Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable

On Jan 11, 12:39 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 11, 11:57 am, Grandbank <zetetic...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jan 11, 4:42 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message
<740a2c44-ae2a-4367-acb0-2b60f0fc3...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> writes

On Jan 10, 8:23 pm, Grandbank <zetetic...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 10, 5:40 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So while the entire ecosphere was experiencing all sorts of selective
pressures and random mutations, etc. those bacteria were so perfected
that any imaginable environmental change or pressure was just
perfectly fine with them............did they anticipate all those
changes...how so.

You should practice saying "Then why are there still monkeys". (Or if
you have to write it: "Thenn why are their still monkees") It sounds
ever so much more stupid.

KP

So monkeys haven't evolved either ...you're really up on your stuff.

A few posts back you appeared to be claiming that cyanobacteria had not
changed over a billion years, as evidence against some view or other.
(Clarity is not your forte.) It was pointed out to you that the
"non-evolved" nature of cyanobacteria is a conclusion that goes beyond
the available evidence.

Your now appear to have adopted a strawman fallacy - claiming that
scientists believe that cyanobacteria have not changed. Reading for
comprehension you would be aware that your sentence above is a
misrepresentation of the post to which you were responding - the writer
was comparing your strawman to the classical creationist "why are there
still monkeys" strawman.

Your stupidity is a monument to the degraded nature of public science
education.

All of which makes your insult here completely unwarrranted.

Bet you got in on a waiver..come on fess up its ok.

--
Alias Ernest Major

The irony is that I received my post secondary science education at
religious institutions and recognize the character he is playing as a
reasonably good expression of the type. Perhaps a bit overdrawn with
respect to the low grade insults, but spot on in terms of ignorance.
The type is common to all arenas where science, technology and
metaphysics interface. An EP typically understands neither science
nor metaphysics, but possesses a "mile wide, inch deep" familiarity
with the lingo of both, this picked up from some form of techno
training on the one hand and voracious consumption of pop religion
publications on the other. They also seem unaccountably attracted to
philosophy's inbred hillbilly cousin apologetics.

This EP's favorable reference to Josh McDowell's "New Evidence That
Demands a Verdict" was spot on. I was given a copy of this book
recently and dutifully plowed my way through significant portions of
it. It is a monumentally disorganized collection of fallacy and
misrepresentation. A herd of quote-mines drawn from science and
religion are stampeded over both, grinding fact and philosophy into a
sticky muck of fundamentalist one-liners.

It is precisely this mud that is sculpted into the EP character: the
believer whose theology is so shallow that they seek proof for their
faith, whose science is so incompetent that they think fronts like the
DI provide it, and who require a liberal troweling on of bullshit to
glue the mess together.

The person creating our current EP is fairly talented at ignorance,
but seems to lack the ambition to craft a consistent persona.
Gratuitous insult masks an inherent laziness - a really good
practitioner could take the time to weave a truly zany character
instead of settling for one that is merely disagreeably stupid. Ah
well, I guess you work with the talent you have.

KP- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually I never read McDowell in detail but it has been a standard
rference work in Christian circles for years.

Ah, that explains a great deal. Based on my reading of the book I
rather like Jeffery Lowder's take on it: "Evidence That Demands a
Refund". Insight into the quality of McDowell's scholarship can be
inferred from his championing of such gems of logical fallacy as the
"Lord, liar, or lunatic" line of argument as "proof" of Jesus'
divinity. I was also charmed to learn in his book that it is the fate
of atheists to commit suicide or go insane. Who knew. Nice
"reference" books you recommend.


Funny how all you can do is sling ad hominems and claim some
superiority based on your so called education. From what I see your're
one of the two worst intellects among the entire group as several of
the others are at least informed on the subject at hand. I wonder why
they even allow you to post as you continually set back their efforts.

Well I'm certainly flattered to have rated such notice - I think we
all understand that in your self-centered little world the volume of
derision you spew is directly proportional to success at getting under
your skin. What hurts the most? The stuff that goes completely over
your head and has to be explained to you? Being caught lying out your
ass about Dembski? The fact that in every case it is you that
initiates insult when you are unable to respond to content? Your
recurring need to change "the subject at hand" in the face of
successive revelations of your incorrectness?

You might wish to note that I claim no superiority based on education
- claims of superiority and arguments from authority are your game,
not mine. You seem, as usual, to have missed the point. The
advantage afforded to me by my Christian education is that I recognize
the genesis of your hubris, having seen close up the flimsy, ad hoc
assemblages of "evidence" apologists assemble to support their
beliefs.


KP


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... pressures and random mutations, etc.  those bacteria were so perfected ... The type is common to all arenas where science, ... instead of settling for one that is merely disagreeably stupid. ... superiority based on your so called education. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... pressures and random mutations, etc. those bacteria were so perfected ... as evidence against some view or other. ... respect to the low grade insults, but spot on in terms of ignorance. ... An EP typically understands neither science ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The allopathic jackals of mha
    ... a whole list of reasons for no evidence - and vice versa. ... You need to provide evidence that your science hasn't ... something for public education. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... It is the definition of science as it ... ID offers no testable hypothesis and no supporting evidence. ... If it can be shown that evolution *cannot* ... Not to the IDers, perhaps, but they do matter to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... in science and rarely in religion. ... evidence may always change the explanation. ... No it could be included in science class. ... No, Calvin ball is an endeavour without rules, ...
    (talk.origins)