• 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"

T'ai Chi said:
So no rebuttal then.
Click to expand...

You've already seen the rebuttal. The paper is based upon logical fallacies and purposeful misquoting of real scientists. It also contains lies about science and what scientists do. It is easy to overthrow the established scientific view, all you have to do is present sufficient evidence and your ideas will become the new established scientific view. This has happened many times times before and it will continue to happen.

The problem with the current theory of intelligent design is that it is not a scientific theory. There are gaps in our current scientific knowlege and there always will be. The evolution deniers attempt to fill these gaps by proclaiming 'Goddidit'. This is a textbook example of arguement from ignorance. Evolution deniers say evolution is "just a theory", implying that it hasn't been proven so it must be false. Similarly, intelligent design hasn't been disproven so it must be true. Unless the evolution deniers can come up with some convincing evidence, they will never be taken seriously by real scientists.

In any case, I'm sure my counter-arguement does not matter to you. I expect you to react by saying "That's not a (good) criticism." But, T'ai Chi, you don't seem to respond to my posts anyway, so all I'm expecting nothing from is more dodging.
 
A little bit of a derail here, but I need to get this "off my chest".

The term "intelligent design (or designer)" is meaningless unless there is also a "creator".

I work in an engineering office. We design buildings and I am a mechanical designer. (further derail - Giving myself the benefit of the doubt, I am also [somewhat?] intelligent - am I an intelligent designer?). At the end of the design process what we have is a set of detailed instructions, on how to build something. The thing designed does not actually exist until the design is given to competent tradesmen to execute (create).

For those who would try to avoid engaging religion by using the term "intelligent design", what do they suggest happens when the "design" process is completed?
How, and by who or what, is the design executed?
 
bjb said:
You've already seen the rebuttal.
Click to expand...

It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points. A lot of readers around here must think that 'fallacy spotting', even if they aren't true fallacies but just their opinions that the are fallacies, constitutes a rebuttal. It doesn't.

I'm sorry you irrationally interpret the pointing out of a non-rebuttal to be a non-rebuttal to be dodging.
 
T'ai Chi, have you read the article on Gish? It's very interesting.
 
T'ai Chi said:
It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points. A lot of readers around here must think that 'fallacy spotting', even if they aren't true fallacies but just their opinions that the are fallacies, constitutes a rebuttal. It doesn't.

I'm sorry you irrationally interpret the pointing out of a non-rebuttal to be a non-rebuttal to be dodging.
Click to expand...

OK, then. What points in the article did you think were important? I didn't see anything important in that article. They were numbered so just give me the numbers you thought were good.
 
T'ai Chi said:
It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points. A lot of readers around here must think that 'fallacy spotting', even if they aren't true fallacies but just their opinions that the are fallacies, constitutes a rebuttal. It doesn't.

I'm sorry you irrationally interpret the pointing out of a non-rebuttal to be a non-rebuttal to be dodging.
Click to expand...

It didn't "fail to address import points". It pointed out clearly that there are no important points in the fart you've linked to.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Tai Chi is hilarious. Is he the JREF jester?
Click to expand...

Yes. He is completely immune to logic and reason. He never, ever reads responses. His MO is to make a short, one or two line post, and say "What do you think?", and then completely ignores all responses, and then says "What, no responses?". Take a look at this thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64528) for an excellent example of his "tactic". It's basically a carbon copy of this thread, but with a different original post.

Oh, and at some point in the thread, he will start to mention the "organized skeptical movement".
 
Last edited:
Complaining that "important points" have not been rebutted, while refusing to say what the points are?

Is that a joke, T'ai? Or do you really think you are terribly clever?
 
Grimoire said:
Yes. He is completely immune to logic and reason. He never, ever reads responses. His MO is to make a short, one or two line post, and say "What do you think?", and then completely ignores all responses, and then says "What, no responses?".
Click to expand...
Or alternatively, responds to posts he hasn't bothered to read, perhaps?
 
T'ai Chi said:
It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points. A lot of readers around here must think that 'fallacy spotting', even if they aren't true fallacies but just their opinions that the are fallacies, constitutes a rebuttal. It doesn't.

I'm sorry you irrationally interpret the pointing out of a non-rebuttal to be a non-rebuttal to be dodging.
Click to expand...
I picture you there sitting with your arms crossed and your nose up in the air when you say this. "Harumpf! Not a good enough rebuttal for me! I want an Oompa Loompa now, daddy!"
 
delphi_ote said:
I picture you there sitting with your arms crossed and your nose up in the air when you say this. "Harumpf! Not a good enough rebuttal for me! I want an Oompa Loompa now, daddy!"
Click to expand...

Ohhh....I didn't know they were giving out Oompa Loompas....can I have one too?

Happy birthday, BTW...
 
Mojo said:
Or alternatively, responds to posts he hasn't bothered to read, perhaps?
Click to expand...

<expletive deleted>!

I always suspected that he ignored many of the responses to his posts, but to respond to posts he hasn't even read is just plain almondy...er, cashewy? Hmmm...that's not quite it either...Anyway, you get the idea...
 
Chaos said:
It didn't "fail to address import points". It pointed out clearly that there are no important points in the fart you've linked to.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but I find myself in partial agreement with something that T'ai Chi said. Fallacy spotting does not, in and of itself, render an argument invalid. If that were the case, a single logical fallacy would be enough to render an entire article null and void.

In this case, however, genuine (not perceived, as T'ai Chi seems to wish) fallacies and outright deceptions are so pervasive that a rational person has no choice but to discard the article as useless.

Now, if there were reason to believe that our perceptions regarding the fallacies/outright lies were incorrect, T'ai Chi could certainly bring such a reason to our attention...if he were genuinely interested in honest debate. Since, despite point-blank prompting from multiple forum members, he has failed to do so, the natural conclusion is that he has little such interest on this particular subject.
 
Grimoire said:
<expletive deleted>!

I always suspected that he ignored many of the responses to his posts, but to respond to posts he hasn't even read is just plain almondy...er, cashewy? Hmmm...that's not quite it either...Anyway, you get the idea...
Click to expand...
Picany. Definitely pecany. Though walnutty sounds pretty good, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom