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 02, 2014

Dr Behe Corrects Judge Jones

-
Yes this is old but apparently there are some morons who haven't read it:

Whether Intelligent Design is Science, A response to Judge Jones.

Judge Jones was and most likely still is scientifically illiterate. Heck he said he was going to watch "Inherit the Wind" for a historical perspective yet that movie is pure liberal spin and is only a shadow of whjat actually happened.

But anyway, enjoy the article...


 

posted by Joe G @ 8:12 AM  

12 Comments:

  • At 11:08 PM, Blogger skeptic said…

    A whole lot of bloviating with very little meaning. Despite Behe's best efforts intelligent design is most definitely not scientific. To believe otherwise one must bury his head in the sand (or up his assessment like Joe).

     

  • At 10:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Exactly- all you alleged "skeptics" have is a whole lot of bloviating with very little meaning. It's as if you alleged "skeptics" are all cowards.

    Intelligent Design can be tested and potentially falsified. Blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution cannot be tested.

    skeptic- all cowardly blovoiation and nothing to back it up.

    And seeing that "skeptic" blindly accepts evolutionism, what the heck is it skeptical off?

     

  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger skeptic said…

    I am surprised that Behe did not catch his false dichotomy (although I am in no way surprised that you missed it). Even if natural selection were disproved (and it has not been), that would mean absolutely nothing about the truth of intelligent design. If the best argument that you have is that natural selection may be wrong, then you have nothing. Perhaps you IDiots should focus more on supporting your claims instead of engaging in the pointless exercise of trying to disprove natural selection.

     

  • At 10:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Try making a case. No one said that if natural selection is disproven then ID is true. You have serious issues. IOW you are too stupid to even comprehend what Behe said or what ID says.

    Natural selection exists. It just doesn't do anything. And it is very telling that you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary.

     

  • At 2:42 PM, Blogger skeptic said…

    I find it funny when people think being a skeptic means that I must reject everything. It kn rarely means I withhold acceptance until evidence is provided to support a position. Sine intelligent design's best evidence is arguing from ignorance (along with other logical fallacies)there is no reason to accept it.

    Behe claims that organisms can only be explained based on intelligent processes or unintelligent processes (which is a truism and therefore meaningless). He then posits that if he can disprove natural selection, then intelligent design must be true by default. This is a false dichotomy so his conclusion is invalid. Even if one unintelligent process were disproved, that would not mean that all unintelligent processes have been disproved.

     

  • At 4:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! You obviously have no idea what evidence is. You sure as hell can't present any for blind watchmaker evolution actually doing something beyond breaking things. So please, stuff it already.

    This blog alone discusses much of the positive evidence for ID.

    Behe claims that organisms can only be explained based on intelligent processes or unintelligent processes

    Design or not, what else is there? Please be specific.

    He then posits that if he can disprove natural selection, then intelligent design must be true by default.

    No, he does not. What he says is that if natural selection or drift or neutral theory can't explain it AND it matches his criteria, then it is OK to infer design. Merely eliminating natural selection, etc., only strengthens the case for ID, which is true.

    So until evolutionists can present positive evidence for their position, theirs is the argument from ignorance. ID is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Yours is based on an a priori rejection of design no matter what.

    So what we have is a skeptic who not only doesn't understand what Behe has said, he can't present anything to refute it- but I guess tat last part goes without saying as you have to understand what is being said in order to refute it.

     

  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger skeptic said…

    Do you realize that the word "that" has an "h" in it?

    I understand Behe and conclude he is full of shit. He uses logical fallacies in an attempt to support his pseudoscientific "theory" while convincing the mentally challenged that he is really doing science.

     

  • At 5:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Typos happen- get over it.

    And you are full of shit and can't support anything you say. Obviously you are mentally challenged

     

  • At 6:27 PM, Blogger skeptic said…

    Typos yes - but damn near every time you use "that" it comes out as "tat". Tis tells me tat tere must be someting else going on. Maybe you are as virulently anti-h as you are anti-evolution (blind watchmaker evolution is just a bullshit term that you wet-dreamed up).

     

  • At 7:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes I am trying to type fast without looking- and then I don't proofread. My best typos are the and obviously, or something like that. The "h" key is diagonal from the "T" so I tend to drag but obviously don't put enough pressure when I hit the "H" but my mind sez I did. But anyway-

    Blind watchmaker evolution was/ is Dawkins' idea. Natural selection is blind, without a purpose, no goals. The mutations are all happenstance events, accidents, etc. That is what the modern synthesis posits. It is what Darwin posited.

    So why do you think I dreamed it up? What the fuck do you think is being debated?

     

  • At 8:35 PM, Blogger skeptic said…

    I don't think anything you do can possibly be considered "debate". Rantings of a lunatic asshole - yes. Debate - no.

    If you mean natural selection, then say natural selection. That everyone involved knows exactly what is under consideration. When you used dreamed up bullshit terms like blind watchmaker evolution, you make it mean whatever you want it to at that particular moment. Of course that is why you use such a bullshit term - because you have nothing to offer besides obfuscating bullshit.

     

  • At 6:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nice projection asshole. And again only an ignorant asshole would say that I dreamed up blind watchmaker evolution. Obviously you have serious problems.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home