Elizabeth Liddle Runs Away

_{Barry Arrington

May 11, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Elizabeth Liddle has announced her departure from UD. If you miss her comments here, it is not because she has been banned. It is because she got caught in flagrante delicto, and this time she was unable to obfuscate her way out of it. I will elucidate.

In comment 2 to this post, I alluded to Liddle’s tendency to make diametrically opposing claims as the inclination strikes her. Specifically, I said:

Elizabeth Liddle also has problems keeping track of the sewage she spills into the UD combox, sometimes contradicting herself in the same thread:

EXHIBIT A:

EL @ comment 10 of prior post:

But he [i.e., Meyer] is no palaeontologist, and apparently doesn’t see that as a problem. It is though . . .

EL @ comment 43 of same post:

I do not criticise Meyer because he is not a qualified palaeontologist. I don’t even criticise him because he, not being a qualified palaeontologist, writes a book on the palaeontology.

Elizabeth responded:

Barry, those two statements are perfectly consistent. Read them again.

I replied in the same comment:

OK; I read them again, including what followed each. In the first you criticized Meyer for not being palaeontologist. In the second you claim you never criticized Meyer for not being a palaeontologist. And in this comment you claim those two statements are “perfectly consistent.” Lizzie, get help.

Elizabeth’s last word:

I’m outta here.

Barry’s helpful translation from Darwinese: “I got caught. Then I got caught again when I doubled down. I will never admit I was wrong to do what I did, but it is too embarrassing to stay. I will slink back over to my echo chamber where they will cheer me on no matter what I say, even if it contradicts something I just said.

Comments

Lizzie: I’m not even going to bother trying to explain to you why those two posts (which you don’t even have the courtesy to quote in full) are perfectly consistent. People can judge for themselves.
Lizzie states that Stephen Meyer gets "the actual predictions wrong" and that this follows from the fact that "he is no palaeontologist" and goes on to conclude that therefor Meyer being no palaeontologist is "a problem". On its own this is muddled thinking: does Lizzie hold that Charles Darwin got his predictions wrong because he was no palaeontologist? And to what do we ascribe the countless wrong predictions offered by qualified palaeontologists? Anyway, she goes on firmly contradicting herself by saying:
“I do not criticise Meyer because he is not a qualified palaeontologist.”
Still not admitting her mistake, forces us to think very little of her.
Lizzie: So no, I won’t be posting at UD in the future.
I'm sorry to see Lizzie go. By having a knack of being wrong about everything all the time she unknowingly provides a sheer infallible compass. Has anyone ever heard of her being right about anything? For instance, when she says that Meyer gets "the actual predictions wrong", one can be pretty sure that those predictions are spot on. Or when Lizzie says "those two posts are perfectly consistent" one does not have to actually read those two posts to state with near certainty that they are not.Box_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

EL, you know exactly what has been going on for years centred at a cluster of hate forum and blog sites. That has now reached the point where the publishing of non online info in a local newspaper site (subsequently removed by the Editor on tort grounds once it came to his attention) indicates on the ground stalking of remotely connected persons. All I will further say is that the time has more than come for some serious reflection on what has been enabled for years and where it has now reached. All that was really needed if the facts were there to back it up was simply show that blind chance and mechanical necessity were credible, observed actual causes of FSCO/I. There has never ever been any justification for the hatred, hate sites, slander, outing, outing of uninvolved family, stalking, unhinged bully-boy tactics, crude and cruel caricatures abusing RW photographs [including of a Grandmother], general thuggishness, ill-bred smearing, attempted undue undermining of livelihood [FYI, I am not a "fraud" -- part of what was put up by snide suggestion in the context of my dealing with a case of abuse of parliamentary privilege . . . which itself is directly actionable . . . ] and venomous abuse that you full well know of. It is high time that these things are faced for what they are and are cleaned up at an alphabet soup list of fever swamp sites that you know of. KFkairosfocus_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

KF:
I see outing is now on the TSZ list (though under a euphemism), one hopes including outing tactics at remote hate sites and fora and linked stalking including on the ground stalking and target painting: we know you & where you are, those you care for to remote degree & where they are as well as where they have businesses etc. Unfortunately, years of enabling behaviour have already happened.
No euphemism, KF, just precision, and it always was. I have just clarified the rule, as the issue arose. It should now be clear to all TSZ posters that the rule applies to people we know only offsite as well as regular posters. My concern is not simply with "outing" per se, or it would not apply to people who have "outed" themselves elsewhere, but rather with preventing google searches for a person's real life name from turning up posts on blogs that they do not want to be associated with. Obviously the rules at TSZ do not, and cannot, cover what people post at other sites.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT}

Mapou
And dear Lizzie is qualified to judge this because of what again?
Barry was not playing his debating games with Lizzie over her qualifications. He was trying to catch her out for being inconsistent.
This whole thing is kind of scary though and smacks of the underlying fascism of it all.
Removing all of someone's comments without any explanation or even recognition is straight out of 1984.Mark Frank_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

F/N: Just for record, kindly cf 61 - 63 ff to about 81 in the thread below on on Dr Meyer's qualifications to speak to issues, what he actually has said and how the point at stake seems to mainly pivot on saying the same thing from a different perspective: https://uncommondescent.com/ddd/darwinian-debating-device-18-the-youre-too-stupid-to-understand-why-im-smarter-than-you-dismissal/#comment-564072 KF PS: I see outing is now on the TSZ list (though under a euphemism), one hopes including outing tactics at remote hate sites and fora and linked stalking including on the ground stalking and target painting: we know you & where you are, those you care for to remote degree & where they are as well as where they have businesses etc. Unfortunately, years of enabling behaviour have already happened.kairosfocus_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

Isn't the real problem here that Liddle is backing a horse she thought was lame but is actually dead? If Darwinism wasn't intellectually dead, its big champs wouldn't be Dawkins, Dennett, Coyne, etc. Meyer did nothing other than raise the questions we all have if we take an interest in the period, questions that the dead order can't answer. It doesn't fit their box. A "correct" paleontologist would never have done what Meyer did. Take heart, Darwin followers, there are still jobs for you, fronting establishment rot. Always remember to pull the forelock to the right pretentious asses as you make your way.News_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

Barry: I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you why those two posts (which you don't even have the courtesy to quote in full) are perfectly consistent. People can judge for themselves. But I am going to point out that to accuse me of "running away" to an "echo chamber", coming from someone who regularly bans anyone whose views he dislikes, frequently without acknowledgment, and, in a recent case, in a manner that also deletes their entire posting history, is scarcely in a position to talk about "running away" and "echo chambers". I see absolutely no point in spending time composing posts for this forum knowing that if you don't like them you will simply delete my entire contribution from your database, and I don't see why anyone else should either. In my case, on this occasion, you have chosen your alternative tactic: to malign me from your bully pulpit. So no, I won't be posting at UD in the future. You can keep your echo chamber to yourself. If people want a conversation they can come to my place, where no-one's posts are edited or deleted and no-one is banned, except in the case of spam, porn, malware or posting other people's personal info. Indeed, you are very welcome yourself, Barry.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

MF:
In the first comment Lizzie was not criticising Meyer for his lack of qualifications but for his lack of ability as a paleontologist.
And dear Lizzie is qualified to judge this because of what again? This whole thing is kind of scary though and smacks of the underlying fascism of it all. What these morons are telling us is that they alone are qualified to decide whether or not Darwinian evolution is correct. We, the unwashed bozos, just need to accept it as fact because they say so. IOW, do as we say and worship our god because you are too stupid to know any better. Yeah, right. I'll tell you what you can do with your little idol.Mapou_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

Yeah, I come across these people way to often, when talking origins. Like the time the subject, between myself and this Darwinist got to the subject of defining... what a theory was vs. what a law--observable, testable, repeatable fact was. The conversation somehow got onto the subject of gravity, and he (at least I believe that it was a he) was convinced--tried his hardest to convince me, that gravity was only a theory (NOT a fact/law....with actual laws, that accurately predict its affect/properties). I explained to him that there was more than one "theory", that attempts to explain the mechanism/cause behind this phenomenon/fact we call "gravity". And when I even provided the dictionary definitions of the words "theory" and "law", he claimed that I was just confusing the issue ....huh?! It was like... WOW, really!!! lol. Needless to say, my response--from that point, wasn't too "politically correct" ....my bad.55rebel_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

Mark, spit the hook out.Upright BiPed_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

UB You are right - the word "qualified" makes all the difference. In the first comment Lizzie was not criticising Meyer for his lack of qualifications but for his lack of ability as a paleontologist.Mark Frank_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

No Barry, in the first sentence she said "palaeontologist" but in the second she very clearly said "qualified palaeontologist". The modifier is not something you are talking into account, as if you think all palaeontologist are the same - and they surely are not! See how easy it is.Upright BiPed_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

Someone has suggested that the text I left out somehow changes the meaning of the sentence. Here is the full sentence.
But he is no palaeontologist, and apparently doesn’t see that as a problem. It is though, because he gets the actual predictions wrong.
Let us parse this. Liddle makes four claims: Claim 1: Meyer is not a paleontologist. Claim 2: Meyer does not see the fact that he is not a paleontologist as a problem. Claim 3: It (i.e., the fact that Meyer is not a paleontologist) is a problem though. Claim 4: It is a problem because he gets the predictions wrong. Claim 3 stands on its own. She flat out says that his not being a paleontologist is a "problem." Thus, Liddle has criticized Meyer for not being a paleontologist unless the statement "his not being a paleontologist is a problem" is not a criticism on the ground that he is not a paleontologist (and that is absurd). To be sure, she goes on to explain why she thinks it is a problem. That does not change the fact that she called it a problem. Conclusion: It follows that the the following statement is false: "I do not criticise Meyer because he is not a qualified palaeontologist."Barry Arrington_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

This is what happens when you assume things Dr Liddle assumes too much.Andre_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

part 6 In this segment, Casey discusses the sixth problem: how molecular biology has failed to yield a grand “Tree of Life.” http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-6/ part 7 In this segment, Casey discusses the seventh problem: how convergent evolution challenges Darwinism and destroys the logic behind common ancestry. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-7/ part 8 In this segment, Casey discusses the eight problem: differences between vertebrate embryos and how they contradict the predictions of common ancestry. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-8/ part 9 In this segment, Casey discusses the ninth problem: how neo-Darwinism struggles to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/05/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-9/ part 10 In this segment, Casey discusses the tenth problem: how neo-Darwinism has a long history of inaccurate predictions about vestigial organs and “junk DNA.” http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/05/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-10/bornagain77_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

OT: Casey Luskin finally has all ten parts of his podcast series up: podcasts - The Top 10 Problems with Darwinian Evolution, part 1 - Casey Luskin In this first segment, Casey discusses how there is no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-1/ part 2 In this segment, Casey discusses the second problem: that unguided chemical processes cannot explain the origin of the genetic code. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-2/ part 3 In this segment, Casey discusses the third problem: that random mutations cannot generate the genetic information required for irreducibly complex structures. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-3/ part 4 In this segment, Casey discusses the fourth problem: that natural selection struggles to fix advantageous traits in populations. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-4/ part 5 In this segment, Casey discusses the fifth problem: how abrupt appearance of species in the fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/04/the-top-10-problems-with-darwinian-evolution-pt-5/bornagain77_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

Good. We should not be afraid of the Darwin cult. They love to dish it out but they can't take it. They're all a bunch of wimps and crybabies.Mapou_{May 11, 2015
May
05
May
11
11
2015
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply