This is a philosophical argument I am making. Address the argument or move along. If mindless energy is eternal, or if the universe in its present form was eternal, that means either 1, it took eternity for all events to take place, which means they would not take place since it would take eternity for them to take place. Or 2, all events are taking place at the same moment in time, which means there would be no motion. So, this philosophical argument says why a BEGINNING has to happen. Now, either address the argument or move along. But dont make such BAD arguments for a lawyer by saying to me establish that the universe had a beginning I just did philosophically. Now address it or move along.
It's a philosophical argument based on a premise, that the universe had a beginning. It doesn't appear that it did. Therefore it doesn't matter what you do with that premise--without a true premise, you can't get anywhere.
Otherwise, you sophistry that it had to have a beginning is just word play. I don't know how to get this across to you, but your statements don't make sense. They're like "green fog is loud." They're just strings of meaningless words. Yes, eternity. That's what I'm trying to get across to you, Jolly. The universe is eternal. Get it?
No youre wrong and DELUSIONAL on top of it. Conclusions mean assumptions based on data. I have a different conclusion based on the data and I see the evidence pointing away from macro evolution and pointing to my God.
Me and all the biologists in the world are delusional? Sorry, a conclusion is the opposite of an assumption. You don't even know that evolution is entirely compatible with your God. You're just deeply, deeply confused.
But science is not assumptions, science is facts and data. Philosophy is explaining that data or those facts.
Science is facts, data, and, most importantly, explanations. That's the point of the facts and the data. Theories. Scientific theories. Like gravity, evolution, germs and the big bang. That's what we do with data, we make theories.
Yes, I do know stuff about science. But, let me ask you the same question
You could certainly fool us.
you really dont know anything about science, do you?
A fair amount, thanks.
Why not address some stuff, being that youre a lawyer, you should be really good at it, or you should be at least ABLE to do it anyway.
Are you an amateur lawyer by the way?
You're about an inch away from an infraction. Now would you care to address the argument?
No, youre wrong, AND delusional. If however you have heard SOME ID proponents say that, well, that is them, thats not ME and its not ALL ID proponents. Get my position represented correctly before you attack it.
Hmmm. And yet you said it was ID itself. The ID. In the Dover trial, the leading ID proponents admitted as much under oath.
Also Stephen C Meyer one of the biggest intelligent design proponents and advocates out there and who also is a scientist he said that he is NOT against finding OUT HOW something works in nature. I remember him saying it in one of his speeches. If you want the source, I can DIG for it FOR you.
And what kind of science is Mr. Meyer a scientist in, Jolly? What scientific work has he published? In what peer reviewed journals? What has he discovered about how we get the proliferation of species on earth? What has he added to our knowledge of Biology?
So, YOUR WRONG, AND delusional.
Try to focus on the issues, Jolly. ID is not about mechanism, it's only about the assertion that some things were designed. From the Dover transcript:
Rothschild: I don t think I got a reply, so I m asking you, you ve made this claim here, ?Intelligent design theory
focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.? And I want to
know what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?
Behe: Again,
it does not propose a mechanism in the sense
of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose.
Rothschild: And then further down the page at line 24 I asked
you, In terms of the mechanism, it s just a criticism of
Darwinian evolution s mechanism and not a positive
description of a mechanism. And what did you answer,
Professor Behe?
Behe: I said that s correct.
Tell you what. If ID is about discovering the mechanism by which living things were designed, what have they learned about that mechanism?
