Saturday, October 18, 2014

How to use selective hyperskepticism to debate Darwinists

Gordon Elliot Mullings (kairosfocus) is explaining to his fellow creationists how to debate evolution. His latest post focuses on the techniques of "selective hyperskepticism" and "close-mindedness" [Darwinian Debating Devices # 12: Selective Hyperskepticism, closed-mindedness (and “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”)].

Here's how he describes selective hyperskepticism. He's quoting someone who comment on Uncommon Descent.
... hyper-skepticism (which is certainly not a term we made up … just google it) is virtually never equitable. Rather it is highly selective. Selective Hyper-Skepticism results when one requires a much higher degree of warrant in order to accept things that they prefer weren’t true. It most often comes up when worldview issues are at stake. It’s the application of a double-standard where one demands sufficient evidence to support absolute certainty (which is generally impossible) on certain facts they’d rather not have to believe, but they are willing to accept a much more lax standard of evidence and argumentation on matters of a very similar profile that don’t threaten their worldview. It also happens that someone demonstrating hyper-skepticism on these types of worldview issues often displays hyper-credulity towards arguments and evidence on the matter that is consistent with their own worldview. This isn’t really an accident, because the hyper-skepticism applied on one side of the equation often leaves the person grasping for any contrary evidence or argument at all on the other side of the equation, no matter how implausible or unsubstantiated.
Now, Gordon Elliot Mullings doesn't give any examples of how to use this technique to debate Darwinists but I can think of a few examples.

Let's take the formation of bacterial flagella as a good illustration of how they use selective hyperskepticism. They begin with the unshakeable assumption that gods exist that that they must have created life. They then find an example of something complex where the exact evolutionary pathway hasn't been worked out and declare that the gods made it. They refuse to answer any questions about how, when, where, and why and they refuse to present any evidence that gods did it.

When evolutionary biologists present some evidence that bacterial flagella could have arisen by evolution the creationists turn into selective hyperskepticists by demanding a detailed blow-by-blow account of the historical process complete with reams of scientific evidence. Of course, they would never think of applying these same criteria to their own worldview.

I didn't read the rest of the post or the other ones put up by Gordon Elliot Mullings so I'm not sure why he's exposing this tactic to the public. It makes creationists look bad.


76 comments :

  1. Barry has been re-posting the Darwinian Debating Devices like a cheerleader doing the splits and waving her pompoms, with the same reaction. The brain dead commentariate over at UD have become increasingly aggressive towards any dissent.

    Now that I have placed the image of Barry in a cheerleader's skirt into your head, have a good weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My irony-meter broke ... :(
    Larry, normally you would warn us. You would tell us to turn them off before reading. Today I am left irony-meter deficient.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another two of Barry's list of Darwinist tactics are "Moving Goalposts" and "Desperate Distractions". Of course creationists and ID types never do those themselves, do they?

    Like when we start discussing the mechanisms of evolution or how we infer common ancestry, they never say "Yes, but what about the Origin of Life?"

    They do that constantly, so often that I suggest we use an acronym, OTOOL (Off To the Origin Of Life).

    For another distraction, how about the trope "Darwinism = racism = Hitler"? Has Barry ever noticed it? I guess not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Considering that Hister rejected common descent in Mein Kampf and that racism existed long before he was born, that's a non-starter.

      Delete
    2. It thrives at UD under Barry's tender ministrations and brain-dead audience.

      Delete
    3. Joe,

      If one day it is proven beyond any doubt that the origin of life required... say.... some kind of creative, and sustained power, what are you going to be left with at best...? Can you please elaborate on this...? What would your faith be like then..?
      Intelligent scientist who specialize in this area of science have absolutely no clue how the life originated on it's own.. They can't recreate it either.. They can't even maintain it often times... they can't reassemble the "simplest" of the living cells...

      What scientific evidence makes you believe that the origin of life happened without a superior to us and intelligent designer/creator...? What makes you so convinced about that...? Give me 1 scientific example and I will leave you alone...

      BTW: I have been asking this question Larry and others for a while now...
      I have lost some friends over this issue too...

      Delete
    4. It is simple to me... just FYI... lol

      Delete
    5. Quest,

      Though I know that you don't ask in good faith, that you don't care about answers, here it goes. Warning, I'm not Joe, but I'm answering as if you asked me.

      If one day it is proven beyond any doubt that the origin of life required... say.... some kind of creative, and sustained power, what are you going to be left with at best...?

      The question is too vague Quest. Life could not have originated without a "sustaining power." Without energy life could not have started just as it could not continue thriving today. As per "creative," depends on how "creative" is defined. If you mean "capable of creating" we could be as liberal to its meaning that the above would apply again. So, I would be left with exactly what I have today, an understanding that what life requires to start and continue is already there (energy, chemical and physical phenomena, etc.), but with the problem of figuring out how it actually happened.

      Can you please elaborate on this...?

      Elaborated it is.

      What would your faith be like then..?

      Faith? I don't run on faith.

      Intelligent scientist who specialize in this area of science have absolutely no clue how the life originated on it's own..

      I doubt that any scientist thinks that life "originated on its own."

      They can't recreate it either..

      Ability to recreate life has nothing to do with the issue.

      They can't even maintain it often times... they can't reassemble the "simplest" of the living cells...

      Something else that has no bearing on the issue either.

      What scientific evidence makes you believe that the origin of life happened without a superior to us and intelligent designer/creator...?

      Let's see:

      1. All the elements required for life exist. (You doubt it? Look around you! You are alive yourself!)
      2. Life starts every day, only by catalysts that have evolved to the point of being extremely efficient. Life starts in enormous varieties, with different routes and metabolisms. Since catalysts accelerate reactions that can happen without the catalysts, the beginning of life by entirely natural processes must be possible.
      3. Nobody has proven that any superior intelligent creator exists. Not by a far shot.
      4. An intelligent creator would be alive. Therefore its existence would not explain the origin of life.

      Give me 1 scientific example and I will leave you alone...

      All the life you see around you. It all started entirely by natural processes. At least as far as scientific investigation has determined.

      Now, I don't expect anything intelligent from you Quest. But feel free to surprise me by actually making the effort to understand.

      Delete
    6. Photosynthesis:

      One issue at the time:

      You wrote:

      "I doubt that any scientist thinks that life "originated on its own."

      What is the alternative then...? Who or what helped the origin of life...?

      Delete
    7. Quest,

      So soon showing signs that you won't be making too much of an effort to understand?

      «What is the alternative then...?»

      The question you made is malformed. When you ask if life originated on its own you're asking whether life made life. While this happens all the time today, life originates more life, The Origin of Life, as in the first life, could not possibly have involved life. Otherwise it would not be The Origin, but An Origin. Your question is akin to asking whether a mountain made itself. In order for a mountain to make itself it would have to be there already to make itself. Nonsense.

      For the more pertinent question, even today, life does not originate more life on its own. It requires inputs. Energy and matter inputs. So, The Origin of Life must have had these kinds of inputs: energy and matter, all of them interacting in several ways. Do you get it? Life is not independent even today. The first life required inputs just like life today requires inputs to both be sustained and to "make" more life.

      «Who or what helped the origin of life...?»

      Read above.

      Of course, this is explained in the most basic/general terms, but if you truly want to understand it should suffice for starters.

      Delete
    8. photosynthesis,

      When I "talk to you" it is like talking to my old, boring professor... who did not accept anything at all even if he was wrong about the schedule of his lecture...There was always someone responsible for his s**t... including me... mostly..

      You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about...
      Here is the truth about your inadequacy:

      "2. Life starts every day, only by catalysts that have evolved to the point of being extremely efficient"

      You are a moron.... Life does not start every day... it is transferred from one living organism to another... If someone doesn't understand this basic concept, I will not waste my time on him... I hope understand my concern about the fundamental knowledge...?

      So.. bye... bye..

      Use another nick name and different style of writing to bother me with your fairytales...

      Delete
    9. Quest,

      Why such a hurry? I thought you were asking questions ... oh, right, never in good faith. I will add to the "boring" speech that I was not trying to convince you. I was explaining to you what you asked: why would I be convinced that life started by natural means (if that's what you were asking).

      Anyway, of course life starts everyday. I did not transfer my life to my kids. They have their own life, and I kept mine. I see the same in other life forms, they don't transfer their life. They catalyze the production of other life forms pretty similar to them using lots of resources. I would invite you to actually think about it, but I suspect that you noticed that if you did think about it, you would be in dire danger of understanding. I suspect that you saw the light too close, Quest, so you rather try this quick dismissal.

      See ya.

      Delete
    10. OMG!!!

      Please... somebody shoot me!!!

      I guess creationists have nothing to worry about if the atheistic throng if full of morons like photosynthesis....LMAO...

      Delete
    11. Just to be clear, Quest, the fact that science cannot explain exactly how life first evolved on Earth does not in any way invalidate evolutionary theory. Ir also doesn't mean that an invisible omnipotent being magically poofed life into existence either.

      Delete
    12. @Chris B,

      I don't think that Quest cares about that. Selective hyper-skepticism, remember? He won't accept a natural origin of life until you can show details at the quantum level for it. He will, however, accept the myths of some ancient peoples without giving it a second thought. That's how it work for these guys.

      Delete
    13. photosynthesis, you are right, and I should not feed the trolls. But my inner scientist insists on reason, and sometimes especially when I know the person I am talking to is resistant to reason. From time to time you have to remind Quest of why he claims to come here and post, rather than just watch him run amok.

      Delete
    14. Yeah,,,,Hyper-shitism...Our morons Chris B and photosynthesis forgot for one reason or another... quite possibly due to hyper-skepticism.... that Louis Pasteur proved beyond a reasonable doubt that living things come only from other living... anyone who can EXPERIMENTALLY PROVE IT WRONG will not only receive the crown of morons "The Noble Prize" but will also make himself at least half god... Unfortunately, the reality is different even if our boys get very excited about the theme and publish meaningless peer-reviewed papers on the theme as if thay meant anything...lol

      Delete
    15. Quest,

      Heh. You were really so close to understanding that you're desperately trying to make the thought go away! You had seven days of nightmares before trying the Pasteur excuse! Neat!

      Pasteur proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that life forms we're familiar with come from life forms we're familiar with. He was also one of those who paved the way to our understanding of fermentation and therefore of biological catalysts. And by understanding catalysts in general, and biological catalysts in particular, we get to understand that there's no reason why life could not have originated naturally.

      Go on Quest. Your desperation is fun to watch.

      :D

      Delete
  4. And the Merriam-Webster Gambit. Lookup 'random', 'natural', 'selection' ...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Warning! I'm about to do something extremely cruel. I'm going to suggest that you all read some posts by gordo mullings. Yes, I know that suggesting that you put yourselves through such hellish torment is horrible, and I feel awful about it, but if you are willing to risk some destruction of your brain cells (especially by reading the posts at his blog) you can get a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of a sanctimonious religious lunatic who doesn't have a clue about science and reality. In these posts (and many others) gordo preaches about science, evidence, hyper-skepticism, authority, atheists in lab coats, materialism, evolution, supernatural miracles, FSCO/I, alleged "unshakable" eye witnesses to the alleged ressurrection of 'Jesus', ID-creation, 'God', the bible, homosexuality, etc. Yeah, he really likes to mix a bunch of stuff together in his sermons.

    Are you ready? Are you sure? Okay, here you go:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/my-take-on-the-nye-ham-debate-and-its-wider-context/

    http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2013/08/rom-1-reply-38g-yea-hath-god-said.html

    http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2013/08/rom-1-reply-38h-of-origins-rights-and.html

    http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2013/08/rom-1-reply-39-unreasonableness-of.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where does he get all the time and energy for that massive amount of copy and paste ?

      I wonder if Cale B.T., our current apologist IDiot, considers Mr. Mullings to be "an intellectually rigorous debater" ?

      Delete
    2. I will read those links in time. I am sure they have only scientific arguments and no religion. Intelligent Design is science, not religion. I see several of the URL's begin with "1 Rom", no doubt a reference to the well known science textbook, First Epistle to the Romans. By Prof. Paul of Tarsus, Ph.D., known for his experiments with electricity on the road to Damascus. No religion there, Intelligent Design is just sciencey science.

      Delete
    3. The 'oil of red herring' line (and his many other repetitious tics) appears a little too frequently for me to feel I am dealing with anyone worth my time.

      Delete
    4. I fully understand, Allan.

      Just in case anyone else wants to torture themselves by reading more from gordo in one of his lengthy sermons, titled "On the Fallacy of Selective Hyperskepticism", here's a link to a page on one his blogs:

      http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Selective_Hyperskepticism.htm#combi_error

      Delete
  6. GEM doesn't like it when you call him by his real name (even though one of his internet handles is GEM of TKI, the other being Kairosfocus.) If you call him by his real name, he calls it threatening, stalking, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suggest that people refer to him by his handle, kairosfocus. The only reason people refer to him by his real name is that they are annoyed with him and want to irritate him.

      If using "kairosfocus" involved his being misleading in some major way I could understand wanting to "out" him, but I see no evidence of that. Even though he has over the years made it trivially easy for people to find out his name and location, we should defer to his sensitivity and stop using his real name or initials.

      Delete
    2. Note, Joe, that He Who Shall Not Be Named (HWSNBN) appears "in person" below, referring to himself by his real initials. He can use his initials, but we can't?

      Delete
    3. Initials, maybe. But expanding them to a full name, and throwing in the geographical location, is clearly blatant "outing".

      Delete
    4. Joe Felsenstein (and anyone else who is interested), start reading at comment 253 in this thread and then read the subsequent comments:

      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/no-bomb-after-10-years/#comments

      Also see this thread:

      http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=544b643c29768a2a;act=ST;f=14;t=7640;st=1830

      Scroll down (page 62) to the third comment by Acartia_Bogart, and then read the subsequent comments.

      Be sure to notice where I pointed out that when gordo's username kairosfocus is clicked on at UD it leads ('onward links') to his real name that he made publicly available.

      Delete
    5. Not exactly related to your comment, but in the context of the first link to the article by Barry Arrington, in which he writes:

      UD has 47,782 registered users. Some of those are duplicates, but it is safe to assume that over 40,000 unique individuals have commented on this site. And I think it is safe to assume also that at least one of those 40,000 individuals is the highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professional who, if they could, would drop a science bomb on me that would destroy my naïve belief in ID.

      Ten years later, 40,000 commenters later. No bomb. I’m beginning to think that maybe there isn’t a bomb.


      ...this is an interesting coincidence:

      http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/tenth-anniversary-of-taliban-style-collapse-of-darwinism-t47211.html

      Delete
  7. Regarding selective hyperscepticism, you all are pikers, mere amateurs. Let a real expert in selective hyperscepticism show you how it's done. Here's ID proponent and "Isaac Newton of Information Theory", William Dembski.

    Dembski, 2002: "As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering."

    Note what TINOIT (The Isaac Newton of Information Theory) says: "connecting the dots" is our method, not theirs; they reject the furnishing of details on principle; they are better than us, our superiors, because we furnish detailed answers to questions, and IDcreationists are our betters precisely because they refuse to provide dirty facts and details. No, they sip brandy while reclining in overstuffed armchairs, while speculating brilliantly on the theology of the Gospel of John 1:1 or the First Epistle to the Romans Ch. 1. Skip the details and the evidence, jump right to the conclusions: our superiors tell us that corporations can pollute without restrictions or consequences, and our betters tell us which sex positions will be legal, how much and with whom, and how many times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we are doing acronyms it's TFNOIT.

      Delete
    2. Isaac --> Fig.

      Insider joke that only the hipsters got.

      Delete
  8. I strongly recommend that everyone follow the comments that have been made since Barry re-posted the Darwinian Debating Devices series. Whenever an anti-ID comment is made, other commenters are invoking one of these devices and not responding to the question.

    Pope Barry really knows how to control his flock.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Prof Moran. As you know or should know I have long publicly asked that my name -- much less my full name -- not be used in discussions online for spam and security reasons; reasons that are patently obvious in an era of identity theft, spamming and the like; I will just note the outing and blacklisting agenda that are implicit. Perhaps, thirdly, you are also unaware that to use someone's name like that is exceptionally rude. I ask you to change the way you have spoken of me. Next, You will find a significant response here at UD, and may find the comment at no 2 useful. I write just once for record. Good day. KF

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aw, poor little butt-hurt gordon elliott mullings of Manjack Heights, Montserrat says it's rude to post his name, even though he's the one who made it public in the first place. Spam and identity theft? LOL, that's funny. For record? That's HILARIOUS.

      Believe it or not, gordo, what you say is not 'cast in stone' as some sort of 'divine record of revealed truth', you pompous, sanctimonious, moronic blowhard.

      -------------------------------------------------

      Larry, when I first published my comment above it didn't show up. If it shows up along with this one please delete one. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. Although I have no sympathy with kairosfocus in general, I completely sympathize with his request that his "handle" be used rather than his real name. "The whole truth" uses a pseudonym. TWT would be upset if "outed", even if it were rather easy to discover TWT's real name.

      There is not the slightest evidence that kairosfocus is engaging in deception by using his pseudonym. He's as much entitled to it as TWT is.

      So knock off it, TWT.

      Delete
    3. Part of kairofocus' so-called "significant response":

      Intelligent Design advocates do not demand a “detailed blow-by-blow account of the historical process” by which bacterial flagella originated. All we ask for is a semi-plausible calculation showing that the probability of bacterial flagella originating in our cosmos by known natural processes probably exceeds 10^(-150). Heck, I’d be happy with a calculation showing that for just one of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum. I can understand why Professor Moran might balk at calculating the odds of life originating by natural processes, but one protein? We’re talking about a single molecule here. Why be so coy, Professor?

      Maybe, for an encore, kairofocus could calculate the odds of his coming into existence. That is to say, assuming human beings have already evolved (or been "intelligently designed", LOL!)), how likely it that a person with his exact genome would have eventually arisen.

      After he has calculated the no-doubt astronomically large odds against his existence, he can perhaps reflect on whether he has proven he does not exist, whether he has proven that he came into existence thru some supernatural miracle unrelated to the usual biological process of human reproduction, or whether he has merely proven that he's a bloody IDiot who hasn't a fucking clue what he's talking about.

      Oh, and then later in that "significant response" he goes on at length about an article by fellow IDiot Jonathan McLatchie. LOL! Remember him?

      http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2013/08/what-happens-when-creationist-argument.html

      Delete
    4. «I ask you to change the way you have spoken of me»

      Sure, because the petulant stupidity with which GEM of the IDiotic Initiative refers to the whole of the scientific enterprise is so fucking respectful.

      Delete
    5. Joe Felsenstein, I obviously disagree and will continue to use gordo's real name here unless Larry tells me not to.

      Delete
    6. I think it is childish for He Who Shall Not Be Named to object to us using his name when *he put his real initials in his internet ID*, but nevertheless it's his decision. He's allowed to make decisions that seem childish.

      So as a compromise, I would suggest that from now on we call him He Who Shall Not Be Named (HWSNBN).

      Delete
    7. @Diogenes, that seems entirely appropriate.

      @TWT, you obviously don't mind if we "out" you, right?

      Delete
    8. I do think it is inappropriate for TWT to refer to the town where He Who Shall Not Be Named lives. I might change my mind if HWSNBN provides his home town himself, but I don't know that he has. HWSNBN has posted photos of the island where he lives, but we don't need to know his town or neighborhood.

      What next, a street address? I don't want the street addresses of any of our pro-ID opponents posted anywhere. Dembski has 6 kids; we should NOT know his street address. Ditto anybody with a family.

      Delete
    9. sez GEM of The Kairos InitiativeWednesday, October 22, 2014 6:19:00 AM
      Prof Moran. As you know or should know I have long publicly asked that my name -- much less my full name -- not be used in discussions online for spam and security reasons; reasons that are patently obvious in an era of identity theft, spamming and the like…
      Given the demonstrable fact that Gordon Mullings has included his own real name in a webpage that he, himself has linked to on more individual occasions than I can count, an objective observer… an onlooker, if you will… would, I think, be forgiven for thinking that Gordon Mullings' explicitly stated concerns re: identity theft & etc are, in fact, not Gordon Mullings actual reason(s) for demanding that other people refrain from using Gordon Mullings' real name. And given the evidence provided by the corpus of Gordon Mullings' writings at Uncommon Descent, an onlooker would, similarly, be forgiven for thinking that Gordon Mullings' real reason for asking that others refrain from using his real name, is that Gordon Mullings regards the use of his real name as a trumped-up excuse (and one of many such!) to dismiss the arguments of others without the necessity of demonstrating that others' arguments are in any way flawed.

      Delete
    10. In that case you could either

      (1) Complain about the dismissal of your argument on that basis, arguing a lot about where he did or did not link to his own name, or
      (2) Just not use his name at all, using "kairosfocus" instead, thus leaving him one less excuse to dismiss your argument.

      I can't see any positive reason for using his name, unless you get your jollies from irritating him.

      Delete
    11. I side with Joe on this naming GEM thing. Besides, the real fun is to irritate GEM the IDiot by showing him to be the imbecile that he is. Much more productive. Take a look at the point 2 he refers to and cry of laughter at the self-contradiction. Useful indeed, as GEM promised. Only not in the way GEM might have wanted it to be. See? Gem is both an IDIot and an idiot. That we see this clearly must irritate him in a much better way than using his whole name.

      Delete
    12. @photosynthesis: OK, so why do you not call him "kairosfocus"?

      Delete
    13. @Joe,
      Well, I did not use his full name. I called him GEM because that's what he used above. But sure. KF, or kairosfocus, it is. No problem.

      Delete
    14. Joe Felsenstein asked:

      "@TWT, you obviously don't mind if we "out" you, right?"

      Who are the "we" that you're referring to? Tell you what, Joe, if you can find and show that I've ever publicly associated my real name with my user name 'The whole truth', go ahead and "out" me.

      And even though I wouldn't describe it as getting "my jollies", I admit that I enjoy irritating gordon elliott 'Mr. Leathers' mullings. I think it's safe to say that I have read a lot more of gordo's voluminous, tyrannical, dominionist spewage on the internet than you or most other people and I've been the target of TOTALLY FALSE, outrageous accusations by gordo. Many other people have been the target of false, outrageous accusations by him too. He is a heinous monster who pretends to be THE moral pillar of the world community. As far as I'm concerned, gordo deserves nothing but disrespect and mockery.

      Diogenes said:

      "I might change my mind if HWSNBN provides his home town himself, but I don't know that he has."

      Hmm, how do you think that I or anyone else figured out where he lives? And if I remember correctly, someone else figured it out first. gordo likes to play the part of an innocent 'private' person who has been surreptitiously, nefariously, and threateningly 'outed', even though he has publicly provided a lot of information about himself and his family. Contrary to what gordo would like people to believe, I have never been to Montserrat, I have never stalked gordo or his family or snuck into his home, and I have never threatened him or his family. Everything that I've found about him is publicly available on the internet.

      Delete
  10. At UD's link provided by GEM the IDiot, we find this "gem":

    «2. Intelligent Design does not “begin with the unshakeable assumption that gods exist,” as Professor Moran alleges. We don’t even begin with the assumption that a Designer exists; rather, it is something we attempt to argue for, on the basis of probabilities. Professor Moran should know us better than that.»

    This attempt at a "clarification" is evidently self-refuting. The only reason to "attempt to argue for" a "Designer" is if they are convinced already that there must be a Designer (aka "God", notice the capital in "Designer"!). They indeed start with the unshakable assumption that "God" exists. Professor Moran knows them quite well.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Holy shit. That UD entry is amazing:

    «3. Intelligent Design advocates do not demand a “detailed blow-by-blow account of the historical process” by which bacterial flagella originated.»

    But then Torley cites mclatchie (bold is theirs, not mine!):

    «The most common response to the claim that the bacterial flagellum manifests irreducible complexity has been to point to the type III secretion system (T3SS), a needle-like syringe used by certain bacteria (e.g. the archetype for this system Yersinia pestis) to inject toxins into organisms, as a possible evolutionary predecessor. There are a number of problems, however, with this hypothesis. For one thing, it sidesteps the need to also explain the components of the type III export machinery (including FlhA, FlhB, FliR, FliQ, FliP, FliI etc.), at least most of which are essential for its function.»

    So, let's see, they get the explanation that the flagellum could have originated by the evolution of the T3SS, so they go to the next thing and demand more details! Sounds like they want a «“detailed blow-by-blow account of the historical process” by which bacterial flagella originated.»

    Those guys! No surprise that they are called IDiots.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have recognized for many years that YEC/ID types simply do not think their claims/arguments through before making them. At all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They think their claims through. They consistently ask themselves, "Will this claim increase the political and scientific and intellectual and moral authority of my preferred religious leaders?" If no, they stop; if yes, they proceed full speed ahead. Everything they say and do is consistent with a program to say ANYTHING so long as it increases the perceived authority of their preferred religious leaders. On this point they are consistent.

      But questions like "Is this claim true?" they rarely ask; and "Does this claim contradict what I just said 30 seconds ago?" they have never thought about at all.

      Delete
  13. "I can't see any positive reason for using his name, unless you get your jollies from irritating him."

    Well, irritating him does have its joys. Unfortunately, it is not much of a challenge.

    But he is a hypocrite. Recently at UD he outed someone's full name whom had never used his full name on UD. And then linked to a different web site that had an article with the person's full name on it.

    When called on it, Gordo rationalized that he didn't out him because his full name was found on another web site. When it was pointed out to him that the same was true for him, he went into full batshit crazy mode and invoked a banning. So much for the amnesty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But he is a hypocrite...

      I wouldn't be too surprised.

      Delete
    2. "You got a link for that"

      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/no-bomb-after-10-years/#comments

      It starts around comment 267 and picks up again at 321.

      Delete
    3. Well, if he is doing the same thing (I find it hard to follow all this at the linked commentary) then there is an argument for ignoring his request for anonymity.

      But I recommend that we be better than that, quite possibly better than his behavior.

      Delete
    4. Also read comments 286 through 412 in the UD thread linked below (you can ignore the comments by batshit77). Pay special attention to the comments by franklin and gordo, and extra special attention to comment 300.

      http://tinyurl.com/avyvxjv

      And feel free to look at the rest of that thread to see if I am leaving anything relevant out by suggesting the reading of comments 286 through 412.

      By the way, last night was the first time I saw and read that thread.

      Of course there are many more demonstrations of gordo's double standards, dishonesty, false accusations, massive exaggerations, and other numerous flaws.

      Oh, and gordo makes it easy to find his real name. All it takes is a click on his kairosfocus username at UD which will take you to one of his blog pages, scroll down that page a little way and click on Homepage (just above Contents), scroll down to Cell Leader's Manual (lower right) and click on it. Now look at the "byline" on that page.

      His name is in many places on that blog, and it's easy to find elsewhere too.

      And in case any of you, who are interested, don't keep up with the Uncommonly Dense Thread 5 at AtBC, read the comments by Acartia_Bogart, me, and Richardhughes on pages 62 and 63 (so far).

      Delete
    5. We are all familiar with Kairos' ultra hypocrisy, grandly accusing evolutionists of various "crimes" such as "slanders", "well-poisoning", "bully-boyism", "threats against minor children", and "conscious deception", accusations which KF, like the Christian preacher he is, hurls down from his lofty Olympian perch of moral superiority; while KF engages in the very behaviors he accuses others of, not at distant times in his past, but indeed within the very threads where KF makes his accusations. Time and again, when scientists like Nick Matzke accurately and patiently explain scientific data to the non-scientist ID proponents, KF accuses them of "conscious deception"; but in the very same thread, if any evolutionist accuses KF of being deceptive, KF clutches his pearls, screams "Slander!" and bans the evolutionist, as he did to Nick Matzke. KF denounces any evolutionist who refers to him by his real name, equating that to threats, an accusation made by KF himself in this very thread; yet KF causally outs Rich by using his full name, and when Acartia Bogart points out KF's hypocrisy, KF bans Bogart, then claims it isn't censorship when he does it.

      Again and again, KF accuses evolutionists of "slander" and "well-poisoning", while in the same thread KF tries to associate evolutionists with "threats against minor children" (TAMC), an attempt at guilt by association and a "distractor" (to use KF's phrase) to divert attention away from the exposure of the anti-evolution fraud. KF's accusations are almost never substantiated with evidence, especially KF's endless dragging out of his kiddies, and the alleged evolutionist "threats against minor children" (an accusation apparently directed primarily at TWT and secondarily at the recently-banned Acartia Bogart, an accusation which KF has never substantiated with a stick of evidence.) Again and again KF drags out his kiddies, and associates us with "TAMC", then KF demands that all evolutionists denounce the "threats against minor children" (TAMC), thus he demands that we acknowledge an evolutionist really engaged in TAMC, or else accuses us of being "enablers" of TAMC. In the absence of evidence that TAMC actually happened, we should never acknowledge the reality of these alleged events or the other imaginative fairy tales emitted by KF's active imagination.

      Delete
    6. As a classic example of KaosFucus' ultra hypocrisy, I bring you comment #376 from the above-linked thread at UD. Here KF is explaining why he banned Nick Matzke, after Matzke was lured (dare I say "tricked") into doing the UDites a big favor and giving them a real guest post by a real scientist at their shitty Xian witch doctor blog. They lured Matzke in, insulted him, then KF banned him. Here KF, from his lofty Olympian perch of moral superiority, explains why he did it. I apologize for the comment's incoherence-- I have elided nothing, as I want the reader to get the full effect of the chaotic, if not hysterical, mind of the ID proponent.

      KaosFucus:
      "Any serious commenter intending to be fair would have checked out that NM [Nick Natzke] falsely accused me of deceit in an earlier thread several weeks ago [at roughly Christmas time], as in: “Gish Gallop” . . . as Rational Wiki defines, a very serious accusation of public deceit (and as a rule a patently false accusation, starting with the late Mr Gish himself, who could not have won the vast majority of 3 – 400 debates if he had been doing what he was caricatured as doing by hard core evolutionary materialist ideologues in order to dismiss what he was saying and showing by smearing the messenger, i.e. accuse without good warrant of wholesale “quote mining,” which is itself an informal — and in our experience here at UD, usually false — accusation of deceitful out of context quotation . . . note the in extenso cites I had to give to correct that insinuation and later accusation, regarding especially Gould’s career-long position as a world class expert on what the fossil record actually substantiates and contains). That is the context in which I informed him that absent amends for that, he [Nick] was not welcome and would be removed as a slanderous heckler, cf. 299 above where I pointed this out to F [Franklin], and 39 on here, where I summarised what happened to JG [Joe Security Clearance Gallien] . . . with links to the scene of the crime. NM chose to double down, and I took disciplinary action for cause. F’s [Franklin's] cleverly misleading half-truth on in the same thread, speaks volumes, sadly revealing volumes. Onlookers, THIS is the COMMON level of behaviour by too many objectors to design thought, and if these unscrupulous hecklers are allowed free reign in UD’s threads, there would be a fever swamp race to the gutter. I do this for the record, not to feed the troll who will predictably continue twisting the matter into pretzels. KF
      [KairosFocus at UD, CAPS in original, bold added, links removed.]

      Notice how KF tries to bootstrap his way up from a false accusation against Nick Matzke to "the COMMON level of behavior by too many objectors to design thought", (like we should be ashamed of accusing KF of deception, when he is actually deceptive), and his portrayal of himself as a morally superior judge.

      For KairosFucus, it's not just the sadism, it's the power. He's a miserable nobody and his only "joy" in life is pretending to moral superiority over real scientists who proved he was lying.

      Delete
    7. And gordon e mullings continues his double standard power trip in his new post at UD:

      http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/darwinian-debating-devices-17-de-nile-is-a-river-in-egypt/

      Read the comments. Notice gordo's double standard regarding joe in that thread (and all other threads), and be sure to notice gordo's loud speaker in the ceiling abuse of rich's number 8 comment.

      gordo really needs to look at himself and his fellow IDiot-creationists and other bible thumpers before he accuses evolutionists (and others) of all kinds of horrible, amoral/immoral and even criminal behavior including enabling and guilt by association behavior, especially when his enabling and associations are such as they are and his outrageous accusations are completely false.

      Delete
    8. Diogenes, it is worse than even you have detailed.At comment 55 of this OP:
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/darwinian-debating-devices-17-de-nile-is-a-river-in-egypt/#comment-522966

      Gordo starts:
      "Rich, I have but little time."

      And then proceeds with 1511 incomprehensible words, followed by a 171 word follow-up comment. We can only imagine the tome that would have followed if he had some time.

      At comment 50 I included this comment:

      "KF to Richard T. Hughs ” Strike two. Kindly, fix tone, attitude and behaviour NOW if you are interested in serious discussion rather than playing the ill-bred troll.”

      KF to Joe Galien: “PPS: Joe, I have not had time to monitor your comments. If you have joined in a mud wrestling match in a gutter, please stop now.”

      Strike two for Rich for presenting arguments and disagreeing with KF. A please stop to Joe, in the top three most abusive commenters on UD.

      Isn’t the double standard one of the DDD? Or hypocrisy?'"


      At comment 55 he provided me with a warning:

      "(And those who look for “hypocrite” as a handy club to pick up, should note that that is the key difference with Joe [who has had some pretty serious discipline applied in this blog when he clearly needed it], he slips off the wagon but accepts that there is a wagon and is willing to try. I would tolerate someone who slips from time to time while struggling to do better, but someone playing the incorrigibly ruthless manipulative reprobate — and WS you are beginning to joint eh club — is not doing himself or anyone any good. BTW, that raises the issue of grounding OUGHT on the ISes from hydrogen to humans on evo mat premises, apart from might and manipulation make right. A necessary fail, cf here. If we are under moral government, as your behaviour suggests at one level, then that points to a moral governor. But if all of this is simply manipulative rhetoric to promote an amoral, nihilism enabling agenda — as Plato warned against in The Laws Bk X 2350 years ago, we who see such agendas in action should take warning. )"

      I was hoping that someone here could translate it for me.

      Delete
    9. Kudos to you for calling He Who Shall Not Be Named as the hypocrite he is. His streams of name-calling and invective must stop.

      Here is another classic bit of name-calling and persecution accusations from HWSNBN, this pointed out already at AtBC.

      It starts out with the usual pseudoscience, pseudotechnical arglebargle. Then it morphs seamlessly into a stream of hysterical name-calling.

      Once again HWSNBN drags out his kiddies and accuses of threatening his children, "stalking uninvolved family including minor children". He is insanely fond of the mouthful "inherently amoral ideologues with worldviews that open the door to nihilism." Also we're drunk and on drugs.

      LH, FSCO/I is an extension of the work of Orgel and Wicken in the ’70′s. It is effectively the same thing as what we see in common computer or multimedia file sizes: functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information. With trillions of known cases, it reliably indicates design. It can be quantified e.g. Chi_500 = I*S – 500, functionally specific bits beyond the solar system needle in haystack threshold. It has been on the table since the 1970′s. The response of committed evolutionary materialist zealots and fellow travellers is to try to obfuscate or twist it into pretzels and pretend it is not valid, as we can fairly easily see. Evidence and logic and inductive reasoning are not the real problem, on much smaller grounds any number of scientific laws are routinely accepted. The problem is selective hyperskepticism and linked ideological lock in of a materialist origins narrative impervious to evidence. “inherently amoral ideologues with worldviews that open the door to nihilism”
      It can only be exposed to the point here it can no longer be got away with, and those who undertake such a task can count on being viciously attacked every inch of the way by inherently amoral ideologues with worldviews that open the door to nihilism. Personalities, nastiness, bully-boyism, expulsion if the nihilists have power, outing tactics, cyberstalking, stalking uninvolved family including minor children and more. Some of the more unhinged and obsessive fanatics we describe as using such tactics give evidence of anger management problems, drink and or drugs, being gun nuts, possible post traumatic stress disorders and more. KF
      [KairosFocus comment #231, UD, Oct. 24, 2013.]

      Delete
    10. Pretty much everything gordo says can be translated to: 'I AM LORD GORDON THE ALMIGHTY!

      And regarding this about joey: "...he slips off the wagon but accepts that there is a wagon and is willing to try. I would tolerate someone who slips from time to time while struggling to do better..."

      Slips from time to time??? gordon elliot mullings is a dishonest, two-faced, unscrupulous monster with delusions of godhood. joey gallien has NEVER been on 'the wagon' that gordo's referring to and doesn't even know what it is, and the only thing that joey tries is to be the most obnoxious, ignorant, abhorrent IDiot-creationist on the internet. It's a close race between joey, gordo, and some of the other IDiot-creationists.

      Delete
    11. I had actually forgotten that gordo has many times accused me of making "mafioso style threats against wife and minor children" (he means his wife and children), but I was reminded of the "mafioso style" part when I just read gordo's comments in torley's UD post that's a response to Larry's post about hyperskepticism. What a lying, bloviating wacko that gordo is.

      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/selective-hyperskepticism-a-response-to-professor-moran/

      Delete
    12. And speaking of torley, he dishonestly says:

      "2. Intelligent Design does not “begin with the unshakeable assumption that gods exist,” as Professor Moran alleges. We don’t even begin with the assumption that a Designer exists; rather, it is something we attempt to argue for, on the basis of probabilities. Professor Moran should know us better than that.

      3. Intelligent Design advocates do not demand a “detailed blow-by-blow account of the historical process” by which bacterial flagella originated. All we ask for is a semi-plausible calculation showing that the probability of bacterial flagella originating in our cosmos by known natural processes probably exceeds 10^(-150). Heck, I’d be happy with a calculation showing that for just one of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum. I can understand why Professor Moran might balk at calculating the odds of life originating by natural processes, but one protein? We’re talking about a single molecule here. Why be so coy, Professor?"

      What. A. Crock. It never ceases to amaze me that IDiot-creationists must believe that blatantly lying about their unshakable assumptions, motives, beliefs, demands, and agenda is going to fool rational people who are familiar with their dishonest IDiotic games.

      Delete
    13. TWT,

      Did you also check their self-refutations? All in the very same OP!

      Of course they start with the unshakeable belief that there's a god and then try and fit everything and anything into something that might get them to get there. No cherry-picking is too much if they are to attain their goals. No amount of selective hyperskepticism will do either. They have to go fully into it. Then present their bullshit as if it wasn't so transparent that they could not care less about honest calculations. "Why be so coy?" Heh. How can they claim to want some calculations knowing quite well that nobody has all the variables and scenarios necessary for any such calculations? Nah, all they want is to push a creationist agenda into the classroom. Honesty, science, knowledge? Nah. They just want religion.

      They're plain and open hypocrites. If I were a believer I would be very ashamed to being associated with such bunch.

      Delete
    14. "Did you also check their self-refutations? "

      Yes. Refuting their own claims while denying that they do so is a big part of IDiot-creationist behavior.

      Delete
  14. "(I find it hard to follow all this at the linked commentary)"

    I agree. Deleting and editing comments make it difficult to follow a discussion. But I agree with you. But can I continue to call him Gordo? Allow me to maintain a little bit of immaturity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not in charge here -- Larry is, and he has used KF's real name in the Original Post. I will continue to call him kairosfocus.

      Delete
    2. You have never been, unless you would claim to be and active Designer....LMAO

      Delete
  15. Joe, I didn't mean to offend. It was just my lame attempt to lighten the mood. I have utmost respect for your opinion. I am of your age group so I assume that your parents beat it in to you that everybody deserves respect. But my parents added a little caveat. "Until they prove otherwise".

    My respect (lack of) for Gordo is not based on his belief in ID. It is based on how he presents himself in these "discussions".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was not offended, not sure why you thought I was, but let it pass.

      Delete