• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can ID be disproven?

Taffer said:
No, it's not, Iacchus.

It isn't "too complex", it is just too time consuming, too resource intensive, and a waste of time.
Click to expand...
And perhaps you'd better look up the word "complex" in the dictionary?
 
Mercutio said:
It does not follow rules. It is described by rules. That is the way science works. You have been told this many times before, but have for some reason refused to see the difference between proscriptive rules and descriptive rules.
Click to expand...
And you're the guy who likes to watch TV without turning it on, right? :p
 
Iacchus said:
And perhaps you'd better look up the word "complex" in the dictionary?
Click to expand...
:dl:

Or you could look it up in the Iacchian dictionary, where the definition is sufficiently broad to also encompass "simple", "left-handed", "light purple" and "corn chowder".
 
Mercutio said:
:dl:

Or you could look it up in the Iacchian dictionary, where the definition is sufficiently broad to also encompass "simple", "left-handed", "light purple" and "corn chowder".
Click to expand...
And of course none of these things that we see before us are really happening, they only just "behave" that way. :rolleyes:
 
Iacchus said:
And you're the guy who likes to watch TV without turning it on, right? :p
Click to expand...
The funny thing is, I know what you are referring to here, and it still makes no sense at all. All that is clear is that you are sticking to a metaphor that was thoroughly trashed, illogical, opposed by evidence...a metaphor you have used many times before, enough to have seen the feedback on it, enough that you must know it makes you look like an idiot.

So, do you sit at your computer and smugly think you are right? Or do you actually have some tenuous grasp on reality?
 
Mercutio said:
It does not follow rules. It is described by rules. That is the way science works. You have been told this many times before, but have for some reason refused to see the difference between proscriptive rules and descriptive rules.
Click to expand...
In other words you deny the reality of "being," in favor of the science of "being?" Yes, your reality is definitely faith-based.
 
Please, Iacchus, refrain from writing anything that starts with "in other words". Your record is abyssmal. I know it is easier for you to argue when you write both sides, but it is dishonest.
 
Did he just say that science=faith?

Or is my Iacchain translator on the fritz again?
 
Mercutio said:
Or you could look it up in the Iacchian dictionary, where the definition is sufficiently broad to also encompass "simple", "left-handed", "light purple" and "corn chowder".
Click to expand...
If it involves corn chowder, I'm all for it.

~~ Paul
 
Iacchus said:
No, if I'm not mistaken, this is what Mercutio said ... in so many words of course. ;)
Click to expand...
No, Iacchus. Mercutio did not say that "in so many words", nor has he ever said anything remotely similar, to my knowledge.

We all know you are willfully ignorant. Shall we add compulsive liar to that rap sheet?
 
Mercutio said:
Please, Iacchus, refrain from writing anything that starts with "in other words". Your record is abyssmal. I know it is easier for you to argue when you write both sides, but it is dishonest.
Click to expand...
:dl:

So, would you say that this is just "descriptive" or, that the "actual" rule applies? One of us is definitely in "denial" here ...

Or, would you have us believe this is merely a descriptive account of that which otherwise means nothing?
 
Iacchus said:
So, would you say that this is just "descriptive" or, that the "actual" rule applies? One of us is definitely in "denial" here ...

Or, would you have us believe this is merely a descriptive account of that which otherwise means nothing?
Click to expand...
Which words are giving you trouble? Perhaps I could help you out. The situation, whether actual or described, is that you put words into other people's mouths, then argue against those words. This is dishonest, in case you were unclear on that. I, and others, have asked you on many occasions to read our actual words, to respond to what we wrote, rather than to paraphrase our words inaccurately. Whether you intend to misrepresent other people's views is impossible to know--you may merely be ignorant. What is easily known, what is patently evident, is that you do misrepresent other people's views.

So, once more, in another futile gesture, I ask you to avoid any attempts at phrasing my views "in other words". You have simply not demonstrated the ability to do so with any accuracy whatsoever.
 
KingMerv00 said:
You can translate what Iacchus says? That implies understanding. Please share.
Click to expand...
It's not so much understanding as experience.

For example, when Iacchus precedes a statement with "So what you are saying is..." or "in other words..." or similar indications that he is about to paraphrase, you can be assured that his interpretation is a complete mistranslation of your words, often diametrically opposite of what you had actually said. I used to attribute this to mere stupidity that might be corrected with careful explanation, but more and more I find that he is just being willfully dishonest.

It is easy to understand what he is saying, because it encompasses the same one or two ideas recycled endlessly. I guess you must at least give him points for tenacity.
 
Mercutio said:
Which words are giving you trouble? Perhaps I could help you out. The situation, whether actual or described, is that you put words into other people's mouths, then argue against those words.
Click to expand...
Yes, but is this something that exists in all actuality or, due to its alleged behavior, it just appears that way? You see you have to decide whether something is actually happening or, it's just the appearance of something. Maybe I'm just a phantom or a ghost or, just a figment of your imagination? Well, it is getting close to Halloween anyway ...

:dl:
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, but is this something that exists in all actuality or, due to its alleged behavior, it just appears that way? You see you have to decide whether something is actually happening or, it's just the appearance of something. Maybe I'm just a phantom or a ghost or, just a figment of your imagination? Well, it is getting close to Halloween anyway ...
Click to expand...
Actually, Iacchus, I do not have to decide this at all. I don't honestly care whether you believe what you are saying, whether you exist as the person you claim to be, whether you are a bad computer simulation, a practical joke on the part of a fraternity, a 4th-grader on his daddy's computer, or a phantom, ghost, or figment. It does not matter. I respond to the words you post, and I do it because there have been people who have written that they have learned from our (I cannot claim sole credit) responses to your blather. Your motivation, your beliefs, your reasons are completely unknowable. It could be that you actually do read the things we tell you to; it could be that you have gained an understanding of logic and evidence; it could be that you have actually learned something in your years here; it could be any of these things, but all we can know is that the words you write do not demonstrate logic, understanding, or learning of any sort. And since your words are all we have to respond to, that is what we do.

On an internet forum, the only way to earn respect is through the words you write. Yours have not earned you any yet. Whether you deserve respect in real life is thoroughly irrelevant here.

"In other words..." once again, you are wrong.
 
Don't you love how every thread Iacchus involves himself in degrades to stupidity? This discussion has nothing at all to do with the original topic.
And this seems to happen a lot

I don't know why you guys even bother anymore...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom