Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The specific lifespan of any member of a species is not the proof of ID. The fact that such lifespans are predictable, and all biological organsism have a lifespan, and that we have never seen a random, spontaneous alteration of this condition of having a predictable lifespan is an argument for an ordered design, not a situation where biological organisms are the product of ignorant chance.

If ignorant chance were in play as the governing factor, it would be reasonable to think we would have seen an alteration in the pattern of birth, regular lifespan for each species, and then death.

Therefore, the probability is that order and planning is behind and governing biological organisms.

We've already covered this. It is only your OPINION that it is "reasonable to think that there would have been an alteration in the pattern of birth, regular lifespan, and then death."

You present no facts to support this hypothesis other than personal observation without verification. And, in fact, as we previously discussed, bacteria live a very long time, and there is as yet no definitive information that can precisely determine a bacteria's (old pole cell offspring) lifespan. So, for all practical purposes, bacteria have already reached a very realistic indefinite lifespan, that is only constrained by environmentally caused death and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Therefore, your hypothesis is falsified.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Yes, it is my opinion that the earth is around that age.

I am not asserting it is a fact, I am saying it is my opinion. The opinions I hold I believe to be true, that's the way it works for most people. I don't know that many people who hold opinions they think to be false.

There is no incontrovertible fact as to the age of the earth. There are differing opinions.

Your persistent comments of "how convenient for you" are blather, and not on topic.

Quote from traderNik:

I see. So if someone asks you the age of the universe, and you say it is 1,9xx,xxx,xxx right down to the exact year, that is not an assertion, but an opinion, right?

That is not a statement of your belief, right? You are not stating that this is what you think is true, right?


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assertion

How convenient for you. Wouldn't it be nice of life really worked that way.

 

[weirdscience]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Yes, it is my opinion that the earth is around that age.

I am not asserting it is a fact, I am saying it is my opinion. The opinions I hold I believe to be true, that's the way it works for most people. I don't know that many people who hold opinions they think to be false.

There is no incontrovertible fact as to the age of the earth. There are differing opinions.

Your persistent comments of "how convenient for you" are blather, and not on topic.

its my opinion your a chimp

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

We have covered this, and it is my theory.

I believe if my theory is presented to 100 people sampled at random, the majority would see the reasonableness of it.

The facts that support this are that not one single biological organism ever has deviated from this cycle of birth, lifespan, and death, and that all biological organisms seek to sustain life instinctively.

The logical process of inference from data that anyone can confirm through their own observations leads them to form an opinion if they think this ordered nature of biological organisms is a product of random ignorant chance, or by design.

Most people I believe would agree that if life was a product of ingorant unplanned chance, that it would be logical to expect this pattern would have "evolved" by chance at some point....but it has not. It remains consistent, ordered, and not random in its pattern of birth, lifespan, and death.

Quote from kjkent1:

We've already covered this. It is only your OPINION that it is "reasonable to think that there would have been an alteration in the pattern of birth, regular lifespan, and then death."

You present no facts to support this hypothesis other than personal observation without verification. And, in fact, as we previously discussed, bacteria live a very long time, and there is as yet no definitive information that can precisely determine a bacteria's (old pole cell offspring) lifespan. So, for all practical purposes, bacteria have already reached a very realistic indefinite lifespan, that is only constrained by environmentally caused death and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Therefore, your hypothesis is falsified.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

We have covered this, and it is my theory.

I believe if my theory is presented to 100 people sampled at random, the majority would see the reasonableness of it.

The facts that support this are that not one single biological organism ever has deviated from this cycle of birth, lifespan, and death, and that all biological organisms seek to sustain life instinctively.

The logical process of inference from data that anyone can confirm through their own observations leads them to form an opinion if they think this ordered nature of biological organisms is a product of random ignorant chance, or by design.

Most people I believe would agree that if life was a product of ingorant unplanned chance, that it would be logical to expect this pattern would have "evolved" by chance at some point....but it has not. It remains consistent, ordered, and not random in its pattern of birth, lifespan, and death.

The fact that 100 or 1,000,000 people think something is reasonable doesn't make it true. And, we've covered this same argument in this thread. There was a time when everyone on the planet believed that the Earth was flat, and would have thought it unreasonable to believe otherwise. So, if you were to propose to 100 of those people in that time that the Earth is flat, they would have agreed, and every one of them, including you, would have been wrong. So, your first hypothesis is falsified.

The fact that organisms seek to sustain their lives is certainly plausable, however, even if organisms are constantly motivated to this end and evolutionary processes promote this direction, there is the very real constraint of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that demonstrates entropy in a closed system will cause that system to break down over time. Everything in the universe, from dirt to stars exhibits this basic principle, so living things are no less immune, therefore the fact that bacteria and spores have achieved a nearly infinite lifespan is a demonstration that evolution has provided paths towards great life spans, but none of this supports the idea that evolution should have already produced an organism so completely efficient that it is immortal. This last point is pure speculation on your part, supported by nothing other than your personal opinion, and it is not reasonable in view of the scientific knowledge currently available.

Therefore your second hypothesis is falsified, and thus your entire argument above fails.

Now, do you have any other argument to support your position that life is the product of an intelligent supernatural designer?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I don't agree with your conclusions, and don't care about them.

When I am looking for your conclusions, I will ask for them....

I am saying that I believe my theory would find sufficient support to have it voted in by most parents as something to be taught in biology classes. My theory is not a Christan driven Biblical theology, it is just a simple reasonable position that life is probably not a matter of ignorant chance.

Unlike many, I don't put science or scientists on a pedestal. I find the rigidity of many thinkers to be restrictive to creativity and growth. I see the current evolutionary defense as no different than fundamentalist Christians defending their dogmas.

Scientists and their theories have been shown eventually to be wrong frequently, so no need to deify the current group.

If they are free to present their beliefs, then so should a reasonable ID theory.

Quote from kjkent1:

The fact that 100 or 1,000,000 people think something is reasonable doesn't make it true. And, we've covered this same argument in this thread. There was a time when everyone on the planet believed that the Earth was flat, and would have thought it unreasonable to believe otherwise. So, if you were to propose to 100 of those people in that the Earth is flat, they would have agreed, and every one of them, including you, would have been wrong. So, your first hypothesis is falsified.

The fact that organisms seek to sustain their lives is certainly plausable, however, even if organisms are constantly motivated to this end and evolutionary processes promote this direction, there is the very real constraint of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that demonstrates entropy in a closed system will cause that system to break down over time. Everything in the universe, from dirt to stars exhibits this basic principle, so living things are no less immune, therefore the fact that bacteria and spores have achieved a nearly infinite lifespan is a demonstration that evolution has provided paths towards great life spans, but none of this supports the idea that evolution should have already produced an organism so completely efficient that it is immortal. This last point is pure speculation on your part, supported by nothing other than your personal opinion, and it is not reasonable in view of the scientific knowledge currently available.

Therefore your second hypothesis is falsified, and thus your entire argument above fails.

Now, do you have any other argument to support your position that life is the product of an intelligent supernatural designer?

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I don't agree with your conclusions.

When I am looking for your conclusions, I will ask for them....

Yes, you've recently stated in this thread that you don't value the opinions of others. Seems to me that your position in this regard is the equivalent of cutting yourself off entirely from the possibility of ever learning anything new.

You have my condolences. Perhaps you will value this opinion:

Niyama 1

Allow yourself the expression of remorse, being modest and showing shame for misdeeds. Recognize your errors, confess and make amends. Sincerely apologize to those hurt by your words or deeds. Resolve all contention before sleep. Seek out and correct your faults and bad habits. Welcome correction as a means to bettering yourself. Do not boast. Shun pride and pretension.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Scientists and their theories have been shown eventually to be wrong frequently, so no need to deify the current group.

If they are free to present their beliefs, then so should a reasonable ID theory.

Ah, you added to your post, so I will respond to your additions.

I agree, a reasonable ID theory should be available.

Unfortunately, there is no reasonable ID theory, as every one has been falsified.

So, there being no reasonable ID theory to present in a science curriculum, then based upon your position, no ID theory should be presented.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from kjkent1:

Ah, you added to your post, so I will respond to your additions.

I agree, a reasonable ID theory should be available.

We agree.

Unfortunately, there is no reasonable ID theory, as every one has been falsified.

You have not falsifed my theory.

So, there being no reasonable ID theory to present in a science curriculum, then based upon your position, no ID theory should be presented.

That is your opinion, I do not agree.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Ah, you added to your post, so I will respond to your additions.

I agree, a reasonable ID theory should be available.

We agree.

Unfortunately, there is no reasonable ID theory, as every one has been falsified.

You have not falsifed my theory.

So, there being no reasonable ID theory to present in a science curriculum, then based upon your position, no ID theory should be presented.

That is your opinion, I do not agree.

Your theory was falsified immediately above. There is no reason for me to repeat the analysis here. You can say that something is true, when it is already proven false, but just as with the Earth being flat, the facts prove you incorrect, and anyone with an open mind who reads our conversation will immediately conclude that your theory holds no water and that it has been falsified.

Obviously, since you don't agree with my opinion, or the opinions of others, you should have no reason to respond to this post.

Do you think you can restrain yourself?