Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

12-21-05 01:06 PM



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from ElCubano:

An end of year 'GOD' thread...wow right on time...things have not changed around here...

Pabst, Stu, ZZtop, Defags, surfturd ....Merry Christmas to you'll


merry christmas, cubano!

surf:D
 
Truly hilarious post! Thanks for the belly laugh entropyTraderpus.

bt

Quote from energytraderus:

Postors here again miss the point; it's clear why so many here lose trading. Those who focus on the definition of "ID" and "science" miss the point. The point is why ID is being attacked. Is it true that every idea and class taught at every single school district in the entire country is absolutely consistent with the USCON? IS it true that every scientist at every top research university agrees with a single absolute definition of "science"? Is it true that every teacher of ID teaches the exact same ideas and in the exact same way?

Postors who can't discern the real issue here lose in markets: they're the same traders who can't understand why a stock often sells off after the initial pop on good earnings. These are the same traders who can't understand why crude oil keeps going higher while domestic inventories keep rising. In short, they're the same idiots and scribes who can't think for themselves and allow others to define and create issues for them.

ID advocates are usually Christian fundamentalists. Jews are disproportionately represented on courts at all levels. The attack on ID is initiated and executed by Jews--probably neocons.
More...
 
Quote from energytraderus:

.... The point is why ID is being attacked.....
More...
Things like ID don't need attacking, they fall over all by themselves.
It has been refused by parents, schools and Courts for the sham it is.
 
stu:

When I cited postors in earlier post who missed the point, I wasn't necessarily citing you. But since you're--in a way--asking for help and explanation, I'll explain it to you.

ID is indeed being attacked: it is in fact being attacked in federal court. Why are you even posting about it? Does every federal case get hours of prime time media coverage? Do you buy a stock, because Jim Cramer tells you to? Do you eat fat and shun carbs, because Atkins tells you to? Would you jump off a cliff if I so ordered you?

Isn't it true that Cramer often pitches stocks he owns? Isn't it true that Adkins pitched a diet for money? Isn't it true that some media people have nearly absolute choice in what we view? Isn't it true that Jews are overwhelmingly overrepresented in media? Isn't it true that Jews share political interests?

Why did Spielberg make and provulgate "Schindler's List" and "Munich"? Did Spielberg just happen to arbitrarily feel an urge to commemorate Jews?

Attacking Christian fundamentalists is consistent with Jews' shared political aims, and attacking ID is just a means to that aim.
 
Quote from energytraderus:

stu:

When I cited postors in earlier post who missed the point, I wasn't necessarily citing you. But since you're--in a way--asking for help and explanation, I'll explain it to you.

ID is indeed being attacked: it is in fact being attacked in federal court. Why are you even posting about it? Does every federal case get hours of prime time media coverage? Do you buy a stock, because Jim Cramer tells you to? Do you eat fat and shun carbs, because Atkins tells you to? Would you jump off a cliff if I so ordered you?

Isn't it true that Cramer often pitches stocks he owns? Isn't it true that Adkins pitched a diet for money? Isn't it true that some media people have nearly absolute choice in what we view? Isn't it true that Jews are overwhelmingly overrepresented in media? Isn't it true that Jews share political interests?

Why did Spielberg make and provulgate "Schindler's List" and "Munich"? Did Spielberg just happen to arbitrarily feel an urge to commemorate Jews?

Attacking Christian fundamentalists is consistent with Jews' shared political aims, and attacking ID is just a means to that aim.
More...

man you are sooo out of it :eek:

what planet are you from?
 
I have made an observational case for intelligent design, rather than random lifeless ignorant chance.

Science is after all observation.

Everyone can observe the consistency of the nature of biological organisms to be born, sustain life for a relatively predictable period of time on the whole, and then die.

All biological organisms do the same thing. They all have life spans, they all seek to maintain life in normative conditions.

This programming, this design of biological organisms which is unyielding and has never been shown to produce any biological organism that deviates from this fundamental pattern is clearly ordered, predictable, and governed by some force which is not random. All biological organisms seek naturally to sustain life, and will attempt to adapt to and overcome all obstacles to their continued existence.

You don't agree with it, or my observations or theory that this programming of biological organisms is a product of a program of intelligent design, fine. There is no need to convince you. You just try to prove it false.

Self evident it is, for anyone, and everyone to see for themselves.

I read Judge Jones take, and when the case goes eventually to the supreme court, there may perhaps be another take.

After all, judges render their opinions.

It is stated in our Declaration that certain truths are self evident for all men, that they are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Is this a theory? Yes, but it is based on the principle of self evidence. Those who deny what is self evident to all considered sane, are then thought to be insane.

Self evidence is the starting point of everything.

Science need not be fancy and mysterious.

Just like the church who attempted to maintain power over the common man through the use of "secrecy" and "special ability" of clergy, so to the scientific community tries to maintain control through their "scientists are smarter" modus operandi.

Quote from kjkent1:

I've made the scientific case for evolution dozens of times in the past. You have yet to make any case for intelligent design, other than to state that it is self evident, i.e., just as it is self evident that the Earth is flat.

Federal District Court Judge Jones has exquisitely detailed why your argument for intelligent design "fails completely," and I see no reason to repeat the exercise (see attached).
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I have made an observational case for intelligent design, rather than random lifeless ignorant chance.

Science is after all observation.

Everyone can observe the consistency of the nature of biological organisms to be born, sustain life for a relatively predictable period of time on the whole, and then die.

All biological organisms do the same thing. They all have life spans, they all seek to maintain life in normative conditions.

This programming, this design of biological organisms which is unyielding and has never been shown to produce any biological organism that deviates from this fundamental pattern is clearly ordered, predictable, and governed by some force which is not random. All biological organisms seek naturally to sustain life, and will attempt to adapt to and overcome all obstacles to their continued existence.

You don't agree with it, or my observations or theory that this programming of biological organisms is a product of a program of intelligent design, fine. There is no need to convince you. You just try to prove it false.

Self evident it is, for anyone, and everyone to see for themselves.

I read Judge Jones take, and when the case goes eventually to the supreme court, there may perhaps be another take.

After all, judges render their opinions.

It is stated in our Declaration that certain truths are self evident for all men, that they are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Is this a theory? Yes, but it is based on the principle of self evidence. Those who deny what is self evident to all considered sane, are then thought to be insane.

Self evidence is the starting point of everything.

Science need not be fancy and mysterious.

Just like the church who attempted to maintain power over the common man through the use of "secrecy" and "special ability" of clergy, so to the scientific community tries to maintain control through their "scientists are smarter" modus operandi.
More...

"*I* have made an *observational case* for intelligent design"..


GEESUS! TOO FUNNNNY!! :p :p :p :p

forget planet what DIMENSION are you from!!??

ZZ is deepocket chopra on STEROIDS!!!!!!
LMAO
 
"Nothing at all was lost....from my perspective. Only potential gain may have been missed. If you didn't win something previously not revealed to you, it would not be because you were beaten.....it would only be because you were playing a game....I was not."

Um, Roberk used the word "triumphalism".

The irresistable obfuscative force, meets the immovable irrational object.
And all in a single Zpost!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top