Are the Evolutionists Dimwitted?
All-seeing-I
noun Slang. a stupid or slow-thinking person.
What about a legal definition?
non compos mentis (nahn calm-pose meant-is) adj. referring to someone
who is insane, or not mentally competent to conduct one's affairs.
What about a medical definition?
Etymology: L, not of sound mind
a legal term applied to a person declared to be mentally incompetent.
OK. Now we know 'what' a dimwit is, let's what a dimwit believes...
They want EVERYTHING on the planet to conform to the scientific method
and natural science even though there are some observations that are
best explained with supernatural causes.
Gee. THAT sounds a lot like the dimwitted evolutionists on TO.!!
The answer must be.. "Yes"
--
Learn Knowledge with....
The All Seeing I
Bob T.
> First. let us see what a "Dimwit" is.
>
What an interesting hobby you have - insulting people in the hope they
will insult you back. You just wouldn't have had time for this back
when you had a job, would you?
- Bob T.
Greg G.
OK, as Bob T. suggests:
When you were born and the doctor slapped your ass, it was an all-day
job!
All-seeing-I
Thanks. NowI know who.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>First. let us see what a "Dimwit" is.
>
>noun Slang. a stupid or slow-thinking person.
>
>What about a legal definition?
>
>non compos mentis (nahn calm-pose meant-is) adj. referring to someone
>who is insane, or not mentally competent to conduct one's affairs.
>
>What about a medical definition?
>
>Etymology: L, not of sound mind
>a legal term applied to a person declared to be mentally incompetent.
>
>
>OK. Now we know 'what' a dimwit is, let's what a dimwit believes...
>
>They want EVERYTHING on the planet to conform to the scientific method
>and natural science even though there are some observations that are
>best explained with supernatural causes.
>
really? we want ballet dancing, auto mechanics, fishing, etc to
conform to the scientific method?
hmmm...dont recall seeing that anywhere
got any proof or are you j ust blowing off your bazoo?
as to supernatural causes, go ahead and find one. it's been 2000
years. when do you think you'll be able to demonstrate one for us?
evidence m'boy. that's what you need.
and you aint gotz
Will in New Haven
> First. let us see what a "Dimwit" is.
First we have to see what an "evolutionist" is. While it is commonly
used on T.O. to mean anyone who accepts the fact that evolution
happened and is continuing to happen, it isn't a word that is commonly
used at all.
If we accept the T.O. definition of "evolutionist" we can look around
the newsgroup and see if they are dimwits.
<looking around>
Nope. By and large, they are brighter than average. I'm too modest to
include myself.
By the way, you are an imbecile.
--
Will in New Haven
TomS
<v0oqi5pheqb743mku...@4ax.com>, bpuharic stated..."
>
>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:59:08 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
><ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>First. let us see what a "Dimwit" is.
>>
>>noun Slang. a stupid or slow-thinking person.
>>
>>What about a legal definition?
>>
>>non compos mentis (nahn calm-pose meant-is) adj. referring to someone
>>who is insane, or not mentally competent to conduct one's affairs.
>>
>>What about a medical definition?
>>
>>Etymology: L, not of sound mind
>>a legal term applied to a person declared to be mentally incompetent.
>>
>>
>>OK. Now we know 'what' a dimwit is, let's what a dimwit believes...
>>
>>They want EVERYTHING on the planet to conform to the scientific method
>>and natural science even though there are some observations that are
>>best explained with supernatural causes.
>>
>
>really? we want ballet dancing, auto mechanics, fishing, etc to
>conform to the scientific method?
>
>hmmm...dont recall seeing that anywhere
Well, compared with "intelligent design" ...
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
All-seeing-I
They can't be as smart as you make them out to be Will.
They believe the best explanation fits the observation, right?
How many times have I read that one?
Over and over they say "evolution is the best explanation that fits
what we observe".
But I am wondering. Why does that idea not apply to everything? There
are many things observed where the best explanation is a supernatural
one and not a natural science one.
Still my pet evolutionists do not understand.
They can't be THAT smart Will.
Since you leave yourself out of their category, do you believe natural
science is where knowledge and understanding ends?
.
Dave Oldridge
wrote in news:7e6357d8-9683-4196-84e8-d3553c275a29
@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
You are acting like a typical creationist heretic. First you make
derogatory wisecracks about "evolutionists." Then you pat yourself on
the back for doing it.
Of course what would an utterly witless fool like you know about the
dimness of wits?
--
Dave Oldridge+
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>First. let us see what a "Dimwit" is.
>
A troll with stinky bait, like you, for example.
alextangent
> First. let us see what a "Dimwit" is.
>
> noun Slang. a stupid or slow-thinking person.
>
> What about a legal definition?
>
> non compos mentis (nahn calm-pose meant-is) adj. referring to someone
> who is insane, or not mentally competent to conduct one's affairs.
Way off base, Ahll-Seeyaying-Eyeuh. Non compos mentis is pronounced,
well, non kom-puhs men-tis, or in IPA it's nɒn ˈkɒmpəs ˈmɛntɪs. Nonne
de novo eboraco venis?
I know, you got the definition and the sloppy pronunciation off the
internet. Unfortunately, most of it is unadulterated rubbish.
>
> What about a medical definition?
>
> Etymology: L, not of sound mind
> a legal term applied to a person declared to be mentally incompetent.
>
> OK. Now we know 'what' a dimwit is, let's what a dimwit believes...
>
> They want EVERYTHING on the planet to conform to the scientific method
> and natural science even though there are some observations that are
> best explained with supernatural causes.
Name one. Then point to the evidence for the supernatural cause.
>
> Gee. THAT sounds a lot like the dimwitted evolutionists on TO.!!
>
> The answer must be.. "Yes"
>
> --
> Learn Badly Pronounced Shite Orff the Intertoobs with...
Corrected it for you.
>
> The All Seeing I
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 19, 5:27�pm, Will in New Haven
><bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 5:59�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> By the way, you are an imbecile.
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
>They can't be as smart as you make them out to be Will.
>
>They believe the best explanation fits the observation, right?
>
>How many times have I read that one?
>
>Over and over they say "evolution is the best explanation that fits
>what we observe".
>
>But I am wondering. Why does that idea not apply to everything? There
>are many things observed where the best explanation is a supernatural
>one and not a natural science one.
we can test the supernatural today. there are societies that believe
angels and demons explain events in nature
he should be able to go to these socieities and show how advanced they
are...how they explain things we can't
why hasnt he done this? where's the evidence that the supernatural
TODAY, in REAL TIME, as we speak, can explain nature better than
science can?
>
>Still my pet evolutionists do not understand.
we dont understand why you refuse to present your evidence
>
>They can't be THAT smart Will.
>
>Since you leave yourself out of their category, do you believe natural
>science is where knowledge and understanding ends?
>
no one believes that. but science is the BEST explanation we have for
events in nature
if you believe otherwise, where's your evidence?
>.
Will in New Haven
The kind of thing that can be determined with any certainty, yes.
There are other possibilities but two people, with the best will in
the world, will not come up with the same answers in those areas. As I
may have explained to you before, I believe in letting mysteries be
mysteries.
RAM
Lloyd, there are no empirical observations that are best explained by
the supernatural.
Only a loon would think that.
Are there non-empirical observations that are best explained by the
supernatural?
"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment!" F.U.
Ron O
This is from an incompetent that hasn't been able to find any honest
and valid anti-evolution arguments, but keeps going back to the
sources that have lied to him time after time. Just ask someone like
Glenn or NashT how much the arguments from your sources are worth.
They gave up putting the junk forward years ago. If you ask them
nicely they might clue you in.
Ron Okimoto
Jim
Please give specific details of three such examples relevant to
evolution and the origin of species - when, what, who, where, that
sort of thing.
<snip>
Mike Painter
All seeing I again shows why staring in the mirror at yourself all day does
not lead to learning.
Boikat
> First. let us see what a "Dimwit" is.
>
> noun Slang. a stupid or slow-thinking person.
>
> What about a legal definition?
>
> non compos mentis (nahn calm-pose meant-is) adj. referring to someone
> who is insane, or not mentally competent to conduct one's affairs.
>
> What about a medical definition?
>
> Etymology: L, not of sound mind
> a legal term applied to a person declared to be mentally incompetent.
>
> OK. Now we know 'what' a dimwit is, let's what a dimwit believes...
>
> They want EVERYTHING on the planet to conform to the scientific method
No. just science.
> and natural science even though there are some observations that are
> best explained with supernatural causes.
Since you are wrong in your initial assertion, you are also wrong in
your conclusion.
>
> Gee. THAT sounds a lot like the dimwitted evolutionists on TO.!!
Would you like to look up the definitions of "deluded" now?
>
> The answer must be.. "Yes"
Wrong.
>
> --
> Learn Knowledge with....
>
> The All Seeing I
Troll. Look that up in your "Funk and Wagnalls".
Boikat
Boikat
You're an idiot.
Boikat
Such as?
>
> Still my pet evolutionists do not understand.
All stop: Sorry, troll slob. You are, as usual, sadly mistaken.
<snip>
Boikat
Ken Shackleton
> First. let us see what a "Dimwit" is.
>
> noun Slang. a stupid or slow-thinking person.
>
> What about a legal definition?
>
> non compos mentis (nahn calm-pose meant-is) adj. referring to someone
> who is insane, or not mentally competent to conduct one's affairs.
>
> What about a medical definition?
>
> Etymology: L, not of sound mind
> a legal term applied to a person declared to be mentally incompetent.
>
> OK. Now we know 'what' a dimwit is, let's what a dimwit believes...
>
> They want EVERYTHING on the planet to conform to the scientific method
> and natural science even though there are some observations that are
> best explained with supernatural causes.
Such as?
Boikat
> On Dec 19, 3:59 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > First. let us see what a "Dimwit" is.
>
> > noun Slang. a stupid or slow-thinking person.
>
> > What about a legal definition?
>
> > non compos mentis (nahn calm-pose meant-is) adj. referring to someone
> > who is insane, or not mentally competent to conduct one's affairs.
>
> > What about a medical definition?
>
> > Etymology: L, not of sound mind
> > a legal term applied to a person declared to be mentally incompetent.
>
> > OK. Now we know 'what' a dimwit is, let's what a dimwit believes...
>
> > They want EVERYTHING on the planet to conform to the scientific method
> > and natural science even though there are some observations that are
> > best explained with supernatural causes.
>
> Such as?
Watch it be that stupid assed bullshit about "animals can sense things
we can't".
Boikat
Ye Old One
>First. let us see what a "Dimwit" is.
>
>noun Slang. a stupid or slow-thinking person.
>
>What about a legal definition?
>
>non compos mentis (nahn calm-pose meant-is) adj. referring to someone
>who is insane, or not mentally competent to conduct one's affairs.
>
>What about a medical definition?
>
>Etymology: L, not of sound mind
>a legal term applied to a person declared to be mentally incompetent.
>
>
>OK. Now we know 'what' a dimwit is, let's what a dimwit believes...
>
>They want EVERYTHING on the planet to conform to their unscientific method
>and supernatural hogwash even though there are no observations that are
>best explained with supernatural causes.
>
>Gee. THAT sounds a lot like the dimwitted creationists on TO.!!
>
>The answer must be.. "Yes"
Text corrected.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Mike Dworetsky
> First. let us see what a "Dimwit" is.
>
> noun Slang. a stupid or slow-thinking person.
>
> What about a legal definition?
>
> non compos mentis (nahn calm-pose meant-is) adj. referring to someone
> who is insane, or not mentally competent to conduct one's affairs.
>
> What about a medical definition?
>
> Etymology: L, not of sound mind
> a legal term applied to a person declared to be mentally incompetent.
>
>
> OK. Now we know 'what' a dimwit is, let's what a dimwit believes...
>
> They want EVERYTHING on the planet to conform to the scientific method
> and natural science even though there are some observations that are
> best explained with supernatural causes.
List the observations, describe the evidence that verifies them, and explain
why naturalistic explanations are not viable in these cases.
>
> Gee. THAT sounds a lot like the dimwitted evolutionists on TO.!!
>
> The answer must be.. "Yes"
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Mike Dworetsky
You are mumbling incoherently to yourself again.
Stuart
Gawd.. your so clever.
Not.
Stuart
Ye Old One
No, there is absolutely nothing observed for which the best
explanation is the supernatural. If it is observed then it is in the
realm of science and will be found to have a natural explanation.
>
>Still my pet evolutionists do not understand.
>
>They can't be THAT smart Will.
>
>Since you leave yourself out of their category, do you believe natural
>science is where knowledge and understanding ends?
Can you find any other sort?
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
richardal...@googlemail.com
>
> What about a legal definition?
>
> non compos mentis (nahn calm-pose meant-is) adj. referring to someone
> who is insane, or not mentally competent to conduct one's affairs.
>
> What about a medical definition?
>
> Etymology: L, not of sound mind
> a legal term applied to a person declared to be mentally incompetent.
>
> OK. Now we know 'what' a dimwit is, let's what a dimwit believes...
>
> They want EVERYTHING on the planet to conform to the scientific method
> and natural science even though there are some observations that are
> best explained with supernatural causes.
>
> Gee. THAT sounds a lot like the dimwitted evolutionists on TO.!!
>
> The answer must be.. "Yes"
>
> --
> Learn Knowledge with....
>
> The All Seeing I
As a matter of idle curiosity, what do you think you achieve with a
puerile post of this kind? All you are succeeding in doing is making
it clear that you have no valid argument against - well, anything -
which is why you resort to silliness and petty insult.
Perhaps you post here to make creationists look stupid, ignorant and
dishonest, in which case you are doing a great job. If you suffer from
the delusion that you will persuade anyone to your views, let me
disabuse you.
RF
Desertphile
> Subject: Are the Evolutionists Dimwitted?
What do you mean by "the evolutionists?"
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Free Lunch
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:59:08 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
><ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Subject: Are the Evolutionists Dimwitted?
>
>What do you mean by "the evolutionists?"
People who accept facts discovered by scientists.
hersheyh
> First. let us see what a "Dimwit" is.
>
> noun Slang. a stupid or slow-thinking person.
>
> What about a legal definition?
>
> non compos mentis (nahn calm-pose meant-is) adj. referring to someone
> who is insane, or not mentally competent to conduct one's affairs.
>
> What about a medical definition?
>
> Etymology: L, not of sound mind
> a legal term applied to a person declared to be mentally incompetent.
>
> OK. Now we know 'what' a dimwit is, let's what a dimwit believes...
>
> They want EVERYTHING on the planet to conform to the scientific method
> and natural science even though there are some observations that are
> best explained with supernatural causes.
Any observation for which one is personally ignorant wrt the cause can
be attributed to supernatural causes. Therefore, the more dimwitted
one is, the more observations one can attribute to supernatural
causes. "Supernatural causation" is a phrase that is identical to "I
don't know", but without the personal modesty and honesty of the
latter phrase. Supernatural causation is a pretense of an
explanation. I have no doubt that there are many, many, many, many
observations that ASI wishes to attribute to "supernatural causation"
rather than "I don't know". Saying "I don't know" again and again and
again and again would be too shattering to his fragile over-weaing
narcissistic ego.
chris thompson
Really. You know, I'm just the teensiest bit skeptical of that claim.
But I'll tell you what. You pick one of those instances. Take your
best shot. Just tell me what it is, in a reply to this post. Don't
present your evidence for the supernatural explanation, just give the
instance of a supernatural event. I will take some time to do some
research on it, then in a day or three we can both present our
evidence- you for the supernatural explanation, me for a natural one.
Chris