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, June 06, 2017

OMagain, Willfully Ignorant and Proud of it

-
OMagain is a special case of evoTARD. You can explain things to it but it never understands any of it. For example in a recent ignorant post OMagain sed:
ID as yet has no specifics as to who, when, what, how, why etc.
That still has NOTHING to do with ID which is about the detection and study of intelligent/ intentional designs in nature. That has been explained to OMagain many, many times. We can and do detect intentional design without knowing nor asking those questions. And, as a matter of science, those questions are asked AFTER intentional design has been detected and is being studied.

OTOH OMagain's position is supposed to be all about those questions yet it cannot answer any of them. Go figure.

Then OMagain demonstrates more ignorance by saying that "It was just designed that way" doesn't add anything to our understanding. Saying something was designed eliminates entire classes of possible causes and focuses on one. It tells you there was intent, ie a purpose, behind the design. Does OMagain think that Stonehenge would be studied the same way if it was found to be a natural rock formation as it is now? Perhaps because OMagain is an ignorant ass.
ID seems mostly concerned with what evolution cannot do. 
WRONG- ID is not anti-evolution. That said science mandates all design inferences first eliminate necessity and chance explanations before a design inference can be considered. This too has been explained to OMagain but its willful ignorance gets in the way every time.

And again, if these alleged skeptics applied their skepticism to their own position they would see it is nothing but untestable bullshit. If they actually had something they would just present it and that would refute ID. But they can't do that so they are forced to flail away like a bunch of ass-munching cowards.

The science of ID is the detection and study of intentional design in nature. Those other questions prove that ID is not a dead-end venue.
 

9 Comments:

  • At 12:40 AM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    as a matter of science, those questions are asked AFTER intentional design has been detected and is being studied.

    The ID camp has been telling us it already detected "intentional design" in biological life for over 20 years now. When will any IDiot start doing any investigating to determine the "who, when, what, how, why"?

     
  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The same answer I have been giving you for years- when ID is the accepted paradigm scientists will start looking into those questions. Heck your position is all about the "how" and no one is trying to figure that out.

    So perhaps you should focus on your lame-ass position instead of flailing away at ID with your obvious ignorance.

     
  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So ID has no scientists who can do it. Hmmmmm.

     
  • At 10:05 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    when ID is the accepted paradigm scientists will start looking into those questions.

    I see. So IDiots won't do any research until they are accepted as the scientific consensus. But ID will never be the scientific consensus until the IDiots do the research and start answering the "who, when, what, how, why" questions evolutionary theory has already gone a long way towards answering.

    Pretty vicious circle of FAIL you've laid out there Chubs. Looks hopeless for ID.

     
  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No Richie, your position doesn't have any scientists who can do it. ID doesn't have anything to do with those questions, moron.

     
  • At 8:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I see

    No, you are too stupid to see. As the OP says the science of ID is in the detection and study of intentional design in nature. Obviously you are too stupid to read for comprehension.

    And only a complete ignoramus would think we have to answer those questions BEFORE design is detected and studied- and here you are.

    Again, your position is all about the "what, when and how" and yet not one evo can answer any of that. THAT is a very vicious FAIL you have laid out there, lame-o. Talk about being helpless...

     
  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    Chubs, has ID already detected intentional design in biological life or not?

    If so, when, where, and by who was the discovery made?

     
  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Intentional design in biology has been detected. It was made by the scientists who elucidated the structures of living organisms.

    OTOH no one has discovered natural selection producing anything beyond a change in allele frequency within a population. So perhaps your ignorant ass should focus on that. Your cowardly flailing at ID is A) not going to refute it and B) will never help you find evidence to support your position.

     
  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    For the evoTARDs commenting in this thread:

    Read this and see if you can understand it.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home