Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinian Debating Device #17: “The Black Knight Taunt”

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The essence of the “Black Knight Taunt” is to pretend overwhelming victory after suffering a crushing defeat. Here we have a classic example from a commenter named “keiths.”

In my No Bomb After 10 Years post I noted that after 10 years of debating origins I had never encountered a “science bomb” that would disabuse me of my ID position.

Amusingly, keiths insisted that he had posted just such a bomb over at The Skeptical Zone that proved that Darwinism is “trillions” of times better at explaining the data than ID. His argument failed at many levels. Yet, even more amusingly, he kept on insisting he had debunked ID after his so-called bomb had been defused by numerous commenters. See, e.g., here and here.

Here is the Black Knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

In my example, WJM lopped off the Black Knight’s arms and KF took out his legs. Yet days later he was still posting shrill comments announcing his triumph.

In the clip above Arthur gives the only response to “The Black Knight Taunt.” We pick up the scene after Arthur has cut off the knight’s arms and legs:

Black Knight: Right, I’ll do you for that!
King Arthur: You’ll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
King Arthur: What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I’m invincible!
King Arthur: …You’re a loony.

Arthur rides away.

Black Knight: Oh, oh, I see! Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off!

Comments
Rich, pardon but you have attitude showing. There is a FTR, which provides illustrations and remarks with onward links which also links right back here, which it supports. If you have something substantial to say above nasty name calling I am accessible at least intermittently these days. Gone again, after the brushfire of the morning. KFkairosfocus
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PST
roding @139, as Axel points out, you've got "the intellects of the likes of Kairosfocus, WJM, Cornelius, VJT, BA77, Barry, Joe et al"Rich
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PST
Why is it do you suppose that the leading lights of the UD movement - Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer etc do not post here? I believe Dembski did at one time. But given that this is supposed to be (afaik) the only real official ID blog, it's surprising they don't contribute more. No offense to those that do post here (often prolifically) but I think having the main ID thinkers post here would lend more credibility to the site.roding
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PST
Mindpowers, don't be bitter. Get some BBP.Rich
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PST
@ WJM #128 'kf, Thinking of them as mindless automatons, even though I treat them as conscious entities, grants me comfort and equanimity in the face of their tireless, nonsensical output. Otherwise, it’s just too profoundly sad and troubling to subject myself to.' I'm afraid it's clear to Keith (and his mum, I expect) and enkidunot, castellans of the army of the Black knight, himself, that the intellects of the likes of Kairosfocus, WJM, Cornelius, VJT, BA77, Barry, Joe et al are just not, nay, could never be, a match for the towering, magisterial intellects of the knights of Castle Darkness. Excuse me a second.... back in a minute... Ah.. that's better... Oops! Off again. Tries vainly to stifle another tearful laughter.Axel
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PST
I see UD is still having problems with Freedom of expression. I've had my account deleted for the 4th time and just reregistered again. Guys, you've got to stop grabbing every opportunity to look bad. KF has written another cowardly comments closed posts. This is typical of any regime trying to hold on but not having the truth on their side. Message control, spin, censorship.. Barry is to be commended for beginning UD's Glasnost - the rest of the old school hard-liners need to get behind it also.Rich
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PST
If you think anything I have posted is offered as “proof” of a theory you’re even more hopelessly uninformed than you seem.
Then why did you offer those concepts as "overarching" concepts not in need of "retesting", and challenge ID advocates to test them and submit papers, unless you considered them proof of something that ID couldn't falsify but wanted to? Were they just random evolutionary concepts you believe don't need retesting, even if they have nothing whatsoever to do with the ID position? They seem to me to be rather trivial evolutionary concepts that ID doesn't really quibble with directly. The only "overarching" evolutionary concept that ID directly challenges is the one that claims that unguided forces are sufficient to the task of generating novel macroevolutionary features.William J Murray
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PST
Sometimes there’s stasis, sometimes there’s gradual change, sometimes there are raid jumps. The theory has to accommodate all the conditions.
Organisms might change, or not. Evolutionary theory is 100% correct, and it keeps changing and improving every day.Silver Asiatic
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PST
Enkidu- Why is it that no one can link to this alleged theory of evolution? It's as if it doesn't exist.Joe
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PST
lifepsy
And when will you realize that even trillions of years of “speciation” does not necessitate an increase in complexity?
That point is never addressed. Survival itself, does not require an increase in complexity (bacteria survive quite well). The amount of complexity and variation we observe far outstrips environmental and survival pressures. And stasis shows a resistance to adaptation even through millions of years of environmental change. Evolutionary storytelling doesn't provide any real answers to those problems.Silver Asiatic
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PST
William J Murray It strikes me as a rather odd set of “overarching concepts” to use as “proof” of evolutionary theory vs ID concepts. If you think anything I have posted is offered as "proof" of a theory you're even more hopelessly uninformed than you seem.Enkidu
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PST
Evolution basic concepts 1. More individuals are produced each generation that can survive. 2. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable. 3. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment have a better chance to survive. 4. When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.
Might as well be talking about baraminology as that is what it says too.Joe
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PST
lifepsy If a theory is comfortable with opposing outcomes, it is completely disingenuous to then use one of those outcomes as evidence for the theory. Nowhere has ToE or any theory I know done that. Life is a complicated place and somethimes there isn't one simple explanation for all events. Take the arguments over gradualism vs. punk eek. In there real world rates of evolution are variable. Sometimes there's stasis, sometimes there's gradual change, sometimes there are raid jumps. The theory has to accommodate all the conditions. I'm sorry if you don't understand the purpose or formation of scientific theories. Have you ever thought about taking a beginning science class at your local community college?Enkidu
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PST
kf, Thinking of them as mindless automatons, even though I treat them as conscious entities, grants me comfort and equanimity in the face of their tireless, nonsensical output. Otherwise, it's just too profoundly sad and troubling to subject myself to.William J Murray
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PST
Enkidu said:
Why is it not surprising that you don’t understand even the basics of the theory you keep attacking?
Where have I attacked evolutionary theory? All I've done here recently is point out the absurdity of keith's "argument" and make a general comment about the current state of commentary in general on this blog. I don't really see where you can draw a conclusion about how much I understand evolutionary theory when I ask you to clarify what you consider to be the "overarching" evolutionary concepts.
1. More individuals are produced each generation that can survive. 2. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable. 3. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment have a better chance to survive. 4. When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.
It strikes me as a rather odd set of "overarching concepts" to use as "proof" of evolutionary theory vs ID concepts. Is it your belief that ID theory directly challenges any of the above?William J Murray
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PST
Enkidu 122
Evolution basic concepts 1. More individuals are produced each generation that can survive. 2. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable. 3. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment have a better chance to survive. 4. When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.
"Change over time" equivocations already? That didn't take long. When will you evo mystics realize that the same conditions would apply in a separate ancestry scenario? Is it that hard to figure out? And when will you realize that even trillions of years of "speciation" does not necessitate an increase in complexity? In fact all of the observational evidence of extant populations indicates the exact opposite - "speciation" = functional degeneracy or cycling around a mean average phenotype. Supposed evolutionary trajectories towards new anatomy or body-plans, or novel complexity of any kind remains nothing but a mystical imagination not found in data.lifepsy
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PST
WJM, I would challenge you on the mindedness claim. I agree, ideologies can lock us into rather strange and illogical states as we have seen, a case in point of the truimphalism of circularity, but it is clear that with effort we can wake up from errors. KFkairosfocus
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PST
Enkidu 119 If you're just going to quote half a sentence and not address my actual argument then please don't bother responding. As to your next inanity:
All scientific theories react and adapt to new data. That’s how science works.
If a theory is comfortable with opposing outcomes, it is completely disingenuous to then use one of those outcomes as evidence for the theory. Something Darwinian mystics like yourself will never understand. By the odd chance that you actually recognize the extreme plasticity of Evolution "theory", you will then go on to consider it a strength! The more the theory can change to accommodate the data, the better, right? lollifepsy
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PST
F/N 3: FTR note on design thought and the logic of the design inference, here, including illustrations. Discussion is of course continuing here in this thread. KFkairosfocus
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PST
William J Murray What are the overarching concepts of evolution that don’t need retesting? Why is it not surprising that you don't understand even the basics of the theory you keep attacking?
Evolution basic concepts 1. More individuals are produced each generation that can survive. 2. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable. 3. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment have a better chance to survive. 4. When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.
Again you are free to retest anything you want. Go for it, let us know the results.Enkidu
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PST
Summary of keith's "argument" (except without the misuse of Occam's Razor): if we assume natural forces is the better explanation by a factor of trillions, then natural forces is the better explanation by a factor of trillions. William J Murray
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PST
Enkidu said:
The overarching concepts of evolution don’t need retesting.
What are the overarching concepts of evolution that don't need retesting?William J Murray
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PST
lifepsy 115: Things like this simply are not tests of Evolution, Discovering a new detail doesn't affect the validity of the rest of the millions of pieces of evidence. The overarching concepts of evolution don't need retesting. They've withstood every test tossed at them for the last 150 years. Of course if you doubt the theory you're free to do any tests you want and publish the results. What's stopping you? )because Evolution reacts and adapts to such data All scientific theories react and adapt to new data. That's how science works.Enkidu
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PST
Keith said:
I’ve rebutted your previous criticisms. Do you have a new one?
Perhaps in your mind you actually think this is true. I can't imagine someone carrying this inane of an argument into the public square deliberately if they didn't actually believe in their mind it was a good argument. There is no rebuttal to the fact that your argument is attempting to reach a conclusion that ID already stipulates and which is entirely trivial to ID theory. If natural forces can plausibly produce a bacterial flagellum , a battleship or the Mona Lisa, ID theory already stipulates that "natural causes" is the better explanation. It's just bizarre to me that you keep insisting (and apparently believing) that your argument is significant when, even if we stipulate your argument is 100% correct and it's conclusion 100% valid, it is utterly trivial in nature because it assumes arguendo everything which ID theory challenges. I mean, the ID-side equivalent of your argument (as bad as it is) would be that if we assume natural forces could create trillions of alternatives to a nested hierarchy, and we assume that an intelligent designer could only have produced a nested hierarchy, then by your reasoning design would be a better explanation by a factor of trillions. Your conclusion (as irrelevant as it is) can be found in your assumptions. Yet you parade around with an implacable, self-aggrandizing internal narrative as if you've made a profound, iron-clad argument, bellowing for continued attention on what is an obvious, embarrassingly absurd failure. (P.S.: This is a good example why I reserve the opinion that not all people are actually conscious agencies; I can't imagine a truly sentient entity with free will spewing forth this degree and volume of utter nonsense in the face of clear and repeated correction. It really is what arguing with a programmed, biological automaton would likely be like.) William J Murray
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PST
F/N 2: Darwin asks some pointed q's in Origin, ch 6 -- and note the error of implying or suggesting that NS is anything but a culler out of varieties that in environments are less successful -- that still have no really solid, empirically grounded answer in the evo mat scheme of thought:
DARWIN, Origin, Ch 6: >> why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection? Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians? Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired? . . . >>
Obviously, there is a puzzle there. And, Darwin's promissory note answer rings hollow after 150+ years, 1/4 million or so fossil species, millions of fossil specimens in hand and billions observed in the ground:
On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form. But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed
The record is obviously pretty strong in our day, strong enough that alternative theories or supplementary theories -- pick your choice -- were composed on how to account for a dominant fossil pattern of sudden appearances, stasis, gaps and disappearance and/or continuity to the modern world. The and/or being there as we have a certain lobe finned fish that vanished many MY ago on the usual timeline, then popped up in a fishmarket or two. So, the tree archi (generally, note the issues on that) is more of a problem on want of transitionals than is being admitted. And on the implication of such transitionals, that a tree may be not quite right, more of a blob smeared out. But then, this is an ilk that is resistant to self-evident first principles of right reason and suffers the intellectual plague of selective hyperskepticism to anything that hints of design, joined to hypercredulity concerning what provides any faint hope for their world narrative. A sounder approach would be to reckon that in inductive, evidence and observation anchored reasoning on origins, the deep past is not open to direct inspection. So, we must infer on traces per inference to best current explanation. Which in turn points to needing to have observational demonstration that claimed causal factors can and do in our observation have relevant capacity to cause substantially similar results or effects and that cumulatively we have sufficiently discriminatory tests to confirm any one account. We may observe, reason inductively, argue and conclude:
a: Apart from a priori materialism, which begs the question, b: there is simply zero current credible empirical, observational evidence that c: functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information manifested in node-arc structures where correctly arranged and coupled components interact to achieve the functional effect in view beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of complexity [FSCO/I for short], d: i.e.. the node-arcs pattern requires at least 500 - 1,000 y/n q's to specify it in its configs space, e: can and does arise from blind, non-foresighted chance contingency and/or mere mechanical necessity, but f: there are trillions of cases that routinely -- e.g. posts in this thread add to the number -- show that such FSCO/I commonly and easily observably does arise from intelligently directed contingency or configuration or contrivance, i.e. by design. Therefore, g: on inference to best current, empirically grounded explanation, h: such FSCO/I is an inductively reliable sign of design as cause, passing the vera causa -- true cause -- test. Thus, i: the abundant FSCO/I in the world of life strongly, inductively, points to design as empirically credible cause. that is, j: From root to uppermost twigs, there is good inductive reason to hold the scientific view that the world of life is chock full of strong signs -- not merely appearances -- of design.
This, in a nutshell, is the core design case concerning the world of life. There is another, relating to the fine tuning of the observed cosmos that sets up that world of life. KFkairosfocus
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PST
Keith s
lifepsy, You’re making the same errors as drc466. See my reply to him.
I read it. You're simply repeating faulty assertions and ignoring counter-arguments. You're in denial about the simple fact that universal common descent can potentially produce patterns of character traits that make it impossible to recover an objective nested hierarchy.lifepsy
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PST
Enkidu 98
Of course not. Finding the odd as yet unexplained outlier among a field of millions of pieces of consilient positive evidence doesn’t make all those millions of pieces suddenly vanish. If you find major discrepancies across the board in all the consilence then you may have something. But you don’t.
The picture you paint of Evolution's robustness is laughably false. There would be nothing odd about it, because Evolution accommodates such "outliers" all the time. It is plastic enough whereby one cannot even readily identify an outlier. Evolution would have no problem accommodating a placental more genetically similar to marsupials. It would simply be taken as evidence that the particular placental group is highly conserved from the point when marsupials and placentals first split in the ancient past. It might even be given its own phylogenetic grouping to the exclusion of other placentals. No problem. Things like this simply are not tests of Evolution, because Evolution reacts and adapts to such data. It is like shapeless jello being moved from container to container.lifepsy
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PST
F/N: KS of course neatly overlooks the molecular evidence that runs into diverse "trees," and which is probably at least as fundamental as any gross anatomy, narrative. Resemblance implies common descent, except where it does not. Questions are being begged again, and the fundamental issue is, that the only empirically confirmed and routinely observed source of FSCO/I, for ideological reasons must not be admitted. It remains the case that KS cannot get TO the tree of life from blind chance and mechanical necessity, from the root up precisely because he has no empirically grounded account of the origin of FSCO/I on blind chance and mechanical necessity. As a result we see all sorts of distractive and dismissive rhetoric trying to undermine the actually commonplace reality of FSCO/I, and the implication of a great many component parts that to interact and achieve relevant specific function must be correctly chosen or made, must be correctly oriented and must be correctly coupled in a nodes-arcs network (string or 3-d makes but little effective difference as the latter can be informationally reduced to the former) -- sharp constraint on the set of configs consistent with function, i.e. islands of function. Others have been trying the you cannot measure the info in strings and in node-arc networks, which is simply brazen dismissal of what is a commonplace. And of course, all of this is supported based on a climate of poisoning and polarising based on irresponsible accusations. Ideology -- whether evo mat or fellow traveller/enabler makes little difference -- over reason and evidence in a nutshell. It is time for a fresh start. KFkairosfocus
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PST
Enkidu:
One cannot assess ID AT ALL
YOU can't because you are ignorant,
when all ID does is make attacks on evolutionary theory.
There isn't any evolutionary theory. ID makes a positive case and your ignorance will never refute that fact.Joe
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PST
Alan Fox:
Where is there a CSI calculation other than your bogus nonsense manipulating a simple count of a sequence of amino acids?
LoL! It's only "bogus nonsense" because Alan is a moron. Where is your position's counter, Alan? You have nothing but to spew "tat bogus nonsense" without offering up anything that your position has that is any better.Joe
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PST
1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 12