Elizabeth Liddle is the eleP(T|H)ant.!
-
Yes, I cannot stand Elizabeth Liddle- she is full of shit and loves to spew it. She attacks ID with her ignorance. She sez that we cannot use Dembski's equations to determine design because we just don't know all of the factors.
Earth to Lizzie- if we are missing factors it is becausae your position cannot provide any numbers. And that is because your position has absolutely NOTHING. It doesn't have a chance hypthesis (H). It doesn't even know where to start wrt probabilities and blind & undirected chemical processes.
Lizzie sez:
LoL! Discuss YOUR position you dumbass hack. Also Dembski's is NOT the absolutely key concept, you are full of shit. True, Dembski would like it to be but without the numbers from your position it is useless and we can use the EF instead. Also ID critics mangle Dembski, you don't discuss his work. Ihave shown you to be a moron wrt Dembski and CSI and you pressed on regardless- reproduction is still the very thing you need to explain, meaning you don't get to just start with it.
Elizabeth Liddle, proudly full of shit...
ETA:
The imbeciles at TSZ have taken note and OMagain chokes on the EF, as usual.
Earth to OMagain- I have used the EF on biological systems- your ignorance still means nothing
Yes, I cannot stand Elizabeth Liddle- she is full of shit and loves to spew it. She attacks ID with her ignorance. She sez that we cannot use Dembski's equations to determine design because we just don't know all of the factors.
Earth to Lizzie- if we are missing factors it is becausae your position cannot provide any numbers. And that is because your position has absolutely NOTHING. It doesn't have a chance hypthesis (H). It doesn't even know where to start wrt probabilities and blind & undirected chemical processes.
Lizzie sez:
Just say the word. Mocking ID critics for not understanding ID when IDers won’t discuss the absolutely key concept on which a major ID theorist built his argument, despite the fact that ID critics are able and willing to discuss it in any degree of detail requested is, as kairosfocus would say, “telling”.
LoL! Discuss YOUR position you dumbass hack. Also Dembski's is NOT the absolutely key concept, you are full of shit. True, Dembski would like it to be but without the numbers from your position it is useless and we can use the EF instead. Also ID critics mangle Dembski, you don't discuss his work. Ihave shown you to be a moron wrt Dembski and CSI and you pressed on regardless- reproduction is still the very thing you need to explain, meaning you don't get to just start with it.
Elizabeth Liddle, proudly full of shit...
ETA:
The imbeciles at TSZ have taken note and OMagain chokes on the EF, as usual.
Earth to OMagain- I have used the EF on biological systems- your ignorance still means nothing
posted by Joe G @ 9:23 AM
3 Comments:
At 12:35 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"LoL! Discuss YOUR position you dumbass hack. "
ID as a negative argument pt 1264813246 by Fatty Gallien.
At 12:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Again with the ignorant spewage by Richie cupcake Hughes-
Unfortunately Richie is ignorant of science, even though it has been explained to him many times. Had Richie any knowledge of science he would have known that science mandates that necessity and chance be eliminated before the design inference can be made.
And the explanatory filter PROVES that ID is not just a negative argument and that the design inference follows science's mandate.
Richie cupcake Hughes, proud to be an ignorant ass.
Also the purpose of having the TSZ hacks discuss their position is so everyone can see all they can do is equivocate and pontificate- no evidence required and none will be given.
At 1:43 PM,
Joe G said…
Obviously asking evoTARDs to discuss claims for, say, natural selection being a designer mimic, is grounds for an evoTARDgasm.
Post a Comment
<< Home