Elizabeth Liddle- Still Clueless WRT Science
-
Poor little Lizzie Liddle doesn't understand science. She doesn't understand how CSI can be a design indicator. It's like this Lizzie- every time we have observed CSI and knew the origin, it has ALWAYS been via agency involvement- ALWAYS, 100% of the time. We have NEVER observed blind and undirected processes producing CSI- NEVER, 0% of the time.
That means when we observe CSI and do NOT know its origins, it is safe to infer some agency was involved.
Lizzie sez:
IOW if neither CSI nor ID existed, your position still wouldn't have anything.
"Non-design null"? Your position doesn't even have that and you don't even realize that it is up to you to provide it!
Darwinian evolution has neither Positive Predictive Validity nor Negative Predictive Validity- it has nothing but losers like you struggling with science.
Poor little Lizzie Liddle doesn't understand science. She doesn't understand how CSI can be a design indicator. It's like this Lizzie- every time we have observed CSI and knew the origin, it has ALWAYS been via agency involvement- ALWAYS, 100% of the time. We have NEVER observed blind and undirected processes producing CSI- NEVER, 0% of the time.
That means when we observe CSI and do NOT know its origins, it is safe to infer some agency was involved.
Lizzie sez:
The only hope for ID, IMO, is to demonstrate that some feature of the simplest possible common ancestor of modern living things is still too complicated to have arisen through chemistry.No Lizzie, it is up to YOU to show that chemistry and physics can produce a replicator and that replicator can then go on to become a living cell. YOUR position needs positive evidence, Lizzie, and to date it doesn't have any.
IOW if neither CSI nor ID existed, your position still wouldn't have anything.
"Non-design null"? Your position doesn't even have that and you don't even realize that it is up to you to provide it!
Darwinian evolution has neither Positive Predictive Validity nor Negative Predictive Validity- it has nothing but losers like you struggling with science.
posted by Joe G @ 5:37 PM
9 Comments:
At 12:06 AM,
bpragmatic said…
Liddle can not demonstrate the required steps required for OOL or even NDE after the OOL. Just BS speculation based on philosophically driven preferences.
Must of had a couple of abortions or something.
She can not even demonstrate that semi-known chemical tendencies have anything whatsoever to do with even the most simple living spat.
At 7:16 AM,
Joe G said…
Lizzie thinks that imagination & promissory notes = evidence.
She also appears to believe in emergence- as in complex shit emerges once the proper matter/ energy configs are in place.
At 12:09 AM,
bpragmatic said…
liddle the twat diddle has no fucking clue as to how she can even experience conciousness. what a dip shit. yet she and the other fuckheads that share her philosophically driven explanations regarding what the fuck she thinks she experiences insist they know enough to tell the uninformed public what the fuck is going on. when in reality they are just trying to convince themselves they know what the fuck is going on. what a bunch of dumb fucks. science my ass. they dont know what the fuck that is.
sorry joe, i hate to spill my guts on your blog, but these assholes need to be held accountable for their bullshit.
At 8:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Lizzie does prattle on, doesn't she? And I am sy=ure that she believes everuything that she says- and that alone is scary...
At 11:51 PM,
bpragmatic said…
Joe, why do you think she believes everything she says has any kind of scientific standing? Why would anybody make those kind of assertions with the lack of significant demonstations regarding the speculations in light of the requirements? These are not scientific proclomations, right?
What are these people thinking? I really want to understand.
Why cant these people admit that they just dont know enough draw the conclusions they heist on the public?
At 12:39 AM,
bpragmatic said…
Joe, what do you think I should say anymore? I believe that the issues are really very elementary. But the media driven secular positions are accepted without criticism, atleast apparently. Why do we even care? Any ideas? Is there any substantive reality that we can conclude leads us to take a stance in opposition to the speculation of the opposing side? My thoughts are there is so much to be explained that it is humanly impossible to do that adequately, just based on our limits of knowledge. My knowledge. Can it be that anybody has adequate knowledge and we just dont comprehend?
At 9:28 AM,
Joe G said…
I don't know why she believes what she does. But I know that she truly believes that natural selection/ darwinian evolution can and has produced the diversity of life even though there isn't any evidence for it.
She just buys the alleged "logic"-> variation and reproduction is all that is needed to produce the diversity.
At 9:30 AM,
Joe G said…
What we need to do is reach the kids. Old evoTARDs will die and if there aren't any replacements then we will just move on.
At 2:28 PM,
bpragmatic said…
That is, sadly, probably the truth Joe. That the status quo is deeply entrenched, and just needs to die out so fresh minds can repopulate the empty spaces, and introduce a level of reasoning that has been missing and discouraged by the current "regime".
Post a Comment
<< Home