Wes Elsberry- Proud to be an ignorant asshole

-
Wes Elsberry is one anti-ID punk I would love to have a debte with.

He is so full of shit he would shit all over the stage and think he won.

But anyway- Wes Elsberry's fact-free rant

I had posted:

In What is evolution?, Larry Moran, professor, biologist, evolutionist and staunch anti-IDist, all but proves that neither ID NOR Creation (baraminology) are anti-evolution.

To which Wes responded:

Seems like Joe G. isn't actually reading for comprehension... again. The linked article does no such thing.

Well Wes if your weren't so goddamn ignorant of ID and Creation you would know that both accept evolution as posted by Dr Moran.

There isn't anything in his post that goes against what ID or Creation claims.

But let me back up a little- before providing a definintion of evolution isaid:

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.


And Wes spewed:

I'm unfamiliar with that usage of "properly", which, by my reckoning, would have to be something like "if ID is presented [with a mix of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and convenient omissions tendentiously slanted in IDC's direction] the kids would [be indoctrinated into the view] that ID is NOT anti-evolution."

No assface- it means if ID is presented without your brand of lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations- people will understand ID is not anti-evolution.

And as a matter of fact that is exactly what I am doing.

Back to the Elsberry drivel-

I say that because both allow for changes in allele frequency. Both allow for populations to change via mutation, heredity and differential survival.

Drivel:

IDC and baraminology are not antievolutionary because of rejecting every single tenet of evolutionary science; they are antievolutionary because they insist that non-testable, unscientific concepts must be accepted and particular evolutionary concepts must be rejected.

IDC exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

Also it is Wes's position that has the non-testable, unscientific concepts and should be rejected.

For example just how can one test the premise that anything "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Further down I say:

IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search (weasel)- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism).

And Wes's non-response:

I'll pass over Joe G.'s confusion concerning "Weasel" and note that we've already disproved this class of universal claim.

Translation- Wes is too stupid to even understand what I said.

Then all Wes can do is conflate IDists with ID.

Well would Wes want that done to the theory of evolution?

Of course not because then the ToE would be classified as an atheistic theory and be under the same separation laws that keep Creation out of the science classroom.

Wes, just so that I am clear- you are a piece of shit clueless loser.

You "debate" like a little girl.

And that you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse is hilarious.