Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

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

  1. Ricter

    Ricter

    Don't even bothering to argue with Z on this, since it's actually the ID'er speaking through him. Ironically, He's speaking through you too.
     
    #21     Dec 20, 2005
  2. I think he had an acid flashback on that last post.
     
    #22     Dec 20, 2005
  3. Not quite. Some belive that matter and energy in our universe has properties which can eventually lead to molecular self organization and replication. Some belive that it is not random at all, but a certainty given the nature of our universe.

    If a creator is responsible for that, then you have given yourself the task to convince these scientists of this belief.

    Why are you arguing with us anyway?
     
    #23     Dec 20, 2005
  4. Pabst

    Pabst

    Evolution (a fact) is not an explanation for creation. Apples and oranges.

    Scientists have attained neither consensus within their community nor offered compelling proof of creation. Therefore Z hits in right on the head.
     
    #24     Dec 20, 2005
  5. Ricter

    Ricter

    We already had this exact argument with Z, went to over 300 replies iirc. In the end Z still didn't want science taught as fact, even if one were to define fact as that which derives from universal observability, logic, and repeatability.
     
    #25     Dec 20, 2005
  6. Uhhhh, thanks for misrepresenting me.

    Teach fact and facts of science, not fanciful theory of scientists.

    When you can repeat "evolution forces" systematically, predictably, and with the regularity of the four major forces of physics, showing the math behind each of these processes...let me know.

    Until then, lets teach what we know as fact in the public school systems, not what the current thought of scientists or their belief may be.....until a child's mind has the strength of its own convictions, the ability to reason for themselves and challenge their teachers thinking....not just sitting there and swalling the spew and the mush from the head of a science teacher on a mission against the idea of God and an intelligently created Universe.

     
    #26     Dec 20, 2005
  7. I see it didn't take long for the ad hominem attacks.

    You guys lose, again....
     
    #27     Dec 20, 2005
  8. Ricter

    Ricter

    I'm not attacking you Z, only the things you believe in, the things you say, and the means by which you arrive at those. But not YOU specifically.
     
    #28     Dec 20, 2005
  9. The moment you make it personal, it is ad hominem.

    You lose.

    Feel free to attack the argument, leave me out of it.

     
    #29     Dec 20, 2005
  10. Ricter

    Ricter

    Oh, that's tricky, you cunning ID'er you! You had me believing there was a Z again!
     
    #30     Dec 20, 2005