Zdenny has two modes: fail, and fail harder

Our favorite troll is back. And here I am feeding him yet again. He has posted on this thread, however it’s not only wholly incorrect, my reply is too bloody long to make a proper comment, so I deleted the original comment and publish it here in its entirety.

Darwinian evolution is a worldview that says that nature began itself and then designed itself. Theistic evolution is a worldview that says nature was created and then designed by mind.

Evolution itself does not disprove Christianity as Genesis 1 explains the the world was created through a process. It doesn’t say that God created everything in one day; rather, six days emphasizing this process. Ironically, the process is almost identical to current scientific theory.

More below the fold…

The reason I reject Darwinian evolution is both philosophical as well as scientific. First, philosopically, it is irrational. Second, there has only been speculation rather than demonstration of Darwin’s basic tenants.

It is rather hard to accept the idea that birds came from dinosaurs or that whales came from bears (Darwin believed this)! These are just a couple of ideas that require great leaps of faith in order to be Darwinian. When you look at the BAT, BAT’s show up in the fossil record as BATS and never experience a significant change to their morphology

If evolution had been proven, I could just as easily become a Theistic evolutionists; however, the evidence does not exist and that is why I reject it as a fact. It remains a theory and I believe it always will; however, let the scientist keep on trying as this is what science is suppose to do. Science explores all relationships between objects and speculates about causes and expectations.

Christianity is the birth canal for science because we believe that the Creation was designed by a mind and this design can be explored with our mind..

God Bless..

For the millionth time, you’re talking out your asshole. There is no overarching “Darwinian evolution worldview”. There is SCIENCE, and there is THEOLOGY THAT COMES INTO CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE. You are in the latter. You assume that atheists de facto embrace science. While I do, it does not have a prophet, and especially not Darwin. And being an atheist does not mean I must embrace science as the alternative. There are a number of faiths I could have that do not involve deities whatsoever, and yet do not put stock into science as the objective study of reality. I choose reality because I like reality and do not want to impose my wishes on it the way theists do by saying “it would suck if death was permanent so LET’S INVENT HEAVEN! It would suck if the universe was harsh and merciless and our fellow humans were our only support structure so LET’S ASCRIBE LAWS TO A SKY-FATHER!” You cannot stand reality so you borrow someone else’s inventions because they make for good security blankets. Because you can’t handle the universe being wholly uninterested in you. Because you can’t handle the idea that life is not particularly special or especially designed. Because you can’t handle that you’re not the Chosen Ones.

You also, specifically, cannot say that science is borne of Christianity. The Muslims invented the scientific method. Rather, I should say, people borne into Islam discovered that the scientific method was the best way to learn about things.

Your assertion about a mind presupposes that we define “mind” the same way. I define it as a consciousness derived from the physical configuration of a neural net, dependant on that physical configuration. That physical configuration can be a brain, or it can be a computer. It cannot be “nothing”. It cannot be “God”. You presuppose that a mind can exist without a physical form — prove it. Show me a mind that can think without a body. If you can show me that, you’re showing me the deity you’re PRESUPPOSING with this whole damn argument.

And who’s to say if you prove that there’s a mind, that it’s going to be Yahweh? What if you’ve successfully proven that there’s a mind behind it all, but it was Zeus or Mithra, and he’s mighty pissed that you think he’s that lame warrior god Yahweh? What then? Have you allowed for the fact that your assertions might be asserting things that are only partly right? Where do you derive your absolute certainty that you understand the fabric of the universe when all you have to go on is your own brain and a devilish will to assert the dominance of your really-old foundational text over the whole of scientific progress? How do you account for the fact that only 5% of scientists believe in God, and precious few of those believe in the same God as you do? And precious few of those believe that God created the universe / world in six literal days, as you do?

The reason I reject your notion of God out of hand is because you don’t have positive claims. You don’t make any testable hypotheses. You say “the universe was designed by a mind, therefore it makes sense and we can explore it, therefore that mind must be Yahweh because the Bible said so, therefore the Bible is true and where science disagrees, science must be wrong, because science is derived from exploring the mind that the universe was obviously made by.” That’s your whole circular repetitive argument in a nutshell. Nothing you say stems from any evidence. You start with an assertion, you make other assertions that supposedly back it up, but your whole damn castle is suspended from the skyhook called Yahweh. And that skyhook doesn’t exist. If it did, it could do all sorts of things, like, say, instantly convert every person on Earth to believing sheep. But you have a built-in defense against that — that it wouldn’t glorify God if people didn’t have a choice. So he completely fucks up his creation, creates a lot of animals that are doomed to burn for eternity in a hot place, all because 99.9% of them aren’t going to have any chance of even figuring out that they’re supposed to be praising him. What a vain, egotistical non-entity it is that you worship. What a horrible tyrant and an evil creature. How do you sleep at night, believing that such a creature exists, and loves you? I’d be horrified if I learned that such a monster loved me. I am grateful that no such creature exists, grateful beyond words.

Oh, and here. The history of chiroptera. That’s bats, to you. We don’t know much about their early evolution because fossils are hard to come by… because they’re squishy and live in areas that don’t usually produce fossils anyway. That’s not to say there AREN’T fossils of them. Because there are. Look at the link. You’ve never looked at any link I’ve ever given you, watched any video except long enough to pull a quote and refute just that quote without any evidence for your refutation. Just do me the favor of researching the thing that you just, once again, spouted off without any shred of evidence about.

The more I talk to you, the less I feel like I’m talking to a person. I feel like I’m talking to a robot. Something so programmed to stay on its course that any deviation would be as death to your ability to converse. You internalize nothing except that which already agrees with your worldview. You spout nonsense in streams of word salad. On the other hand, the atheists you debate with, they read your laughable musings and understand them, and find evidence that refutes them, regularly. I know what you’re saying. I know what you believe. You know nothing about what atheists think, nor what scientists think, so you gladly lump them together.

The only solace I have in all of this is that you are in a far more vast minority than I am. People that believe in the literal Biblical creation, in the literal death and resurrection, are actually a smaller group than atheists. And they are entirely made up of people that have heard nothing about evolution except what the Bible-thumpers and FOX News have regularly lied to you about.

You believe liars and charlatans, and you believe them wholeheartedly. You are so blind that you believe everyone but you is blind. This is so sad. And yet it will take you nothing to reverse that turn of phrase onto me, because it’s easy to say “I know you are but what am I”. That’s even sadder. Not a word of this will register with you, because it cannot, because it is coming from an opposing viewpoint that does not consider your Bible to be anything but a work of poetry and fiction. It is therefore anathema, and therefore nothing I say CAN register. Ever.

And yet, despite knowing that I am an atheist and therefore unsaveable, you always close with “God Bless”. You know that I have blasphemed by denying Yahweh’s existence. I am therefore not only not blessed because Yahweh doesn’t exist, I am also not blessed because if he DID exist, he explicitly said that blasphemy is an unforgivable sin.

I think we’re done here. You do not profit from repeatedly dashing yourself against the rocks, and I do not profit from being those rocks. You are permanently moderated now, unconditionally. I would have continued accepting the 500-word essay I had proposed, but no longer — you’ve slapped that hand away too many times.

Don’t consider this censorship. Consider it, me trying to save both our sanity. You’re not interested in discussion — only refutation and proselytization. Therefore, I’m no longer interested in hearing you, because you’ve never been interested in hearing me, and I don’t have to give you a platform here, especially not when you have your own damn blog to spout your nonsense on. You’ll note that I’ve never bothered you there — probably for the same reason you never see scientists going door to door asking you if you’ve heard the good news about atomic theory. Or atheists asking, “have you ever wondered if there’s a higher power? Well, there’s probably not.” After which they’d bid you a good day and leave without the half-hour sermon you’d get from a theist.

Return to your corner of the web. Sully this place with your lies and your propaganda no more.

Zdenny has two modes: fail, and fail harder
The Bolingbrook Babbler:  The unbelievable truth is now at freethoughtblogs.com/babbler

6 thoughts on “Zdenny has two modes: fail, and fail harder

  1. 1

    A most excellent post, sir! I particularly enjoyed the chiroptera link. I’m particularly fond of bats for some strange reason.

    I still allow zdenny to post unmoderated at my own blog. Many times I do have to ask myself why. He is rather infuriating, particularly in the robotic responses that you mentioned. I think I just do it for the lulz.

    Just a reminder for zdenny: We’re not laughing with you; we’re laughing at you.

  2. 2

    Oh, there were lulz to be had at first. Not so much any more.

    And no, Zdenny, no amount of cajoling and exhortations that I’m trying to “silence you” is going to make me give you a platform here, because you don’t deserve one, having flouted my one request — for actual dialogue. Despite your use of the word, you obviously don’t know what that means — that means both of us listen to one another’s arguments and understand them BEFORE trying to poke holes in them. You have never exhibited the merest sign that you’re even trying to listen or read the evidence or confront us on our legitimately held beliefs, given the frequency of your lying about what our beliefs are. And posting repeatedly that I’m silencing you is both ridiculous and blatantly wrong.

    You have a platform on your blog. I’ll even link it for you: it’s right here. You know, in case you’ve forgotten. Or in case you’ve gained any sympathizers. There is your platform, there is where you are free to talk. Return there. Feel free to lie all you want about me, about science, or about your imaginary friend, there. I won’t countenance anything you say any more. It will be as though you never commented.

  3. 5

    What an eloquent smackdown of someone so totally deserving. I agree with Mike -it’s not censorship to control the input on your own blog, especially with someone like that who refuses, like a petulant child, to obey the rules and play fair. Good riddance, and one well put by you.

  4. 6

    Thank you kindly, folks. This has been a long time coming, to be quite honest. I kept hoping he’d honestly try — and by the end of it, I would have accepted just about any effort put forth that legitimately showed he was making any attempt to understand what science has discovered about the topics he lies about so regularly. It’s kind of sad, really. If nothing else, he made a great foil. A bit too easily rebutted, though. I’d rather a sparring partner that “leveled up” alongside me. It’s pretty obvious he stopped collecting experience quite some time ago, sadly.

Comments are closed.