Talk:Intelligent design

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>


[edit] Lost Me At Pseudoscience

"Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king." Tywin Lannister

Similarly any site that must call itself rational isn't truly rational. (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So anyone who must state what they are aren't really what they claim to be, and that is in turn due to them having had to say what they were? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I am BobM. Therefore ...--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I bought some sausages today. It clearly said "sausages" on the packet. Does this mean they're not actually sausages? Flannan Isle (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
So someone who proudly self-identifies as a hateful internet asshole isn't actually one, and conversely, those who would refer to themselves as reasonably fair and nice people are literally not that? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
If you trained your parrot to say "I'm a parrot", then he must clearly be a pigeon and thus deserves to get punched in the kidney with a broom handle? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
And like BobM points out; how the hell are you supposed to introduce yourself!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] It's about sex, politics, and epistemology

The Sexual Politics of Intelligent Design. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 12:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Refutation of ID opinion piece Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments against ID no...

  • 'The wrong number of digits' for computer binary code (4 or 8 on each limb would be much more logical).
  • Limited visual range (should include #all# parts of the spectrum creatures can access).

Perhaps there could be some snark involving Eloi, Morlocks and Monsters from the Id. (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] The Quotations Are Very, VERY Condescending

Personal tools