Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendi

Quote:

The votes in Louisiana were overwheming to say the least and Mr Jindal's signature is the icing on the cake. Dover has been finessed goodstyle. One apponted man (Have gavel-will travel) decided that after the defence completely sold the pass. Louisiana is a state with a $200 billion annual product. Dover is a small town with a peculiar demographic involving "incomers" from surrounding cities wishing to enjoy the facilities built up by the long standing agricultural sector. The decision Judge Jones made was, as I pointed out at the time, small potatoes. It was hyped up by you lot which fact alone calls into question your judgement.

Do you have any idea at all of what youre talking about? The La law is bounded into a corner by Edwards v Aguillard decision of the USSC (or were you still unaware?). The present law will, oprate as law of a particular set of parishes until on or another escape the USSC bounds. Then another time wasting court case ,The inevitable decision, in order to have any meaning at all, will have to nullify Edwards in order to clear a parh for unfettered carry-on of this new law. We dont need to ven worry about Dover here (even though Dover is vastly more an event since its a COURT CASE, not a doofus law from some hillbilly state with a supposedly educated governor)

Dover, on th other hand, is stare decisis for an entire US district court, and (by evidence that we dont see any more similar cases on the horizon) it lays its shadow down over the other districts as well.

Your inability to grasp our ways of doing things is typical of the"Formica" Tory mind. ()

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Then another time wasting court case.

Time wasting for who? Since when was a court case a waste of time seen from a smart lawyer's wife's point of view. Or from an editor's point of view? Or from the point of view of the court officials, the car-park accountant, the polishers of the teak benches and the bog cleaners to mention just a few.

You're asserting again from the point of view of the hard working taxpayer. Sucking up to us on the basis that most of us are hard working taxpayers being ripped off by these schemes.

0 Replies

"Bounded into a corner" my arse.

There will be wriggle room fm. You needn't spend much time on that.

0 Replies

Cripes fm-- you said there, if I have not misunderstood, that a court decision over-rides the democratic process.

I think you should think that through.

0 Replies

Quote:

You're asserting again from the point of view of the hard working taxpayer. Sucking up to us on the basis that most of us are hard working taxpayers being ripped off by these schemes.

Im not asserting anything you old fart. Im merely paraphrasing Judge Jones who, as the trer of fact in Dover, was most closely associated with an opinion of how the courts time was wsted and how the taxpayers money was similarly being frittered away. Youre starting to "Phone in" your responses spenid. WHy not go over to some trivia thread and be loved more than you are here.

0 Replies

Judge Jones was asserting.

What's so special about quoting an asserter. It's second-hand asserting.

The voters have no duty to explain their choice. They just vote for it.

What were the majorities again? Repeat them for us if you will?

0 Replies

You are certainly in deep denial there spendi. AN assertion made by a judge in a court case is called a "DECISON". You can deal with it or not.

0 Replies

I have dealt with it.

It's a honey-pot and JJ had, still has, his nose in it.

I am most certainly not in any "deep denial" in any way, shape or form whatsoever, no way, not-nohow. I apologise for the string of tautologies but fm doesn't really understand plain concise English where a "not" is sufficient for all purposes.

You are engaging in empty assertions again fm.

Can Judge Jones set aside the Lousiana bill and render it cancelled and annulled?

I have already explained at some length that the defence at Dover played by the prosecution's rules and thus had no chance. A defence like that was a waste of time and, if not straight theft, as close to it as makes little difference.

You argue with that instead of just asserting drivel for self-reassurance purposes. Can you not recognise crude assertions yet and their vacuity of value in adult debate.

0 Replies

In 3292890 (p.1680) I said - "And we all know it" about something that was obvious and which has been proved true by their being no attempt to escape from the logic of that post.

c.i. immediately responded--"who's the "we" in your statement?" in 3292901 (ibid).

Now a well known anti-IDer with a serious track record for gratuitous vituperation sometimes involving little elderly ladies wrote this in an English Laguage discussion on the derivation of the word "fire-fight" where he grasped the opportunity to troll out a long spiel of oversimplified guff culled from some source or other and self-evidently in the service of parading what he thinks is a sound grasp of history-

Quote:

Yes, we certainly did fight briefly in Cuba in 1898, and fought the Spanish briefly in the Philippine Islands in 1898--and thereafter fought the Filipinos themselves for quite a while longer.

Nobody has asked him who the "we" was meant to be. It seems like such questions are reserved for me.

Just roll around your noggins the phrase "for quite a while longer" to see how far patronising the past can stretch. It should only take a few seconds of consideration. A minute at the most. One can easily see also that "briefly" hardly conveys a sense of having been present on the occasion in the Philippines. It was probably some sort of long-drawn out agony for those who were.

Anyway, my "we" was not a "we" of that nature. It was "we" viewers who could see that anti-IDers had no answer to the performance enhancing drugs question (or the Holy Sunday question) likely resulting from them having condemned such things all along the line and which is an incoherent position for any atheist to take unless he's making some gain from testing and condemning athletes (carpetbagging control freakery) having picked them out as a special case the rules of which do not apply to himself when he fancies a strong caffeine laced booster to his flagging spirits.

A scientific mind is dispassionate c.i. It asks itself the same questions it asks others. Short of that it is special pleading and possibly even a form of begging.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Yes- we all know that. Your use of the word asserted that something would be "damaging" and thus " harmful and undesirable".

Could've fooled me, given your response.

spendius wrote:

You forgot to say why you thought whatever it was would be "damaging" and to whom.

No, I didn't. Here's what I said:

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Duh. That's what he's saying. 'nuff said. If you can't wrap your mind around the idea that it's bad for kids to learn things which are incorrect and significantly damaging to their understanding of a modern, robust, economically and socially impactful field of knowledge, I think it's time that you sat back and did some more of that reading you like to criticize others for.

I said it was damaging to "kids'" (obviously implying schoolchildren) understandings. The "why" would seem to be pretty obvious, unless of course we're presuming that it's up for debate whether we think ignorance is a good or bad thing, particularly concerning education.

As always I expect that you're just playing around with sophistry. It seems you really did understand what I was saying but thought it lacked justification.

spendius wrote:

You hadn't supported your use of the word with any evidence other than that your statement must be true because you said it.

I tend not to expect it to be necessary to clarify such things given how stupidly obvious the implication is. That's how language works, after all, particularly when words are used with their most common definitions. Or do you always go around defining every word you use in speech? It must be quite the recursive chore!

spendius wrote:

If something is thought objectively damaging simply because you say so shouldn't you be in a more senior position than the one I assume you are in and I'm sincerely hoping my assumption is correct.

I said it was damaging to their understanding of science (and described science with various qualities to imply what they'd be missing). Would you like to argue that point? I know that you hate actually talking about substance now that you recognize your own incompetent understanding of scientific topics, but I do remember you saying that teleological arguments for these things had validity, etc.

Also, senior position? wtf are you talking about?

spendius wrote:

You could save us all a fortune apart from those at whose expense it was done.

Yeah, I'm not going to attempt figuring out what all those pronouns apply to.

spendius wrote:

As I said earlier Mr S--you're out of your depth and there is the proof.

lol, what? Where's the proof? Were you just saying something about unsupported declarations not determining objective reality (in different terms)?

spendius wrote:

I certainly do.

Alright, let's make sure the full context is realized here. You're saying that it is implausible that ignorance would be harmful or undesirable. This is in the context of you being unable to understand what I'm saying, so in tying it to the rest of the argument, it would seem you are actually having trouble imagining that it's even reasonable to believe someone else would consider those things to be true.

Less pub time, more... uh... speaking to people who have an actual working knowledge of language.

spendius wrote:

With no ignorance about I can't imagine where we would be.

Wow, I spoke too soon. The earlier context wasn't enough, as you managed to completely and utterly ignore it and have chosen to instead reply to the most general idea of the terms. In case you think this is A-OK, let me remind you that it requires a memory of the context that rivals a goldfish in its dearth of capacity.

spendius wrote:

I'm amazed. Wouldn't you have 300,000,000 Nobel prize winners.

That sounds great. The world could use more educated, rational people.

spendius wrote:

It's the circle round your skull like the one in Idiot Wind blowin' from the
Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol.

Maybe some day you'll learn that your attempts at waxin' literary get really old really fast :/. I'm sure they're charming at first, but eventually the pattern gets tiresome.

spendius wrote:

There's a circle round "bad/damaging/suffer/shouldn't do." Some men, or women, might say the roundel about marriage. Based on their subjective experience. Others would say the opposite. I think you said it about the bill in Louisiana. They voted you shite. More than a landslide.

Uh... more of the same. How is it that you can't see the irony in replying with confusing nonsense when supposedly answering a question that requested clarity? (psst, I know that the "spendi's just being a bastard" option is fully available)

From all I can glean from this, you're saying that "bad/damaging/suffer/shouldn't do" is all circular. And then stopping without explaining how that is so and actually answering my question.

spendius wrote:

All science is "modern science" on any day.

Only if you twist the meaning of "modern science", in which case you might as well be drinking rather than talking, *hint hint hint*. Modern Taxonomy, for example, differs significantly in the ease at which one can make statistical arguments for relatedness, etc, due to the advent of modern sequencing techniques.

spendius wrote:

How can I disagree there's such a thing as that.

Dunno, maybe you should work on your communication skills. There's a reason I used a tone which implied disbelief.

spendius wrote:

I'm sat in front of one of its most fantastic productions which is not finished yet and might look, to your grandkid's idea of modern science, like an antique.

Yes, yes, you love beer and TV.

spendius wrote:

I feel sure that at each stage of "modern science" it was felt to be robust, economically impactful and socially important. And in a variety of ways.

Yup. I feel sure that driving nails into (living) people's heads has always felt to be somewhat painful, most certainly so long as humans have been about. Did you hide an argument in there somewhere, or do you think that consistency = wrong?

spendius wrote:

It has been mutually agreed that I'm incompetent for so long now that I have learned to live with it. It is safe to assume your impression is close to the truth. My highest snooker break is 69 and when I watch the experts play I am forced to conclude that I'm useless at snooker. I was proud of once having shot a 72 until I imagined Jack Nicklaus going round the same course. With 30 putts he would have been in the 50s. I don't worry about being incompetent. But I can tell you do. You wouldn't keep going on about it otherwise.

You're good at piling on the nonsense. The incompetence I've referred to here is about very, very basic argumentation. Not snooker, not golf. Rather, it's that thing you're trying to do here, in some sense. Unless you're a glutton for punishment, you might want to start caring about being minimally competent at the things you spend time doing, as I'm sure you're capable of it.

spendius wrote:

How can I offer a "simple opinion" when I have no opinions.

You don't have opinions on this and you accept your own ineptitude? What are you even doing here? Wink

spendius wrote:

What sort of thing would a scientist have an opinion about?

All kinds of things. Yes, I'm ignoring the nasty snark you've implied.

spendius wrote:

Asserting that I'm incompetent is the same, identical I mean, to all intents and purposes, leaving out differences in calligraphy and pronunciation, with saying that the Lousiana bill is "damaging". I mean identical in meaning as two zeros are identical.

Actually, in this last instance rather than asserting your incompetence, I've explained how I've interpreted your failures. I did that explicitly due to the uncertainty inherent in this medium and what I've seen so far.

As for the insinuation that the "assertion" is unsupported (which is what you're saying about the other stuff), I suppose I haven't explicitly supported it in that last bit, but all you need to do is read the last 80 pages to see the number of subjects you've dropped in favor of some snark and bad attempts at literary wit, not to mention the general proud ignorance of (and shameless jabs at) science.

spendius wrote:

But you didn't say I was incompetent. You only said that you had an impression that I am.

Whoops, I didn't read the whole thing first. Meh, the above will stay.

spendius wrote:

My impression of you, for what it's worth, is that you're 3 parts gaga and 1 part wannabe jumping jack flash.

The key part of that sentence being "for what it's worth".

spendius wrote:

The gaga part being the blissful ignorance of the class of the jumping jack flashes there are out there and of what they did to get as good as they are.

lol, ignorance of what, spendius? I thought you said you didn't have any opinions and that was why you could state some of them and actually defend them like a decent person (well, I added that last bit about 'decent person').

Jumping jack flashes? What did I say about random, unclear references? I know many ways in which that could be interpreted...

spendius wrote:

We can't avoid having impressions of each other.

OK

spendius wrote:

Try this--close your eyes watching TV and when a talking voice comes on, one you don't know I mean, try finding an impression and then open your eyes to see how near you got.

You know, the people on TV tend to be actors. That's people who pretend. This might explain a lot, actually...

0 Replies

And as for wasting taxpayer money + the time of those involved in the judicial system, it's very, very easy to understand, spendius. Here, I'll make it simple:

1. The U.S. Constitution is the overriding law of the land. What it says goes.

2. For situations like Dover or what could happen in LA, the Constitution is violated, specifically the Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights, via Amendment XIV.

3. This is very easy to figure out and to see.

Now, which part of that is different from metaphorically putting your hand in a box that shocks you, noticing that it hurts, and trying again and again, maybe this time with the other one... yup, still hurts. OK, now for the foot...

0 Replies

Mr S. wrote-

Quote:

From all I can glean from this, you're saying that "bad/damaging/suffer/shouldn't do" is all circular. And then stopping without explaining how that is so and actually answering my question

Yes- it is circular. I agree that something damaging is a "shouldn't do". I think we can all agree to that except maybe those of us who get something out of doing the damaging.

But before you get to the "shouldn't do" you need to explain why the thing is damaging in the face of others who say it is beneficial and thus a "should do".

There is no question to answer.

And with me being so incompetent I can't understand how I could provide an answer even if there was a question.

If the thing is damaging that's all there is to be said about it. It's obvious it is a "shouldn't do". And it follows that everything you say is damaging is a "shouldn't do". Thus you should be President. There is no need for all these expensive elections.

Quote:

spendius wrote:
What sort of thing would a scientist have an opinion about?

All kinds of things.

Oh--I see now. How could I be so stupid. "All kinds of things" eh? It was obvious wasn't it. It just goes to show that I really am incompetent. Fancy me not knowing that a scientist can have an opinion about all kinds of things. I must be the most incompetent A2Ker who ever lived. My excuse is that I didn't have the privilege to have been educated at the expense of the American taxpayer like wot you 'ave S.

You're too good for me S.

0 Replies

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that anti-IDers can only engage in discussions in which they assert a premiss and then draw from it, after inserting a greater or lesser amount of scented lard, a conclusion which is inevitable assuming the original assertion is a scientific fact, which is unfortunately not always possible to be certain of.

There is nothing anyone can do in the face of such a mode of discourse but to admit its superiority or take the piss out of it.

0 Replies

For example-

fm wrote-

Quote:

We dont need to ven worry about Dover here (even though Dover is vastly more an event since its a COURT CASE, not a doofus law from some hillbilly state with a supposedly educated governor)

Once it a premiss of fm's mode of discourse that Louisiana is a "hillbilly state with a supposedly educated govenor" all the rest of the silly-sodisms circulating around is his head follow perfectly easily and without fear of contradiction. The citizens of Louisiana are wasting their time and money on debating amongst themselves when all they need do is consult fm and all problems are solved. They should be protected from their own inadequacies by the wise men in the fossil business. It stands to reason. It is indisputable.

That's why fm didn't answer the question he was asked about whether Judge Jones can over-rule the overwhelming votes in the Louisiana legislature and the govenor's signature.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Dover, on th other hand, is stare decisis for an entire US district court, and (by evidence that we dont see any more similar cases on the horizon) it lays its shadow down over the other districts as well.

'Prudence, prudence,' the pigeons call,
'Scorpions lurk in the gilded meadow,
An eye embossed on the island wall.
The running tap casts a static shadow.'

'Caution, caution,' the rooks proclaim,
'The dear departed, the weeping widow,
Will meet in you in the core of flame.
The running tap casts a static shadow.'

'Act, act!' the ducks give voice.
'Enjoy the widow in the meadow.
Drain the sacrament of choice.
The running tap casts a static shadow.'
'

0 Replies

There are several Hillbilly States. The use of the term to describe Louisianians is technically incorrect as there are very few hills in Louisiana.

Ive lived there, and enjoyd it.I beleieve that youve only read about the state.I must say that Experience is a much better teacher than any "secondary sources" .(Thats why I always take your expert advice on the wearing of lingerie)

Louisiana politics has always been corrupt, self dealing, and myopic. Mayors, Governors and ward politicians are among the most frequently incarcerated members of the general population. The Robt Penn WArren novel "All the Kings MEn" is basd loosely on the life of one of Louisianas more colorful governors. Hint: Huey Long missed going to prison.

0 Replies

Quote:

That's why fm didn't answer the question he was asked about whether Judge Jones can over-rule the overwhelming votes in the Louisiana legislature and the govenor's signature.

As I said before, you dont get the legal system in US. Is it that , or are you just being cute?

The La law will, no doubt , be tried in a separate case(since La is in a different Fed District).

Did I not explain that in enough detail?

0 Replies

Nope.

I know I am an outside observer. It's easy for me to work that out.

But the Dover business arose from a school board as I understood it and they are not fully elected as I understood it and such bodies are known to be staffed by amateurs, incompetents, networkers and attention seekers, in the main, whether they are IDers or anti IDers. It is one of your deep-seated intellectual blind-spots, of which there must be any number as far as I can make out, that a school board IDer has his/her head up his/her's arsehole and onesuch anti-IDer is a source of wisdom and fine thinking on the simple and straighforward evidence that the former do not agree with you whereas the latter do and that using this peer-reviewed evidence it is a scientific fact that the aforesaid IDer does have his/her head up his/her arsehole. (I'm assuming of course, from my outside viewpoint, that American ladies do have such things as arseholes.) And that the aforesaid anti-IDer doesn't. Obviously. The principle has been established that anybody disagreeing with you have their heads up their arse.

Now- the Louisiana decision arose from overwhelming votes in the senate and congress and has now been approved by the govenor despite his not being required to, as I understand it, and despite him being a "supposedly educated" person and in the face of the fact, as you presented it, of it being a "doofus law" voted for by some hillbillies in the boonies with a GNP of $200 billion and a world-renowned musical tradition and reputation.

The question is- could another Judge Jones overturn the Louisiana bill and declare it cancelled and annulled as HMQ has declared Mugabe.

That's all I asked. If it wasn't clear it should be now.

By hillbillies I also assume you mean Jed Clampett types or those hill people in Deliverance.

I know that the pejoritive use of "hillbilly" to La. is incorrect. That is why I haven't used it except in quoting you having done so. It is incorrect everywhere else as well, whether they have hills or not. Such usage is generally part of the initial softening up process which ends in them being persecuted and possibly exterminated.

You statement about having lived in La. giving you a general advantage, not a specific one from a range on the shelf for you to choose from to row your boat ashore with, over those with only secondary sources is not only seriously unscientific but disingenuous to boot. The validity of it is subject to many factors none of which you have seen fit to mention. Mostly emotional.

I take the piss out of lingerie because I was never fond of the stuff. It looks so ridiculous. Like tart's knickers curtains do at the vicarage windows. Incongruous I think Darwin might have said.

I much preferred "in the raw" possibly resulting from formative experiences in haystacks and secluded forest glades where ferns had smashed and bullied their way to total dominance.

Alas those days are behind me now. Introductory Lectures in Evolution Theory one might call them without fear of being accused of exaggerating.

Can the USSC overturn a legislative vote in a state?

We are getting problems with the European courts they have set up in recent years. Is there a secessionist movement in La.?

0 Replies

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH, I hate serial quote posts, they are so childish. Hoever Im gonna try to convey the points ONE MORE TIME SPENDI

Quote:

the Dover business arose from a school board as I understood it and they are not fully elected as I understood it and such bodies are known to be staffed by amateurs, incompetents, networkers and attention seekers,

Dover schoolboard was totally elected (as per MPC and the Commonwealth ed board). The miscreants involved were running(and were elected) on a platform of FISCAL REFORM only , nothing else was even discussed in their speeches and debates. Afetr being elected , Mr Buckingham, the drug addled Creationist and schoolboard chair, began to arm twist and cajole the new members to become part of a new "ID" movement. The movement, after many activities that could be considered criminal, got their wishes (as documented in several books )

Quote:

It is one of your deep-seated intellectual blind-spots, of which there must be any number as far as I can make out, that a school board IDer has his/her head up his/her's arsehole and onesuch anti-IDer is a source of wisdom and fine thinking on the simple and straighforward evidence that the former do not agree with you whereas the latter do and that using this peer-reviewed evidence it is a scientific fact that the aforesaid IDer does have his/her head up his/her arsehole

Even though this is barely intelligible, my answer is SEE THE ABOVE RESPONSE. Whether you agree with me or not, What I say is the truth and is documented by several good accounts(the best of which IMHO is Dave Humes "Monkey Girl"), as well as Judge Jones own words in his "Assertive decision". Where do you think he got the idea for the phrase "Breathtaking Inanity"? He was not reviewing a Three STooges Movie.

Quote:

whereas the latter do and that using this peer-reviewed evidence it is a scientific fact that the aforesaid IDer does have his/her head up his/her arsehole. (I'm assuming of course, from my outside viewpoint, that American ladies do have such things as arseholes.) And that the aforesaid anti-IDer doesn't. Obviously. The principle has been established that anybody disagreeing with you have their heads up their arse.

Not true,Im only talking to you. Ill decide about other folks anal- cranial inversions on a one-to-one basis

Quote:

Now- the Louisiana decision arose from overwhelming votes in the senate and congress and has now been approved by the govenor despite his not being required to, as I understand it, and despite him being a "supposedly educated" person and in the face of the fact, as you presented it, of it being a "doofus law" voted for by some hillbillies in the boonies with a GNP of $200 billion and a world-renowned musical tradition and reputation.

Disne Worls is also a fun place. But I dont think we look to it for any kind of cultural leadership. I stick with my words as a former resident of Nawlins and an objective observer to social and governmental events as recorded in the Picayune. You read it here first (Im sure that US citizens wont take any bets against this eventuality )BUT, There will be a series of lawsuits that test the very CONSTITUTIONALITY of the LAw just passed. You may take that to your bank.
Now, I cant bet on the outcome because thuis law does not seem to be baggage strapped as were the pevious "SCientific"Creationism, Creationism ONLY,Creationism Equal Time, ID, and Viewpoint Discrimination

Quote:

The question is- could another Judge Jones overturn the Louisiana bill and declare it cancelled and annulled
Quote:

I believe he may be getting it. The decison will either , be an affirmation or an overturn of the law. If the District Fed Court decisdes affirmation, then the USSC will become involved. AND, depending on its makeup and its inability to uphold precedent. The USSC could decide not to hear it. (or , as I believe will probably happen, a smart batch of lawyers dfrom Skadden ARps will make the USSC see the Light)

You statement about having lived in La. giving you a general advantage, not a specific one from a range on the shelf for you to choose from to row your boat ashore with, over those with only secondary sources is not only seriously unscientific but disingenuous to boot. Maybe, so what. I challenge you to a debate about the politics, social structure, environment , geology :wink: ,and just about anything else about Louisiana or Nawlins , LAfayette, and BAton Rouge in particular

Quote:
Can the USSC overturn a legislative vote in a state?

If a case, of such legislation is deemed to affect rights or specifics guaranteed under the US Constitution, then the USSC has the right and duty to intervene and tell the Congress, states, or even the local municipalities, what the rules are. Answer, yes

Quote:
Is there a secessionist movement in La.?

The last secessionist movement in LA (That Im aware)was in the 1930's with th national rise of the Socialist Party.Right now we have Hawaii wanting to secede, and South CArolina always is a threat. TExas and NEw Mexico are being looked at as annexation possibilities by Mexico . Things are just fine, thank you.

0 Replies

I don't consider that an adequate answer fm.

The point was about Dover being small potatoes affecting one, small,and, it would seem, experimental sociological mix, of a type we have here, and a State Legislature. That the significance of Dover has been wildly exaggerated by those with an interest and with no opposition presumably due to reasons of etiquette.

A State Legislature with a $200 billion GDP (I read) and a population coming up to 5 million is a different matter entirely.

Quote:

If a case, of such legislation is deemed to affect rights or specifics guaranteed under the US Constitution, then the USSC has the right and duty to intervene and tell the Congress, states, or even the local municipalities, what the rules are. Answer, yes

is not an answer to the question-

Quote:

Can the USSC overturn a legislative vote in a state?

Telling people is not "overturning" with enforcement. Those majorities looked pretty solid to me. And the Gov jumped aboard even though he needn't have done.

It's pubby time. I will be back.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know