PDA

View Full Version : Taken from the main board to quote



Dons
2007-Feb-23, 08:03 AM
What? Taken from the main board to quote:

Q. IS THE ARGUMENT FOR DESIGN BASED ON SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE?



What kind of question is this? Way too complex with double meanings all over the place.


OK then, in the USA courts (and Ore.) the question would be thrown out, and the asker would generalized beyond reconciliation, perhaps lose their licenses to practice law.



No, NO, you cannot base a question on a previous contentious subject. Not allowed. I object!


The assuming is that science is placed as the principle, not the case in reality, and on this ignorance, you place a negative to assert your point. That is called ** in nonprofessional terms; you discredited yourself by asking the question.

So funny I have to smile. The question is phrased to induce a negative answer, any answer that would be given is negative. NOT allowed by USA culture in law, based on common law and common reasoning.


Nice try, but busted.


Here is the question(s) to ask:


“It has been principle custom for over 3,000 years before any magistrate, king or authority, that the maker of the claim (any claim) can show the facts of the claim; can you show the facts of the ID god? You have to name the god, show the god to exclusivity, show your souses, and show your evidence “exclusive” to the (your) named god.”



Now this is a “shut up or put up” question(s), well accepted by USA courts including *** backward Oregon.


This is why ID was puked out of USA legislation and USA court proceedings. NO FACTS AT ALL.



Don

Dons
2007-Feb-23, 08:26 AM
Science, physics, biology, NOR any university, college (public or private), nor any leaning institution, NOR any discovery organization et al has to prove the existence of a god in order to show, or teach, “natural material facts” of any kind. Be it in this solar system, or other wise.


To put “science” in a position of a “know it all” even I, a self confirmed atheist, I would greatly protest.


If the ID camp makes the claim then let them show their claim beyond a reasonable doubt or even better, by the preponderance of the evidence, so “show the god”.


Science (supporters of valid science) do NOT have an obligation to answer total stupidity.



Don