Wednesday, November 2, 2011

jonathan m, born with his pea-brain backward

jon-boi excreted:

"The web design leaves, shall we say, a lot to be desired. The BCSE never wants to discuss, you know, actual science. The focus of their blog is principally politics, religion and education policy."

Actually, jon-boi, The UD web design leaves, shall we say, a lot to be desired (it's a malfunctioning, ugly piece of shit). The IDiots on UD never want to discuss, you know, actual science. The focus of their blog is principally politics, religion, and education policy, which of course means that they want to force their politics, religion, and education policy onto everyone, everywhere.

"In the few cases where they do attempt a rebuttal to a science article posted by myself or others, they generally respond by linking to someone else, rather than engaging the subject themselves."

You mean like ba77 and many of you other IDiots do?

"I usually respond to blogs offering scientific critique of my articles here or on Evolution News & Views."

Well of course you do! If you posted or responded on a site where you're not protected from discomforting questions and disagreement you'd have to face direct exposure of your IDiocy, coward. The thing is, whether directly or indirectly, your IDiocy is exposed anyway.

"Oddly, my review of the event didn’t receive a mention."

Poor baby. Has it occurred to you that your "review" doesn't deserve a mention? I'm sure it hasn't.

"Hang on a minute. Does Mr. Gilmour seriously think that ID proponents are “claiming that nothing has ever evolved anywhere”? Oh my. Many ID proponents are quite comfortable with the proposition of common descent."

Are you living under a rock? Many IDiots claim that nothing has ever evolved anywhere. And what's with your conflation of evolution and common descent? I would think that a 'scientist' like you (LOL) would be a lot more technically accurate. Common descent and evolution are connected but they are not exactly the same thing. Evolution can occur even if there's no common descent, at least when considering the usual interpretation of common descent. For example, life forms on another planet could evolve, like the ones here on Earth, and yet not be commonly descended from the same ancestor as the ones here on Earth are.

"I would probably describe my own views on common descent as “skeptical agnostic”."

Skeptical agnostic my ass. You're a card carrying, lying, religious IDiot, and you're obviously not "comfortable with the proposition of common descent".

"I don’t have a definitive opinion on the extent to which different taxonomic groups are related, though I have come to suspect that universal common descent has now become scientifically untenable. Even among those of us who doubt common descent...."

Oh my. Hang on a minute. You say you're a skeptical agnostic about common descent but you say that you doubt common descent and suspect that it has now become scientifically untenable, even though you made it sound above as though you IDiots all agree that some things have evolved somewhere and that common descent and evolution are exactly the same thing and that many IDiots are quite comfortable with the proposition of common descent and some sort of evolution somewhere that you haven't defined or explained, and now you threw in the word "universal" and you can't make up your feeble mind and you are lousy at articulating your points and I think I'm getting a headache trying to figure out what the fuck you actually do think and accept or doubt or are skeptical of or are agnostic about or are quite comfortable with and you don't have a definitive opinion on the extent to which different taxonomic groups are related and you sound like an uneducated blubbering moron and, well, phew.

" is universally acknowledged that the NS/RM synthesis possesses some explanatory power (e.g. the emergence of antibiotic and insecticide resistance), and that life has a history."

It is? Universally? Really?

And life has a "history"? No kidding? I would have never guessed. I thought it was just poofed into existence by your chosen god a nanosecond ago. Oh wait, even that would mean that it has a "history"; a history one nanosecond long.

"Oh dear. Does Gilmour really not know that the word “evolution” carries multiple meanings, each with varying levels of controversy?"

Oh dear. Now you say that the word "evolution' has multiple meanings, even though you made it sound above that "evolution" and "common descent" are exactly the same thing. You really can't make up your feeble mind, can you?

"One must always take care to distinguish between patterns and processes."

You should heed your own words.

"How many times does one need to spell out that ID is not committed to interventionalism?"

You do live under a rock, don't you? You should try to keep up with what your fellow IDiots say. Intervention is commonly proposed by IDiots as a means by which their chosen god modifies or creates organisms and/or everything else, and where did you come up with the word "interventionalism"?

"What about educated and open-minded theists who choose to embrace ID?"

There's no such thing as an open minded theist, and if someone is truly "educated" they would not be a theist. There's nothing "educated" about believing in imaginary gods and religious fairy tales.

"While that does not make me, by any stretch, an expert..."

You got that right.

"He further asserts.."

Look who's talking.

"What about a Richard Sternberg, a Scott Minnich​, a Michael Behe​, a Paul Nelson, a Jonathan Wells, a Douglas Axe, a Ralph Seelke or an Ann Gauger? These people don’t strike me as uneducated."

Well, "a" Bozo the clown likely doesn't strike you as being uneducated either.

"I would like to think of myself — at the very least — as educated in the field."

I'm sure that you would, and do. In fact, I'm sure that you think of yourself as a god created know-it-all who is above being questioned and opposed.

"To conclude.."

If only.

"..I would suggest that the BCSE attempt to focus more on publishing interesting scientific content on their blog, and play down substantially on the unnecessary and outlandish ad hominem insults."

I would suggest that you direct that at the IDiots who post articles and comments on UD and other sites. Are those Sequoia logs in your eyes?

"Gilmour — to my knowledge — is not trained in biology. And, while that fact alone does not necessarily disqualify him from the ring of discussion (nor does it invalidate his points), perhaps a little respect for the points of view of those of us who are may be in order?"

Oh the irony.

By the way, why do you use quotes from other people, list the names of some fellow IDiots, and link to other IDiots and sites in an attempt to bolster your arguments, when you're complaining that some people "generally respond by linking to someone else, rather than engaging the subject themselves"? Shouldn't you be asserting your assertions all by yourself? And why aren't you complaining about the fact that many IDiots do the same thing, and often to the extreme ( e.g. batshit77 and gordo) right there on UD and on other sites?