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
Quote from jem:
Why would you take KJs word for what Susskind meant and not NoNonsense's word for what Einstein meant.
Ummm... because kj spoke to Susskind??
lol.. watch this. Next we get 'How do you know that kj spoke to Susskind'?
Mark my words, this is coming next.
Face it, jem. For 200 pages you tried to wriggle your way out of it, but the incontrovertible proof is in. All your arguments have been hammered into the ground and now your last stand, the last leg of your rickety table, has been chopped out. The very author you have been willfully misinterpreting has weighed in and said that your 'interpretation' (read 'willful twisting') of his words is wrong.
Z's credibility was demolished a long time ago. All he can muster these days is the passing ad hominem with its false bonhomie and its language games.
Your credibility is now demolished as well.
Try again under another username. We will be ready to destroy the ID/C argument again in another 6 months.
Quote from Turok:
...
Yes, and unless you are calling KJ a liar (again), Susskind as stated that KJ's interpretation of his words is correct and yours flat out wrong.
JB
and your response to that is.....
Cripes jem You can't even read a direct statement from its source without mis-interpreting it. How the hell are you ever going to read properly, nevermind understand, what Susskind is saying.Quote from jem:
...
Where is the evidence that Susskind has declared his own quotes incorrect.
I can't beleive this thread is still going. I'm pretty sure that this ID theroy has been put to rest by all except maybe the Pat Robertson gang. Then again this is exactly what the christian croanies want, if they keep cramming this crap down our throats maybe somebody will listen. At least they've evolved enough to stop pushing the JeBus theory and replace him with little green men.
jem:
>Where is the evidence that Susskind has
>declared his own quotes incorrect.
Not only a complete strawman Jem, but a transparently idiotic strawman at that.
>Why would you take KJs word for what Susskind
>meant and not NoNonsense's word for what
>Einstein meant.
Because I believe KJ had an email exchange with Susskind confirming his interpretation and don't believe Nonsense had one with Einstein.
Are you REALLY this much of an idiot?? (rhetorical question).
JB
>Where is the evidence that Susskind has
>declared his own quotes incorrect.
Not only a complete strawman Jem, but a transparently idiotic strawman at that.
>Why would you take KJs word for what Susskind
>meant and not NoNonsense's word for what
>Einstein meant.
Because I believe KJ had an email exchange with Susskind confirming his interpretation and don't believe Nonsense had one with Einstein.
Are you REALLY this much of an idiot?? (rhetorical question).
JB
Quote from jem:
All trying to provoke me with what has to be the dumbest collection of statements in the history of debate.
What statement is that? You mean the following statement?
"Hi jem. You have been on here representing Susskind's work as supportive of your thesis. Now Susskind himself has said that his work does not support ID/Creation. Could you please stop saying that Susskind's work supports your thesis'.
Or perhaps you mean this more general statement?
'Your appeal-to-authority based argument for the viability of ID/Creation as a theory has just been hammered into the ground by the very authority you were mistakenly citing. Please refrain from making appeal-to-authority based arguments for ID/Creation in the future'.
Like these...
Quote from jem:
the astronomer professor Paul Davies concludes...
Professor Sir Fred Hoyle says ...
And the astronomer George Greenstein says..
Davies and Greenstein both say, and Hoyle says..
jem, in truth I feel a bit badly for you. You were always in over your head in this thread. That became clear quite a while ago. You just ran into someone who was willing to put in the time to coldly dismantle your assertions and provide proof that they are invalid. I cannot say that I understand the kind of mind that is able to accept as truth an idea or theory merely because someone in a position of power says 'this is the truth'. However, you are another human and you deserve our pity, not our censure.
Next time (under a different username) try less appeal to authority and less of the claims about being a lawyer, etc.
Quote from traderNik:
What statement is that? You mean the following statement?
"Hi jem. You have been on here representing Susskind's work as supportive of your thesis. Now Susskind himself has said that his work does not support ID/Creation. Could you please stop saying that Susskind's work supports your thesis'.
Or perhaps you mean this more general statement?
'Your appeal-to-authority based argument for the viability of ID/Creation as a theory has just been hammered into the ground by the very authority you were mistakenly citing. Please refrain from making appeal-to-authority based arguments for ID/Creation in the future'.
Like these...
jem, in truth I feel a bit badly for you. You were always in over your head in this thread. That became clear quite a while ago. You just ran into someone who was willing to put in the time to coldly dismantle your assertions and provide proof that they are invalid. I cannot say that I understand the kind of mind that is able to accept as truth an idea or theory merely because someone in a position of power says 'this is the truth'. However, you are another human and you deserve our pity, not our censure.
Next time (under a different username) try less appeal to authority and less of the claims about being a lawyer, etc.
Well if you could read you saw that my authority has not yet been shown to have refuted his own statements.
But consider the standard proof you are willing to use, the real questin is, if you are willing to take KJs word about statments made by Susskind - then you must be wiling to take televangelists words when they say they spoke with God or God spoke to them.
Quote from jem:
Well if you could read you saw that my authority has not yet been shown to have refuted his own statements.
But consider the standard proof you are willing to use, the real questin is, if you are willing to take KJs word about statments made by Susskind - then you must be wiling to take televangelists words when they say they spoke with God or God spoke to them.
Are you suggesting that Susskind is God?
That explains everything...