Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.
What hasn't gone unnoticed is your use of a syllogism that defines the circular and presumptive nature of hyper-religious creationist. Obviously, you didn't realize that you used such measures to dismantle your own argument.
It's actually laughable to watch the Meyer groupies repeat the same silly slogans without understanding how utterly pompous they appear.
As it was pointed out to you earlier - and it's obvious why you chose to side step: "Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations".
Creationism, as defined by "stealth fundamentalist christianity", is a laughable joke. Critics know that "specified information" is a slogan invented by fundie Christians and is a term chosen to suggest relative importance, yet, there is no objective standard for either measurement or evaluation of such creationist babble. Scientists, (to exclude hacks such as creationists with dubious or non-existent credentials), know that "information" routinely comes from many sources, such as biological processes. Mutation and natural selection do just fine without the introduction of magic and mysticism required by Christian fundies.
Two things struck me as I read the slogans invented by Meyer and the Christian cabal: first, Its essential dishonesty, and second, Meyer's misunderstanding and thus gross errors regarding information theory.
The logical reply to fundie Christians who invent means, methods and mechanisms for how " The gawds did it", is to require an answer to the question, "If we concede your point that gawds are incomprehensible,then why is any attribute you attach to them, including that they are incomprehensible -- to be taken as accurate?
See, the problem shared by Christian fundies is their inability to escape internal collpase. If they are granted their premise, that Gawds are incomprehenisble, then you exclude yourself from saying anything meaningful about them and even your claim that they are indeed "incomprehensible" is suspect.
Fundies are simply confirming they have nothing but invented suppositions and conjecture
Actually, I find the Christian gawds "plan" to be ridiculously simple. Basically, they're trying to teach themselves a lesson. They do this by creating Satan and using humans as pawns in a game.
In other words, the gawds comes across as lethargic and bored with doing nothing for infinity and need to amuse themselves, not unlike countless other bored gawds who dicker with humankind in order to get some sort of entertainment out of existence.
Of course, the problem with this view (specifically, the frivolous fundie Christian view) is that by definition, gawds cannot have any wants. To ascribe "want" and "desire" to a being that authored everything is self-evidently absurd.
Funny, in this long, useless, typical Ad-Hawlyman response, you said nothing to dismantle the ID syllogism, and provided no evidence to contradict the premises or conclusion.
I think the most alarming thing is that you actually believe you have dismantled Meyer's hypothesis!! You have done no such thing. And it is you who is arguing the origins points to me. That is what we were discussing in case your limited attention span has failed you again. As far as Meyer's hypothesis, I was giving you the option to discredit it. You can prove his theory wrong by merely coming up with an example of complex, functional information which is randomly generated or the result of a natural process, a fact which you have continually side stepped and ignored. Why? Because you know in your heart his hypothesis stands for now, until some major discovery is made that would prove otherwise, a fact you also choose to conveniently ignore.
I think the most alarming thing is that you actually believe you have dismantled Meyer's hypothesis!! You have done no such thing. And it is you who is arguing the origins points to me. That is what we were discussing in case your limited attention span has failed you again. As far as Meyer's hypothesis, I was giving you the option to discredit it. You can prove his theory wrong by merely coming up with an example of complex, functional information which is randomly generated or the result of a natural process, a fact which you have continually side stepped and ignored. Why? Because you know in your heart his hypothesis stands for now, until some major discovery is made that would prove otherwise, a fact you also choose to conveniently ignore.
The most alarming thing is that you think I haven't. It is not my job to falsify a theory that doesn't stand on its own two feet, since it can't even get off the ground in the first place. I have shown why the theory is logically invalid, being that its conclusions do not follow deductively from its premises,therefore I don't need to jump through your hoops. Finding specifiable information is again, a silly request, when you know the only maker of such information is humans, unless you are suggesting I go and find some aliens. Only someone who already believes the conclusion before even encountering its premises, could overlook and ignore such obvious fallacies. You are trying to work backwards from the presupposition that an intelligent creator exists, and is why you can't be honest about Meyers shortcomings. The display of confirmation bias here is simply staggering.
I think the most alarming thing is that you actually believe you have dismantled Meyer's hypothesis!! You have done no such thing. And it is you who is arguing the origins points to me. That is what we were discussing in case your limited attention span has failed you again. As far as Meyer's hypothesis, I was giving you the option to discredit it. You can prove his theory wrong by merely coming up with an example of complex, functional information which is randomly generated or the result of a natural process, a fact which you have continually side stepped and ignored. Why? Because you know in your heart his hypothesis stands for now, until some major discovery is made that would prove otherwise, a fact you also choose to conveniently ignore.
The most alarming thing is that you think I haven't. It is not my job to falsify a theory that doesn't stand on its own two feet, since it can't even get off the ground in the first place. I have shown why the theory is logically invalid, being that its conclusions do not follow deductively from its premises,therefore I don't need to jump through your hoops. Finding specifiable information is again, a silly request, when you know the only maker of such information is humans, unless you are suggesting I go and find some aliens. Only someone who already believes the conclusion before even encountering its premises, could overlook and ignore such obvious fallacies. You are trying to work backwards from the presupposition that an intelligent creator exists, and is why you can't be honest about Meyers shortcomings. The display of confirmation bias here is simply staggering.
I think it's also worth noting that the "specifiable information" slogan as used by Behe, Dembski and Meyer is a creationist generated slogan that is intended to add a veneer of science to a fundamentalist Christian agenda that is utterly hostile to science.
of course it is, unless you've engaged in some illegal shenanigans to pry in to hollies' private life.god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.
who's immature again?
It's not false, thespi-douche.
you wish, you've not got the wherewithal, brains or experience to "get my goat".no it's thessspian..When you say Thespian, do you pronounce it thethspian?
if you insist on doing stereotypical gay affections, try these classics: "I'll ssssscratch your eyesss out! " or You brute!....you brute!
This got your goat so bad it required not one, but two responses!
I trust God. God is the light of the world. A bigot is someone who cannot live outside a box of his own making.your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.God Word says that the wages of sin is death. Do you believe that you will die one day? Even if you believe you will not --- God's Word says you will. Can the act of sex between two men produce a child? If not, it is not productive. And you are correct when you say everyone has a anus. But not everyone enjoys something to be stuck up it.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.
who's immature again?
It's not false, thespi-douche.
I was certain your befuddlement would cause you to slither away from any attempt at a response. Absent reciting goofy slogans from creationist charlatans such as Meyer, your limitations with both imagination and availability of fact in support of the ID'iot argument leaves you with no options.What hasn't gone unnoticed is your use of a syllogism that defines the circular and presumptive nature of hyper-religious creationist. Obviously, you didn't realize that you used such measures to dismantle your own argument.
It's actually laughable to watch the Meyer groupies repeat the same silly slogans without understanding how utterly pompous they appear.
As it was pointed out to you earlier - and it's obvious why you chose to side step: "Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations".
Creationism, as defined by "stealth fundamentalist christianity", is a laughable joke. Critics know that "specified information" is a slogan invented by fundie Christians and is a term chosen to suggest relative importance, yet, there is no objective standard for either measurement or evaluation of such creationist babble. Scientists, (to exclude hacks such as creationists with dubious or non-existent credentials), know that "information" routinely comes from many sources, such as biological processes. Mutation and natural selection do just fine without the introduction of magic and mysticism required by Christian fundies.
Two things struck me as I read the slogans invented by Meyer and the Christian cabal: first, Its essential dishonesty, and second, Meyer's misunderstanding and thus gross errors regarding information theory.
The logical reply to fundie Christians who invent means, methods and mechanisms for how " The gawds did it", is to require an answer to the question, "If we concede your point that gawds are incomprehensible,then why is any attribute you attach to them, including that they are incomprehensible -- to be taken as accurate?
See, the problem shared by Christian fundies is their inability to escape internal collpase. If they are granted their premise, that Gawds are incomprehenisble, then you exclude yourself from saying anything meaningful about them and even your claim that they are indeed "incomprehensible" is suspect.
Fundies are simply confirming they have nothing but invented suppositions and conjecture
Actually, I find the Christian gawds "plan" to be ridiculously simple. Basically, they're trying to teach themselves a lesson. They do this by creating Satan and using humans as pawns in a game.
In other words, the gawds comes across as lethargic and bored with doing nothing for infinity and need to amuse themselves, not unlike countless other bored gawds who dicker with humankind in order to get some sort of entertainment out of existence.
Of course, the problem with this view (specifically, the frivolous fundie Christian view) is that by definition, gawds cannot have any wants. To ascribe "want" and "desire" to a being that authored everything is self-evidently absurd.
Funny, in this long, useless response, you said nothing to dismantle the ID syllogism, and provided no evidence to contradict the premises or conclusion.
You are befuddled in that you haven't been able to grasp the concept that the ID'iot argument is one of circular references, false analogies and appeals to ignorance. A read through of any of your incompetent citing of creationist charlatans is convincing of that.
I suppose it escapes you that a syllogism is typically a mal-formed argument that derives from one with an inability to construct coherent and logically connected ideas. That failure typifies the ID'iot argument.
What hasn't gone unnoticed is your use of a syllogism that defines the circular and presumptive nature of hyper-religious creationist. Obviously, you didn't realize that you used such measures to dismantle your own argument.
It's actually laughable to watch the Meyer groupies repeat the same silly slogans without understanding how utterly pompous they appear.
As it was pointed out to you earlier - and it's obvious why you chose to side step: "Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations".
Creationism, as defined by "stealth fundamentalist christianity", is a laughable joke. Critics know that "specified information" is a slogan invented by fundie Christians and is a term chosen to suggest relative importance, yet, there is no objective standard for either measurement or evaluation of such creationist babble. Scientists, (to exclude hacks such as creationists with dubious or non-existent credentials), know that "information" routinely comes from many sources, such as biological processes. Mutation and natural selection do just fine without the introduction of magic and mysticism required by Christian fundies.
Two things struck me as I read the slogans invented by Meyer and the Christian cabal: first, Its essential dishonesty, and second, Meyer's misunderstanding and thus gross errors regarding information theory.
The logical reply to fundie Christians who invent means, methods and mechanisms for how " The gawds did it", is to require an answer to the question, "If we concede your point that gawds are incomprehensible,then why is any attribute you attach to them, including that they are incomprehensible -- to be taken as accurate?
See, the problem shared by Christian fundies is their inability to escape internal collpase. If they are granted their premise, that Gawds are incomprehenisble, then you exclude yourself from saying anything meaningful about them and even your claim that they are indeed "incomprehensible" is suspect.
Fundies are simply confirming they have nothing but invented suppositions and conjecture
Actually, I find the Christian gawds "plan" to be ridiculously simple. Basically, they're trying to teach themselves a lesson. They do this by creating Satan and using humans as pawns in a game.
In other words, the gawds comes across as lethargic and bored with doing nothing for infinity and need to amuse themselves, not unlike countless other bored gawds who dicker with humankind in order to get some sort of entertainment out of existence.
Of course, the problem with this view (specifically, the frivolous fundie Christian view) is that by definition, gawds cannot have any wants. To ascribe "want" and "desire" to a being that authored everything is self-evidently absurd.
Funny, in this long, useless, typical Ad-Hawlyman response, you said nothing to dismantle the ID syllogism, and provided no evidence to contradict the premises or conclusion.
I couldn't help but notice that you had to further dumb-down your pointless comments to include your typically pointless name calling.
I suppose that appeals to your low class ambitions and abilities.
I agree. Your confirmation bias is off the charts. So much so you have lost your ability to reason and are in total denial about the evidence presented to you.I think the most alarming thing is that you actually believe you have dismantled Meyer's hypothesis!! You have done no such thing. And it is you who is arguing the origins points to me. That is what we were discussing in case your limited attention span has failed you again. As far as Meyer's hypothesis, I was giving you the option to discredit it. You can prove his theory wrong by merely coming up with an example of complex, functional information which is randomly generated or the result of a natural process, a fact which you have continually side stepped and ignored. Why? Because you know in your heart his hypothesis stands for now, until some major discovery is made that would prove otherwise, a fact you also choose to conveniently ignore.
The most alarming thing is that you think I haven't. It is not my job to falsify a theory that doesn't stand on its own two feet, since it can't even get off the ground in the first place. I have shown why the theory is logically invalid, being that its conclusions do not follow deductively from its premises,therefore I don't need to jump through your hoops. Finding specifiable information is again, a silly request, when you know the only maker of such information is humans, unless you are suggesting I go and find some aliens. Only someone who already believes the conclusion before even encountering its premises, could overlook and ignore such obvious fallacies. You are trying to work backwards from the presupposition that an intelligent creator exists, and is why you can't be honest about Meyers shortcomings. The display of confirmation bias here is simply staggering.
The most alarming thing is that you think I haven't. It is not my job to falsify a theory that doesn't stand on its own two feet, since it can't even get off the ground in the first place. I have shown why the theory is logically invalid, being that its conclusions do not follow deductively from its premises,therefore I don't need to jump through your hoops. Finding specifiable information is again, a silly request, when you know the only maker of such information is humans, unless you are suggesting I go and find some aliens. Only someone who already believes the conclusion before even encountering its premises, could overlook and ignore such obvious fallacies. You are trying to work backwards from the presupposition that an intelligent creator exists, and is why you can't be honest about Meyers shortcomings. The display of confirmation bias here is simply staggering.
I think it's also worth noting that the "specifiable information" slogan as used by Behe, Dembski and Meyer is a creationist generated slogan that is intended to add a veneer of science to a fundamentalist Christian agenda that is utterly hostile to science.
Indeed. I read the link you posted and it is very telling. I admit to being intimated by the term "specifiable information" as if it held a meaningful distinction in information theory. After reading your link, it seems like this terms doesn't carry much weight outside of the lingo used by proponents of this theory. This doesn't mean necessarily that it isn't a useful description, just that it was likely invented in order to make their case stronger, but having no application or utility elsewhere in science.
You are now as deluded as Hawly.This is a great example of the typical, angry evo-fundie lashing out.of course it is, unless you've engaged in some illegal shenanigans to pry in to hollies' private life.god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.
who's immature again?
It's not false, thespi-douche.
fact is, you're a lying vindictive bitch ,who gets his ass handed to him every time you post.
god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.
who's immature again?
It's not false, thespi-douche.
Your proud display of biblically-inspired bigotry is a little insane. I would expect Christians to try and shake this stigma, instead you seem to want to strengthen it, and without shame. That's strange. You demonstrate why faith in the bible is so errant. It causes you to judge another for something that has no effect on your life. I would call that idiotic and immoral.
I believe God provided doctors, And I do pray that God will provide the doctor with the best solution for an illness. I do look both ways but I also ask God for traveling mercies. I just had a case where I had no idea how I was going to make an appointment my wife wanted me to keep. I put it to prayer and another appointment cancelled at the last minute. I didn't have to worry at all. God worked it out....I trust God. God is the light of the world. A bigot is someone who cannot live outside a box of his own making.your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
Of course you trust in the gawds, in a self-serving and limited fashion.
Let's be honest though, if you cross the street mid block you look both ways before stepping into the street, right? If you had a serious illness, you'd seek competent medical care, correct?
It appears your trust in the gawds is limited by many here and now circumstances that could shorten your life irrespective of trust, reliance or accommodation of any of the asserted gawds.
you fashioned god in your own image.SLAPDICK...funny, god's stock and trade is miracles .
your denial of this means you fashioned god in your own image.
you can believe god gave humans abilities but you have no proof to back it up.
on the other hand it's been proven that humans developed skills and abilities over time with no help from
deities
Bitching, whining and unprovable pseudoscience ravings in 3...2.....1
God's work are not miracles to him they may seem like a miracle to us but Gods work is his natural ability but for a naturalist everything is the result of mircales.
god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.
who's immature again?
It's not false, thespi-douche.
Your proud display of biblically-inspired bigotry is a little insane. I would expect Christians to try and shake this stigma, instead you seem to want to strengthen it, and without shame. That's strange. You demonstrate why faith in the bible is so errant. It causes you to judge another for something that has no effect on your life. I would call that idiotic and immoral.
Your creepy stalker syndrome has consumed you. Your pathology has forced you to parotting my comnents.I was certain your befuddlement would cause you to slither away from any attempt at a response. Absent reciting goofy slogans from creationist charlatans such as Meyer, your limitations with both imagination and availability of fact in support of the ID'iot argument leaves you with no options.Funny, in this long, useless response, you said nothing to dismantle the ID syllogism, and provided no evidence to contradict the premises or conclusion.
You are befuddled in that you haven't been able to grasp the concept that the ID'iot argument is one of circular references, false analogies and appeals to ignorance. A read through of any of your incompetent citing of creationist charlatans is convincing of that.
I suppose it escapes you that a syllogism is typically a mal-formed argument that derives from one with an inability to construct coherent and logically connected ideas. That failure typifies the ID'iot argument.
Once again, in your befuddlement, you fail to address the premises or apologize for your angry fundie, ridiculous post.
I think it's also worth noting that the "specifiable information" slogan as used by Behe, Dembski and Meyer is a creationist generated slogan that is intended to add a veneer of science to a fundamentalist Christian agenda that is utterly hostile to science.
Indeed. I read the link you posted and it is very telling. I admit to being intimated by the term "specifiable information" as if it held a meaningful distinction in information theory. After reading your link, it seems like this terms doesn't carry much weight outside of the lingo used by proponents of this theory. This doesn't mean necessarily that it isn't a useful description, just that it was likely invented in order to make their case stronger, but having no application or utility elsewhere in science.
I suppose the gawds provided doctors to cure disease they created. The gawds provided water for the purpose of drowning most of humanity. I suppose the gawds thus provided different religions so humans could do some of the gawds mass murders .I believe God provided doctors, And I do pray that God will provide the doctor with the best solution for an illness. I do look both ways but I also ask God for traveling mercies. I just had a case where I had no idea how I was going to make an appointment my wife wanted me to keep. I put it to prayer and another appointment cancelled at the last minute. I didn't have to worry at all. God worked it out....I trust God. God is the light of the world. A bigot is someone who cannot live outside a box of his own making.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
Of course you trust in the gawds, in a self-serving and limited fashion.
Let's be honest though, if you cross the street mid block you look both ways before stepping into the street, right? If you had a serious illness, you'd seek competent medical care, correct?
It appears your trust in the gawds is limited by many here and now circumstances that could shorten your life irrespective of trust, reliance or accommodation of any of the asserted gawds.
