The whole truth
Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
|
I know it's cruel to suggest that all of you go to joey's unintelligent blabbering blog and read a few threads but I think it's worth the trip into the bowels of joey's tard to see just how stupid and two-faced he is. The threads to read are the ones on his most current page that have comments.
And here I'll post some parts of his exchanges with "Unknown", and I will have something to say afterward:
(Unknown): "But I do think the ID crowd has been very reluctant to present a hypothesis for how life developed"
(joey): "That isn't part of ID"
(Unknown): "Except . . . it is. ID proponents think that an intelligent designer helped life develop in some way, at some time, for some purpose. But no one really wants to spell out even when or to what extent."
(joey): "That isn't part of ID. Grow up."
(joey): "ID posits testable entailments and that is much more than your position has so stuff it, Jerad."
(Unknown): "You do have a hypothesis don't you? Isn't that the way science is done?"
(joey): "Yes, ID's entailments ARE the testable hypotheses. OTOH your position doesn't even have that.
So shut up already about testable hypotheses."
(Unknown): "So, do the entailments specify whether biological systems were front loaded with all necessary coding/programming or that there has been lots of adjustments by the designers?"
(joey): "No"
(Unknown): "No, the entailments do not specify which case is to be assumed/hypothesised?
So what are you saying really? Is there a central, core intelligent design hypothesis that explains why life on earth developed in the way it did?"
(joey): "No, ID does not say how life developed beyond that it was designed to evolve and evolved by design."
(Unknown): "T'ain't much is it?"
(joey): "It's more than you have."
(Unknown): "It doesn't say how or when or why."
(joey): "That isn't part of ID. And your position cannot say anything about those questions either."
(Unknown): "So, you haven't got a real, explanatory hypothesis"
(joey): "That is your uneducated opinion."
(Unknown): "Stuff looks designed but nobody knows when or how or why."
(joey): "The why was answered in "The Privileged Planet", and no one says stuff just looks designed. Investigators realize saying something is designed means quite a bit. But then again we have been over and over that already."
Hey YEC-joey, since "ID does not say how life developed beyond that it was designed to evolve and evolved by design", how can there be any "ID" entailments? Since "saying something is designed" is all there is to "ID", how can there be any "ID" entailments?
Since "ID does not say how life developed beyond that it was designed to evolve and evolved by design" and "saying something is designed" is all there is to "ID", it doesn't matter what Spetner says in The Privileged Planet or what any other IDiot-creationists say about how, why, when, who, etc., because anything they (and you) say about any entailments is, according to you, not what "ID" pertains to.
And joey, you've said many times, including in recent comments on your blog, that "ID" entailments such as how, when, why, and who would only apply after design has been "determined", but you have also said many times, including in recent comments on your blog, that intelligent design ("Special Creation") of the "entire universe" (except "diseases and deformities") has been "determined".
So, joey, will you explain your contradictory, evasive, stupid statements?
ETA: capitalized the u in Unknown.
Edited by The whole truth on Feb. 26 2015,22:15
--------------
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
|
