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

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Kevin Reject McCarthy is Lying Again

-
Kevin spews:

The leaders of the movement all agree that ID is religious.

Let's take a look-in "The Design Revolution", page 25, Dembski writes:

Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.

He goes on to say:
Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn't even require there be a God.
Oops, KevTARD

In his book "Signature in the Cell" Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:

First, by any reasonable definition of the term, intelligent design is not "religion".- page 441 under the heading Not Religion

He goes on say pretty much the same thing I hve been saying for years- ID doesn't say anything about worship- nothing about who, how, why, when, where to worship- nothing about any service- nothing about any faith nor beliefs except the belief we (humans) can properly assess evidence and data and properly process information. After all the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

OK so that takes care of Dembski and Meyer- that is two for me and zero for the lying KevTARD.

"Intelligent Design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief."- Jonathan Wells "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

Three for me, still zero for the lying KevTARD.

 

22 Comments:

  • At 12:42 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

     
  • At 1:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie the perpetual moron on an agenda:

    Wedge Strategy- So What?

     
  • At 1:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 4:16 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Laughable, then a poorly structured tu quoque. Thanks for showing us how religious your view is and how you're wed to religion not science.

     
  • At 4:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes Richie, you are laughable. And that document doesn't say that ID is religious. The best you can say from it is that some IDists have religious views.

    Also that document has nothing to do with me. Nothing at all.

    But then again I wouldn't expect someone as ignorant as you are to understand that.

     
  • At 4:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Intelligent Design can be scientifically tested and potentially falsified. To the contrary is evolutionism which cannot be scientifically tested.

    So which is religious and which is scientific?

     
  • At 10:40 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    But aren't you a nobody in the world of ID? We'd love to see Joe Gallien's 'theory' of untelligent design, though. Choo-choo math was a big hit! Have at it.

     
  • At 11:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie loses the argument again so as usual he attacks me.

    It doesn't matter who I am Richie. I can support what I claim.

    And your ignorance wrt math is supposed to mean what to me?

     
  • At 11:34 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh this is Priceless. Put those goalposts back Joe!

    1. Kevin points out "The leaders of the movement all agree that ID is religious."

    2. I provide support from the wedge document (the DI and associated rubes are the leaders of the ID movement).

    3. Fatty opines "Also that document has nothing to do with me. Nothing at all." - Goalposts moved from "ID leaders" to "Fat fridge repairmen"

    4.I point out "But aren't you a nobody in the world of ID?" - and you are, i.e. unassociated with Kevin's original argument.

    5. Chubs logic fails "Richie loses the argument again so as usual he attacks me."

    Comedy gold, Cupcake.

     
  • At 7:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Only a reTARD would think and say that I moved any goalposts.

    . Kevin points out "The leaders of the movement all agree that ID is religious."

    And I proviode quotes by those leaders who say that ID is not religious.

    I provide support from the wedge document (the DI and associated rubes are the leaders of the ID movement).

    No, you did not. The wedge document does NOT say that ID is religious. You are a moron.

    So here we have Richie the reTARD not understanding that what SOME IDists want is not the same as ID being religious.

    That was explained to the moron too.

    Yes Richie, you are laughable. And that document doesn't say that ID is religious. The best you can say from it is that some IDists have religious views.

    The the dumbass sez:

    Thanks for showing us how religious your view is and how you're wed to religion not science.

    So I tell him that the wedge doc has nothing to do with me- ya see Richie just tried to link it to me, and so what does Richie do? Throw his normal childish hissy fit.

    Yes Richie, you are comedy gold.

     
  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What does the wedge document say about intelligent design?:

    We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

    Intelligent Design can be scientifically tested and potentially falsified. To the contrary is evolutionism which cannot be scientifically tested.

    So which is religious and which is scientific?

    Richie the TARDfuck just ignores that because he loves being ignorant.

     
  • At 10:26 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists

     
  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Like the coward Richie is he totally avoids my response.

    Richie is getting desperate- well he has been desperate for quite a long time.

    Unfortunately for both the NCSE and Babs Forrest the publisher explained that. Also if we use the same standards then Darwin proposed a Creationist theory:

    "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.- Charles Darwin in “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection” last chapter, last sentence (bold added)


    You still lose you ignorant fuck.

     
  • At 11:33 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Yes, because we take Darwin's work as an immutable religious doctrine.


    More strawman humpage from Chubs.

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! As If "Of Pandas and People" means something to IDists.

    What's the strawman Richie? You can't tell me what it is. You are an ignorant asshole.

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Actually, it does, Joe.

    Meyer and Behe, ID somebodys, not a nobody like you were both involved.

    Whoops.

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Prove that "Of Pandas and People" still means something to Behe and Meyer.

    Also the publisher explained what Forrest found. It was in a ROUGH draft. Only cowards on an agenda think that what is in a rough draft actually means something. And here we have all the evoTARDs lned up waiting for their coard's badge.

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Of Pandas and People defended from the evoTARDgasms

     
  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You might want to *read* the article you've linked to, chubs..

     
  • At 2:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I read it. Obviously you are too stupid to understand it.

    Also Meyer said that ID is not religion and Behe said that ID is not Creation. That fucks up what you tried to imply, asshole.

     
  • At 2:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Rahjaof Tennoh said…

    Wikipedia is such a good source of information...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home