Sunday, October 30, 2011

joe-baby just doesn't know when to shut up

Some recent spewage from joe on UD:

"ya see science requires POSITIVE evidence and your position lacks positive evidence."

You must be the most blind and uneducated moron on the planet if you really believe that there is no positive evidence to support the ToE. Maybe you could tell me what the "positive" scientific evidence is for ID, especially in light of the fact that you've repeatedly said that you IDiots must first "eliminate" the ToE before even "considering" ID?

"YOU need some positive evidence to support your nonsensical claims."

See my comments above, and heed your own words, joe-boi.

"You whine like a little baby when I say “There isn’t any evidence”, yet that is all YOU and your ilk do with respect to Intelligent design!"

Well joe-tard, there is evidence to support the ToE but there isn't any evidence for ID, and when it comes to whining like a little baby, you and your IDiotic "ilk" are the world champions.

"Ya see there still isn’t any way to test the claim that common ancestry is the only explanation of the data."

Really? Well then, let's see you show a scientific way to test your claim that common design explains the "data". Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you and/or other IDiots said that ID accepts common ancestry?

"Perhaps YOU could stop acting like a gullible fool and actually present some science."

Now that's hilarious coming from you joe; a totally unscientific, uneducated, ignorant, fairy tale believing, god pushing, dishonest, two-faced, IDiotic muslim creationist toaster repairboi who thinks that your delusional assertions are "science".

"All you have is circumstantial evidence that can be used for alternative scenarios- circumstantial evidence is nothing more than “If I didn’t believe it I wouldn’t have seen it”- IOW prejudice is what can be read in those papers."

Yeah sure joe, and of course you IDiots have tons and tons and tons of solid scientific evidence for ID, and no prejudice, right? In reality, your entire thought process (what minuscule amount there is of it) is prejudicial, and you can't seem to find any of your claimed "positive" evidence for ID. Did your pet ticks mistake it for watermelon and eat it?