Statistics
So my last post was
5222 characters, ignoring quotes. Of that, Martin quoted
182 characters. Yes, he quoted just two sentences, or about 3.4%,
ignoring over 96%. Here is the trend over the last few exchanges; the percentage of my posts that Martin ignored in each exchange:
94, 100, 85, 82, 44, 94, 100, 100, 98, 88 and now 96.
Over the last eleven exchanges, there has only been one time he has quoted more than 20% of what I said. Bear these figures in mind when he accuses he of dodging questions.
More False accusations
The Pixie Still Flounders with Logic
Sad that our 'self-proclaimed' Phd gets so tangled up in reason and logic.
Why can Marin not give us any examples of that?
Because he made it up.
The Pix likes to conflate and dodge.
Remember, in his last eleven posts, Martin has only once quoted more that 20% of what I posted. Ten times out of eleven he just ignored 80% to 100% of what I said.
And yet he accuses
me of dodging! He might like to address the beam in his eye, but, of course, we know he never will.
So what is his supposed evidence for these false accusations...
For example the Pixie keeps 'purporting' to know that ID is really just religion... Too funny... and sad that she (or he) can't read actual ID sites and understand that ID only is about the science behind detecting design that is due to intelligence - it says nothing about who or what the intelligence is behind the evidence.
Turns out Martin thinks I am "tangled up in reason and logic" because I can see through the façade ID presents. Turns out Martin thinks I like to "conflate and dodge" because I can see through the façade ID presents.
Where is the bad reasoning, Martin?
Where is the bad logic, Martin?
What I am supposedly conflating, Martin? Do you even know what that word means?
Exactly what am I supposed to be dodging, Martin? Refusing to fall for someone's lies is not dodging, Martin.
Archaeology And Forensic Science
These are very relevant because both show that "design" can be part of legitimate science, if it is done right, and highlight that ID does not do it right.
Shaking my head at the Pix's latest (and now weakest) attempt to conflate. Please Pixie do tell all of us reading your silly words just what does 'archaeology and forensic science ' tell us about the designer of what they study? I think you probably meant 'process' instead of designer...simple rookie mistake.
Again, I have to wonder if Martin knows what "conflate" means. I am guessing "no".
He is apparently also ignorant of what forensic science and archaeology actually do. In both cases, they seek to learn all they can about the designer.
In forensic science, the designer is the guy who committed the crime, and from evidence at the crime scene a forensic scientist will attempt to determine if the designer was left or right handed, how tall he was. If there is a DNA sample or finger prints, the forensic scientist can even tell you exactly who did the crime. They will also try to learn as much as possible about how the designer did it.
I guess Martin has never seen CSI, or indeed countless other crime shows that use forensics to find the killer.
In archaeology, you will not identify the individual, but you are aiming to learn about the culture he belonged to. What technology did they have? What religion and other beliefs? When were they around? How far did they trade? Again, they will also try to learn as much as possible about how the designer did it.
This is basic stuff that, frankly, I would expect a kid to know. Note, I am not suggesting Martin is stupid or ignorant; the issue here is that he is
pretending. He is
pretending ID is not creationism, and that forces him to further pretend that archaeology and forensic science tell us nothing about the designer of what they study.
This, of course, s why he is obliged to ignore this simple question:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"
Lets see if the Pixie can read a post from the main ID site (not like some of the few religious sites that Pix tries to use to explain ID)..this is an actual ID site that explains it. :
By this, Martin says we should be reading about ID specifically on the Discovery Institute web site that maintains the façade that ID is not religion, and we should ignore the Discovery Institute web site that is promoting conferences on faith and science and is very clearly appealing to creationist Christians.
It is like that scene in the Wizard of Oz, where Toto has pulled back the curtain, and the real wizard is revealed.
Martin is desperate for us to see the façade and to believe it, and he gets upset when we dare to peek behind the curtain. What Martin presents here is the smoke and mirrors, the deceit the Discovery Institute want us to believe. I will not quote it, he trots it out enough times as it is.
The fact is that we
can see behind the curtain. Martin's shrill cries of "
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" are not going to convince anyone.
Especially when he continues to ignore this simple question.
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
ID Is Creationism In Disguise
Yeah Pixie...why do you keep trying to conflate ID and creationism?
I think the real question is why Martin continues to pretend they are separate.
Here is that question again:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
The reason Martin cannot answer it is that the answer is "yes". We all
know he believes the designer is actually the Christian God, so why can he not admit that? Because to do so would be to admit that actually ID is creationism.
I guess your trainer taught you to just stick to the darwinist script. ... Then you are free to make false statements like you continue to do and therefore ask questions that you likely know are ill-formed...mostly since your understanding is false - therefore you are more likely to formulate questions based on your false premise.
You see Pix....this is why it is important for you to have a working understanding of ID instead of an agenda against it....
The comment about "
just stick to the darwinist script" is especially funny given Martin is reduced to just quoting two paragraphs from the DI web site.
These same paragraphs he has trotted out in, for example, posts #2476, #2506, #2509, #2553 and just now in #2577. This is the script Martin is working to, and it makes up nearly half of his last post!
Martin And Facts
you really are not gaining any ground here with your silly attempts and 'PhD-like' attempts to look like you understand things you keep answering with less than factual responses.
Can anyone think of a time Martin presented any facts? Certainly not his latest post, which is just the stock paragraphs from the ID web site copy-and-pasted, padded out with unsupported opinions and false accusations.
That SETI Obsession
Well the Pix is in quite the Pickle with this one.....
A great example of Martin's relationship with facts.
Far from being in a pickle, I started a thread to make my position clear. No one on CARM presented an argument saying I was wrong, and Martin's only post on that thread had nothing to do with SETI.
This is prompted by comments by another poster; a creationist. To be honest, I am not sure quite what his position is, so I will not bother to link to it. I take the position that SETI uses science, but is not itself science. However, while looking at other views, I came across this blog post...
forums.carm.org
I bet Martin just wishes he was in that kind of pickle!
they can't accept that SETI is science....though the Pix tries to then pivot and say it is not....
So in Martin's fantasy world first I reject the claim that SETI is science, but then I "pivot" and... still eject the claim that SETI is science.
I guess "pivot" is another word Martin does not understand.
and tries to use some anonymous poster on a forum to prove it... all the while just ignoring the 100s of actual scientists in SETI. Just can't make that silly stuff up
I do not accept that SETI is science, and I have presented my case for that.
Martin continues to assert that it is, but consistently fails to support his opinion? Why does his only post on a thread about whether SETI is science not mention SETI at all? Why does he present no argument here? Simply, he has no argument. Just wishful thinking.