Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I have found that when people need to all cap, it is the equivalent of shouting.

No, I have no interest in answering questions that people are yelling at me.....

Your brow beating methods may work on others, or elsewhere....but they are not working here with me.

Well, fella, you keep saying that I am "falsely" attributing things to you, or making "defamatory" statements, and when I call bullshit on you, all of a sudden you shrink away and pretend that you're the only person who could ever possibly be injured by the comments of another.

However, any reasonable read of this thread will demonstrate that whenever your personal opinion of the way things should be is placed under a serious challenge, you resort to an ad hominem attack of the challenger, by suddenly playing the passive aggressive card and acting like you're being unreasonably challenged by someone who is a buffoon.

Only, I ain't no buffoon, so if you're gonna bluff your cards to me, then you should expect to have your hand called -- which is what I'm doing. So, either show your cards, or I'll keep taking the pot.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

My arguments exist. They are my arguments, not the arguments of someone else.

I have learned to think for myself, not simply spout a party line.

There are different ID arguments. I have posted my ideas, I have posted the ideas of others. My mind is open, not shut to any particular idea.

(You edited your former post, so I'll now respond to it a second time.)

Your arguments "exist," eh, and you don't simply "spout a party line"?

Maybe so, but no one will ever know what your arguments are until you spell them out so everyone else can consider them.

Back to the biology class teacher: "Kids, this argument for design that I'm telling you about exists, however the person who proclaims this particular design idea has failed to expressly state his argument for design. However, I must tell you all that it does exist, and that it is scentific, because my boss said that if I don't, I'll lose my job as a teacher!"

Frankly, Mr. Z, I don't think you know what you believe, but, whatever it is, you obviously want to believe it very badly.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I am not interested in your dramatics or "courtroom" theatricality.

As far as your claim of not being a "buffoon"......opinions on the matter do vary.

Quote from kjkent1:

Well, fella, you keep saying that I am "falsely" attributing things to you, or making "defamatory" statements, and when I call bullshit on you, all of a sudden you shrink away and pretend that you're the only person who could ever possibly be injured by the comments of another.

However, any reasonable read of this thread will demonstrate that whenever your personal opinion of the way things should be is placed under a serious challenge, you resort to an ad hominem attack of the challenger, by suddenly playing the passive aggressive card and acting like you're being unreasonably challenged by someone who is a buffoon.

Only, I ain't no buffoon, so if you're gonna bluff your cards to me, then you should expect to have your hand called -- which is what I'm doing. So, either show your cards, or I'll keep taking the pot.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"Maybe so, but no one will ever know what your arguments are until you spell them out so everyone else can consider them."

There is no "maybe so" except in your point of view.

Others understand what I am saying, so your innability to read the "spelling" appears to be your issue.


"Frankly, Mr. Z, I don't think you know what you believe, but, whatever it is, you obviously want to believe it very badly."

You are free to "think" whatever you like, it is immaterial.

Your emotionalism is duly noted though.

Quote from kjkent1:

(You edited your former post, so I'll now respond to it a second time.)

Your arguments "exist," eh, and you don't simply "spout a party line"?

Maybe so, but no one will ever know what your arguments are until you spell them out so everyone else can consider them.

Back to the biology class teacher: "Kids, this argument for design that I'm telling you about exists, however the person who proclaims this particular design idea has failed to expressly state his argument for design. However, I must tell you all that it does exist, and that it is scentific, because my boss said that if I don't, I'll lose my job as a teacher!"

Frankly, Mr. Z, I don't think you know what you believe, but, whatever it is, you obviously want to believe it very badly.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I am not interested in your dramatics or "courtroom" theatricality.

As far as your claim of not being a "buffoon"......opinions on the matter do vary.

Wow, nice demonstrating of the passive/aggressive ad hominem attack that I was just describing. Thanks for the "admission," Z.

Only...wouldn't be easier to just answer the question and clearly explain what it is that you actually propose as your personal scientific theory of ID?

Or, could it be that you don't really have any scientific theory, and that what you really do mean is that you believe in magic, and that magic should be taught in the classroom as an alternative to evolution?

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"Maybe so, but no one will ever know what your arguments are until you spell them out so everyone else can consider them."

There is no "maybe so" except in your point of view.

Others understand what I am saying, so your innability to read the "spelling" appears to be your issue.

If "others" understand what you're saying, I wish they would come forward and explain it to me, because, all I've seen is your statement that Man's appearance on Earth is the result of "materialization from pure potentiality."

Reads like instantaneous creation to me (i.e., magic).

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Ask them "others"....

It is axiomatic though, that anything that does exist, before it existed, had the potential to exist.

It would be hard to imagine anything that does exist, including the universe and all within it, which did not have the potential to exist first.

That something reads like "instantaneous creation" is your read.....

I think of process by design. A process, that is not instantaneous.

It could be a semantic game with you actually, as if there was no existence, some would conclude there would be no time. So before existence, there was no time, therefore the exact moment that pre-existence came to be actual existence, rather than potential or virtual existence, someone would perhaps think that it was instantaneous, at least by their understanding of time.

This of course would require that time is itself not an independent power, but a product of existence.

It could well be that time is a power that exists before a creative process.

Most people think before they create....God of course could easily do the same, on His time of course, not our material time.

Some people even think before they write or speak.....

Quote from kjkent1:

If "others" understand what you're saying, I wish they would come forward and explain it to me, because, all I've seen is your statement that Man's appearance on Earth is the result of "materialization from pure potentiality."

Reads like instantaneous creation to me (i.e., magic).

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I don't admit to anything that you are describing.

That is your imagination at work.

Quote from kjkent1:

Wow, nice demonstrating of the passive/aggressive ad hominem attack that I was just describing. Thanks for the "admission," Z.

Only...wouldn't be easier to just answer the question and clearly explain what it is that you actually propose as your personal scientific theory of ID?

Or, could it be that you don't really have any scientific theory, and that what you really do mean is that you believe in magic, and that magic should be taught in the classroom as an alternative to evolution?

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Ask them "others"....

It is axiomatic though, that anything that does exist, before it existed, had the potential to exist.

It would be hard to imagine anything that does exist, including the universe and all within it, which did not have the potential to exist first.

That something reads like "instantaneous creation" is your read.....

I think of process by design. A process, that is not instantaneous.

It could be a semantic game with you actually, as if there was no existence, some would conclude there would be no time. So before existence, there was no time, therefore the exact moment that pre-existence came to be actual existence, rather than potential or virtual existence, someone would perhaps think that it was instantaneous, at least by their understanding of time.

This of course would require that time is itself not an independent power, but a product of existence.

It could well be that time is a power that exists before a creative process.

Most people think before they create....God of course could easily do the same, on His time of course, not our material time.

Some people even think before they write or speak.....

You can postulate all you want about whether the chicken or egg was first, but after the chicken and egg exist, you need to explain how they were designed under the natural rules by which the universe operates, or else you are appealing to the powers of the supernatural to support your postulate, in which case, your postulate is not scientific, but rather merely an invocation of magic as an explanation.

No scientific explanation == no scientific theory == theology.

No theology in public school science class. Just facts, as you have over and over again stated to be the only thing you want presented.

You have no facts to support your personal ID theory, therefore your personal ID theory cannot be taught in public school by your own set of rules.

Evolution has scientific proof in its support, therefore Evolution can be taught.

So, you just keep on postulating and musing about things that "could well be," and the world will sleep safely with the knowledge that your own rules prevent your postulates from reaching the impressionable minds of children everywhere.

 

[RobMc]

ZZZ


Just to be clear cos this thread seems to be disappearing up its own singularity


Do you think that ID theory has any connection with creationism that is beyond coincidence?

Do you think it should be taught in science at schools on an equal footing with, or maybe instead of(?), the theory of evolution?


And purleeease no Pat Buchanan quotes!