The Bill Cole Show

Continuing the discussion from Brian Miller: Co-option and Irreducible Complexity:

@colewd there is a repetitive pattern to your posts, and they often take threads far off topic. Why do you think that is? For example, the thread this links to was not about FI.

Would you mind starting new threads when you want to change the topic? What also is the point of repeating arguments over and over without engaging the responses that are given to you? I don’t get it. Are you just here to keep broadcasting the same arguments over and over?

This keeps coming to mind. :slightly_smiling_face:

Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved

How would this be possible if I was simply not responding to other people. You don’t think the evolutionists here are repetitive?

I do, and it is annoying when they are. When they bring in offtopic things, you should flag it.

FI is not the answer to everything, is it? Why not make a thread to focus in on one point at a time?

1 Like

I agree Josh but it was simply an answer to T’s position. He said ID does not have a mechanism. The other time I got off topic I was simply answering questions of a moderator.

I agree I am engaging in repetitive discussions that I should walk away from so I will do this. I will also walk away when the subject drifts.

Some people here who are experts are also using some very iffy tactics. I hope you are continuing to call them out as I saw you did in one case today.

1 Like

It would be better to call people out on iffy tactics than engage in circular arguing. We should be here to learn together, and to help increase understanding of all positions. Next time you see them doing something iffy, ask them to explain more or to do better. Maybe you missed something, and they can explain. Maybe they really are being unfair, and need to pull back.

As for the case that you want to make, it is worth pursuing in its own thread. If that is what is important to you, though I’m not sure if that is really your main motivation.

What is your main motivation? How can we help you along?

To make sure I understand the issues.

How can we help you along?

Be willing to call science out if the consensus is making unsupported claims.

I agree with you way more then I disagree but sometimes I feel you are supporting a position simply because you feel it is mainstream.

Maybe it is me and I am wrong but some of the evolutionists claims appear way over the top.

1 Like

Not the case at all. I’ve gone against the consensus on the de novo creation of Adam, and done quite well with that argument.

I just don’t see a reason to take a bad argument forward. Give me a good argument, and I’ll make it better.

I would appreciate that.

I do think you are sincere in your arguments. But there comes a point where you are not persuading anybody. So you are just wasting people’s time. I can live in a world where there are people who disagree with me. And I think you can, too.


The problems are:

  1. Your ignorance of the evidence isn’t the same as a scientific claim being unsupported by evidence
  2. When multiple people then show you the evidence and correct your misunderstandings you just go “NUH-UH!” and repeat your claim there is no evidence.
  3. After the 142nd time you’ve repeated that “Bill cycle” people get frustrated with you.

Ferrous cranus.

You bet Neil. Thanks for the feedback.


I think there is a communication gap. Many of the claims you dispute I think actually are supported. They are just not supported in a way you understand or with which you agree.

Perhaps a good way forward would be to increase understanding at these junctions. You don’t have to agree, but you could ask questions to understand why we (or I) think a claim is supported. You might still disagree in the end. We might also walk back an overstatement of the evidence too.

One common overstatement I see is in placing “design” and “evolution” in opposition, as if one has to be true, or if proving one is true the other is false. Even if every ID argument is false, nothing in science proves God did not create everything, and in this sense he would have designed us all. Just because a specific ID argument (or even all ID arguments) are invalid, does not mean God did not create us. Any one who says different is overstating the evidence.


I agree with everything you are saying here. Will try my best to follow your advise.


Sorry to interrupt the party, but no you don’t. You have contradicted everything Joshua says there many times. You always place design and evolution in opposition. You are never willing to increase your understanding.

I should add that Bill has at some point indicated that he might have dementia. I’m not saying this to insult Bill. If he wasn’t joking or trolling when he said it, that is an important factor in considering why threads with Bill are repetitive.

I have frequently had the experience of having an argument with Bill, where Bill acknowledged some point discussed, only for Bill to return a few hours later seemingly having completely forgotten about it. It’s certainly very frustrating having a conversation with a person who appears to hit some sort of “reset switch” every few hours.

Again, I’m not saying this to insult or “expose” Bill in any way as he once mentioned it himself. If this is really what is going on it should change the nature of how this situation should be handled. He has since ignored all attempts to get him to clarify whether he really has a dementia diagnosis. Which is itself something of and indication in my opinion because it should be really easy to just say “I was joking” if that is the case.

1 Like

I’m pretty sure that he was joking.

Can I get a name change?

1 Like

You want to be called feroua cranious?

A post was merged into an existing topic: The Design Meta-Scientific Hypothesis

At times Rum the discussion has moved slightly off the point and you don’t notice it. When I say I understand your argument and why you think it is true it does not mean I agree.

You support your arguments and I appreciate that but often your support does not match your claim. For example showing a single example of a random sequence creating function is not a generic solution.

Yes, I was kidding that I had dementia as I was trying to use humor to defuse an emotional argument.

1 Like