Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Is this a serious question?
More...

It is deadly serious. Please explain. Something tells me that you will decline.

PS - now 4 posts and yet no answers to my questions! Hmmm....

If humans live to 250 years of age, would that prove you wrong?
 
First, how do you propose proving to me that human beings will live to be 250 years old such that you could "prove me wrong?"

Natural law:

"In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which governs the activities of the material universe." (Also which governs the behavior of biological organisms instinctive behaviors).



Quote from traderNik:

It is deadly serious.

Please explain.

Something tells me that you will decline.

PS - now 4 posts and yet no answers to my questions! Hmmm....

If humans live to 250 years of age, would that prove you wrong?
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

First, how do you suppose proving to me that human being will live to be 250 years old?

Natural law:

"In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which governs the activities of the material universe." (Also which governs the behavior of biological organisms instinctive behaviors).
More...

I am not asking you anything about how we could prove that humans will live to 250. I am just asking you a straightforward question about your statements in a previous post. Recent advances in genetic engineering show that ageing will change a lot. In 5,000 - 10,000 years humans will be a lot different than we are today. We will live a lot longer.

I noticed that you avoided my question, so I will ask it again. If humans live to be 250 years of age, would that prove you wrong? It is a simple question, with three possible responses - yes, no or I don't know.

If you say "I will not answer that question", it will prove that your beliefs are faith-based, because if they were based on the observation of naturally occurring phenomena, you would be forced to say something like

"I highly doubt that human life spans are going to change, but yes, if they were to change that much, I would be forced to admit that my theory was not correct".

I have been incorrect many many times in my life. Have you ever been incorrect?

Secondly, yes, I can cut and paste a definition of natural law too. In fact the term you are trying to use was initially associated with the philosophical stance you are trying to undermine!! It actually represented a school of thought which would have claimed that faith-based belief systems like yours are untenable. It's ironic that, in an attempt to support your views, you have borrowed a term from the arsenal of those who oppose them.

And in addition, I noticed that you didn't use the first 4 Google hits that came up when you did your cut and paste job in order to give me a definition of natural law. You should have included the first 4 hits too!! It would have changed things a bit, no?

But anyway... yes, the laws which govern the activities of the material universe ( the sense in which you are using the term 'natural law') are codified in Western philosophy by the sciences. The scientific method has its good and bad points, but it is generally accepted to be a fruitful way to gather information about the natural world.

So.... which scientic method are you applying to which naturally occurring phenomenon? And remember, it is useless to say things like

"It should be obvious to everyone" or

"It's plain and simple" or

"this is a most reasonable conclusion"

Let us discuss facts, not opinions. And by the way... that's 5 posts without answering my questions!! Hmmm...

Are you a Christian?

If humans live to the age of 250, would that prove you wrong?

Please respond directly to the boldface material and to my questions at the end.

Thanks
 
I knew someone, who intended to prove immortality.
But he concluded, it would take to long.
Am i STILL the only person who was taught this idea at school?

:)
 
Quote from traderNik:
More...

I am not asking you anything about how we could prove that humans will live to 250. I am just asking you a straightforward question about your statements in a previous post. Recent advances in genetic engineering show that ageing will change a lot. In 3000 years humans will be a lot different than we are today. We will live a lot longer.

This is a speculative conclusions. I would call it "science fiction."

I noticed that you avoided my question, so I will ask it again. If humans live to be 250 years of age, would that prove you wrong?

Sorry, but if your aunt had gonads she would be your uncle.

To me, your question is silly.

It is a simple question, with three possible responses - yes, no or I don't know.

4th possible response, insufficient data to reach anything more than a speculative wild guess.

If you say "I will not answer that question", it will prove that your beliefs are faith-based, because if they were based on the observation of naturally occurring phenomena, you would be forced to say something like

Sorry, you are wrong on this fishing trip.

How many Angels dance on the head of a pin?

"I highly doubt that human life spans are going to change, but yes, if they were to change that much, I would be forced to admit that my theory was not correct".

If, if, if, if......

I have been incorrect many many times in my life. Have you ever been incorrect?

I trade stocks, does that answer the question?

Secondly, yes, I can cut and paste a definition of natural law too. In fact the term you are trying to use was initially associated with the philosophical stance you are trying to undermine!!

I disagree. Naturalists have been observing the workings of Natural law
for quite some time.

It actually represented a school of thought which would have claimed that faith-based belief systems like yours are untenable. It's ironic that you have borrowed a term from the arsenal of those who oppose your views in an attempt to support them.

I don't agree with where you are going with this, but have fun on your journey.

And in addition, I noticed that you didn't use the first 4 Google hits that came up when you did your cut and paste job in order to give me a definition of natural law. You should have included the first 4 hits too!! It would have changed things a bit, no?

Selecting a definition that best fits what I was trying to communicate is not a reasonable practice?

But anyway... yes, the laws which govern the activities of the material universe ( the sense in which you are using the term 'natural law') are codified in Western philosophy by the sciences. The scientific method has its good and bad points, but it is generally accepted to be a fruitful way to gather information about the natural world.

Not that complicated. Naturalists observer natural law as it applies to biological organisms.

So.... which scientic method are you applying to which naturally occurring phenomenon? And remember, it is useless to say things like

Simple observation of change and consistency in the workings of nature, and the naturally following ability to predict future behavior on that basis.

"It should be obvious to everyone" or

"It's plain and simple" or

"this is a most reasonable conclusion"



Yes, I do believe what I said is true.

Let us discuss facts, not opinions. And by the way... that's 5 posts without answering my questions!! Hmmm...

I don't think some of your questions are worth answering.

Please don't take it personally, and just accept that you don't have control over how I choose to respond.

Are you a Christian?

No, but I don't reject Christ.

If humans live to the age of 250, would that prove you wrong?

If I live forever that would prove me wrong.
 
Yes, about what I expected. A denial of any facts or arguments put forth that challenge your belief systems. An inability to consider logically stated arguments that tend to undermine the assumptions of your beliefs. And the classic reasoning -

"I don't think your questions are worth answering!!

What arrogance! And that arrogance is a hallmark of all very religious people, in the end. Piety is a mask for it, but there it is, revealed for all to see. "I don't think your questions are worth answering..." Amazing!!

The fact is, you are unable to answer them, my friend. And yet you believe. This is the essence of faith.

To tell the truth, I wish I had it. Life would be so much simpler.
 
Quote from TraderNik:
Secondly, yes, I can cut and paste a definition of natural law too. In fact the term you are trying to use was initially associated with the philosophical stance you are trying to undermine!!

Quoter from Z10

I disagree. Naturalists have been observing the workings of Natural law
for quite some time.
More...

Huh?????

Z10, it's evidently too late for you to be replying. Go back and read my post, the one to which you are replying in this quoted material. You will find this response doesn't have anything to do with the question I was asking.

I wasn't suggesting that 'Naturalist's haven't been observing the workings of matural law for some time' This is what you seem to have taken from my question. I was saying that the argument you are using, Natural Law, (in the context in which you are using the term, not directly relating to ethics), was used by those who sought to undermine the ideas of faith-based systems of thought like yours. Check my post.

It's ok, I'm not at my best late at night either.

There are a bunch of other weird non-sequiters in your reply to me. However, it will apparently do me no good to point them out. If you find any evidence that human life span may not be what you thought it was, please post here. Otherwise, have a great time in Paradise. I truly wish I could join you, and in this I am dead serious. What a joy it must be to be able to believe in something a priori. It must give you incredible strength.
 
Deductive reasoning, extrapolation, they're completely lost on Z. After proving that 1+1=2 to him, you'd then have to prove 1+1+1=3. And so on. Each observation would have to be considered in strict isolation from the previous observations.
 
So you have deduced that "deductive reasoning" is lost on me?

Quite funny.

But will your personally directed ad hominem attacks ever end?

Are you capable of nothing but slinging mud?

I will make a scientific prediction:

You will not be able to stop the personal attacks.....

Quote from Ricter:

Deductive reasoning, extrapolation, they're completely lost on Z. After proving that 1+1=2 to him, you'd then have to prove 1+1+1=3. And so on. Each observation would have to be considered in strict isolation from the previous observations.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top