The whole truth
Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012
|
joey just doesn't know when to shut up:
"And Wagner’s ideas are not published in peer-review. If his ideas had the evidence he would publish."
Actually, joey, you were provided with a list of publications by Wagner. And joey, if you IDiot-creationists have the evidence for your IDiotic claims, you would publish in credible peer reviewed science journals. Since you IDiots constantly claim to have plenty of evidence, WHY haven't you, gordo mullings, gpuccio, mung, arrington, torley, phoodoo, batshitcrazy77, Dionisio, Box, Moose Dr, Yarrgonaut, Ewert, etc., etc., etc., PUBLISHED (in credible peer reviewed science journals) your alleged evidence of CSI, dFSCI, FSCO/I, IC, special creation, front loading, divine intervention, twiddling, and all of your other bullshit claims about intelligent design? I already know the answer: you IDiots DON'T have ANY evidence.
[centrestream]: "But we are repeatedly told this subject, the nature and mechanisms used by the designer, is a forbidden subject for ID."
[joey]: "That is incorrect. They are separate questions just as you separate the OoL from evolutionism."
So, joey, since the nature and mechanisms of the so-called 'designer' are not "forbidden" subjects in regard to 'ID', then WHY do YOU and other IDiots get so bent out of shape when you're asked about those subjects?
[joey]: "You have no idea what you are posting yet you feel compelled to post anyway. Strange.
In the real world we first determine design is present BEFORE we even attempt to answer those other questions. It is very telling that you don’t know how science works. Nice job."
Hey joey, as I've pointed out before, YOU and other IDiots have been claiming for a long time that you IDiots have ALREADY DETERMINED DESIGN, so WHY aren't you attempting to answer those questions? And do you realize that you contradicted what you previously said in the same thread? Yeah, what you said about those subjects not being forbidden. Which is it, joey, are those subjects forbidden even though you claim that you have already determined design, and if they're not forbidden even though you haven't actually determined design then why do you get so bent out of shape when asked about those subjects? Make up your deranged mind you blithering, two-faced, ignorant, arrogant dimwit.
Hey look, joey, here you are again claiming that you IDiots have already determined design:
[Tamara Knight]: "Which would be all well and good Joe if you actually determined design was present."
[joey]: "We have. OTOH you still have nothing, not even a methodology."
[Tamara Knight]: "You make “design is present” the default explanation."
[joey]: "That is incorrect and demonstrates ignorance on your part. How can design be the default if we actively consider other explanations FIRST?"
And you're flat out lying about considering "other explanations FIRST", joey. The ONLY thing you "actively consider" is doing everything you can get away with in your attempts to force your insane dominionist agenda into everyone's life whether they like it or not.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....plexity
-------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
|