Maya
Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007
|
| Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 20 2009,17:29) | My last post at UD has been gifted with a complimentary header:
| Quote | 304
Reciprocating_Bill
03/20/2009
5:04 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
| Quote | | So when you said drift and deterioration, it was a flag that you did not understand the debate. |
But now you know I was responding to Joseph’s misleading use of “accumulation,” and his twice repeated demand for a prediction. Given my (mis)understanding of what he intended by “accumulation” (eg., something other than accumulation), my response is correct. I don’t hear you disputing that.
The balance of your post again describes your justification for rejecting the assertion that current evolutionary theory accounts for the origins of macroevolutionary changes and complex biochemical systems.
However, the (putative) failure of an entailment of evolutionary theory does not convert to support for ID. That is because such a finding does not permit the distinction between “ID is also wrong” and “ID is correct.”
Why don’t you speak to that, just for variety.
What is required is an entailment that arises uniquely from ID, and an empirical test of that entailment such that ID, or a major tenet of ID, is put at risk of disconfirmation.
None of the above is responsive to that. Why not give it a whirl. |
This on a thread concerning UD's new, "open" moderation policy. Therein the standard was enunciated: no vicious personal attacks, no comments that are defamatory or profane.
Anyone reading that thread will see that I have utterly refrained from ad hominem, defamatory or profane remarks. This despite a steady drizzle of low key (and generally irrational) insults from Jerry, Joseph and, earlier, Unpleasant Biped.
Rather, I have pressed a single, well taken query regarding the evidentiary basis of ID theory, a query that remains unanswered. However, in addition to my interest in their responses to this question, there has always been a meta-purpose to these queries.
That purpose is now served.
(Now let's wait for congratulations all around because I have "run away.") |
This is what bothers me second most[1] about UD. The blatant lack of respect for free and open discussion and the hypocritical claims to have that respect really trigger my violent disgust mental triggers. I have a lot of respect for you long term followers of UD who can keep your sense of humor when watching these offensive nitwits. I keep trying to attain the same sense of enlightenment, but then Jerry or Upright Dickhead post something even more egregious.
Aside to Clive (I know you're watching): You realize your "moderation" is really a desperate attempt to avoid criticism, right? You realize that everyone can see that you're afraid of really examining you claims? You also realize that, scarily enough, Davey leaving actually lowered the average understanding of science at UD? Good, as long as everything is clear.
I would love to see a site that shadows the topics on UD, but actually supports open discussion (without the AtBC mocking that would scare off the IDiots). I wonder if the Allen MacNeills, Reciprocating Bills, David Kelloggs, Zachriels, and all the rest of the sock puppet army stopped toying with the intellectual mice at UD[2] and would only contribute where they aren't subject to arbitrary censorship, would that pull some of the rodents out into the light?
Thoughtfully,
Maya
[1] The thing that bothers me most is that these people vote.
[2] You may now take this metaphor behind the barn and put it out of its misery. I'm done with it.
|
*
