Cubist
Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007
|
| Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,13:44) | | All right, for starters. I cannot for the sake of my own time respond to everyone one of your questions or comments. I would also like to point out, Cubists and others, that I have at no time in my posts admitted or actually “whined” or accused evolutionists about being nasty: |
Bullshit. You damn well have accused evolutionists of being nasty, and you did so in your very first post to this thread. In that post, you asserted that scientists are a dogmatic, close-minded lot (your precise phrasing: "the 'scientific' community at large are not so receptive to alternate theories to evolution" and a question which presumes the existence of "an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory"), and you made noise about "conniving remarks" and "babblings").
| Quote | | Quote | | whine about how mean those nasty evilutionismustistas are to say those terribly, terribly hurtful things? |
I have pointed out the use of “harsh” language, but a far cry from whining. One of my goals is to not be like the other Creationists you have come in contact with here on this forum, like, not being one of those who whines or moans about whatever responses are given. |
Oh, re-ee-ally. Then why the hell did you even bother to mention the "irrational disgust" and "conniving remarks" and all the rest of that crap? If all you were after is intellectual discussion of relevant issues, why the hell did you drag that other stuff in by the heels?
Look, bjray: If ID is being unjustly dismissed by real scientists, that's one thing. But you cannot assume, just from the mere fact that ID is dismissed by real scientists, that that dismissal is not just. In fact, one could argue that the just dismissal of ideas is very much what science is all about... but for some strange reason or other, you ID-pushers never do manage to address the question of what does or does not constitute a just idea-dismissal; rather, the concept that some ideas damn well should be dismissed is conspicuously absent from all the noise you lot make about "academic freedom" and "teach the controversy" and yada yada yada. There's an Abbott and Costello routine which is very apposite here:
Costello: They said Newton was crazy! They said Einstein was crazy! They said Luigi was crazy!
Abbott: Hold it, who's Luigi?
Costello: Oh, Luigi's my uncle. He is crazy.
So yeah, real scientists say ID is crazy. So fucking what? Real scientists also say that phlogiston is crazy. If you want anybody to give a shit about how real scientists say ID is crazy, you really need to demonstrate that ID is not in the same, justly dismissed, class as phlogiston -- and the operative verb is demonstrate, not baldly assert.
In other words, you need to establish that ID is crazy like Einstein, not crazy like Luigi. And if all you do is yammer about how real scientists say ID is crazy, without demonstrating that ID is crazy like Einstein... well, the more you ID-pushers make noise about "those Darwinists is me-ee-ean to us!" without even a token pretense at showing that the 'mean' behavior is not fully justified, the more an impartial observer is going to get the idea that that 'mean' behavior is, in fact, fully justified. Because if you ID-pushers actually could do more than piss and moan about "the Darwinoids was me-ee-ean to us!1!", you lot bloody well would have done more than piss and moan.
| Quote | | You mentioned that “you say these things” because you “believe they’re true.” |
Yep. Would you like to try to demonstrate that any of those things we say are not true... or would you rather (continue to) whine about how mean those nasty evilutionismustistas are to say those terribly, terribly hurtful things?
Grow a pair, bjray. Demonstrate that ID is crazy like Einstein and not crazy like Luigi.
| Quote | | Well, if I believed that the sky was really red, it doesn’t mean it is true. |
That's nice. It's not even a sham pretense at an attempt to demonstrate that any of those nasty things we say about ID are untrue, but it's nice. You ever going to get around to demonstrating that ID is crazy like Einstein rather than crazy like Luigi, or are you just going to continue whining about how those nasty intolerant scientists say that ID is crazy?
| Quote | Anyhow..
I am informed about the difference between evolution, abiogenesis and big bang. While maybe all can be considered different “scientific enterprises”, they all have at least one thing in common: Evolutionary theory sprinkled about them. |
Bullshit. What the hell does it even mean to say that evolutionary theory is "sprinkled about" abiogenesis and then big bang? You want to try translating that freom the original English, bjray?
| Quote | | Furthermore, the notion that the big bang best fits current scientific evidence does not necessitate it being factual. (Here is another goal of mine; namely, to put back on your table the possibility of creation by a designer. |
An admirable goal, that. And the moment you, or any other IDist in general, manages to come up with a testable Designer-concept -- you know, like how the real sciences of archæology and forensics revolve around testable Designer-concepts -- I'm sure that real scientists will give that testable Designer-concept of yours all the consideration that is its due.
| Quote | | You’re right, mentioning creation does imply a designer. That’s my point. I believe this world did not just materialize on its own, but was in fact created. This fits the best evidence I have. (Go ahead, get caught up on “what evidence”.) I’m trying not to explain the nth degree of everything, because (as I have said before) I cannot. Thus, I won’t try to explain nth degree details. |
Hell, you won't even try to explain zeroeth-degree details, let alone first-degree details!
| Quote | | Some explanation yes, but nitty gritty is not in my ability (or any one for that matter). Evolutionary explanations for such things: ie: big bang, commit a logical fallacy. |
Hold it. What "evolutionary explanations for... big bang"? Jesus Haploid Christ on a titanium sidecar, you're still conflating "evolution" with "big bang"? After all the times you've been corrected on this point? Fuck off and die in a fire, you unmitigated waste of oxygenated protoplasm!
| Quote | | Cubists, thank you for the lesson in gaining other people’s respect. I understand. Have you heard of agreeing to disagree or the likes of varying approaches to things? |
Blow me, bjray. I don't give a flying fuck about your mask of Potemkin politeness, because your behavior has repeatedly given the lie to that shiny happy façade. If given the choice between a rude person who is honest, and an ostensibly polite person who can't be trusted half as far as I can throw them, I'll go for the honest guy every time.
Oh, and one thing: "Cubist" has one 's' in it, not two. An isolated typing error is one thing, but seeing as how you committed this particular error no less than 3 (three) times in this post, I can't help but feel there just might be a tiny bit more to it than an overlookable typing error.
| Quote | | The explanation of morality (previously mentioned by me as self-preservation, albeit the latter is probably considered a subset of the former) by evolution is incomplete, that’s why I have a problem with it. |
Fascinating. If you genuinely do consider it's incomplete to be a serious problem with evolutionary explanations for morality, may I ask what you deem 'incomplete' about said explanations? What, in your view, are the 'missing pieces'? And given the fact that every scientific theory is incomplete to some degree, I would be interested to know what other scientific theories, besides evolution, you doubt on the grounds of their "incomplete"ness. I am confident that a fine, honest, Truthseeking Christian like yourself actually does doubt at least one or two other scientific theories on the grounds of their "incomplete"ness, as opposed to... say... this "it's incomplete!" schtick being a convenient, sciencey-sounding excuse for you to dump on evolution and evolution alone. Because you are an honest, Truthseeking Christian, and not a Ninth-Commandment-breaking follower of the Father of Lies. Right, bjray?
| Quote | | ...the “gene of self-sacrifice” is carried on due to the fittest taking care of the weaker among kin or tribe. |
Hold it. What makes you think there even is a 'gene of self-sacrifice'? Just how much hardwired-in-the-genes instinctual behavior do you think us humans have?
| Quote | | Cubists, your digression on why “real” scientists reject Creationism is troubling at best. |
Hold it. 'Digression'? Di-fucking-gression!? Listen, schmuck, you asked the question ("Is it simply that because Creationists attribute what might be a scientifically explainable event to an Intelligent Designer the primary issue? Or, is it because Creationists do not use evolution to help explain their work? Or, is it that Creationists use a 'get out of jail free. by attributing God to various things that science can explain?"). And you claimed that you "desire to know what the underlying issue is".
You.
Asked.
The.
Fucking.
Question.
And I answered your fucking question. So you can take your 'digression' bullshit, fold it into a sharp-cornered package, and shove it sideways where the Sun don't shine.
Now. Would you care to address the substance of my answer to your question?
| Quote | | Again, you continue to assert that that evolutionary thinking is the end all, explain all. |
Bullshit I do. Yes, I think that evolutionary theory is the best explanation we've got at the moment, but best we've got at the moment is not synonymous with absolute best ever of all time, worlds without end, Amen. Do I think it's possible that some other theory could come along to replace evolution? Believe it or don't, I absolutely do think that's possible! And I think this new theory (whatever it ends up being) could come along at any time, even. But whatever that replacement theory may be, it will have to explain the same things evolution does. More: Whatever this replacement theory may be, it will have to explain the same things evolution does, better than evolution does. And ID can't even pass the hurdle of "it explains stuff", let alone "it explains stuff better than evolution". The problem for ID is that somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is not a fucking explanation for ANYfuckingTHING. And if you think somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is not an accurate presentation of ID, I invite you now... as I have already done in an earlier post... to fucking well demonstrate that somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is not an accurate presentation of ID. By, you know, explaining what the fuck the scientific theory of Intelligent Design actually fucking is.
What's it gonna be, bjray? Are you going to demonstrate that ID is, in fact, not the bogus snake-oil its detractors have proved it to be? Or will you, instead, just keep on making noise in which "ID is not bogus snake-oil, honest it's not!" is an implicit, unstated assumption?
| Quote | | I am open to understanding evolutionary process and thinking. |
Judging from what I've read in your posts so far, I very much doubt that you genuinely are "open to understanding evolutionary process and thinking". It is of course entirely within your power to behave in such a way as to confound my deplorable expectations of you, but given your existing track record...
|
