RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The Joe G Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,11:33   

Joe G is funny, but so completely impervious to any regular human interactions that a thread for him is probably useless.

That being said, I had to post this latest from his blog.  It's almost unimaginable that he would publish my comment.  I mean aren't these people supposed to be Bible Code experts and all?  If so, isn't it odd that he didn't find anything here:

Quote
blipey said...

   Jump into the fray
   Over and over we go
   Even though there are no
   Great secrets to be learned,
   I troll the waters.
   Searching for prey,
   Somedays I pounce.
   Today is one of those days.
   Up and up we go,
   Perilously high--
   I defy
   Discussion to be had.


The entire thread is more Joe not being able to fathom what his own sentences mean.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,11:42   

Quote (blipey @ June 27 2007,11:33)
Joe G is funny, but so completely impervious to any regular human interactions that a thread for him is probably useless.

That being said, I had to post this latest from his blog.  It's almost unimaginable that he would publish my comment.  I mean aren't these people supposed to be Bible Code experts and all?  If so, isn't it odd that he didn't find anything here:

Quote
blipey said...

   Jump into the fray
   Over and over we go
   Even though there are no
   Great secrets to be learned,
   I troll the waters.
   Searching for prey,
   Somedays I pounce.
   Today is one of those days.
   Up and up we go,
   Perilously high--
   I defy
   Discussion to be had.


The entire thread is more Joe not being able to fathom what his own sentences mean.

Nice.


He'll reinterpret that to mean he's a genius.

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,11:51   

Holy Shit

Quote
currator asks:
What do you think evidence of Common Descent in the fossil record would look like?

Truthfully I wouldn't expect to see Common Descent in the fossil record. That is because not everything that has lived and died was fossilized.

I think it is silly to use the fossil record for anything except to show what was around at some time in the past.


Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. Joe just effectively argued for the fact that there are not transitional fossils for every single stage of evolution.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,12:29   

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 27 2007,11:51)
Holy Shit

 
Quote
currator asks:
What do you think evidence of Common Descent in the fossil record would look like?

Truthfully I wouldn't expect to see Common Descent in the fossil record. That is because not everything that has lived and died was fossilized.

I think it is silly to use the fossil record for anything except to show what was around at some time in the past.


Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. Joe just effectively argued for the fact that there are not transitional fossils for every single stage of evolution.

Didn't someone say that he lives in his parent's basement?  

Well, at least he's out of the gene pool, -  that can't be good for getting lucky!

At least we won't have to track him down and sterilize him after we materialists win our war on Christians and imprison him with all the IDists like Dembksi.


JOE G IS STUPID is genius BTW... Remember to use your power only for good, never evil.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Gunthernacus



Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:40   

Quote (J-Dog @ June 27 2007,12:29)
JOE G IS STUPID is genius BTW...

LOL. I read that whole effing thread looking for that - I thought maybe it was a commenter's name - before I saw it. Good show!

Minutiae:  Joe G posts at ARN as Joe G now, but got banned while posting as "ID's Bulldog".

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,15:15   

Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,15:46   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.

Hey, I *honestly* have a friend who works for Maytag. I feel slighted on his behalf.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,15:49   

Quote (Gunthernacus @ June 27 2007,13:40)
Quote (J-Dog @ June 27 2007,12:29)
JOE G IS STUPID is genius BTW...

LOL. I read that whole effing thread looking for that - I thought maybe it was a commenter's name - before I saw it. Good show!

Minutiae:  Joe G posts at ARN as Joe G now, but got banned while posting as "ID's Bulldog".

More great "design detection"...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,15:53   

Joe whines about them poor, persecuted, disenfranchised White people:

Quote

I knew Mike Keohan- he was a good guy, but he was white and overweight (sarcasm). I guess that is a crime punishable by death once you are in LA.

Where's the outrage? Sorry Mike you were just another Mic/ Wop American mutt. Nobody cares about whitebread anymore...



--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,19:20   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.

Done.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,19:27   

Quote
More great "design detection"...


don't make me "ban" you for "inverted" comma usage, hughes.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,19:50   

Joe G./John Paul, more than any other creationist, reminds me of Martin Short's character, lawyer Nathan Thurm. A lot of creationists remind me of that character, but no one gives off that "I knew that! What makes you think I wouldn't know that?!?" vibe like Joe G.

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,09:18   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.

Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,10:49   

Quote (slpage @ June 28 2007,09:18)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.

Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!

"He has a Bachelor's Degree -- in science!"

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,11:55   

Joe's inviting everyone to come to his house for dinner.  I'm going to take him up on it.  Of course I think it will turn out much like my attempt to visit DaveScot.  You can only keep trying.

There are a lot of creationists that I still need to scratch of my list.

Invite here.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:01   

Quote (slpage @ June 28 2007,09:18)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.

Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!

Sheesh. I have a B.S. in ecosystems assessment but I am in no way a "Scientist". Unless computer science counts...

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:05   

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 28 2007,12:01)
Quote (slpage @ June 28 2007,09:18)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.

Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!

Sheesh. I have a B.S. in ecosystems assessment but I am in no way a "Scientist". Unless computer science counts...

I (along with richardhughes, I believe) have a B.A. in BS.  Does that mean I'm a scientist?  It'll look good on the resume.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:08   

Quote (blipey @ June 28 2007,12:05)
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 28 2007,12:01)
Quote (slpage @ June 28 2007,09:18)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.

Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!

Sheesh. I have a B.S. in ecosystems assessment but I am in no way a "Scientist". Unless computer science counts...

I (along with richardhughes, I believe) have a B.A. in BS.  Does that mean I'm a scientist?  It'll look good on the resume.

Nice.


I looked further down on his blog and he has an entire post on the boycott Exxon/Mobil lower gas prices hoax.


I guess he's never heard of Snopes or Google for that matter.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:16   

Merely a bit of street theatre.  The insane are never hooked by hoaxes.

Hoaxed by hookers, but never hooked by hoaxes.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:17   

Quote (blipey @ June 28 2007,11:55)
Joe's inviting everyone to come to his house for dinner.  I'm going to take him up on it.  Of course I think it will turn out much like my attempt to visit DaveScot.  You can only keep trying.

There are a lot of creationists that I still need to scratch of my list.

Passing through Toronto anytime soon? You could always try to arrange lunch with Denyse...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,16:53   

Joe:
Quote
Then have a discussion in which a method of testing can be hammered out. Then do it.


This is Joe's idea of a lesson plan.  He wants to show The Privileged Planet in schools and then discuss how the science might be done.  I suppose this means he wants to discuss it with the students.  Not really how science should be done, but with these guys the students are probably a lot smarter.

Maybe 3rd graders could show Joe how not to look so stupid.

Comments in the high 20s on this thread

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,17:57   

He should probably refrain from giving his debating opponents hammers.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,21:44   

from the blipey-joe g commentary....

Quote
But thank you for again demonstrating why ID needs to presented in schools- education cures ignorance.


wow that is tard on a whole 'notha level.  I'll pass.  blipey you have iron lungs.  i thought my fundies were dumb.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:20   

Quote (blipey @ June 28 2007,16:53)
Joe:  
Quote
Then have a discussion in which a method of testing can be hammered out. Then do it.


This is Joe's idea of a lesson plan.  He wants to show The Privileged Planet in schools and then discuss how the science might be done.  I suppose this means he wants to discuss it with the students.  Not really how science should be done, but with these guys the students are probably a lot smarter.

Maybe 3rd graders could show Joe how not to look so stupid.

Comments in the high 20s on this thread

I wrote a brief blog post about Joe's infatuation with THE PP.

I am not at all surprised that someone like Joe would find that line of 'reasoning' compelling - why, we are in just the right spot to see what we can see!  OBVIOUSLY designed!

Even a loony nut case creationist engineer agreed that
such 'reasoning' was silly...

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,12:23   

OOOHHHH!!!!  Ftk is posting at Joe's place!

Put on a hard hat before entering.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,12:27   

Quote (blipey @ June 29 2007,12:23)
OOOHHHH!!!!  Ftk is posting at Joe's place!

Put on a hard hat before entering.

Yeah, now that FTK has apparently stomped out of here, she'll need to find some other place to spend her copious free time.

I don't think Maytag Joe can keep her long tho. I think he'll bore her to tears. FTK seems to enjoy lively, antagonistic relationships, at least in the internets.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,12:30   

And this is his lesson plan, astounding.  What's even more astounding is he probably has no idea why he would be a bad teacher or why schools wouldn't let him present.

Quote
Blipey: So, fine, show The Privileged Planet, but under what lesson plan?

JoeG: I would show it to the whole school. It would not be a part of any particular class.

All I am looking for is to expose students to ID reality.

Blipey: Why are you taking up valuable educational time with a film?

JoeG: Films are part of that valuable educational time. And that valuable educational time is already being wasted with dogma- ie unsubstantiated and unverifiable grand claims.


Blipey: If I were to have Richard Dawkins in to speak to the class, I would need a lesson plan in order to do it.

JoeG: But you're not a teacher. Why would you need a lesson plan?

Blipey: So, what specific educational lessons and state criteria are we getting from your ID introductions?

JoeG: You would be getting a lesson in ID reality.


That last is stellar.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,12:34   

Quote (blipey @ June 29 2007,12:30)
And this is his lesson plan, astounding.  What's even more astounding is he probably has no idea why he would be a bad teacher or why schools wouldn't let him present.

Quote
Blipey: So, fine, show The Privileged Planet, but under what lesson plan?

JoeG: I would show it to the whole school. It would not be a part of any particular class.

All I am looking for is to expose students to ID reality.

Blipey: Why are you taking up valuable educational time with a film?

JoeG: Films are part of that valuable educational time. And that valuable educational time is already being wasted with dogma- ie unsubstantiated and unverifiable grand claims.


Blipey: If I were to have Richard Dawkins in to speak to the class, I would need a lesson plan in order to do it.

JoeG: But you're not a teacher. Why would you need a lesson plan?

Blipey: So, what specific educational lessons and state criteria are we getting from your ID introductions?

JoeG: You would be getting a lesson in ID reality.


That last is stellar.

"Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?"

[pause]

"These go to eleven."

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,16:52   

Oh, I hit Joe's soft spot.  He won't publish a comment in which I called him on his claim of being a scientist.  I asked him to provide his degree, but no publishing even though several other comments I made afterwards have gone through.

Too close to home, I guess.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,17:30   

Joe G claims he is not like DaveScot, then posts this in response to my accepting his invitation to his home:

Quote
And now you're stupid enough to go to a hunter's backyard and mess with him.

Stupidity. Sheer stupidity.


Similar to something recently...if I could only place it.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,17:34   

Quote (blipey @ June 29 2007,17:30)
Joe G claims he is not like DaveScot, then posts this in response to my accepting his invitation to his home:

Quote
And now you're stupid enough to go to a hunter's backyard and mess with him.

Stupidity. Sheer stupidity.


Similar to something recently...if I could only place it.

Try Denyse up in Toronto. She probably won't threaten to kill you.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,18:56   

I had this argument with JoeG on Telic thoughts years ago (before I knew he was famous) about the evolution of whales. His position was that, how can you say whales have evolved from land-based mammals, if you can't even show that it's possible for them to evolve?

I said, well, the existence of fossils which illustrate the evolution of whales from fully land-based mammals to semi-aquatic to fully-aquatic is pretty conclusive proof that it's possible for them to evolve, wouldn't you say? It's like debating whether it's possible for 747s to fly after watching one pass by overhead.

His response: "How can you say whales have evolved from land-based mammals, if you can't even show that it's possible for them to evolve?"

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. It never got any more interesting than that.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,18:59   

Quote (slpage @ June 28 2007,07:18)

Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!

Really? AFDave (who morphed into afdave1 at richarddawkins.net) made exactly the same argument.

What are the chances?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,23:22   

Quote
It never got any more interesting than that.


Joe does walk a thin line--actually stepping on both sides in some random manner--between boring and stupidly hilarious.

I think it tips slightly in the favor of stupidly hilarious for the sole reason that he thinks he's interesting.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,23:34   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 29 2007,13:34)
"Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?"

[pause]

"These go to eleven."

that scene really just perfectly embodies that kind of obliviousness.

Quote
Nigel:  This is a top to a, you know, what we use on stage, but it's
       very...very special because if you can see...
Marty:  Yeah...
Nigel:  ...the numbers all go to eleven.  Look...right across the board.
Marty:  Ahh...oh, I see....
Nigel:  Eleven...eleven...eleven....
Marty:  ...and most of these amps go up to ten....
Nigel:  Exactly.
Marty:  Does that mean it's...louder?  Is it any louder?
Nigel:  Well, it's one louder, isn't it?  It's not ten.  You see,
       most...most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten.  You're on ten
       here...all the way  up...all the way up....
Marty:  Yeah....
Nigel:  ...all the way up.  You're on ten on your guitar...where can you go
       from there?  Where?
Marty:  I don't know....
Nigel:  Nowhere.  Exactly.  What we do is if we need that extra...push over
       the cliff...you know what we do?
Marty:  Put it up to eleven.
Nigel:  Eleven.  Exactly.  One louder.
Marty:  Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top...
       number...and make that a little louder?
Nigel:  ...these go to eleven.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2007,00:08   

More spot on scholarship from JoeG:

Quote
Monkies have a tail...


I guess he's never heard of the macaque?

Link

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2007,00:27   

Quote (stevestory @ June 29 2007,23:34)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 29 2007,13:34)
"Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?"

[pause]

"These go to eleven."

that scene really just perfectly embodies that kind of obliviousness.

 
Quote
Nigel:  This is a top to a, you know, what we use on stage, but it's
       very...very special because if you can see...
Marty:  Yeah...
Nigel:  ...the numbers all go to eleven.  Look...right across the board.
Marty:  Ahh...oh, I see....
Nigel:  Eleven...eleven...eleven....
Marty:  ...and most of these amps go up to ten....
Nigel:  Exactly.
Marty:  Does that mean it's...louder?  Is it any louder?
Nigel:  Well, it's one louder, isn't it?  It's not ten.  You see,
       most...most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten.  You're on ten
       here...all the way  up...all the way up....
Marty:  Yeah....
Nigel:  ...all the way up.  You're on ten on your guitar...where can you go
       from there?  Where?
Marty:  I don't know....
Nigel:  Nowhere.  Exactly.  What we do is if we need that extra...push over
       the cliff...you know what we do?
Marty:  Put it up to eleven.
Nigel:  Eleven.  Exactly.  One louder.
Marty:  Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top...
       number...and make that a little louder?
Nigel:  ...these go to eleven.

This deserves a visual aid...


--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,14:59   

We may finally get a picture of what Joe thinks a nested hierarchy is.  Exciting.

If he dodges this, he truly has no idea how to eat his own breakfast cereal and we should call 911.

Blipey:
Quote
Perhaps "descendant" is a poor choice of words.  However, the point is much th same; I think we agree.  I just want to make sure before we continue.

Any unit in the structure (say "Squad") is completely contained in the unit above it ("Platoon" in this case).  However, there exist such Platoons that a particular Squad is not contained in.  This is what I meant by using the word "descendants".  It is also what I meant by the possible unclarity of the diagram.  I merely stated that it was possible to misconstrue what the NH was in that diagram--not that it was wrong or could not be easily learned (I guess you missed that part).

So, do we agree that there exists some "Squad A" that is contained in "Platoon X" and that "Squad A" is not contained in any "Platoon ~X"?

Likewise IF "Squad A" is contained in "Platoon X" AND "Platoon X" is not contained in "Company Y", THEN there exists no situation in which "Squad A" is contained in "Company Y".

This is my contention for a NH.  Does it jibe with yours?


Read it here.

Scroll down to about the 33rd comment or so.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,08:51   

Quote
We may finally get a picture of what Joe thinks a nested hierarchy is.


Joe Gallien engage in honest debate? That would be something! ;) I see he still hides behind his moderation wall.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,15:30   

Well, it honestly something.  He's painted himself into such a corner with trying to refute absolutely anything anyone but he himself says that I don't think he knows what he thinks a NH is.

His latest try at what a NH is.

JoeG:
Quote
Ya see a father is like the general. He is at the top of his particular family but does not consist of his family. Therefore, as I have stated too many times to count, the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.


This is his stated opinion, backed up so far with...hmmm, nothing.

Quote
Blipey: The next level of ARMY includes several Corps. The next level of TREE includes several Sons (Bob, Dave, Steve).

JoeG: And they will ALWAYS be below Father A and will never be included with him in that scheme.

Ya see, just as I have already told you, the soldier belongs to ALL levels AT THE SAME TIME. The same does NOT hold for your "paternal family tree".


I guess he's never heard the term "family name".  Or ever been asked to what family he belongs?

Stooooopendous.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,15:10   

Quote (blipey @ June 29 2007,17:30)
Joe G claims he is not like DaveScot, then posts this in response to my accepting his invitation to his home:

Quote
And now you're stupid enough to go to a hunter's backyard and mess with him.

Stupidity. Sheer stupidity.


Similar to something recently...if I could only place it.

Well, not to sound macho or anything, but JoeG and Davey Springer are just old fashioned pussies.  They talk a big tough guy talk - on the internet - then suddenly try to avoid any actual meetings.  He has a history of doing that - me, Rob Rapier, Skepticboy, etc....

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,22:56   

OMG

JoeG:

Quote
And one more time for the learning impaired:

In a nested hierarchy levels are determined by characteristic traits. "Who's your daddy?" is NOT a characteristic trait.

"Family of Bob" (for example) isn't any good if there is more than one "Bob" in the family.

And it still remains that there really isn't a paternal family tree due to biological constraints. That plus the fact there isn't any true beginning, just various arbitrary starting points.

In both examples I gave there is one and only one true beginning.


I really think that might be the single stupidest contention I have ever heard.

Does he really think that two people named Bob can never be identified as separate entities?

This really encapsulates the creationist mindset of not being able to extrapolate information from a set of basic premises.

Yeesh.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,23:09   

yesterday and today I tried to follow this thread. It hasn't worked. I can't understand anything as dumb as Joe G denying that familial relationships work into a nested hierarchy. It doesn't make sense to me what he's saying. I just can't get it.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,23:18   

Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2007,23:09)
yesterday and today I tried to follow this thread. It hasn't worked. I can't understand anything as dumb as Joe G denying that familial relationships work into a nested hierarchy. It doesn't make sense to me what he's saying. I just can't get it.

It doesn't make any sense to me either and I think we agree that it doesn't make sense in the "WTF kind of way" not in the "that argument is dumb ind of way".

I find it fascinating that words can be put together in such a way that they form a coherent sentence which makes no sense.  Every once in a great while he puts something down that gets ever so slightly closer to the inner core of this NH dis-belief.  I truly believe that I may live to see into that dark core of whatever-it-is.

I've now asked him if he disagrees that the Sons of Steve can be placed in all of the following categories:

1.  Family of Steve
2.  Family of Bob
3.  Family of Chris

He will, of course, avoid answering this question, but someday he may slip up and give out some info on his opinion in this matter.

If even an indirect look at what his answer to that question can be had, oh what a day...for comedy.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,23:00   

Someone should call Joe's wife and let her know he needs some intervention.

He not only claims that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy, but get this:

JoeG:
Quote
I am denying that a paternal family tree (which doesn't exist in the real world)
-from the same thread as above.

That's right; it is even IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT A FAMILY TREE.

Boy, are the Mormons going to be pissed.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,09:08   

Joe seems to have reversed his position on whether or not a paternal family tree can be constructed:

Quote
That one can create a paternal family tree does not mean such a tree is a nested hierarchy!


Oh, but wait.  No.  He so got me in his logical vice of death:  "Reality demonstrates that I never said or implied that."

Got me.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,18:29   

Joe:  
Quote
I can construct a scheme containing mythical creatures. Does that mean they exist in reality? No

I can construct a scheme based on Roman "gods" (or Greek "gods"). Does that mean they exist in reality? No

And Joe can construct a scheme based on fathers.  Does that mean that they exist in reality?  No

The onus is now on you, Blipey, to prove that fathers exist in reality.  When you're done, you might want to also prove that transitive is not the same as intransitive.  That would really clear some things up for Joe.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,23:21   

Quote (Rob @ July 19 2007,18:29)
Joe:  
Quote
I can construct a scheme containing mythical creatures. Does that mean they exist in reality? No

I can construct a scheme based on Roman "gods" (or Greek "gods"). Does that mean they exist in reality? No

And Joe can construct a scheme based on fathers.  Does that mean that they exist in reality?  No

The onus is now on you, Blipey, to prove that fathers exist in reality.  When you're done, you might want to also prove that transitive is not the same as intransitive.  That would really clear some things up for Joe.

Yes, communication seems something of a bugbear for Joe.  I wonder how he'd do on the verbal portion of any college entrance exam--or The Wonderlic, for that matter.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,08:16   

Quote (blipey @ July 16 2007,23:18)
 
Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2007,23:09)
yesterday and today I tried to follow this thread. It hasn't worked. I can't understand anything as dumb as Joe G denying that familial relationships work into a nested hierarchy. It doesn't make sense to me what he's saying. I just can't get it.

It doesn't make any sense to me either and I think we agree that it doesn't make sense in the "WTF kind of way" not in the "that argument is dumb ind of way".

I find it fascinating that words can be put together in such a way that they form a coherent sentence which makes no sense.  Every once in a great while he puts something down that gets ever so slightly closer to the inner core of this NH dis-belief.  I truly believe that I may live to see into that dark core of whatever-it-is.

I've now asked him if he disagrees that the Sons of Steve can be placed in all of the following categories:

1.  Family of Steve
2.  Family of Bob
3.  Family of Chris

He will, of course, avoid answering this question, but someday he may slip up and give out some info on his opinion in this matter.

If even an indirect look at what his answer to that question can be had, oh what a day...for comedy.

Hm.  Sorry if this is pedantic, but I think I see JoeG's confusion regarding a nested hierarchy.  He keeps harping on the following:

   
Quote
On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.


And I think his confusion stems from the following understanding "any element at level N of a nested hierarchy (NH) must also be a member of level N-1 of the sane NH". He interprets this to mean that the following is a NH:

Code Sample

       Bob
       /    \
    Steve     Harry
  /      \    /       \
Pete    Barry Larry   Moe


if and only if larry is a "harry".  Which is by definition "false" - calling "larry" "harry" is incorrect.  But, of course, this misses the point which is that the hierarchy isn't on particular "people"; a NH is built exclusively on relationships.  Perhaps the following explanation of the same NH would clarify for Joe, where D(x) represents descendents of (x), including "x":

Code Sample

             D(Bob)
                /    \
      D(Steve)   D(Harry)
/      \    /       \
D(Pete), D(Barry), D(Larry), D(Moe)


Where now it is true that all "descendents of Larry" are "descendents of Harry", even though "Larry" is not a "Harry".

In this way the web page he cites is properly correct:

General --> Major --> PFC

is not a nested hierarchy because "Majors" are not "Generals".  But the following is a nested hierarchy (where U(x) represents "under the command of 'x'":

Code Sample

           U(General)
           /        \
   U(Major1)     U(Major2)
  /        \       /      \
U(PFC1),U(PFC2),U(PFC3),U(PFC4).


Could that be the confusion?  Or is Joe just too far gone?

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,15:49   

That is exactly his confusion.  Joe however, like most creationists and the ineducable, will not listen to that explanation.  Why?

I think it is because the argument does not start with the words Nested Hierarchy.  He likes to argue from the end and support his argument of the end by citing the end.

He does not understand proper logical argument.  If you try to make a basic point A in order to develop it into a point B and finally on to Conclusion X, he wont listen.

Since Point A doesn't make the whole argument, it is wrong.  He always makes his arguments by stating Conclusion X and never giving supporting assumptions, facts, or arguments.  This is the only type of logical that is in his grasp.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,17:21   

@ franky172:

I've given Joe the link to your above excellent comment.  We'll see exactly what kind of response we get.  My thought is that he'll say exactly the same thing he always does:

Nanananana-boo-boo.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,01:06   

Quote (blipey @ July 20 2007,17:21)
@ franky172:

I've given Joe the link to your above excellent comment.  We'll see exactly what kind of response we get.  My thought is that he'll say exactly the same thing he always does:

Nanananana-boo-boo.

I'm sure Joe will :)

Out of curiosity, where is the current discussion?

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,15:23   

Quote (franky172 @ July 21 2007,01:06)
Quote (blipey @ July 20 2007,17:21)
@ franky172:

I've given Joe the link to your above excellent comment.  We'll see exactly what kind of response we get.  My thought is that he'll say exactly the same thing he always does:

Nanananana-boo-boo.

I'm sure Joe will :)

Out of curiosity, where is the current discussion?

Here it is.

Both the "nananana-boo-boo" and an extra "franky172 is a stupid boob" thrown in for good measure.

I've now had my fill of JoeG; he's perhaps the stupidest person I have ever encountered.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,16:06   

Quote

I've now had my fill of JoeG; he's perhaps the stupidest person I have ever encountered.


Blipey, do you ever get the feeling that Joe is some kind of bizarre pet you're watching?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,16:27   

Quote
I've now had my fill of JoeG


We'll see, Blipey, we'll see. Take it from one who knows, addictions aren't that easy to break. ;)

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,16:58   

All of my pets have been way more interesting than Joe and probably smarter as well.  Let's see, Siamese Cats, Airdale Terrier, Cockatiel, a pair of Newts, Red Devil.

Yep. All more interesting.  Joe doesn't even move on to different phrasing of stupid sentences.  He says A, then A, backs it up with A, and then links to A.  Once you've looked at the 3 or so topics that Joe blathers about, it's all very boring.

I think I've actually read every sentence that Joe will ever form.  He can, at this point, add no new information to the universe.  There are other, while still stupid, more interesting tards to watch.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,22:55   

Quote (blipey @ July 22 2007,16:58)
All of my pets have been way more interesting than Joe and probably smarter as well.  Let's see, Siamese Cats, Airdale Terrier, Cockatiel, a pair of Newts, Red Devil.

Yep. All more interesting.  Joe doesn't even move on to different phrasing of stupid sentences.  He says A, then A, backs it up with A, and then links to A.  Once you've looked at the 3 or so topics that Joe blathers about, it's all very boring.

I think I've actually read every sentence that Joe will ever form.  He can, at this point, add no new information to the universe.  There are other, while still stupid, more interesting tards to watch.

Oh jeez.  What have I gotten myself into.  I can't stop.....  I'm not going to post anything on Joe's blog, but I imagine he may follow this thread, and I assume he isn't banned here, so if he would like to discuss this further I might suggest he post a response here.  

But here I go:

   
Quote
I read frank172 and he is incorrect also. Not only that he appears to put words in my mouth.


Precisely what part of your argument did I misrepresent in my post.  Please be specific.

   
Quote
That seems to be common amonst evolutionitwits.

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   
Quote
Perhaps you guys should focus on the OP and the rules of hierarchy theory.

Let's.

   
Quote
Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below.

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.


Do we agree with these rules?  Do we agree with the following definition of a nested hierarchy:

"A nested hierarchy is a structured set of sets, where all sets are potentially connected "above" to "parent" sets and "below" to "child" sets, such that all elements of a node's children are elements of the node.  The "top-most" node in such a structure, if it exists, has no parent and is called the "root node"."

 
Quote
Note the words "several criteria".

To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- “Who’s your daddy?”

The argument in your original post appears to be that since a paternal family tree relies on only one "criteria" it is not a nested hierarchy.  Is this a correct statement of your argument?

   
Quote
With Kingdon, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, we sapiens (species) also belong to the Genus Homo, the Family Hominindae, the Order Primates, the Class Mammalia, the Phylum Chordata and the Kingdom Anamalia.


Very good.

   
Quote
With a paternal family tree the lower levels will never be part of the upper level. The person on the top will always be a separate entity.

I believe this is false.  Let D(x) denote the set {x,descendants of x}.  Then I argue that the following is a nested hierarchy:

Example 1:
Code Sample

                D(sam)
               /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


   
Quote
However I do think it's funny that you think that other morons are going to be able to help you out.

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   
Quote
Why is it that you people still refuse to abide by the rules of hierarchy?

Which rules in particular are violated in example (1) above.  Please be specific.

   
Quote
And why would blipey run to some other anonymous imbeciles for support?

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   
Quote
K->P->C->O->F->G->S
   is NOT a nested hierarchy but:
   _P/\C_C
   /\_/\_/\_/\
   and so on is!!!


I believe you have mis-understood the fundamentals of the argument.  Re-shaping the way we draw the structure does not alter the underlying type of structure we are dealing with.  Carefully defining the terms used to generate the sets does.  For example if we assume "A = {set of all aces}", "K = {set of all kings}" etc,

A->K->Q->J->10->9...

is not a nested hierarchy, because "Aces" don't consist of "Kings".  However if we define a "below" operator: "B(x) = {s : the value of s is less than or equal to x}" then:
B(A)->B(K)->B(Q)->B(J)->...

Does form a nested hierarchy because the elements of the set "B(Q)" include the elements of "B(J)".  Do we agree that this ordering of playing cards forms a nested hierarchy?  If so, why does the following not form a nested hierarchy:

D(sam) -> D(sam's first son) -> D(sam's first grandson)?

If not, why not?

   
Quote
It would be best to find someone that actually knows what they are talking about.

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   
Quote
Better luck next time clowny. Until then I will have to go with the experts and authorities that agree with my premise that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy.

I have not encountered any of these people.

   
Quote
And that there are other imbeciles that agree with blipey sure does say quite a bit about the level of education of evolutionitwits.

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   
Quote
It doesn't follow the rules.

Which of the rules does the paternal family tree not follow?

   
Quote
LoL!!! That is why I have been asking you to draw up a paternal family tree without the names.


D(p1) -> D(p1's first son) -> D(p1's first grandson)?

   
Quote
In both valid schemes of a nested hierarchy that I have presented, it is clear that the lowest level belongs to ALL nodes leading to it INCLUDING the top level.


A descendant of p1's first grandson is a descendant of p1's first son is a descendant of p1.  Yes or no?

 
Quote
In a paternal family tree Steve is at the top node- alone. Not Steve's family. Steve does not consist of his family any more than a general consists of his troops.

But D(p1) consists of D(p1's first son).  Yes?

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,07:52   

Here ya go:

Nested Hierarchy for Dummies

And Franky172, if you don't agree with the rules of hierarchy then you have more problems than I care to address.

Here are those rules:

Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy

Notice the following:

Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.

Do you still think that a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy?

You probably do, but then again you are also an evolutionist.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,10:18   

Quote

You probably do, but then again you are also an evolutionist.


A devastating rhetorical stroke. Or, you could throw around the insult 'Darwinist' like VMartin does. He wins lots of arguments that way.

Aren't you a Muslim, Joe? I thought you said so at one point.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,11:03   

So I suppose you will now tell us specifically why

Quote
D(p1) consists of D(p1's first son)


this is not true?

I mean, besides saying that Darwinists are only 3'8"?  That is your argument, right?  That Darwinists are wrong about everything because they're short?  Or is it because they eat bacon?

Come on, Joe.  Now that you're here, how about telling us WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY:

A FAMILY does not consist of its members.

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?

Why does the family of Dave not consist of Dave's family?

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY

How can franky172's definition of the sets in a nested hierarchy be wrong?

HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW

Specific mathematical refutation please.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,11:06   

You have not answered any of my questions.  I will repeat some:

1) Precisely what part of your argument did I misrepresent in my post.  Please be specific.

2) Do we agree with the following definition of a nested hierarchy:

"A nested hierarchy is a structured set of sets, where all sets are potentially connected "above" to "parent" sets and "below" to "child" sets, such that all elements of a node's children are elements of the node.  The "top-most" node in such a structure, if it exists, has no parent and is called the "root node"."

3) The argument in your original post appears to be that since a paternal family tree relies on only one "criteria" it is not a nested hierarchy.  Is this a correct statement of your argument?

4) Which rules in particular are violated in example (1) above.  Please be specific.

5) However if we define a "below" operator: "B(x) = {s : the value of s is less than or equal to x}" then:
B(A)->B(K)->B(Q)->B(J)->...

Does form a nested hierarchy because the elements of the set "B(Q)" include the elements of "B(J)".  Do we agree that this ordering of playing cards forms a nested hierarchy?  If so, why does the following not form a nested hierarchy:

D(sam) -> D(sam's first son) -> D(sam's first grandson)?

If not, why not?

Continuing:

Quote
Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.

Do you still think that a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy?


Yes.  Can you please answer the following question.  In the following:

D(p1) -> D(p2) -> D(p3)

Does the level D(p2) consist of and contain D(p3)?

Yes or no?  I believe that most people believe that D(p2) consists of and contains D(p3).  You appear to disagree.

Quote

You probably do, but then again you are also an evolutionist.

This is not aiding your argument.

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,11:48   

I'm not paying much attention to the nested hierarchy celebrity showdown, but it was impossible not to notice the following when glancing at Joe's site:



Maybe Joe can reconcile the statements circled in red for us.  I look forward to some vintage Joe, and I'm hoping he won't forget his patented "Reality says you're wrong."

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,12:07   

And Joe, we're hoping you'll come back to this thread at Alan's blog to answer some questions for us.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,13:49   

Quote (Rob @ July 23 2007,11:48)
I'm not paying much attention to the nested hierarchy celebrity showdown, but it was impossible not to notice the following when glancing at Joe's site:



Maybe Joe can reconcile the statements circled in red for us.  I look forward to some vintage Joe, and I'm hoping he won't forget his patented "Reality says you're wrong."

Nice Find.

Joe, are you capable of discussing matters on a unmoderated forum, or will you scuttle off back to safe ground?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,14:13   

This is a moderated forum. It's just not a crushingly moderated forum. Moderation is a good thing, really.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,14:17   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 23 2007,14:13)
This is a moderated forum. It's just not a crushingly moderated forum. Moderation is a good thing, really.

It's okay in moderation.  ???

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,15:22   

Let D(x) denote the set {x,descendants of x}.  Then I argue that the following is a nested hierarchy:

Example 1:

Code Sample

               D(sam)
              /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.

Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.


In a paternal family tree the father sits on top, alone

In your card example the first/ super set is all cards. Then you get rid of the aces and so on.

Also- do you see your definition of a nested hierarchy on the link provided?

hierarchy principles

If not I don't agree with it.


To Rob:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com

I have problems getting to Alan's blog- as well as ARN.

Also I can't make out what it is you want me to reconcile.

To blipey:

I made my position clear- the FATHER does not consist of nor contain his family. The FATHER sits alone on top of a PATERNAL family tree.

In Franky's scheme the top set contains all male descendants as they are born, as well as the father.

I don't know when I'll get back, but please hold your breath...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,15:33   

OK Rob- I explained it already. What part of the following don't you understand?:

A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.

That doesn't make it fictitious. And if you think it does then there is a good reason I won't be answering any more of your questions.

Do you guys ever answer any questions pertaining to the theory of evolution or universal common descent? I mean with scientific data and such...

My point has always been if you are going to use any family tree, use the whole tree. Getting selective is deceptive.

The whole point was to show that universal common descent, which would include both parents, would predict a nested hierarchy.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,15:41   

Joe:  
Quote
OK Rob- I explained it already. What part of the following don't you understand?:

A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.

That doesn't make it fictitious.

The part I don't understand is how something can be nonexistent in reality and yet not be fictitious.  But I forgot that in Joe's world, anything is possible.

Edited to add:  I realize that you're aware of the fact that hierarchical paternal relationships exist, and that when you say that paternal family trees don't exist in reality and yet they're not fictitious, you're just communicating poorly.  But it's gratifying to make fun of you because you're an arrogant jerk who would rather heap insults on his opponents than try to convey his thoughts coherently.  If you were to make that effort, you might find that some of your ideas are, au fond, incoherent.

And BTW, I understand your position as well as your opponents' on the paternal tree / nested hierarchy thing, and it seems to me that any hierarchy could be considered nested if the nodes are interpreted that way.  If we interpret a node labeled "Bob" to include Bob's posterity, as franky does, then the hierarchy is nested.  If we interpret it to not include his posterity, then the hierarchy is not nested.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:05   

Quote (Joe G @ July 23 2007,15:22)
I have problems

This quotemine's worthy of Sal, I think you'll agree.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:09   

Quote
If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.


Stop.  Do we agree that the following structure:
Code Sample

              D(sam)
             /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


forms a nested hierarchy?  A simple yes or no will suffice.  (Call this structure example 1)

Quote
Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.

I do not know what you mean by "correct rendition".  

Quote
In a paternal family tree the father sits on top, alone

Do we agree that example 1 forms a nested hierarchy?  Yes or no.  Do we agree that example 1 describes a "paternal family tree"?  Yes or no.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:18   

Quote
Example 1:

Code Sample

              D(sam)
             /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.

Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.


Joe, if you have a problem with this, then why is the following not a problem?

                  D(Field Army)
                 /              \
D(Division A)                D(Division B)

An ARMY is a NH, as you have agreed, and would include all divisions A, B, C, etc.  The function D(x) here denotes all sets that include a particular level and those under it.  You have continually stated that an ARMY consists of itself and all levels under it.  How is this not represented in the above examples?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:19   

Also Joe, since this makes no sense, perhaps you can expound:

Quote
the original argument of a paternal family tree


What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?

And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:21   

Quote (Joe G @ July 23 2007,15:22)
I have problems getting to Alan's blog- as well as ARN.

Yes, bcoz Alan's blog's infrastructure is provided by blogger.com who are really google.com and as we all know, their internet backbone linkage is v.poor indeed.

I mean, you'd have to put a datacentre in every town to get the kind of coverage google have got. Impossible!


From where I am my ISP goes 16 hops to blogger.com, and the only intermediary network is level3.net.

Joe, if you install Tor it should allow you to proxy your traffic via other routes and make any site accessible. No excuses!

30+ hops and counting to http://www.antievolution.org.

And as to the moderation. Perhaps I should have said arbitrary censorship instead  :p

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:24   

Quote
Joe:  

OK Rob- I explained it already. What part of the following don't you understand?:

A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.

That doesn't make it fictitious.


You see, reality demonstrates that unicorns don't exist in reality but that doesn't mean I don't have one as a pet in my room...that I feed cheesy-poofs to and buy sweaters for.

[/Joe G logic algorithm]

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:44   

Quote (franky172 @ July 23 2007,16:09)
Quote
If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.


Stop.  Do we agree that the following structure:
Code Sample

              D(sam)
             /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


forms a nested hierarchy?  A simple yes or no will suffice.  (Call this structure example 1)

 
Quote
Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.

I do not know what you mean by "correct rendition".  

 
Quote
In a paternal family tree the father sits on top, alone

Do we agree that example 1 forms a nested hierarchy?  Yes or no.  Do we agree that example 1 describes a "paternal family tree"?  Yes or no.

You stop Franky. If it doesn't abide by the principles of hierarchy then it isn't a nested hierarchy.

What are the defintionS for each of your levels? Male descendant is one definition and it is also part of the definition of the whole.

A correct rendition of a paternal family tree has the patriach at the top- alone.

Do you understand that?

A simple yes or no. We cannot continue until we agree on that point.

By including all male decendants into the top superset D(x) you no longer have a paternal family tree.

Do you understand that?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:50   

Quote (blipey @ July 23 2007,16:19)
Also Joe, since this makes no sense, perhaps you can expound:

 
Quote
the original argument of a paternal family tree


What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?

And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?

Ummm a "paternal family tree" has the patriach sitting on top- alone. Then all male descendants are under him.

The next level would be his closest descendants.

In Frank's scheme the top level is the patriach and all male descedants.

What part about that don't you understand?

Time isn't cheap and I've wasted too much here already.

When you have something new please drop by my blog and let me know...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:08   

Quote (Joe G @ July 23 2007,16:50)
 
Quote (blipey @ July 23 2007,16:19)
Also Joe, since this makes no sense, perhaps you can expound:

   
Quote
the original argument of a paternal family tree


What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?

And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?

Ummm a "paternal family tree" has the patriach sitting on top- alone. Then all male descendants are under him.

The next level would be his closest descendants.

In Frank's scheme the top level is the patriach and all male descedants.

What part about that don't you understand?

Time isn't cheap and I've wasted too much here already.

When you have something new please drop by my blog and let me know...

Just "Wow". This level of obtuseness is completely unprecedented in my experience. And that is a lot of experience...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:24   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 23 2007,16:21)
   
Quote (Joe G @ July 23 2007,15:22)
I have problems getting to Alan's blog- as well as ARN.

Yes, bcoz Alan's blog's infrastructure is provided by blogger.com
who also hosts Joe's blog.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:47   

I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:11   

Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:15   

I'm going to take your appearance here, Joe, as evidence that you are absolutely lost and out of your league.  What evidence do I have for this?

Well, someone who is bombastic, rude, and generally a disagreeable person (look at this distinction, Joe)--BUT WHO ALSO KNOWS WHAT THE HELL THEY"RE TALKING ABOUT--generally will answer yes/no questions.  They will follow that answer up with a scathing attack on the asker, but they will answer the question because it proves they're right.

You, on the other hand, never answer yes/no questions, just skipping right to the scathing (warning: distinction coming up)--COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED--attack.

Here's the condensed list of simple questions you need to answer.  By answering them, you will show your superior logic skills and knowledge.

1.  Precisely what part of your argument did franky172 misrepresent in my post?  Please be specific.

2.  Do we agree with the following definition of a nested hierarchy:

"A nested hierarchy is a structured set of sets, where all sets are potentially connected "above" to "parent" sets and "below" to "child" sets, such that all elements of a node's children are elements of the node.  The "top-most" node in such a structure, if it exists, has no parent and is called the "root node"."

This is tricky, Joe.  Do you or do you not agree?  You've avoided this several times.  I think it's because you don't understand the words either you or franky used.

3.  The argument in your original post appears to be that since a paternal family tree relies on only one "criteria" it is not a nested hierarchy.  Is this a correct statement of your argument?

Another very tricky yes/no question.  If we could just tart with this one, we'd have somewhere to go.  Either this is your position and we can start the discussion here.  Or, it isn't your position and we need to start somewhere else.

4.  In the following:

D(p1) -> D(p2) -> D(p3)

Does the level D(p2) consist of and contain D(p3)?

Yes or no?

5.  Do we agree that the following structure:

             D(sam)
            /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


forms a nested hierarchy?

6.  What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?  And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?

Your answer here seems to say that the "argument of a paternal family tree" is that the father is on top.  In other words, we construct paternal family trees in order to figure out who the father is.  Is this a correct interpretation of your statement:

Quote
Ummm a "paternal family tree" has the patriach sitting on top- alone. Then all male descendants are under him.


Thanks for avoiding these with tardarific obfuscation.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:19   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 23 2007,19:11)
Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.

:p

   
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:22   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 23 2007,18:11)
Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.

Plus he's a chauvinist!

I'm just kidding, but Joe is not:
Quote
What I will say about any "paternal family tree" is it demonstrates chauvinism.

By blipey's insistent use of a "paternal family tree" we could safely infer he is a chauvinist as well.


--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:24   

That's as may be, but I like really big breasts; I get points for that, right?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:28   

This does bring up a question for me, Joe.  Do you believe that a maternal family tree is a nested hierarchy?

Or, perhaps we should start with an easier question?

Do you believe that a maternal family tree is a real construct?  If you do, I'll be more than happy to continue the argument using this completely and radically different structure.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,19:47   

Quote
You stop Franky. If it doesn't abide by the principles of hierarchy then it isn't a nested hierarchy.


I have asked you a simple question.  Do you think this is a nested hierarchy:

Code Sample

             D(sam)
            /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


This is a straightforward question.

 
Quote
What are the defintionS for each of your levels? Male descendant is one definition and it is also part of the definition of the whole.

I do not understand your statement.

 
Quote
A correct rendition of a paternal family tree has the patriach at the top- alone.

Do you understand that?

It is true that in typical renditions of "family trees" we replace the notation D(sam) with simply "Sam", but this is merely shorthand - we understand that the lines connecting different people are shorthand for "descendent of" and we can interpret the names shown on the treee as belonging to the unique individual whose position is at each node.  I.e. the shorthand:

Code Sample

      Sam
     /   \
   Bill Steve

Means that Bill and Steve are descendents of Sam, and in terms of the "descendent" relationship, this structure forms a nested hierarchy since we are using an implicit shorthand for:

Code Sample

      D(Sam)
     /   \
   D(Bill) D(Steve)


 
Quote
A simple yes or no. We cannot continue until we agree on that point.

It depends what you mean by "patriarchal family tree", typically we use shorthand to represent the nested hierarchical structure that descent from a common ancestor leads to, and we simply write "X" at each node of a tree.  This is for many reasons, one of which is simplicity of notation.  That the relationship of "descended from" forms a nested hierarchical structure is not, I believe, in dispute, so what you appear to be arguing over is notation.  Do we agree that we can sort the descendents of a person into a nested hierarchy, and that with slight change of notation this structure is identical to the colloquial "family tree"?

 
Quote
By including all male decendants into the top superset D(x) you no longer have a paternal family tree.

I believe that the notation D(x) explicitly shows that decent-based relationships form nested hierarchies, regardless of whatever definition of "paternal family tree" you want to use.  Do we agree?

Now that I have answered your questions, there are several questions that have been posed to you that remain unanswered.  Would you do us the favor of answering them?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,20:15   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 23 2007,18:11)
Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.

Hang on there -- I thought that wimminfolk came from a  guy's rib, anyway.

So there'd be just one dude at the top of the family line anyway, no . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,21:49   

Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

Just to draw a distinction; in mathematics, a nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. This definition would include leaves on an archetypal tree grouped naturally by branch and limb; an orthodox military organization; or even an arbitrary but carefully devised classification scheme. In biology, it refers specifically to the observed nested hierarchy of taxonomic traits.

Quote (franky172 @ July 23 2007,19:47)
Quote
You stop Franky. If it doesn't abide by the principles of hierarchy then it isn't a nested hierarchy.

I have asked you a simple question.  Do you think this is a nested hierarchy:

Code Sample

             D(sam)
            /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

This is a straightforward question.

Joe G's problem is far more fundamental than that. Joe G doesn't have a clear understanding as to what is meant by a "set" or even if the contents of my pocket can be considered as a set. Hence, discussions of subsets, supersets, nested sets, empty sets, much less how we can recognize a taxonomy are well beyond his kin. Nor does he recognize his limitation in this regard.

(That was the thread that led to my banning by arbitrary demand.)

Quote
Joe G:  A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality

Apparently, Joe G doesn't know who is in the set of {his males descendants} or the set of {his father's male descendants}.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,23:27   

Quote
That the relationship of "descended from" forms a nested hierarchical structure is not, I believe, in dispute, so what you appear to be arguing over is notation.


emphasis added to clearly denote Joe's wonder-dumbness

Actually, I believe this is exactly what Joe is disputing.  Which makes my earlier claim that he is the only person in the world who disputes this fairly plausible.

I'm still waiting for contact by all those people who agree with you, Joe.  Send them by; have them drop a comment.  It doesn't even have to be multiple people.  One person, anyone, who agrees with you will do.  Please produce this person.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,06:41   

Steve,

Ken Cox's Post of the Month explains nested hierarchies and twin nested hierarchies.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,09:25   

One more time-

With a paternal family tree the patriach sits at the top node/ level all alone.

In Franky's scheme all male descedants of x, including x also sit at the top node/ level.

IOW Franky's scheme is NOT a paternal family tree.

Franky172 has changed the idea of a paternal family tree to a scheme of all male descendants of x, including x.

But is that scheme a nested hierarchy?

A reminder of the rules of hierarchy:

Principles of Hierarchy Theory:

With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?"

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

Note the word "properties".

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below.

Note the words "set of definitions"

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.

Note the words "several criteria".

To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- “Who’s your daddy?”

Quote
Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.


Now in a scheme of all male descendants of x, including x what would be the properties that characterize the level in question?

What are the set of definitions that lock a level in question to those above and below it?

What are the several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels?

And for the clincher- what is done to the male descendants that are born of female descendants? How are they tied to the top level?

Questions like these arise and usually go unanswered when people, who don't know what they are doing, try to establish something anyway.

And now Zachriel chimes in with his lies.

Isn't life wonderful!!!!

Have fun wallowing in whatever it is you guys wallow in...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,09:31   

To Franky172:

In your scenario D(sam) would really be D(sam, sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson). So we would have D(sam, sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson)-> D(sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson)-> D(sam’s first grandson).

D(sam) only exists in the absence of all male descendants.

IOW you can't even draw your scheme correctly. So either you are dishonest or not too bright.

Either way it demonstrates that it is a waste of time trying to discuss this with you.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,09:36   

Joe, do you still tell people you're a qualified scientist because your degree says "Bachelor of Science, Engineering Technology"?

:D  :D  :D

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,09:39   

For Zachriel to ignore again:

Why Set Theory is irrelevant when discussing Nested Hierarchy

When talking about set theory any sets and subsequent subsets, apart from nested hierarchy, you can have items from one set by included with items from another set on the same level.

With set theory in general anything can be a set. Just put whatever you want in {} and you have a set. Or if you can't find {} just declare what you want to be in a set. Then all subsets are just that set and/ or that set minus any number of items.

For example with Zachriel's paternal family tree I can make a set of {Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Abdul Ilah,Faisal}. A subset would then be {Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Failsal}. It is a valid set and it is a valid subset. However neither make sense in a nested hierarchy.

In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set. Also all subsets must be strictly contained within the set above it.

In nested hierarchy each set and each level are specifically defined by several criteria. This is done such that a person can pick an item from one set, hand it to another person, and from the specifications be able to replace the item in its original set.

That is why when you are talking about nested hierarchy and someone tries to divert the attention to set theory they are up to nothing but deception.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,10:17   

C'mon Joe, don't be shy!  Give us some of that vintage tard, the stuff you posted at EvC Forums as "John Paul" (before you got banned that it  ;) )

Tell us how the Himalayas were formed by the continents crashing together at 45 MPH.

Tell us about how all the pyramids in Egypt were built after the FLUD.

Tell us about how Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark study is such a sound scientific document

Tell us about the alien cities on the Moon and Mars

We want the tard!  We want the tard!  :p  :p  :p

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,10:31   

Please reread your last post, Joe.

Then tell us how an ARMY fits in.  Specifically, I would be interested in the reconcilliation of the following:

1.  In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set.

AND

2.  All levels of ARMY (ie FIELD ARMY) consist of and CONTAIN all lower levels.

AND

3.  How this is different than than:

    D(sam)
           /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

Great.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,11:05   

It is obvious that Franky172 doesn't realize that his:

D{x, all male descendabts of x} translates to D(sam) only when Sam doesn't have any male descendants!!!

Once Sam has a male descendant the scheme looks like:

D(sam, sam's first male descendant)
|
D(sam's first male descdendant)

When the next male descenfdant arrives the scheme changes to, oops we may have a problem without specifically defined levels:

____D(sam, sam's first male descendant, sam's second male descendant)

The definition of levels is key here. Would the first level below the starting node od D{x, all male descendants of x} be reserved for Sam's sons?

What happens when Sam's first male descendant isn't Sam's son but the son of one of Sam's daughters?

Without well-defined levels any alleged "nested hierarchy" dissolves into jibberish.

To blipey- the answers are in my posts.

To figure out if Franky's scheme is a nested hierarchy try answering the questions I posed.

To OA- you are a tard. If you want tard just wake-up.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,11:18   

It's like this blipey:

                D(sam)
              /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

SHOULD be written as:

D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son)
               /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


That you refuse to understand that simple fact does more to your credibility than anything I could ever say.

Thank you once again.

Gotta run, lunch is here...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,11:29   

Quote
In Franky's scheme all male descedants of x, including x also sit at the top node/ level.


What does it mean to "sit at the top node"?  That the set D(sam) includes all of Sam's descendents?  I agree.

Quote
But is that scheme a nested hierarchy?


I have asked you on several offasions to answer whether or not you think the scheme is a nested hierarchy.  You refuse to answer.  Why is that?

Quote
With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?"

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

Note the word "properties".


I will ask again: your argument appears to be that a nested hierarchy can not be formed using a single relationship, because this is not plural "properties".  Is this a valid restatement of your argument?

Quote
Note the words "set of definitions"

I will ask again: your argument appeats to be that a nested hierarchy can not be formed using a single relationship, because this is not a plural "definitions".  Is this a valid restatement of your argument?

Quote
The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.

Note the words "several criteria".

I will ask again: your argument appeats to be that a nested hierarchy can not be formed using a single relationship, because this is not a plural "several criteria".  Is this a valid restatement of your argument?

To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- “Who’s your daddy?”

Quote
Now in a scheme of all male descendants of x, including x what would be the properties that characterize the level in question?

The level in question is the set of all descendents of x.

Quote
What are the set of definitions that lock a level in question to those above and below it?

Above: "direct male ancestor of"

Quote
What are the several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels?

Below: "direct male descendant of"

Quote
And for the clincher- what is done to the male descendants that are born of female descendants? How are they tied to the top level?


I don't understand your question or it's relevance.

Quote
Questions like these arise and usually go unanswered when people, who don't know what they are doing, try to establish something anyway.

This is true, but not in the way you intend.

Quote
In your scenario D(sam) would really be D(sam, sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson). So we would have D(sam, sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson)-> D(sam’s first son, sam’s first grandson)-> D(sam’s first grandson).


I do not understand your statement.  What does it mean for D(sam) to "really be" D(sam, sam's first son, ...)?  What does it mean for a definition of a set to "really be" something else?

Quote
Either way it demonstrates that it is a waste of time trying to discuss this with you.


I noticed that I answered all of the questions you have posed to me, and you have steadfastly refused to answer all of the questions posed to you.  Simple "yes" "no" answers will suffice, Joe.

  
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,11:47   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,11:18)
It's like this blipey:

                D(sam)
              /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

SHOULD be written as:

D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son)
               /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


That you refuse to understand that simple fact does more to your credibility than anything I could ever say.

Thank you once again.

Gotta run, lunch is here...

I have defined the following:

D(x) = {s: s = x, or s is a male descendant of x}

So it's not clear what you mean by:

Quote
SHOULD be written as:

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,12:09   

Quote
Zachriel: A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.

Joe G: EXACTLY!


Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,09:39)
For Zachriel to ignore again:

Why Set Theory is irrelevant when discussing Nested Hierarchy

So, even though a nested hierarchy is defined in terms of sets, subsets and supersets; set theory has nothing to do with it.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,12:33   

This is a royal, paternal family tree. It has biological, social, political, financial and cultural significance.



We define "Sons" to mean all male descendents.

 Sons of Abdullah = {Talal, Neyef, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Talal = {Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Hussein I = {Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of each other element = empty set

This is a nested hierarchy based on paternal relationships. The nested hierarchy of the Sons of Abdullah is strictly contained within the nested hierarchy of Sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,13:06   

So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,13:29   

Quote (Zachriel @ July 24 2007,12:33)
This is a royal, paternal family tree. It has biological, social, political, financial and cultural significance.



We define "Sons" to mean all male descendents.

 Sons of Abdullah = {Talal, Neyef, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Talal = {Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Hussein I = {Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of each other element = empty set

This is a nested hierarchy based on paternal relationships. The nested hierarchy of the Sons of Abdullah is strictly contained within the nested hierarchy of Sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali.

Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.

The "set" at the top of Zachriel's "tree" is Abdullah. If you look at the diagram closely you will see only his name.

That "set" does NOT include all the other sets-> it does not include all male descendants. Perhaps that is what the "tree" as a whole is trying to do, but that is not the point. The point is the SET at the top level maust consist of and contain all the sets in the levels below it.

Period, end of story.

Now if you want to call the top node/ level {Abdullah and all his male descendants} that is another story. But then you are not representing a paternal family tree.

A paternal family tree has the patriach, all alone, at the top node. Just as Zachriel's diagram shows.

Also Zachriel set theory is irrelevant for the reasons provided. Anything can be a set but not all sets can be a nested hierarchy.

Thank you for continuing to ignore them.

Sorry Franky- if you haven't figured it out by now I can't help you. Perhaps someday you will. Good luck with that...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,13:37   

For Franky:

If you have a scheme of x and all male descendants ox x, with x also being a male, what happens when one generation is of all females, who then have sons?

How do you connect them back to the top node? In all of your schemes you have the level below directly linked to someone in the level above. In my scenario there isn't anyone above to link to. It would have to be directly linked to the top node, or just left there hanging in oblivion.

Also if:

That the set D(sam) includes all of Sam's descendents?

Then you do not have a paternal family tree.

IOW you are changing things to suit your outcome.

Thank you for the demonstration. That speaks more than words.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,13:37   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:29)
The "set" at the top of Zachriel's "tree" is Abdullah. If you look at the diagram closely you will see only his name.

That "set" does NOT include all the other sets-> it does not include all male descendants.

Joe, please see the following definition provided by Franky:

 
Quote (franky172 @ July 24 2007,11:47)

I have defined the following:

D(x) = {s: s = x, or s is a male descendant of x}


If you set x="Abdullah" your definition of a nested heirarchy is exactly the same as Franky's and Zach's.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,13:39   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?

Nope.

Is your ultimate point that we owe our existence to sheer dumb luck? It must be because in the absence of intelligent design or a Special Creation, that is all you have.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,13:42   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 24 2007,13:37)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:29)
The "set" at the top of Zachriel's "tree" is Abdullah. If you look at the diagram closely you will see only his name.

That "set" does NOT include all the other sets-> it does not include all male descendants.

Joe, please see the following definition provided by Franky:

   
Quote (franky172 @ July 24 2007,11:47)

I have defined the following:

D(x) = {s: s = x, or s is a male descendant of x}


If you set x="Abdullah" your definition of a nested heirarchy is exactly the same as Franky's and Zach's.

It's ONE definition. A nested hierarchy requires several, and only sometimes will one apply.

These are the rules:

Quote
Hierarchy: in mathematical terms, it is a partially ordered set. In less austere terms, a hierarchy is a collection of parts with ordered asymmetric relationships inside a whole. That is to say, upper levels are above lower levels, and the relationship upwards is asymmetric with the relationships downwards.

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question. A given entity may belong to any number of levels, depending on the criteria used to link levels above and below. For example, an individual human being may be a member of the level i) human, ii) primate, iii) organism or iv) host of a parasite, depending on the relationship of the level in question to those above and below.

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below. For example, a biological population level is an aggregate of entities from the organism level of organization, but it is only so by definition. There is no particular scale involved in the population level of organization, in that some organisms are larger than some populations, as in the case of skin parasites.

Level of observation: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of relative scaling considerations. For example, the host of a skin parasite represents the context for the population of parasites; it is a landscape, even though the host may be seen as belonging to a level of organization, organism, that is lower than the collection of parasites, a population.

The criterion for observation: when a system is observed, there are two separate considerations. One is the spatiotemporal scale at which the observations are made. The other is the criterion for observation, which defines the system in the foreground away from all the rest in the background. The criterion for observation uses the types of parts and their relationships to each other to characterize the system in the foreground. If criteria for observation are linked together in an asymmetric fashion, then the criteria lead to levels of organization. Otherwise, criteria for observation merely generate isolated classes.

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels. These criteria often run in parallel, but sometimes only one or a few of them apply. Upper levels are above lower levels by virtue of: 1) being the context of, 2) offering constraint to, 3) behaving more slowly at a lower frequency than, 4) being populated by entities with greater integrity and higher bond strength than, and 5), containing and being made of - lower levels.

Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

Duality in hierarchies: the dualism in hierarchies appears to come from a set of complementarities that line up with: observer-observed, process-structure, rate-dependent versus rate-independent, and part-whole. Arthur Koestler in his "Ghost in The Machine" referred to the notion of holon, which means an entity in a hierarchy that is at once a whole and at the same time a part. Thus a holon at once operates as a quasi-autonomous whole that integrates its parts, while working to integrate itself into an upper level purpose or role. The lower level answers the question "How?" and the upper level answers the question, "So what?"

Constraint versus possibilities: when one looks at a system there are two separate reasons behind what one sees. First, it is not possible to see something if the parts of the system cannot do what is required of them to achieve the arrangement in the whole. These are the limits of physical possibility. The limits of possibility come from lower levels in the hierarchy. The second entirely separate reason for what one sees is to do with what is allowed by the upper level constraints. An example here would be that mammals have five digits. There is no physical reason for mammals having five digits on their hands and feet, because it comes not from physical limits, but from the constraints of having a mammal heritage. Any number of the digits is possible within the physical limits, but in mammals only five digits are allowed by the biological constraints. Constraints come from above, while the limits as to what is possible come from below. The concept of hierarchy becomes confused unless one makes the distinction between limits from below and limits from above. The distinction between mechanisms below and purposes above turn on the issue of constraint versus possibility. Forget the distinction, and biology becomes pointlessly confused, impossibly complicated chemistry, while chemistry becomes unwieldy physics.

Complexity and self-simplification: Howard Pattee has identified that as a system becomes more elaborately hierarchical its behavior becomes simple. The reason is that, with the emergence of intermediate levels, the lowest level entities become constrained to be far from equilibrium. As a result, the lowest level entities lose degrees of freedom and are held against the upper level constraint to give constant behavior. Deep hierarchical structure indicates elaborate organization, and deep hierarchies are often considered as complex systems by virtue of hierarchical depth.

Complexity versus complicatedness: a hierarchical structure with a large number of lowest level entities, but with simple organization, offers a low flat hierarchy that is complicated rather than complex. The behavior of structurally complicated systems is behaviorally elaborate and so complicated, whereas the behavior of deep hierarchically complex systems is simple.

Hierarchy theory is as much as anything a theory of observation. It has been significantly operationalized in ecology, but has been applied relatively infrequently outside that science. There is a negative reaction to hierarchy theory in the social sciences, by virtue of implications of rigid autocratic systems or authority. When applied in a more general fashion, even liberal and non-authoritarian systems can be described effectively in hierarchical terms. There is a politically correct set of labels that avoid the word hierarchy, but they unnecessarily introduce jargon into a field that has enough special vocabulary as it is.


Not what Franky or Zachriel claim they are.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,14:07   

For what feels like the fifth time, you have not answered my question.  Is the following a nested hierarchy:

Code Sample

               D(sam)
             /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

Yes or no, Joe.

Quote
If you have a scheme of x and all male descendants ox x, with x also being a male, what happens when one generation is of all females, who then have sons?


It depends on how you want to define the tree that forms a "patriarchal family tree".  Assume Sam has a son, and a daughter and the daughter has a son, "Sam's second grandson".  The following is a set of "male decsendents of Sam":

Code Sample

--------------------D(sam)
--------------/-----------------\
------------D(sam's son)---------\
-------------/-------------------\
---D(sam's first grandson)----D(sam's second grand son)


If we define a "paternal family tree" as a set of relations linked by sons, you might simply ignore any descendents of females, so the tree might end at a certain point.  How do you define "paternal family tree", Joe?  In your world does a paternal family tree include all male offspring?  Or only trace continual male lineages through time?  Depending on your answer to this you should be able to answer your own question.  (You can feel free to answer this question Joe, it's been a while since you answered any questions it seems.).

How would you like to define the operator "D", Joe?  (Here is another question you should answer.)

Quote
That the set D(sam) includes all of Sam's descendents?
Then you do not have a paternal family tree.
IOW you are changing things to suit your outcome.

I don't understand what you mean.

Quote
It's ONE definition. A nested hierarchy requires several, and only sometimes will one apply.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

  
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,14:08   

One more time Joe:

Quote

It depends what you mean by "patriarchal family tree", typically we use shorthand to represent the nested hierarchical structure that descent from a common ancestor leads to, and we simply write "X" at each node of a tree.  This is for many reasons, one of which is simplicity of notation.  That the relationship of "descended from" forms a nested hierarchical structure is not, I believe, in dispute, so what you appear to be arguing over is notation.  Do we agree that we can sort the descendents of a person into a nested hierarchy, and that with slight change of notation this structure is identical to the colloquial "family tree"?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,14:30   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?

Nope.

Is your ultimate point that we owe our existence to sheer dumb luck? It must be because in the absence of intelligent design or a Special Creation, that is all you have.

And in the absence of any actual evidence at all for your position all you have is blind faith.

What's so very terrible about owing our existence to sheer dumb luck? Are you afraid that your inner urges will become too powerful to resist if you are not held back by the thought of eternal torture and damnation?

Give me sheer dumb luck any day. Except I don't really believe in luck either. No devils following you round, ruining your day, or whatever mechanism you think applies luck. And that's in addition to the mystery being that you obviously think is required for the safe running of a universe! Do you believe in leprechauns Joe? There's more evidence for them then your intelligent designer.

And dumb? Define intelligence Joe, and then we'll talk about dumb.

So, having removed all the silly rhetorical devices you hide your insecurity with we are left with

 
Quote
Is your ultimate point that we owe our existence to      ?
or
 
Quote
Is your ultimate point that we owe our existence to sheer chance?


Either way, I don't see how your explanation ("special creation" or "intelligent design") is anything other then a slightly longer way of saying "don't know, don't want to know".

Intelligent Design==Don't know
Special Creation==Don't know
Real Science==Don't know but know how I think I might be able to find out or make a start anyways, or die trying.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,15:10   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:29)
         
Quote (Zachriel @ July 24 2007,12:33)
This is a royal, paternal family tree. It has biological, social, political, financial and cultural significance.



We define "Sons" to mean all male descendents.

 Sons of Abdullah = {Talal, Neyef, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Talal = {Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Hussein I = {Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of each other element = empty set

This is a nested hierarchy based on paternal relationships. The nested hierarchy of the Sons of Abdullah is strictly contained within the nested hierarchy of Sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali.

Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.

The "set" at the top of Zachriel's "tree" is Abdullah. If you look at the diagram closely you will see only his name.

That "set" does NOT include all the other sets-> it does not include all male descendants. Perhaps that is what the "tree" as a whole is trying to do, but that is not the point. The point is the SET at the top level maust consist of and contain all the sets in the levels below it.

Period, end of story.

I defined no set called Abdullah. I did define a set called Sons of Abdullah. It consists of every male descendency of Abdullah. The Sons of Hussein I is strictly contained within the Sons of Talal is strictly contained within the Sons of Abdullah.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,16:10   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?

Nope.

Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,16:15   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,14:30)
   
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?

Nope.

Is your ultimate point that we owe our existence to sheer dumb luck? It must be because in the absence of intelligent design or a Special Creation, that is all you have.

And in the absence of any actual evidence at all for your position all you have is blind faith.

What's so very terrible about owing our existence to sheer dumb luck? Are you afraid that your inner urges will become too powerful to resist if you are not held back by the thought of eternal torture and damnation?

Thank you. I was working up some kind of response along these lines but you beat me to it.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,17:08   

I just wasted five minutes trying to work out what the argument was about, and all I can see is that joe G doesn't make any sense.

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,18:25   

Enough with the hints. It’s apparent I will just have to cut to it.

It was first posited that a paternal family tree, which Zachriel posted as having a father, alone at the top level as the patriarch, is a nested hierarchy.

It was then shown that a patriarch does not consist of nor contain his male descendants. That wasn’t enough.

Now that has evolved to the top level being whoever you choose, as well as all of that person’s male descendants. Each subsequent level has some male descendant(s) occupying it. D(x):x={x, all male descendants of x}.

All along I have dropping hints.

blipey spewed that I was saying “fathers have fathers” so it isn’t a nested hierarchy. So close and yet so far

I kept hinting at the female side of the equation. That has fallen of deaf ears. Not my fault.

So here it is:

If all sons have mothers, and all mothers have fathers, how many hierarchies does Sam’s son- D(sam)->D(sam’s first son)- belong to?

HINT: He is the descendant of two potentially unrelated men- his father and his mother’s father.

Maybe your tree has your father and your mother’s father as the same guy. Otherwise you have a violation as the sets are no longer contained.

Can one soldier belong to two different squads or two different divisions at the same time?

Can a human belong to two phyla?


Quote
And in the absence of any actual evidence at all for your position all you have is blind faith.


There's plenty of evidence for my position. There isn't any evidence which shows that sheer dumb luck can bring this all together.



Quote
What's so very terrible about owing our existence to sheer dumb luck? Are you afraid that your inner urges will become too powerful to resist if you are not held back by the thought of eternal torture and damnation?


I don't care about damnation or eternal salvation. If it exists it is beyond me.

However owing our existence to sheer dumb luck pretty much takes the science out of it.

Perhaps that is what we should teach our kids. But how do we test sheer dumb luck?

Is saying that Stonehenge was designed "giving up"? Do archaeologists "give up" when they determine an object is an artifact?

Reality tells us it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not the object/ event in question occurred via design (intent)/ agency or if it was just nature, operating freely.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,18:30   

Zachriel,

In your diagram Sharif Hussein bin Ali sits ALONE at the top of his paternal family tree. I apologize for the name confusion earlier.

I don't care what trickonomics you want to throw around. Go sell crazy someplace else, obviously they have enough here.

The patriarch always sits alone on top of his family tree. He never consists of nor contains his descendants.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,18:34   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?

Nope.

Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.

I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,18:36   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?

Nope.

Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.

I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.

Uh huh. So tell me, who was the designer if it wasn't god?

Who designed them?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,18:54   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?

Nope.

Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.

I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.

What, then, is the essential defining difference that separates "god" from "the intelligent designer" exactly?

If the two terms are not interchangeable, then why not? I see no reason, and you've provided none so far.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,19:26   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:30)
Zachriel,

In your diagram Sharif Hussein bin Ali sits ALONE at the top of his paternal family tree. I apologize for the name confusion earlier.

I don't care what trickonomics you want to throw around. Go sell crazy someplace else, obviously they have enough here.

The patriarch always sits alone on top of his family tree. He never consists of nor contains his descendants.

Any non-trivial subset of a nested hierarchy is also a nested hierarchy. The leaves on an archetypal tree are a nested hierarchy by branch and limb, while each limb is a nested hierarchy by branch and stem. If you cut a limb, any branch descended from the limb is also cut from the trunk. (Contrariwise, spider webs are not nested hierarchies. If you cut an arbitrary thread, the rest of the web will probably hold.)

Paternity is an important aspect of inheritance. The real-life paternity I provided only includes father-son relationships. Here is a list of the elements of each set based on paternal relationship such that you can examine the elements of each set and verify the nesting.

 Sons of Abdullah = {Talal, Nayef, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Talal = {Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Hussein I = {Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}

Any element in Sons of Hussein I will be found in Sons of Talal. Any element in Sons of Talal will be found in Sons of Abdullah.

     
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:37)
If you have a scheme of x and all male descendants ox x, with x also being a male, what happens when one generation is of all females, who then have sons?




If a father has only daughters, then the paternal inheritance ends. This is a common issue in many traditional societies (e.g. Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice).  If you include female descendents and allow crosses between "kissing cousins", then you would not have a consistent nested hierarchy. A complete family tree including marriages is not a nested hierarchy, but a crossing of separate lineages.

Of course, your misunderstanding is far more fundamental. You consistently refuse to respond to arguments, while never failing to cast aspersions.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,19:27   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.

So the designer is a space alien . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,19:38   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.


Uh huh.

     
Quote
"Intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces" - William Dembski

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."- William Dembski


Yawn.

     
Quote
If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.

Quote
So the designer is a space alien . . . . . ?

Maybe Joe is horribly worried about what would happen to the morality of our society if everyone stopped believing in space aliens.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,19:45   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,19:38)
     
Quote
If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.

 
Quote
So the designer is a space alien . . . . . ?

Maybe Joe is horribly worried about what would happen to the morality of our society if everyone stopped believing in space aliens.

Well, if ID doesn't have anything to do with religion, no sirree Bob, I'm a little curious as to, um, why all the IDers keep bitching and moaning about "materialism" . . . ?

I'm also a little curious as to whether the designer itself evolved (since it's not, ya know, divine or anything) or if it was itself designed by, uh, another designer  . . . . . ?

Joe?


I find it hysterically funny to watch the mental gymnastics that IDers put themselves through just to avoid saying out loud what everybody *already knows anyway*.  (snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,19:57   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 24 2007,18:36)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
 
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?

Nope.

Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.

I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.

Uh huh. So tell me, who was the designer if it wasn't god?

Who designed them?

Does it matter who/ what the designer is?

Can we, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, determine the presence of design?

It's already obvious it matters to an investigation.

Also only once we can examine said designer(s) can we make any scientific determination about it/ them.

Right now all we have is the data observed and observable in this universe. And we ask, did nature, operating freely cause it (sheer dumb luck) or are we part of some purposeful arrangement, ie some grand design?

How can we tell?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:01   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,19:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,19:38)
       
Quote
If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.

 
Quote
So the designer is a space alien . . . . . ?

Maybe Joe is horribly worried about what would happen to the morality of our society if everyone stopped believing in space aliens.

Well, if ID doesn't have anything to do with religion, no sirree Bob, I'm a little curious as to, um, why all the IDers keep bitching and moaning about "materialism" . . . ?

I'm also a little curious as to whether the designer itself evolved (since it's not, ya know, divine or anything) or if it was itself designed by, uh, another designer  . . . . . ?

Joe?


I find it hysterically funny to watch the mental gymnastics that IDers put themselves through just to avoid saying out loud what everybody *already knows anyway*.  (snicker)  (giggle)

Perhaps because "materialism" is nonsense. That is why I rail against it.

ID doesn't say anything about eternal salvation.

The universe exists. We exist.

There is only one reality behind that exitence.

You guys may choose to belive in sheer dumb luck, but you can't defend that position scientifically.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:05   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:01)
Well, if ID doesn't have anything to do with religion, no sirree Bob, I'm a little curious as to, um, why all the IDers keep bitching and moaning about "materialism" . . . ?



Perhaps because "materialism" is nonsense. That is why I rail against it.

Um, and the alternative to "materialism" is what, again . . . . ?


Would it be, perhaps, religion of some sort . . . . ?



You're, uh, not terribly bright, are you Joe.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:07   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:01)
ID doesn't say anything about eternal salvation.

The universe exists. We exist.

There is only one reality behind that exitence.

You guys may choose to belive in sheer dumb luck, but you can't defend that position scientifically.

How dreadful.  (yawn)

I notice that you, uh, didn't answer my question.  So I'll ask again.

*ahem*

Is the designer a space alien?  Yes, it is, or no, it isn't.  Which.

And if the designer isn't supernatural (no religion here, no sirree Bob), then, uh, did it evolve?  Or was it itself designed by, uh, another designer?

Or are you just bullshitting us when you claim that ID doesn't have anything to do with religion?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:08   

Zachriel sez:

Quote
You consistently refuse to respond to arguments, while never failing to cast aspersions.


Dude. Wake-up.

I just demonstrated that you don't have an argument.

You cannot have any part of one set that can also belong to an otherwise unrelated set.

What you want is like saying that humans can be primates and insects.

However I am sure that Dawkins would say that such a thing is possible. And why not seeing we are in an era in which imagination is a viable substitute for science.

This is no trivial matter and why you tried to keep the women out of the equation.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:08   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,19:57)
Uh huh. So tell me, who was the designer if it wasn't god?

Who designed them?[/quote]

Does it matter who/ what the designer is?

Yep.

Now answer the question.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:08   

Quote

ID doesn't say anything about eternal salvation.


So true. It's just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.  How could I not see the difference?

 
Quote
Perhaps because "materialism" is nonsense. That is why I rail against it.


Care to define 'materialism', tell us what your alternative is, and explain why your alternative is supposedly proven?

Quote

The universe exists. We exist.

There is only one reality behind that exitence


Well, that's it, you've convinced me. No one could stand up to an argument like that.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:09   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:08)
This is no trivial matter and why you tried to keep the women out of the equation.

Hey Zachriel, you can send the women over HERE if you want.  *I* won't kick them out, by golly . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:11   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,20:08)
Quote

ID doesn't say anything about eternal salvation.


So true. It's just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.  How could I not see the difference?

Well, ya know, Buddhism doesn't say anything about "eternal salvation" either.  

Heck, neither did the worshippers of Quetzalcoatl or Zeus.

Joe's, uh, not terribly bright, is he.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:15   

Quote

I was a christian once also.


You're not now? So what's the deal, you really are a Muslim?

So, uh, if you're not a Christian, why does Dawkins seem to bother you?

I'm starting to see what Blipey's been talking about...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:16   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:07)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:01)
ID doesn't say anything about eternal salvation.

The universe exists. We exist.

There is only one reality behind that exitence.

You guys may choose to belive in sheer dumb luck, but you can't defend that position scientifically.

How dreadful.  (yawn)

I notice that you, uh, didn't answer my question.  So I'll ask again.

*ahem*

Is the designer a space alien?  Yes, it is, or no, it isn't.  Which.

And if the designer isn't supernatural (no religion here, no sirree Bob), then, uh, did it evolve?  Or was it itself designed by, uh, another designer?

Or are you just bullshitting us when you claim that ID doesn't have anything to do with religion?

Ummm, we don't know who or what the designer is.

In the absence of direct observation or designer input, how would you determine who/ what the designer is or what specific process(es) were used, if all you had was the object in front of you?

Look at how little we know about Stonehenge and look how long we have been studying it.

The designer and the process(es) are separate from whether or not it was designed. Just like the origin of life is kept separarte from the theory of evolution despite the fact that how life arose directly impacts any subsequent evolution- ie was it designed to evolve or did it evolve willy-nilly?

And again- until we can study the designer(s) we cannot make any scientific determinations about it/ them.

What part about that don't you understand?

And as for supernatural- do you really think that natural processes can account for the universe when natural processes only exist once the universe does?

IOW cram the "supernatural" tardation. You can't get around it.

The debate is all about what desisgning agencies can do vs what nature, operating freely, can do.

Take your strawman and play in traffic.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:20   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,20:15)
Quote

I was a christian once also.


You're not now? So what's the deal, you really are a Muslim?

So, uh, if you're not a Christian, why does Dawkins seem to bother you?

I'm starting to see what Blipey's been talking about...

If you are starting to see what blipey is saying then you have already lost.

There is no need to engage you any further.

PS I am flattered by your personal attention and caring about my personal life. But it shows that you don't have any other "argument" to use.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:27   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:16)
Ummm, we don't know who or what the designer is.

OK, I'll play along. . . .

Is the designer materialistic, or isn't it.

If it is, did it evolve, or was it designed by a different designer.

If it isn't, then, uh, you're just bullshitting when you say it ain't god, right?

Why do you feel the need to bullshit about that, I wonder . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:28   

Quote

There is no need to engage you any further.


So you won't/can't answer any of the questions, such as what materialism is, and what your alternative is.

That didn't take long.

At least answer me this: are Dembski's claims wrong? Is ID NOT the Logos Theory of John's Gospel?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:30   

Does ID say anything about who to worship?

No

Does ID say anything about when, how, why or where to worship?

No.

Does ID require a belief in "God"?

No.

So please tell me the connection between ID and religion that doesn't consist solely of IDists.

IOW what IDists do or don't doesn't impact ID...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:30   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:16)
And as for supernatural- do you really think that natural processes can account for the universe when natural processes only exist once the universe does?

IOW cram the "supernatural" tardation. You can't get around it.

I see.  So the answer to my question is "yes, the designer is supernatural, it is god, it is all about religion, and IDers like you are just lying to us when they claim it's not".

Thanks.  Why the hell couldn't you just say so in the first place.  Why go through all the mental gymnastics first?  Geez.

In any case, now that you've conceded that the designer is just God, would you be willing to testify to this in court, next time some idiotic bunch of fundie nutters tries to lie to everyone by claiming their religious opinions about a supernatural designer are really science and not religion at all, no sirree Bob . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:31   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:30)
Does ID say anything about who to worship?

No

Does ID say anything about when, how, why or where to worship?

No.

Does ID require a belief in "God"?

No.

So please tell me the connection between ID and religion that doesn't consist solely of IDists.

IOW what IDists do or don't doesn't impact ID...

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HAA H !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Wow, Joe, you truly do live up to your reputation for tardness.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:34   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,20:28)
Quote

There is no need to engage you any further.


So you won't/can't answer any of the questions, such as what materialism is, and what your alternative is.

That didn't take long.

At least answer me this: are Dembski's claims wrong? Is ID NOT the Logos Theory of John's Gospel?

I would say Dembski is wrong, unless John's Gospel is right.

To me the gospel could be wrong and ID wouldn't care. Some IDists may care. But that is another story.

And if you are asking me about the alternatives to materialism I would say I am in the wrong place. Design is an alternative- duh.

Ypu could just visit Uncommon Descent, ARN, The Discovery Institute and read the FAQs or ID defined- you know, actually figure out what is being debated as opposed to just running around spewing the same stuff over and over.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:35   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:30)
Does ID require a belief in "God"?

No.

So the designer is, uh, NOT God, now?

Then, uh, what the hell IS it?  Space aliens?

Didn't you just get finished telling me that the designer MUST be supernatural since "natural things couldn't start until after they were created"?

Make up your friggin mind, would you?  Is the designer God, or ain't it.

If it is, then how the hell can any IDer  ***NOT  BELIEVE IN GOD****?


If it ain't, then what, uh, OTHER supernatural designer did you have in mind . . . . ?




I do so enjoy these mental gymnatics to avoid saying, out loud, what *everyone already knows anyway* --- the "designer" is "god".  Period.

Why can't you just SAY that, Joe?  Why do you feel such a need to be so dishonest and evasive about it?  Why can't you just man up and say, out loud, that the designer is God?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:35   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:31)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:30)
Does ID say anything about who to worship?

No

Does ID say anything about when, how, why or where to worship?

No.

Does ID require a belief in "God"?

No.

So please tell me the connection between ID and religion that doesn't consist solely of IDists.

IOW what IDists do or don't doesn't impact ID...

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HAA H !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Wow, Joe, you truly do live up to your reputation for tardness.

And you are still a freak.

Oh well.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:40   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:30)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:16)
And as for supernatural- do you really think that natural processes can account for the universe when natural processes only exist once the universe does?

IOW cram the "supernatural" tardation. You can't get around it.

I see.  So the answer to my question is "yes, the designer is supernatural, it is god, it is all about religion, and IDers like you are just lying to us when they claim it's not".

Thanks.  Why the hell couldn't you just say so in the first place.  Why go through all the mental gymnastics first?  Geez.

In any case, now that you've conceded that the designer is just God, would you be willing to testify to this in court, next time some idiotic bunch of fundie nutters tries to lie to everyone by claiming their religious opinions about a supernatural designer are really science and not religion at all, no sirree Bob . . . . ?

The answer to your question is no, we do not know who or what the designer is and the "supernatural" has nothing to do with it because even the atheistic materialistic PoV requires something beyond nature for the reason already explained.

And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.

ID will surely get a favorable ruling once I am finished.

Hopefully you will be there and just have to eat everything I say and then swallow that favorable decision.

That day is coming. I love democracy!!!!

Bye-bye

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:42   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:35)
And you are still a freak.

Yep, I'm a freak.  I'm also ugly, smell bad, can't see straight, and my mother doesn't love me. (shrug)

Now answer my goddamn questions.

I'll start over again, and I'll try to keep the questions vvvveeeeerrrryyyyy sssssiiiimmmmpppplllllleeeeee this time, OK?


*ahem*

Is the designer materialistic, or isn't it.

Yes or no.

Yes it is, or no it isn't.

Which.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:42   

Quote
And if you are asking me about the alternatives to materialism I would say I am in the wrong place. Design is an alternative- duh.


So the opposite of 'materialism' is 'design'?

Wow. Wacky definition of 'materialism' there.

Incidentally, is it safe to assume that the existence of religious people who reject intelligent design doesn't bother you or disturb your theory in the slightest?

Are they materialists, too?

 
Quote
Ypu could just visit Uncommon Descent, ARN, The Discovery Institute and read the FAQs or ID defined- you know, actually figure out what is being debated as opposed to just running around spewing the same stuff over and over.


I hear Answers in Genesis is a great resource, too.

   
Quote
And you are still a freak.


"I know you are -- but what am *I*?"

Quote
And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.

ID will surely get a favorable ruling once I am finished.


Well, dude, I dreamed of being an astronaut when I was a little kid, but hey, I outgrew it.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:42   

Ooops- almost forgot-

Even if the designer was supernatural, so what?

The design exists in this world and can be studied.

ID is about the design, not the designer.

If science cares about reality it has to follow the data, even if the data leads to the metaphysical.

And if science doesn't care about reality then how can we tell it apart from science-fiction?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:43   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:40)
And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.

Oh sweet Jesus, I hope so too . . . . . . .

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:43   

Design is an ALTERNATIVE!

Not every alternative is an opposite.

Go soak your head...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:47   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:42)
Even if the designer was supernatural, so what?

I don't know -- you tell *me*.  YOU'RE the one who seems awfully reluctant to just say, out loud, "the designer is God".

Why on earth do you have to be so dishonest and evasive about that simple statement?  As you yourself have said, if the designer *is* supernatural, so what?

Why do you have to be so dishonest about it?  What is it that you need so badly to hide?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:47   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:43)
Design is an ALTERNATIVE!

Not every alternative is an opposite.

Go soak your head...

Soak my head?

Hey, I'm not the one with fantasies of testifying in court and vanquishing 'materialism'.

Okay, so we have Joe's menu of beliefs, which are apparently mutually exclusive:

a) 'materialism'
b) 'design'

Any others?

Where do religious people who reject ID fit into this? Are they (a), (b), or some other category you dreamt up?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:50   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:43)
Go soak your head...

You forgot to mention rutabagas.


(snicker)  (giggle)


Yes, Joe, I am laughing at you.  I am making fun of you.  I am holding you up to ridicule. And I am inviting everyone else to hold you up to ridicule, as well.

I am telling you that because I'm not sure you're bright enough to figure it out for yourself.


BWA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:51   

Please Joe, all this talk about "ID says nothing about the designer being God" is so...yesterday.  Especially after ID got its teeth kicked in at Dover.

Now be a good little IDiot and tell us again about those alien cities you once claimed are located on the Moon and Mars. :D  :D  :D

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:57   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 24 2007,20:51)
Now be a good little IDiot and tell us again about those alien cities you once claimed are located on the Moon and Mars. :D  :D  :D

AHA !!!  I KNEW IT !!!!!

So the designer IS a space alien, huh Joe . . . . . ?


(snicker)  (giggle)

BWA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:58   

Hey Joe, I think right about here is the time when you go stomping off back to your cloister at UD and moan to everyone there how mean we all are to you. . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,21:58   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:08)
Zachriel sez:

Quote
You consistently refuse to respond to arguments, while never failing to cast aspersions.

You cannot have any part of one set that can also belong to an otherwise unrelated set.

I provided three sets—a real-world paternal family tree that is based on father-son relationships. Starting from the definitions of sets and subsets, I then itemized the members of the sets showing how the sets are nested.

 Sons of Abdullah = {Talal, Nayef, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Talal = {Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
 Sons of Hussein I = {Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}

As anyone can verify, each element in Sons of Hussein I will be found in Sons of Talal. Each element in Sons of Talal will be found in Sons of Abdullah. Each father can have any number of sons, but each son can have one-and-only-one father. Such a paternal family tree is necessarily a nested hierarchy, as is true of any diverging and uncrossed line-of-descent.

This could normally segue into a discussion of the evidence for common descent, but that topic is impossible to explore with your current lack of knowledge concerning set theory and categorization.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,22:08   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:57)
So the designer IS a space alien, huh Joe . . . . . ?

Of course he is.  They even have pictures of his space ship.


--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,00:06   

Quote

And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.

ID will surely get a favorable ruling once I am finished.


The Thomas More Law Center believed all the DI propaganda, too.

Dembski says he knew they were going to lose even when he signed up to be an expert witness for them. Dembski was bright enough to pull out before being deposed in the case. Pretty much perfect timing -- he was able to bill a bit over $20K in fees, and had nothing from that association other than an expert witness report and rebuttal report to live down thereafter.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
snoeman



Posts: 109
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,01:43   

I wonder if this might help Joe.  It requires MS Access 2000 or later, but it's a good introduction to nested hierarchies (or "nested sets" as it's described in the links below).

This stems from the problem of trying to represent hierarchies in relational databases, and specifically to explode a bill of materials using something faster and more elegant than recursive SQL.

The article here introduces the notion of using nested sets to represent hierarchies such as a bill of materials (or an organization chart, or, I don't know, a tree of life...).

This link goes to an Access database containing a bill of materials for an "A".  You can use the query provided to find out exactly what's required to produce an "A".  (You can also find out what it takes to make any of "A's" components as well.) The nested hierarchy here is that you have an "A" and everything that makes up "A" is a part of it.

If you replace the letters in the table with some of the names in Zach's graph, you can very clearly see the nested hierarchy he refers to.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,02:54   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,18:54)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
 
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?

Nope.

Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.

I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.

What, then, is the essential defining difference that separates "god" from "the intelligent designer" exactly?

If the two terms are not interchangeable, then why not? I see no reason, and you've provided none so far.

Hi Joe,
What, then, is the essential defining difference that separates "god" from "the intelligent designer" exactly?

If the two terms are not interchangeable, then why not? I see no reason, and you've provided none so far.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,03:14   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:42)
Ooops- almost forgot-

Even if the designer was supernatural, so what?

If he is, ID is not a scientific theory.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,05:09   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,19:57)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 24 2007,18:36)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
 
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?

Nope.

Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.

I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.

Uh huh. So tell me, who was the designer if it wasn't god?

Who designed them?

Does it matter who/ what the designer is?

Can we, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, determine the presence of design?

It's already obvious it matters to an investigation.

Also only once we can examine said designer(s) can we make any scientific determination about it/ them.

Right now all we have is the data observed and observable in this universe. And we ask, did nature, operating freely cause it (sheer dumb luck) or are we part of some purposeful arrangement, ie some grand design?

How can we tell?

Yes, it does matter.

No, we cannot do that, because in order to see the design, we would have to know how the designer did it, and it's a pretty safe bet we would need to know the designers identity for that.

The rest of this post seems to my silly darwinist, materialist (whatever the hell that means) mind like THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF YOUR POINT.

If we don't know how the designer acted, as you state, and don't know how we can tell if something is designed, WHAT THE FUCKING HELL DO YOU WANT ID TO DO?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,08:24   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,21:40)

And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.

ID will surely get a favorable ruling once I am finished.

Joe-

What specific role do you envision for yourself here?

  
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,08:57   

Quote
I just demonstrated that you don't have an argument.

You have demonstrated nothing other than your lack of comprehension of the basics of sets and nested hierarchies.

Quote
You cannot have any part of one set that can also belong to an otherwise unrelated set.

So the set of soldiers that comprises the army, they aren't also in the nested hierarchy starting with Kingdom Animal and ending with Homo Sapeins?

Quote
What you want is like saying that humans can be primates and insects.

False.  What we "want is like saying" that humans can be Homo Sapiens and soldiers.

Quote
This is no trivial matter and why you tried to keep the women out of the equation.

Yes, it is a trivial matter.

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:21   

"how we can tell if something is designed"

COMPLEXITY AND ORDER IS EVIDENCE OF DESIGN!  DAMMIT!

:angry:

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,12:16   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
Is your ultimate point that we owe our existence to sheer dumb luck? It must be because in the absence of intelligent design or a Special Creation, that is all you have.

It has been repeatedly explained to Joe why this is a false dichotomy, but apparently it still hasn't sunk in.

If life is a product of "nature operating freely", then we're lucky that life emerged against the odds, or we're lucky that nature is such that the odds were in favor of life emerging.  If life is a product of a Designer, then we're lucky that a capable and willing Designer exists (or, according to JAD, used to exist).  If the Designer was designed, then we're lucky that the meta-Designer existed, etc.

Joe is unable to posit a scenario that isn't ultimately sheer dumb luck, but he continues to bring up this false dichotomy.

On Joe's blog, he asks:  
Quote
And the issue I have with this position is that it is unscientific- just how do we test sheer dumb luck?

If the sheer-dumb-luck hypothesis is untestable, then on what grounds does Joe claim it to be false?

And how can design, the alternative to sheer-dumb-luck, be stated as a scientific hypothesis?  It's clear that Joe has no clue as to what a scientific hypothesis entails, even though he claims to be a scientist.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,13:33   

I think it is possible to test sheer dumb luck.  See if Joe puts his shoes on the correct feet everyday for a month.  If he manages to match the left shoe and left foot and vicey-versey, then we have shown that sheer dumb luck can account for regularity.  

Because there is no way this fool could have that much sense.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,13:48   

Wow.  I hate to mention this for the simple fact that it will be ignored.  However, can you reconcile the following two things, Joe?

1.  If I look closely at a paternal family tree, I will see only the name of the patriarch.  True.

2.  If I look at a diagram of a traditional ARMY, I will see only the name "Field Army" at the top.  True.

How is "2" a NH and "1" is not?  Please base this completely on your observation that "Steve" sits atop the family tree (since this appears to be your only observation).

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,13:57   

Whatever it costs, I will be getting front row seats at the trial Joe G testifies at.  Thatll make Behe look like a genius.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,14:30   

Also, a belated "Thanks for stopping by, Joe."

This thread is becoming all I hoped it could be when I started it.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2007,11:52   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,20:47)
Hey, I'm not the one with fantasies of testifying in court and vanquishing 'materialism'.

Joe's Perry Mason fantasy grilling Barbara Forrest is particularly hilarious.  Readers' Digest version:  Forrest says that she understands ID to require the supernatural.  Joe points out that the DI FAQ says the opposite, and Forrest ends up looking stupid.

In real life, Joe's argument would fly like a lead balloon. First of all, the DI FAQ says nothing about the issue, although some IDists, particularly Casey Luskin, indeed deny that ID requires the supernatural.

What the DI FAQ does say is this:        
Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article "Not By Chance" from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS's "Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).

If we follow the link to Stephen Meyer's "Not By Chance", we find the following:        
Quote
Yet, the scientists arguing for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes-chance, laws or the combination of the two-have failed to explain the origin of the information and information processing systems in cells.
(Emphasis mine)

This is one of many quotes by top-tier IDists asserting the insufficiency of natural processes to explain various phenomena.  Here are some more by Dembski:

- "CSI demands an intelligent cause. Natural causes will not do."
- "In arguing that naturalistic explanations are incomplete or, equivalently, that natural causes cannot account for certain features of the natural world, I am placing natural causes in contradistinction to intelligent causes."
- "A fundamental tenet of intelligent design is that intelligent agency, even when conditioned by a physical system that embodies it, cannot be reduced to natural causes without remainder."
- "Natural causes are therefore incapable of generating CSI."

Even more hilarious is Joe's about-face later in that thread:        
Quote
And about the supernatural, seeing that natural processes only exist IN nature, it is obvious that they cannot account for its origin. IOW even the materialistic anti-ID position requires something outside of nature.

That is exactly how it should be presented during if someone else decides to take ID to Court.

So Joe thinks that the following two arguments should be presented in court:

1) The ID position does not require the supernatural.
2) All positions require the supernatural.

I'll be sitting right next to Blipey in the front row when Joe presents his case.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2007,13:25   

Quote

Joe's Perry Mason fantasy grilling Barbara Forrest is particularly hilarious.  Readers' Digest version:  Forrest says that she understands ID to require the supernatural.  Joe points out that the DI FAQ says the opposite, and Forrest ends up looking stupid.


The whole point of a sham such as "intelligent design" is that the perpetrators say untrue things about it. They managed to hoodwink the Thomas More Law Center last time; who's going to fall for it this time?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2007,13:39   

I think you scared him away.!   ....aw shucks.....*snif*....

I'd like to know what court case his planning on testifying in....for what case?

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2007,19:16   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 26 2007,13:25)
They managed to hoodwink the Thomas More Law Center last time; who's going to fall for it this time?

Perhaps the Thomas More Law Center, again.

Fundies *are* awfully stupid, ya know.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2007,19:23   

Quote (Rob @ July 26 2007,12:52)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,20:47)
Hey, I'm not the one with fantasies of testifying in court and vanquishing 'materialism'.

Joe's Perry Mason fantasy grilling Barbara Forrest is particularly hilarious.  Readers' Digest version:  Forrest says that she understands ID to require the supernatural.  Joe points out that the DI FAQ says the opposite, and Forrest ends up looking stupid.

Quote
The Crackpot Index
John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

...

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,01:36   

Steve,

Nice one. We cannot fail to link John Baez's index regularly. Like the TO Index to Creationist Claims, it's very rare that we encounter anything that is not adequately covered by both documents.

LINK

Louis

P.S. Added in Edit: there is also this equally aposite offering from teh intarwebz.

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,09:12   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:43)
Design is an ALTERNATIVE!

Not every alternative is an opposite.

Go soak your head...

Welcome to AtBC Joe. You have probably noticed that most commenters here actually suport the idea that evolution has actually happened.

May I ask you a few questions Joe?
1) What is the scientific theory of ID?
2) Never mind, until you answer No1 nothing else matters (regarding ID).

EDIT: BTW Joe, I am not as hostile as you may think. A few years back i was also an ID supporter. Time has made me hostile though, I consider ID nothing but a bullshit atempt to get religion taught as science now.

However I would love to "return to the fold" providing you can do something.
A) Provide proof that ID is "scientific" (you know what that entails right?).
B) Provide proof that evolution is wrong.*

BTW. Evolution=wrong is not ID=Correct. But it would help.

Can you do that?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,10:26   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 27 2007,09:12)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:43)
Design is an ALTERNATIVE!

Not every alternative is an opposite.

Go soak your head...

Welcome to AtBC Joe. You have probably noticed that most commenters here actually suport the idea that evolution has actually happened.

May I ask you a few questions Joe?
1) What is the scientific theory of ID?
2) Never mind, until you answer No1 nothing else matters (regarding ID).

EDIT: BTW Joe, I am not as hostile as you may think. A few years back i was also an ID supporter. Time has made me hostile though, I consider ID nothing but a bullshit atempt to get religion taught as science now.

However I would love to "return to the fold" providing you can do something.
A) Provide proof that ID is "scientific" (you know what that entails right?).
B) Provide proof that evolution is wrong.*

BTW. Evolution=wrong is not ID=Correct. But it would help.

Can you do that?

Prediction: Joe will issue the 3-hour Challenge.
Quote
Watch two videos- "The Privileged Planet" and "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", and then, if you can without lying, tell us why ID is not based on observation and scientific research, but is based on religious doctrines and faith.


Joe thinks advocacy videos are "evidence."

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,11:01   

He also thinks that sentences are evidence.  I'm not sure if he realizes that sentences contain information and that it is the information that can be used as evidence.

On the up side, his sentences are truly master works of surrealism.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,11:21   

Quote (blipey @ July 27 2007,11:01)
He also thinks that sentences are evidence.  I'm not sure if he realizes that sentences contain information and that it is the information that can be used as evidence.

On the up side, his sentences are truly master works of surrealism.

Andrea Bottaro provided an excellent encapsulation of Joe's tardity a comment at PT:
Quote
...you are remarkably impenetrable to reason and unaware of self-embarassment


This led to an overdose of tard from Joe, which I chronicled here.
Joe referred to Bottaro as a "she," and when corrected chose to dig his hole much deeper.  He's truly his own worst enemy, and is totally unaware of it.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,11:59   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 27 2007,11:21)
This led to an overdose of tard from Joe, which I chronicled here.
Joe referred to Bottaro as a "she," and when corrected chose to dig his hole much deeper.

That's classic Joe.  "I know Andrea's a man, but I said 'she' because ... um ... he argues like a girl.  Yeah, that's the ticket."

It's amazing how incapable he is of admitting that he's wrong, even on trivial matters.  For instance, here he mentioned that a paper "peaked" someone's interest, and he went into full-blown defensive mode when someone suggested that the word he was looking for was "piqued".  He tried to defend himself by quoting a definition in which "peak" is defined as an intransitive verb.  When I pointed out that his usage was transitive but the definition was intransitive, he switched definitions, and then, bizarrely, denied that he had done so.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,12:14   

The thing that fascinates me about Joe, something other IDers don't do, is his willingness to tell preposterous lies about himself when he thinks it'll help him win an argument. When other IDers are challenged with the abundant evidence of the Christian foundations of ID will simply become evasive. When pressed on their own religious motives, they simply ignore the question. Joe, however, will actually lie about himself and claim to be a Muslim or an atheist if he thinks that'll help him score a couple immediate points. The extreme implausibility of these claims and the ease with which anyone can go back over his previous statements to contradict them never occurs to him. He never thinks ahead.

So his business of switching definitions of a word and denying he'd done so, when the evidence is right there further up the same screen is part and parcel of the same approach.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,13:24   

Quote (Rob @ July 27 2007,11:59)
...
It's amazing how incapable he is of admitting that he's wrong, even on trivial matters.  For instance, here he mentioned that a paper "peaked" someone's interest, and he went into full-blown defensive mode when someone suggested that the word he was looking for was "piqued".  He tried to defend himself by quoting a definition in which "peak" is defined as an intransitive verb.  When I pointed out that his usage was transitive but the definition was intransitive, he switched definitions, and then, bizarrely, denied that he had done so.

That aint so surprising TBH. As far as I can follow it, his enire argument about nested heirarchies (in his world) seems to be about word definitions.

Quote (Arden Chatfield Posted on July 27 2007 @ 12:14 )
The thing that fascinates me about Joe, something other IDers don't do, is his willingness to tell preposterous lies about himself when he thinks it'll help him win an argument...


You gotta be kidding right? Or can DS actually violate SLOT on his keyboard, AFDave has real evidence for the flood and Larry Fafarman is a legal genius etc.?

Yep you must be kidding.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,13:43   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 27 2007,13:24)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield Posted on July 27 2007 @ 12:14 )
The thing that fascinates me about Joe, something other IDers don't do, is his willingness to tell preposterous lies about himself when he thinks it'll help him win an argument...


You gotta be kidding right? Or can DS actually violate SLOT on his keyboard, AFDave has real evidence for the flood and Larry Fafarman is a legal genius etc.?

Yep you must be kidding.

Note I said 'tell lies about themselves'. So saying retarded things about science that one actually believes (DT's typing violates SLOT or AFD has proof of the flood) doesn't count, nor does being completely delusional about oneself (Larry Fafarman tells us what a brilliant legal mind he has).

I'm talking about deliberately lying about one's own religion, or denying having posted a statement to a blog just 10 minutes before, when the liar in question knows full well it's nonsense. Crazy shit that anyone can disprove, shit that probably even embarrasses FTK. Takes a special kind of mind to do that, tho Joe is clearly up to the challenge.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,13:51   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,13:43)
I'm talking about deliberately lying about one's own religion, or denying having posted a statement to a blog just 10 minutes before, when the liar in question knows full well it's nonsense. Crazy shit that anyone can disprove, shit that probably even embarrasses FTK. Takes a special kind of mind to do that, tho Joe is clearly up to the challenge.

For a stunning example of this, remember that Joe looked at this figure provided by Zach (and even copied it into his own comment)

and then spouted this    
Quote
The "set" at the top of Zachriel's "tree" is Abdullah. If you look at the diagram closely you will see only his name.

Apparently he was hoping that none of the rest of us actually had functional eyeballs...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,13:52   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,13:43)
... shit that probably even embarrasses FTK. Takes a special kind of mind to do that, tho Joe is clearly up to the challenge.

LOL!
Touche

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,16:26   

Quote
shit that probably even embarrasses FTK.


Oh, I don't know about that.  In fact, Ftk has recently taken up defending JoeG--I guess you can't get too low sometimes.  I called her on her defense and she chose not to publish the critique.

Crackpottery including JoeG defense

The relevant part:

Ftk:
Quote
BTW, I’ve seen Joe G. answer many of your questions as well. That is why I find it quite odd that you keep making this same claim over and over that we don’t answer questions.


--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,16:32   

I dunno, FTK would have probably rolled her eyes when Joe briefly claimed to be a Muslim in order to refute the idea that only Christians support ID.

'Course, she never would have said anything about it out loud...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,12:47   

FTK, like many loons, is unaware that "respond to" =/= "answer".

For example if someone were to ask me "Why is the sky blue?" and I replied "Jesus", I would have responded to the question, but I wouldn't have answered it.

Sadly, loons like FTK and Joe are also unaware that "Jesus" is not the answer to every question.

Oh well.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,13:16   

This hit the nail on the head:

Quote
[Joe] also thinks that sentences are evidence.


This is a common malaise of autodidacts, but I don't think Joe even rises to that level.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,19:11   

But the good news for Joe, should he ever choose that option, is that from the sub-basement, he does have plenty of overhead into which to rise.

Actually, in terms of bang for the buck, Joe is perfectly positioned to dramatically multiply his intellectual achievements.

He may never catch up, but he's certainly capable of leaving his current self buried deep in the dust.

Unfortunately, the chance that he'll ever make the modest self-investment necessary to reap these spectacular gains is negligible.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,09:26   

Louis blasphemed
Quote
For example if someone were to ask me "Why is the sky blue?" and I replied "Jesus", I would have responded to the question, but I wouldn't have answered it.

Sadly, loons like FTK and Joe are also unaware that "Jesus" is not the answer to every question.


Ahhhh, but Jesus IS the answer to 'Why is the sky blue?'  I mean shit what else could be the answer?  pfffff.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,12:42   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 24 2007,09:36)
Joe, do you still tell people you're a qualified scientist because your degree says "Bachelor of Science, Engineering Technology"?

:D  :D  :D

Actually, it is in Electronics Engineering.

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,12:49   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:35)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:31)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:30)
Does ID say anything about who to worship?

No

Does ID say anything about when, how, why or where to worship?

No.

Does ID require a belief in "God"?

No.

So please tell me the connection between ID and religion that doesn't consist solely of IDists.

IOW what IDists do or don't doesn't impact ID...

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HAA H !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Wow, Joe, you truly do live up to your reputation for tardness.

And you are still a freak.

Oh well.

Brilliant retort, ID's Bulldog!

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,12:54   

Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:40)
And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.

ID will surely get a favorable ruling once I am finished.

Hopefully you will be there and just have to eat everything I say and then swallow that favorable decision.

That day is coming. I love democracy!!!!

Bye-bye

And what, exactly will you say in the court of law?

Will you demand to be allowed to show an advocacy video and then declare that all who do not agree that this is, indeed, a 'Privileged Planet' must be stupid or lying?  I'm sure that will sway the court.

Will you threaten the judge or jury be finding out their home addresses and claiming that not everyone drives through their town to ski (or whatever it is that their areas might be known for)?  Yes, I am sure THAT will convert all to your side.


Will you declare that all evidence for evolution is just evidence for common design?  I'm sure all will see the pure logic and irrefutability of that.  

Actually, I do sort of hope that you are a witness in an ID court case some day.  I eagerly look forward to seeing you publicly humiliated in such a setting.  I promise to gloat for years.

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,12:59   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,13:43)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 27 2007,13:24)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield Posted on July 27 2007 @ 12:14 )
The thing that fascinates me about Joe, something other IDers don't do, is his willingness to tell preposterous lies about himself when he thinks it'll help him win an argument...


You gotta be kidding right? Or can DS actually violate SLOT on his keyboard, AFDave has real evidence for the flood and Larry Fafarman is a legal genius etc.?

Yep you must be kidding.

Note I said 'tell lies about themselves'. So saying retarded things about science that one actually believes (DT's typing violates SLOT or AFD has proof of the flood) doesn't count, nor does being completely delusional about oneself (Larry Fafarman tells us what a brilliant legal mind he has).

I'm talking about deliberately lying about one's own religion, or denying having posted a statement to a blog just 10 minutes before, when the liar in question knows full well it's nonsense. Crazy shit that anyone can disprove, shit that probably even embarrasses FTK. Takes a special kind of mind to do that, tho Joe is clearly up to the challenge.

Can we say "cross examination"?

:p

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,11:14   

Evidences for Common Design- Evidence 1

The thread starts as an apparent rewrite of 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution by Doug Theobold.

Theobold: According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past.

JoeG: According to the theory of common design, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single grand design put in motion in the distant past.

But then it looks like JoeG loses steam leaving most of the text intact, including strong evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

In fact, in 1963—three years before the code was finally solved—Hinegardner and Engelberg published a paper in Science formally explaining the evolutionary rationale for why the code must be universal (or nearly so) if universal common descent were true, since most mutations in the code would likely be lethal to all living things. Note that, although these early researchers predicted a universal genetic code based on common descent, they also predicted that minor variations could likely be found. Hinegardner and Engelberg allowed for some variation in the genetic code, and predicted how such variation should be distributed if found:

"... if different codes do exist they should be associated with major taxonomic groups such as phyla or kingdoms that have their roots far in the past." (Hinegardner and Engelberg 1963)


At the end JoeG adds, Thanks to Dr Theobald and Talk Origins for all the work for this article. See Fundamental Unity of Life.

I don't get it.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,11:32   

...and neither did Joe G.

:p

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,11:43   

Just for fun, threads on Joe's blog that have Zachriel in the title.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,11:45   

LOL