If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ID theory - stolen
Stolen!
Look not to get into an argument about the merits of the either ID theory or Darwin, but the below is not bad. This is taken from the Geology group. dave "Beagle" wrote in message news:1134720077.598392.326350@f14g2000cwb. But if you're going to make these little sketches up, why not be a bit more entertaining? You know, returning a dead parrot to a 'boutique' and claiming it couldn't possibly evolved from bleedin' dinosaurs... Stolen! Look not to get into an argument about the merits of the either ID theory or Darwin, but the below is not bad. dave "Beagle" wrote in message news:1134720077.598392.326350@f14g2000cwb. But if you're going to make these little sketches up, why not be a bit more entertaining? You know, returning a dead parrot to a 'boutique' and claiming it couldn't possibly evolved from bleedin' dinosaurs... Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific theory' what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very establishment. Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with it? Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous, that's what's wrong with it! Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the controversy'... Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now. Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated. Remarkable theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look at all these books and articles: millions and millions of words...! Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead. It's a non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics. This 'theory' makes no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the 'Designer' was. Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it has no scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of opposing decades of uncomfortable scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up daisies! It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS IS A NON-THEORY! Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around] Sorry, squi looks like that's all we've got... Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture. Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human tibia, if you squint at it... Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological and biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of observed homologies and the nested hierarchy of life? Salesman: Not really. Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS IT? ---------- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ID theory - stolen
That's great :-) It certainly raised a smile here.
Jeanette Dave Gerecke wrote in message . .. Stolen! Look not to get into an argument about the merits of the either ID theory or Darwin, but the below is not bad. This is taken from the Geology group. dave Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific theory' what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very establishment. Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with it? Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous, that's what's wrong with it! Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the controversy'... Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now. Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated. Remarkable theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look at all these books and articles: millions and millions of words...! Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead. It's a non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics. This 'theory' makes no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the 'Designer' was. Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it has no scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of opposing decades of uncomfortable scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up daisies! It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS IS A NON-THEORY! Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around] Sorry, squi looks like that's all we've got... Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture. Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human tibia, if you squint at it... Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological and biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of observed homologies and the nested hierarchy of life? Salesman: Not really. Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS IT? ---------- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ID theory - stolen
Very funny! I need to watch more Monty Python!
Sandy "Dave Gerecke" wrote in message . .. Stolen! Look not to get into an argument about the merits of the either ID theory or Darwin, but the below is not bad. This is taken from the Geology group. dave "Beagle" wrote in message news:1134720077.598392.326350@f14g2000cwb. But if you're going to make these little sketches up, why not be a bit more entertaining? You know, returning a dead parrot to a 'boutique' and claiming it couldn't possibly evolved from bleedin' dinosaurs... Stolen! Look not to get into an argument about the merits of the either ID theory or Darwin, but the below is not bad. dave "Beagle" wrote in message news:1134720077.598392.326350@f14g2000cwb. But if you're going to make these little sketches up, why not be a bit more entertaining? You know, returning a dead parrot to a 'boutique' and claiming it couldn't possibly evolved from bleedin' dinosaurs... Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific theory' what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very establishment. Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with it? Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous, that's what's wrong with it! Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the controversy'... Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now. Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated. Remarkable theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look at all these books and articles: millions and millions of words...! Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead. It's a non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics. This 'theory' makes no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the 'Designer' was. Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it has no scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of opposing decades of uncomfortable scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up daisies! It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS IS A NON-THEORY! Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around] Sorry, squi looks like that's all we've got... Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture. Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human tibia, if you squint at it... Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological and biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of observed homologies and the nested hierarchy of life? Salesman: Not really. Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS IT? ---------- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ID theory - stolen
In article , Sandy
wrote: Very funny! I need to watch more Monty Python! I mentioned to an English colleague that a friend's carpet python, Talis (RB), had shed his skin for the first time. My colleague inquired if that defined the Full Monty Python. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Theory of the Black Cat Which Must Be Named | Julie Cook | Cat anecdotes | 6 | December 14th 05 08:41 PM |
Bubbels theory | Marina | Cat anecdotes | 9 | December 12th 04 08:45 PM |