Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Unpleasant Blowhard has taken the stage and begun monologuing. Hasn't he seen The Incredibles?
I asked for an entailment of ID, and an empirical test of that entailment such that ID or a tenet of ID would be placed at risk of disconfirmation. That's all. In the Biped's overheated brainpan that converts to the following:
| Quote | | Spend a day demanding from everyone that they acknowledge they (and everyone they know) are literally meaningless and have no free will, and then perhaps your boundaries will come into focus. |
That's a bit psychotic. But it does shed light on what is at stake for Biped and his companions. He continues:
| Quote | | Although I think you are being less than candid in the gist of your questions, I have no doubt you’re crystal clear about the success of the scientific attack on your position. |
Actually, I've been completely candid about the meta-purpose of my questions. However, my description of those motives remains in moderation at UD some ten hours having been posted.
Biped then takes leave of his senses altogether:
| Quote | | You then go back to your home turf and lament the moderation policy at UD, as if that were the problem. Any person with even modicum of sense could examine the tone of comments made here and elsewhere, and immediately understand why UD has moderation - your side simply needs it; they clearly have an issue with being able to moderate themselves. Quite honestly, it’s an embarrassment to Darwin (and to science). |
This from Unpleasant Biped, who seems to specialize in a special blend of hot air and insult.
The problem, BP, is that your theory lacks epistemic status as a scientific theory, owing to its inability to generate testable entailments.
| Quote | | So you ask for an entailment for which you can battle. And in this battle you’ll defeat a great tenet of design, correct? A tenet being a belief one has about something. And in the case of the design hypothesis, that belief is that chance and necessity (have not, and) cannot account for its existence, while design is the only known causal mechanism known to man that is able, and the empirical evidence continues to grow. |
What I asked for is an entailment of ID, and an empirical test of that entailment such that ID or a tenet of ID would be placed at risk of disconfirmation.
| Quote | | Well, grow some balls Bill. Quit whining about the moderation policy at UD and go on the attack. |
This to a participant who can't post. Not only bipedal, but hung like a gorilla.
OK, Biped, here's my attack:
Describe a necessary entailment of ID, and an empirical test of that entailment such that ID is placed at risk of disconfirmation.
Neither you, Jerry, Joe, Kairos, nor the other geniuses at UD have been able to give a response to that question. I genuinely believe that it is beyond your collective grasp. Until you dream up a a theory that can supply such entailments, and begin putting those entailments to the test, whatever it is you clowns are up to isn't science, and it never will be. If all it takes is a word game to make that so painfully obvious, I'd take up another hobby. (Avoid endeavors that require charisma, however).
Biped maybe. But those are two left feet, so far as I can tell.
--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
|
