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, July 11, 2007

Another Note to Alan Fox

I said on UD: and a note to Alan Fox:

ID still flourishes because educated people know that “Kitzmiller” was a farce and has been exposed as such.
September 20, 2006 @ 9:49 am

Alan replied:
I always thought you saw the world as you wished it to be, rather than how it is. Now I know. I will agree with your remark when Kitzmiller is appealed and reversed because "Intelligent Design" is discovered to have some scientific basis, rather than just being a cloak for fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Somehow, I don't think I need to worry about having to agree with you in this lifetime. (my emphasis)

Yup Alan. Obviously it is you who chooses to see the world as you want it to be rather than how it really is:

"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."- John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research


Oops- "ID is strictly a non-Christian movement". And that is from someone who knows more about ID and Christianity than Alan Fox ever will.

As far as the "Kitzmiller v. Dover" decision goes, many legal experts have already shown beyond any doubt that Judge Jones went too far. It is also obvious from the decison that the judge took out his wrath on ID because of a few lying and ID ignorant school board members. IOW Judge Jones is still clueless to ID reality and most likely still ignorant of science.

It is also very telling that the best moment for the plaintiffs was a bluff. That being when their attorney threw down some 58 references that allegedly demonstrated the evolution of the immune system via blind watchmaker-type processes.

Judge Jones bought that bluff whole-sale. All judges are not that stupid.

Now I know Alan will just ignore all of this because willful ignoarnce is the evolutionitwit way...

31 Comments:

  • At 4:46 PM, Blogger Dazza McTrazza said…

    And that is from someone who knows more about ID and Christianity than Alan Fox ever will.

    Nice unsupported assertion. Please provide your evidence.

    Judge Jones bought that bluff whole-sale. All judges are that stupid.

    Again - another wonderful generalisation. Please provide docyumentary evidence that all judges are that stupid.

    So, since all scientists are stupid and all judges are stupid, I assume you think the entirety of the legal system as well as the world of science should be handed over to you? The guy who has never (as far as I've seen) accepted that he has made an error? Wonderful idea - I'll be sure to spread the word that there's an electrician out there who can solve all of the world's legal and scientific issues. "How do we know he can do it?" they may ask.

    Just because he says so.

     
  • At 4:50 PM, Blogger Dazza McTrazza said…

    By the way, just reading your profile - what is the difference between electrical things and electronic things?

    'Tis an honest question to which I fully expect a snide answer.

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And that is from someone who knows more about ID and Christianity than Alan Fox ever will.

    Nice unsupported assertion. Please provide your evidence.

    Christians would know more about Christianity more than non-christians would. And anyone who thinks that ID is just a cloak for fundamentalist Christian beliefs obviously knows very little, if anything, about either.

    Judge Jones bought that bluff whole-sale. All judges are that stupid.

    Ooops that was a typo. It shold have read All judges are not that stupid.

    But anyway:

    So, since all scientists are stupid...

    I never said nor implied that DM. What is obvious is that not one scientist can provide the data which shows the grand claims made by evolutionists are indicative of reality.

    IOW no one can demonstrate that a population of single-celled organisms can evolve into something other than single-celled organisms!

    By the way, just reading your profile - what is the difference between electrical things and electronic things?

    When you figure out the difference between an electrician and an electronic engineer you will have your answer.

     
  • At 8:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'll be sure to spread the word that there's an electrician out there who can solve all of the world's legal and scientific issues.

    I would like to meet that electrician. But do tell- how did you come to that inference- that the electrician can solve all the world's ;egal and scientific issues?

    That would be most interesting.

     
  • At 12:43 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You were asked to SUPPORT your accusation. This is what you provided:

    "Christians would know more about Christianity more than non-christians would. And anyone who thinks that ID is just a cloak for fundamentalist Christian beliefs obviously knows very little, if anything, about either."

    Uh. You supported your accusation with an accusation. Please move on to something you can cite.

     
  • At 12:46 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Um, came to it by reading your blog. You are an electrician who has never admitted to being wrong about anything. Even in areas which you have no expertise (law, biology, mathematics...).

    Making the extrapolation, you will never be wrong about anything, ever. So, YOU should be in charge o all matters on which you pontificate.

     
  • At 1:30 PM, Blogger Dazza McTrazza said…

    Christians would know more about Christianity more than non-christians would.

    What absolute arse, if you don't mind me saying so. There is absolutely no logical necessity that a Christian would know more about Christianity than a non-christian. There are, I hope you'll admit, non-christians who study theology, including christianity, that would be much better versed in the histroy and meaning of christianity than someone who believes in Christ, goes to Church every Sunday but is not academically inclined.

    grand claims made by evolutionists are indicative of reality.

    And what are these grand claims - and where might I find them - other than on this blog of course?

     
  • At 10:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You are an electrician who has never admitted to being wrong about anything.

    Umm I'm not an electrician, although I could be if I wanted to, and I have admitted to being wrong on many occasions.

    Even in areas which you have no expertise (law, biology, mathematics...).

    It is obvious I know more about those areas then you do. And I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to demonstrate anything I said in thoise areas is incorrect.

     
  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There is absolutely no logical necessity that a Christian would know more about Christianity than a non-christian.

    I have yet to meet one non-christian who knows more about Christianity than I do- and I am a non-christian. If you think you know one bring him/ her here and we will see.

    I doubt there is any non-christian in the world who knmows more about Christianity that Dr Morris. That and science are his life.

    And anyone who equates ID with Christian beliefs obviously knows very little, if anything, of either.

    What is obvious is that not one scientist can provide the data which shows the grand claims made by evolutionists are indicative of reality.

    And what are these grand claims - and where might I find them - other than on this blog of course?

    I already gave you one:


    IOW no one can demonstrate that a population of single-celled organisms can evolve into something other than single-celled organisms!

    See also the PBS series "Evolution", the part on "great transformations".

    Every alleged great transformation is beyond the reach of science and in the realm of conjecture and speculation.

     
  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    AF:
    I will agree with your remark when Kitzmiller is appealed and reversed because "Intelligent Design" is discovered to have some scientific basis, rather than just being a cloak for fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

    Two things that AF has NEVER substantiated in that statement- that the Kitzmiller decision was based on scientific merit and that ID is just being a cloak for fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

    Now why don't you two errand boys run along and go play in fast-moving traffic.

     
  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dazza- there are plenty off typooos for you to pick on in my recent posts.

    Have fun!

     
  • At 12:46 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You forgot to think about yourself, Joe. You quite probably know more about Christianity than Dr. Morris. Just as you know more biology that biologists.

    And what about this tidbit:

    Blipey's a Christian.

    So, by your logic, you must bow to my superior knowledge of Christianity.

    I'll expect your acknowledgment of this point now.

     
  • At 3:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey asserts:
    You quite probably know more about Christianity than Dr. Morris.

    I doubt it.

    Just as you know more biology that biologists.

    I never said nor implied that I do.

    I am LOOKING FOR THE DATA*. So far NOT ONE BIOLOGIST HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE IT.

    And what about this tidbit:

    Blipey's a Christian.


    blipey's a lying clown. Actions speak louder than words and your actions demonstrate you ain't a christian in any sense of the word.

    IOW the only "tidbit" is what you stroke with your hand while you post your nonsense.

     
  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Wow. Blipey is a Christian. I guess you'll have to retract your statement that any Christian knows more about Christianity than any non-Christian.

    A point that I do not agree with, BTW. There are plenty of people who know more about Christianity than I do.

    The point is your logic is terrible.

     
  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Blipey is a Christian.

    All the evidence points to blipey being a lying low-life clown.

    I will go with the evidence. Lying low-life clowns can and will say anything.

    There are plenty of people who know more about Christianity than I do.

    I am sure there are. But you're not a christian.

    Actions, blipey. Your posts betray you and expose your anti-christian agenda.

     
  • At 1:07 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I'm sure you will now provide evidence for my anti-Christian agenda?

    No?

    Huh.

     
  • At 8:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'm sure you will now provide evidence for my anti-Christian agenda?

    As I said- you are a lying low-life who now tries to psss itself off as a christian. That alone is an anti-christian agenda.

    Ya see christians aren't supposed to be lying low-lifes. Therefor you degrade christianity by including yourself with real Christians.

     
  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Alan Fox said…

    "Another Note to Alan Fox" which, you forgot to send, Joe. Thank Blipey for posting a link to your blog at AtBC.

    You write:

    Now I know Alan will just ignore all of this because willful(sic) ignoarnce(sic) is the evolutionitwit way...

    (Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I have reposted my comment.)

    Joe, ID died at Harrisburg. Creationism will no doubt continue as a belief system. I defend and fully support your right to believe anything you like that does not lead you to commit or incite others to commit crimes against humanity such as mass murder (or even the odd single murder or assault). Just don't call it science, and that will avoid confusion.

    from someone who knows more about ID and Christianity than Alan Fox ever will.

    It is not my policy to debate the merits of competing belief systems, Joe. If you get comfort from your particular sect, then I am happy for you. I have always suspected that some people have an innate need for some kind of religious crutch and others don't, and attempts by people of either category to persuade those from another are not usually productive.

    What does puzzle me is why my religious convictions are of any interest to you, as yours are of utterly no interest to me.

    My wife has asked me to "stop wasting time blogging" so I can't really afford to spend more time here. I will copy this to my blog and will keep a weather eye on it in case you want to respond.

     
  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    AF asserts:
    Joe, ID died at Harrisburg.

    ID is alive and doing very well. The Kitzmiller v Dover decision only impacted that one little and insignificant district.

    That is a fact.

    Creationism will no doubt continue as a belief system.

    Creation is also doing well.

    It is not my policy to debate the merits of competing belief systems, Joe.

    That explains why you never have substantiated any of the claims made by the ToE or Common Descent.

    What does puzzle me is why my religious convictions are of any interest to you, as yours are of utterly no interest to me.

    The oinly thing of interest about you is your desire to spread lies and your inability to substantiate your assertions. However it is par for the course when it come to evolutionitwits, like you.

    My wife has asked me to "stop wasting time blogging" so I can't really afford to spend more time here.

    Seeing the best you can do is to lie and post unsupported assertions, your wife has a great point.

    However I am sure that even off the internet you are still a waste of time.

    Thanks for stopping by and proving my point.

    BTW I knew blipey or some other loser would clue you in. Losers stick together like that.

     
  • At 4:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why The KvD decision is meaningless:

    "The Court’s reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; the incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and strawman arguments against ID. The Court has accepted the most tendentious and shopworn excuses for Darwinism with great charity and impatiently dismissed arguments for design.

    All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication. On December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories."
    Dr Behe

     
  • At 3:44 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    You cited Behe (a bio-chemist) as a legal critic?

    And other IDers cite Johnson (a lawyer) as an authority on Biology?

    Mind-boggling.

     
  • At 9:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You cited Behe (a bio-chemist) as a legal critic?

    Wrong again- as usual.

    I cited Dr Behe to demonstrate that Judge Jones III did NOT understand the science that was presented to him.

     
  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I see that picking on typos and imaginary mistakes is the evolutionitwit way:

    Alan responded with the following, quoting moi:

    Now I know Alan will just ignore all of this because willful(sic) ignoarnce(sic) is the evolutionitwit way...

    Willful is the correct spelling you twit and the other was just a typo.

    Thanks for demonstrating that you are a fucking loser.

    It is sad that Alan doesn't even know how to use a dictionary. He obviously doesn't know how to use a Word document either.

    Main Entry: will·ful
    Variant(s): or wil·ful /'wil-f&l/
    Function: adjective
    1 : obstinately and often perversely self-willed (a stubborn and willful child)
    2 : done deliberately : INTENTIONAL (willful disobedience)

    Yup Alan, you and blipey make great ambassodors for ID.

    Thanks.

     
  • At 5:17 PM, Blogger Alan Fox said…

    Way to go, Joe. You post a response to a comment that you have censored.

    That may confuse the lurkers. :P

     
  • At 9:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Way to go, Joe. You post a response to a comment that you have censored.

    Alan, your comment was posted as you left it.

    And I am pretty sure the lurkers can read your comment. It is just a several posts above this one.

    17 comments down from the top. 7 above this one.

    Can you see it now?

    I posted it as soon as I read it.

    Now what do you have to say?


    "Ooops"... LoL!!!!

     
  • At 5:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So I guess you're not accepting "wilful" as a correct spelling? Even though it was listed in the definition that you, yourself, provided? Weird.

     
  • At 5:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So I guess you're not accepting "wilful" as a correct spelling?

    What would make you think I am not accepting "wilful"?

    Where did I ever chide anyone for using "wilful"?

    I guess you are still jumping to the worng inference.

    "Wilful" is an acceptable variant.

     
  • At 6:12 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    How about here:

    Willful is the correct spelling you twit and the other was just a typo.?

     
  • At 9:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How about what?

    I asked for where I chided someone for using "wilful" and blipey posts my response to Alan Fox because Alan said I was wrong for using "willful".

    What gives blipey or did you just want to further expose your stupidity?

     
  • At 4:27 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Uh, you called Alan a stupid twit. You did that because you disagreed with his spelling of "willful" as stated in your comment that "willful" is the proper spelling.

    You are the single stupidest person I have ever encountered. Good luck with everything. Don't get hit by a truck.

     
  • At 6:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Thanks again for PROVING you are an imbecile.

    Try to follow this:

    ALAN, posted the following in his first response in this thread- he was quoting me:

    Now I know Alan will just ignore all of this because willful(sic) ignoarnce(sic) is the evolutionitwit way...

    HE inserted the (sic) after MY usage of the word "willful"- which is a correct spelling thta he was saying was incorrect.

    IOW once again you have proven, without any doubt, that it is YOU who is the stupidest person in the world.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home