Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Definitions

IDist- a person who understands and supports Intelligent Design

IDer- an Intelligent Designer

IDiot- a person who does not understand ID and chooses misrepresentation and lies in an attempt to refute it.

posted by Joe G @ 8:57 AM  

7 Comments:

  • At 8:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    hi Joe G,

    "...chooses misrepresentation and lies..."

    I wouldn't go this far. There are some people (I dare to say most of us) who are not open when someone questions their beloved dogma. That is why emotions run wild and ad hominem insults are common. What bothers me personally is that highly educated and intelligent people go down to this level. In this ID vs Evolution debate most if not all of these insults come from Darwinian Evolutionists. Why? When your arguments are shown to be illogical and your evidence mostly irrelevant, what else can you do but turn to demonizing the opponent. It is a sad state of affairs.

     

  • At 8:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Point taken- I am just taking one of there "words" and turning it on them.

    IOW they call us "IDiots" when reality points to them being the "IDiots" because they don't even understand the position they are trying to refute and therefore must make up sh!t to "get-r-dun".

    With my definition we can turn it into a sadder state- "Your an IDiot"-"No YOU are an IDiot." ;)

     

  • At 2:14 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    From uncommon descent.

    51. Allen_MacNeill // Nov 22nd 2006 at 11:21 am

    Re comment #46:

    “Then they accept it despite the data to the contrary. And there still isn’t any data (biological/ genetic) that demonstrates what caused the differences observed between chimps and humans. Or that any mutation/ selection can account for those differences.”

    All three of these statements are demonstrably false.

    If there are “data to the contrary,” please provide a reference (and remember that “data” means empirical evidence, derived from observations and experiments and preferably published in scientific journals, not theoretical speculation or unsupported assertions).

    are you going to provide the articles, or maybe apologize?

     

  • At 3:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    “Then they accept it despite the data to the contrary. And there still isn’t any data (biological/ genetic) that demonstrates what caused the differences observed between chimps and humans. Or that any mutation/ selection can account for those differences.”

    Rich Hughs:
    All three of these statements are demonstrably false.

    Then demonstrate that or shut up.

     

  • At 9:25 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    erm, Allen said it.

    don't get your knickers in a twist.

     

  • At 6:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes Rich, I am aware of that now. I just didn't know he had a little messenger boy.

    I plan to post my response here- a more thorough response than what I posted over on UD.

     

  • At 6:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Argy,

    Actually it is the evos that made the first claim. What Rich posted was my initial response.

    I have a thread titled "wobbling stability" that pretty much refutes Common Descent...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home