Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Belief in water has not changed, nor does its nature to move from liquid, to gas, to solid etc.

Your autistic display of repetitive confusions though is a constant.

"For instance it is beyond you that your own appeal to have me appeal to something I do not appeal to, serves more to demonstrate you have no argument."

Solidly, gaseous, liquid fill gobbledygook...

Quote from stu:

It is beyond you?
Well it seems there is much which is beyond you, including an appropriate use for the term non sequitur.
For instance it is beyond you that your own appeal to have me appeal to something I do not appeal to, serves more to demonstrate you have no argument.

So you changed your beliefs in water? Then even your own appeal to gaumlessness is not working all that well .

 

[ddunbar]

BTW, if you go back and look things over you will find that KJkent never made an "appeak to authority" simply because he only used the assertions made by others not as fact but as plausible assertions.

To claim that Kjkent argues from authority means that you'll have to also claim that Jem is arguing from authority.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Both are arguing from authority, so your point is what?

That because jem's appeal to authority is fallacious, that kent is entitled to the same poor reasoning?

The one difference is that kent is not only arguing from authority, but also arguing from ignorance to a conclusive statement at the same time.

Quite a trick, sounds almost like what a lawyer would do in his closing statement in front of a stupid jury...

Quote from ddunbar:

BTW, if you go back and look things over you will find that KJkent never made an "appeak to authority" simply because he only used the assertions made by others not as fact but as plausible assertions.

To claim that Kjkent argues from authority means that you'll have to also claim that Jem is arguing from authority.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Both are arguing from authority, so your point is what?

Point? Neither is arguing from authority. But if you insist that they are, they are doing so legitimately. Why?

Because the "authority" is considered competent in the field that's being argued and therefore is exercising proper judgement.

The one difference is that kent is not only arguing from authority, but also arguing from ignorance to a conclusive statement at the same time.

Quite a trick, sounds almost like what a lawyer would do in his closing statement in front of a stupid jury...

He's not arguing from ignorance. The universe simply doesn't appear designed to him. And that's a conclusion based on there being is no incontrovertible evidence of design.

Tell you what, present objective, incontrovertible proof that the universe is designed. And if he stills rejects the notion, we'll all have a laugh at him.

 

[stu]

Whoa there Iam , start over. Editing my posts to fit your desire is not being very honest now is it.



You asked..... " who expressed this "....

in regard to this already edited quote ....

Quote from stu:

That describes a God full of vainity and conceit.

Gilbert is God + 1

not in regard to this which you have edited yet again ...

Quote from stu:



Gilbert is God +1

Unless you remove what you call God from the "core of the Universe", your statements clearly expressed and described a God full of vainity and conceit.
Therefore it is you who has expressed that.

The separate reference you included to Gilbert is there to correct your math, and is not to do with the words you edited out..

Someone misrepresenting what has been said whilst calling themself Jesus , does rather fit with an expression of the conceited God.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

non sequitur

Actually, it was right on point -- demonstrates that you routinely argue from ignorance -- which is what I asserted.

 

[stu]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Belief in water has not changed, nor does its nature to move from liquid, to gas, to solid etc.
Your autistic display of repetitive confusions though is a constant.
"For instance it is beyond you that your own appeal to have me appeal to something I do not appeal to, serves more to demonstrate you have no argument."
Solidly, gaseous, liquid fill gobbledygook...

Your belief clearly has changed . The record shows your belief restricts you to this day from explaining how or why you believed as you stated "H20 turns to water".

The persistent frustration you must feel by being able to copy a sentence but not comprehend it, goes some way at least to explain why you have produced so much gibberish over such a long period of time.



You can't also want to purposely mislead yourself on the 'argument from authority' surely. You do...?? so that's why you garble it around.

Jem makes a double fallacy in my opinion. He is basing his own willfully wrong assertion that Susskind supports design and appeals to Susskind the scientist as being the authority for what jem wrongfully asserts. He therefore makes an appeal to authority and a fallacy of wishful thinking, that Susskind means what Jem wants.

Kent makes no appeal to science or scientists. Rather he merely refers to what science offers ( practical information), or what religion offers (magic), but requires validation of both. Proof and validation is what removes the appeal.

You know proof and validation. Things you don't care about.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ddunbar:

Point? Neither is arguing from authority. But if you insist that they are, they are doing so legitimately. Why?

Because the "authority" is considered competent in the field that's being argued and therefore is exercising proper judgement.



He's not arguing from ignorance. The universe simply doesn't appear designed to him. And that's a conclusion based on there being is no incontrovertible evidence of design.

Tell you what, present objective, incontrovertible proof that the universe is designed. And if he stills rejects the notion, we'll all have a laugh at him.

I appreciate the defense.

 

[jem]

I did not take my plane trip because there was very little snow. so i have more time to argue with you bastards.

Now let me ask STU these simple questions.

Did Susskind say in his book and in articles on the internet that the Universe looks designed but that the appearance of design is an illusion? Yes or No.



Did I also provide a quote where Susskind said that many of the anthropic arguments are not convincing because we could be very very lucky, but there is one constant that is so unlikely no one is saying the Cosmomlogical Constant could have been achieved by random events.

Yes or No.

Now is the reason why Susskind says there is an illusion of design because he believes that as of now String theory may be used to postulate that there are billions of landscapes (also known as universes) out there where the cosmological constant would be different.

Yes or No.


If you answer the above truthfully you will know who has the f--ked up argument.

 

[Teleologist]

Kjkent1 wrote:

So, I completely understand your position, jem. Only, it's wrong, because there is no evidence of design. There is only the illusion of design.

What would you count as evidence of design?