On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:31:22 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@
gmail.com>
You can say whatever you want as many times as you want, but it still
doesn't change a thing. Why even pretend that you didn't describe
RonO's purpose, which you presume without basis, as "mental
masturbation"?
>>>> And if you claim you don't know what inflaming words of yours I could
>>>> possibly be talking about, and as much as I would rather not go
>>>> through that effort, I will cite and quote them.
>>>>
>>>> More to the point, you assert a false equivalence.
>>>>
>>> Really? How can you prove it's a false equivalency without resorting to
>>> sophistry.
>>
>> Ignoring your pointless demand for "proof", right here would have been
>> a good place for you to have identified what parts of my post are
>> "sophistry". That you didn't suggests you know your comment is just
>> more of your rock throwing.
>>
>You just make such slanderous statements as "false equivalence" and
>expect me to just accept _your_ accusation? This is where I challenge
>your sense of superiority.
Point first: a "false equivalence" is not a slanderous statement.
Since you think otherwise, look up "slander" and its cognates in a
good dictionary before you post such an silly assertion again.
Point second: I didn't "just" post that statement, but I also backed
it up, by specifying what I referred to, and where said reference is
found, and what I meant by it.
Point third: NOTA implies or depends on a sense of superiority. Your
ad hominems are just more of your rock throwing.
Point fourth: Instead of repeating your ad-hominem attacks, right here
would have been a good place for you to have backed your claims. That
you again failed to do so suggests that you know you have no idea what
you're talking about, so you can't think of anything better to do than
throw more rocks.
>>> The point is those who hold a different view have the same assured
>>> conviction as you of their rightness.
>>
>>
>> Nope, that's not the point. The point is the convictions of
>> supporters of unguided evolution are based on hard work, solid
>> evidence, and reasoned argument. While the convictions of the other
>> side, your side, are based on strawmen and willful ignorance. Your
>> posts are good examples of that.
>>
>Another pronouncement of superiority.
Your asinine ad hominems hurt your case. You would do better to avoid
them.
>>> But in your self-appointed superiority you can judge them.
>>
>>
>> Nope, that's not it either. I "judge" their *conclusions* based on
>> the vacuity of their arguments. My alleged superiority, which I
>> neither claimed nor implied, has nothing to do with it. Your ad
>> hominems are more of your rock throwing.
>>
>Right _YOU_ JUDGE!
Apparently you make no distinction between objective reality and your
sense of self. Most people I know learned that difference by the time
they became adults.
>>> Yes, there are
>>>> people who claim academic credentials and personally support ID. But
>>>> to the best of my knowledge, whatever those ID scientists have done,
>>>> they have not documented any evidence in support of ID. Instead, all
>>>> ID scientists I know of who have even attempted to deal with material
>>>> evidence, have focused on claims critical of unguided biological
>>>> evolution, which is not the same kind of evidence at all.
>>>>
>>> The biological evidence, is only one aspect of the whole. To be sure
>>> Jill, when the major critics of ID, are _not_ open to interpretation
>>> of the evidence, that does not align with their own. There are many
>>> facts that are presented as evidence of evolution, but could also be
>>> seen as evidence of design.
>>
>>
>> Just about anything could be seen as evidence of ID, which is the
>> problem. There is nothing that an unknown, unseen, undefined,
>> supernatural Designer couldn't do. Such an inference isn't
>> falsifiable, and so is scientifically useless.
>>
>Here you are repeating anti-ID propaganda. Why not think for yourself?
Instead of posting more asinine ad hominems, right here would have
been a good place for you to have cited something... anything... which
refutes said alleged "anti-ID propaganda". That you didn't suggests
you know of none, so you can't think of anything better to do than
throw more rocks.
>>>> OTOH there is an abundant and ever-growing body of work which
>>>> materially and explicitly supports unguided biological evolution.
>>>> Since you seem to doubt the veracity of that statement, you can start
>>>> with the talk.origins archives:
>>>>
>>>> <
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, that's been pointed out to you before. And lots of posters
>>>> to T.O. have provided lots of cites to scientific articles and books
>>>> which document evidence for unguided biological evolution. All of
>>>> which you apparently just handwave away, a characteristic behavior
>>>> among ID supporters, like Michael Behe did during the Dover trial.
>>>>
>>> In going to the Talk Origins FAC, I noted that for references the
>>> used Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynment, Futuyma, Stephen Gould
>>> Earnst Mayr etc. One can be certain of that this is not a balanced
>>> and fair both sides approach.
>>
>> You want fair and balanced? Here's how to get it: back up your
>> claims. Don't expect others to do it for you.
>>
>I cannot rule out anything, as an atheist you rule out everything
>that does not come under the cloak of naturalism. This applies to
>Dawkins Futuyma, Gould etc.. So, design in nature is invisible to
>atheism.
Non sequiturs "R" Dean.
>>>> If you're really interested, here's an "Unannotated Bibliography on
>>>> the Evolutionary Origin of the Immune System", which includes the
>>>> articles and books which virtually buried Behe on the witness stand:
>>>>
>>>> <
https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/unannotated-bibliography-evolutionary-origin-immune-system>
>>>>
>>>> So instead of just posting your red herrings above, IMO it would have
>>>> been more productive if you had at least tried to answer Ron O's
>>>> challenges about Meyer. Of course, evading questions is another
>>>> characteristic behavior of ID supporters.
>>>>
>>> It isn't evading questions when you don't have _all_ the answers.
>>
>>
>> It *is* evading questions when you don't even acknowledge them, and
>> instead accuse others of what you do yourself.
> >
>What question do I evade or fail to acknowledge?
Really? Do you really not know how to recognize a written question?
Read the OP, the one to which you replied without answering any of the
questions posted in it. This time, look for the "?" character at the
end of sentences. Those sentences are the questions you conveniently
ignored. Most people I know learned how to recognize a written
question by the time they got out of grade school.
>If you want to talk
>about evasion - I've presented fine tuning of the physical constants
>as evidence and asked how could natural forces have tuned the constants,
>but only to have the question evaded by turning it back on
>me by demanding that I prove that the constants could have been
>initially arbitrary. Other means of evasion is to argue that some
>future discovery such as the theory of everything (TOE) will explain
>the fine tuning, Another evasion tactic is we don't know enough to
>answer. Another tact is to drag in the multiverse hypothesis. Clearly
>design is verboten and beyond any consideration.
And how 'bout them Mets.