Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

Quote from 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.....
More...

too bad an actual analysis of the posts shows that far from trying to distract you from ID and evolution, I have been attempting to get you to answer direct questions about your statements regarding ID and evolution and yoru claims about them, albeit unsuccessfully.

I tried, but you tend to answer like this

"I don't like that question"

"I think my beliefs are reasonable"

"I don't think that question is worth answering"

"That is off topic"

"That is a red herring"

"You are obsessed with attacking me personally"

Strangely, you post these answers even when the posts you are responding to contain direct questions about the issues under debate.

Don't you hate that 1 hour limit on deleting your posts?

In the end, what Z10 is arguing for is not ID. That argument could be rationally made by others. Z10 is arguing for his right to present as facts his religious beliefs, for his right to call for changes in school curricula based on what he calls his 'reasonable beliefs', to wit, that magistrates are materialized out of pure potentiality and the earth is exactly 1,956,734,651 years old. In addition he is arguing for his right to post his assertions on ET and then tell others that they are not allowed to challenge him. He says

"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...."

He must have a share in the ownership of ET. Who else but the owner would be so presumptuous as to speak to another member this way?

For Z10, any challenge to his assertions about ID and evolution that are difficult to answer or tend to disprove his claims constitute a personal attack and will not be tolerated or answered. How convenient, no? I wish that my own arguments were so immune from rebuttal. What peace of mind you must have, Z10.

Z10 says 'I post my theory, they post theirs'. Well, not quite. Z10 has admitted that what he is posting is not his theories, because the word theory implies a premise based on objectively observable data. What Z10 has is 'reasonable beliefs', such as the belief that magistrates are materialized out of pure potentiality. When others attempt to engage him in a open and forthright manner, he responds by saying

"I don't like that question" or

"That's a red herring"

Then when those others finally ask him when he is going to back up anything he is saying, he states that he is unwilling to continue with the discussion.

The it's on to the next thread.
 
Clearly your obsessive psychological issues with me are beyond my capacity, I am not a mental health professional who can help you with this problem of yours.

However, don't feel alone. There are lots of folks at ET who become obsessed with constant focus on other ET personalities.

Try starting your own thread to focus on what you don't like about me. Maybe that will give you some relief....

Quote from traderNik:

too bad an actual analysis of the posts shows that far from trying to distract you from ID and evolution, I have been attempting to get you to answer direct questions about your statements regarding ID and evolution and yoru claims about them, albeit unsuccessfully.

I tried, but you tend to answer like this

"I don't like that question"

"I think my beliefs are reasonable"

"I don't think that question is worth answering"

"That is off topic"

"That is a red herring"

"You are obsessed with attacking me personally"

Strangely, you post these answers even when the posts you are responding to contain direct questions about the issues under debate.

Don't you hate that 1 hour limit on deleting your posts?

In the end, what Z10 is arguing for is not ID. That argument could be rationally made by others. Z10 is arguing for his right to present as facts his religious beliefs, for his right to call for changes in school curricula based on what he calls his 'reasonable beliefs', to wit, that magistrates are materialized out of pure potentiality and the earth is exactly 1,956,734,651 years old. In addition he is arguing for his right to post his assertions on ET and then tell others that they are not allowed to challenge him. He says

"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...."

He must have a share in the ownership of ET. Who else but the owner would be so presumptuous as to speak to another member this way?

For Z10, any challenge to his assertions about ID and evolution that are difficult to answer or tend to disprove his claims constitute a personal attack and will not be tolerated or answered. How convenient, no? I wish that my own arguments were so immune from rebuttal. What peace of mind you must have, Z10.

Z10 says 'I post my theory, they post theirs'. Well, not quite. Z10 has admitted that what he is posting is not his theories, because the word theory implies a premise based on objectively observable data. What Z10 has is 'reasonable beliefs', such as the belief that magistrates are materialized out of pure potentiality. When others attempt to engage him in a open and forthright manner, he responds by saying

"I don't like that question" or

"That's a red herring"

Then when those others finally ask him when he is going to back up anything he is saying, he states that he is unwilling to continue with the discussion.

The it's on to the next thread.
More...
 
Faith in science is inestricably bound to the Darwinist's stance on ID, so the issue becomes personal when they might have to share the stage with a point of view that argues for design over random ignorant chance. "Science forbid" that children may actually be exposed to alternative theories, and as such have to decide for themselves which theory to embrace, design or chance.....

Quote from dgabriel:

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!
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Clearly your obsessive psychological issues with me are beyond my capacity, I am not a mental health professional who can help you with this problem of yours.

However, don't feel alone. There are lots of folks at ET who become obsessed with constant focus on other ET personalities.

Try starting your own thread to focus on what you don't like about me. Maybe that will give you some relief....
More...

I noticed that you again failed to address the challeneges that are being made to your stated positions regarding ID and evolution.

Is that because you get upset when people challenge your beliefs?

The points you have been asked to address are in the record. We are also waiting for your responses to several of kjkent's questions. Don't worry, we can wait for as long as it takes you....

Or... should we wait until you ask us for our opinions before volunteering them?
 
Quote from traderNik:
More...

I noticed that you again failed to address the challeneges that are being made to your stated positions regarding ID and evolution.

I don't agree with your conclusion of having failed to address any qualified challenges. I believe I have addressed any qualified challenges. The insipid challenges are not something I will likely respond to.

Is that because you get upset when people challenge your beliefs?

I don't get upset when people disagree with my beliefs, no.

The points you have ben asked to address are in the record. We await your responses.

I don't know who the "we" is that you are speaking for.

Your group of "we" can do whatever they like, I am satisfied with my responses.

Or... should we wait until you ask us for our opinions before volunteering them?

As I am not interested in your opinions or the "we" you represent, you can wait or not wait to express your opinions....it doesn't matter to me what you or "we" do.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I noticed that you again failed to address the challeneges that are being made to your stated positions regarding ID and evolution.

I don't agree with your conclusion of having failed to address any qualified challenges. I believe I have addressed any qualified challenges. The insipid challenges are not something I will likely respond to.

Is that because you get upset when people challenge your beliefs?

I don't get upset when people disagree with my beliefs, no.

The points you have ben asked to address are in the record. We await your responses.

I don't know who the "we" is that you are speaking for.

Your group of "we" can do whatever they like, I am satisfied with my responses.

Or... should we wait until you ask us for our opinions before volunteering them?

As I am not interested in your opinions or the "we" you represent, you can wait or not wait to express your opinions....it doesn't matter to me what you or "we" do.
More...

lol... I'll take all that as

'No, I won't be answering the questions posed to me about the assertions I made regarding ID and evolution'. I'll have to re-read it a few times, but I think that's what you're saying, right? btw folks... the quote above is the latest response from Z10. Notice anything familiar? Let's go to the record, don't take my word for it

"I don't agree with your conclusions"

(convenient, isn't it? He makes no reference to the posts, just says 'I don't agree'!!)

"I believe I have answered your questions" (he hasn't answered one of them, nor several from kjkent, but again he doesn't cite any text from previous posts - we must take his word as a sort of 'divine dictate').

"I am not interested in your opinions..."

Right, okay. You start a thread and open a discussion, and then when people question your outrageous claims, your reply is... wait for it, folks....

"I am not interested in your opinions"!!!

Wouldn't it be great if real life worked this way?
 
quote from Dr. Z
Clearly your obsessive psychological issues with me are beyond my capacity...
More...
By the way, Z... I am telling you there is something wrong with your post counter. Two days ago I noticed it was at 9363, which of course is impossible. Now it is almost at 9500. That would imply that you have posted on average roughly 17 posts a day every day for 540 days, and...almost 150 posts in the past 48 hours. There must be hundreds of days when you could not post. You were saying earlier that you thought I had a psychological problem of some kind? Well, clearly your post counter is off because if it were accurate.... well, even you can see that we would be faced with the very disturbing implications of something like that. In addition, we aren't talking about 1 line posts. You tend to let yourself go, don't you?

This is not an attack; I am saying that it is impossible that you could have averaged this kind of activity, because it would indicate a massive obsess....

Oops. errrrr.....
 
Quote from 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....
More...

You raised defamation as a topic, when you suggested that I had made defamatory remarks about you, so if I'm off topic, it's only because I was following your lead.

As for my being not much of an attorney, well, better to be a lousy attorney than a...

...what is it again that you do during the short moment of the day that you're not furiously posting on ET?
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

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

God forbid you would provide any specifics -- someone might actually demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.

And, there isn't a shred of evidence other than your personal opinion that the probability of design is greater than evolution.

If there were, I'm sure you would provide those specifics, but as you say, your argument doesn't require any, so that would leave the design side of the scale empty, no matter what was on the evolution side.

That makes evolution the winner by default.

Oh well, you lose again...Merry Christmas.
 
Quote from kjkent1, unbelievably still willing to engage Z; I'm a 2-bit player compared to kj when it comes to demolishing Z's admittedly shakey constructions:
And, there isn't a shred of evidence other than your personal opinion that the probability of design is greater than evolution.
More...

Of the approximately 8-10 questions I have asked Z over the past 24-48 hours relating to his claims about ID and evolution, this was one - upon what basis do you make the assessment that the probability of design is greater than that of evolution? He is the one who brought up the probability paradigm.

When I asked him a direct question about it, his response was

"This is a personal attack, and it's a question I don't like. It's a red herring. I refuse to answer".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top