The Lies and Arrogance of Evolutionists

[edthecynic]

No, we've established that you are completely delusional.

Now if you could only frame a real argument against my demonstration regarding the self-evident fact of science's metaphysics, which you stupidly deny, my exposition of the absurdity of konradv's scientifically illiterate challenge, geauxtohell's ignorance regarding the nature of Occam's law of parsimony and the utter irrationality of his analogy that logic and natural cause-and-effect are categorically synonymous . . . you might make your lie come true.


Here's another thread, by the way, where the asinine logic of you materialists was handed its ass: http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/170838-challenge-to-creationists-iders.html

The delusion continues.

"Even an obvious fabrication is some comfort when you have few others."
— Margaret Atwood

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The delusion continues.

LOL! The lack of any real argument on your part continues. . . .

Now if you could only frame a real argument against my demonstration regarding the self-evident fact of science's metaphysics, which you stupidly deny, my exposition of the absurdity of konradv's scientifically illiterate challenge, geauxtohell's ignorance regarding the nature of Occam's law of parsimony and the utter irrationality of his analogy that logic and natural cause-and-effect are categorically synonymous . . . you might make your lie come true.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I have 2 questions for you M.D.

First, what is the premise and methodology of study established by ID theorists? If this requires too long an answer, I'd appreciate a link or perhaps the names of some websites I can find the information at.

Second, are you saying that science should concern itself with the supernatural, even if that means the unobservable?

As for the first question: ID theory's metaphysical presupposition is the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism, the very same as that of Newton, Galileo, Boyle, Kepler, Bacon, Copernicus, Pasteur and others.

As for the second question: No. A thousand times no. I've emphatically stated more than once that science cannot address anything beyond the empirical plain. How could it?

You know, if you were to go back and carefully read my posts, you would have the metaphysical premise of ID theory as opposed to that of evolutionary theory, and the essence of its methodology, the same as that of any other scientific theory! You should also be able to see the staggering stupidity and dishonesty of the evolutionists on this thread.

But it's not just about the premise and methodology of science that matters here. Listen to the ID theorist for once from his perspective as he refutes the evolutionist. Start here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...arrogance-of-evolutionists-5.html#post3730020

I am a former religious agnostic and evolutionist. I know the scientific research of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, and I am current on the science.

 

[AVG-JOE]

so many words to spout such absolute nonsense...

So few words and even less sense to go along with them.

Dude... For the love of (insert your preferred Deity here) - don't fuck with The Princess!

 

[konradv]

In any event…

We’ve established that scientists studying evolution are not ‘liars’ or ‘arrogant,’ that they explore the history of life on Earth in objective good faith.

We’ve also established that creationism/ID is religion per the law and has no place in schools being taught as ‘science.’

Otherwise, carry on.

On the contrary. We've established that the theory of evolution is ultimately predicated on a metaphysical or absolute naturalism, and that evolutionists lie about that fact as they lie about the nature of ID theory all the time and do so as casually as a dog licks its genitals. We've also established that they are political fascists who rely on a perversion of Constitutional law to exclusively impose their metaphysical apriority on science in the schools.

As it should be. If the IDers had anything to teach, perhaps things would be different. However, they have nothing to say except that they think there's some sort of direction to evolution. Beyond that any science done would be the same as that done by standard evolutionists and any testing of the IDers theories would be moot, i.e. untestable. Then there's the problem of randomness which belies design. Given those facts, what do they really have to teach and is it worth muddying the scientific water with something that's untestable?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

so many words to spout such absolute nonsense...

So few words and even less sense to go along with them.

Dude... For the love of (insert your preferred Deity here) - don't fuck with The Princess!

Why not?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In any event…

We’ve established that scientists studying evolution are not ‘liars’ or ‘arrogant,’ that they explore the history of life on Earth in objective good faith.

We’ve also established that creationism/ID is religion per the law and has no place in schools being taught as ‘science.’

Otherwise, carry on.

On the contrary. We've established that the theory of evolution is ultimately predicated on a metaphysical or absolute naturalism, and that evolutionists lie about that fact as they lie about the nature of ID theory all the time and do so as casually as a dog licks its genitals. We've also established that they are political fascists who rely on a perversion of Constitutional law to exclusively impose their metaphysical apriority on science in the schools.

As it should be. If the IDers had anything to teach, perhaps things would be different. However, they have nothing to say except that they think there's some sort of direction to evolution. Beyond that any science done would be the same as that done by standard evolutionists and any testing of the IDers theories would be moot, i.e. untestable. Then there's the problem of randomness which belies design. Given those facts, what do they really have to teach and is it worth muddying the scientific water with something that's untestable?

It is demonstrably testable. Design detection/information theory is a legitimate and well-established branch of science and has been for decades since Carl Sagan and others developed it. You're simply ignorant of that fact.

Evolutionist biologists, most of whom do not understand it, just arbitrarily eschew its application to origins and block the peer review of its application to microbiology and biochemistry . . . unless the findings of the research are couched in the terms of evolutionary theory: a little trade secret among a few of the highly respected leading lights in abiogenic research, for example, who just happen to be ID theorists.

What people like you foolishly do not grasp from abiogenic research is that the findings clearly point away from chemical evolution, putatively the beginning of it all, and that is what ID's theoretical paradigm shows when applied to the research, a whole body of research and testing that you are simply unaware of and unscientifically ignore . . . as if such an attitude were consistent with the scientific tradition of open inquiry.

Evolutionary theory testable? In what sense is metaphysical/absolute naturalism testable? Makes predictions other than that which are historical in nature? Hogwash. We don't need a theory to see what forms of life have appeared or gone extinct over time, or to know that what survives, survives. The so-called predictions of evolutionary theory are in truth merely 20-20 projections based on the accumulated data of observation. Smoke and mirrors. ID theory can and accurately does the same thing. The real dispute between us has never been over the findings of research and predictions at the micro-evolutionary level of speciation, but the interpretation of the evidence beyond such speciation.

Ultimately what evolutionary theory must show in order to be right is not simply the micro-speciation within, but a macro-speciation of transmutation toward a common ancestry. That it has never done and apparently cannot do beyond the gratuitous insertion of a presumptuous metaphysics which begs the question.

You just think it has. Many evolutionary biologists and paleontologists know this and will even admit it in private, but publicly they are committed to a metaphysical/absolute naturalism and the research grants that go along with it. Otherwise, no money, no peer review.

This is why evolutionists, like Dawkins, for example, habitually oppose their opponents in the fields of science and the philosophy of science with "argument by ad hominine or marginalization". This is why the brainwashed among them, like the well-programmed sheep on this thread, vehemently deny the facts regarding the metaphysics of science and the nature of evolutionary theory's underlying apriority. This is why, going for the jugular, I always begin by shoving it down their throats. As a former agnostic and evolutionist I know where the bodies are buried. But, see, the laymen among the evolutionary guard have been trained to go along with this nonsense. The denial of the metaphysics of science and evolutionary theory among the professionals is a political calculation. They know what they're doing and why.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not describing a conspiracy in the strictest sense. Professional evolutionists do genuinely believe in their metaphysics; they see it as their task to gloss over the potential Achilles' heel of their theory lest the ignorant rabble question what these self-appointed guardians of education and science "know" to be best for all.

But here's the thing. The metaphysics of evolutionary theory are self-evident; it only sounds crazy to the mindless sheep who have never stopped long enough to think for themselves. They live in a world where the majority of the scientific community must necessarily be right . . . especially when the implications of what is said to be right serves to affirm their materialist or atheistic biases. Never mind, that in fact, it was ultimately the scientific establishment of the time telling the Church what to believe, for example, that held up the general acceptance of Kepler's revisions of Ptolemic cosmology and Galileo's observational affirmations of it for decades, that which could no longer be denied after Newton provided the mechanical explanation of it, which finally, once and for all, overthrew the previous paradigm.

The nonsense about the Church being the ultimate impediment to cosmological progress is just another page in the mythical history of the post-modern acolytes of scientism.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So few words and even less sense to go along with them.

Dude... For the love of (insert your preferred Deity here) - don't fuck with The Princess!

Why not?

O.k. then, fuck with her. Don't say you weren't warned.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dude... For the love of (insert your preferred Deity here) - don't fuck with The Princess!

Why not?

O.k. then, fuck with her. Don't say you weren't warned.

Okay. I get it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why not?

O.k. then, fuck with her. Don't say you weren't warned.

Okay. I get it.

Getting it is 3/4 of the battle on USMB. Jillian is a warm, intelligent and wonderful woman and I'm a jolly joker whose always looking for the next one liner when I'm not using skilled word-craft to express my opinion in ways that entertain the masses whom we cherish as our dear readers.

 

[Foxfyre]

O.k. then, fuck with her. Don't say you weren't warned.

Okay. I get it.

Getting it is 3/4 of the battle on USMB. Jillian is a warm, intelligent and wonderful woman and I'm a jolly joker whose always looking for the next one liner when I'm not using skilled word-craft to express my opinion in ways that entertain the masses whom we cherish as our dear readers.

I'm very fond of Jillian too.

But I sure wouldn't want her for an enemy.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Okay. I get it.

Getting it is 3/4 of the battle on USMB. Jillian is a warm, intelligent and wonderful woman and I'm a jolly joker whose always looking for the next one liner when I'm not using skilled word-craft to express my opinion in ways that entertain the masses whom we cherish as our dear readers.

I'm very fond of Jillian too.

But I sure wouldn't want her for an enemy.

To Foxfyre! Another fine and entertaining word-smith!

(Please imagine the mugs above being filled to the brim with hot, rich and foamy cappuccino, as there is no emoticon available to properly describe our pending date )

( Don't tell Echo! )​