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, March 02, 2010

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.

17 Comments:

  • At 4:04 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    IDC exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

    "cdesignproponentsist"

    'nuff said.

     
  • At 4:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So ignorant spewage is "'nuff said"?

    But that "logic" the theory of evolution is a Creation theory because of what Darwin had PUBLISHED:

    "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."- bold added (last sentence on the page)

    So thanks Thorton I already knew that you are willfully ignorant.

    But anyway I took care of Thorton's "objection"-

    Eugenie C. Scott & Glenn Branch are Dishonest Assholes and the NCSE is a Nazi-like Propaganda Machine

    Not that I expect to dishonest punk like Thorton acknowledge any of that.

     
  • At 5:47 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    From your 'rebuttal':

    To try to make the case that ID = Creation they rely solely on Barbara Forrest’s interception of a rough draft of “Of Pandas and People”. Got that- a ROUGH draft that had the word “creationist” (small c), as the authors were searching for the proper term that would fit their position.

    That is why we call them ROUGH drafts- because they are NOT ready for prime-time.

    In another rough draft "creationist" was replaced with "cdesign proponents". And guess what? These two jump all over that too! (the "c" was over-looked)


    What you forgot to mention was the ROUGH draft and the FINAL PRODUCT were virtually identical - over 99% similarity in technical content. The only major change between the ROUGH draft and the FINAL VERSION was the global replacing of the terms "creation" and "creationist" with the terms "design" and "design proponents".

    Even the right wing Christian Republican judge saw what a sham that was.

     
  • At 7:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- The judge was and is a fucking asshole. He didn't even allow the publisher to testify and he didn't even read their amicus brief.

    2- You are a clueless dolt- you didn't even read the whole blog I linked to- did you? You didn't follow the links, did you?

    IOW once again you choose to "argue" from ignorance.

    So are you admitting that the theory of evolution is a creation theory?

     
  • At 7:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    For some reason these imps think that a rough draft means something. Too bad the publisher did not have a chance to defend itself during the trial*. And it is pretty sad that evolutionists can only “defend” themselves in venues in which there isn’t any opposing view that could refute their nonsense.

     
  • At 7:13 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    And it is pretty sad that evolutionists can only “defend” themselves in venues in which there isn’t any opposing view that could refute their nonsense

    What then is stopping you from presenting your positive evidence and defending ID at ATBC? Besides the fact you have no evidence, and no spine?

     
  • At 7:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What then is stopping you from presenting your positive evidence and defending ID at ATBC?

    Besides the fact that ATBC stands for "All tards bloviating chicanery" and it is run by dishonest cock-suckers?

    As if I need a whole jungle of monkies throwing stones at me.

    I am here.

    What is preventing those lying intellectual cowards from coming here and refuting my arguments?

    What is you from actually responding to the positive arguments for ID?

    What is preventing YOU from actually supporting your position- ya know with some positive evidence?

    That's right you don't have any evidence nor a brain- nor do any of the assholes you stroke over on atbc-

    all tards, all the time...

     
  • At 7:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW- that piece you responded to- it was from the link you didn't read and is in reference to the Dover stupidity.

    IOW Forrest and ilk didn't have to answer to the people who knew best about the book they were slandering.

    And Jonesy sure as hell didn't read the publisher's amicus.

     
  • At 8:10 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    What is you from actually responding to the positive arguments for ID?

    The fact that you haven't presented any.

     
  • At 8:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 9:21 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Sorry, but your ignorance based personal incredulity does not count as 'positive evidence'.

    But thanks for playing.

     
  • At 6:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Is that it?

    Is THAT your "refutation"?

    You think your ignorance is a refutation?

    BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAA- BWAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAA

    You are a joke Thorton and thank you for proving that you couldn't understand evidence if it was spoon-fed to you.

    Now how about the positive evidence for your position so I can have another laugh...

     
  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    I thought this was supposed to be a place to get ID evidence. Apparently that consists of you ranting "I don't believe the scientific explanation, so ID did it!!" Good luck convincing anyone with that approach.

    Now how about the positive evidence for your position so I can have another laugh...

    A poster at ATBC said it best:

    "Is that how you support your position- by questioning mine?

    What a fucking loser you are.

    Now you know why people don't come here to support thewir position- not one of you faggots can support yours."

     
  • At 10:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thorton,

    Your stupidity and ignorance are duly noted.

    I thought this was supposed to be a place to get ID evidence.

    I provided just that and you choked on it.

    What was that supposed to prove?

    Apparently that consists of you ranting "I don't believe the scientific explanation, so ID did it!!"

    Design is a scientific explanation.

    What scientific explanation are you talking about?

    Please be specific- your bald assertions, false accusations and general ability to lie at will are not specifics.

    Good luck convincing anyone with that approach.

    That how it should be- I provided the evidence to suppport ID.

    I cannot force the person or people to understand the evidence.

    But a competent person would mount an intelligent rebuttal that at least demonstrated he understood the evidence.

    All you can do is mutter a vague reference to "scientific explanation" without saying what that entails.

    IOW all you have done is prove that you are an ignorant fuck and apparently not only proud of it but you really think it refutes my arguments.

    I find that hilarious as hell...

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A poster at ATBC said it best:

    "Is that how you support your position- by questioning mine?

    What a fucking loser you are.

    Now you know why people don't come here to support thewir position- not one of you faggots can support yours."


    Yes I did and you are a perfect example of what I was talking about.

    Go ahead find and read all of your posts to this blog.

    Not once have you even attempted to support your position and all you can do is wave your hands when evidence is presented that supports ID.

    Is that what you were trying to do? Prove my point?

    Well thank you...

     
  • At 10:56 PM, Blogger TFT said…

    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.

    Could it be that many folks are not willing to take ID and Creation as fact--instead of being "ignorant" as you put it?

    When you make your case based on yet to be supported notions of ID and Creation, which, as you are painfully aware, are not settled fact, you invite parody.

    ID and Creation are known to only those of you who claim to know it. It's like your little secret, unsupported by anything in the real world. But, of course, your world is not real. Your world was created by magic mystery beings.

    I am willing to wait and see where the facts lead. So far, they lead away from crazy ideas like ID and Creationism.

     
  • At 7:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Great another asshole chimes in:

    TFT:
    Could it be that many folks are not willing to take ID and Creation as fact--instead of being "ignorant" as you put it?

    They don't have to take it as a fact.

    But in order to refute something one first has to understand it.

    Wes doesn't understand ID and misrepresents it because he is a big baby.

    When you make your case based on yet to be supported notions of ID and Creation, which, as you are painfully aware, are not settled fact, you invite parody.

    Your position is the joke.

    That's the point.

    All Wes and his ilk have to do is actually support the cliams of their position.

    But they cannot so they have to attack a strawman of their creation.

    Also ID is supported by the evidence.

    ID and Creation are known to only those of you who claim to know it.

    And they wrote about so that people can read about it.

    Your world was created by magic mystery beings.

    Only ignorant assholes think that design is magic.

    Did it take magic to produce carsand jets?

    And BTW it is your position that requires magical mystery mutations.

    I am willing to wait and see where the facts lead. So far, they lead away from crazy ideas like ID and Creationism.

    Except all facts lead to ID.

    There isn't anything to support your position.

    Why is that?

    Why is it that you cannot provide any positive evidence to support your position?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home