I guess you couldn't restrain yourself from responding, even though you don't value my opinion. What an interesting thing to respond to an opinion that you find without value. Evidently, my opinion does have some value, otherwise you wouldn't have any need to respond. As for your opinion that I have not falsified your theory, well, the thing that separates your opinions from mine is that mine are supported by analysis and fact, whereas yours are supported by nothing other than the single statement: "I disagree." Disagree all you want -- the Earth will still be round in the morning, and your theory will have been falsified. Now, once again, since you don't value my opinion, do you think you can restrain yourself from responding to an opinion that you regard as having no value?
The topic was ID; you proposed an hypothesis as to why ID should be taught based on the proposition that most people think ID is a reasonable explanation of life; I responded that most people used to think the Earth was flat, and that no unfalsified theory of ID currently exists, and therefore it is not reasonable to propose that a falsified scientific theory be taught based solely upon what people think is reasonable, which demonstrates the unreasonablness of your position; and so your theory is falsified. Therefore, everything that I've said is completely on topic, because you have now elevated your opinion of what is reasonable to become the topic, rather than the original topic, which was whether ID is reasonable for a science class. So, having made your opinion the topic, it is fair game to assault your opinion as unreasonable. And, that I have done. Do you think that you can restrain yourself from responding to this post, in view of the fact that you claim to not value my opinion(s)?
"I guess you couldn't restrain yourself from responding, even though you don't value my opinion. What an interesting thing to respond to an opinion that you find without value. Evidently, my opinion does have some value, otherwise you wouldn't have any need to respond." Off topic. I am not the topic, and your attempted defamation suggesting that I couldn't restrain myself is certainly off topic. As for your opinion that I have not falsified your theory, well, the thing that separates your opinions from mine is that mine are supported by analysis and fact, whereas yours are supported by nothing other than the single statement: "I disagree." Again, off topic. Your "opinions" of my "opinions" and how they are reached are not the topic. Your opinionated conclusions as to why my opinions are not supported, is once again...off topic. I am not the topic. Every time you talk about me, you are going off topic. Disagree all you want -- the Earth will still be round in the morning, and your theory will have been falsified. Red herring, off topic. The roundness of the earth is not the topic, nor is the fact the earth is round in question by anyone that I know of. Now, once again, since you don't value my opinion, do you think you can restrain yourself from responding to an opinion that you regard as having no value? Again, off topic.
Your post raises no new issues on the topic, but I disagree with the premise that I am off topic, in that it is obvious to any reasonable person that you have made yourself and your opinions the topic of the thread, since you refuse to support those opinions them with anything other than the weight of your own personal authority. However, there is one new ssue that I will address, because I don't want others to be mislead by your palpably incorrect use of a legal term, which holds within in it an implied threat of legal action: Defamation of Character. Defamation is a false and injurious statement published to a third party and causing damages. A false assertion of criminal activity, loathsome disease, sexual promiscuity, or dishonest business dealings creates a rebuttable presumption of damages. Otherwise the plaintiff must prove damages or there is no defamation. The facts show that plaintiff Z claims defamation by Defendant K's question as to whether Z could restrain himself by not responding to a prior post. Defendant's question is not a statement of fact or opinion -- it is a question, and no defamation arises from the posit of a question. Z could argue that the question impliedly suggests that P is mentally ill so as to be unable to restrain himself from answering, but that certainly isn't something that K has ever stated in the ET forum, so there is no extrinsic evidence to support this claim. However, the fact that Z routinely responds to every post addressed to him on ET, demonstrates that it is a FACT that Z cannot reasonably restrain himself from responding to K's posts, or anyone else's posts. And, a statement of fact is a perfect defense to defamation. Therefore, under any reasonable view of the facts, the elements of defamation are not satisfied, and K will not be found liable for defamation of Z. That was fun, Z. Got any other implied threats of legal action that you'd like to proffer?
Wow, now there's a ringing endorsement of your ability to engage others in an open and forthright manner. If you aren't here to find out what others conclude about ID and then engage in a debate about the pros and cons of the theory, why did you start this thread? By the way... you need to contact Baron about your post count. There is some glitch because it is displaying as 9473 which is obviously impossible. The only way you could possibly generate that many posts in 18 months would be to start threads which contain controversial claims and then spend literally days denying the .... Oops.
Lifespans aren't predictable unless you don't have the imagination to think 1,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 years into the future. It would be impossible to enumerate here the myriad possible influences on average human lifespan in the far future. The only way this could make sense as an argument is if you are assuming an intelligent designer. I know you can't see this, but your argument is circular. Lifespans are predictable because there is an intelligent designer. How do we know that there is an intelligent designer in the first place? That's right, you guessed... because lifespans are predictable. Here's another formulation of the mistake Z is making The rest of us: How do you know that ID is a fact? Z: Because the lifespans of biological organisms are predictable, which indicates an underlying order. TROU: But actually, that's not true - lifespans of biological organisms may be predictable in the short term, but we have no way of knowing what will happen to life spans 200,000 years from now. Z: Yes we do. Lifespans will not change. TROU: How do you know that?? Z: Because lifespans are the result of an intelligent designer! Nice and neat. Wrap it up and put a bow on it, just in time for the holy days.
w00t, 318 as I type! Grats all around folks! Btw, anyone change their mind about the subject at hand, ROFL?