenious pìobaireachd, for a tod nivver sped better nor whan he gaed his ain errand
😀😵

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
No -This coming from a guy who believes the meaning of a word can vary according to the context.

You believe the word "design" can mean without intent, show me the
dictionary where that is true.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Only a creationist would insist on denying this by refusing to except that a word can have a different meaning in a different context when and where it convenient for them to do so.

In everyday English the word “on” means “physically just above and in contact with”.
So, if somebody said to a golfer “keep your eye on the ball” would you insist tha ...[text shortened]... y not? Answer - because looking at the ball from a distance isn’t against you religious beliefs.

What in any discussion we are in is there a subject "against" my
religion, I typically don't agrue my religion, you and others tend to
bring it up as a means to discount a point you don't like to spend a
lot of time on. I on rare moments will bring it up, but normally you do.
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
BTW 🙂

The trinitarians will make you suffer big time and vice versa if you become unable to prove that their religius concept is based on somebody else's concept who previously he had it analysed in full at, say, "Phaedon" . At that thread you all Christian dudes are able to keep up bubllin non stop for 39 centuries and countin, however this misera ...[text shortened]... enious pìobaireachd, for a tod nivver sped better nor whan he gaed his ain errand
😀😵

it is nothing my illustrious friend, they in fact know that it was based on the precepts of someone else, pre christian and pagan (i mean this not in the derogatory modern sense, but in its original sense, paganus, from the Latin i think, of the country i.e rural religious beliefs) the fun of the matter is entirely watching them trying to prove that it was not, that it is substantiated in scripture, ah it is to laugh, so far they are doing ok, but they are treading a very fine line, and what is more i have in my possession a facsimile of an early Coptic text, borrowed from the much earlier Greek, which unlike Latin, Syriac and Greek it is much closer to English and contains the definite article (a and the), thus i plan to produce it when discussing one of the tenets of their faith, it is important because it pre dates the fourth century when the doctrine they are trying to substantiate was officially adopted, and clearly demonstrates the contemporary thought at the time, its like playing poker and having an ace up ones sleeve!

Originally posted by KellyJay
You believe the word "design" can mean without intent, show me the
dictionary where that is true.
Kelly

I don’t need to.
I am not claiming that the standard meaning of the word doesn’t imply intelligence.
I am claiming that a non-standard meaning of the word doesn’t imply intelligence.
Can you not comprehend this very simple message?
-or are you just ignoring it by pretending this is not what I am saying?

In the context of evolution, “design” does not imply intelligence and
I have already shown you a website that demonstrates this.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What in any discussion we are in is there a subject "against" my
religion, I typically don't agrue my religion, you and others tend to
bring it up as a means to discount a point you don't like to spend a
lot of time on. I on rare moments will bring it up, but normally you do.
Kelly

…What in any discussion we are in is there a subject "against" my
religion,. ..…

Those discussions that have the subject of evolution -except it is not accurate to say evolution is "against" your religion as it is to say evolution is "against" your interpretation of your religion.

… I typically don't argue my religion, you and others tend to
bring it up as a means to discount a point you don't like to spend a
lot of time on...….

That is just to save time by getting straight to the point: what is really behind your arguments is your interpretation of your religion for, if evolution was not against your interpretation of your religion, then you would not try and argue against it.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I don’t need to.
I am not claiming that the standard meaning of the word doesn’t imply intelligence.
I am claiming that a non-standard meaning of the word doesn’t imply intelligence.
Can you not comprehend this very simple message?
-or are you just ignoring it by pretending this is not what I am saying?

In the context of evolution, “design” does not imply intelligence and
I have already shown you a website that demonstrates this.

I know you don't need to, you make up a meaning it belongs to you.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…What in any discussion we are in is there a subject "against" my
religion,. ..…

Those discussions that have the subject of evolution -except it is not accurate to say evolution is "against" your religion as it is to say evolution is "against" your interpretation of your religion.

… I typically don't argue my religion, you and othe ainst your interpretation of your religion, then you would not try and argue against it.

[/b]Your saving time is a joke; you don't listen to what I'm saying you
spend more time trying to wrap what you think is true about my point
of view with respect to my religion than what I'm actually saying. You
are not alone in that either here. Without going into details I do work
around design daily, most of my complaints about all the things we
discuss are based upon that, not my religion, yet without fail you, or
sonhouse or someone else instead of reading what I write will
respond with some statement about my faith in God over my
objections due to the very complexity we are discussing. You don't
debate me you debate what you think is true about all religious
people and point your posts at me, which is more of a sign of
prejudices than sound reasoning or thinking.
Kelly