There are many specific items in this wide world that none of us know off hand however, being intelligent and a biologist allows me to solve such problems. An intelligent biologist can research the required specifics and understand how to use it. Thus mechanical engineering and its concepts are only a bit of research for a biologist....
Apparently you are not aware of the same things I am since you are arguing biology with a biologist. You are not taught biology as part of engineering, nor have you persued instruction past your field as is evident by your failure to understand biological principles.
If you are an engineer, what feeling do you get when you read the above statement? Do you agree with it? If not, why not? Do you disagree with it perhaps because you understand the amount of hard work it took to become an engineer, and how much work it takes to be a successful one? Because you realize that not everybody - intelligent or not - can be an engineer and understand engineering concepts and principles?
Now consider your impresssion if the above statement had been made by a biologist attempting to dismiss criticisms of the fact that something he had just claimed regarding mechanical engineering was shown to be in error? And that the biologist continued to declare that his erroneous mechanical engineering claims were really true, and he knows this because he is a biologist and you, being a mechanical engineer, are just too blinded by your indoctrination to understand your own errors?
Did reading the above statement bug you a little? Maybe make you a bit angry to see those in your profession belittled in such a way?
Well, now you know how I feel. The original quote:
There are many specific items in this wide world that none of us know off hand however, being intelligent and a mechanical engineer allows me to solve such problems. An intelligent mechanical engineer can research the required specifics and understand how to use it. Thus biology and its concepts are only a bit of research for an engineer....
Apparently you are not aware of the same things I am since you are arguing mechanics with a mechanical engineer. You are not taught engineering as part of biology, nor have you persued instruction past your field as is evident by your failure to understand mechanical principles.
The answer the title question, Who is the most arrognat of them all?, then, becomes pretty obvious. Creationists with engineering backgrounds.
5 comments:
slp, you are an arrogant prick.
Everybody knows it.
Military guys like you are always eltist assholes who think they are oh so superior.
Well, I can be a prick at times. But I am hardly arrogant - I am not, for example, the one claiming that because I am a biologist, I have some special unassailable insights into mathematics or engineering.
As far as a 'military guy' like me being an elitist asshole, well, you are right about one thing - we that have serve din the military- in particular served in combat arms units - are elitist in that we represent a tiny minority of all Americans. By definition, a 'select group' and thus, yes, we are elite.
As far as being assholes, though, I think I will leave that to those who post vacuous, whiny, substance-free, anonymous posts on blogs and discussion boards.
I suspect you are someone that has been banned at the KCFS forum - with good reason - and are just upset that rational, educated folk don't care to hear your idiotic gobbledegook.
Now go play in traffic like a good little chickenhawk.
Back to the topic of the post - the engineer in question is stunningly arrogant. As a Chemical Engineering dropout (now doing a PhD in Chemistry) I would be lying if I said engineering was an easy discipline. But talk about delusions of grandeur. I find it particularly ironic that this guy is a mechanical engineer - my father (who's an electrical engineer) has said that just about every mechanical engineer he's worked with in his life is a (using his exact words) "f***ing useless c***".
If you have the stomach to peruse Clark's rants, it is amusing to see how truly ignorant he is on the subjects he bloviates on and on about. For example, he recently claimed that variation in offspring is introduced during prometaphase. I pointed out that this is false, and indicated when variation would be introduced.
My analysis was supported by two other posters. Clark's response? He tried to turn it around on us by claiming that we did not explain how this helps evolution, which, of course, was not out point in the first place.
It is certainly something to watch. I'm not sure if I find it amusing or disturbing, the extent to which supremely arrogant folks like KBC will go to avoid acknowledging their intellectual limitations.
In view of the theme of this post, you may appreciate my blog entry offering the "most hypocritical argument in the history of creationism award". The post is at
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/09/award-for-most-hypocritical-argument-in.html
Let me know if you think there is someone more deserving of the honor! :)
Post a Comment