Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

ZZZzzzzzzz · Dec 24, 2005

What "others" think is of no value to me.

I don't care what "others" think, pay no attention to it.

You appear to pay attention to what "others" think.

Whatever.....

Quote from kjkent1:

Others here seem to find my combination of opinion and supporting facts a refreshing diversion from the run of the mill conclusory bombast that permeates ET. They even thank me occasionally for my contribution(s).

That you aren't among them doesn't bother me in the slightest.

FanOfFridays · Dec 24, 2005

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

No, my assertions are not the topic. Your assertions are not the topic.

ID, evolution, etc. are the topic.

Feel free to assert whatever you want, but when the focus is on me, when it is ad hominem...as you have admitted to, it is a logical fallacy.

Did you make the assertion, on this thread, that the age of the universe is approximately 1,972,949,101 years and that the current lifespan of humans is proof of ID?

Did you or did you not make those assertions?

weirdscience · Dec 24, 2005

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

What "others" think is of no value to me.

I don't care what "others" think, pay no attention to it.

You appear to pay attention to what "others" think.

Whatever.....

oh you care very much or you wouldn't be here

self-delusion is an "ART" with you isn't it

ZZZzzzzzzz · Dec 24, 2005

I gave my opinion on the age of the earth, yes.

I was asked my opinion, I provided it.

I did not assert that the current human lifespan is proof of ID.

Quote from traderNik:

Did you make the assertion, on this thread, that the age of the universe is approximately 1,972,949,101 years and that the current lifespan of humans is proof of ID?

Did you or did you not make those assertions?

kjkent1 · Dec 24, 2005

Quote from traderNik:

??????????????????????

Your assertions are about the age of the universe and ID!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your assertions are the topic of this thread!!!!!! The debate here is about assertions you made!!!

What the heck are you talking about????????

Can someone help me here??

No one can help you.

Z does not admit the possibility of error in this forum, nor does he ever concede to the position of anyone else, even if that position reasonably reflects Z's own.

The ultimate object of Z's activities on ET appears to be aimed at merely stimulating traffic to the website, rather than to discover any truth or consensus. Even if you were to suddenly agree with everything Z said, he would probably post in a manner intended to stimulate an argument, and thereby increase traffic to the ET website.

As I've said in past threads, I hope Z's well paid, because the job must be interminably boring.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Dec 24, 2005

Quote from kjkent1:

Z does not admit the possibility of error in this forum, nor does he ever concede to the position of anyone else, even if that position reasonably reflects Z's own.

Now you are making me the focus and topic.

The ultimate object of Z's activities on ET appears to be aimed at merely stimulating traffic to the website, rather than to discover any truth or consensus.

You are free to speculate, but it is nothing but speculation.

Even if you were to suddenly agree with everything Z said, he would probably post in a manner intended to stimulate an argument, and thereby increase traffic to the ET website.

Try agreeing with everything I say to test your theory.

As I've said in past threads, I hope Z's well paid, because the job must be interminably boring.

I can imagine nothing more boring than being an attorney...but that's just me.

weirdscience · Dec 24, 2005

SHUT UP FOOL!

lmao

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Z does not admit the possibility of error in this forum, nor does he ever concede to the position of anyone else, even if that position reasonably reflects Z's own.

Now you are making me the focus and topic.

The ultimate object of Z's activities on ET appears to be aimed at merely stimulating traffic to the website, rather than to discover any truth or consensus.

You are free to speculate, but it is nothing but speculation.

Even if you were to suddenly agree with everything Z said, he would probably post in a manner intended to stimulate an argument, and thereby increase traffic to the ET website.

Try agreeing with everything I say to test your theory.

As I've said in past threads, I hope Z's well paid, because the job must be interminably boring.

I can imagine nothing more boring than being an attorney...but that's just me.

FanOfFridays · Dec 24, 2005

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I did not assert that the current human lifespan is proof of ID.

previous quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Pick any species, and I can predict what the lifespan will be within a reasonable time frame barring external damage to the organism by the environment.

This ability to predict lifespan is the indication of order, not chaos.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Dec 24, 2005

The specific lifespan of any member of a species is not the proof of ID. The fact that such lifespans are predictable, and all biological organsism have a lifespan, and that we have never seen a random, spontaneous alteration of this condition of having a predictable lifespan is an argument for an ordered design, not a situation where biological organisms are the product of ignorant chance.

If ignorant chance were in play as the governing factor, it would be reasonable to think we would have seen an alteration in the pattern of birth, regular lifespan for each species, and then death.

Therefore, the probability is that order and planning is behind and governing biological organisms.

Quote from traderNik:
traderNik

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 566

New Post 12-24-05 02:31 PM

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I did not assert that the current human lifespan is proof of ID.

previous quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Pick any species, and I can predict what the lifespan will be within a reasonable time frame barring external damage to the organism by the environment.

This ability to predict lifespan is the indication of order, not chaos.

FanOfFridays · Dec 24, 2005

quote from Z
I gave my opinion on the age of the earth, yes.

I see. So if someone asks you the age of the universe, and you say it is 1,9xx,xxx,xxx right down to the exact year, that is not an assertion, but an opinion, right?

That is not a statement of your belief, right? You are not stating that this is what you think is true, right?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assertion

How convenient for you. Wouldn't it be nice of life really worked that way.