Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You say I haven't made a case to satisfy you.

When you become a judge that decides whether ID gets taught in school systems, I guess then your opinions will matter.

Quote from kjkent1:

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 entirely 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

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You say I haven't made a case to satisfy you.

When you become a judge that decides whether ID gets taught in school systems, I guess then your opinions will matter.

Ad Hominem.

Try making your case instead. It's much more satisfying.

 

[weirdscience]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You say I haven't made a case to satisfy you.

When you become a judge that decides whether ID gets taught in school systems, I guess then your opinions will matter.

shut up fool. your embarrASSING yourself

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I made my case.

I don't look to your evaluation of it as material.

Quote from kjkent1:

Ad Hominem.

Try making your case instead. It's much more satisfying.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
I am not the topic, so the case you are making is useless.

No, the topic is your assertions about the age of the universe and the idea that the current lifespan of biological entities is proof of ID.

When challenges to your assertions are presented, and if you don't like them, or if they are difficult to defend against, or if they tend to undermine your arguments, you say things like

"I don't like that argument" or

"I don't think that question is worth asking" or

"That's a personal attack and I won't respond to it"

When I suggest that human lifespan could reach multiples of its current length in the far future, you dismiss the argument as science fiction. When you say that "magistrates are manifested out of pure potentiality" and I suggest that that statement could also be viewed as science fiction, you say

"That's a personal attack and I don't like it and I won't respond to it"

How convenient for you. Too bad real life didn't work that way.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from traderNik:

No, the topic is your assertions about the age of the universe and the idea that the current lifespan of biological entities is proof of ID.

The age of the universe, ID, evolutions, etc.....yes, those are topics.

My assertions and how I reach them are not the topic.

When challenges to your assertions are presented, and if you don't like them, or if they are difficult to defend against, or if they tend to undermine your arguments, you say things like

"I don't like that argument" or

"I don't think that question is worth asking" or

"That's a personal attack and I won't respond to it"

How convenient for you.Too bad real life didn't work that way.

Blather. Not on topic, as I am not the topic. You appear to be fixated on me, and not the topic.

 

[weirdscience]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

No, the topic is your assertions about the age of the universe and the idea that the current lifespan of biological entities is proof of ID.

The age of the universe, ID, evolutions, etc.....yes, those are topics.

My assertions and how I reach them are not the topic.

When challenges to your assertions are presented, and if you don't like them, or if they are difficult to defend against, or if they tend to undermine your arguments, you say things like

"I don't like that argument" or

"I don't think that question is worth asking" or

"That's a personal attack and I won't respond to it"

How convenient for you.Too bad real life didn't work that way.

Blather. Not on topic, as I am not the topic.

ID Lost! Give it up fool!

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The age of the universe, ID, evolutions, etc.....yes, those are topics.

My assertions and how I reach them are not the topic.

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

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??

 

[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.

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??

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I made my case.

I don't look to your evaluation of it as material.

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.