Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Speaking of God carries no logical weight on its own, however when near 90% of the people of a society do speak of their belief in God it does lend some credibility that the belief may have something very real behind it to have sustained it.

I don't want to make my beliefs the logical reason to teach ID or not, I want to show that it is reasonable to infer and argue from logical induction that the probability that all of biological organisms are the consequence of random events of minute changes is not as probable as the likelihood that these organisms are by design.

PS. If you want to show that it is reasonable to induce that biological organisms are the consequence of design, and you want to do this without resort to magic, then you need to propose something precise as to exactly what occurred, and not simply cast stones at evolution as being wrong.

So, now please tell me exactly how did man appear on Earth, in your opinion?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from kjkent1:

I see. Of course, that logic would have to apply for the overwhelming majority of scientists who find evolution to be the correct explanation of the development of life on Earth, now wouldn't it?

That is the position the scientists are taking, yes. They are claiming authority on the basis of their own authority.

But, on the more logical side, what the majority thinks is true has never been the hallmark of what actually is true.

Yes, and the majority of scientists thinking something true falls in that same category.

If it were, then the Earth would still be flat.

When exactly was it flat?

So, the point is that you are attempting to attack me rather than my argument, and I'm asking you to stop.

I am deeply saddened that you feel attacked. I am not attacking you.

I am questioning your argument from self appointed authority on biological evolution.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I see while others have addressed the topic at hand, you remain fixated on me as the topic.

Whatever....

Yes, we fight obfuscation and intellectual laziness wherever we find it.

You make a claim, I tell you I disagree, and that's a personal attack? You accused kjkent of doing the very thing you yourself have been doing for the entire discussion - making an argument from self appointed authority. I provided a few quotes in that post as proof and I have been providing quotes from you all the way along as well.

Don't you hate it that you can't go back and edit those things out? Really inconvenient, isn't it? I notic that every time I quote some of your howlers from earlier in this thread, you really dislike it. I also noticed you have stopped using the following arguments

"I don't like your question"

"I refuse to answer that question"

"I don't think that question has any merit"

"How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin"?

Why is that?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from kjkent1:

PS. If you want to show that it is reasonable to induce that biological organisms are the consequence of design, and you want to do this without resort to magic, then you need to propose something precise as to exactly what occurred, and not simply cast stones at evolution as being wrong.

What occured? God programmed the universe in his mind first, then he manifested the universe from within himself, then he appointed magistrates to govern it and maintain it. You need further data points?

So, now please tell me exactly how did man appear on Earth, in your opinion?

Materialization from pure potentiality.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from traderNik:

Yes, we fight obfuscation and intellectual laziness wherever we find it.

We? Who is this we?

You make a claim, I tell you I disagree, and that's a personal attack?

Yes, in the manner you disagreed it was a personal attack, that is my take.

You accused kjkent of doing the very thing you yourself have been doing for the entire discussion - making an argument from self appointed authority I provided a few quotes in that post as proof and I have been providing quotes from you all the way along as well.

Red herring.

This is not about my comments to kent.

Don't you hate it that you can't go back and edit those things out? Really inconvenient, isn't it? I notic that every time I quote some of your howlers from earlier in this thread, you really dislike it. I also noticed you have stopped using the following arguments.

Not at all. I see no need to edit things out after a brief review.

"I don't like your question"

No, I did not like your question, I thought it was insipid.

"I refuse to answer that question"

I often refuse to answer questions I think are insipid.

"I don't think that question has any merit"

True. That is what I thought, and continue to think.

"How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin"?

No one seemed to know the answer, so I see no need to repeat the question.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Z10's responses give in bold:

PS. If you want to show that it is reasonable to induce that biological organisms are the consequence of design, and you want to do this without resort to magic, then you need to propose something precise as to exactly what occurred, and not simply cast stones at evolution as being wrong.

What occured? God programmed the universe in his mind first, then he manifested the universe from within himself, then he appointed magistrates to govern it and maintain it. You need further data points?

So, now please tell me exactly how did man appear on Earth, in your opinion?

Materialization from pure potentiality.

Ok... this is now getting a bit creepy.

Magistrates? Pure Potentiality??

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:



No, I did not like your question, I thought it was insipid.

I often refuse to answer questions I think are insipid.

I know, I know. And don't you find that the hardest questions to answer are the really insipid ones? I mean, how people can have the nerve to ask difficult questions....I really don't know.

By the way... let's see if you have any grasp on your own arguments. When you say you thought my question was insipid, which one were you talking about?

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

PS. If you want to show that it is reasonable to induce that biological organisms are the consequence of design, and you want to do this without resort to magic, then you need to propose something precise as to exactly what occurred, and not simply cast stones at evolution as being wrong.

What occured? God programmed the universe in his mind first, then he manifested the universe from within himself, then he appointed magistrates to govern it and maintain it. You need further data points?

So, now please tell me exactly how did man appear on Earth, in your opinion?

Materialization from pure potentiality.

So, your version of creation is essentially the Biblical Genesis, correct?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Is that what you think?

Quote from kjkent1:

So, your version of creation is essentially the Biblical Genesis, correct?

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Is that what you think?

Look, either explain your position or decline. If you decline, the conversation is over.