|The whole truth
Joined: Jan. 2012
I just made the mistake of looking at some of the comments at TSZ in the Good arguments and straw men thread. As usual the bible thumping IDiots are calling people names (like "troll") and making insulting remarks about reading comprehension and other things to or about non-IDiots.
I stopped reading when I saw EL's response to this mess by WJM (my responses are in bold type):
William J. Murray on February 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm said:
This is probably essentially off-topic, but anyway:
But that won't stop you from proselytizing and being a pompous jerk, right?
For myself, and probably most people posting or reading ID/NDE (neo-darwinian evolution) debates, we lack the scientific or mathematical education/background/training to make any formal scientific arguments about ID or NDE. The best we might be able to do is recognize logical challenges/solutions/problems involved in more specifically educated arguments about ID vs NDE.
Speak for yourself and your IDiotic comrades, not "most people posting or reading ID/NDE (neo-darwinian evolution) debates".
This is why I try to keep my contributions about the logic and philosophy involved, and not interpretations of technical data. I'm not qualified to parse the technical data on biological or mathematical merits. I suspect most those contributing here are equally unqualified.
Suspect yourself and your IDiotic comrades. Just because you and your fellow IDiots are "not qualified to parse the technical data on biological or mathematical merits" doesn't mean that non-IDiots are "equally unqualified". That's one of the biggest problems with you morons. Because you're delusional, stupid, and uneducated, you think that anyone who questions or opposes you must be just as delusional, stupid, and uneducated, or more so. From your position of delusion, ignorance, and lack of education, you can't see that many people are way smarter and more educated than you, and are not delusional to boot.
Which brings me to my point: those whom I suspect are equally unqualified to parse the merits of the data often make assertions about the explanatory power of NDE theory that is well beyond their capacity to know. It's often (logically speaking) beyond the capacity of even experts in specific fields to know. Comments such as (from this thread):
There you go again suspecting something unfounded and wrong about people who are actually your intellectual superiors by miles. And, now that you made a bunch of asinine, insulting remarks in a lame attempt to discredit and diminish the intellect and knowledge of non-IDiots, you're going to get to your "point"?
I note that organisms are not optimal in their function/form ~ it is easy to make a wish list of improvements. This is to be expected in 'evolution world', but not in 'ID world'
One only knows what "optimal form" is in terms of ID if the full intent of the designer is known, as well as the necessary parameters and specifications to be met by the design.
Actually, one only knows what ANY function/form is in terms of ID if the full intent of the designer is known, as well as the necessary parameters and specifications to be met by the design. In other words, without knowing (and showing) the intent, parameters, and specifications to be met by the alleged design, you IDiots don't know squat and are just dishonestly proselytizing for your non-scientific, non-evidential, wacky religious beliefs.
For everyone else, there is a single, consistent, fully explanatory theory supported by all known observations without exception.
I doubt even the most long-tenured, multi-discipline, research-practicing evolutionary biologist could meaningfully claim this. This is obviously a statement of faith, not first-hand investigatory knowledge about "all known observations without exception".
What you doubt is irrelevant and meaningless to science and rational debate, and your absolutely moronic and desperate assertion about "first-hand investigatory knowledge" is so arrogant and stupid as to be good for nothing but laughs and mockery. No evolutionary biologist claims to have first-hand investigatory knowledge of all known observations without exception and Flint didn't claim that. Tell me, do you have "first-hand investigatory knowledge" of the alleged creation of the universe by your chosen god, or the alleged garden of eden, or the alleged talking snake, or the alleged 'flood', or the alleged ark, or the alleged conception, birth, life, death, and resurrection of a guy now called jesus, or anything else in your fairy tale religious dogma?
There is no reason to suppose any teleological or supernatural forces are involved.
This in the face of hundreds of years of biology that has worked against the commonly held supposition of teleological forces involved, and is easily disputed by referring to Lewontin or many others who have written about the apparent design in nature. This is just rhetoric in the face of the history of evolutionary theory and thought.
Blah blah blah. Nothing but arrogant, twisted bullshit.
If one reads through much of the ID/NDE commentary on this site (or even on UD), from both sides there is much presentation of characterizations of ID, or of ID researchers, or of NDE, or NDE researchers, or of the state of research, or of what is known, or what has been proven or not proven, or what there is evidence of or not of, by those who really don't have much of an idea of what they are talking about when it comes to actually evaluating data on the merits oneself and not just taking someone else's word for what it means.
Look at a mirror if you want to see someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. And whose word are YOU taking for all the bullshit religious stories you believe?
Basically, the debate is 90% negative or positive characterizations & rhetoric, and maybe 10% qualified interpretation and criticism of data & the merits of an argument. So, I'd say that really, about 90% of us are, in terms of the scientific and mathematical evidence and argument, doing nothing more in that specific area of argument than cheerleading those who actually understand the science and/or the math.
There you go yet again making a lame attempt to denigrate and diminish scientists and science supporters who are vastly superior to you and the other IDiots in understanding scientific and mathematical evidence and arguments. Yeah, you don't understand squat, and you're an arrogant religious retard, and your ridiculous and insulting assertions about non-IDiots are nothing more than your lame attempt to fool yourself and others into believing that your opponents are as stupid as you are.
So the question I finally draw to is: Why have we chosen ID, or NDE, when we lack the necessary qualifications to do anything more, really, than appeal to authority when it comes to the actual science involved?
Who's "we"? Speak only for yourself and your brain-dead fellow religious zombie IDiots.
Since I obviously do not understand enough of the science or math to reach a qualified decision about either, I must rest my choice on other considerations, which I think is what is behind how most people make the choice between ID and NDE (or between NDE and creationism); other considerations.
Yeah, since you don't understand enough of the science or math to reach a qualified decision about either, you must rest your choice on the easy and delusional fairy tales of your chosen religion. Congratulations, you're an ignorant nutcase.
So, I think the best populist argument for ID, for the 90%, has nothing really to do with math or science (or even logic) that is over our head anyway, but rather the hope, meaning, purpose and value that is conferred upon life & existence under the ID paradigm that is not available under the NDE paradigm.
In other words you're a scientifically and mathematically illiterate godbot who prefers fairy tales to reality, you support and promote a dishonest Dominionist agenda, and you think that makes it okay for you to rank down science, scientists, and science supporters.
I think that it is also true that for 90% of NDE believers, that it is some populist or psychological reason that they have adopted NDE (as was historically said, Darwinism allowed one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist), and attempt to characterize their belief as scientific or logical when it really is not.
How do you know that "it really is not" when you admittedly don't understand science and math? You're speaking from 100% delusion, ignorance, and arrogance.
At the end of the day, most of what either side tries to do (outside of the players educated in the particular fields) is characterize their ID or NDE belief as being based on science or logic; but when it comes down to it, that belief is really - IMO - nothing more than a reflection of what they want or need to believe anyway.
Again, speak for yourself. And what makes you think that "players educated in the particular fields" aren't involved in debates with you uneducated IDiots?
Personally, I choose to believe in god. I prefer believing in god (and yes, I've tried atheism). And unless there is some kind of logical contradiction or fact of my existence that contradicts ID, I will believe that our universe and life was designed by an intelligence. I prefer living under that paradigm.
Oh, so you've "tried atheism"? If only you knew how asinine that sounds. Live under any delusion you like but keep your insanity out of science, schools, politics, and the lives of people who don't want and don't need your religious crutch.
That doesn't mean I cannot make logical arguments for ID, or for god; nor does it mean I can't read papers and make sense out of some of the science and math; it just means that I admit my fundamental reason for belief is something other than that which I'm really not qualified to evaluate.
Actually, you god zombies are incapable of making a logical argument for ID and anything else. And yes, you're unqualified to evaluate science, math, logic, and reality, so stop telling people who are qualified to evaluate those things that they are wrong.
And I think that this is probably true for most people involved in the debate.
What you think is gibberish.
Elizabeth on February 23, 2012 at 8:50 pm said:
That's interesting, William, thanks.
Actually, it's crap.
Fellatio is in fact a type of sodomy - gordon e mullings
I don't even know what that means- "study CSI". - joe g
Joe G is the only person I have ever encountered who could start a fight in an empty room and still manage to lose. - Amadan