Monday, May 30, 2011

mung, the game playing dolt

In this thread on UD:

..mung keeps showing what a dishonest game playing uncivil moron he is, and of course blowgodagain77 is there to really take the thread down the toilet, and insult Elizabeth Liddle. One of mung's posts is posted below. According to mung, the ID theory or hypothesis or inference or whatever the IDiots call it doesn't infer a designer. So, I guess it's safe to say that no designer is required to design anything! All of that design they infer or theorize or hypothesize about just happened by magic! god-did-it!! Oh wait, that would mean that god is the inferred designer! In that case, god can't be the inferred designer and neither can anyone or anything else, since no designer at all is inferred (required) for the design inference/theory/hypothesis (ID). What a lovely, scientific, well thought out ID inference/theory/hypothesis IDiots have.

Oh, you'll notice in mung's post below that he tries to move the goal posts by using the word "identified" instead of "inferred". Nice try mung-boi but it won't work on people with a brain.

mung also takes his game playing and goal post moving to further lows when he goes off about one versus multiple designers, etc. Hey mung, it doesn't matter how many designers you conjure up. A design inference/theory/hypothesis absolutely, positively INFERS a designer or designerS! Elizabeth Liddle's point still stands and her reference to an inferred designer is completely reasonable and relevant.

And the design inference/theory/hypothesis DOES IDENTIFY THE designer as the christian god. Just ask your buddies blowgodsdickagain77 and gordy and all the other bible thumping IDiots. You have also said that YOU are a christian god believer.

Hey mung, ID is all pretend.



6:24 pm

Elizabeth Liddle: For example, having inferred a designer, one might develop a hypothesis regarding the time-scale of the design process, and the mechanisms by which the design was implemented.

mung from here on: Where are you getting your ideas about Intelligent Design?

Here’s the link again. Please read the material, it’s not that long:

Where does it mention “having inferred a designer”?

If you are not willing to accept this definition of ID, please tell us why it is not acceptable to you.

Then please re-read my post at @50.

I try to keep my posts short, so there’s no reason not to have read it.

Where does it mention “having inferred a designer”?

In software development, it’s possible that there are multiple people who produce the design and multiple people who implement the design. It’s also possible that one person does both.

Some possibilities:

One designer multiple implementers.

Multiple designers multiple implementers.

Multiple designers a single implementer.

One designer, one implementer.

ID theory doesn’t even pretend to have identified “a designer.” So what are you talking about?

Where are you getting your ideas about Intelligent Design?