OM- Willfully Ignorant and Proud of It
-
As if it had to be said but OM is willfully ignorant and proud of it. Even though I have been over and over this with OM, the obtuse moron sed:
Not only have I and others claimed that ID is not anti-evolution, we have produced overwhelming evidence to support it.
But anyways the point is obviously OM is ignorant of what Intelligent Design is, otherwise the obtuse moron would not have asked that question. Amazing that someione so ignorant of something thinks it can speak out about it.
I am sure OM and the other addled tards behaving cowardly will and do say that I am the one who is ignorant, but it is strange how they just say it without ever supporting it.
As if it had to be said but OM is willfully ignorant and proud of it. Even though I have been over and over this with OM, the obtuse moron sed:
If ID is not anti-evolution like you keep claiming why would finding evidence for my position refute ID?
Not only have I and others claimed that ID is not anti-evolution, we have produced overwhelming evidence to support it.
But anyways the point is obviously OM is ignorant of what Intelligent Design is, otherwise the obtuse moron would not have asked that question. Amazing that someione so ignorant of something thinks it can speak out about it.
I am sure OM and the other addled tards behaving cowardly will and do say that I am the one who is ignorant, but it is strange how they just say it without ever supporting it.
posted by Joe G @ 8:42 PM
4 Comments:
At 12:09 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
On that post you said:
"IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism)."
Yet Dembski himself says targeted search is a no-go. There just is no evidence for it. Remember?
So what new mechanism will you propose next?
Let me remind you of what Dembski said:
"Sure, it’s possible, Joseph. But what’s the evidence. Searches tend to be gradual, narrowing down, step by step, on the target and thus implying lots of intermediaries. Do we see such chains of intermediaries in the history of life? Darwinists count the fossil record as a wonderful vindication of their theory. From a less biased stance, the fossil record doesn’t look nearly so good."
Joseph, what is the evidence?
At 12:18 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Yet Dembski himself says targeted search is a no-go.
Liar- he said it was a possibility.
And as I told Dembski the search doesn't have to be gradual- that depends on the program.
IOW you are doing it again- selecting what you want.
OM:
There just is no evidence for it.
There is evidence for it. Shit, programmers use them all the fucking time.
And Dr Lee Spetner wrote a book titled "Not By Chance" that supports my claim- "built-in responses to environmental cues".
Dembski admits mutations happen. And I doubt he thinks all mutations are the work of the blind watchmaker. Does he think the designer has to intervene? I don't know...
But anyway you are still an ignorant fuck.
At 12:25 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"he said it was a possibility."
He also said "what's the evidence?"
What *is* the evidence for it Joe?
"Shit, programmers use them all the fucking time."
So you think the creator of the universe and all of life is a nerd/geek?
"And Dr Lee Spetner wrote a book titled "Not By Chance" that supports my claim- "built-in responses to environmental cues"."
Sure Joe. But I'll take my lead from Dembski on this one. Why don't you summarize the evidence for me? And then you can let Dembski know!
"And I doubt he thinks all mutations are the work of the blind watchmaker."
Just some? Is it possible to tell which ones? If so, how? If not then on what basis do you claim any are designed at all?
" Does he think the designer has to intervene? I don't know..."
Do you Joe? And why would the designer "intervene" in a mutation anyway? Why not just make the thing entire and plonk it down complete? Not like anybody is going to notice....
At 12:48 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
What *is* the evidence for it Joe?
The fact that a transposon carries within its sequence the code for two of the enzymes required for it to do its thing.
OM:
So you think the creator of the universe and all of life is a nerd/geek?
No. Not all programmers are nerds/ geeks.
"And Dr Lee Spetner wrote a book titled "Not By Chance" that supports my claim- "built-in responses to environmental cues"."
OM:
Sure Joe.
There is your ignorance, again.
OM:
Why don't you summarize the evidence for me?
I have already gave you part of it. And as I said mutations do occur.
"And I doubt he thinks all mutations are the work of the blind watchmaker."
OM:
Just some? Is it possible to tell which ones? If so, how? If not then on what basis do you claim any are designed at all?
So what you are saying is your position doesn't have any clue- if it did you wouldn't be asking such questions.
But anyway as I said it all goes back to the origins and then figuring out the programming. IOW I have explained this to you already you willfully ignorant wanker.
" Does he think the designer has to intervene? I don't know..."
OM:
Do you Joe?
No and ID neither requires nor excludes it.
OM:
And why would the designer "intervene" in a mutation anyway?
Ask them.
OM:
Why not just make the thing entire and plonk it down complete?
Adaptability.
But anyway, about your willful ignorance- you are very proud of it and it shows.
Post a Comment
<< Home