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, March 03, 2007

PZ Meyers, professor and table pounder

It is rather odd that PZ would take the following position:
Get meaner, angrier, louder, fiercer

When in reality all he has to do is to substantiate his position. Do THAT PZ and both ID and Creation will go away.

"When you have the facts on your side, pound them with the facts."

"When you have the law on your side, pound them with the law."

"When you have neither, pound the table."

PZ's song(to the tune of Todd Rundgren's "Bang on the drum all day")

I don't have the facts
I'm going to pound on the table all day
I don't have the law
I'm going to pound on the table all day

Ever since I was a little boy
I don't need a "God",
I just need my toys
I took some wood and made me a table
and I pound on that thing
As much as I am able
Because

I don't have the facts
I'm going to pound on the table all day
I don't have the law
I'm going to pound on the table all day


You rock PZ. Thanks to people like you ID is getting more and more attention. Soon people like me are going to rumble right over your sorry rhetoric. In the meantime please keep up the good work.

posted by Joe G @ 3:50 PM  

9 Comments:

  • At 1:15 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    All attention is good attention right? Oh wait; that's all press is good press.

    But ID is about science and not press releases, so I'm sure I'm wrong.

     

  • At 4:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There's good press? Doubtful. But anway-

    Believe it or not blipey there is a reality behind our existence. You can choose to accept sheer dumb luck as an explanation but there are many of us who are sure that is just plain nonsensical, scientifically unsupported and totally goes against all intuition.

    But keep pounding away. Soon you guys will give "Stomp" a run for the money.

     

  • At 11:43 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Stomp is so 1998. Really, we're into Disney musials now, and even they're getting pretty passe.

    But more importantly, you realise you just formed a sentence equating "science" and "intuition"? You do realise why this is funny?

     

  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    But more importantly, you realise you just formed a sentence equating "science" and "intuition"?

    I can't realize what I didn't do. However I do understand why you would infer such a thing.

    And yes, that is funny, but in a sad way.

    But more importantly you accept that your position is nothing more than sheer dumb luck. IOW we are making progress.

     

  • At 12:06 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe:

    ...scientifically unsupported and totally goes against all intuition

    The conjunction "and" equates the two : science and intuition. Your sentence says that if something was scientifically supported it would also be completely intuitive. That's stupid.

     

  • At 12:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Although I find that your stupidity is entertaining, sometimes it gets tiresome.

    ALL intuition, blipey. And yes scientists do employ their own intuition when conducting scientific research.

    Your sentence says that if something was scientifically supported it would also be completely intuitive.

    Only you would think so, blipey. Only you (well I am sure there are the slime you hang with that may agree, but then one must consider the source of the inference). IOW once again you demonstrate a complete lack of inference skills, along with you complete misunderstanding of grammar- which was exposed in your false accusation of "sentence splicing".

    With the way I worded it something can be scientifically supported and still go against all intuition. Sheer dumb luck just violates both AND it is nonsensical.

    With the AND one can make three SEPARATE sentences.

    Sheer dumb luck is nonsensical.
    Sheer dumb luck is scientifically unsupported.
    Sheer dumb luck totally goes aganst all intuition.

    A change in one does NOT affect the others.

    If you are good at entertaining I suggest you stay with it. You obviously don't have any real knowledge to help you get by in life. But good luck with that.

     

  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    thanks, I've got my fill of tard. I'll be back in about a month.

    but chew on why you think something needs to be intuitive to be correct.

    think about it, are there things that go against intuition that are still correct?

    If so, why is "evolution goes against intuition" a valid argument? Should it matter whether it does or not?

     

  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    thanks, I've got my fill of tard.

    Is that why you drop by here- to shed your overload of tard?

    IOW you are ALWAYS FULL OF TARD. You hang out in tardland. You communicate with other tards regularly. You even speak imbecile fluently. (imbecile is the language of imbeciles. a language in which no one knows what is being said and often resembles nothing more than grunts, growls and drooling)

    blipey:
    I'll be back in about a month.

    Is that a threat?

    blipey:
    but chew on why you think something needs to be intuitive to be correct.

    There isn't anything to chew on. I never said nor implied that something needs to be intuitive to be correct.

    That you infer such a thing further exposes your ignorance-driven agenda.

    blipey:
    If so, why is "evolution goes against intuition" a valid argument?

    First show me who is using that argument.

    MY argument pertains ONLY to sheer dumb luck.
    MY argument pertains to sheer dumb luck satisfying THREE criteria. And three only because I stopped, voluntarily.

    blipey:
    Should it matter whether it does or not?

    That would all depend on the scientific validity.

    Hopefully, for your sake, you are better at something than you are at constructing an argument or making a point.

     

  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    By blipey's "logic", if I were to say that blipey is full of shit, stupid beyond belief and a skinny toothprick, I just equated stupid beyond belief with being a skinny toothprick.


    You live a very sad life blipey. Get some help.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home