Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Dec 20, 2005.

  1. PS. If you want to show that it is reasonable to induce that biological organisms are the consequence of design, and you want to do this without resort to magic, then you need to propose something precise as to exactly what occurred, and not simply cast stones at evolution as being wrong.

    So, now please tell me exactly how did man appear on Earth, in your opinion?
     
    #241     Dec 23, 2005
  2. I see. Of course, that logic would have to apply for the overwhelming majority of scientists who find evolution to be the correct explanation of the development of life on Earth, now wouldn't it?

    That is the position the scientists are taking, yes. They are claiming authority on the basis of their own authority.

    But, on the more logical side, what the majority thinks is true has never been the hallmark of what actually is true.

    Yes, and the majority of scientists thinking something true falls in that same category.

    If it were, then the Earth would still be flat.

    When exactly was it flat?

    So, the point is that you are attempting to attack me rather than my argument, and I'm asking you to stop.

    I am deeply saddened that you feel attacked. I am not attacking you.

    I am questioning your argument from self appointed authority on biological evolution.
     
    #242     Dec 23, 2005
  3. Yes, we fight obfuscation and intellectual laziness wherever we find it.

    You make a claim, I tell you I disagree, and that's a personal attack? You accused kjkent of doing the very thing you yourself have been doing for the entire discussion - making an argument from self appointed authority. I provided a few quotes in that post as proof and I have been providing quotes from you all the way along as well.

    Don't you hate it that you can't go back and edit those things out? Really inconvenient, isn't it? I notic that every time I quote some of your howlers from earlier in this thread, you really dislike it. I also noticed you have stopped using the following arguments

    "I don't like your question"

    "I refuse to answer that question"

    "I don't think that question has any merit"

    "How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin"?

    Why is that?
     
    #243     Dec 23, 2005
  4. PS. If you want to show that it is reasonable to induce that biological organisms are the consequence of design, and you want to do this without resort to magic, then you need to propose something precise as to exactly what occurred, and not simply cast stones at evolution as being wrong.

    What occured? God programmed the universe in his mind first, then he manifested the universe from within himself, then he appointed magistrates to govern it and maintain it. You need further data points?

    So, now please tell me exactly how did man appear on Earth, in your opinion?

    Materialization from pure potentiality.
     
    #244     Dec 23, 2005
  5. Yes, we fight obfuscation and intellectual laziness wherever we find it.

    We? Who is this we?

    You make a claim, I tell you I disagree, and that's a personal attack?

    Yes, in the manner you disagreed it was a personal attack, that is my take.

    You accused kjkent of doing the very thing you yourself have been doing for the entire discussion - making an argument from self appointed authority I provided a few quotes in that post as proof and I have been providing quotes from you all the way along as well.

    Red herring.

    This is not about my comments to kent.

    Don't you hate it that you can't go back and edit those things out? Really inconvenient, isn't it? I notic that every time I quote some of your howlers from earlier in this thread, you really dislike it. I also noticed you have stopped using the following arguments.

    Not at all. I see no need to edit things out after a brief review.

    "I don't like your question"

    No, I did not like your question, I thought it was insipid.

    "I refuse to answer that question"

    I often refuse to answer questions I think are insipid.

    "I don't think that question has any merit"

    True. That is what I thought, and continue to think.

    "How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin"?

    No one seemed to know the answer, so I see no need to repeat the question.
     
    #245     Dec 23, 2005
  6. Ok... this is now getting a bit creepy.

    Magistrates? Pure Potentiality??
     
    #246     Dec 23, 2005
  7. I know, I know. And don't you find that the hardest questions to answer are the really insipid ones? I mean, how people can have the nerve to ask difficult questions....I really don't know.

    By the way... let's see if you have any grasp on your own arguments. When you say you thought my question was insipid, which one were you talking about?
     
    #247     Dec 23, 2005
  8. So, your version of creation is essentially the Biblical Genesis, correct?
     
    #248     Dec 23, 2005
  9. Is that what you think?

     
    #249     Dec 23, 2005
  10. Look, either explain your position or decline. If you decline, the conversation is over.
     
    #250     Dec 23, 2005