You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
You are the kind of ignoring what was said, then making up your own blah, blah, blah...
Quote from stu:
...as I say, you ignore what is said then proceed to mangle words into your own meanings to argue by. Completely absurd.
You've just done it again. Here above. You can't see it though can you. Probably why you keep doing it.
Dodge.
Understandably though, because motive exists, yet science cannot measure it.
So following your absurdist thinking, motive must be magic...because science can't measure it.
ROTFLMAO...
Understandably though, because motive exists, yet science cannot measure it.
So following your absurdist thinking, motive must be magic...because science can't measure it.
ROTFLMAO...
Quote from kjkent1:
I know how I define motive. And, from previous arguments, I know that you will refuse to define anything, so that you can avoid losing your argument by moving the goalpost as soon as I demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.
That's my motive, to avoid wasting my time, arguing with someone who's not actually interested in resolving anything.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Dodge.
Understandably though, because motive exists, yet science cannot measure it.
So following your absurdist thinking, motive must be magic...because science can't measure it.
ROTFLMAO...
I repeat: define motive, and I'll argue it with you. Otherwise, you can argue with yourself. That's what you do best.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Motive is that which motivates.
Doh!
Pathetic definition, but I'll use it until you move the goalpost.
The court considers motive principally for the purpose of finding that a person had the intent to do an act/omission, which is an element in creating legal liability.
Motive is considered, based on what an objectively reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. Given enough circumstantial evidence, a trier of fact can find that it is beyond reasonable doubt that a certain motive is present.
As with every other issue, there is always the possibility that some alternative, which has not been excluded by the evidence, is actually the truth.
But, the court is not required to exclude every possibility. The burden of proof depends on the ulitmate issue at stake, and at worst case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is all that is required.
Of course, when it comes to you Z, there is no such thing as reasonable proof. There's only absolute proof. Either something is absolutely true, or Z get's to proclaim that it's false, if Z wants to. And if Z doesn't want to, then Z doesn't have to.
This works great for Z, because nothing can be proven absolutely, which means that Z can proclaim whatever he wants to proclaim as true or false whenever he wants to proclaim it.
What will now follow will be another proclamation by Z. Which I will leave stand, because I'm not gonna waste my time, with this for another second.
Court is not a science lab applying scientific methods, so your explanation doesn't show how science can know motive, yet we all know motives do exist.
So, motive must be magic...
So, motive must be magic...
Quote from kjkent1:
Pathetic definition, but I'll use it until you move the goalpost.
The court considers motive principally for the purpose of finding that a person had the intent to do an act/omission, which is an element in creating legal liability.
Motive is considered, based on what an objectively reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. Given enough circumstantial evidence, a trier of fact can find that it is beyond reasonable doubt that a certain motive is present.
As with every other issue, there is always the possibility that some alternative, which has not been excluded by the evidence, is actually the truth.
But, the court is not required to exclude every possibility. The burden of proof depends on the ulitmate issue at stake, and at worst case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is all that is required.
Of course, when it comes to you Z, there is no such thing as reasonable proof. There's only absolute proof. Either something is absolutely true, or Z get's to proclaim that it's false, if Z wants to. And if Z doesn't want to, then Z doesn't have to.
This works great for Z, because nothing can be proven absolutely, which means that Z can proclaim whatever he wants to proclaim as true or false whenever he wants to proclaim it.
What will now follow will be another proclamation by Z. Which I will leave stand, because I'm not gonna waste my time, with this for another second.