1.3
kairosfocus
January 19, 2012 at 9:44 am
F/N: if PG means me by that [though due to his misbehaviour there is now only correction for record . . . ]
Liar. Any "misbehaviour" is attributable to you and the rest of your IDiot comrades.
— and he cannot mean Joe as he holds UCD;
Liar. joe does NOT accept universal common descent, and the only thing joe holds is a master's degree in TARD.
in fact my challenge is that as a test case for Darwinists seeking to warrant their theory for macroevo the origin of lungs needs to be explained on empirically (observationally) warranted chance variation and natural selection or the like, and so far we have had much evasion and a few Creationist strawmen, but no cogent answer.
Liar. You've never studied ANYthing about biology and evolution, have you?
Apparently PG is unaware ( by refusing to heed easily accessible information) that design theory is consistent with common descent, even, universal common descent, as say Behe — should be familiar! — holds.
Liar. Neither you nor the vast majority of IDiots accept UCD. And NONE of you accept that UCD is strictly natural.
If he means me above, I quite literally have no firm view on universal common descent as such
Liar. You are an extreme creationist/fundamentalist who believes and has said that the book of genesis and the rest of bible is an inerrant record of origins and history and is the literal and truthful word of your chosen god yhwh.
(just as I have no firm views on much of the scheme of dating of the earth [too many circularities, too much consensus thinking . . . ]
Liar. You are a young earth fundamentalist creationist who believes that the bible is the inerrant record of origins and history. You believe that the book of genesis and all the rest of the bible is exactly right and that scientific dating methods are wrong.
, but a much higher respect for the dating of major features of the observed cosmos [try the HR diagram for clusters, for instance in light of H-ball models for stars] . . . ),
Liar. See above. And you're contradicting yourself.
save that the FSCO/I in the world of life on best empirically warranted explanation points to design.
Liar. There's no such thing as "FSCO/I" and there is no 'warrant' to point to intelligent design in nature.
This I know, for certainty, we were not there to observe the remote past of origins, we have no generally accepted record of it, and we are forced to reconstruct a model past on evidence and inference from the present.
Which completely shoots down EVERY word you and your fellow god zombie IDiots have ever spewed about the bible, the history of your religion, anything about ID/creation, anything about the origin of the universe, anything about the origin of your chosen god, and anything else about the past. You were NOT there. And you're a LIAR, since there IS a "generally accepted record" of the evolution of living things and many other "origins".
So, we are looking at inference to best — abductive — explanation, and no serious option should be ruled out by ideological a prioris.
Liar. YOU and your fellow IDiots are NOT looking at or for the best explanation. YOU god zombies are the ones with ideological a prioris and YOU are the ones who rule out anything that doesn't match your insane religious beliefs. Supernatural fairy tales are NOT a "serious option".
That design is a patently serious option is seen by how Dawkins has had to concede that the world of life, as studied by biologists, strongly gives the appearance of design.
Misrepresenting what Dawkins said just shows you to be a Liar, and he didn't "had to concede" anything. But you're right about one thing, biologists do study the world of life, unlike you science attacking ignorant LYING godbots.
So, one should not a priori lock out that possibility on the sort of flimsy excuses in the OP and elsewhere.
But it's perfectly okay for you and your fellow god-goons to "a priori lock out" anything that doesn't match your deranged religious beliefs, eh, Liar?
Ever since Plato, it has been known that the issue is not “natural vs supernatural,” but instead chance and necessity vs art. And each of these has characteristic observable signs.
Liar. It has nothing to do with "art". And when are you going to shut the fuck up about Plato? By the way, were you THERE when Plato allegedly said the things you attribute to him? How do you know he even lived? Were you THERE?
The problem for materialists, is that the world of life — as the very co-founder of the theory of evolution pointed out — is full, chock full of that an unbiased mind would unhesitatingly see as strong signs of clever design in any other context.
You're full of shit, Liar, and you IDiots are the ones with a problem.
Lo and behold, when we look in this context, we see that the reason for the difference is an a priori imposition, cf here on.
Who's "we"? And you god pushers are the ones with an "a priori imposition". cf this: Lo and behold, fuck you, Liar.
In short, we have a smoking gun, in a hand standing above the victim lying on the ground.
Is that a threat?
If we do in fact have universal common descent, on the implications of FSCO/I it is of a variety that was programmed, ab initio or at various points or even both; such makes but little difference to the material issue.
There you go again, LYING about your creationist/fundamentalist religious beliefs. Your beliefs leave no room for UCD or any other scientific explanation of origins or evolution.
And BTW, there is a strawman game at work on the initial post. The crucial issue of methodological naturalism is its imposition of an a priori philosophical, question begging constraint that blocks science from inferring to the empirically demonstrable best explanation for FSCO/I: ART, not chance + blind necessity.
Oh shut up, Liar. You don't know a goddamn thing about science. All you want to do is destroy it and replace it with your retarded, dangerous, abusive, religious fairy tales.
My key concern on the imposition of Meth Nat in the world of life is that a mechanism that is patently inadequate has been allowed, by imposition of ideological, question begging a priori materialism, to lock science into a box of censorship, instead of leaving it to pursue the truth about the remote past on warrant.
Liar. Your "key concern", in fact your only concern, is to shove your stupid religion into every aspect of everyone's life and to censor anyone who questions or opposes your tyrannical dominionist agenda.
Science held captive to materialist ideology is not genuinely scientific.
Liar. The supernatural god zombie pseudo-science you and the other IDiots push is genuinely UN-scientific.
Period.
You are a LIAR, a CHARLATAN, a FALSE ACCUSER, a COWARD, a NARCISSIST, an ABUSER, and a complete NUTCASE, period.
KF
"KF", also known as the LIAR gordon elliott mullings of Montserrat, formerly of Jamaica.
