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

Thursday, August 02, 2012

Kevin R McCarthy Chokes on the Evidence and Admits His Position does NOT Have Any!

-
Yup, you read that right- when presented with positive evidence for Intelligent Design Kevin choked and admitted that his position does not have any evidence.

You can read all about it here- notice the cowardly equivocation Kevin throws in.

posted by Joe G @ 11:04 AM  

5 Comments:

  • At 11:17 AM, Blogger OgreMkV said…

    You are a confused and deranged little man.

    I am completely lost as to how you say that I admitted that my position has no evidence.

    I fully admit that WHAT YOU THINK MY POSITION IS has no evidence to support it. Of course, you have never successfully stated my position on anything, much less understand the Biology enough to understand the evidence.

    Here, let me say it plainly, the "Blind Watchmaker" notion of evolution has no evidence. Are you happy?

    Of course, actual evolution (including adaptation, common descent, mutations, development of new structures, etc.) has hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers with the data as evidence. Lenski has a lab with 20+ years of evidence that evolution can develop new systems.

    So,whatever makes you happy Joe. Whatever.

    I still note that YOU don't have a single bit (literally) of evidence to support Intelligent Design. But, if supporting evolution means that ID is wrong... well... that kind of messes up your entire notion that ID is not anti-evolution doesn't it. But you can't even see that, so you are pretty much a lost cause. Still it's fun to tweak you into a full apoplexy occasionally.

     

  • At 11:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    YOU are a piece-of-shit cowardly liar.

    If your poition had the evidence you would have posted it to refute what I presented as evidence for ID.

    And as I said I go with what mainstream says aboit it as you are sttill a nobody. And the blind watchmaker notion is what evolutionary biologists say the theory of evolution is, dumbass.

    Again YOU are a fucking nobody with respect to the theory of evolution.

    All YOU can do is equivocate like a little coward.

    And ID is not anti-evolution- there ypou go trying to redefine "evolution" as all cowards do when there ignorance is exposed.

    So to recap Kevin chokes, equivocates and lies.

    It is a good day...

     

  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Of course, actual evolution (including adaptation, common descent, mutations, development of new structures, etc.) has hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers with the data as evidence.

    Liar- please reference the development of new structures via accumulations of random mutations.

    Please provide a testable hypothesis for such a thing.

     

  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Of course, actual evolution (including adaptation, common descent, mutations, development of new structures, etc.) has hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers with the data as evidence.

    Not one paper deals with accumulations of random mutations. You are a confused equivocator.


    Lenski has a lab with 20+ years of evidence that evolution can develop new systems.


    Nope, no new systems were developed. You are a confused liar.

    Lenski's data supports baraminology. But then again you are ignorant of baraminology and therefor have no clue.

     

  • At 3:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Kevin, Intelligent Design is only anti-evolution if, and only if, you define "evolution" as being the blind watchmaker thesis*.

    IOW you are talking out of your ass, as usual.

    *“Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home