Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Evolutionists, Too Afraid To Lead By Example
-
Evolutionists are a cowardly lot. They love to run their mouths about ID saying that it doesn't have any positive evidence nor is it scientific. But when push comes to shove they cannot produce any positive evidence nor a testable hypothesis for their position!
What they say is it doesn't matter, ID should stand on its own. That is just more yellow-belly coward shit.
The reason we ask for positive evidence and a testable hypothesis for their position is so we know what they will accept and cannot keep retreating and flailing away. However it is obvious that they are chicken-shit cowards- losers of life and acientifically illiterate.
The sad part is they attack ID for attacking their position- not realizing that it is mandated to eliminate their position before attempting to infer design- but then they turn around and attack ID with their ignorance. That's right ignorance as the way to refute the design inference is to step up and actually produce positive evidence along with a testable hypothesis for their position!
What happens with that is morons like Kevin R. McCarthy of Round rock Texas saying his position is the cowardly position of "evolution"- McCarthy still thinks that ID is anti-evolution in the face of the overwhelming facts it is not.
posted by Joe G @ 7:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's so much wrong in that post of his that it's tough to know where to start, so I'll just take on a few points.
"What they say is it doesn't matter, ID should stand on its own. That is just more yellow-belly coward shit."
Isn't 'standing on it own' what you and the other IDiots expect and demand from the ToE, and all the rest of science? You just admitted, by the way, that ID doesn't stand on its own. Thanks for that joe-boi.
"The reason we ask for positive evidence and a testable hypothesis for their position is so we know what they will accept and cannot keep retreating and flailing away."
If the ToE and science are as wrong as you say, why do you care what science will "accept"?
"The sad part is they attack ID for attacking their position- not realizing that it is mandated to eliminate their position before attempting to infer design- but then they turn around and attack ID with their ignorance."
What? Mandated by whom? If your agenda (the so-called ID theory/inference) had any actual evidence and verification, you wouldn't have to worry about eliminating any other "position". Science, and more specifically the ToE, are taken seriously because they do have actual evidence and verification of many things, and science does not have to eliminate your position for that evidence and verification to be valid, and accepted by rational people.
Before attempting to infer design?? You MUST be joking! You religious IDiots have been 'inferring' design for ages. Your NON-elimination of science and the ToE hasn't slowed you down or stopped any of you from inferring whatever crazy agenda you can conjure up in your delusional, religious, non-scientific pea-brains!
"That's right ignorance as the way to refute the design inference is to step up and actually produce positive evidence along with a testable hypothesis for their position!"
Uh, joe-boi, did you ever think that the way to refute science and/or the ToE would be to step up and and actually produce positive evidence along with a testable hypothesis for YOUR position? Oh wait, you are unable to think.
"McCarthy still thinks that ID is anti-evolution in the face of the overwhelming facts it is not."
Actually, most IDiots are against any form of evolution (especially "macro" evolution), as is evidenced by what they say. And you joe-boi, constantly attack "evolution", the theory of evolution, evolutionary scientists, "evolutionists", "evotards", and anyone else who argues in favor of evolution or evolutionary theory. You can piss into the wind all you want but you're just getting soaked.
And in case you've forgotten, ID doesn't have ANY positive evidence, nor is it scientific.
Evolutionists, Too Afraid To Lead By Example
-
Evolutionists are a cowardly lot. They love to run their mouths about ID saying that it doesn't have any positive evidence nor is it scientific. But when push comes to shove they cannot produce any positive evidence nor a testable hypothesis for their position!
What they say is it doesn't matter, ID should stand on its own. That is just more yellow-belly coward shit.
The reason we ask for positive evidence and a testable hypothesis for their position is so we know what they will accept and cannot keep retreating and flailing away. However it is obvious that they are chicken-shit cowards- losers of life and acientifically illiterate.
The sad part is they attack ID for attacking their position- not realizing that it is mandated to eliminate their position before attempting to infer design- but then they turn around and attack ID with their ignorance. That's right ignorance as the way to refute the design inference is to step up and actually produce positive evidence along with a testable hypothesis for their position!
What happens with that is morons like Kevin R. McCarthy of Round rock Texas saying his position is the cowardly position of "evolution"- McCarthy still thinks that ID is anti-evolution in the face of the overwhelming facts it is not.
posted by Joe G @ 7:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's so much wrong in that post of his that it's tough to know where to start, so I'll just take on a few points.
"What they say is it doesn't matter, ID should stand on its own. That is just more yellow-belly coward shit."
Isn't 'standing on it own' what you and the other IDiots expect and demand from the ToE, and all the rest of science? You just admitted, by the way, that ID doesn't stand on its own. Thanks for that joe-boi.
"The reason we ask for positive evidence and a testable hypothesis for their position is so we know what they will accept and cannot keep retreating and flailing away."
If the ToE and science are as wrong as you say, why do you care what science will "accept"?
"The sad part is they attack ID for attacking their position- not realizing that it is mandated to eliminate their position before attempting to infer design- but then they turn around and attack ID with their ignorance."
What? Mandated by whom? If your agenda (the so-called ID theory/inference) had any actual evidence and verification, you wouldn't have to worry about eliminating any other "position". Science, and more specifically the ToE, are taken seriously because they do have actual evidence and verification of many things, and science does not have to eliminate your position for that evidence and verification to be valid, and accepted by rational people.
Before attempting to infer design?? You MUST be joking! You religious IDiots have been 'inferring' design for ages. Your NON-elimination of science and the ToE hasn't slowed you down or stopped any of you from inferring whatever crazy agenda you can conjure up in your delusional, religious, non-scientific pea-brains!
"That's right ignorance as the way to refute the design inference is to step up and actually produce positive evidence along with a testable hypothesis for their position!"
Uh, joe-boi, did you ever think that the way to refute science and/or the ToE would be to step up and and actually produce positive evidence along with a testable hypothesis for YOUR position? Oh wait, you are unable to think.
"McCarthy still thinks that ID is anti-evolution in the face of the overwhelming facts it is not."
Actually, most IDiots are against any form of evolution (especially "macro" evolution), as is evidenced by what they say. And you joe-boi, constantly attack "evolution", the theory of evolution, evolutionary scientists, "evolutionists", "evotards", and anyone else who argues in favor of evolution or evolutionary theory. You can piss into the wind all you want but you're just getting soaked.
And in case you've forgotten, ID doesn't have ANY positive evidence, nor is it scientific.
