More useless off topic ad hominem....
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 struck down in Federal Court
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
You may think you understand my response, but you are wrong.
And please stop with the name calling, I am not hooney.
You are making an accusation that I am playing games and intentionally avoiding a direct response.
You are wrong, and I challenge you to prove your slanderous accusations.
I did explain my exact position on the origin of man.
If you have exact questions ask them, otherwise if you continue along this contentious and boorish avenue, I will no longer respond to your comments.
My statements are not slanderous, because, among other things, slander is the legal term for "verbal" defamation. The correct legal term for written defamation, assuming I was defaming you and causing you damage (something that you could never prove), would be "libelous."
Now then:
1. In approximately how many current Earth years ago, did God create the universe?
2. Same question for the Earth?
3. Same question for the first life form?
4. What was the first life form?
5. Same question as #1 but answer for each of the major taxonomic body plans and then answer for Allosaurus, Shrew, Blue Whale, Wooly Mammoth, Sabertoothed Tiger, Elephant, Asian Tiger, Bonobo Chimpanzee, Orangutan, Gorilla, german cockroach, wolf, cat, dog, horse, and of course, Neanderthal, Australopithecus Africanus, Homo Habilis, and of course Homo Sapiens.
6. As to humans, who was created first, Man or Woman?
7. As to humans, in which order were the various races created, i.e., blacks, asians, Polynesians, american indians, east indians, caucasians, mongols, mestizos, moorish?
8. Which religion, traditional or otherwise, most accurately describes God's activities and purpose in the universe?
9. With regard to #8, upon what evidence do you base this conclusion?
10. What happens when a human dies?
11. Does a human have a soul?
12. Does any other animal have a soul?
13. Does any other animal or organism NOT have a soul, and if so, which one(s)?
14. Is there existence after death?
15. If so, then are there any rules that must be followed during a person's natural life, that if violated will exclude or make difficult that person's existence after death?
16. If so, then what are the rules (briefly)?
17. Is there an absolute "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong?"
18. If so, where can I find an authoritative express definition of each of these concepts?
19. Does man have free will?
20. Is a representative democracy to be preferred to a benevolent dictatorship? Please explain why one is preferrable to the other, or why there should be no preference to either.
21. Where exactly did you discover the answers to all of the above questions?
OK, I think that should do for a start.
Quote from kjkent1:
My statements are not slanderous, because, among other things, slander is the legal term for "verbal" defamation. The correct legal term for written defamation, assuming I was defaming you and causing you damage (something that you could never prove), would be "libelous."
So stop the defamation.
Now then:
1. In approximately how many current Earth years ago, did God create the universe?
More than you can imagine. Oh, I could give a number with a bunch of zeros after it, but practically speaking, such a number is not imaginable. As time came into existence with the beginning of the Universe, there was no time prior to the manifestation of the Universe. There really is no reference point except to say before time.
Let's just say if you started writing zeros after the number 1 for the rest of your life you would not reach the number of years since the creation of the Universe.
Practically speaking the number is not finite.
2. Same question for the Earth?
Approximately 1,972,949,101 years.
3. Same question for the first life form?
First life form was the creator of the earth, so before the earth was created.
4. What was the first life form?
The creator.
5. Same question as #1 but answer for each of the major taxonomic body plans and then answer for Allosaurus, Shrew, Blue Whale, Wooly Mammoth, Sabertoothed Tiger, Elephant, Asian Tiger, Bonobo Chimpanzee, Orangutan, Gorilla, german cockroach, wolf, cat, dog, horse, and of course, Neanderthal, Australopithecus Africanus, Homo Habilis, and of course Homo Sapiens.
Ask the creator, he has that information.
6. As to humans, who was created first, Man or Woman?
There was no first.
7. As to humans, in which order were the various races created, i.e., blacks, asians, Polynesians, american indians, east indians, caucasians, mongols, mestizos, moorish?
First race was human race. Color and feature are not important, as all the same species of human beings.
8. Which religion, traditional or otherwise, most accurately describes God's activities and purpose in the universe?
Only the Hindu religion includes all aspects of every other religion, so if someone was to pick one, that would be the most accurate.
9. With regard to #8, upon what evidence do you base this conclusion?
Personal direct experience as well as rough examination of the principles of other religions.
10. What happens when a human dies?
The body dies, the soul which was never born cannot die. A new body is taken, of any number of species.
11. Does a human have a soul?
Yes.
12. Does any other animal have a soul?
All living beings have a soul.
13. Does any other animal or organism NOT have a soul, and if so, which one(s)?
Answered above.
14. Is there existence after death?
Existence does not die, only body dies.
15. If so, then are there any rules that must be followed during a person's natural life, that if violated will exclude or make difficult that person's existence after death?
Law of sowing and reaping.
16. If so, then what are the rules (briefly)?
For each and every action and thought, there is an equivalent consequence.
What goes around, comes around.
17. Is there an absolute "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong?"
Not in a material sense, no. In a spiritual sense, yes.
18. If so, where can I find an authoritative express definition of each of these concepts?
Read in depth in the native Sanskrit all of the vedic literature, that is as close as you could get.
19. Does man have free will?
He has free will to love God or not.
20. Is a representative democracy to be preferred to a benevolent dictatorship?
Not necessarily.
Please explain why one is preferrable to the other, or why there should be no preference to either.
A democracy that represents a group of people who are purely materialistic would not be as desirable as a benevolent dictator who inspired the people to become more spiritual oriented.
21. Where exactly did you discover the answers to all of the above questions?
Life experience, books, teachers.
OK, I think that should do for a start.
The above is what I think and believe, it is not a "scientific" theory based on empiricism.
You began this trip by asking my opinion, I am giving it.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
So stop the defamation.
I deny defaming you, and it's up to you to prove otherwise in a court of law. I will be happy to waive personal service of process if you will agree to litigate the matter in my jurisdiction.
I will, of course, have a number of cross complaints against you, and I suggest that you should be prepared for a very long and expensive trial.
Now, as to your substantive answers, some of them were non responsive, however I expected even less than I received. So, based upon the answers that you have provided, I have one further question:
1. Radiometric dating sets the age of the Earth at not less than 4.04 billion years, based on radioisotope measurements of zircon crystals found in the Jack Hills of Australia. Your measurement of 1,972,949,101 years, which I believe is the age fixed by the Hindu Calendar, thus accounts for only 47% of the scientifically verified age of the Earth. This is a very large discrepancy.
Q:Can you please thoroughly explain how you would account for the disrepancy in the two age calculations, with details that may permit myself and/or others to confirm or reject the accuracy of one date in preference to the other?
Thanks in advance...
So stop the defamation.
I deny defaming you, and it's up to you to prove otherwise in a court of law. I will be happy to waive personal service of process if you will agree to litigate the matter in my jurisdiction.
I will, of course, have a number of cross complaints against you, and I suggest that you should be prepared for a very long and expensive trial.
Now, as to your substantive answers, some of them were non responsive, however I expected even less than I received. So, based upon the answers that you have provided, I have one further question:
1. Radiometric dating sets the age of the Earth at not less than 4.04 billion years, based on radioisotope measurements of zircon crystals found in the Jack Hills of Australia. Your measurement of 1,972,949,101 years, which I believe is the age fixed by the Hindu Calendar, thus accounts for only 47% of the scientifically verified age of the Earth. This is a very large discrepancy.
Q:Can you please thoroughly explain how you would account for the disrepancy in the two age calculations, with details that may permit myself and/or others to confirm or reject the accuracy of one date in preference to the other?
Thanks in advance...
Quote from kjkent1:
I deny defaming you, and it's up to you to prove otherwise in a court of law.
So you cannot prove your previous assertions and claims about me, and I cannot prove my assertions about you.
So there you have it.
I will be happy to waive personal service of process if you will agree to litigate the matter in my jurisdiction.
Nonsense.
I will, of course, have a number of cross complaints against you, and I suggest that you should be prepared for a very long and expensive trial.
Some people might see your position now as quite ridiculous.
Now, as to your substantive answers, some of them were non responsive, however I expected even less than I received.
I don't care about your expectations.
So, based upon the answers that you have provided, I have one further question:
1. Radiometric dating sets the age of the Earth at not less than 4.04 billion years, based on radioisotope measurements of zircon crystals found in the Jack Hills of Australia. Your measurement of 1,972,949,101 years, which I believe is the age fixed by the Hindu Calendar, thus accounts for only 47% of the scientifically verified age of the Earth. This is a very large discrepancy.
And?
Q:Can you please thoroughly explain how you would account for the disrepancy in the two age calculations, with details that may permit myself and/or others to confirm or reject the accuracy of one date in preference to the other?
Here is one rebuttal:
"Only if we accept the key assumptions on which the method is based -- namely, that radioactive decay began as soon as the earth formed, and that decay rates have remained absolutely constant throughout the earth's history.
Each radioactive atom or isotope has a characteristic half-life, which is the time required for one-half of any given quantity of the atom to decay. Half-lives range from over a billion years to less than a billionth of a second. Experiments have shown that decay rates are not significantly affected by pressure and temperature, chemical reactions, and gravitational, magnetic, and electric fields. This is because radioactivity results mainly from very stable properties of atomic nuclei -- properties which scientists claim to be totally unchanging. However, there is a small measure of uncertainty (of up to 2%) in measured half-lives. This means that extremely slow changes in decay rates could go unnoticed for a very long time. Considering the short period that scientists have been making such measurements, it is premature to conclude that decay rates are absolutely unvarying. It is interesting to note that carefully conducted experiments in psychokinesis have shown that radioactive decay can be influenced by the human mind -- but such results are of course ignored by mainstream science [7]. "
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
I deny defaming you, and it's up to you to prove otherwise in a court of law.
So you cannot prove your previous assertions and claims about me, and I cannot prove my assertions about you.
So there you have it.
I will be happy to waive personal service of process if you will agree to litigate the matter in my jurisdiction.
Nonsense.
I will, of course, have a number of cross complaints against you, and I suggest that you should be prepared for a very long and expensive trial.
Some people might see your position now as quite ridiculous.
Now, as to your substantive answers, some of them were non responsive, however I expected even less than I received.
I don't care about your expectations.
So, based upon the answers that you have provided, I have one further question:
1. Radiometric dating sets the age of the Earth at not less than 4.04 billion years, based on radioisotope measurements of zircon crystals found in the Jack Hills of Australia. Your measurement of 1,972,949,101 years, which I believe is the age fixed by the Hindu Calendar, thus accounts for only 47% of the scientifically verified age of the Earth. This is a very large discrepancy.
And?
Q:Can you please thoroughly explain how you would account for the discrepancy in the two age calculations, with details that may permit myself and/or others to confirm or reject the accuracy of one date in preference to the other?
Here is one rebuttal:
"Only if we accept the key assumptions on which the method is based -- namely, that radioactive decay began as soon as the earth formed, and that decay rates have remained absolutely constant throughout the earth's history.
Each radioactive atom or isotope has a characteristic half-life, which is the time required for one-half of any given quantity of the atom to decay. Half-lives range from over a billion years to less than a billionth of a second. Experiments have shown that decay rates are not significantly affected by pressure and temperature, chemical reactions, and gravitational, magnetic, and electric fields. This is because radioactivity results mainly from very stable properties of atomic nuclei -- properties which scientists claim to be totally unchanging. However, there is a small measure of uncertainty (of up to 2%) in measured half-lives. This means that extremely slow changes in decay rates could go unnoticed for a very long time. Considering the short period that scientists have been making such measurements, it is premature to conclude that decay rates are absolutely unvarying. It is interesting to note that carefully conducted experiments in psychokinesis have shown that radioactive decay can be influenced by the human mind -- but such results are of course ignored by mainstream science [7]. "
That sounds pretty nice, however you failed to cite the author of your rebuttal, apparently one "Davit Pratt," who appears from my rather quick research to be someone without any published scientific background in the field of geology or radiometric dating.
See http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/age.htm, Paragraph 6.
Furthermore the rebuttal appears to account for measurement discrepancies of no more than 2%. This would not account for the 47% margin of error between the Hindu Calendar and standard scientific dating techniques.
Regardless, I now believe that I have a better understanding of the bases for your positions on the issue of evolution vs. design, as well as an understand of why you find it so easy to blend science and metaphysics.
My position, however remains the same: you want to teach what is fundamentally a philosophic view of existence as a reasonable alternative to science, and you want to teach that view within the curriculum of science, as if the philosophic view can be established using the scientific method.
Your position is untenable to me, even without resort to Constitutional law, because you are treating science is if it is just a substitute for real knowledge, which is actually more accurately found in the process of spiritual meditation than within the confines of the scientific method.
You're welcome to your opinion, but I will fight you at every pass, because I think that your position, if adopted, will not serve the future of humanity as well as the alternative, which is to keep science and philosophy separate.
I am not saying I want to teach any particular religious belief, far from it.
You can believe that you have an understanding of the bases for your positions on the issue of evolution vs. design....I don't care what you believe. What you believe has no bearing on at all that I can see on the discussion of ID or not.
What I want is an alternate theory offered to students so that they may make their own decision.
I think a case can be made for ID, and I think the students (not the teachers or scientists with their own agendas) should make up their minds what to embrace.
I don't suggest repressing scientists in their belief systems, but if as many as 5% of qualified scientists supports ID, that theory is scientific in his/her estimation, then that theory has some merit.
That my position is untenable to you is about as meaningless to me as anything I can think of. Who cares what your position is?
If you don't like it, fine go ahead and "fight it."
In the end this will end up being a political decision, and in the land of politics, science takes a back seat to the ability to appeal to voters.....
You can believe that you have an understanding of the bases for your positions on the issue of evolution vs. design....I don't care what you believe. What you believe has no bearing on at all that I can see on the discussion of ID or not.
What I want is an alternate theory offered to students so that they may make their own decision.
I think a case can be made for ID, and I think the students (not the teachers or scientists with their own agendas) should make up their minds what to embrace.
I don't suggest repressing scientists in their belief systems, but if as many as 5% of qualified scientists supports ID, that theory is scientific in his/her estimation, then that theory has some merit.
That my position is untenable to you is about as meaningless to me as anything I can think of. Who cares what your position is?
If you don't like it, fine go ahead and "fight it."
In the end this will end up being a political decision, and in the land of politics, science takes a back seat to the ability to appeal to voters.....
Quote from kjkent1:
That sounds pretty nice, however you failed to cite the author of your rebuttal, apparently one "Davit Pratt," who appears from my rather quick research to be someone without any published scientific background in the field of geology or radiometric dating.
See http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/age.htm, Paragraph 6.
Furthermore the rebuttal appears to account for measurement discrepancies of no more than 2%. This would not account for the 47% margin of error between the Hindu Calendar and standard scientific dating techniques.
Regardless, I now believe that I have a better understanding of the bases for your positions on the issue of evolution vs. design, as well as an understand of why you find it so easy to blend science and metaphysics.
My position, however remains the same: you want to teach what is fundamentally a philosophic view of existence as a reasonable alternative to science, and you want to teach that view within the curriculum of science, as if the philosophic view can be established using the scientific method.
Your position is untenable to me, even without resort to Constitutional law, because you are treating science is if it is just a substitute for real knowledge, which is actually more accurately found in the process of spiritual meditation than within the confines of the scientific method.
You're welcome to your opinion, but I will fight you at every pass, because I think that your position, if adopted, will not serve the future of humanity as well as the alternative, which is to keep science and philosophy separate.
quote from me
Magistrates being manifested out of pure potentiality....wow!! Sounds neat. Kind of like... science fiction. Wasn't that what you called my suggestion that genetic engineering could result in radical changes in human lifespan in the next 5-10,000 years? Ah, but you're not interested in those time frames, are you? Why not? Because discussing them would force you to face some uncomfortable truths about your assertions re: the proof of ID, to wit, that the current lifespans of biological entities constitute such a proof.
Errr... yeah, okay. Ad hominem.Z10's reply to this challenge:
Nearly esclusively an ad hominem attack.
Go to the argument please, not the man....
As I said, how convenient. Z10, you seem to be completely unencumbered by the need for proof when sidestepping an argument that you don't like (and hey, at least we can say that this fits with your other stance, ID, for which you also don't need proof). If there is nothing personal about the challenge, if it directly relates to your own statements and asks you to clarify contradictions and other problems with the argument, what do you do? You just say that the argument was a personal attack!!! After all, it's easier to move air over your virtual vocal cords than it is to defend in a difficult position. Too bad we all couldn't deal with life's problems in this way.
It seems that not only your assertions regarding ID but your dialectical approach are informed by the same philosophy
"It is true if I say it is, not true if I say it's not, and I will decide whether challenges to my position are worthy of rebuttal. If I don't like an argument, if it makes me uncomfortable or if it tends to undermine my position, I will either say 'I don't like that question' or I'll say 'I refuse to answer the question because it constitutes an ad hominem attack', even if the question is posted for everyone to see and is blatantly not ad hominem!!"
The perfect example is given above.
Fascinating - I truly wish I could get inside your head to see if you actually believe these things or if you're just doing what people in trouble are often told to do - deny, deny, deny
Quote from traderNik:
Errr... yeah, okay. Ad hominem.
We agree, ad hominem. Logical fallacy.
As I said, how convenient. Z10, you seem to be completely unencumbered by the need for proof when sidestepping an argument that you don't like (and hey, at least we can say that this fits with your other stance, ID, for which you also don't need proof).
That's your point of view. It has nothing to do with ID or the topic though. I am not the topic.
If there is nothing personal about the challenge, if it directly relates to your own statements and asks you to clarify contradictions and other problems with the argument, what do you do?
What I do is not relevant, I am not the topic...as much as you seem fixated on me.
You just say that the argument was a personal attack!!!
The argument was directed to me, not my argument.
After all, it's easier to move air over your virtual vocal cords than it is to defend in a difficult position. Too bad we all couldn't deal with life's problems in this way.
Blather. Again, this has nothing to do with the thread topic.
It seems that not only your assertions regarding ID but your dialectical approach are informed by the same philosophy
"It is true if I say it is, not true if I say it's not, and I will decide whether challenges to my position are worthy of rebuttal. If I don't like an argument, if it makes me uncomfortable or if it tends to undermine my position, I will either say 'I don't like that question' or I'll say 'I refuse to answer the question because it constitutes an ad hominem attack', even if the question is posted for everyone to see and is blatantly not ad hominem!!"
You are running on and on about something that is irrelevant to the debate.
The perfect example is given above.
Fascinating - I truly wish I could get inside your head to see if you actually believe these things or if you're just doing what people in trouble are often told to do - deny, deny, deny
I am not the topic, so the case you are making is useless.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
I am not saying I want to teach any particular religious belief, far from it.
You can believe that you have an understanding of the bases for your positions on the issue of evolution vs. design....I don't care what you believe. What you believe has no bearing on at all that I can see on the discussion of ID or not.
What I want is an alternate theory offered to students so that they may make their own decision.
I think a case can be made for ID, and I think the students (not the teachers or scientists with their own agendas) should make up their minds what to embrace.
I don't suggest repressing scientists in their belief systems, but if as many as 5% of qualified scientists supports ID, that theory is scientific in his/her estimation, then that theory has some merit.
That my position is untenable to you is about as meaningless to me as anything I can think of. Who cares what your position is?
If you don't like it, fine go ahead and "fight it."
In the end this will end up being a political decision, and in the land of politics, science takes a back seat to the ability to appeal to voters.....
You state that a case can be made for ID. The Discovery Institute's most revered figures attempted to do exactly that in Dover and they lost -- miserably, and not just on the law -- they lost on the facts.
The ID movement has not one piece of scientifically verifiable fact with which to defend itself in a court of law, and their entire position was found to be nothing by creationist religion in sheep underwear.
So, if the ID movement couldn't make their case after applying real money to the process and all of their brainpower, then your statement that a case for ID can be made is utter rubbish...
...unless you personally can make a better case. And from what I've read of your positions stated in this area on ET, you are nowhere near as capable as those experts who were presented to the court in Dover.
As for your comment that it will be a political issue in the end, well in the end, everything that happens among humans is a political issue, so that statement is uncontested.
However, we are debating the question here and now, and unless YOU can actually make a case for ID, and you haven't yet, I think we're pretty much done.
Happy Hollandaise