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

Friday, February 20, 2015

More Lies and Delusion from our Opponents

-
Here is a whopper of a lie:

Given we have a model of how the solar system could form without intelligent design, and no model or evidence that it was formed by intelligent design, why don’t you accept the existing non-ID model until you obtain some evidence for yours?
Given that is a big fat lie why should anyone listen to you, om? We do not have a model of how this solar system formed.

omagain also spewedd this bit of crackpottery:
Joe, now that we’ve clarified that everything that does anything is designed could you enlighten me as to why ID is not making new discoveries based on that? 
I don't know how you reached that imbecilic conclusion as it doesn't follow from anything anyone has said. It is not a fact as IDists say there is plenty of things that are not designed. And we have p[ointed many of those things out to you.

OM goes on to spew:
If it were not a fact you could simply point to a discovery that could only have been made under the assumption of design in biology.

That doesn't follow, asshole. Unguided evolution hasn't led to any discoveries. Unguided evolution is devoid of content and scientifically sterile.

And, Joe, If common descent is not true then I guess that means the designer has to intervene every time a branch forms. 

Only an ignoramus on an agenda would say that. Enter OM. Just because universal common descent is nonsense doesn't mean that branching descent is.

 Intelligent Design is open to all but purely materialistic processes and what emerges from them for explaining what we observe.
Notice no mention of why that is the case, it just *is*.
LoL! That is ID's position, dumbass. It has only been explained hundreds and perhaps thousands of times.

Why is om such an ignorant fuck? Why does it think its ignorance means something?

posted by Joe G @ 10:06 AM  

14 Comments:

  • At 10:46 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Why don't you just state clearly and concisely your explanation for the development of life on earth: when and where design was put into the system and then people could discuss specifics with you.

    I find it difficult to figure out what most ID proponents are hypothesising. Was it all front-loaded? Was there tweaking at every major branching of species? Are the mutations being 'directed'? If so, when?

    I don't think anyone has to lay out a whole, complete theory yet but a rough outline would be nice. You can't just keep saying: we have to study the design first especially considering the way you tend to answer questions. I'm quite sure you have an idea of how it all went down. Why not just do a blog post laying it all out??

     

  • At 12:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! The specifics come AFTER determining design is present. How many times do you have to be told this?

    And AGAIN, we don't even know the specifics behind known artifacts, like Stonehenge.

    I'm quite sure you have an idea of how it all went down.

    I'm quite sure that you are flailing away and you really don't have a clue.

     

  • At 3:48 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    LoL! The specifics come AFTER determining design is present. How many times do you have to be told this?

    But you've told me design has been detected!! And I know you have some idea of how it was implemented. So why not spell out your hypothesis?

    And AGAIN, we don't even know the specifics behind known artifacts, like Stonehenge.

    But people have ideas and guesses and spell them out. Why not do the same with the development of life from an ID perspective?

    I'm quite sure that you are flailing away and you really don't have a clue.

    I'm just trying to figure out what you think happened.

     

  • At 10:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But people have ideas and guesses and spell them out.

    I am not those people.

     

  • At 7:16 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I am not those people.

    Suit yourself. But it would be easier to evaluate your ideas if you laid them out clearly and openly. So it doesn't just look like you've only got arguments against evolutionary theory with nothing to offer in return.

     

  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID's methodology, unlike your position's, is laid out clearly and openly.

    Stop being such a hypocrite already.

    There isn't any evolutionary theory and you have nothing to offer. How can there be an alternative to something tat doesn't exist?

     

  • At 10:01 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    There isn't any evolutionary theory and you have nothing to offer. How can there be an alternative to something tat doesn't exist?

    Are you saying there is no ID model or hypothesis except that some things look designed? And if that's wrong then what is your ID model or hypothesis?

     

  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That doesn't follow. Obviously you have other issues.

    I have posted ID's testable entailments. Again, grow up.

     

  • At 11:05 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I have posted ID's testable entailments. Again, grow up.

    Those aren't the same as a model or hypothesis though.

    Front-loading or incremental adjustments. Let's start there.

     

  • At 12:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, testable entailments are the same as a hypothesis. And evolutionary and genetic algorithms model intelligent design evolution.

     

  • At 5:33 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Yes, testable entailments are the same as a hypothesis. And evolutionary and genetic algorithms model intelligent design evolution.

    So . . . what are those algorithms saying about the way life developed on earth? That it was all front loaded? I guess.

    You're not helping much. Do you just want me to make assumptions about your position or would you rather make sure your assumptions and model(s) were clear?

    You continually say that people don't understand your position but when I ask you to clarify it you don't step up to the plate. I'm confused.

     

  • At 3:56 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Yes, testable entailments are the same as a hypothesis. And evolutionary and genetic algorithms model intelligent design evolution.

    So, you think biological systems, like algorithms and software, need to be updated by the designers when new forms are required. Yes?

     

  • At 2:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, you think biological systems, like algorithms and software, need to be updated by the designers when new forms are required.

    I don't know.

     

  • At 2:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So . . . what are those algorithms saying about the way life developed on earth?

    That it was intelligently designed to evolve and evolved by way of that intelligent design.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home