Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

we have never seen a random, spontaneous alteration of this condition of having a predictable lifespan ...[this]is an argument for an ordered design

why do you think that?

Because you feel it's 'reasonable', isn't that right?

You want us to change school curricula because this is your idea of a reasonable opinion? What other opinions do you have?

Do you think that we should change curricula based on the things that other people feel are reasonable? What happens if someone thinks it reasonable that all Malaysian kids should be taken out of school and put to work on factory production lines?

Oh, you don't think that's reasonable? There are a few people who believe it is. There are also a few people think it's reasonable to teach that magistrates are materialized out of pure potentiality or that the earth is exactly 1,967,568,346 years old.

I think it's reasonable that people like you, and other like you, who would love to see critical thinking replaced by religious dictate, compassionate attempts at understanding the world replaced by superstition and idolatry, intellectual openness replaced with intellectual bigotry, and faith in the power of dialectics replaced with faith in the power of dreams and opinions, should be attacked at every turn. It's our moral obligation to do so.

Does that seem reasonable?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

If you think there was any implied threat in any of my comments, you are not much of an attorney.

You are fully off topic with this particular distracted efforts of yours.

Beyond off topic....

Quote from kjkent1:

Your post raises no new issues on the topic, but I disagree with the premise that I am off topic, in that it is obvious to any reasonable person that you have made yourself and your opinions the topic of the thread, since you refuse to support those opinions them with anything other than the weight of your own personal authority.

However, there is one new ssue that I will address, because I don't want others to be mislead by your palpably incorrect use of a legal term, which holds within in it an implied threat of legal action:

Defamation of Character.

Defamation is a false and injurious statement published to a third party and causing damages. A false assertion of criminal activity, loathsome disease, sexual promiscuity, or dishonest business dealings creates a rebuttable presumption of damages. Otherwise the plaintiff must prove damages or there is no defamation.

The facts show that plaintiff Z claims defamation by Defendant K's question as to whether Z could restrain himself by not responding to a prior post. Defendant's question is not a statement of fact or opinion -- it is a question, and no defamation arises from the posit of a question. Z could argue that the question impliedly suggests that P is mentally ill so as to be unable to restrain himself from answering, but that certainly isn't something that K has ever stated in the ET forum, so there is no extrinsic evidence to support this claim. However, the fact that Z routinely responds to every post addressed to him on ET, demonstrates that it is a FACT that Z cannot reasonably restrain himself from responding to K's posts, or anyone else's posts. And, a statement of fact is a perfect defense to defamation.

Therefore, under any reasonable view of the facts, the elements of defamation are not satisfied, and K will not be found liable for defamation of Z.

That was fun, Z. Got any other implied threats of legal action that you'd like to proffer?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

No where have I suggested teaching any of the specific opinions listed in response to kent's query of my opinion as to the origin of man.

I expressly stated that I did not want any specific religious or religion taught in schools.

My suggestion is to offer an alternative theory to the random chance origin of life theory that is being taught in schools.

The design argument doesn't require the specifics, as it simply suggests the probabilty of design are greater than chance.

Quote from traderNik:

why do you think that?

Because you feel it's 'reasonable', isn't that right?

You want us to change school curricula because this is your idea of a reasonable opinion? What other opinions do you have?

Do you think that we should change curricula based on the things that other people feel are reasonable? What happens if someone thinks it reasonable that all Malaysian kids should be taken out of school and put to work on factory production lines?

Oh, you don't think that's reasonable? There are a few people who believe it is. There are also a few people think it's reasonable to teach that magistrates are materialized out of pure potentiality or that the earth is exactly 1,967,568,346 years old.

I think it's reasonable that people like you, and other like you, who would love to see critical thinking replaced by religious dictate, compassionate attempts at understanding the world replaced by superstition and idolatry, intellectual openness replaced with intellectual bigotry, and faith in the power of dialectics replaced with faith in the power of dreams and opinions, should be attacked at every turn. It's our moral obligation to do so.

Does that seem reasonable?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Yes, you continue to add to the totals and monitor the thread.

How purposeful.....

Quote from Ricter:

w00t, 318 as I type! Grats all around folks!

Btw, anyone change their mind about the subject at hand, ROFL?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Yes, you continue to add to the totals and monitor the thread.

How purposeful.....

I heard it the first time you said it, ya stunned goof.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I don't see open and forthright individuals involved in this disucssion to engage to any great degree.

I post my theory, they post theirs.

Your obsession with me personally, taking all measure to distract away from ID and evolution, focusing instead on me, is however, most revealing.....

Quote from traderNik:

Wow, now there's a ringing endorsement of your ability to engage others in an open and forthright manner.

If you aren't here to find out what others conclude about ID and then engage in a debate about the pros and cons of the theory, why did you start this thread?

By the way... you need to contact Baron about your post count. There is some glitch because it is displaying as 9473 which is obviously impossible. The only way you could possibly generate that many posts in 18 months would be to start threads which contain controversial claims and then spend literally days denying the ....

Oops.

 

[dgabriel]

God has spoken to Z, and that is all there is to it. You will never get a concession from him, and no one can agree with his view unless that person suspends logic and reason.

ID is a lame attempt to get around science, kind of like a virus, it seeks to appropriate science for its own agenda.

Evolution has been built upon a long, sturdy, and vast foundation, and that is why scientists defend it so vigorously.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

More ad hominem attacks....

As expected. After all, that does seem to be what you major in.....

Quote from Ricter:

I heard it the first time you said it, ya stunned goof.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Scientists defend their belief systems, that hardly makes them unique in that practice.

So consistent are the evolutionist defenders in their personal attack methodology.

Shame they are unable to "evolve" out of such an illogical practice....

Quote from dgabriel:

God has spoken to Z, and that is all there is to it. You will never get a concession from him, and no one can agree with his view unless that person suspends logic and reason.

ID is a lame attempt to get around science, kind of like a virus, it seeks to appropriate science for its own agenda.

Evolution has been built upon a long, sturdy, and vast foundation, and that is why scientists defend it so vigorously.

 

[dgabriel]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Scientists defend their belief systems, that hardly makes them unique in that practice.

So consistent are the evolutionist defenders in their personal attack methodology.

Shame they are unable to "evolve" out of such an illogical practice....

See what I mean.

After defending evolution, dismantling the opposition arguments, what is left is to examine the belief systems of the anti evolutionists. Because faith is inextricably bound to the IDer's stance on evolution, and ID as a science is lacking, the issue becomes the personal, political and religious motivations of the ID proponent.

Good night and Merry Christmas to all!