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, April 24, 2013

Elizabeth Liddle has Totally Lost It

Lizzie is fried- Asymmetry?

The first is that ID proponents seem most of the time to be arguing against a claim made by very few (not even Dawkins) – that science shows that there is no Designer
Nope. We argue that the design inference is rejected out-of-hand.

She goes on:

 Even if scientists were to show, convincingly, a step by step account of life’s history from “mud to man”, we would be in no position to say that life was undesigned.  

It would destroy the design inference if it could be demonstrated that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce a living organism from non-living matter. Just as it would falsify Darwinian evolution if it could be demonstrated that something is out of the reach of a gradual process (Darwin).

Then she proves taht she doesn't get it:

Scientific findings do not show that “materialism is true”. They cannot. Such a conclusion is outside scientific methodology.
That isn't what we say. People like Elzinga say materialsim is true. We already know the science doesn't. Wake up, Lizzie.

Then she just losses it:

But ID proponents go further than this – they argue that because science cannot conclude that there is no designer, that we are entitled to conclude that there is.
Fuck you. Notice that she doesn't reference any of her spewage? No Lizzie, we say that science has shown there is a designer requirement. Assholes, like you and Elzinger say there isn't such a need all the while never telling us how you reached your conclusion.

More dumbass spewage:
ID proponents claim that current scientific explanations are inadequate, therefore ID.
Nope. As I said scientific explanations say there is a designer requirement.

They make no testable hypotheses about the nature of the designer, and consider it outside their domain of enquiry.
Intelligent DESIGN. The only way to the designer is through the DESIGN, Lizzie. Are you just totally ignorant to how investigations go when all you have if what is left behind- no eyewitnesses?

ID opponents agree that scientific explanations are inadequate, and that a Designer is perfectly possible.

Laughable- I have never heard that.

They provide copious testable hypotheses for postulated non-design processes, and iteratively test them, rejecting some, retaining others, and leading, step by step, to an ever-more detailed picture.
What testable hypotheses? You keep leaving those out.

ID proponents dislike engaging with ID opponents; they readily bar people from their forums, and disable comments.
Fuck you, bitch. EvoTARDs get barred because they are nothing but a bunch of belligerent cowards.

ID opponents are positively eager to engage with ID proponents, following them to ID websites, and inviting them to their own.
ID opponents never engage in anything of substance, Lizzie. All you do is erect strawman after strawman and spew shit.

And you can't even make a case for your position, asswipe. That is why you have to post your bullshit.

You are a pathetic little shit, Lizzie.


  • At 11:53 PM, Blogger bpragmatic said…

    liddle, like all neos have insufficient and vastly inadequate demonstrable verification of the almost infinite array of bio significant relationships required to comply with the systemic needs of correlative components involved in a livng thang ya all.

  • At 7:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Liddle is just a total ass and sore loser. She couldn't support her tripe if her life depended on it.

  • At 11:46 PM, Blogger bpragmatic said…

    Joe, these assholes don't know SHIT. Although they say they have enough "scientific evidence" to claim the "supernatural" should be eliminated from any realistic discussion. My question is this.... Who the fuck came up with that proclamation? And how the fuck do these jackasses define "supernatural"? It is just a fucking concept derived from the intellectual capacities of an organism, which in itself, has not and I predict will not, be explained from purely "naturalistic" causes in anybodies life time. Assuming there is a distinction between...........And who can demonstrate that??????

    Ya all.

  • At 8:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Their problems run deep- they cannot support their position and they do not understand ID.


Post a Comment

<< Home