Got a new record for a comment thread's length, thanks to a troll. It featured a lot of posts that essentially amounted to claims that asking him to define meaningless words was a "semantics game," while he claimed that the terms are inherently undefinable, or provided definitions that covered absolutely everything that could possibly exist. He's also returned as I type this.
So, here we go:
[Appeal_to_Ridicule="Tu_Quoque"]
IDiot: "I contend that there is a big whatsit that designed the universe!"
Skeptic: "What's your evidence?"
IDiot: "Everything's designed."
Skeptic: "What makes you think that?"
IDiot: "It's all flarschnikity!"
Skeptic: "What do you mean?"
IDiot: "It's in the dictionary."
Skeptic: "I see it, but it doesn't relate. It's also quite vague. Maybe you should define it."
IDiot: "Playing the semantics, game, huh? You just want to tie down my definition so that you can refute it."
Skeptic: "Well, it's not very productive to debate in the meaningless gibberish you're creating. Besides, if you've made your argument impossible to refute, there's no way to know if you're wrong. If an unfalsifiable hypothesis is wrong, you'd never be able to tell."
IDiot: "Why do you hate flarschnikit?!"
Skeptic: "Wha? How can I hate something I don't know anything about? You said it was undefinable. I might as well make up a word of my own and ask you why you hate it."
IDiot: "Well, your hypothesis about black holes is stupid! You've never seen a black hole! You've never seen gravity in action!"
Skeptic: "We have seen gravity in action. It's in all sorts of practical applications. We've also seen black holes exert gravity on nearby objects. Black holes have observable effects, and we're observing them."
IDiot: "You've never seen gravity in action!"
Skeptic: "Uh, yes I have. I see it all the time in the course of my regular activities."
IDiot: "You've never seen gravity in action!"
Skeptic: "Even if I didn't see it in everyday life, there is such a thing as evidence: I don't have to see a rock fall: I can see it higher up in one instance, and come back to see it lower. I can also set up controlled tests to verify."
IDiot: "So you admit you don't have to actually see stuff to know it's there! You have faith in air, even though you've got evidence, and no need for faith! I win by redefiinition!"
[/Appeal_to_Ridicule]
2 comments:
The thing that gets me is his original line of reasoning involved his "facts" ..cough..cough that the ID Scientists ...cough...cough... had taken religion out of ID. Which of course we all know is a steaming load of horse shit and he was kind enough to prove to us later down teh thread by bringining god into the discussion.
Then he gave us the "You don't know everything" typical comment when his very argument is that a designer did it. That's saying we know how it happened. There is no more searching needed. ARHAGAHGAHGAHHAG!!!!!
Blatant ignorance of what science is or what its goals are combine with zealotry backing a failed idea. KILLING ME.
I need a drink.
He not only proved it to us, he actually admitted it. Of course, that's when he immediately switched tactics and said "But science relies on faith, too!" (Note that we were talking about using the supernatural, which he admitted IDers did, not about faith. Another convenient subject switch.)
Post a Comment