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

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Reciprocating Bill Continues His Assault on the Theory of Evolution

-
Reciprocating Bill is nailing the coffin shut on the theory of evolution. It is:
A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable to guidance to empirical research and is not pursued even by its own advocates is not a scientific viewpoint.

That is always best coming from an evolutionist. I would say Philip Skell and others echo those sentiments.

Carry on RB...

38 Comments:

  • At 5:45 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Why do you lie, Joe?

    http://tinyurl.com/265pvj5

     
  • At 9:33 PM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    Vis ID, sayeth RB:

    "Ultimately all the science with bearing on these questions is conducted within the framework of evolutionary biology, as ID offers no testable entailments and contributes nothing to ongoing research. This reflects the emptiness of ID's proposed mechanism, a reality reflected in the fact that no research, including even "design detection," is being conducted from within the framework of ID. A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable to guidance to empirical research and is not pursued even by its own advocates is not a scientific viewpoint."

    Joe G's:

    "Reciprocating Bill is nailing the coffin shut on the theory of evolution. It is:

    'A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable to guidance to empirical research and is not pursued even by its own advocates is not a scientific viewpoint.'

    That is always best coming from an evolutionist."

    I've no trouble believing that Joe understood what I wrote exactly as he quotes it.

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

    Richtard:
    Why do you lie, Joe?

    What lie assface? I wasn't fighting...

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

    RB:
    Ultimately all the science with bearing on these questions is conducted within the framework of evolutionary biology...

    That means either within the framework of equivocation or within the framework that is devoid of context = empty. IOW R Bill is full of shit.

    RB:
    as ID offers no testable entailments and contributes nothing to ongoing research.

    Actually ID offers both. And no amount of your bullshit and lies will change that fact.

    RB:
    This reflects the emptiness of ID's proposed mechanism, a reality reflected in the fact that no research, including even "design detection," is being conducted from within the framework of ID.

    Ummm that is done within the framework of science. Also the only framework that explains overlapping genes, alternative (gene) splicing, transcription and translation with their proof-reading and error-correction, is ID.

    IOW nothing in biology makes any sense except in the light of Intelligent Design.

    RB:
    A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable to guidance to empirical research and is not pursued even by its own advocates is not a scientific viewpoint."

    And THAT is your position in a nutshell- unable to guide empirical research and not pursued by its own advocates. That much is evidenced by the utter failure of its advocates to produce any positive evidence for it.

    Thanks Bill, your continued blathering just further exposes the emptiness of your position.

     
  • At 7:42 AM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    Joe G,

    Did you somehow misread my statement as referring to evolutionary theory rather than ID?

    Or did you simply lie in the OP?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

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

    R Bill,

    Did you simply misread my statements that you continually misrepresent?

    Or do you simply lie?

    Enquiring minds want to know...

    IOW asshole if you can dish it out you had better be prepared to take it.

    I love using evotard tactics against them!

     
  • At 8:04 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    I love using evotard tactics against them!

    And look where it's gotten you!

    It's just a matter of time before you receive the call to come pick up your Nobel...

     
  • At 8:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I love using evotard tactics against them!

    OM:
    And look where it's gotten you!

    Yes it has gotten me a house without a mortgage, three cars and a mess of toys.

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Yes it has gotten me a house without a mortgage, three cars and a mess of toys.

    Spoken like a committed materialist!

     
  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Spoken like a committed materialist!

    Spoken like a committed evotard!

     
  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe better hope ID never takes off, because then they'll be able to get picky about their membership. Which way is Mecca, Joe?

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

    ID is taking off.

    And all Richtard can do is whine and pound the table...

     
  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    ID is taking off.

    What's changed in the last decade or so?

    ID research journals are moribund, Dembski has just come out to believe in a literal interpenetration the bible, global flood and all.

    So ID is indeed on the way up, up to the vapor canopy of Walt Brown by the look of it!

     
  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    What's changed in the last decade or so?

    More scientific data and evidence that supports the design inference.

    And still nothing that supports yours.

     
  • At 9:53 AM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    Joe G:

    "if you can dish it out you had better be prepared to take it."

    OK. Your OP is a lame attempt at turnabout, and therefore a lie. Thanks for the clarification.

    (Why you would think I would find that hard to "take" is a mystery to me.)

     
  • At 9:59 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    More scientific data and evidence that supports the design inference.

    What, like your examples of the EF in action?


    And still nothing that supports yours.


    About those examples of medical breakthroughs that ID has enabled...

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    R Bill:
    Your OP is a lame attempt at turnabout,

    No, my OP is what I inferred by your words and actions.

    R Bill:
    (Why you would think I would find that hard to "take" is a mystery to me.)

    I didn't say that. I didn't even think it.

    Are you lying again?

     
  • At 11:16 AM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    Joe G: "No, my OP is what I inferred by your words and actions."

    OK. You didn't understand my post. I can deal with that.

    RB: "Why you would think I would find that hard to "take" is a mystery to me."

    Joe G: "I didn't say that. I didn't even think it."

    You said, "you had better be prepared to take it."

    I'm just clarifying what you suppose I am taking. The two possibilities I can think of are 1) your OP shows that you didn't understand my comment, or 2) In your OP you lied about the content and intent of my comment, most likely as a lame attempt at turnabout.

    You've clarified that your quote is your understanding of the meaning and intention of my post. Therefore we now know that don't, and perhaps can't, understand my post.

    I'll "take" that.

    Thanks.

     
  • At 11:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "No, my OP is what I inferred by your words and actions."

    R Bill
    OK.

    There you have it.

    R Bill:
    You didn't understand my post.

    I understood your post, and all your other posts. And that is why I osted what I did.

    Ya see it is obvuious from your posts- as well as those of the other evotards posting here- that the theory of evolution is A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable to guidance to empirical research and is not pursued even by its own advocates is not a scientific viewpoint.

    It's all on you big boy.

    I kept telling you that trying to attack ID with your nonsense, ignorance and lies does not provide positive evidence for your position.

    As OM has said there's a lot to be said of what you avoid and what you don't say.

     
  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    Joe G:

    "I understood your post"

    Then you grasped that "A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable..." referred to ID, not evolutionary biology.

    It follows that your opening post, which attributes to me the opposite, is a lie.

    Thanks for the clarification.

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

    R Bill:
    Then you grasped that "A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable..." referred to ID, not evolutionary biology.

    Again your other posts betray you, as did the one we are now discussing.

    Here I will go over it again:

    RB:
    Ultimately all the science with bearing on these questions is conducted within the framework of evolutionary biology...

    That means either within the framework of equivocation or within the framework that is devoid of context = empty. IOW R Bill is full of shit.

    Are you following along?

    as ID offers no testable entailments and contributes nothing to ongoing research.

    Actually ID offers both. And no amount of your bullshit and lies will change that fact.

    And your posts have demonstrated your position doesn't offer any testable entailments and contributes nothing to ongoing research.

    Jonathon Wells talks about this in one of the politically incorrect guides.

    Still with me, Billy boy?

    This reflects the emptiness of ID's proposed mechanism, a reality reflected in the fact that no research, including even "design detection," is being conducted from within the framework of ID.

    Ummm that is done within the framework of science. Also the only framework that explains overlapping genes, alternative (gene) splicing, transcription and translation with their proof-reading and error-correction, is ID.

    IOW nothing in biology makes any sense except in the light of Intelligent Design.


    That was just exposing your mindless bloviation.

    A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable to guidance to empirical research and is not pursued even by its own advocates is not a scientific viewpoint."

    And THAT is your position in a nutshell- unable to guide empirical research and not pursued by its own advocates. That much is evidenced by the utter failure of its advocates to produce any positive evidence for it.

    Thanks Bill, your continued blathering just further exposes the emptiness of your position.


    B-I-N-G-O

    Do you need me to spoon feed it to you?

     
  • At 1:31 PM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    Joe G:

    "Here I will go over it again:"

    None of which addresses a very simple point.

    In your OP you attribute to me a characterization of the theory of evolution, capped with "That is always best coming from an evolutionist."

    Yet the passage you quote refers unambiguously to ID, not the theory of evolution.

    I can think of two causes for such a mistake:

    1) You didn't understand my comment, or

    2) You understood it (ie. understood my remark to be referring to ID), but lied about it.

    Either you didn't understand, or you lied. Those are your only alternatives.

    Take your pick.

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

    "Here I will go over it again:"

    R Bill:
    None of which addresses a very simple point.

    Yes it did. Everything I have said so far has addressed your "point".

    Mr Bill:
    Either you didn't understand, or you lied. Those are your only alternatives.

    1- Those ain't my only two alternatives

    2- I understood what you posted, corrected it- just as I have been correctuing everything you have posted- and then allowed you the last word, which I whole-hearedly agree with.

    It is your fault Mr Bill- everything you have posted is evidence enough to demonstrate my OP is OK.

     
  • At 6:35 AM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    Joe G:

    "I understood what you posted, corrected it- just as I have been correctuing everything you have posted."

    I see. I was right the first time.

    Thanks for the clarification.

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

    R Bill:
    I was right the first time.

    Except you haven't been right yet.

     
  • At 7:09 AM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    "Except you haven't been right yet"

    Sure I have. You "correctued" my post, then represented the result as mine.

    That last part is called "lying."

     
  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Except you haven't been right yet"

    R Bill:
    Sure I have.

    Nope you have been lying at least ever since you started posting here.

    I corrected the lies in your post I used for this thread.

    Face it Billy boy you are a liar. And it seems that is all you have.

    Your words and the way you have avoided the questions about testing your position are all evidence that the theory of evolution is A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable to guidance to empirical research and is not pursued even by its own advocates is not a scientific viewpoint.

    Ya see Billy boy your lies do come back to haunt you...

     
  • At 7:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Billy boy:
    You "correctued" my post,

    I understood what you posted, corrected it

    See, you lied again!

     
  • At 7:47 AM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    Gee, Joe G doesn't like being misquoted.

    "I understood what you posted, corrected it"

    But you continued,

    "just as I have been correctuing everything you have posted."

    I like your new verb. "Correctue" aptly describes your OP.

     
  • At 7:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Billy Boy:
    Gee, Joe G doesn't like being misquoted.

    I am used to it- ya see it- being misquoted- comes with dealing with evotards.

    But I do like how you are forced to pick on typos-

    You are so much of an intellectual coward that you are forced to lie, misrepresent and then pick on typos.

    Evotards the world over are very proud of you I am sure...

     
  • At 9:53 AM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    "But I do like how you are forced to pick on typos- "

    But they're just so endearing.

    So lets review:

    1) By your own admission, you "corrected" my post - changing its meaning to the opposite of my intentions.

    2) You attributed that "corrected" meaning to me, as anyone can see.

    3) Step 2) is what we call a "lie."

    Any questions?

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Mr Bill/ my girl Bill:
    So lets review:

    1) By your own admission, you "corrected" my post


    It contained lies and misrepresentations.

    We call that being a liar and loser.

    Any questions?

     
  • At 12:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just look at Richtard's first post in this thread- he basically accuses me of lying but he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

    You two have a lot in common...

     
  • At 1:37 PM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    RB: 1) By your own admission, you "corrected" my post

    Joe G: "It contained lies and misrepresentations."

    Whoops. Better go over this again. Hint: pay attention to which actions makes your post a lie, and why.

    1) By your own admission, you "corrected" my post - changing its meaning to the opposite of my intentions.

    No problem so far. Say what you want.

    

2) You attributed that "corrected" meaning to me, as anyone can see.

    Bzzzzt.

    Did you see it?

    It is Step 2) - the false attribution - that makes your OP a lie.

     
  • At 3:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BZZZZZZZT- Correcting your lies does not make my post a lie.

    Taking your words and using them against you does not make my post a lie.

    That is because your words and actions prove that my use of your words is spot on.

    So let's gp over this again:

    Your posts contain lies and misrepresentations.

    That means you are a liar and a loser.

    Any questions?

     
  • At 3:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Did you see it?

    It can't be a false attribution when your words and actions show it to be true!

    Thank you, thank you very much...

     
  • At 4:31 PM, Blogger Reciprocating Bill said…

    Joe G:

    "It can't be a false attribution when your words and actions show it to be true!"

    Sure it can.

    Suppose Bob says, "The moon is made of green cheese."

    Jack, who is familiar with Bob's position, nevertheless claims "Bob says that the moon is not made of green cheese."

    Jack will have falsely attributed to Bob the true statement "the moon is not made of green cheese."

    Since he knows what Bob actually believes, he has lied, regardless of the composition of the moon.

    (See Spot run.)

     
  • At 5:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "It can't be a false attribution when your words and actions show it to be true!"

    Mr Bill:
    Sure it can.

    No, it can't.

    Suppose Bill lies:
    ID offers no testable entailments and contributes nothing to ongoing research.

    That is a lie.

    Then Bill lies some more:
    This reflects the emptiness of ID's proposed mechanism

    Ya see it just keeps adding up.

    One lie plus another lie = two lies.

    And then when those lies, along with other lies and misrepresentations, added to your avoiding the tough questions means that the theory of evolution is A theoretical viewpoint that is inherently unable to guidance to empirical research and is not pursued even by its own advocates is not a scientific viewpoint.

    It's all rather simple really...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home