Posted: Jan 21, 2011 6:17 am
by hotshoe
Царь Славян wrote:

Language and reading comprehension fail.
Behe lost. You're backing a loser.

Trying to weasel out of it by whining about the semantic difference between a summary "not good enough" and a pedantic "don't address his points" is not getting you a win.

For those interested in the truth instead of Tsar's quibbling distortion, here's the relevant portion of the trial transcript. Behe's answers are the "A" sentences (in response to lawyers "Q").
Thanks for posting the whole transcription so that everyone can see I was right. Behe NEVER said that the articles were not good enough. He said precisely what I said that he said.

Just like I predicted, you return to whine about the semantic difference between the casual summary "not good enough" and a pedantic dissection of a page of testimony where Behe's "they didn't answer the question the way I insist it be answered or I'll hold my breath and turn blue", funnily enough, turns out to be basically the same as the already mentioned "not good enough".

But everyone besides you already understood that. Do try to catch up, Tsar.

Let me quote him.

Why bother. Since you don't understand the point to begin with, your choice quotations aren't going to help you get a win out of the loser Behe.


<snip the quotes from sack of shit Behe which Tsar think support his desire to win at any cost


As we can clearly see, the first two things Behe said outright refute your calims that he said that the articles were not good enough. He said tha the articles were fine. But they do not addres his points. His points are about darwinian mechanism being able to go through a certain path and develop a certain structure.
Umm-hmm. Just keep digging, Tsar.

What the articles present is a possible pathway. Big difference.

He SHOOTS. He SCORES ! But, but, but, he shot into the wrong goal. He's scored an OWN GOAL !!

I've never seen a better example of total idiocy of the ID view on display. Yes, the articles present a POSSIBLE PATHWAY. What the fuck do we need other than a possible pathway to totally refute your crazy claim that natural selection (Darwinian mechanism) could not have "created" such a "complicated" structure. We've got it. We've got 50+ scientific peer-reviewed journal articles detailing the possible pathway. And you're left with nothing. Less than nothing, because you just scored a point against your own team. Good going, Tsar.

His point is that just because the pathway exists, that doesn't mean evolution actually took it.
Naughty, naughty, trying to move the goal posts. Doesn't work after you just scored that own goal.

And even if it did, that doesn't mean that it was a darwinian mechanism that brought it through the pathway.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
NO, that's where your invisible immaterial unspecified incomprehensible "designer" reached into the DNA with its ghostly fingers and twiddled the base pairs to get the "intended" result. Sure thing, Tsar. Keep trying to defend the indefensible.

Pro-ID papers have been published in PR scientific journals. Therefore, it's legit.

That's a flat out lie. No pro-ID papers have been published in legitimate biology journals. The papers which Dembski claims are pro-ID, aren't; they're just neutral mathematical/computer modeling reviews which don't actually mention ID, much less support it in print. The papers which you claim, aren't in legitimate biology journals and are reviewed by liars-for-Jesus on the editorial board.
ID can't be legit, as Spearthrower already proved, because people like you insist on making it unfalsifiable. Good "design" ? Cool, the "designer" wanted it that way. Bad "design" ? No problem, the "designer" wanted it that way. That's not legitimate science, that's not any kind of science, that's idiocy in action.

No, but people like Dawkins do.

That's a lie. That one's not your fault, though, so I forgive you - the asshole religious media is full of descriptions of the angry atheist - like Dawkins - when in reality he is the nicest, most polite, cheerful and helpful old man we could ever want to meet.

Asking for an explanation is not trolling.
Trolling fail again.

IF you actually were honestly asking for an explanation, and you actually intended to get your fingers out of your ears long enough to listen to the explanation you got, well, then maybe you'd have a case for it not being trolling.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Thank dog you've finally come to your senses and admitted the truth for once.

Yes, just because it can be described as designed doesn't mean it is designed. Yes, you finally comprehend. You've got it.

I think we're done here.
Actually that was my point from the start. If the universe can be described as an engineerd mechanism,
You can describe it AS an engineered mechanism - or you can describe it AS a very very special creation of a very very special god - or you can describe it AS a natural outcome of physics operating after some specific initial condistions -- the only thing that matters is what you've got a legitimate model and evidence for.
then that means that design is a good scientific working hypothesis for certain features of teh universe.
Aaa-a-a-nd Tsar falls off the logic cliff yet again.

It's not a scientific working hypothesis, because it's compatible with all imaginable features of the universe. Good features ? Cool, the "engineer" wanted it that way. Bad features ? No problem, the "engineer" wanted it that way. It's unfalsifiable. It doesn't lead to a testable model, it doesn't make any testable predictions.
Thereofre ID is science.
Lie. Again.

Oops, I spoke too soon. No it's not a good starting position for a scientific inquiry because your IDiot heroes at the Dis-Institute have defined "design" in a way that makes it totally unfalsifiable and therefore totally unscientific.

Not that I expect you to understand.
There are two way to falsify design. Either show that a certain object can be accounted for by natural laws, or that it's probable enough to come about by chance. And teh design hypothesis for that object is falsified.
Wrong again. Would you like to have your wrongness here explained one more time ? How many more times do you guess it will take before you finally get it ? Do you think you need to go away and study for a month, or will just a few days suffice ?

Trolling fail.
Asking questions is not trolling.
:whine: As, Tsar, you're so cute when you pretend not to understand.

Just a friendly usage tip, Tsar. In normal English, quotes are both identical on top left and right, like "so". Your usage with the odd "bottom" quote mark - „machine“ - is a mistake in English. Surely you can learn to fix that bad habit without turning on the forbidden spell checker.
Yeah, but I can't be bothered...
Shows how seriously we should take your "argument" when you don't even take yourself seriously enough to bother ... Tell me, Tsar, since you don't care what you say or how you say it, why should anyone else care what you say ? Hmm ?

What, wade through pages of your vomitous posts in the hope that you're not lying about the answer you claim to have put forth ?

You're joking, right ?

Please link or copy-paste your post where you provide the mathematic metric that demonstrates Mt. Rushmore is designed. No other math will do - not any of your vomit about how improbable the universe is, or any other garbage from you. Just exactly where you've provided a specific metric for design which shows that Mt. Rushmore is designed.

Or you could, you know, admit that you're lying about having done so before. And admit that you can't do it now.
I didn't say that I calculated anything for Mount Rushmore. I said that I have many times presented a method to infer design in general.
[/quote]Thank you so much for admitting that you were lying before when you said that you had already answered the question about Rushmore. It means a lot to see you 'fessing up.