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

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Imagination Deficit- an anti-ID site dedicated to dishonesty and censorship

I ran across a blog titled Imagination DEficit that is run by someone who goes by "Odd Digit". I had read his sloppy thoughts on ID over on Telic Thoughts and from there linked to his blog.

Noting that his blogs on ID were full of errors I posted some comments to try to help OD better understand ID. So what did OD do when confronted with ID reality? OD deletes all the comments and disables comments from being posted. IOW OD doesn't care about reality. OD wants whatever he can imagine to be true.

However that appears to be the same with all anti-IDists (ie IDiots)- they think that they can erect any strawman of ID they want and then attack that strawman as if it really meany something- and the sad part is they really think they did attack something real.

That is ID reality- dealing with people who aren't interested in reality...

83 Comments:

  • At 12:27 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You are kidding right? You, a constant commenter on the most censoring blog in the history of the internet (UD), complaingin about censorship. That's the funniest thing I've heard since coffee this morning.

     
  • At 1:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It appears that Imagination Deficit is the most censoring blog in the history of the internet.

    I have yet to see of hear of an relevant comment being deleted or censored from UD...

     
  • At 3:44 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Well...you wouldn't see any comments that disagree with the IDiocy that goes on at UD because...uh, hmmm...they don't make it to the blog.

    As for hearing of it, come on man!!! Open your eyes. Entire threads get deleted there...after being up for a few hours or a few days or a few weeks. Whenever something gets too embarrassing or too truthy or too anything else that UD doesn't like, "wwhhhooooooppppp" it's gone.

    Like magic.

    Except it's not like magic. Because people archive hese things. BUUD archives these things. There is ample proof that DaveScot and Dembski ban people for simple disagreement.

    Are you living in a cave?

     
  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger LarryFarfarafararman said…

    Dembski banned me one time for posting a quote of his. Not editorializing about it, not taking it out of context (it was a small paragraph), not altering it, not in fact saying a single thing myself. Just posting a 4-5 sentence paragraph of his own words. Imagination Deficit has a tall order if it wants to hide from reality more than that.

     
  • At 8:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I would say someone who bans 100% of the comments censors more than someone who censors a few.

    As for living in a cave- no. I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics. Most, if not all, clue-less as to what science really is.

    We exist buckwheat. There are only a few options behind the reality to that existence.

    The materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck. And bipley asks me if I am living in a cave?

     
  • At 7:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In the end a blog is under the rule(s) of the blogger(s).

    No one said a blog has to allow comments or that a blogger has to respond to them or even post them.

    If people want to be heard (read) all they have to do is to start their own.

    So in that light I will blog about the errors OD made pertaining to ID (as time permits).

     
  • At 12:23 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe said:

    As for living in a cave- no. I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics. Most, if not all, clue-less as to what science really is.

    We exist buckwheat. There are only a few options behind the reality to that existence.


    If your theory requires a giant conspiracy for it to be true, then it is wrong.

     
  • At 1:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    If your theory requires a giant conspiracy for it to be true, then it is wrong.

    It doesn't. No theory I accept requires any type of conspiracy- except a conspiracy theory.

     
  • At 5:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Most, if not all, "anti-IDist" know nothing of science?

    Let's see. The vast majority of scientists and educators of science think that ID is bunk.

    So let's restate your assertion:

    Most, if not all, "scientists and scientific educators" know nothing about science.

    How exactly are they allowed to keep their jobs? Screams conspiracy theory to me.

    Once again, if a belief requires a conspiracy theory for it to be true, it is wrong.

     
  • At 11:25 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Most, if not all, "anti-IDists" know nothing about science?

    Given that most, if not all, scientists and science eduators think that ID is bunk, let's do a little word exchange:

    Most, if not all, "scientists and science educators" know nothing about science.

    How do they keep their jobs, then? This is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.

    Once again, if a belief requires a conspiracy theory to be true, then it is wrong.

     
  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Most, if not all, "anti-IDists" know nothing about science?

    Ummm, That's not what I said.

    This is what I said:

    As for living in a cave- no. I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics. Most, if not all, clue-less as to what science really is.

    IOW either they don't know what science really is or they don't understand ID. As far as I can tell only ID ignorance is what keeps it from being science in the minds of anti-IDists.

    Also I would have to wonder if anti-IDists realize that the materialiistic alternative to ID is a science stopping sheer-dumb-luck? Most anti-IDists I have talked with deny that reality!

    Again we exist. And science tells us that only living organisms beget living organisms...

     
  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I'm going to stop having dialogue with you if you continue to be Crandaddy.

    If you would like to parse words, fine. There is a place for that, but it is not in talking about the substansive differences between science and ID.

    Your statement of "anti-IDists (scientists and science educators) not knowing what science is" and any rational person's reading of that as "scientists know nothing about science" are one and the same.

    If you deny this, it is on your shoulders to provide what that substansive difference is and why people should accept your version over the pretty common sense one.

    If you can provide rational explanations of this we can continue the conversation. Otherwise, it is pretty pointless as you will continue to define words willy-nilly as they fit your argument.

     
  • At 1:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    I'm going to stop having dialogue with you if you continue to be Crandaddy.

    If you think that I am Crandaddy then you have more issues than I want to deal with.

    blipey:
    If you would like to parse words, fine. There is a place for that, but it is not in talking about the substansive differences between science and ID.

    By all means, state those alleged differences.

    blipey:
    Your statement of "anti-IDists (scientists and science educators) not knowing what science is" and any rational person's reading of that as "scientists know nothing about science" are one and the same.

    Follow along:

    Most, if not all, clue-less as to what science really is.

    IOW either they don't know what science really is or they don't understand ID. As far as I can tell only ID ignorance is what keeps it from being science in the minds of anti-IDists.


    Your specification is unwarranted and unsupported.

    Also your assertion as what what a rational person would infer is pretty meaningless. And I have my doubts that you are a rational person or would know how one would perceive something.

    What words am I redefining? Be specific.

    Then tell us what science is and why ID isn't (science). Please be sure to include the data that supports the alternative- Special Creation or sheer-dumb-luck.

    IOW if all of your alleged scientists and science eductators could support their sheer-dumb-luck PoV we wouldn't be having this discussion (and I would still be an evolutionist).

     
  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe,

    Please try to understand analogy, modelling, you know all those things that IDists like to harp on about but really don't understand. I don't think you're Crandaddy. I think you're behaving like Crandaddy. It's a literary comparison; try to keep up.

    I read your statement, Joe. I understand it. You are saying scientists don't know what science is. Please show us where in this thread you have said something else.

    If scientists don't know what science is, then it follows that scientists know nothing about science.

    Please try to keep focused on the discussion. This discussion, at this point, revolves solely around the point that you've said what I stated above. You have not countered this with anything but restating you first assertion.

    So, please tell us why it is rational to think scientists know anything about science if they don't know what science is.

     
  • At 12:20 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Okay, if you won't post my responses, we're done. Thanks for being a beacon of open discussion and fair play.

    Do understand that I don't think you are actually a floating buoy with a light and siren--it is another literary comparison--you are not, in fact, a beacon.

     
  • At 7:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Okay, if you won't post my responses, we're done.

    I post comments when I get to them. Unlike most people who cruise the internet I have a life and it does NOT revolve around my computer.

    blipey:
    I read your statement, Joe. I understand it. You are saying scientists don't know what science is.

    You may have read it but it is obvious that you don't understand it.

    It is also obvious that you are trying to twist it into something that it isn't.

    This is what I said:

    As for living in a cave- no. I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics. Most, if not all, clue-less as to what science really is.

    We exist buckwheat. There are only a few options behind the reality to that existence.


    I followed that with a clarification:

    IOW either they don't know what science really is or they don't understand ID. As far as I can tell only ID ignorance is what keeps it from being science in the minds of anti-IDists.

    YOU are the one claiming that I am saying that scientists do not understand science. But I can't find that anywhere in my statement.

    IOW it fullt appears that you are dishonest by telling me I said something that I didn't.

    Now if you want to claim that most/ all scientists are anti-IDists then I would need some evidence for that.

    Then you would have to show that those scientists understand ID, as well as provide a consensus definition of science from those scientists, so we could compare. Also something that demonstrates the scientists who say the understand ID really do understand it would be helpful.

     
  • At 12:25 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Here's a quick link to a page of scientists that think ID is bunk.

    Project Steve

    Here's the pertinent info on the page in case you don't want to read it yourself:

    Approximately 1% of all scientists are named Steve (or some variation thereof), so the 720 names on the list could be extrapolated to 72,000 scientists who think ID is bunk.

    This is compared to the tiny number of actual scientists on the "Dissent from Darwin" list.

    So, we can then say that the vast majority of scientists are "anti-IDists".

    Now, once again, how does your statement that:

    "most, if not all, 'scientists' are clue-less about science" make any sense?

    Without a Conspiracy Theory, of course.

     
  • At 7:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Here's a quick link to a page of scientists that think ID is bunk.

    Where's the rest of the data I requested?

    Now if you want to claim that most/ all scientists are anti-IDists then I would need some evidence for that.

    False extrapolations don't cut it.

    Then you would have to show that those scientists understand ID, as well as provide a consensus definition of science from those scientists, so we could compare. Also something that demonstrates the scientists who say the understand ID really do understand it would be helpful.

    blipey:
    Now, once again, how does your statement that:

    "most, if not all, 'scientists' are clue-less about science" make any sense?


    I will await your response to what I posted above as that is required before I can respond to your question.

     
  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    blipey: "The vast majority of scientists and educators of science think that ID is bunk."

    Joe g: "So, please tell us why it is rational to think scientists know anything about science if they don't know what science is."

    Huh? That's a very odd statement to make. The definition of scientist is someone who is "a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator". Then it is simply a matter of estimating the proportion of scientists who hold the position that Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory.

    The Steve-o-Meter (774) allows for a valid extrapolation. It is based on the statistics of names. There are more Steve's supporting the Theory of Evolution than there are scientists of any name that have signed onto Intelligent Design. That's a majority right there, even without the extrapolation. (I would note that the signing statement at Dissent from Darwinism does not actually even support Intelligent Design or contradict the Theory of Evolution.)

    The most prestigious scientific associations, those with the most scientific members, consider Intelligent Design to be scientifically bogus, including the following organizatins:

    National Academy of Sciences

    American Association for the Advancement of Science

    American Institute of
    Biological Sciences


    Here's a few more.

    That doesn't make this majority of scientists correct; but, it does mean you are wrong when you say that "I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics".

     
  • At 8:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ZAchriel wrongly attributes the following to me:

    Joe g: "So, please tell us why it is rational to think scientists know anything about science if they don't know what science is."

    However blipey said that, not me.

    It is also interesting that no one has bothered to post why those alleged scientists think that ID is bunk, or that those alleged scientists even understand ID.

    Also we would need to see a definition of "science" from those alleged scientists as well as the reasons why the materialistic anti-ID postion of sheer-dumb-luck is considered science.

    IOW neither blipey nor Zachriel has substantiated anything. Sad but typical.

     
  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Sorry for the misattribution due to an errant cut-and-paste. You can see the correct quote at the bottom of the comment. Blogger offers no edit capability.

    joe g: "I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics. Most, if not all, clue-less as to what science really is."

    The argument stands otherwise.

     
  • At 9:14 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "It is also interesting that no one has bothered to post why those alleged scientists think that ID is bunk, or that those alleged scientists even understand ID."

    AAAS: the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution.

     
  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    A quick recap for the incredibly dense:

    1. Joe says I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics. Most, if not all, clue-less as to what science really is.

    2. Blipey replies that it is a valid to equaate the terms anti-IDist and scientist.

    3. Joe claims he did not say the above but, rather, had made this statement: I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics. Most, if not all, clue-less as to what science really is.

    4. Blipey says, uh....what? Same thing.

    5. Joe says well, you'll have to prove that scientists think that ID is bunk.

    6. Blipey and Zachriel provide many links to scientists and science organizations saying that ID is bunk.

    7. Joe says these things don't matter.

    HUH???

     
  • At 9:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Still NO ONE has provided any DATA as to why these scientists say that ID is "bunk". And NO ONE has provided any data showing that sheer-dumb-luck is science.

    AAAS: the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution.

    What would they accept as "credible scientific evidence"? What is the "credible scientific evidence" that demonstrates our existence is due to sheer-dumb-luck? That way we can compare. You know a level-playing field...

    And that blipey chooses to continue to ignore my clarifying statement:

    IOW either they don't know what science really is or they don't understand ID. As far as I can tell only ID ignorance is what keeps it from being science in the minds of anti-IDists.

    exposes her dishonesty.

    Anyone can say ID is bunk. Supporting that statement takes much more than that. And it is that support that must be provided to substantiate any claim that ID is bunk.

     
  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And anyone who thinks ID is not scientific and thinks that sheer-dumb-luck is, is a raving lunatic.

     
  • At 9:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What I am asking for is essential to this discussion. If what I ask for is not provided it would only support my claim.

    BTW blipey, I never said what you provided didn't matter. However it is obvious that it won't matter unless you provide what I aksed for.

     
  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "What would they accept as "credible scientific evidence"? What is the "credible scientific evidence" that demonstrates our existence is due to sheer-dumb-luck?"

    That's a separate question from whether "most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics." As this group includes the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations, the appeal to authority would seem to be fully justified, or at least within the realm of reasonable argument.

     
  • At 12:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "What would they accept as "credible scientific evidence"? What is the "credible scientific evidence" that demonstrates our existence is due to sheer-dumb-luck?"

    Zachriel:
    That's a separate question from whether "most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics.

    Yes it is but it also a very relevant question as it directly impacts the former.

    Zachriel:
    As this group includes the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations, the appeal to authority would seem to be fully justified, or at least within the realm of reasonable argument.

    LoL! Please don't confuse a majority for authority.

    Also your "appeal" is meaningless until it is substantiated. IOW you first have to give their definition od science. Then you have to show how sheer-dumb-luck fits in with that definition and ID does not.

    Also the following is nonsense:

    AAAS: the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution.

    because it is the SAME evidence, just a different inference. The "nested hierarchy fiasco" demonstrates that rather nicely.

     
  • At 3:24 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Also your 'appeal' is meaningless until it is substantiated."

    An appeal to authority is valid if the authority has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question, the claim being made by the person is within their area of expertise, there is an adequate degree of agreement among experts in the subject in question, the area of expertise is a legitimate discipline, and the authority is adequately identified.

    joe g: "Also the following is nonsense:"

    AAAS: the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution.

    AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.

    Founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. Science has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of one million.

     
  • At 5:13 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe,

    I've written this before and you have chosen to ignore it and not to post it. I will try it again in hopes that you will not censor this extremely relevant point.

    Logical argumentation proceeds from point to point and not through scatter-shot questioning and almost non-sequitorial introduction of topics.

    I asked you to stick to the question of whether your statement that "anti-IDists know nothing about science" and a reasonable person's interpretation of this as "scientists know nothing about science" are one and the same.

    Since you are unable to focus and carry on a conversation like a reasonable person, we are finished. at least until such time as you can clarify why the 2 statements are not the same.

    Sufficient evidence and explanation has been provided to you to allow you to answer this question. Your continued avoidance of giving this very brief yes or no answer while asking continually esoteric and off-topic questions brands you as the conspiracy theorist I claimed you were in the beginning of this thread.

     
  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, btw, Joe. While I have played Mrs. Claus in my career, I hope the "her" doesn't refer to me.

    I mean, I suppose I wouldn't mind being a woman, but I just hope your eyesight's not that bad. My pic is on your blog...and you can click on my name....

     
  • At 9:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    I've written this before and you have chosen to ignore it and not to post it. I will try it again in hopes that you will not censor this extremely relevant point.

    I don't recall anything written by "blipey" that I did not post.

    blipey:
    I asked you to stick to the question of whether your statement that "anti-IDists know nothing about science" and a reasonable person's interpretation of this as "scientists know nothing about science" are one and the same.

    This is what I actually said:

    As for living in a cave- no. I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics. Most, if not all, clue-less as to what science really is.

    We exist buckwheat. There are only a few options behind the reality to that existence.


    You are twisting what I said into what you want. That is a fool's way to argue. I won't have it.

    Now, in order to substantiate what I did say, we need a reference.

    And why does blipey ignore my clarifier?

    IOW either they don't know what science really is or they don't understand ID. As far as I can tell only ID ignorance is what keeps it from being science in the minds of anti-IDists.

    What part about that don't you understand?

    Now to move forward I need to know what the "Steve's" think is science and how the anti-ID view qualifies. That way we have a reference. An unmove-able goal-post.

    It would also help if we knew what these anti-IDists actually knew of ID. Are they anti- the real thing or some strawman someone sold them?

    BTW I looked at your picture and your gender, however those can be faked. It's the way you argue. But then again you could just be a d!ckhead.

     
  • At 9:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    An appeal to authority is valid if the authority has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question, the claim being made by the person is within their area of expertise, there is an adequate degree of agreement among experts in the subject in question, the area of expertise is a legitimate discipline, and the authority is adequately identified.

    That settles it then. Not one of your alleged authorities has any expertise in ID NOR can any one of them substantiate the anti-ID position.

    Zachriel, again ignoring the relevant part, reposts the following:

    AAAS: the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution.

    SAME scientific evidence. What part about that DON'T you understand?

    AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.

    Yet not one article substantiates the anti-ID scenario. Not one.

    Not one demonstrates that the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans can be accounted for via any mutation/ selection process.

    Not one demonstrates we know what makes an organism what it is. And although we are understanding how different organisms develop, that has not led us to any insight as to why a fly is not a horse.

    So, with all these alleged authorities you should be able to tell us what their accepted definition of science is.

    That would be a start.

     
  • At 9:32 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "That settles it then. Not one of your alleged authorities has any expertise in ID NOR can any one of them substantiate the anti-ID position."

    Intelligent Design claims to have a scientific basis, hence scientists are the proper authority, especially biologists who are among the cited specialists.

    The rest of your post is irrelevant to the reasonableness of the argument to authority and a rebuttal of your hyperbole that "most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics."

     
  • At 10:25 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I am afraid I am unable to continue with this until you provide me 6.2 reasons that ID shrinks my shirts in the wash.

    And it would be very helpful to know if professional baseball players with birthdays on Tuesdays are able to sufficiently counteract the strong correlation between academic success and sedimentary lobe disfunction that we see in many old world primates.

    Without the answers to these pressing questions, I don't see how we can get any further in the conversation.

    I eagerly await your answers to these needful things.

    best,

    blipey

     
  • At 10:31 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    And, please set me straight if I'm wrong, but are you saying that women are dickheads?

    That's just not nice...

     
  • At 12:03 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Still NO ONE has provided any DATA as to why these scientists say that ID is "bunk". And NO ONE has provided any data showing that sheer-dumb-luck is science."

    Yes, they're probably waiting for a testable hypothesis before before they can do that.

    "It is designed because it looks designed (to me) and it choc full of CSI that thing we can't actually define and the explanitory filter, that thing we don't use, says its designed." isn't much help to scientists.

     
  • At 8:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    First I want to thank blipey, Zachriel and Richard Hughes for helping me to make my point- Thank you.

    joe g: "That settles it then. Not one of your alleged authorities has any expertise in ID NOR can any one of them substantiate the anti-ID position."

    Zachriel:
    Intelligent Design claims to have a scientific basis, hence scientists are the proper authority, especially biologists who are among the cited specialists.

    ID does have scientific basis. And that would be demonstrated if you would present what I asked for.

    Zachriel:
    The rest of your post is irrelevant to the reasonableness of the argument to authority and a rebuttal of your hyperbole that "most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics."

    Umm that is false. The rest of my post is very relevant to support my claim. However I do understand why you won't respond to it. But I take you lack of a response as an admission that what I said was correct.

     
  • At 8:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Still NO ONE has provided any DATA as to why these scientists say that ID is "bunk". And NO ONE has provided any data showing that sheer-dumb-luck is science."

    RH:
    Yes, they're probably waiting for a testable hypothesis before before they can do that.

    True, the materialistic anti-ID position of sheer-dumb-luck does not provide a testable hypothesis.

    RH:
    "It is designed because it looks designed (to me) and it choc full of CSI that thing we can't actually define and the explanitory filter, that thing we don't use, says its designed." isn't much help to scientists.

    That is false. Reality demonstrates it matters a great deal to investigators whether or not what they are investigating is the result of intentional design or of nature, operating freely.

    However saying "it evolved" without any knowledge of whether or not any mutation/ selection process can account for it is NOT much help to anyone.

    I submit tha blipey, Zachriel and Richard Hughes are perfect examples of the anti-ID raving lunatics I posted aabout.

     
  • At 8:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    I am afraid I am unable to continue with this

    I have known that for days. That was evident when you started twisting what I posted into what you wanted my post to say.

    But I thank you for helping me to substantiate my claim.

     
  • At 8:47 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "ID does have scientific basis. And that would be demonstrated if you would present what I asked for."

    That's irrelevant to the claim I am addressing.

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "ID does have scientific basis. And that would be demonstrated if you would present what I asked for."

    Zachriel:
    That's irrelevant to the claim I am addressing.

    What you think you are addressing is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

    My claims in this thread would be substantiated if you could just present the data requested. Or if you cannot and no one cannot my claims would stand unopposed.

     
  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "What you think you are addressing is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

    My claims in this thread would be substantiated if you could just present the data requested.
    "

    The claim I am addressing is your own assertion, "I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics."

    This is unsubstantiated hyperbole. The majority of scientists working in the relevant fields of study have the expert opinion that Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory.

     
  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe,

    Get some help. I am completely serious about this. Find someone who can help you speak logically and string thoughts together in an organized way. You aredetatched from reality. I am not saying this because you disagree with eolution and are supporting ID. I am saying this because the way you argue and reason shows a complete disregard for normal, healthy human interaction. Get help.

    You're probably not going to hurt other people, but the chances that you harm yourself are much greater (you do spend more time with yourself than with anyone else).

    If you are able to come to grips with reality, I will be more than happy to help you with your ID questions, as will Richard Hughes and especially Zachriel (who has continually shown himself to be unbelievably patient and polite).

    I have just thought that you may not realize that you are detatched from reality. Let me give you nother example. I will, as I have done above, merely quote you. These are your words, not mine.

    My claims in this thread would be substantiated if you could just present the data requested.

    Scientists provide their own data. ID supporters are continually looking to scientists to provide their data and experiments and never doing any work of their own.

    You have asked US to define ID. You have asked US to provide the data for ID. You have asked US to show who ID supporters are.

    I realize you do this because IDiots are used to providing nothing of use and it is a hard habit to break, but you can do it. Provide the info we asked for--the basis of this thread--why your claim that 'anti-IDists' and 'scientists' are not oneand the same. Then we can move on to the rest of it.

    You will have to provide your own data there, also and not just sponge off of ours.

     
  • At 1:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    The claim I am addressing is your own assertion, "I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics."

    This is unsubstantiated hyperbole.

    If you would just provide what I asked for it would be substantiated. So how about it?

    Zachriel:
    The majority of scientists working in the relevant fields of study have the expert opinion that Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory.

    That is irrelevant. You can't even demonstrate they know anything about ID. Nor can they demonstrate the anti-ID postion is scientific.

    IOW raving lunatics. Or perhaps maybe just intellectual cowards with an over-riding bias towards intellectual dishonesty.

     
  • At 6:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I personally don't agree that anti-IDists are "raving lunatics." That would imply that they are incapable of understanding the subject matter of the science of ID. I personally beleive it is more of a purposeful misunderstanding as based on EMOTIONS than anything. It is indeed more a case of intellectual dishonesty; as joe g said, "intellectual cowardice."

    Furthermore RM + NS in neither an inference nor is it scientific. Even if true, there is no independant data available that either natural laws or random operations create information, for an inference to be made. Additionally, there is no scientific filter to distinguish between natural laws and random occurences, so trying to claim something is a random occurence is a science stopper, since it is the same as saying, "I don't know how any natural laws could have done this, so it must be the result of random occurences." Science is after all the study of laws that create natural phenomenon.

    However, ID (or Guided Mutations which is one ID concept) + NS is both scientific and an inference. It is scientific because it provides a filter of CSI and/or IC in order to distinguish teleological from ateleological processes. Furthermore, it is an inference from the understanding that natural laws don't create information (CSI) and every time we see information (CSI)is is always the result of a teleological process.


    Therefore, ID concepts should be used within science. Actually, there is really no problem there since scientists are already using some ID concpets unaware in areas such as bioinformatics, biomimicry, and synthetic biology, and even basic genetics (they know they are cracking a code for crying out loud).

     
  • At 8:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe,

    Do you recall anything from blipey that you haven't published? Anything at all? Just asking.

     
  • At 9:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    I am not saying this because you disagree with eolution and are supporting ID.

    But I don't disagree with evolution.

    blipey:
    Scientists provide their own data.

    Then why haven't they provided ANY data that would support the anti-ID position of sheer-dumb-luck?

    blipey:
    ID supporters are continually looking to scientists to provide their data and experiments and never doing any work of their own.

    That is just a bald-faced lie. In fact it is the scientific research of scientists which led to the design inference in the first place.

    blipey:
    You have asked US to define ID.

    I need to know what you think ID is. Being an anti-IDist would depend on having knowledge of ID.

    blipey:
    You have asked US to provide the data for ID.

    No, I have asked you to provide data for the anti-ID position of sheer-dumb-luck. Learn how to read.

    blipey:
    You have asked US to show who ID supporters are.

    Lies just roll off of your fingertips. Amazing. And you say that I need help? LoL!

    blipey:
    I realize you do this because IDiots are used to providing nothing of use and it is a hard habit to break, but you can do it.

    Ummm, standard ID definitions:

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

    And just what "use" is it to say "it evolved" without even knowing if such a thing is even possible.

    Not ALL scientists are anti-IDists. An ID critic is NOT an anti-IDist.

    blipey:
    You will have to provide your own data there, also and not just sponge off of ours.

    Amazing coming from someone who can't provide one iota of data to support the anti-ID position.

    Now if I could get the reference data I asked for we could move this along. IOW I could demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the blatant dismissal of ID is unwarranted and the act of raving lunatics, or intellectual cowards practicing intellectual dishonesty.


    blipey:
    Do you recall anything from blipey that you haven't published?

    Nope. Get some help. Or just go play in traffic...

     
  • At 9:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey wants to harp on one sentence in all of my posts. So let's look at this sentence IN CONTEXT:

    As for living in a cave- no. I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics. Most, if not all, clue-less as to what science really is.

    We exist buckwheat. There are only a few options behind the reality to that existence.

    The materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck.


    blipey wants to change one part to:

    Most, if not all, "scientists and science educators" know nothing about science.

    However it is obvious if we keep it IN CONTEXT the proper change would be:

    Most, if not all, people who say that sheer-dumb-luck is scientific and ID is not, know nothing about science.

    Evolution, right before our eyes!

     
  • At 9:43 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe,

    You do realize that what we are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with ID? Don't you? Please?

    We are discussing why the statement "scientists know nothing about science" is stupid.

    Notice that this sentence does not include the word ID, or anything relating to ID, in it. We are NOT discussing ID.

    We are discussing why you think scientists know nothing about science--thereby lending credence to my theory that you are a conspiracy theorist.

    So, to start over. I think we have agreed that the great majority of scientists think ID is bunk. Yes or no?

    Notice that this determination requires no knowledge of ID, or of anything in particular. It just asks the question of whether or not people that we define as scientists think that ID is bunk.

    It is rather similar to the question, "Do 27 year olds like football?" 27 year olds do not need to be experts on football to answer this question. And, in fact, they on't even need to know anything about football to answer it. Ask some very sports-knowledge-challenged friends of mine this question. They don't know a thing about football, but they will all say the dislike it.

    So, the original question in this long discussion remains unanswered (by you):

    Is it ration to think that scientists know nothing about science?

    You can start with the entry-level question of:

    "Do you agree that people we define as scientists are overwhelmingly anti-ID?"

    If you can answer this initial question, we can move on to some of yours. If not, continue to wallow in your own stupidity.

    best,

    blipey

     
  • At 9:50 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, I want to discuss a lot of your points, not just one sentence. However, it behooves nothing to discuss your unfocused ramblings if you can't carry on a rational conversation about even one tiny part of them.

    Thats the whole point of this thread--the issue of ID cannot be discussed because ID-supporters ramble and jump and skip about without ever staying on a point long enough to understand what they're talking about.

    I don't know why ID-supporters think they can immediately start talking about the finitee details of biology without even touching on the basics.

    I would never think about starting my intro to acting class with a production of Moliere's works. I would not, in fact, start them on a production at all. I start them wih fundementals of stagee presence, voice usage, etc. After a while, we work up doing small productions.

    Why is it that IDists think they skip all th small stuff?

    This is not an invitation to answer this question instead of the original. If you would like to discuss this issue, I can set up a post on my blog, or maybe you can start one here.

     
  • At 9:51 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, I want to discuss a lot of your points, not just one sentence. However, it behooves nothing to discuss your unfocused ramblings if you can't carry on a rational conversation about even one tiny part of them.

    Thats the whole point of this thread--the issue of ID cannot be discussed because ID-supporters ramble and jump and skip about without ever staying on a point long enough to understand what they're talking about.

    I don't know why ID-supporters think they can immediately start talking about the finitee details of biology without even touching on the basics.

    I would never think about starting my intro to acting class with a production of Moliere's works. I would not, in fact, start them on a production at all. I start them wih fundementals of stagee presence, voice usage, etc. After a while, we work up to doing small productions.

    Why is it that IDists think they skip all th small stuff?

    This is not an invitation to answer this question instead of the original. If you would like to discuss this issue, I can set up a post on my blog, or maybe you can start one here.

     
  • At 7:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    We are discussing why the statement "scientists know nothing about science" is stupid.

    You may discussing that bit of twisted reality, but I am not.

    However I would discuss the following statement with you:

    Most, if not all, people who say that sheer-dumb-luck is scientific and ID is not, know nothing about science.

    blipey:
    I think we have agreed that the great majority of scientists think ID is bunk. Yes or no?

    No. Neither one of know whether or not the great majority of scientists know anything about the real ID. That is what we have to establish first before we can go down that path.

    And if the NCSE is any indication the great majority only think a strawman of ID is scientific bunk.

    But then to show their opinion has ANY merit what-so-ever they must show how & why the materialistic alternative of sheer-dumb-luck qualifies as scientific.

    blipey:
    Notice that this determination requires no knowledge of ID, or of anything in particular.

    That is a pretty stupid statement. Of course someone has to know about ID BEFORE they can claim it is scientific bunk. Of course those same people have to know what is considered scientific and why & how it came to that status.

    And in reality scientists and science educators are a minority when it comes to anti-IDists. The overwhelming majority of anti-IDists are scientific illiterates like you.

     
  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    No, I want to discuss a lot of your points, not just one sentence.

    Reality demonstrates you want to discuss one sentence that you twisted (and took out-of-context).

    blipey:
    Thats the whole point of this thread--

    The point of this thread was to expose Odd Digit's dishonesty.


    blipey:
    If not, continue to wallow in your own stupidity.

    But the stupidity and dishonesty are all yours. No need to project your losing qualities.

     
  • At 7:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    to blipey,

    The following is the statement I will discuss as it more accurately protrays what I originally stated:

    Most, if not all, people who say that sheer-dumb-luck is scientific and ID is not, know nothing about science.

    If you have a problem with that then add it to your multitude of problems and take it to your shrink.

    However I do thank you for helping me confirm my point that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics. That certainly is true of every anti-IDist who has posted to my blog.

     
  • At 8:03 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    See how important words are Joe? You get your panties in a twist when I do a word substitution with your sentence (even though I defined and substantiated my word substitution). Then, you do your own substitution and it is suddenly alright to do it. Why is yours better than mine (other than your say so)? Objectivity is important.

    But no nevermind. We'll discuss your version as long as you promise to stick to it. You chose the sentence we will discuss so if you can't stick with it, you are lost to stupidity forever.

    Here's the new sentenceof discussion:

    Most, if not all, people who say that sheer-dumb-luck is scientific and ID is not, know nothing about science.

    1. What is your definition of "sheer-dumb-luck"?

    2. Why is that hyphenated? Ok, that's not a real question.

    2. Who are the people that say this thing, whatever it is?

    best,

    blipey

     
  • At 8:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    I don't know why ID-supporters think they can immediately start talking about the finitee details of biology without even touching on the basics.

    LoL! Not even the alleged great majority of scientists can talk about finite details of biology!

    Not one of those alleged great majority can tell us what mutations caused what changes nor whether or not any mutation/ selection process can account for the changes required if all of the diversity of extant living organisms owes their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms.

    It is exactly this lack of detail that demonstrated to objective people that the theory of evolution may not be what it is being made out to be.

    As for the basics I am still waiting to see what those may be. However neither blipey, RH or Zachriel have demonstrated that they know what science is.

     
  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    See how important words are Joe?

    I know how important words are Rawb.

    blipey:
    You get your panties in a twist when I do a word substitution with your sentence

    You are the panty-wearer here Rawb. Also it should upset anyone when their words get twisted.

    blipey:
    Then, you do your own substitution and it is suddenly alright to do it.

    Of course it is OK when someone substitutes his own words for his own words. ESPECIALLY when it keeps the context of what was originally stated.

    Most, if not all, people who say that sheer-dumb-luck is scientific and ID is not, know nothing about science.

    1. What is your definition of "sheer-dumb-luck"?

    unknown and unpredictable phenomena:

    "Chance alone," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."


    2. Who are the people that say this thing, whatever it is?

    It is the materialistic alternative to ID. Therefore anyone who is an anti-IDist and a materialist would be saying that, even if they didn't come right out a say it. Think about it (or at least try).

     
  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Please provide your definition of science and any valid cites. Thank you.

     
  • At 8:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Please provide your definition of science and any valid cites.

    Umm I am stilling waiting for you to do that.

    You do realize (probably you don't that all you are doing is to further demonstrate your dishonesty? Or perhaps you just don't care...

     
  • At 8:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Zachriel,

    I have blogged on "what is science" already and guess what? Not one evolutionitwit had an issue with it!

    IOW if you want to know what I think the definition of science is all one has to do is search my blog.

    Walking black-hole indeed...

     
  • At 9:03 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Well, it's sort of a start.

    1. What is your definition of "sheer-dumb-luck"?

    unknown and unpredictable phenomena:


    This is all together too vague for my liking. It clears up none of the sketchy areas of the term you are defining. For example, unknown to whom? If aliens are playing basketball with the universe, they would presumably be playing by a set of rules. I don't know what tese rules are--they are completely unknown to me--yet because they are a set of rules, they are not unknown in a general sense (especially to the aliens).

    Random number generators, in theory, produce numbers that are unpredictable. Yet, they are set up to run on algorithms which generate their output. the outcome may be unpredictable, but the process is not unknown nor mysterious--it is not dumb luck that they generate random numbers.

    Of course, you qualified your definition with another scattershot add on:

    "Chance alone," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."

    This is someone's opinion (that I happen to agree with, but that's immaterial); it is not a definition.

    more Joe:

    2. Who are the people that say this thing, whatever it is?

    It is the materialistic alternative to ID. Therefore anyone who is an anti-IDist and a materialist would be saying that, even if they didn't come right out a say it.


    Is it fair, then, to rephrase your statement as follows:

    Most, if not all, materialists who deny ID, know nothing about science.?

     
  • At 9:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Most, if not all, people who say that sheer-dumb-luck is scientific and ID is not, know nothing about science.

    blipey:
    Is it fair, then, to rephrase your statement as follows:

    Most, if not all, materialists who deny ID, know nothing about science.?


    No. Leave my words alone and deal with them as they are.

    1. What is your definition of "sheer-dumb-luck"?

    unknown and unpredictable phenomena:

    blipey:
    This is all together too vague for my liking.

    Sounds like a personal problem to me.

    Random variation/ mutation culled by natural selection should be all together to vague for any objective person's liking. Yet look at its status.

    blipey:
    For example, unknown to whom?

    Any and every one.

    blipey:
    Random number generators...

    Every one of which is designed and built by an intelligent agency. Next.

    blipey:
    Of course, you qualified your definition with another scattershot add on:

    "Chance alone," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."

    Just because your small mind disables you from seeing the relavance of that quote does not make it a "scattershot add on".

    And if, as you say, you agree with it, then you should understand it as well as its relevance.

    IOW all you are doing is cementing my claims. Thanks.

     
  • At 10:09 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    If your words cannot be rephrased at all in any manner, they mean nothing. It's as if I said "Walter Payton is the greatest runningback of all time" and told people they could not take this to mean he was "the greatest runner of all time" or "the greatest scorer of all time" or the greatest anything of all time. It would be a meaningless blob of hyperbole.

    Here's the deal you stupid jackass:

    QUOTE:

    blipey:
    This is all together too vague for my liking.

    Sounds like a personal problem to me.

    Random variation/ mutation culled by natural selection should be all together to vague for any objective person's liking. Yet look at its status.

    blipey:
    For example, unknown to whom?

    Any and every one.

    blipey:
    Random number generators...

    Every one of which is designed and built by an intelligent agency. Next.


    I explained every one of these things in my above post and you chose to ignore the substance of my claims and respond only with rhetoric. As in the designed by an intelligent agency bit. We aren't talking about ID, CSI, or any of that other dick-numbing shit.

    You don't bother to address the questions of anyone else yet bitch and moan that nobody ever answers poor-little-you's questions.

    Well, Idid, and on your handpicked sentence, too. You still didn't manage to stay on topic or provide any relevant answers or questions.

    Take your rock-stupid self and do something. You're so confident that you have the right of it, how about going out and proving it.

    Write a textbook. Appeal the Dover, PA case. Apply for a Templeton Grant for ID Research. All of these things are within your power. Stop wasting your obvious talents at crappy blogs and become famous! Be Dembski. No, be better than that--actually DO something.

    You aren't afraid to take your ideas into the real world are you? Are you?

     
  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    If your words cannot be rephrased at all in any manner, they mean nothing.

    I never said nor implied my words cannot be rephrased at all in any manner.

    Only an IDiot would come to that conclusion from reading my post. And only a person who came to that (twisted) conclusion would start a post like that.

    blipey:
    It's as if I said "Walter Payton is the greatest runningback of all time" and told people they could not take this to mean he was "the greatest runner of all time"

    He wasn't.

    blipey:
    or "the greatest scorer of all time"

    He wasn't

    blipey:
    or the greatest anything of all time.

    That would be a direct contradiction.

    blipey:
    Here's the deal you stupid jackass:

    Again with the projection. Don't blame me for your stupidity.

    blipey:
    I explained every one of these things in my above post and you chose to ignore the substance of my claims and respond only with rhetoric.

    Umm your posts lack substance and your "explanations" are lacking in explanatory power.

    blipey:
    As in the designed by an intelligent agency bit.

    Ask a stupid question (or post stupidity)...

    blipey:
    We aren't talking about ID, CSI, or any of that other dick-numbing shit.

    Your panties are in a twist again. That would explain the numbing.

    blipey:
    You don't bother to address the questions of anyone else yet bitch and moan that nobody ever answers poor-little-you's questions.

    I addressed your (real) questions.

    You just don't understand the responses so your bitty mind says to "strike".

    blipey:
    You're so confident that you have the right of it, how about going out and proving it.

    But science is NOT about "proving". But thanks for continuing to cement my claims.

    I can NOT appeal the "Dover" case, nor would I want to.

    However thanks to that case I now know how to introduce ID to high school students. And anyone else with an objectively open mind. (which leaves you out)

    This is the real world and it is becoming more apparent every day that anti-IDists cannot support their claims in it.

     
  • At 10:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That's it until later today Rawb. If you leave a comment I will post it when I return to the internet...

     
  • At 8:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Blipey asked me to define sheer-dumb-luck. I posted the following:

    "Chance alone," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."

    The point being, of course, that sheer-dumb-luck is “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind.”

    And in the context I am refering to:

    Sheer- not mixed with extraneous elements
    Dumb- lacking intelligence
    Luck- an unknown and unpredictable phenomenon that causes an event to result one way rather than another

    If that is still too vague then you are beyond reach, especially seeing that you accept the very vague random mutations/ variations culled by natural selection as a scientifc explanation.


    blipey (on RNGs):
    it is not dumb luck that they generate random numbers.

    Right it is by design. That was the point of my initial response. I apologize for not spelling it out for you but I really thought you could follow along.

     
  • At 8:56 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "The materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck."

    There are any number of *possible* theories to explain biological diversity. However, the first-order observation is that organic variation is random (an independent variable) with respect to the environment.

    Please try not to conflate observation with theory.

     
  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "The materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck."

    Zachriel:
    There are any number of *possible* theories to explain biological diversity.

    That may be true but it is also irrelevant as I am talking about more than biology (ID extends well beyond biology as those who know anything about ID understand).

    Zachriel:
    However, the first-order observation is that organic variation is random (an independent variable) with respect to the environment.

    Irrelevant *even if it weer true).

    You really should understand a discussion BEFORE you jump into it.

     
  • At 7:43 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "The materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck."

    Zachriel: "However, the first-order observation is that organic variation is random (an independent variable) with respect to the environment."

    Joe g: "Irrelevant *even if it weer true)."

    Um, observation is absolutely relevant to determining the validity of scientific theories.

     
  • At 8:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Um, observation is absolutely relevant to determining the validity of scientific theories.

    Ummm that would take Common Descent out of the realm of valid scientific theories. Never been observed and can't be objectively tested.

    However my point was is that what Zachriel posted is irrelevant to the discussion. Also what he stated can't be demonstrated because we don't fully understand genomes. Therefore when we try to undertsand mutations it would be like a two year old trying to understand a printout of a long C++ program.

    So the bottom line is once again Zachriel interupts a thread with his distraction.

     
  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ya see Zachriel, before youi even start talking about biology you had better be prepared to demonstrate that sheer-dumb-luck can explain biological organisms in the first place. Because if it cannot there would be no reason to infer random is main part of the diversity equation.

     
  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "The materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck."

    joe g: "Ya see Zachriel, before youi even start talking about biology you had better be prepared to demonstrate that sheer-dumb-luck can explain biological organisms in the first place."

    But that wasn't the claim. Rather, you set up a classic false dichotomy, either it is blind-dumb-luck or Intelligent Design is true. Even if the current Theory of Evolution (or your strawman version of it) is false, that doesn't make Intelligent Design true.

     
  • At 1:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Rather, you set up a classic false dichotomy, either it is blind-dumb-luck or Intelligent Design is true.

    That is false. There are other non-materialistic scenarios other than ID.

    Zachriel:
    Even if the current Theory of Evolution (or your strawman version of it) is false, that doesn't make Intelligent Design true.

    I never said nor implied otherwise. And if anyone has been reading my blog, especially someone who has polluted this blog as long as you have, they would know I have made it clear that even if the ToE were false it does not make ID true.

    However when one is handed a limited number of options and one is scientifically taken away, wishful thinking doesn't bring it back.

    One must carry on with the reduced number of options. There is nothing wrong with "If I can't prove one I will set about disproving those that I can."

     
  • At 2:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    From the OP -

    "ID reality"

    Too funny.

     
  • At 8:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Corporal Kate, anoy=ther IDiot, chimes in with a substance-free post. And she also helps confirm my claims. Thanks CK...

     
  • At 12:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Aw, c'mon, Joe. Buy a sense of humor.

    Sour grapes have we?

    I'm pretty sure my last comment spoke volumes, and I'll even bet it made everyone but you smile.

    Besides, Joe. After having read this entire thread, it's pretty clear that you are barking up the wrong tree, and this fact has been explained to you in little itty bitty words, and yet you just refuse to grab onto reality.

    Zachriel and blipey have taken copious amounts of time to provide you with plenty of substance, but you've closed your mind, locked the door, and threw away the key.

    What point would there be in wasting yet more vast amounts of time on your silliness?

    I just thought I'd brighten someone's day.

    Lighten up.

     
  • At 1:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    CK:
    Aw, c'mon, Joe. Buy a sense of humor.

    Why buy what I have plenty of?

    CK:
    Sour grapes have we?

    Mine are sweeter than sweet.

    CK:
    I'm pretty sure my last comment spoke volumes, and I'll even bet it made everyone but you smile.

    You would be wrong (as usual). I smiled because I knew that your comment would substantiate my claims in this thread. So I thank you.


    CK:
    Besides, Joe. After having read this entire thread, it's pretty clear that you are barking up the wrong tree, and this fact has been explained to you in little itty bitty words, and yet you just refuse to grab onto reality.

    CK, you can't understand normal thinking. Just what "fact" has been explained to me?

    CK:
    Zachriel and blipey have taken copious amounts of time to provide you with plenty of substance, but you've closed your mind, locked the door, and threw away the key.

    That is clearly a negative. There isn't any substance to the PoV of sheer-dumb-luck.

    Ya see CK I'm fine. People always attempt to mock what they don't understand. You just provided a glaring example.

     
  • At 8:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I smiled because I knew that your comment would substantiate my claims in this thread.

    I have yet to see a single thing you've said substantiated. If you think otherwise, well, there's just not much anyone can do to help you.

    As I said, your mind is closed, and no amount of reality will change your mind. It's sad, really.

    "CK, you can't understand normal thinking. Just what "fact" has been explained to me?"

    Don't read for comprehension very well either, do ya Joe? "this fact" very clearly refers back to the preceding clause of the very same sentence.

    That fact, Joe. The fact that you are barking up the wrong tree.

    Is English not your first language? I'm not being snarky, and not criticizing, just want to know where we stand here.

    "That is clearly a negative."

    Yes, Joe. Having a closed mind is definitely a negative, and something to be avoided. I'm glad we agree on that.

    "There isn't any substance to the PoV of sheer-dumb-luck."

    You are attacking a strawman, Joe.

    "God...um... the Intelligent Designer...um... the Disembodied Telic Entity did it," is seriously without substance. In fact, since you seem to have missed the memo from the Discovery Institute, allow me to fill you in.

    Even that is no longer the position of the cdesign proponentsists. The new position is "Evolution Sucks". Now that's substance, baby!

    not.

    "Ya see CK I'm fine. People always attempt to mock what they don't understand. You just provided a glaring example."

    Pot/Kettle, Joe.

    There isn't anything to understand about ID, Joe. There's no theory. Ask your boy Dembski, or Behe, or Johnson.

    All they've got is "Evolution Sucks". The whole movement boils down to "Nuh-uh".

    Not much in the way of science there.

     
  • At 9:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    CK:
    I have yet to see a single thing you've said substantiated.

    Of course YOU haven't. That is part of the problem.

    CK:
    As I said, your mind is closed, and no amount of reality will change your mind.

    My mind is closed because I have considered ALL possible options BEFORE reaching an inference- an inference shared by many of the greatest scientists to ever walk this planet? LoL!

    And please explain what you mean when you say I am barking up the wrong tree.

    I did post the following pertaining to the OP:

    In the end a blog is under the rule(s) of the blogger(s).

    No one said a blog has to allow comments or that a blogger has to respond to them or even post them.

    If people want to be heard (read) all they have to do is to start their own.

    So in that light I will blog about the errors OD made pertaining to ID (as time permits).


    CK:
    Having a closed mind is definitely a negative, and something to be avoided. I'm glad we agree on that.

    The pull your head out of your arse and open up.

    "There isn't any substance to the PoV of sheer-dumb-luck."

    CK:
    You are attacking a strawman, Joe.

    That wasn't an attack, it is a fact. And that ain't no strawman neither masser, that be a boneefide truth.

    Just what is the explanation for the laws that govern nature excluding some intelligent designer(s) or Creator?

    Just look at the "accepted" exlanation for the formation of the Earth/ Moon system. Sheer-dumb-luck- that is in the materialistic alternative to ID.

    Sheer-dumb-luck that all the factors required to sustain complex life just happened to come together at the same place and the same time. No laws explain it. Every other solar system we have observed is different than ours.

    CK:
    "God...um... the Intelligent Designer...um... the Disembodied Telic Entity did it," is seriously without substance. In fact, since you seem to have missed the memo from the Discovery Institute, allow me to fill you in.

    But reality demonstrates that it matters a great deal to investigators whetjer or not what they are investigating is the result of intentional/ intelligent design or nature, operating freely.

    Reality also demonstartes that we do NOT need to know the designer BEFORE detecting design and in fact, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the specific process is by studying teh design(s) in question.

    CK:
    Even that is no longer the position of the cdesign proponentsists. The new position is "Evolution Sucks". Now that's substance, baby.

    All I know is that ID does NOT say anything against evolution. It never has.

    However it is obvious that just saying "it evolved" without even knowing if such evolution is even possible, is nothing at all.


    "Ya see CK I'm fine. People always attempt to mock what they don't understand. You just provided a glaring example."

    CK:
    Pot/Kettle, Joe.

    Wrong again CK. I was an evolutionitwit. Then I woke up. IOW I fully explored and continue to explore the possibility that our existence is due, as Monad put it:

    "Chance alone," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."

    But I take it that Nobel Prize-winning chemist is erecting a strawman. Or what part about thta doesn't CK understand? Admit it CK, you can't understand normal thinking.

    CK:
    There isn't anything to understand about ID, Joe.

    Of course there is. We exist. There are only so many options.

    You can continue to worship "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind", but I ain't buyin it.

    So I guess that means I can only be as scientifically literarte as Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, Linneaus, Einstein, Planck, et al.

    I can live with that. Ignots like you wallow in the waste of those scientific giants.

    Good night, and good luck...

     
  • At 9:37 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Wow Joe. You throw around the claim of non-substantiation a lot for a person who makes this statement:

    "An inference shared by many of the greatest scientists who walked the planet."

    Um, I suppose you'll be supplying us with this list of eminent scientists who agree with you any moment now? If not, is it okay that you don't substantiate your statements?

    Also, you keep using that quote from Monod. You do realize it means that design has never had any place in the creation, right?

    He's saying that chance is at the source of the universe and this, in no way, defeats NH, CD, or ToE. If you think it does, you are beyonfd help.

    best,

    blipey

    p.s. like the sign off btw, it's cute. fabulous movie, if you haven't seen it.

     
  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    You throw around the claim of non-substantiation a lot for a person who makes this statement:

    My claims of non-substantiation have been demonstrateably true.

    "An inference shared by many of the greatest scientists who walked the planet."

    blipey:
    Um, I suppose you'll be supplying us with this list of eminent scientists who agree with you any moment now?

    I did:

    Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, Linneaus, Einstein, Planck, et al.

    Do you want more?

    "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind." --Max Planck, during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech

    blipey:
    Also, you keep using that quote from Monod.

    I use it to substantiate the claim that the anti-ID materialistic PoV is sheer-dumb-luck.

    blipey:
    You do realize it means that design has never had any place in the creation, right?

    I do. I also realize that it is an unsubstantiated claim. THAT has been my point for decades.

    blipey:
    He's saying that chance is at the source of the universe and this, in no way, defeats NH, CD, or ToE.

    I know what he says and I know what it means. I never thought nor implied that what Monad said defeats NH, CD or the ToE.

    I use it to exemplify the anti-ID materialistic thinking and to refute anyone who says I am erecting and attacking a strawman when I say "sheer-dumb-luck" in reference to the anti-ID materialistic position.

     
  • At 7:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Good night, and good luck..."

    Yes I saw the movie and it reminded me of the situation IDists now find themselves in. The Sternberg case is a great example of it.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home