• 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.

"Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design"

ponderingturtle said:
He has one, he just will not present it in any way that would make him say anything definite enough to be demonstrated wrong. His point is that the article makes some points he concidered interesting. But he will not say what they are, because he will not commit himself to anything where he can be shown to be wrong.

That is why he just dismisses detailed rebuttals of his interesting paper, actualy refuteing them is something he knows he can not do.
Click to expand...

I agree. T'ai seems to prefer to be on the attack. He wants others to make detailed statements so he can try to poke holes in their arguments but he won't detail his own position for fear of being refuted.

There are a few others like him in this forum as well.

Steven
 
Dr Adequate said:
One obvious howler is their claim that ID does not rely on God-of-the-gaps reasoning. The quotes they use to try to substantiate this show the very opposite.
Click to expand...

Well you weren't supposed to actually read it. You were supposed to just dismiss it so T'ai could lean back and close his eyes in his best Master Po impersonation and offer up some minimal syllabic wisdom like "interesting" or "I'm using this new shampoo".

Odds that T'ai will actually address the points in your post: <0

Steven
 
Dr Adequate said:
For more dishonesty, consider their Dembski quote.

"Thus, leading ID-theorist, philosopher and mathematician William Dembski, explains that intelligent design does not try to address questions about the identity or nature of the designer:
Click to expand...
I spotted the lie.
 
I read it, and it is interesting as a piece of propaganda. Of course, no one who is already familiar with the Modern Synthesis will fail to spot the distortions and outright lies. But that audience will never be swayed to ID anyway -- not because they're brainwashed, but for the same reason that people who have seen Marx Brothers films cannot be convinced that the Marx Brothers were a mime troupe, no matter how many clips of Harpo they are shown -- so this piece does not need to address that audience.

Here is another "interesting" link, in which you'll find many of the same dodges and deceptions described, as used by Duane Gish.
 
CFLarsen said:
This is reminiscent of when Albert Knabe - much better known here as "King of the Americas" - called Howard Stern on his show.

Albert wanted to promote one of his lengthy tracts, where he expanded on one of his many crackpot ideas. Howard Stern did not want to spend time on something he didn't know what was, so he asked Albert if he could give a brief summary of what he had written.

Albert refused. He insisted that Howard Stern read the whole thing, and then get back and discuss it. After some back-and-forth, Howard Stern simply hung up.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info on King of the Americas. I was dealing with him on the recent shuttle debris incident, which he wanted to call a UFO encounter. I responded because I have some experience in the shuttle program and I thought he simply wanted to know more about how the shuttle worked. Unfortunately it turned out he was unwilling to listen or learn anything that didn't support his opinion (sound familiar?). What a waste of my time.
 
People will have to present stronger critiques that are worthy of counter-critique.
 
T'ai Chi said:
People will have to present stronger critiques that are worthy of counter-critique.
Click to expand...
Why, when the OP consists of "this is interesting" + link?

Do you not see the parallels in the Duane Gish site? Or have you failed to read it?

You really should read it. It's very interesting.
 
T'ai Chi said:
People will have to present stronger critiques that are worthy of counter-critique.
Click to expand...

That's very nearly true. Someone so intellectually dishonest as to knowingly and purposefully misquote scientists three times in one paragraph should not be worthy of notice. Unfortunately, there are those sycophants who will stoop so low as to pretend to offer such rubbish for debate.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Well you weren't supposed to actually read it. You were supposed to just dismiss it so T'ai could lean back and close his eyes in his best Master Po impersonation and offer up some minimal syllabic wisdom like "interesting" or "I'm using this new shampoo".

Odds that T'ai will actually address the points in your post: <0

Steven
Click to expand...

T'ai Chi said:
People will have to present stronger critiques that are worthy of counter-critique.
Click to expand...

Foster Zygote you must be psychic, ever thought of applying for the $1million? :D
 
Let's try and talk about the issues, not people, OK Mid?

So what about the paper, specifically, do you offer (good) critique on?
 
T'ai Chi said:
Let's try and talk about the issues, not people, OK Mid?

So what about the paper, specifically, do you offer (good) critique on?
Click to expand...
See posts 6, 19, and 20. Also see the link to the site regarding Gish, which exposes many of the same errors made in the "paper". Did you read it? It's interesting.

And I hate to have to say this, but when a poster behaves irrationally and unreasonably, as you consistently do, there's no way to meaningfully discuss anything, so the flaws of the irrational person himself inevitably have to be addressed.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Let's try and talk about the issues, not people, OK Mid?

So what about the paper, specifically, do you offer (good) critique on?
Click to expand...

All I noted was that Foster Zygote accurately predicted your response, but if it will make you feel better I beg Foster Zygote's forgiveness for singling him out.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Let's try and talk about the issues, not people, OK Mid?

So what about the paper, specifically, do you offer (good) critique on?
Click to expand...


How about YOU present something that's worth commenting on, instead of the endless meaningless drivel. If I wanted meaningless drivel, I'd watch the HP hearings on C-SPAN.
 
T'ai Chi said:
So no rebuttal then.
Click to expand...

Luskin goes on and on and on about how mistaken Mooney is about what ID really purports, for example that they are not naming, identifying the designer and so forth.

For crying out loud, it's a cat walking around a hot meal, waiting for it to cool off. If the premise is that there is a designer (Creator, ring a bell?) and no evidence whatsoever to support such a premise, which is the base assumption of the "empirical" science purported therein, then how is not not supernatural??

Mooney wasn't making the illogical assumption that the ID premise base foundation is that to circle around A DESIGNER, neither does Luskin's quotes disprove that this is what it's all about.

Luskin wrote;
Yet pre-publication drafts of Pandas juxtaposed the word "creation" with statements to the exact opposite effect, noting that science cannot scientifically detect a supernatural creator.
Click to expand...

Which is another way of saying "we are going to continue beating around the bush of semantic diatribes, pretending to be about actual science and not a "designer".

Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent.[
Click to expand...

So the Designer is therefor the first "bottleneck"?

I mean come on!?!?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom