55
StephenB
September 16, 2009 at 6:43 pm
—Learned Hand: “You keep assuming that the opinions of laypersons are an adequate substitute for the work of experts. If a layperson could sum up the field of biology so easily, we wouldn’t need biologists, would we? If you want to know how biologists defend their positions, ask a biologist.”
Those who truly understand a subject can reduce it to its simplest essence and explain in such a way that a twelve year old could understand it. On the other hand, those who are bluffing hide behind the pretext that the whole thing is far too complex lay out in a few informal paragraphs. I too, have asked the biologists to present evidence for their claims, and they have no answers. This is an open forum. If they had the goods, they would produce them. For them, the name of the game is to scrutinize ID advocates while exempting themselves from being scrutinized. That is why they are always on offense and never on defense. Or haven’t you noticed?
—-”This is a blog. If you want to understand biology, the proper venue is a school.”
School is a good venue for Darwinists to oppress children who are powerless to raise intellectual objections. A blog is a good place for Darwinists to test their theories against those who can evaluate the merits of their arguments. Each time they are challenged, they respond much the same way you did, insisting that this isn’t the right time or the right place.
59
StephenB
September 17, 2009 at 5:37 am
—-Cabal: “Whereas on the other hand, both with respect to ideologies and religions – they are poor on facts. Taking at random the Christian religion as an example, it is built entirely on the Bible, not on verifiable facts. It is all about allegations about events for which no tangible evidence exists. Even the alleged evidence turns out to be just allegations about evidence.”
Thank you for proving my point. When Darwinists are asked to produce evidence in support of their fantasies, they promptly change the subject, reframe the issue, and go on the attack. They are always on offense, never on defense—always scrutinizing, never being scrutinized.
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/dinesh-dsouza-as-an-example-of-why-so-many-christian-intellectuals-accept-evolution/#comment-334214
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only an IDiot could be that oblivious to their OWN actions.
And shouldn't gordon elliott mullings, born-to-be-a-lunatic, dumbski, wells, luskin, and all the other IDiots heed this claim by stephen butthead when they go off on their multiple thousands of words "explanation(s)" of ID, that they have been doing for YEARS?:
"Those who truly understand a subject can reduce it to its simplest essence and explain in such a way that a twelve year old could understand it. On the other hand, those who are bluffing hide behind the pretext that the whole thing is far too complex lay out in a few informal paragraphs."
Obviously the IDIOTS haven't mastered the technique of reducing their explanation to the "simplest essence" of ID, unless of course they rely simply on 'god-did-it', which isn't an explanation at all, and neither is anything else they say.
StephenB
September 16, 2009 at 6:43 pm
—Learned Hand: “You keep assuming that the opinions of laypersons are an adequate substitute for the work of experts. If a layperson could sum up the field of biology so easily, we wouldn’t need biologists, would we? If you want to know how biologists defend their positions, ask a biologist.”
Those who truly understand a subject can reduce it to its simplest essence and explain in such a way that a twelve year old could understand it. On the other hand, those who are bluffing hide behind the pretext that the whole thing is far too complex lay out in a few informal paragraphs. I too, have asked the biologists to present evidence for their claims, and they have no answers. This is an open forum. If they had the goods, they would produce them. For them, the name of the game is to scrutinize ID advocates while exempting themselves from being scrutinized. That is why they are always on offense and never on defense. Or haven’t you noticed?
—-”This is a blog. If you want to understand biology, the proper venue is a school.”
School is a good venue for Darwinists to oppress children who are powerless to raise intellectual objections. A blog is a good place for Darwinists to test their theories against those who can evaluate the merits of their arguments. Each time they are challenged, they respond much the same way you did, insisting that this isn’t the right time or the right place.
59
StephenB
September 17, 2009 at 5:37 am
—-Cabal: “Whereas on the other hand, both with respect to ideologies and religions – they are poor on facts. Taking at random the Christian religion as an example, it is built entirely on the Bible, not on verifiable facts. It is all about allegations about events for which no tangible evidence exists. Even the alleged evidence turns out to be just allegations about evidence.”
Thank you for proving my point. When Darwinists are asked to produce evidence in support of their fantasies, they promptly change the subject, reframe the issue, and go on the attack. They are always on offense, never on defense—always scrutinizing, never being scrutinized.
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/dinesh-dsouza-as-an-example-of-why-so-many-christian-intellectuals-accept-evolution/#comment-334214
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only an IDiot could be that oblivious to their OWN actions.
And shouldn't gordon elliott mullings, born-to-be-a-lunatic, dumbski, wells, luskin, and all the other IDiots heed this claim by stephen butthead when they go off on their multiple thousands of words "explanation(s)" of ID, that they have been doing for YEARS?:
"Those who truly understand a subject can reduce it to its simplest essence and explain in such a way that a twelve year old could understand it. On the other hand, those who are bluffing hide behind the pretext that the whole thing is far too complex lay out in a few informal paragraphs."
Obviously the IDIOTS haven't mastered the technique of reducing their explanation to the "simplest essence" of ID, unless of course they rely simply on 'god-did-it', which isn't an explanation at all, and neither is anything else they say.
