AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: joe

form_srcid: joe

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.205.221.22

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: joe

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'joe%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/03/21 09:28:20, Link
Author: joe
I live about 10 miles from Dover (in an adjacent school district). I read about the book donation in the local paper, and I reserved judgment on the comments made by the district -- usually there is something lost in the translation between someone's brain, their mouth, the reporter's ear, the reporter's pen, the editor's brain, the reader's brain, etc. It's all-too-frequently like the old schoolyard game of "Gossip." Things get lost or altered en route from one place to another in the communication process.

That being said, I was disturbed enough about what I did read to want to find out what books were actually being donated and what books had to be reviewed to make sure that they weren't from some "hate group." Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins. C'mon! These guys are regular cross-burners! Hawking, in particular, is known for his gratuitous use of the term "black" hole as opposed to the commonly-accepted "african american" hole.

The district is so obviously stuck in a corner on this ID issue that they don't know what to do. They are clearly incapable/unwilling to simply say "we are wrong, let's go home and call it a day." They are suffering the wages of the sin of pride.

My wife and I have a theory that they are simply engaging in this elaborate charade in order to discourage families with children from moving to the district. This ID bogeyman issue is being used to lower the educational costs of the district by lowering the number of school-age children in the district without actually impacting the curriculum in any significant way. The costs of the lawsuit will pale in comparison to the costs avoided by not having to educate an additional 50 to 100 children over the next 18 years.

Call me crazy, but I think Dover may be having us all on. And they'll get a world-class library out of it, to boot.

Date: 2006/04/29 18:23:55, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Dave, you’ve mentioned a couple of times now that these egghead intellectuals should come down off their high horses and speak plain English to you and your fellow salt-of-the-earth types. So I thought I’d give it a try; I’m a professional communicator (a business video writer/producer) so maybe I can pull it off.

I’ll use analogy, that is, a story, to make my point. A parable, if you will. You can deal with that, right?

THE STORY:

Once there was an auto mechanic. He was a good auto mechanic; if your car had trouble, you could bring it to him and he would fix it. He was very experienced; he had fixed many different kinds of cars over the years. He was also kind and generous to interested youth, and would teach them what he knew, if they wanted to learn.

One day a baker moved into the town where the auto mechanic worked. The baker was a good baker, and had a reputation as such. The baker came to the auto mechanic and said, “I would like to work with you, for I am an auto mechanic, too.” The auto mechanic was surprised to hear this, and said, “Well, here is a broken car. Show me what you know about car repair.” The baker proceeded to mix eggs, flour, sugar and some other ingredients together, and made a nice cake. The baker showed the cake to the auto mechanic and said, “See, the car is fixed.”

The auto mechanic was surprised by this claim, and pointed out that the car was still broken.

To which the baker replied, “No, it is not. It is completely fixed. I have used a different method of repairing the car than you use. You are stuck in the past and cannot see your narrow view of car repair. My method is better than yours, because it’s cleaner and produces a tastier result. You must abandon your method of car repair and adopt mine.”

The auto mechanic was somewhat taken aback by this. Was the baker insane? Should the auto mechanic call the police? He thanked the baker for his time, but explained that he did not need any new help just now.

The baker became angry and said, “If you do not let me fix cars with you, using my methods, I will tell the people that you beat your wife, abuse various drugs and molest the youth you claim to be teaching.”

The auto mechanic grew angry and threw the baker out. The baker went to the people and said, “The auto mechanic has lied to you. He claims to fix your cars, but he beats his wife, abuses various drugs and molests the youth he claims to be teaching. I have a better way to fix your cars, here, have a piece.”

The people tried some of the cake and found it tasty. They said, “Hey, this is not bad. What’s that you say about the auto mechanic beating his wife? Isn’t he unmarried? And what does it have to do with this cake?”

The baker replied, “There’s lots more cake where that came from, but first, you must help me evict the auto mechanic from his building, so I can set up shop there.”

So the baker led the crowd, bearing torches, to the auto mechanic’s shop. The auto mechanic went out to meet them and said, “Hello, people. Do you have car trouble that you wish me to repair?”

But the people said, “Let the baker work with you!”

The auto mechanic was stunned by this response, and said to the people, “This baker does not know how to fix your cars, so if you bring him a broken car, he won’t be able to fix it.”

The people thought about this for a bit, and said, “Oh. Well, then, nevermind.”

The very next day the baker returned to the auto mechanic and said, “Well, at the very least you must have flour, milk and sugar on your tool bench. If you don’t do this, I will tell the people that you snore at night and pick your nose.”

And the auto mechanic said to himself, “Why me, Lord?”

THE END

Get it, Dave? The auto mechanic represents Scientists, and the baker represents Creationists. The Scientists were minding their own business, doing useful work, when the Creationists came in, knowing nothing of science, and demanding to be taken seriously.  The Scientists threw them out, thinking something like, “Idiots”, but the Creationists went out and spread lies and whipped up negative PR against the Scientists.

I submit that if something comparable had happened to YOU in YOUR professional life, your reaction would have been very similar to that of the Scientists.

Date: 2006/05/02 16:50:44, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
I’ve often wondered how religion came to be, and my speculation runs along these lines:

At some point very shortly after the first true homo sapiens appeared, there was a group of them, and they did as well as they could with what they had. They could kill and eat animals, and they could gather edible plants. They dealt with whatever the world threw at them: thunder, lightning, rain, snow, insect bites, sunburn, predators. They understood CAUSE and EFFECT. And that’s about all.

One day, while the group is taking cover in a cave from a rainstorm, one of them runs outside and is instantly stuck by lightning and killed.

Later, a youngster asks his dad, “What the heck was that?” And the dad, being the first guy ever, did a classic guy thing: he made something up. “There’s a big guy in the sky, and he throws these things down at us.”

Now, why didn’t the dad make up a “better” answer? Why didn’t he say, “Well, the temperature inversions at high altitudes cause positive charges to separate out and then…”

Why did he not do that? BECAUSE HE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THAT STUFF! He was working with what he had. He threw spears at animals; maybe a bigger version of himself threw this bigger version of a spear. Sounded plausible to him. More importantly, it sounded plausible to EVERYONE ELSE.

This is why polytheism came first; it postulates gods who are very much like us, only more so. And there’s one for each observed phenomenon.

As homo sapiens gathered more experience and more knowledge, perhaps the need for individual gods went away, and attention could be turned to “bigger picture” questions, which are better answered by monotheism. But the basic dynamic remained: when in doubt, make something up. The really good maker-uppers managed to spread their stories more widely that than the lesser ones. What made a good story is what science seeks today: explanatory power. And religion has the ultimate answer to Life, the Universe and Everything: "Goddidit." If a particular thing REALLY doesn't make sense, then the answer is: "The ways of the Lord are mysterious."

Science is a comparatively recent development, but it has proven far superior to religion in delivering explanatory power.

And now a question: were there atheists prior to science? OK, of course there were. What I really mean is, how did they reason in the absence of the scientific method? Any tips on books or articles on this topic would be appreciated.

Date: 2006/05/03 14:58:02, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Well, I just want to jump in and once again thank everyone for modeling the appropriate responses to Creationist blather. Afdave is certainly charming and affable, and he periodically throws in a little self-deprecating humor, but I, too, finally decided that he is unreachable. For me, it was these comments:

Quote
I was never a logician, by trade, but that does not mean I can't become one very quickly, especially when I see gross incompetence in the field.

Really? Without actually BEING one, Dave can see “gross incompetence”? Huh, that, to me, suggests that Dave can NOT “become one very quickly”.

Quote
I may not get very far with closed minded professional scientists, which I hope you are not, but I hope to put some truth out there in an area where I currently see a lot of error.

Dave hopes to put some “truth” out there. Not “corrections of data”, or “new and compelling data”, but “truth”. And of course, he “sees a lot of error” in spite of having no training other than reading some articles.

Quote
Why does it always seem that every time the word 'God' is even mentioned, everybody runs for cover and says it's not science?

No one “runs for cover”. Everyone “says it’s not science” for the simple reason that… wait for it… it’s not science! This is one of the things that truly puzzles me about fundies and biblical literalists. Why the obsession with being scientific? You’re talking about GOD. That is, if I recall, a RELIGIOUS topic. Not all things in the world are the same in all respects. Some things are different from other things in significant ways. Religion and Science would be two things that are not the same, but different. Why the insistence that the auto mechanic could really, really use flour, eggs and milk as part of his toolkit?

Quote
A lot hinges on this, too.  What people think about origins and the nature of mankind is VITALLY important to law and society.  This is why you see me being so passionate about this issue.

I think this is the real reason for Dave’s enthusiasm. Obviously, the world is going to h3ll in a handbasket, and someone has to do something, quick! Nevermind that old people have said this about young people since there have been old people and young people, THIS time, it’s SERIOUS! The other observation I would make is that there have been more than a few “societies” since the time of Christ. Of those with some form of Christianity as their religious foundation, there is significant difference in their laws and social structures. This suggests that there is not as direct a correlation as Dave may be hoping for.

Quote
My real goal is two-fold:  (1) to really get to the bottom of why Creationism is so objectionable to a lot of good scientists.  This is why I am HERE, not over at AIG or DI, (2) I have personally seen a lot of excellent support for being a Creationist, but I could be wrong.  If so, who better to tell me I'm wrong that professional scientists over here? (3) If I am right, the implications are enormous and all of humanity should know about this.

1) Creationism is objectionable because is CLAIMING to be science, but it is NOT science. If it WAS science, scientists would treat it as such. If it DID NOT CLAIM to be science, scientists would have no problem with it. 2) Oddly, in spite of ALL of the professional scientists here telling Dave he is wrong, he’s not getting it. Perhaps the answer to the “who better” would be… Dave’s minister. 3) Enormous implications for all of humanity? Wow! Ya think? Dave better hope there’s, like, no one else working on this question, or else they may tell all of humanity before he does and steal his thunder.

Quote
I think the REALLY NEW THING that I am presenting to you is not necessarily new evidence, but a NEW WAY OF DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM THE EVIDENCE, which I actually believe you put into practice every day in your scientific and other endeavors, but which you may not have thought to put into practice into the Origins question.


Quote
I consider ALL possibilities for explaining and describing the universe, not just so called 'naturalistic ones' which we presently understand.

This betrays such a misunderstanding of the scientific process that it is hard to know how to respond. After several promises of “evidence coming soon”, Dave changes tracks and offers a New Way of Drawing Conclusions; if you want Conclusion A, use Method A, and if you want Conclusion B, use Method B; what could be more useful than that?

My understanding is that the success of science is largely BECAUSE OF its strictly self-imposed limitations; ONLY natural phenomena, ONLY repeatable experiments, ONLY provisional acceptance of explanations. Once you admit supernatural explanations, you’ve diluted the usefulness of your explanations.

Dave was intriguing to me because he came on initially like someone who really did want to learn. It was kind of sad to see him reveal his inability to get it.

But thanks again to those who patiently respond; we lurkers find it valuable.

Date: 2006/05/04 17:11:13, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Dave, let me try this approach:

I’m not a scientist. I’m just a regular guy. I am considered knowledgeable and talented in my chosen field, (business video communications) and the people who consider me so are my peers. I have interests and activities outside of my chosen field; these are hobbies (collecting PEZ dispensers, writing original music).  In my hobbies, I am NOT an expert, and I sometimes seek information from people who I determine may know more than I.

From what you’ve told us, you were an Electrical Engineer, an Air Force Pilot, and a successful businessman. Cool. I bet you’re smart and know a lot of stuff.

Now, I don’t know about you, but in MY life, I have found that there are many things I DON’T know. Plumbing. Car repair. Tax return preparation. Ballroom dancing. Gourmet cooking. Quantum mechanics. Evolutionary biology. And many more.

For these things, I rely on Experts. I mean, I suppose I COULD study the tax code and prepare my own returns, but you know what? I don’t wanna. It doesn’t interest me. So I hire an accountant to do that for me. I trust him to do so professionally, and so far, so good. And I suppose I COULD learn to cook better, but I usually get a better meal when I go to a restaurant, so when I want a really good meal, I go to a restaurant. I trust the chef not to poison me, and so far, so good. And there are some things that I simply, physically, cannot do. My knees are way too shot to ever let me learn ballroom dancing. And my brain is way too small to ever let me learn quantum mechanics. So I trust the professionals in those fields as well.

Science (like Religion) is a human endeavor conducted by human beings. It is, therefore, imperfect. (Like Religion.) I believe that the class of professionals called “scientists” has no inherent reason to lie to the rest of us. I notice that when they catch one of their own in a lie, they essentially destroy the liar’s career. I’m confident that they sometimes make mistakes, but the nature of their endeavor is to continually refine their knowledge and correct mistakes as they are found.  I understand and appreciate that the nature and amount of their training is far more than I could handle, and I respect them for their knowledge and ability. I trust them.

You, apparently, do not.

Could you tell me why?

Thanks.

Date: 2006/05/07 07:07:31, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Awhile ago I posited on PT the existence of an aberration similar to “impersonating an officer” or “impersonating a doctor”, called “impersonating a scientist”. It’s not specifically illegal, but it is just as self-deluding for the impersonator. I suspect that there is some of that involved in the Creationists’ posturing.

Regarding how many people can understand any level of scientific detail, I would guess that it is not just a “can” or “cannot” understand, but rather, somewhat of a continuum. I’m no scientist, but I can follow SOME arguments to SOME degree. The specific point where I go cross-eyed is different for me than it is for other non-scientists. Some can go further than I can, and others can't go as far as I can. I encourage those of you who are both scientists and good communicators to KEEP IT UP; you DO reach SOME people and that is better than reaching no one at all.

Every now and then I see someone in a post refer to himself as “a former fundie” or words to that effect. He will describe how he studied both sides of the argument and decided that the Creationists were the ones being deceitful and dishonest. And he came down on the side of science. I wish we could gather those people together, analyze their experiences, and then replicate those experiences with others.

Date: 2006/05/08 05:01:47, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Dave, I am not a scientist, but I’ll offer my understanding of the answers to your questions:

Quote
(1) How do we explain the complete lack of 'Hominid Civilizations' (for lack of a better term) today?  It seems to me that if Common Descent Theory is correct, that  we would expect to see numerous 'civilizations' of 'less evolved' humans.

Why should Common Descent produce “Hominid Civilizations”? There’s no reason to assume that this would be the case. The other way of looking at it, of course, is that the ape groups that DO exist ARE the “Hominid Civilizations” you are speculating, but they aren’t quite as advanced as what you imagined.

Quote
(2) The fossil record of human evolution is unconvincing to me.

I’ll leave this one to those who are better qualified to comment on it. (See how that works?)

Quote
(3) Some have claimed that for all practical purposes, we are apes and biologically speaking, I see what they are saying.  But does this not minimize the ENORMOUS non-biological differences?

No, it does not. The biological differences are the biological differences and the NON-biological differences are the NON-biological differences. We categorize them differently so that they can be studied appropriately. No one here will argue that an ape is a human. Apes are apes. Humans are human. They are similar in some respects, but different in others. That's all.

Quote
(4) Has anyone thought about the implications of an assertion by a government entity that "Apes are 98.5% human and therefore should be afforded certain 'human rights.'"  This would be a silly idea to me of course, but it appears to be a logical conclusion of some evolutionist thinking.

This would be a silly idea to me, too. If someone arrived at this conclusion by extrapolating from evolution, I’d describe it as “wrong”.

Quote
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?

Sure he was. But, as above, I think most people would describe him as “wrong”; he MISINTERPRETED evolutionary theory and arrived at bad conclusions. Wasn’t he also a Christian? Would you say he followed Christian precepts correctly?

Quote
Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?

Not withstanding the fact that there is no "more" or "less" evolved, why yes, it WOULD be logical to assume that there might be some differences between races. What makes science nice is that it does not STOP there, but goes on to say: “Let’s investigate it further and do some research to see if it is, in fact, true.” Oh, look. The evidence shows that the differences between the various races are negligible, and that their abilities are essentially identical. Huh. I guess that makes it an instance of "Things are not always what you expect."

Quote
My conclusion then is that in spite of striking genome similarities, humans and the apes are VERY DIFFERENT in many important ways.

My, what a strikingly insightful conclusion that is. No one will disagree with that statement, Dave. It is self-evident. It is your next line…
Quote
All the evidence that I have seen so far is explained in a much better way by the Biblical assertion that mankind was made "in the image of God."

…that the reality-based people here will take issue with.

Date: 2006/05/08 10:35:01, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Dave, as I understand the current arrangement, we as a society teach science to our children so that they will know a little science. We teach them English literature so that they will know a little English literature, and so on down the line. The exception is religion. We as a society do NOT teach religion to our children because people have significantly differing religious beliefs, and parents prefer to teach these to their children on their own. Thus, Catholic parents teach their children Catholicism, Muslim parents teach Islam, Hindu parents teach Hinduism, and so forth.

I can imagine that for those parents who teach a religion that makes testable world-claims, the task is complicated by the fact that their children will learn something contrary in school. I’ve always imagined that such parents, when confronted with the inevitable, “But why…” questions, would simply say that the religion version is true and the school version is false. Oh, and kids, you have to learn the false school version just well enough to pass the test, but don’t believe it.

In other words, because religious education falls to parents, those who need it ALREADY HAVE the “present both sides and let the kids decide” option available to them.

Why is this system inadequate for you?

Date: 2006/05/11 08:32:06, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Dave,

How can we tell the difference the following two possibilities:

1) The universe was intentionally designed “just so” for our benefit.
2) The universe “just happened” this way, and here we are.

Your observation that the second possibility is really, really improbable is correct. But “improbable” is not the same as “impossible”.  And no matter HOW improbable something is, if it is not impossible, then it is possible.

The assumption that a deity created all this is AT LEAST as cockamamie as the assumption that it just happened.
Quote
I am simply saying this -- nothing else -- that "Doggone it ... this universe sure is suited nicely for life ... how did that happen?  Is there maybe, maybe, maybe a possibility that maybe, maybe, maybe "someone" could have set the parameters that way?  It seems silly to not even consider this possibility.

You are more than welcome to consider the possibility. You will not be the first person to ever do so. LOTS of people consider the possibility EVERY DAY. No one is stopping you from considering the possibility. Heck, you are even welcome to formulate a scientific hypothesis and test it. Do THIS, however, and you WILL be the first to ever do so.

Date: 2006/05/12 10:13:00, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Dave, I sense a genuine fear on your part that “IF no Creator God, THEN anarchy and chaos”. But why can’t you see that it is incomplete to cast the choice as “either-or”.

Quote
The bottom line, of course, is ...

IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator.

This is plainly false. Many happy theists believe that God caused the Big Bang and then just sat back to see what happened. And as it turned out, WE happened. And God is OK with that, (although He was really hoping to see what the dinosaurs would become.) It’s called Theistic Evolution. Your insistence is not only that “Goddidit” but specifically, “Goddiditthisway”. If you’re talking about GOD, who is omnipotent, it is unseemly of you to presume to limit His methods.

The point here is that, as you yourself have admitted,

Quote
WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF "GODDIDIT" AND WE CERTAINLY CAN'T "PROVE" THAT.

Well said. So, no matter what you do, belief in a Creator will always HAVE to be an article of faith.

Why not adopt a faith that is more congenial to the facts?

And before you sputter, “One does not change faiths so casually, bub!” I would point out that your research has not been all that casual. You’ve read a lot on the topic, and are fairly well versed in the broad issues, but you are suffering from trying to fit the evidence to your conclusions, rather than adjust your conclusions based on the evidence.

You’re a researching kind of a guy; do a little research into the >1200 religions active in the US and find the one that is most like yours now, except for the biblical literalism part.

People change faiths every day, and nothing bad happens to them because of it.

Just a thought.

Date: 2006/05/24 15:11:11, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 24 2006,16:17)
I assume there is a sliding scale, and want to figure where we DO draw the line, legally and socially, as to what is cultism, and what is child abuse.

I also agree that there is a sliding scale, but I suspect that the line gets redrawn on a case-by-case basis. And of course the view of abuse depends on which side of the line you personally fall. If you were raised an atheist by atheist parents, you might be happy for your good fortune, but a fundie would be quite certain you were abused.

The other thing to consider is that religious indoctrination is actually fairly mild compared to some of the truly vile and depraved things that adults have done to children. To get anyone to buy it as an argument, you’d have to compare it to “raped the kid with a broom handle” and “locked the kid in a broom closet for two weeks without food”.

Offhand, I wouldn’t want to advance it as an argument.

Date: 2006/05/24 15:59:40, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 24 2006,20:29)
that's a bit of a cop out.

it's like saying there are no objective ways of determining child abuse.

Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that. Perhaps I should've used some qualifiers and said "And of course the view of abuse sometimes depends on which side of the line you personally fall." I think in these initial comments, most people are going to raise the Complexity and Relativity flags before venturing to define specifics. Even your observation:
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 24 2006,20:29)
and i don't mean "spanking" i mean BEAT

could be open to some debate based on different interpretations of "spanking" and "beat".
This is a REAL thorny issue, is all I'm sayin'

Date: 2006/05/25 10:33:22, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Let me ask this:

Does there in fact exist one or more behaviors that would be UNIVERSALLY considered child abuse?  By “universally” I mean “regardless of culture or societal context”.

My gut reaction is, well, yeah, murdering your kid would be such a behavior.

But ya know, I’m coming to be impressed with humankind’s ability to find exceptions to anything.  Still,  I’ll stick with my vote for murder. Can anyone think of any others?

My sense of it is that there are probably very few such behaviors, and this would point up the difficulty in getting any particular behavior classified as “child abuse”.

The four forms of child abuse listed on the Tulare County DA page are useful, but they can be more compactly expressed in two categories: PHYSICAL or MENTAL. I would guess that a behavior that is UNIVERSALLY regarded as child abuse is more likely to be a Physical one.

I do NOT think that Louis’ list is workable:

 
Quote (Louis @ May 25 2006,03:39)
1. The parental opinion/worldview is being forced onto the child in a strongly coercive manner (threats of #### or similar etc). There are adverse consequences for not adhering, or appearing to adhere to, the "party line".


“Billy, learn your science lesson or you won’t get into CalTech and you’ll end up being a hamburger flipper. And Mommy will kill herself.”

 
Quote (Louis @ May 25 2006,03:39)
2. The opinion/worldview is demonstrably at odds with observed reality.


Geez, isn’t this the whole problem with trying to reason with Creationists? They literally observe a different reality than do others.

 
Quote (Louis @ May 25 2006,03:39)
3. Dogmatically holding to this recieved opinion/worldview could hinder social or professional progress in more diverse social and professional environments. (think Fred Phelps type homophobia in a modern multinational corporation etc).


“Sorry, Billy, your CalTech degree sorta automatically disqualifies you for a management position here at Fundie-Owned Corp.”

There’s NOTHING that can’t be twisted around. But you knew that already.

Date: 2006/05/26 09:16:21, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
AFDave,

Just a quick question:
Why AREN'T you presenting your YEC evidence?

Date: 2006/05/27 16:38:21, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 27 2006,20:34)
Relatedly, what's the difference between someone who can get out, and someone who can't?  I'm now wondering what made me different than anyone else.

Broadly restated, this could be:

“What is the difference between someone who CAN change one or more personally-held beliefs, and someone who CANNOT make such a change.”

Because THAT’S what we’re looking at here; some people can change a belief and some cannot. The very nature of practicing science requires you to look at your results and change your hypothesis if need be. Thus, scientists get a fair amount of practice at this, and may be quite good at it. They don’t take it personally.

Consider, then, the requirements of the job of Minister (or Priest, or Vicar, or Swami): If you are representing a thousands-of-years-old tradition, and you are charged with carrying it forward, the very nature of your job requires that you do NOT change your opinions on any of it, ever. It is true and eternal, and it is not your place to question it in any way. You probably get good at it.

And because both science and ministry are practiced by human beings, there is some, let’s say, VARIETY in the details.  Some scientists compartmentalize their religious beliefs, some ministers compartmentalize their real-world practicality. Some don’t, and are eventually drawn more completely towards religious or secular belief.

And of course, this ability or inability to change a belief is not confined to scientists and ministers; it would have to be found in varying degrees in all people. But not all people are called upon to change or resist change as frequently, and so most of us muddle through life being flexible in some things and rigid in others. Perhaps the conflict has erupted between science and religion because their practitioners are at the extremes of the ability.

Date: 2006/05/29 06:30:53, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Lou,

Your scale is certainly a workable starting point for discussion. I think the next step would be to start calibrating the various contributors to this thread by asking them to assign a score to a single action: teaching a child that there is a god.

No other qualifiers here; just teaching a child that there is a god.

I myself would assign that action a TOSICA score of 45.

Date: 2006/06/01 10:30:08, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Quote (afdave @ June 01 2006,11:42)
Could that be because you guys have a myopic view of 'evidence?'  Just a thought.

This to me is a key point of difference between real scientists and creationists. Several people have commented on it, but could I ask the real scientists here for their opinions of exactly WHY science's definition of "evidence" is what it is? AFDave mischaracterizes it as "myopic" but what is the correct description? "Focused"? "Undistracted"? "Tangible"? It would have to be a word or phrase that could not be applied to AFDave's myriad offerings of conjecture and opinion.

It is baffling that AFDave and his ilk cannot see the difference between "evidence" and "conjecture". Words have meanings. If you distort them to mean something other than their meaning, you REDUCE the likelihood of communication.

Date: 2006/06/20 08:02:01, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
I just want to de-lurk long enough to observe that one of Dave’s fundamental tactics is backfiring (not that it worked well to begin with). At the start of this thread, Dave quickly adopted an M.O. that consisted of making an outlandish statement, then watching as a large number of responses were posted, and picking out a very few of those to “respond” to. Dave’s responses were indeed “science-y” and would certainly fool an uneducated layman. Then a large number of responses would again roll in, Dave would again pick a very few, and ignore the really hard ones.

But as the thread has grown, the sheer number of “ignored” posts gets pretty big, and frankly, Dave, it makes you look pretty bad. You might claim that it is difficult to answer twenty posters, and you’d be right: it is difficult, but it is not impossible. Hey, YOU’RE the one with all that fruits-of-success leisure time to invest; make a list or something, and answer them ALL. Hint: it’s OK to say “I don’t know”. Real scientists say that all the time.

Date: 2006/06/28 04:06:07, Link
Author: Joe the Ordinary Guy
Quote (stevestory @ June 27 2006,18:32)
Indeed, it might be worth exploring what behavior on AFDave's part makes him so obviously dumber than the other creationists.

It’s always seemed to me that what makes AFDave unique is his use of phrases that suggest he is a “teacher” and he is somehow conducting a “class”. He’s consistently used phrases like “your reading assignment is…” and “now that we’ve covered this, we’ll move on to our next topic…” as if he’s actually imparting knowledge.  He’s a good example of “unclear on the concept” of how an internet forum works.

Date: 2007/07/23 07:52:31, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/23 15:22:19, Link
Author: Joe G
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...

Date: 2007/07/23 15:33:32, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/23 16:44:28, Link
Author: Joe G
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?

Date: 2007/07/23 16:50:55, Link
Author: Joe G
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...

Date: 2007/07/24 09:25:20, Link
Author: Joe G
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...

Date: 2007/07/24 09:31:52, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 09:38:33, Link
Author: Joe G
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

I never have told anyone I am a scientist because of my degree.

But thanks for once again demonstrating that you are a dishonest imbecile.

Date: 2007/07/24 09:39:45, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 11:05:25, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 11:18:55, Link
Author: Joe G
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...

Date: 2007/07/24 13:29:23, Link
Author: Joe G
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...

Date: 2007/07/24 13:37:16, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 13:39:07, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 13:42:13, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 18:25:52, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 18:30:51, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 18:34:59, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 19:57:50, Link
Author: Joe G
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?

Date: 2007/07/24 20:01:08, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 20:08:41, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 20:16:49, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 20:20:15, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 20:30:04, Link
Author: Joe G
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...

Date: 2007/07/24 20:34:34, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 20:35:41, Link
Author: Joe G
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.

Date: 2007/07/24 20:40:05, Link
Author: Joe G
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

Date: 2007/07/24 20:42:30, Link
Author: Joe G
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?

Date: 2007/07/24 20:43:37, Link
Author: Joe G
Design is an ALTERNATIVE!

Not every alternative is an opposite.

Go soak your head...

Date: 2008/04/01 15:17:03, Link
Author: Joe M
Hi all,

Found the board today searching on someone who happens to be one of your old trolls: mynym. He's been trolling my blog with his anti-science crap, and I got bored today, hence the search.

At any rate, it brought me to a good find, since I've been reading Panda's Thumb for a while, but never checked the forums.

Catch you all later!

Date: 2008/04/01 17:37:47, Link
Author: Joe M
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 01 2008,16:58)
Quote (dheddle @ April 01 2008,14:37)
On the rare occasions when they heard the explanation, their best reply would be "WELL, THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT *SHOULD* BE!"

This comes as no surprise, since they use the same argument when they complain that science does'nt assume a creator. To them, the problem is not that their "theory" is unscientific, but that the fault lies within the definition and methodology of science.

Everything needs to change to support ID, and they see no problem with that.

Date: 2008/04/01 17:50:25, Link
Author: Joe M
High school only, and I try my best to self-educate with all the problems that entails!

Date: 2009/11/02 06:24:36, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2009,16:52)
Those people at TT (fifth monarchy man, Mung, ID guy) on that particular thread anyway strike me as moronic children asking "but why" long after they've stopped understanding the answer, but it's all they've got so they repeat it anyway.

ID Guy (Joe):
   
Quote
ID has real evidence- it is based on real observations and real experiences.

Its premises can be tested.

So what else does it need?


So go fucking test it moron-boy. Jeez, what a bunch of losers. Did somebody say one time that if they repeat their empty claims often enough somebody would believe it? Whoever you are, put them out of their misery.

Fifth Monarchy Man:
 
Quote
You discounted the validity of the axiom for science while relying on it in order to do the very science you say called it into question.

trying to untangle these kinds of mental knots would cause anyone to misspeak

sigh

That's very deep man. Get out from under that pyramid much FMM?

Mung brings the deep philosophy
 
Quote
If I see a creature, and I say, that looks like a duck, are you telling me that claim (Or is that not a claim? In your world I just don't know.) is completely different from the claim that I infer that what I am looking at is, in fact, a duck?

Therefore ID! What a total bunch of losers with no real answers to anything Zachriel has to say.

ID has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not my problem.

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

Date: 2009/11/04 10:41:10, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,04:10)
Joe G.:

 
Quote

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.


Article in Synthese

Unabridged web version of above

Article in Biology and Philosophy

Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism

Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,

 
Quote

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.

In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.

Date: 2009/11/04 10:43:31, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 02 2009,08:52)
Evolution has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not our problem.

Now if you want to refute the theory of evolution all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your stupid inference.

Edited for correspondence with reality.

(I don't usually use such language but didn't want to distort the template ungraciously provided.)

Umm "evolution" isn't being debated ass-face.

You must be too stupid to understand that.

Date: 2009/11/04 10:45:35, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 04 2009,10:02)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,02:10)
Joe G.:

 
Quote

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails

Been there, done that.

Me too, me too!

Dr GH is the guy who posts the EF (in his chapter) and then manages to mangle it.

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?

Date: 2009/11/04 10:51:32, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2009,07:57)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 02 2009,06:24)
ID has been tested asshole.

Citation please.
       
Quote
You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And the results were what, exactly? Citation please. And us pukes are in the same boat as 99.9%+ of all scientists globally in refusing to accept your argument (such as it is). So go figure that one out.
       
Quote
And that is not my problem.

Indeed no. Your role appears to be to repeat the same "arguments" over and over again without substantiation. As such, you are doing a great job.
       
Quote
Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

In fact it's the other way round. You make a claim, you need to support that claim. No wonder you are not getting anywhere! Given that you have been repeating the same phrases over and over for several years now, how can you think that you are getting anywhere? If you were logically you'd have new phrases to repeat by now.
       
Quote
However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

Can you? If so, do so. If not, then don't you think that's something of a hole in your "argument"? Or is "things are complex, therefore ID" all you have?

Was any of that supposed to refute anything I said?


BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAA

oldmanwithhisheaduphisass you are a living transition from pond-scum.

Thank you for fulfilling my prediction.

Date: 2009/11/04 10:55:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 04 2009,10:50)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:43)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 02 2009,08:52)
Evolution has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not our problem.

Now if you want to refute the theory of evolution all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your stupid inference.

Edited for correspondence with reality.

(I don't usually use such language but didn't want to distort the template ungraciously provided.)

Umm "evolution" isn't being debated ass-face.

You must be too stupid to understand that.

What is the mechanism of ID?

Please do not say 'design', for 'design' is only the plan.  What is the mechanism of the implementation of the plan, and what is the actual evidence for it?

For example, the mechanism for the implementation of human design can be seen in the scraps and left over materials, tools, etc.

Please, floor us with your acumen.

Design is a mechanism Scott.

Just look up the two words:

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.

It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people.


That said there are specific design mechanisms-

One is a targeted search such as the "weasel" program.

Another is "built-in responses to environmental cues" ala Dr Spetner in 1997.

Then there is artificial selection.

There you have it design mechanisms.

Date: 2009/11/04 11:04:37, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 03 2009,04:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 02 2009,07:24)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2009,16:52)
Those people at TT (fifth monarchy man, Mung, ID guy) on that particular thread anyway strike me as moronic children asking "but why" long after they've stopped understanding the answer, but it's all they've got so they repeat it anyway.

ID Guy (Joe):
           
Quote
ID has real evidence- it is based on real observations and real experiences.

Its premises can be tested.

So what else does it need?


So go fucking test it moron-boy. Jeez, what a bunch of losers. Did somebody say one time that if they repeat their empty claims often enough somebody would believe it? Whoever you are, put them out of their misery.

Fifth Monarchy Man:
         
Quote
You discounted the validity of the axiom for science while relying on it in order to do the very science you say called it into question.

trying to untangle these kinds of mental knots would cause anyone to misspeak

sigh

That's very deep man. Get out from under that pyramid much FMM?

Mung brings the deep philosophy
         
Quote
If I see a creature, and I say, that looks like a duck, are you telling me that claim (Or is that not a claim? In your world I just don't know.) is completely different from the claim that I infer that what I am looking at is, in fact, a duck?

Therefore ID! What a total bunch of losers with no real answers to anything Zachriel has to say.

ID has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not my problem.

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

<Cue Joe G flounce-out, just like PT on Saturday morning>

Makes bold claims, acts the tough guy, then slithers back to boards where he and his buddies get to delete comments they don't like.

Total.  Fucking.  Coward.

I predict one of two things:

1)  We don't hear from Joe again for at least month, at which point he returns to make the same unsubstantiated claims

2)  He comes back sooner and threatens some kind of physical violence, real or metaphorical, then #1

Hey ass breath- I said what I had to say at PT.

I am not going to fully engage the tards that post over there.

However it appears you have a personal issue with me.

I am more than willing to meet and sort it out, so to speak...

Date: 2009/11/04 11:06:35, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 04 2009,10:52)
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 25 2009,08:17)
Things have been quiet at TT lately.  

A while ago I asked Paul Nelson (for the umpteenth time) to explain in what way "Woese and his reasearch group radically undermine fundamental lines of evolutionary reasoning" and what exactly are the "corrosive consequences" of that research to the upper branches of the evolutionary tree of life.

Paul replied:
 
Quote
One step at a time. A data dump now about problems with metazoan (or chordate or mammalian) phylogeny would be getting ahead of the discussion. Let’s sort out the origin of Eukarya, according to Woese, first.

Suggested reading, re HGT and its evidential support.

P.S. I have a book MS (with Scott Minnich) due next week, so will be away from this discussion over the weekend and early next week.


16 days later, no sign of Paul.  

Zachriel, maybe we should ignore Joe Gallien for a while.  IDers at both UD and TT view him as a crazy uncle and won't be caught dead talking to him.  If he sees that his tantrums don't result in conversations he'll have to either change his behavior or at least change his venue.

I've been waiting for about 6 years forhim to demonstrate that investigator bias alters/dictates molecular phylogenetic analysis outcomes....

Why would I do that when I never made such a claim?

OTOH I have been waiting for decades for evolutionitwits to support their claims that alterations to the genome can account for the diversity of life from some unlnown population(s) of single-celled organisms.

Date: 2009/11/12 09:55:31, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 04 2009,23:13)
LOL@cakeboy: Design is a mechanism. What a maroon!

Yes design is a mechanism if we go by the standard and accepted definitions of the words "design" and "mechanism".

However if you are an ignorant asshole- as most of you appear to be, then dictionaries are of no use.

Date: 2009/11/12 09:58:29, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 05 2009,07:47)
If I remember correctly, two people emailed his former employer because Joey was sending them threats from his work email account.

Thats what Joey the Muslim does - he threatens people, then bails when they take him up on it.  


A 'public debate' would be a hoot -

EVO:  Mr. Gallien, can you tell us all what the mechanism for Design is?

JOE:  Yes, Design IS the mechanism!

EVO: Oh, OK, how is it implemented?

JOE:  It is Design, dumbass!

(crowd starts shaking heads)

EVO:  Can you give an example of this 'design' in Nature?

JOE:  Sure, artifical selection in domestic animals!

EVO:  Um...  Humans do that..

JOE:  Yeah - and thats ID, stupid!  

(crowd starts to chuckle and act disgusted)

EVO:I thought ID was all about thye origin of life and flagella and such?

JOE: Thats right - artificial selection proves that an Intelligent Designer designed the bacterial flagellum!  Duh, asshole!  How about I pay you a little visit so you'll see things my way?

EVO:  Well, I am right here across the stage.  Bring it on.

JOE:  Gotta go.  I'm double parked.

JOE (2 weeks later):  So, evo pussy, chickened out of our little get together, eh?




Such a coward, in more ways than one.

So Scotty reverts to lying.

No surprise there.

Let's see Scotty you and Rob were going to come to my workplace and do something.

However YOU chickened out.

Anytime Scotty.

I could be at Norwich U in a couple of hours.

Date: 2009/11/12 10:00:49, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:23)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:41)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,04:10)
Joe G.:

     
Quote

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.


Article in Synthese

Unabridged web version of above

Article in Biology and Philosophy

Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism

Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,

     
Quote

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

[1] Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

[2] The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.

[3] In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

[4] You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.

One freebie for "JoeG"...

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.

Wes,

You don't have any evidence that undirected/ non-target oriented processes can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

You cannot even provide a testable hypothesis based on those types of mechanisms.

That is why the vast majority of people do not buy into your nonsense.

Date: 2009/11/19 15:32:24, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 12 2009,13:28)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,09:55)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 04 2009,23:13)
LOL@cakeboy: Design is a mechanism. What a maroon!

Yes design is a mechanism if we go by the standard and accepted definitions of the words "design" and "mechanism".

However if you are an ignorant asshole- as most of you appear to be, then dictionaries are of no use.

When I look up "design", I get this:



–verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.  
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.  
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.  
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.  
6. Obsolete. to mark out, as by a sign; indicate.

–verb (used without object)
7. to make drawings, preliminary sketches, or plans.
8. to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.

–noun
9. an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed.
10. organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.  
12. the art of designing: a school of design.  
13. a plan or project: a design for a new process.  
14. a plot or intrigue, esp. an underhand, deceitful, or treacherous one: His political rivals formulated a design to unseat him.  
15. designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives: He had designs on his partner's stock.  
16. intention; purpose; end.
17. adaptation of means to a preconceived end.

I don't see anything about design being "create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan", in all of the applicable definitions, I see 'design' as the PLAN.


And the definiton of 'mechanism' doesn't help, either:



–noun
1. an assembly of moving parts performing a complete functional motion, often being part of a large machine; linkage.
2. the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
3. machinery or mechanical appliances in general.
4. the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous.
5. the mechanical part of something; any mechanical device: the mechanism of a clock.  
6. routine methods or procedures; mechanics: the mechanism of government.  
7. mechanical execution, as in painting or music; technique.
8. the theory that everything in the universe is produced by matter in motion; materialism. Compare dynamism (def. 1), vitalism (def. 1).
9. Philosophy. a. the view that all natural processes are explicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics.
b. the view that all biological processes may be described in physicochemical terms.
10. Psychoanalysis. the habitual operation and interaction of psychological forces within an individual that assist in interpreting or dealing with the physical or psychological environment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see nothgin there that indicates that the "plan" is the means by which something is accomplished.

Apparently, some feel the need to simply make up definitions to prop up their fantasies.

When I look up mechanism, I get:

3. method or means: a method or means of doing something

And then design


plan and make something: to plan and make something in a skillful or artistic way

Plan AND MAKE.

So as I have tiold you many times before one can do something by design or willy-nilly.

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.

It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people.

Date: 2009/11/19 15:37:25, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 14 2009,10:30)
Joe G makes an appearance at the Casey Luskin editorial:
 
Quote
Joe G

Nov 14, 2009

Instead of just providing the scientific data which would support their position and falsify ID all the anti-IDist crybabies can do is spew more hatred.

However seeing that there isn't any scientific data that supports their claims spewing hatred is all they have.

For example we have plenty of evidence for mutations causing malfunctions.

But we don't have any da=ta that demonstrates that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and new body plans.

And we don't have any way to test the premise that an accumulation of genetic accidents can do the trick.

So as opposed to mouthing off all the evolutionitwits have to do is to actually start supporting their claims!

But they cannot.

Link

Yep, I guess the fact that there is no evidence at all for evolution explains why all those textbook and journal pages are empty. Why all those labs are just cardboard cutouts.

Why museums are full of nothing at all


Joe G is even too much of a coward to pick a piece of evidence and have a debate about it.

Ain't that so, Joe?

Prove me wrong....

oldmanwithhisheaduphisass,

What is the genetic data that links changes in the DNA to those alleged physical transformations?

IOW you are too much of an imbecile to even understand that you don't have anything that supports your position.

Date: 2009/11/19 15:44:08, Link
Author: Joe G
mechanism:
b : a process, technique, or system for achieving a result

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/mechanism?view=uk
2 the way in which something works or is brought about.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/mechanism

An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being:


Design:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design

1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan


http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/design

To make or execute plans.

Date: 2009/11/19 15:47:27, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 12 2009,16:25)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,11:00)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:23)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:41)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,04:10)
Joe G.:

         
Quote

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.


Article in Synthese

Unabridged web version of above

Article in Biology and Philosophy

Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism

Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,

         
Quote

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

[1] Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

[2] The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.

[3] In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

[4] You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.

One freebie for "JoeG"...

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.

Wes,

You don't have any evidence that undirected/ non-target oriented processes can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

You cannot even provide a testable hypothesis based on those types of mechanisms.

That is why the vast majority of people do not buy into your nonsense.

Hey look, it's Joe G the coward, who throws around a bunch of insults and makes a lot of unsupported assertions, then bravely runs away!

Hey look it's occam's afterbirth the douche-drip.

You still don't have anything that would support your position, do you?

You don't have any idea if mutations can accumulate such that new, useful protein machinery is constructed. And still nothing for changing body plans.

And you still blame me for your short-comings and ignorance.

Go fogure...

Date: 2009/11/19 15:48:31, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,15:45)
Joe:

http://www.google.com/search?....q=&aqi=


Ms Encarta? How long did you fish before you got one that was remotely what you wanted?

Richtard,

We have been down this road before and you lost then too.

It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to own or read a dictionary.

Date: 2009/11/19 15:50:42, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:37)
oldmanwithhisheaduphisass,

What is the genetic data that links changes in the DNA to those alleged physical transformations?

IOW you are too much of an imbecile to even understand that you don't have anything that supports your position.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8355541.stm
 
Quote
A gene that has long been implicated in the evolution of speech and language has given up more of its secrets.

A study of the effects of two versions of the FOXP2 gene, one from chimpanzees and one from humans, showed marked differences in their effects.

Human FOXP2 triggered changes in genes known to affect the growth of brain areas related to language and also, more generally, to higher thought.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004vxq1  
Quote
Research in the journal Nature this week describes a gene which seems to control the human ability to speak. FOXP2 works like a dimmer switch, turning the expression of other genes up or down. These genes in turn affect our control of the facial muscles necessary for speech, and may influence the brain circuits involved in language. But, asks Jon, would genetically engineering chimpanzees to carry FOXP2 allow them to talk? Dr Daniel Geshwind from the University of California, Los Angeles, has an answer.

And I'm sure you remember other times Joe, over at UD, where I fed you links (about the big toe I think last time) showing genetic links to exactly the sort of changes you are asking about. Where you said "oh, maybe" and then pretended it never happened! And of course it would never have lasted anyway as I was banned (again) shortly after (probably).

Oh yes Joe, we've talked many times....

Still wanna talk about DNA and physical transformations?

FOXP 2 doesn't help you moron.

It just shows that if mutated humans can't talk very well.

And there isn't anything linking to that loss of the opposable big toe.

So yes I absolutely want to talk DNA and physical changes.

Date: 2009/11/19 15:51:43, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 19 2009,15:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:47)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 12 2009,16:25)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,11:00)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:23)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:41)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,04:10)
Joe G.:

           
Quote

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.


Article in Synthese

Unabridged web version of above

Article in Biology and Philosophy

Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism

Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,

           
Quote

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

[1] Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

[2] The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.

[3] In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

[4] You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.

One freebie for "JoeG"...

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.

Wes,

You don't have any evidence that undirected/ non-target oriented processes can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

You cannot even provide a testable hypothesis based on those types of mechanisms.

That is why the vast majority of people do not buy into your nonsense.

Hey look, it's Joe G the coward, who throws around a bunch of insults and makes a lot of unsupported assertions, then bravely runs away!

Hey look it's occam's afterbirth the douche-drip.

You still don't have anything that would support your position, do you?

You don't have any idea if mutations can accumulate such that new, useful protein machinery is constructed. And still nothing for changing body plans.

And you still blame me for your short-comings and ignorance.

Go fogure...

I don't blame you for anything but being a cowardly hit-and-run prick, Joe.

Yes Mr cowardly anonymous.

Still nothing to add and still ignoirant I see...

Date: 2009/11/19 15:53:33, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:51)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:48)
We have been down this road before and you lost then too.

Indeed we have. And every time you've lost Joe, as the "onlookers" would no doubt agree.

You just don't realise it.

oldmanwithhisheaduphisass,

You don't have anything but your head up your ass.

Date: 2009/11/19 15:57:13, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:55)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:50)
FOXP 2 doesn't help you moron.

Is that your entire letter to Nature? The journal where they published the new research?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6900/abs/nature01025.html
   
Quote
This gene is disrupted by translocation in an unrelated individual who has a similar disorder. Thus, two functional copies of FOXP2 seem to be required for acquisition of normal spoken language. We sequenced the complementary DNAs that encode the FOXP2 protein in the chimpanzee, gorilla, orang-utan, rhesus macaque and mouse, and compared them with the human cDNA. We also investigated intraspecific variation of the human FOXP2 gene. Here we show that human FOXP2 contains changes in amino-acid coding and a pattern of nucleotide polymorphism, which strongly suggest that this gene has been the target of selection during recent human evolution.

And you sum that up with
   
Quote
It just shows that if mutated humans can't talk very well.

Yep. Include that in your letter. It fits. Very "you".
   
Quote

And there isn't anything linking to that loss of the opposable big toe.

I never said there was.
   
Quote
So yes I absolutely want to talk DNA and physical changes.

Are you sure you would not prefer to hit and run like usual? Is it a full moon at the moment or something? Is that why you are about for longer then the usual 10 seconds?

If you don't have anything then just say so.

I will meet you in a public debate- we both put up $10,000- then we will see who runs...

Date: 2009/11/19 15:59:47, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:57)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:51)
Still nothing to add and still ignoirant I see...

 
Quote
ignoirant

Let me guess. New Jersey?

That's where the picture is from Joe. They've a big museum full of it. Got nuthin about ID in there. At all. And it's a very big museum.

So all you have is to pick on TYPOS????

Now I know why I stay away from this place.

Too bad not one museum can link the DNA changes to those physical transformations...

Date: 2009/11/19 16:01:30, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,15:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,15:45)
Joe:

http://www.google.com/search?....q=&aqi=


Ms Encarta? How long did you fish before you got one that was remotely what you wanted?

Richtard,

We have been down this road before and you lost then too.

It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to own or read a dictionary.

Actually the dictionaries I use agree with these:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y159930

I don't have to go cherry picking.

Richtard,

I used Merriam-Webster, Oxford- well I could opick any accepted dictionary to make my case.

As a matter of fact I did and you ignored it.

Date: 2009/11/19 16:03:56, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:59)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:57)
If you don't have anything then just say so.

I will meet you in a public debate- we both put up $10,000- then we will see who runs...

A debate about what Joe?

Your position against ID.

IOW you would have to provide a testable hypothesis pertaining to genetic accidents.

You would also have to support the claims of your position.

Or are you a coward?

Date: 2009/11/19 16:05:40, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:59)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:57)
If you don't have anything then just say so.

I will meet you in a public debate- we both put up $10,000- then we will see who runs...

A debate about what Joe?

Your position against ID. Duh...

Date: 2009/11/19 16:08:46, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,16:07)
Have you corrected Dembski yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski

 
Quote
You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering


The father of modern ID says "no". and you are?

I have corrected you Richtard. There isn't anything to correct with Dembski.

You don't seem to have a clue and you think that means no one does.

What Dembski is saying is that we don't have to know the specific mechanism used in order to detect design.

Date: 2009/11/19 16:11:42, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,16:04)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:59)
So all you have is to pick on TYPOS????

You refuse to engage on the issues. I posted plently of material we could talk about. But you don't want that. What's' left?
   
Quote
Now I know why I stay away from this place.

Oh, riiiiigggghhhhhtttt. Keeping away from the TYPO NAZIS!
Sure, I'm sure the onlookers are convinced. Just like they are by your two note performance at UD.
   
Quote
Too bad not one museum can link the DNA changes to those physical transformations...

You been to them all then?
And do single genes that control dogs size count?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9348104
I suppose not.

Dog size doesn't help you.

And exactly what "issues" have I refused to engage?

Date: 2009/11/19 16:19:48, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,16:14)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:03)
 
Quote
Your position against ID.

It's quite simple. There is no evidence for ID.
 
Quote
IOW you would have to provide a testable hypothesis pertaining to genetic accidents.

But the question is, would you understand it? Just because you can use the word "pertaining" it don't mean squat to me. How about you support your position with evidence?
 
Quote
You would also have to support the claims of your position.

Very well. What claims are you making in support of your position and how will you be supporting them?
 
Quote

Or are you a coward?

From Mr Hit'n'Run that's quite the compliment.

So, sticking around this time then Joe for real?
I'm so excited.

Of course there is evidence for ID.

You are just too stupid to understand it.

There isn't any evidence that genetic accidents can build new and useful protein machinery nor bring about new body plans.

So how about it?

A public debate, you and I, both bring $10,000...

Date: 2009/11/19 16:21:01, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,16:16)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:11)
Dog size doesn't help you.

I'll check that one off the list.

Refuted by Joe. Check.

 
Quote
And exactly what "issues" have I refused to engage?

Any and all of them. Any time. Ever.

So no specifics just a vague claim.

That is what I thought.

Perhaps I would stick around if anyone here was to actually try to support their position.

Date: 2010/02/12 12:43:13, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 10 2010,16:10)
Well, we shall see if I pass "moderation."

I feel I have come a bit late to this particular party. However, I have been a long time student of the intelligent design movement. I would like to add a comment to Nick Matzke’s observations regarding ID and common ancestry, or speciation.

William Dembski and Jonathan Wells writing in their recent book, “The Design of Life”  deny common ancestry as it is used by mainstream biologists. They wrote that ID “neither requires nor excludes speciation,” and  that “ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable.” These remarks would seem to leave the door open to common ancestry. But, in their concluding remarks on speciation, they insist that “there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.”  So ID accepts speciation, but not by mutation, and natural selection- not by biology. No, rather their claim is that, “intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way, intelligent design is compatible with speciation. (pg. 109)”

Both authors are on record that the “intelligent designer” is the biblical God. So, their “speciation” is exclusively the result of Devine intervention. These acknowledged intellectual leaders of the ID movement wasted a great deal of ink just to say “goddidit.” Henry Morris or Duane Gish said it clearly and honestly.

And that is all that distinguishes ID from special creationism- honesty.

That is false.

ID says that not all mutations are genetic accidents.

Genetic accidents occur but they are a minor player.

Dr Spetner talks about this in "Not By Chance"- most mutations would be the result of "built-in responses to environmental cues".

IOW there are targeted searches going on.

So ID says speciation occurs by mutation but not all mutations are blind and undirected.

No intervention required- just the proper initial conditions.

Glad I could help...

Date: 2010/02/23 07:02:03, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 21 2010,14:39)
Zachriel,

I don't understand how you can continue to argue with "ID Guy".

Whether his first name is Jim or Joe, he is clearly the author of the (un)Intelligent Reasoning blog.

Occasionally, I suggest a first name for people to call me by.  The only time I recall using "Dave" was with Joe/Jim.  He tried to be cute and use it as something that would bother me.  It only confirmed my suspicions.

I gave up posting on his blog a long time ago when it was clear he couldn't keep his own story straight.  I am not surprised he would want to change his identity when he started to post on Telic Thoughts in earnest (get rid of past baggage).

Zachriel, you have indicated in the past you are mostly talking to the listening audience.  However, there comes a time when even the listening audience will think it is foolish to continue to respond to him.

Please excuse my venting.  I made the mistake of taking a peek at TT.

It's obviously up to you what you do with your time.

Excuse me Dave,

What story was it that I couldn't keep straight?

Please be specific- you don't want people to think that you are a big fat liar- or perhaps you don't care about that...

Date: 2010/02/23 07:32:22, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,07:26)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:02)

What story was it that I couldn't keep straight?

The trouble with lying is that it's difficult to keep your story straight after a while. IOW it's better to shut up instead of spouting lies. As you don't seem to be in any danger of shutting up, perhaps you should just stop lying?
     
Quote
Please be specific-

That's a joke coming from you.
     
Quote
you don't want people to think that you are a big fat liar- or perhaps you don't care about that...

Given that you already have a reputation as a pretend internet hard man who can only repeat the same formulaic phrases over and over again instead of an actual reasoned argument it's nice that you are concerned over the reputation of others. Still, I'd suggest you concern yourself more with your reputation then worry about other peoples.

Joe, why are you back here? Have you finally noticed that nobody at UD or TT is actually interested in talking to you, apart from your critics.

Have you never noticed how any of the ID supporters at both those sites never interact with you? Have you never noticed that nobody every agrees with you? Have you never noticed that you might as well be in a parallel world for all the different your comments make? Have you never noticed that you've been repeating the same inane comments over and over for literally years now to no effect whatsoever except to expose the vacuity of your "position"?

Still, keep up the good work. If you did not exist, we'd have to invent you as an example of the mindless drones that follow Dembski et al about, uncritically accepting everything they have to say, then thinking that reading a few Behe/Dembski books equips them for arguing with people who've spent large parts of their life learning and actively working in the biological sciences. I doubt you'd pass even the simplest entrance examination to any biology course.

And about that debate. You ready to have it yet? Or will you use your "put up the money" excuse yet again?

Yet another internet coward.

Still have nothing to say oldmanwithhisheaduphisass.

Yes I will debate you.

Are you ready to ante up and meet me in a public forum?

Or are you going to continue to be a frothing coward?

As for biology courses- been there, done that.

I know I know more about the subject than you will ever know.

YOU are the person who just believes people because you cannot think for yourself.

You are so pathetic all you can do is sit in front of your computer and stroke yourself.

Date: 2010/02/23 07:34:14, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 13 2010,08:49)
Joe's Health Insurance "Plan"

 
Quote
As for insurance- that is nonsense and a scam.

You can pay into it all your life, barely ever use it, and never get your money back.

Personally I would have been much better off taking the money I have paid for health insurance throughout my life and sticking it into a savings account- pay myself instead of an insurance company.

Then if I needed money for a doctor I go to that account.

So that is what I say the government should do- Mandate those types of accounts and if you don't have enough money to cover it then you get a loan and pay that back with the money you would normally put into that account.

This "plan" may help with the "health" part. If people understand they get the money if they don't spend it on "care" it would be an incentive to get and stay healthy.


Stupid does not begin to describe it.

Stupid does not begin to describe you oleg.

But I already knew that...

Date: 2010/02/23 07:35:07, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 13 2010,08:58)
And that proposal is coming from a guy who has a family history of cancer:
 
Quote
And if we didn't have to spend so much time and effort caring for people who could just prevent their problems by living healthy perhaps we could focus on issues like the one you say you have.

My sister died of a brain tumor when she was 3.

My mother had breast cancer.

My father had a brain tumor.

Cancer in my family is from each side and it runs deep- I am doing everything I can to avoid that fate.


Words fail me.

Thought processes also fail you.

What part of "prevention" don't you understand?

Date: 2010/02/23 07:37:12, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (khan @ Feb. 13 2010,13:43)
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 13 2010,09:49)
Joe's Health Insurance "Plan"

 
Quote
As for insurance- that is nonsense and a scam.

You can pay into it all your life, barely ever use it, and never get your money back.

Personally I would have been much better off taking the money I have paid for health insurance throughout my life and sticking it into a savings account- pay myself instead of an insurance company.

Then if I needed money for a doctor I go to that account.

So that is what I say the government should do- Mandate those types of accounts and if you don't have enough money to cover it then you get a loan and pay that back with the money you would normally put into that account.

This "plan" may help with the "health" part. If people understand they get the money if they don't spend it on "care" it would be an incentive to get and stay healthy.


Stupid does not begin to describe it.

I just want to mention that I have inherited all sorts of shit that will cripple/disable me.

And I am really pissed at those yahoos that suggest I could be better (change my DNA?) by changing diet/happy thoughts/other shit.

Khan,

Obviously you haven't read what I posted- either that or you just cannot comprehend it.

The vast majority of sick people are that way because of their chosen lifestyle.

If we get rid of those sickies- just by changing that lifestyle, then more time and effort can be spent trying to figure out how to cure/ help people like you- people who really need it.

Date: 2010/02/23 07:39:39, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,07:35)
Joe G
 
Quote
And if CO2 were as powerful of a greenhouse gas as some people say then why aren't we putting CO2 between the panes of double-paned windows?

ROFL @ Dumbass.

The properties of CO2 are available if you care to look

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_1000.html

However, I doubt that you feel the need to investigate the ideas your wittle brain has any further then simply spouting your crap on the internet.

How's the peroxide drinking going Joe?
 
Quote
The plan is to get back strictly on H2O2 3 times a day before flu season hits.


You should try homeopathy. That also "works when done correctly".

H2O2 therapy is going great.

I heven't been sick even though my daughter and wife have been.

But anyway assface- how about that debate or are you too much of an intellectual coward?

What a piece of shit baby you are.

Date: 2010/02/23 07:43:18, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,07:40)
I have a forum which I don't use the public part of very much. I am an experienced debate moderator too. Would you be ammenable to laying out the terms and doing it there?

It's at http://www.dailywingnut.com/ml

If oldmanwithadickuphisass wants to debate me it will be in person, in front of referees and an audience.

Money will be put up and the winner takes all.

Date: 2010/02/23 07:47:21, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,07:43)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:32)


Yes I will debate you.

What, without the $20,000? How very generous.

What will be the topic we're debating?

   
Quote
Are you ready to ante up and meet me in a public forum?

Let me put this in captial letters so you understand.

THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM.

   
Quote
Or are you going to continue to be a frothing coward?

Says the internet hardman who only does hit and runs here and hangs about in "public forums" where dissent is censored.
   
Quote
As for biology courses- been there, done that.

And boy, does it show. Did you get kicked out of the class on day 1 for standing up and objecting "Show us the evolution of biological complexity from simpler precursors"?
   
Quote
I know I know more about the subject than you will ever know.

Here are some simple questions then
   
Quote
29) What types of character states are used in cladistics to form a phylogeny? Why just these
types of character states and not others?
30) What is the topology of a phylogeny? How can the same tree be depicted in different
ways?
31) What is the idea of maximum parsimony? How is this idea used in phylogeny
construction?
32) Even cladistics isn’t perfect – what are the difficulties that remain in phylogeny
construction. In what ways do they create difficulties?
33) How can phylogenies be used to map the evolution of character states and test evolutionary
hypotheses?
34) What are developmental modularity and individualization? How does these concepts relate
to the evolution of different body plans?
35) What are heterochrony and heterotopy? How do these ideas relate to the evolution of
different body plans? Be sure to be familiar with the ideas of allometry,
paedomorphosis, and peramorphosis, and how they relate to one another.
36) What are biogeographic

What to have a crack of those? Or will you be "too busy" or have "some other excuse". If you are the biology master you claim to be those questions should be trivial for you to answer.
   
Quote
YOU are the person who just believes people because you cannot think for yourself.

Says the person who repeats the same things endlessly.
   
Quote
You are so pathetic all you can do is sit in front of your computer and stroke yourself.

Seems to me you post much more then I do at TT and UD etc. Seems to me IOW all you do is bluster.

About those simple questions. Answer those and I'll consider debating you.

oldmanwithadickuphisass,

Answer the following or admit you don't have anything to debate-


What gene, genes or DNA sequence(s) were modified to give rise to vision systems from a population that never had a vision system?

Can you provide a testable hypothesis for your position of cumulative selection of genetic accidents?

The point being is that you have absolutely nothing to debate.

Date: 2010/02/23 07:48:36, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,07:45)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,05:43)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,07:40)
I have a forum which I don't use the public part of very much. I am an experienced debate moderator too. Would you be ammenable to laying out the terms and doing it there?

It's at http://www.dailywingnut.com/ml

If oldmanwithadickuphisass wants to debate me it will be in person, in front of referees and an audience.

Money will be put up and the winner takes all.

lol. OK captain America. :)

What is the topic? (apologies, I don't follow this thread.)

The topic will be his position of cumulative selection on genetic accidents vs Intelligent Design- which makes a better case pertaining to the evidence, data and observations.

Date: 2010/02/23 07:52:08, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,07:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:39)

H2O2 therapy is going great.

http://www.communicationagents.com/chris....ina.htm
Have your thought about the benefits of injecting it?
   
Quote
But health experts say injecting hydrogen peroxide directly into the bloodstream can cause convulsions, acute anemia and deadly gas emboli. A 1991 article in the "Journal of Emergency Nursing" blamed the death of a 39-year-old cancer patient on such "cancer quackery."

   
Quote
I heven't been sick even though my daughter and wife have been.

That sounds scientific to me. A control group. So, when can we expect to see your paper of the benefits of peroxide therapy?
   
Quote
But anyway assface- how about that debate or are you too much of an intellectual coward?

The subject of the debate is what, exactly? Last time I asked you this you said the debate was:
   
Quote
Your position against ID.

I think you'll find that will be a very short debate. What position will *you* be arguing in this "debate" Joe?

   
Quote
What a piece of shit baby you are.

Must be nice to be on a PUBLIC FORUM where you can let out your true self eh? Where you can say whatever you like with no fear of bannation.

One wonders why you don't hang around here more.

I don't hang around here more because it is filled with retarded assholes like you.

And yes it will be a very short debate because you couldn't defend your position if your life depended on it.

Date: 2010/02/23 07:53:10, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,07:51)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:48)
The topic will be his position of cumulative selection on genetic accidents vs Intelligent Design- which makes a better case pertaining to the evidence, data and observations.

1) What specific "evidence" are you referring to here?
2) What specific "data" are you referring to here?
3) What specific "observations" are you referring to here?

Assface- YOU are supposed to provide the evidence, data and observations that support your position.

Man are you stupid...

Date: 2010/02/23 07:54:55, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,07:52)
Oh, I see. Hey JoeG,

1. ID doesn't win debates. Or courtcases or entry into the job market or whatever This is a bad idea. Are you a college kid?

Number two, OMITSDDI has had a little bit of experience I bet.

Just sayin, That's a lot of money for a kid to lose.

ID always wins the debates.

And I won't be losing.

Evotards can't support their claims- they can only make them.

Date: 2010/02/24 08:57:42, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 23 2010,08:19)
Joe, aren't you the nimrod who suggested drinking straight hydrogen peroxide as a 'preventive'?

How's that workin' out for ya?   :D

Not Occam's Afterbirth, I never said anything of the kind.

Perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass and face reality.

Date: 2010/02/24 08:58:55, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,08:16)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:37)
The vast majority of sick people are that way because of their chosen lifestyle.

Citation please.


Citation? You ask for a citation when your position can never produce one to support yoiur claims?

Go ask the people in the medical field.

They will tell you exactly what I just said.

Date: 2010/02/24 09:00:13, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 23 2010,12:29)
Clearly, Joe's health plan does nothing for sufferers of traumatic brain injury.

Clearly Tom Ames is an asshole...

Date: 2010/02/24 09:13:55, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,09:04)
Hi Joe!  

Did you arrive to tell us that you are indeed ID guy?  If so, did you remember to bring the $20k?

olegt-

Did you arrive to tell us that you are an asshole?

Or does everyone already know that you are an asshole?

Date: 2010/02/24 09:17:37, Link
Author: Joe G
46 million Americans smoke tobacco.

Childhood obesity is on the rise- big time.

Adult obesity has spread to every State- 65% of Americans weigh too much.

And that just scratches the surface of what people can do for themselves to save health-care costs.

Date: 2010/02/24 09:18:49, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,09:16)
So, you're not denying the fact?  Where is my $20k?

No oleg I do not deny the fact that you are an asshole.

However your being an asshole does not warrant $20K.

Date: 2010/02/24 09:20:31, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,09:04)
Hi Joe!  

Did you arrive to tell us that you are indeed ID guy?  If so, did you remember to bring the $20k?

Why would I lie oleg?

What would you do if I and ID Guy (two separate and distinct people) show up at John Hopkins?

Will you fork over $20K?

Date: 2010/02/24 09:27:08, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 23 2010,08:09)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:54)
ID always wins the debates.

And I won't be losing.

Dude, you really need to run for school board. Seriously, that is where the action is. Instead of debating us tards, you can be having an direct effect on the youth of America.

I have already implemented "Intelligent Design Awareness Day" for the local schools.

This year was the second IDAD.

All is going well.

I even had parents and teachers attend this year's IDAD- some asked about religion- as in when was I going to talk about it.

I told them I don't because it is irrelevant.

Date: 2010/02/24 09:28:15, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 23 2010,13:40)
And to think, I was going to try to warn you about what Joe G means when he wants to "debate".

At the time I was banned on Uncommon Descent (2006) I was having what I thought was a reasonable discussion with "Joseph".  He was complaining about a double standard in the ID/Evolution debate.  I was truly looking for a serious one-on-one debate with someone claiming to represent the ID side.

From my first comment on his blog...

 
Quote
One of the biggest double-standard that exists envolves defining the terms of the debate (what is "science", what is "Intelligent Design", what is "Evolution")

For the record, I am more the happy to debate this topic on a level playing field.

Deal?


His response...
 
Quote
Deal. I will start a thread that aks "What is evolution?"


Without going into the gory detail (you can read it for yourself), Joe's idea of a debate was for him to define all the terms and demand answers to his questions without answering his opponent's.

The series ended with Joe saying...
 
Quote
...the ONLY position I am willing to debate against is the materialistic anti-ID position which is "sheer-dumb-luck", ie the blind watchmaker.
link


If anyone ends up starting a debate with Joe, I suggest they take advantage of my previous efforts and include the following in their conditions...

 
Quote
We can go around and around on this. Here are your "level playing field" choices...

1. We make our own definitions.

2. We choose definitions from our respective sides (I choose Dawkins' definition of Evolution).

3. We choose definitions for the other side (I choose Pandas).

You can rant and rave all you want, but this is what happens when you truly take away a double standard.


With me, Joe rejected these conditions.

Dave,

You make things up to suit your needs.

You must be very proud of yourself.

Date: 2010/02/24 09:29:03, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 24 2010,08:42)
Quote
I heven't been sick even though my daughter and wife have been.


It's hell when children and spouses make bad lifestyle choices.

Yes it is.

I can only tell them what is right- I cannot force them.

People need to learn on their own it appears...

Date: 2010/02/24 09:30:56, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,09:22)
Another evasion, Joe?  Can't give a straight answer?

The straight answer is that you are an asshole.

What part of that don't you understand?

"Oh my parents are from Russia, and I was born and raised there, so of course I am an asshole."

Is that what you want to say?

Date: 2010/02/24 09:34:59, Link
Author: Joe G
Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.

In What is evolution?, Larry Moran, professor, biologist, evolutionist and staunch anti-IDist, all but proves that neither ID NOR Creation (baraminology) are anti-evolution.

I say that because both allow for changes in allele frequency. Both allow for populations to change via mutation, heredity and differential survival.

The only thing ID argues against is blind watchmaker-type processes (accumulating genetic accidents) having sole dominion over the changes.

IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search (weasel)- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism).

So why do people need to misrepresent ID?

That is much easier than actually having to do something. And it works as long as ignorance prevails.

And that is why they cannot afford to have it presented- their lies will be exposed.

I just started reading "Why Intelligent Design Fails", and have already encountered numerous strawman arguments.

Gary Hurd, for example, talking about the EF says that design is the default once chance and regularity have been eliminated. Yet the flowchart he copied says that isn't so.

Ya see not only do chance and regularity need to be eliminated but a specifcation has to be met.

But anyway I jumped to Gary's chapter because he is a familiar anti-IDist.

So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

Date: 2010/02/24 09:38:49, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,09:35)
Joe,

Your pathetic attempts at disguise have been blown so many times I can't count.  Here Joe G is responding to Thought Provoker who was talking about ID guy.  Bwahahaha!  

Fork over my $20k, pal.

Again what are you going to do if I and ID Guy (two separate and distinct individuals) come down to John Hopkins?

Are you going to fork over $20K?

Date: 2010/02/24 09:41:58, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,09:35)
Joe,

Your pathetic attempts at disguise have been blown so many times I can't count.  Here Joe G is responding to Thought Provoker who was talking about ID guy.  You clearly thought it was about you.  Bwahahaha!  

Fork over my $20k, pal.

olegt,

Thanks for proving that you are stupid and/ or dishoest.

Dave the thought provoker was clearlty talking about me:

Quote
I gave up posting on his blog a long time ago when it was clear he couldn't keep his own story straight.


That refers to my blog.

I was responding to that charge- that I can't keep my stories straight.

But thanks for continuing to prove that you are an asshole.

Date: 2010/02/24 09:44:31, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,09:42)
What would be the proof that one writes as Joe G and the other as ID guy?

We would show you our collaborations.

Date: 2010/02/24 09:46:47, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,22:48)
This might not deserve its own thread. Ed Brayton has a new post on Exaptation vs Frontloading which is crossposted to PT, and it got me thinking. I've only known about this 'frontloading' nonsense for about a year. The moment I was exposed to the idea, I had the thought I've since had every time it's come up, which is pretty frequent on UD: Is frontloading the dumbest idea ever, or merely extremely stupid?

Front-loading is a dumb idea but evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents isn't?

No that is funny...

Date: 2010/02/24 09:48:12, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,09:42)
What would be the proof that one writes as Joe G and the other as ID guy?  Their honest word?  :D

Honesty is something that is very unfamiliar to olegt...

Date: 2010/02/24 09:48:59, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,09:47)
Why wait?  Show them now,

Sure, come on upp to Keene NH and I will show them to you.

Please bring that $20K...

Date: 2010/02/24 09:50:54, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 24 2010,09:49)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,07:44)
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,09:42)
What would be the proof that one writes as Joe G and the other as ID guy?

We would show you our collaborations.

This reminds me of the early days of BBS and IRC when some clown calling himself "Thundarr" barged in everywhere threatening to sodomize everyone. Said individual couldn't even come up with an original name.

Then his parents found out and cancelled the provider service.  

Very amusing.  

Cue threats, veiled or otherwise, in 3, 2, 1...

Great, another asshole chimes in...

Date: 2010/02/24 10:29:50, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,09:52)
Joe,

I have no intention to drive to New Hampshire.  I have no doubts that you write as ID guy at TT.  The evidence is pretty strong and has been described here and at TT many times.  Your writing style is inimitable.

If you want to convince us that you do not write as ID guy at TT, it's up to you to provide evidence.

Convincing assholes is not something I care to do.

Your "evidence" is all in your head.

I don't care if it stays there.

You don't have anything else.

Date: 2010/02/24 10:31:20, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,10:21)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:46)
Front-loading is a dumb idea but evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents isn't?

No that is funny...

Evolution by natural selection is supported by 150 years of accumulated evidence.  Front-loading... not so much.

So yeah, it's a pretty dumb idea.

Too bad evolution by natural selection hasn't been shown to do very much.

And as a matter of fact all observations and experiments support the Creation position of baraminology.

Date: 2010/02/24 10:33:51, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01)
So, you're not a cdesign proponentsist, then, Joe G?

Fine. ID is science. Do some fucking science, already.  All we hear is "evolution couldn't do something, at some point, and needed some interference, somehow, by someone or something".  Or is connecting the dots too much like taking the bait?

Come on, buddy, let's see some details. Which designer did what, how did s/he do it, and when?  And your evidence for this (aside from "I don't (want to) think it could have happened by itself") is... what?

Time to quite the bluffing, Joe. Lay the cards down.  Or are you just going to revert to grade-school "I know you are but what am I" taunts again?

You want ID to be the default position, so as soon as we say "We don't know yet how this happened", you jump in and somehow think this proves there's a magic pixie in the genome somewhere

You say there's ID, we say prove it.

No debate circus, just evidence.

Get your fucking hands dirty with something besides your own spooge for once and get the job done, already.

Show us the magic pixie.

Okay? Please?

edit couple typos.

So you are an asshole then?

If you hear "evolution couldn't do something" then it is because your head is up your ass.

What is your evidence- you know the evidence that supports your position?

Why don't you do some science already?

Date: 2010/02/24 10:35:59, Link
Author: Joe G
BTW Darwin used "Creator" (capital "C") in the sixth edition- a released version- of "On the Origins of Species".

IOW according to Darwwin the theory of evolution is a creationist theory.

Now I know someone will cry that Darwin explained that.

Well the publishers and authors of "Of Pandas and People" explained tehir position also yet you maggots still misrepresent them.

Date: 2010/02/24 10:37:46, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (qetzal @ Feb. 24 2010,10:05)
It all boils down to two fundamental problems:

1. ID is not supported by the scientific evidence.

2. To date, pretty much every attempt to teach ID has been motivated by the desire to sneak religious creationism back into science class.

Both of those are excellent reasons it should not be taught as science in public classrooms. It could accurately be taught as an example of the so-called 'culture wars,' except I don't think any cdesign proponentsists want it taught that way.

Too bad that is all ID has- scientific support:

1. Deepa Nath, Ritu Dhand and Angela K. Eggleston (Editors), “Building a Cell,” Nature 463, 445 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/463445a.

2. Kerry Bloom and Ajit Joglekar, “Towards building a chromosome segregation machine,” Nature 463, 446-456 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08912.

3. Timothy W. Nilsen and Brenton R. Graveley, “Expansion of the eukaryotic proteome by alternative splicing,” Nature 463, 457-463 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08909.

4. Giorgio Scita1 and Pier Paolo Di Fiore, “The endocytotic matrix,” Nature 463, 464-473 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08910.

5. Lena Ho and Gerald R. Crabtree, “Chromatin remodelling during development,” Nature 463, 474-484 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08911.

6. Daniel A. Fletcher and R. Dyche Mullins, “Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton,” Nature 463, 485-492 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08908.

Read the commentary here

Alternative gene splicing is only explainable via design- intentional, purposeful design.

It is controlled by the software evolutionary biologists don't know exists...

Date: 2010/02/24 10:38:54, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

Oh I don't know..


Cdesign proponentist
"Teach the controversy"
Expelled! No intelligence allowed
Wedge document
The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists
The war on "Materialism"

etc, etc.

So Richtard doesn't understand evolution.

And he thinks that his ignorance should refect on ID.

Amazing...

Date: 2010/02/24 10:40:39, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:38)
Quote
If you hear "evolution couldn't do something" ....


Its not like they've tried to write books on the limits of evolution, nor expressed incredulity on the evolution of eyes, flagella, Man, etc.

Quote
What is your evidence- you know the evidence that supports your position?


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Quote
Why don't you do some science already?


Too busy teaching at my bible college and writing books for rubes.

Richtard,

IDists write books on the limitations of the blind watchmaker.

Again your ignorance is not a refutation.

Also evidence for Common Descent is not evidence for the blind watchmaker.

IOW Richtard once again you prove to be a dolt.

Are you proud of that?

Date: 2010/02/24 10:41:51, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:40)
Quote
Well the publishers and authors of "Of Pandas and People" explained tehir position also yet you maggots still misrepresent them.


cdesign proponentsists, Joe. Cut and Paste. Thank goodness the creationists are stupid enough to drop a wedge shaped clanger once in a while.

CREATOR Richtard.

Darwin used the wrod in a RELEASED version making the theory of evolution a creationist theory.

I can't help if you are too stupid to undersatnd that...

Date: 2010/02/24 10:42:56, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:41)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

Oh I don't know..


Cdesign proponentist
"Teach the controversy"
Expelled! No intelligence allowed
Wedge document
The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists
The war on "Materialism"

etc, etc.

So Richtard doesn't understand evolution.

And he thinks that his ignorance should refect on ID.

Amazing...

non-sequtar.

Richtard,

I understand that you don't like having your ignoirance exposed.

Perhaps you shouldn't post ignorance then...

Date: 2010/02/24 10:44:29, Link
Author: Joe G
However if we hold the theory of evolution to the SAME standard then it becomes obvious that it too is a Creation theory:

Quote
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.- Charles Darwin in “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection” last chapter, last sentence

Date: 2010/02/24 10:45:46, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:43)
Quote
And as a matter of fact all observations and experiments support the Creation position of baraminology.


Did they do an experiment as to how all them thar animals could fit in the arky-arky?

Yes Richtard. There is a book that covers that.

Date: 2010/02/24 10:47:03, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,10:36)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:31)
Too bad evolution by natural selection hasn't been shown to do very much.

And as a matter of fact all observations and experiments support the Creation position of baraminology.

In what way?  Where is the research to support baraminology?

All experiments and observations support baraminology.

There isn't any experiments that support universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

Date: 2010/02/24 10:48:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:45)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:42)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:41)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:38)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

Oh I don't know..


Cdesign proponentist
"Teach the controversy"
Expelled! No intelligence allowed
Wedge document
The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists
The war on "Materialism"

etc, etc.

So Richtard doesn't understand evolution.

And he thinks that his ignorance should refect on ID.

Amazing...

non-sequtar.

Richtard,

I understand that you don't like having your ignoirance exposed.

Perhaps you shouldn't post ignorance then...

Oh, let me play.*


That is such a homosexual thing to write, Joe. Have you fallen out with your boyfriend again? Is that why you're sad and angry?

Richtard,

Thank you for proving that you cannot even stay on-topic and you can't even address the opening post.

Obviously you have no idea what evolution is even though I posted a link that explains it.

Date: 2010/02/24 10:50:06, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,10:45)
Well, where are those "collaborations," anyway?  In your head, Joe?

You can meet us and we will provide a demonstration.

Or you can continue to argue from your ass.

I am pretty sure which you will choose...

Date: 2010/02/24 10:52:35, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 24 2010,10:08)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:27)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 23 2010,08:09)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:54)
ID always wins the debates.

And I won't be losing.

Dude, you really need to run for school board. Seriously, that is where the action is. Instead of debating us tards, you can be having an direct effect on the youth of America.

I have already implemented "Intelligent Design Awareness Day" for the local schools.

This year was the second IDAD.

All is going well.

I even had parents and teachers attend this year's IDAD- some asked about religion- as in when was I going to talk about it.

I told them I don't because it is irrelevant.

Well, you said it was held outside of school time and had no impact on curriculum.  All I can say is so what?  Having a talk in a church basement somewhere is small time stuff.  You really need to get the curriculum changed. With you on the school board, the Darwinists are sure to lose the ensuing court case.  Wouldn't that be glorious?  Bill Buckingham can eat your dust.

IDAD takes place at the middle school and it serves the purpose just fine.

And with the way it went this year I am confident that at least one teacher will be introducing the subject during his science class.

Date: 2010/02/24 10:55:33, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?

Date: 2010/02/24 10:56:21, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
Joe,

Care to demonstration of a calculation of CSI, or FCSI, or CFSI, or whatever jumble of letters you want?

What's the SFCI of a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich?  Please show your work.

Thanks!

Please explain what that has to do with the topic of the thread.

Or just admit that you are an asshole...

Date: 2010/02/24 10:57:42, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
So, the evidence exists but you can only show it in person?  :D

I want my share of the $20K.

You don't get anything until I see the money.

Your assholiness is going to cost you...

Date: 2010/02/24 11:01:06, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:56)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,07:34)
So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?

William Dembski and Jonathan Wells writing in their recent book, “The Design of Life” deny common ancestry as it is used by mainstream biologists. They wrote that ID “neither requires nor excludes speciation,” and that “ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable.” These remarks would seem to leave the door open to common ancestry. But, in their concluding remarks on speciation, they insist that “there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.” So ID accepts speciation, but not by mutation, and natural selection- not by biology. No, rather their claim is that, “intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way, intelligent design is compatible with speciation. (pg. 109)”

Both authors are on record that the “intelligent designer” is the biblical God. So, their “speciation” is exclusively the result of Devine intervention. These acknowledged intellectual leaders of the ID movement wasted a great deal of ink just to say “goddidit.” Henry Morris or Duane Gish said it clearly and honestly.

Evolution is much more than common ancestry Gary.

ID accepts speciation via mutation Gary.

It is as simple as Dawkin's weasel- designed to evolve Gary.

I went over this in the OP Gary.

Your ignorance does not refute what I posted.

Perhaps you should actually read the OP...

Date: 2010/02/24 11:02:59, Link
Author: Joe G
What does "the blind watchmaker didit" have to offer?

That is all you have...

Date: 2010/02/24 11:05:28, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,11:01)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:47)
All experiments and observations support baraminology.

There isn't any experiments that support universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

I doubt the scientists doing the actual research would agree with your assessment.  I still would like to know in what way it is supported.  I don't see it.

Those scientists cannot refute what I said.

If you want to know how it is supported then do a little research.

You will find that bacteria evolve into bacteria.

You will find that no one knows if the transformations required are even possible.

So have at it and stop taking the word of people with an agenda.

That is what I did thirty years ago...

Date: 2010/02/24 11:07:03, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:04)
Joe, what is the calculated CSI value for a baseball?

Show us the math, OK?

Afterbirth,

Do you think that your being an asshole helps you make your case?

Are you too stupid to stay focused on the OP?

Date: 2010/02/24 11:21:08, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,11:05)
So Joe is making tough guy noise while he masturbates.

He'll shutup when he either cums or runs out of lube.

Dr GH the screamer chimes in with nothing of substance...

Date: 2010/02/24 11:22:31, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 24 2010,11:11)
Hey Joe,

What would you teach in an inteligent design course?

Hey why don't you focus on the OP?

Is that simple concept too much for you to understand?

Date: 2010/02/24 11:25:13, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,11:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,08:37)
Quote (qetzal @ Feb. 24 2010,10:05)
It all boils down to two fundamental problems:

1. ID is not supported by the scientific evidence.

2. To date, pretty much every attempt to teach ID has been motivated by the desire to sneak religious creationism back into science class.

Both of those are excellent reasons it should not be taught as science in public classrooms. It could accurately be taught as an example of the so-called 'culture wars,' except I don't think any cdesign proponentsists want it taught that way.

Too bad that is all ID has- scientific support:

1. Deepa Nath, Ritu Dhand and Angela K. Eggleston (Editors), “Building a Cell,” Nature 463, 445 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/463445a.

2. Kerry Bloom and Ajit Joglekar, “Towards building a chromosome segregation machine,” Nature 463, 446-456 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08912.

3. Timothy W. Nilsen and Brenton R. Graveley, “Expansion of the eukaryotic proteome by alternative splicing,” Nature 463, 457-463 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08909.

4. Giorgio Scita1 and Pier Paolo Di Fiore, “The endocytotic matrix,” Nature 463, 464-473 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08910.

5. Lena Ho and Gerald R. Crabtree, “Chromatin remodelling during development,” Nature 463, 474-484 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08911.

6. Daniel A. Fletcher and R. Dyche Mullins, “Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton,” Nature 463, 485-492 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08908.

Read the commentary here

Alternative gene splicing is only explainable via design- intentional, purposeful design.

It is controlled by the software evolutionary biologists don't know exists...

Let me just say, as someone who works in this field, reads, understand and writes these kinds of papers (and knows some of the authors) that you have absolutely no clue about the content of the papers you cite.

You appear to have picked these papers based solely by title. You are an uneducated, ignorant blowhard.

And you are the face of intelligent design.

THAT'S why we don't want ID taught in science classes: the only people available to teach it are intellectual bankrupts such as yourself.

Ames go fuck yourself.

Your position can't explaijn alternative gene splicing and you know it.

Date: 2010/02/24 11:26:03, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 24 2010,11:18)
Joe/Tough Guy

Re the retarded question in your OP - two words

Wedge Strategy

The seminal planning document of the ID movement acknowledges that ID seeks to replace evolutionary theory.

If someone was seeking to replace you at your refrigerator repair shop, would you consider them to be "anti-Joe"?

More stupidity.

The theory ID wants replaced is the one connected to the blind watchmaker.

Duh...

Date: 2010/02/24 11:27:03, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:21)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:07)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:04)
Joe, what is the calculated CSI value for a baseball?

Show us the math, OK?

Afterbirth,

Do you think that your being an asshole helps you make your case?

Are you too stupid to stay focused on the OP?

That's OK Joe, we both know you can't do any CSI calculations.

It's just fun to watch you quiver and slobber trying to avoid the questions.

:D  :D  :D

And yet I have provided such a calculation you moronic momma's boy.

So it seems that Afterbirth thinks that being an asshole helps it makes its case...

Date: 2010/02/24 11:28:28, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:21)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:07)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:04)
Joe, what is the calculated CSI value for a baseball?

Show us the math, OK?

Afterbirth,

Do you think that your being an asshole helps you make your case?

Are you too stupid to stay focused on the OP?

That's OK Joe, we both know you can't do any CSI calculations.

It's just fun to watch you quiver and slobber trying to avoid the questions.

:D  :D  :D

And yet I have provided such a calculation you moronic momma's boy.

So it seems that Afterbirth thinks that being an asshole helps it makes its case...

Date: 2010/02/24 11:29:46, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,11:25)
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,09:13)
You appear to have picked these papers based solely by title. You are an uneducated, ignorant blowhard.

And you are the face of intelligent design.

THAT'S why we don't want ID taught in science classes: the only people available to teach it are intellectual bankrupts such as yourself.

Actually, Joe just did a cut'n'paste from the linked creationist site/ tard mine. Obviously, he didn't read any real articles.

Gary,

Please, by all means, tell us how your position explains alternative gene splicing.

And please provide the peer-reviewed paper(s) that support your explanation.

Date: 2010/02/24 11:30:34, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:27)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,11:05)
So Joe is making tough guy noise while he masturbates.

He'll shutup when he either cums or runs out of lube.

You can tell when he's close to getting the monitor all sticky by the exponential rise in typos he makes.   :p

- T

Afterbirth speaks from experience...

Date: 2010/02/24 11:32:23, Link
Author: Joe G
Why can't you assholes stay focused on the discussion?

Is that too much to ask?

Obviously it is if one is asking a bunch of retarded monkeys...

Date: 2010/02/24 11:34:56, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 24 2010,11:15)
Last December Bradford banned someone named "Jupiter" for no other reason than he thought he MIGHT be a sock.

Bradford didn't even have a suggestion as to who it was or if the person was previously banned.

I took the time yesterday to review the circumstances surrounding Joe G alias ID Guy.  What I found was that the last time Joe G commented on Telic Thoughts as "Joe G" he ignored Krause's warnings to stay on topic and continued his usual nonsense.

Krause isn't known for his patience.  I strongly suspect "Joe G" was banned and was never heard on TT again.  It was at this time "ID Guy" appeared (for the first time) and continued with the exact same nonsense.

Several people immediately noted the obvious connection and clearly identified it.  However, since they were ID critics their observations were ignored.

There have been several instances where ID critics have been immediately banned when exposed as a sock regardless of whether or not their comments had been appropriate.

Between noon yesterday and early this morning neither "ID Guy" nor "Joe G" made any comments on TT or AtBC.  This morning they both suddenly have a lot to say on the respective blogs.

It is clear by now to the key players that "ID Guy" is a sock for "Joe G".  This includes TT's Bradford.

I am curious what Bradford will do about the situation.  I suspect he still periodically checks in here to reinforce his excuses for discriminating against ID critics.  If someone wishes to quote or link this on TT, feel free to do so.  However, I suggest you wait for a while to give Bradford time to think about his response.

I have no curiosity as to what Joe G (aka ID Guy) will do.  Anyone arguing against the existence of Free Will could use him as a case on point.

Someone needs to get a life- Dave...

So far you have proven to be a liar.

So please continue...

Date: 2010/02/24 11:36:55, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:34)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:32)
Why can't you assholes stay focused on the discussion?

Is that too much to ask?

Obviously it is if one is asking a bunch of retarded monkeys...

Your stupidity is the discussion Joe.

But I guess you're too stupid to notice.   :D

Well when someone presents evidence for that I will discuss it.

So far you have proven to be the stupidest person here.

Not only that you are a liar, momma's boy and a crybaby.

So what else is new?

Date: 2010/02/24 11:40:02, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 24 2010,11:35)
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”
- William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State
Magazine, July / August 2000.



“The world is a mirror representing the divine
life…Intelligent design readily embraces the
sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed,
intelligent design is just the Logos theology of
John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information
theory.”
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August
1999.



"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to
clear obstacles that prevent people from coming
to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if
there’s anything that I think has blocked the
growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit
and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus
Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s
important that we understand the world. God has
created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery
Institute”, Church and State Magazine, May 2002.



Joe, perhaps to you, Dembski says that ID is not anti-evolution.  However, when he speaks to Christian groups, he is obviously (as quoted above) representing a specificly Christian message.

Now, I have a specific question that I would appreciate an answer to.

Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'?
Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism?
(Simple, yes/no please)

Since you don't seem to be answering questions, I'll lay it out for you.

If either of these are true, then you are wrong.  The Wedge document (link above) specifically says (as the first goal): "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies."

Since Dembski is listed several times within this document, I can only assume that he supports this document.

The implication here is that you don't even understand ID.





[I predict some abusive remarks, none of which address anything I've said.]

Ogre,

I take it that you have no idea what evolution is even though I provided a link.

Quote
Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'?


No.

Quote
Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism?


Not sure how you are defining MN.

Also ID seeks to replace the blind watchmaker thesis ONLY.

What part of that don't you understand?

Date: 2010/02/24 11:42:27, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 24 2010,11:39)
Since we're on the subject:

What is a hypothesis that ID makes?
What experiment could be done to test this hypothesis and what values of the resulting measurement would support or refute the hypothesis?
What evidence would falsify ID?

Supporting ID complete with a design hypothesis.

To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted.

So there you have it. All the anti-ID mob has to do is to actually start supporting their position and ID will fade away...

Date: 2010/02/24 11:43:29, Link
Author: Joe G
So what is the hypothsis the blind watchmaker makes?

How can it be falsified?

Date: 2010/02/24 11:45:00, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,11:37)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,12:05)
Those scientists cannot refute what I said.

If you want to know how it is supported then do a little research.

You will find that bacteria evolve into bacteria.

You will find that no one knows if the transformations required are even possible.

So have at it and stop taking the word of people with an agenda.

That is what I did thirty years ago...

Thirty years ago I was finishing up my degree in Biology.  I am not a working scientist, but I have tremendous respect for the people who do the actual hard work of science.  They spend years trying to gain a better understanding of how the world works.  To paraphrase Newton, we see further because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

The Creation Scientists and ID proponents I am familiar with do not do much of their own research.  They mostly cherry pick and misrepresent the work of others to promote their own agenda.  They don't get published much, either in the mainstream scientific journals, or even their own publications.  They prefer to write popular books for their audience, but the scientific community is not impressed.

Great, then why can't you find some data that supoorts your position?

Date: 2010/02/25 18:59:38, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2010,20:37)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:55)
           
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?


Here's a free legal lesson... when one is giving direct testimony as a witness, or if one is a lawyer questioning a witness on direct, and one refers to some matter that would otherwise not be legitimate for the opposition to broach, that is called "opening the door". The opposition then gets to pursue that matter, since its legitimacy as a topic is stipulated by the side that broached it. Many a fine legal strategy has gone down in flames because someone gets a bit carried away in what they reference, and the opposition then has the opportunity to go after something that could have otherwise been withheld from the trial record.

Note above that Joe G. references the "explanatory filter", thus opening the door for discussion on that topic.

Now flashback to last November when this was explained to Joe G. previously:

           
Quote

           
Quote

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?


Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) article provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.

More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I worked through the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.

Talk about leaving the door open- Well Wes you brought up rigor.

Please give us an example of a technical standard of rigor pertaining to the blind watchmaker thesis- or whatever your position is.

Tell us how we would quantify or test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via blind, undirected processes?

As for the validity of "specification" how do you think archaeologists determine rock from artifact?

Do you think they flip a coin?

No they look for signs of work- ie a specification.

How do forensic scientists determine accident from natural cause from criminal activity?

Do they also flip a coin?

Yes it is true that "specification" can be as simple as "it looks designed".

But if something looks designed and cannot be accounted for via any other known mechanism, then we should be allowed to carry on with the design inference.

See also:

The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins

and
part 2

But anyway I am really interested in seeing the technical standard of rigor as applied to the theory of evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

Date: 2010/02/25 19:01:14, Link
Author: Joe G
And BTW- Nothing says "We are a bunch of dishonest cowardly assholes" better than changing your opponents words.

You faggots must be very proud of yourselves...

Date: 2010/02/25 19:04:39, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,12:16)
Oh my god, I have to apologize to Joe G.!

Right there on p. 452 of the Kerry Bloom review he pointed us to, it says that Centrioles are actually little turbines, with a citation to Jonathan Wells!

Wow, Joe, what can I say? I guess you really must have read and understood all those references you gave us from the January 28, 2010 edition of Nature. And they indeed support ID, completely repudiating Darwinism, just as you claimed they do. My profoundest apologies for ever doubting you.

Gee asshole- what is your evidence that blind undirected processes can account for the specified complexity observed in living organisms?

Can you even muster a testable hypothesis or is drooling and stroking all you are good for?

IOW butt-plug what do you have besides the refusal to allow the design inference no matter what?

Date: 2010/02/25 19:06:32, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 25 2010,16:33)
Joe G.:
   
Quote
If you want to watch a group circle-jerk, that is a good place to start.

Joe doesn't quite grasp that in a true circle jerk only one guy is found pulling his pud when the lights come on.

Joe: You're the guy.

No Bill obviously you are because you knew such a thing- which means you have been caught.

Date: 2010/02/25 19:10:27, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 25 2010,16:19)
To be fair he linked to it after some prodding. Hopefully he cums over!

To be honest Richtard- I know that is very foreign to you- I thought that I had linked to this cesspool.

It was a mere oversight that I would have caught once I had teh time to read the post as it appears on the blog.

But anyways you any of you fuckheads ever talk about something or do you girls just gossip the day away?

Date: 2010/02/25 19:14:00, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:09)
What specified complexity would that be Joe?

Where are the specifications for any living organism?

I'll bet you typed this latest rant with one hand again, right?   ;)

I bet you mouths the words as you ype you freakin' retard.

Try reading a little Lelie Orgel and then buy a fucking vowel you moronic retard.

The specified complexity that your position cannot account for.

You assholes require a load of intelligent intervention just to get nucleotides.

And even the RNAs that are synthesized are only capable of catalyzing ione little bond.

IOW assface all you have is the refusal to allow the design inference.

All you can do is ask smirky questions because in reality you are an imbecile.

Date: 2010/02/25 19:17:37, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?

Look in any biology textbook you moron.

Date: 2010/02/25 19:21:14, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?

For example check out the peer-reviewed paper pertaining to the minimal complexity of a minimal bacteria.- minimal genome

You can also read about it here:

peering into the black box

Date: 2010/02/25 19:22:13, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:20)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:17)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?

Look in any biology textbook you moron.

OK, so you can't provide any specification, or provide the calculated value of 'CSI' for any biological object.

How can complexity be specified when there isn't any specification?

So you refuse to look in a biology textbook and you think your ignorance refutes what I said.

You are an intellectual coward.

Date: 2010/02/25 19:23:07, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 25 2010,19:22)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,20:17)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?

Look in any biology textbook you moron.

I'd bet even your car is a Dodge.

Grand National- 1987 black on black

Eat your freakin' heart out...

Date: 2010/02/25 19:27:01, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,19:18)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:01)
And BTW- Nothing says "We are a bunch of dishonest cowardly assholes" better than changing your opponents words.

You faggots must be very proud of yourselves...

Hey, Joe? You kiss your momma with that mouth?

BTW, if you are throwing another tantrum in hopes of getting Expelled, you might ask Guts how that worked out for him.  He came here and thumped his chest and threw around the most profane insults he could muster, but he never got banned.  So, you might try pacing yourself.

I am just blending in asshole.

You must think it is OK to change the words of your opponents.

My mother would tell me to find the asshole faggot who did that and kick his ass and make sure he can't do that again.

BTW I can go on like this for years.

But that is only because I know you punks couldn't support your position if your lives depended on it.

So all this is just pure entertainment.

Date: 2010/02/25 19:28:37, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 25 2010,19:24)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,20:23)
Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 25 2010,19:22)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,20:17)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:16)
That's nice Joe, but where are the specifications for any living organism?

Look in any biology textbook you moron.

I'd bet even your car is a Dodge.

Grand National- 1987 black on black

Eat your freakin' heart out...

sure it is.

Jealousy- Oh how I love your jealousy...

Date: 2010/02/25 19:32:15, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 25 2010,19:23)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:31)
And as a matter of fact all observations and experiments support the Creation position of baraminology.

To qualify as science, there must be conceivable results that would refute the Creation position on baraminology. Please give us an example of possible data that would make you reconsider the Creationist position (equivalent to the Pre-Cambrian rabbit).

1- The pre-cambrian rabbit is pure bullshit

But you don't have to take my word for that just ask David Heddle

2- I don't buy the Creation position. I am just saying that that is what the evidence supports.

But what would refute it? Something that supports the premise that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give ris eto novel protein machienery AND novel body parts and novel body plans.

Date: 2010/02/25 19:35:12, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,12:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,12:45)
Great, then why can't you find some data that supoorts your position?

One of my favorite examples of evolution is the mammalian inner ear.  It's development from the bones in the jaws of reptiles is supported by transitional fossils as well as evidence from embryology.

Now, where is that research by baraminologists?

That example exists only in your minds.

There isn't any genetic data that supports the transformation.

It isn't supported by embryology- just because the structures come from the same area doesn't mean squat.

When some scientist goes into a lab, manipulates a reptilian embryo such that it develops a mammaliam middle ear then you will have support.

Until then all you have is imagination.

Date: 2010/02/25 19:38:59, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 25 2010,19:29)
Textbooks don't have any before-the-fact specifications Joe.  They have descriptions of the makeup of proteins that were determined by after-the-fact observations.

You need to show where the specifications were listed first, and then confirmed by observation.  Otherwise you're just doing the 'sharpshooter's fallacy' - shooting an arrow anywhere into the side of the barn, then drawing the target around it afterward and claiming a bulls-eye.

Where are the before-the-fact specifications Joe?

Umm the theory of evolution is based on after-the-fact observation.

Science is an after-the-fact enterprise- you have to make an observation and THEN you formulate a hypothesis- after-the-fact.

But anyway Dr Behe discusses this in "Darwin's Black Box":

Quote
"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”


That said what does your position have asshole?

Date: 2010/02/25 19:39:59, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 25 2010,19:36)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:27)
I am just blending in asshole.

You must think it is OK to change the words of your opponents.

My mother would tell me to find the asshole faggot who did that and kick his ass and make sure he can't do that again.

BTW I can go on like this for years.

But that is only because I know you punks couldn't support your position if your lives depended on it.

So all this is just pure entertainment.

Well, I suppose it runs in the family.

And cowardice must run in yours...

Oh well

Date: 2010/03/02 07:50:54, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2010,05:53)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,18:59)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2010,20:37)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:55)
                 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance.

That is false.

Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.

IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.

explanatory filter

See that last decision node?


Here's a free legal lesson... when one is giving direct testimony as a witness, or if one is a lawyer questioning a witness on direct, and one refers to some matter that would otherwise not be legitimate for the opposition to broach, that is called "opening the door". The opposition then gets to pursue that matter, since its legitimacy as a topic is stipulated by the side that broached it. Many a fine legal strategy has gone down in flames because someone gets a bit carried away in what they reference, and the opposition then has the opportunity to go after something that could have otherwise been withheld from the trial record.

Note above that Joe G. references the "explanatory filter", thus opening the door for discussion on that topic.

Now flashback to last November when this was explained to Joe G. previously:

                 
Quote

                   
Quote

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?


Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) article provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.

More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I worked through the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.

Talk about leaving the door open- Well Wes you brought up rigor.

Please give us an example of a technical standard of rigor pertaining to the blind watchmaker thesis- or whatever your position is.

Tell us how we would quantify or test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via blind, undirected processes?

As for the validity of "specification" how do you think archaeologists determine rock from artifact?

Do you think they flip a coin?

No they look for signs of work- ie a specification.

How do forensic scientists determine accident from natural cause from criminal activity?

Do they also flip a coin?

Yes it is true that "specification" can be as simple as "it looks designed".

But if something looks designed and cannot be accounted for via any other known mechanism, then we should be allowed to carry on with the design inference.

See also:

The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins

and
part 2

But anyway I am really interested in seeing the technical standard of rigor as applied to the theory of evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

Back over at the thread about Telic Thoughts, Steve Story observed:

     
Quote

One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant.


Now back to the current response.

"Rigor" is not a particular topic. Pull that in court and see how far you get.

To follow Joe G.'s digression, though, one finds that rigor is common in evolutionary science. Joe G. asked for an example, so one that deals with modes of speciation  would be

   
Quote

Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154, p.295-302.


Within that, they analyzed isotope ratios to test and exclude a hypothesis of depth parapatry as being operative in the O. universa speciation event.

Alternatively, open the journal Evolution at random and ask yourself the question, "Could Joe G. write something as rigorous as this article?"

But Joe's response, it seems, is rather reminiscent of something he wrote to me months ago. Here's my response from then:

   
Quote

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.


Let's have a look at some of Joe G.'s "discussion" in his links.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

Also the EF is a process YOU can choose to use or not. The “beauty” of the EF is that it is not pre-determined for a design output. It forces you to consider the alternatives first.

So what do these guys have to say?

   "We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational, [it would inhibit the course of science from even addressing phenomena that are not currently explicable.]"

Just how can a process that you can choose to use or not do something like that?

The EF is just if you have a question about how X came to be that way.


I've restored the remainder of the sentence in square brackets above.

One might note the conditional phrasing in our original statement. Then again, if one isn't particularly interested in reading for comprehension, one might not.

If one is applying Dembski's "design inference" as widely as Dembski himself asserts one ought to, there is no difficulty in seeing that our critique stands.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

They go on to say:

"[We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational,] and that Dembski's assertion that the filter reliably identifies rarefied design requires ignoring the state of background knowledge. If background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly."

As I said that goes for all of science. It is the nature of the beast. And that is why we call them scientific INFERENCES. Notice the title of Dembski’s book is “The Design INFERENCE”.

And I am still in the paper’s ABSTRACT!

From my experience a paper built on faulty premises is doomed to fail. And this paper passed peer-review!!!


It may be characteristic of science that inferences are not absolute, but it is not characteristic of Dembski's unretracted claims of reliability. Nor is it characteristic of science to ignore the state of background information and make declarations that further background knowledge cannot alter the result of an inference, as is the case for Dembski's claims.

WRE:

 
Quote

For instance, Dembski brushes off a criticism concerning the reliability of his "explanatory filter" by noting that the objection is the problem of induction, but fails to either solve the problem of induction or retract the claim of reliability. That's philosophical humor, by the way. Dembski is not going to solve the problem of induction. That means that he should have retracted his claim of reliability. Just to be clear, let's see what Dembski means by saying that his Explanatory Filter/Design Inference/Specified Complexity criterion is reliable.

   I want, then, to argue that specified complexity is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I want to argue that the complexity-specification criterion successfully avoids false positives -- in other words, whenever it attributes design, it does so correctly.

   -- WA Dembski, "No Free Lunch", p.24

The above is not a typical statement for "scientific inquiry". It describes the operation of an oracle, not an inference.

Some may object that "success" need not refer to the 100% reliability that Dembski's words above seem plainly to invoke. But we have further testimony from Dembski that that is exactly what is meant.

   [...] Biologists worry about attributing something to design (here identified with creation) only to have it overturned later; this widespread and legitimate concern has prevented them from using intelligent design as a valid scientific explanation.

   Though perhaps justified in the past, this worry is no longer tenable. There now exists a rigorous criterion complexity-specification for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pre-theoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). The great breakthrough in philosophy of science and probability theory of recent years has been to isolate and make precise this criterion. Michael Behe's criterion of irreducible complexity for establishing the design of biochemical systems is a special case of the complexity-specification criterion for detecting design (cf. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box).

   What does this criterion look like? Although a detailed explanation and justification is fairly technical (for a full account see my book The Design Inference, published by Cambridge University Press), the basic idea is straightforward and easily illustrated. [...]


   -- W.A. Dembski, "Science and design", First Things, Oct. 1998, http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html, last accessed 2002/01/20.

Further, Dembski has never bothered to propose an effective empirical test methodology for his Explanatory Filter. Instead, it has been left to critics like myself to propose empirical methods of determining whether Dembski's claims of reliability have any grounding in fact.

Dembski has, so far, not analyzed potential counterexamples. I proposed at Haverford College last June that Dembski "do the calculation" for the Krebs citric acid cycle and the impedance-matching apparatus of the mammalian middle ear. Dembski has not done so.


Joe G.:

 
Quote

Skipping down to the end they have their own flow chart. This one has “Don’t Know”, “regularity” and “chance”. IOW we don’t know but we know it wasn’t via agency involvement. Truly pathetic.


Joe G. obviously missed our discussion of ordinary design inferences.

 
Quote

So a revision to Dembski's filter is required beyond the first "Don't-know" branch. This sort of knowledge of designers is gained empirically, and is just another kind of regularity assignment. Because we know what these designers do to some degree of accuracy, we can assess the likelihood that E would occur, whether it is the creation of skirnobs or the Antikythera Device. That knowledge makes E a HP event, and so the filter short-circuits at the next branch and gives a design inference relative to a background knowledge set Bi available at time t. So now there appears to be two kinds of design - the ordinary kind based on a knowledge of the behavior of designers, and a "rarefied" design, based on an inference from ignorance, both of the possible causes of regularities and of the nature of the designer.


So the "don't know" options in our flow chart do not -- contrary to Joe G.'s falsehood about them -- exclude conclusions of design. They do avoid an erroneous conclusion of rarefied design, where there is no warrant to invoke a design inference based on what is known.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

I wonder if these clowns think that all the success people have had using the EF or some reasonable fasimile thereof, is just an illusion?

I also wonder if they have a better process for detecting design without being biased toward that end?


Yes, that's what the distinction between ordinary design inferences and rarefied design inferences was about. But one has to read the article to comprehend that.

Later, Jeff Shallit and I produced an alternative method we called specified anti-information (SAI) premised on the universal distribution. It can be found in the appendix to our long essay on Dembski's CSI.

Joe G.:
 
Quote

Part 2- It gets worse-

For some reason these clueless desk jockeys think that “design” is the default position when all other nodes get passed. Not so.

To reach the design inference there has to be signs of work, counterflow or some recognizable pattern. Or else we default to “it could be explainable by some small chance event”, i.e. “we don’t know”.

To get to “design” it not only has to pass through the other nodes. It has to have that second part also.

So it looks like this peer-reviewed paper is nothing but a strawman.


If Joe were familiar with Dembski's work, he might have recalled that Dembski provided propositional logic for his explanatory filter on page 49 of "The Design Inference". There, one finds that specification is used simply as another way of eliminating chance. Design is defined by Dembski as the set-theoretic complement of regularity and chance. (Later, Dembski collapses "regularity" into "chance" as well.)

Nor is "chance" equivalent to "don't know". Dembski's own pronouncements on what is decideable via his "design inference" do not admit that further evidence can bear upon a decision once the "explanatory filter" is applied. Even where Dembski does admit the "explanatory filter" cannot be used (the Oklo nuclear reactors), it is as a preliminary to use of the EF, not as a decision-point within the EF.

Nope, no straw involved, just actually reading what Dembski has claimed.

Joe G.:

 
Quote

Proudly strutting their strawman around, they say the following about “Charles”:

"    Although he has not heard of Dembski's filter, he knows the logic: whatever cannot be accounted for by natural law or chance must be the result of design."

That has nothing to do with Dembski. You jerks made that up because you don’t know what you are talking about. Obviously neither did the people who “reviewed” it.

If I were Dembski I would have sought out the both of you and knocked your teeth out.


Dembski has had several opportunities to get in my face about this if he thought I had gotten pp.36 or 49 of "The Design Inference" wrong. We were on stage together in 2001, 2002, and 2006. So far, I still have my teeth. Why should that be the case?

Perhaps it has something to do with this... William A. Dembski, "The Design Inference", p.36:

 
Quote

Defining design as the set-theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance guarantees that the three modes of explanation are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.


Apparently, Joe G. has either not read Dembski or not understood Dembski.

We,

Nice rant.

Too bad for you that if "specification" is not observed the design in not inferred.

IOW one can eliminate chance and necessity but if there isn't any specification then design is not the default.

As for your "rigorous" example- RotFLMAO!

YECs accept speciation Wes.

Do you have any examples of rigor pertaining to- for example- the alleged evolution of vision systems?

That would include the genes involved and the modifications to the genome that allowed for such a thing.

As for the EF Dembski even says that future knowledge may upset the design inference. And tat is how it is with scientific inferences.

Date: 2010/03/02 07:56:01, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2010,20:53)
Commence fisking...

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)
Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?


Having seen the NCSE files on flareups around the country and world, it is an absolute commonplace that antievolution advocates will be offered the compromise that they can have their views on origins incorporated into a "comparative religions" course. To my knowledge, the antievolution advocates have never expressed the slightest interest in this sort of alternative. They uniformly want their non-science stuff taught in science class as if it were science.

The case in Lancaster, CA of a "philosophy" inter-term elective showed that the content included a bunch of young-earth creationism arguments -- exactly the stuff at issue in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. The decision there wasn't an affirmation for good science; it was a rejection of disguised sectarian views being injected into the public school curriculum. Simply choosing a different topic to inject the same sectarian content into doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.


I'm unfamiliar with that usage of "properly", which, by my reckoning, would have to be something like "if ID is presented [with a mix of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and convenient omissions tendentiously slanted in IDC's direction] the kids would [be indoctrinated into the view] that ID is NOT anti-evolution."

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

In What is evolution?, Larry Moran, professor, biologist, evolutionist and staunch anti-IDist, all but proves that neither ID NOR Creation (baraminology) are anti-evolution.


Seems like Joe G. isn't actually reading for comprehension... again. The linked article does no such thing.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

I say that because both allow for changes in allele frequency. Both allow for populations to change via mutation, heredity and differential survival.


IDC and baraminology are not antievolutionary because of rejecting every single tenet of evolutionary science; they are antievolutionary because they insist that non-testable, unscientific concepts must be accepted and particular evolutionary concepts must be rejected. The fact that IDC advocates, baraminologists, and their cheerleaders sometimes grant that certain trivial amounts of evolution might be said to occur doesn't make their movement something that "antievolutionary" would be inaccurate to apply as a description.

And, in fact, one does not have to go far to find that the "accepting" nature of IDC advocates is a Twainian exaggeration. If we took the sometime protestations that they accept "microevolution" seriously, we'd expect that the IDC literature would be free of criticism of examples at the level of evolution happening within populations. But the IDC literature is replete with criticism of examples of microevolution, whether it may be antibiotic resistance in bacteria, industrial melanism in moths, or beak size changes in finches. It seems that the relevant property of things that IDC advocates object to is not whether something falls within microevolution or macroevolution, but whether it presents a compelling example of some aspect of evolution, period.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

The only thing ID argues against is blind watchmaker-type processes (accumulating genetic accidents) having sole dominion over the changes.


Joe G. apparently hasn't opened the pages of Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution", which expresses outrage over several examples of evolution that are clearly microevolutionary. Wells' book was pitched as a "wedge book" by the Discovery Institute and widely promoted by the DI. Wells is not the only IDC advocate to target microevolutionary examples of evolution, and it is not at all difficult to find such examples, which makes Joe G.'s eagerness to spew such easily-exposed falsehood a bit puzzling.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search (weasel)- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism).


I'll pass over Joe G.'s confusion concerning "Weasel" and note that we've already disproved this class of universal claim. IDC advocates commonly target things other than mechanism, as in Rob Crowther and Casey Luskin's fairly recent apoplectic fits over the status of the Tiktaalik fossils.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

So why do people need to misrepresent ID?

That is much easier than actually having to do something. And it works as long as ignorance prevails.

And that is why they cannot afford to have it presented- their lies will be exposed.


Funny how what shows up as exposed above are falsehoods by Joe G.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

I just started reading "Why Intelligent Design Fails", and have already encountered numerous strawman arguments.

Gary Hurd, for example, talking about the EF says that design is the default once chance and regularity have been eliminated. Yet the flowchart he copied says that isn't so.

Ya see not only do chance and regularity need to be eliminated but a specifcation has to be met.

But anyway I jumped to Gary's chapter because he is a familiar anti-IDist.


I'll refer Joe G. to our exchanges just above and also Dembski's "The Design Inference" pages 36 and 49 for why Hurd is right and Joe G. is, again, spewing falsehoods.

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34)

So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution?


Well, the fact that the IDC advocates take issue with just about anything (remember Wells and his icons), not just mechanism, and not giving microevolutionary examples a pass, as Joe G.'s assertions would indicate that they should. That and "cdesign proponentsists". And trying to write evolution out of the 1999 Kansas science standards. And proposing "critical analysis" as a "compromise", only to slide in the usual IDC and creation science arguments into the Ohio school curriculum. And proposing a redefinition of science whenever they comment on science standards. And many, many other reasons as well.

That should be sufficient for the fisking.

1- "IDC" exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

2- The ONLY definition of "evolution" that is anti-ID- and therefor by extension ID is anti- that specific definition ONLY- is the blind watchmaker thesis- <b>“Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.</b>


3- Jonathan Wells is NOT ID. Dr Behe accepts Common Descent.

4- JW is to ID as Dawkins is to the ToE- a side show.

Otherwise it can be said that the ToE is an atheistic theory and as such falls under the separation laws.

So what we have is Wes, not understanding evolution, spewing his ignorance.

Date: 2010/03/02 07:57:49, Link
Author: Joe G
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

Date: 2010/03/02 07:59:47, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 27 2010,15:36)
I doubt Bradford will do anything.  The village loves its idiot.

Exactly why they let you post there- they love you, you idiot.

Date: 2010/03/02 08:01:02, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 01 2010,11:18)
Has the tardgasm finished? Is Joe sitting somewhere all sweaty and flushed after his tardsturbation?

If so, the Drama Llama has paid the Richard Dawkins Forums a visit. Watch the internets melt down over there. At least it's a more articulate -gasm of some species than Joe's outpourings.

Louis

No asshole- you are still alive and I am sure you have more tard to spew.

Date: 2010/03/02 08:04:04, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 25 2010,19:50)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,20:10)
But anyways you any of you fuckheads ever talk about something or do you girls just gossip the day away?

Sure! Glad you're here.

The belt on my clothes dryer has been slipping and the drum sometimes fails to rotate. Any suggestions?

Yes- I have a suggestion.

Pull it away from the wall and take off the back cover- do NOT unplug the unit or if you had to unplug it to take the cover off then plug the unit back in.

Follow the plug's wires to the termination block.

Stick out your tongue and lick the wires where they attach to the dryer.

That should solve all your problems.

Glad I could help.

Date: 2010/03/02 08:32:23, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,08:09)
Joe, are you ever going to put forth any positive evidence for ID, other than "I can sees it"?

When are you going to fill in the blanks on the ID science report I typed up for you?  You know where you have actual values for specified complexity and you compare those values to things that are of known design and known randomness.

Until you do that, your IDs are just a waste of electrons.

I'd also like to point out that Wells, Dembski, and Behe ARE ID.  They created it (well, after blatantly stealing it from Paley).  You haven't written several books on ID.  Until you do, then they get to decide what ID is, not you.

And they have all decided that ID is a religious program with no scientific merit.  So, are you going to stand up to Dembski and tell him that he's wrong and that ID isn't religious?

Ogre,

Are you going to put fortth any positive evidence that supports your position?

BTW Dr Behe accepts Common Descent- meaning ID does not argue against Common Descent. And all three say ID is scientific.

It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested.

Now what?

You still don't have any way to test your claims.

All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs.

So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008/02/supporting-intelligent-design.html><b>Supporting ID</b></a>

and

<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-evidence-for-intelligent-design.html><b>more evidence for ID</b></a>

You do realize that you can falsify ID just by substantiating the claims of your position?

Date: 2010/03/02 08:35:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,08:15)
Insults... you're doing them wrong.

I half expected Joe to say, 'neener, neener, neener'.  But I realized that stringing together three multi-syllable words that weren’t curses is beyond your cognitive capability.  

How have I tested this hypothesis?  Well, my hypothesis predicts that Joe can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.  And observation has discovered a sprawling JoeG with partially masticated chewing gum lying beside him.

My hypothesis further predicts that JoeG is ugly.  The experiment was to compare JoeG with the hind end of a canine of indeterminate ancestry.  When presented to a random sample population, the majority found the dog’s hind end to more aesthetically pleasing.

What insults?

I am just making valid observations.

And yes I am ugly- so what?

At least I am not as moronic as you.

I can get plastic surgery but you will always be a fucking retard.

Date: 2010/03/02 08:36:19, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 02 2010,08:31)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:01)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 01 2010,11:18)
Has the tardgasm finished? Is Joe sitting somewhere all sweaty and flushed after his tardsturbation?

If so, the Drama Llama has paid the Richard Dawkins Forums a visit. Watch the internets melt down over there. At least it's a more articulate -gasm of some species than Joe's outpourings.

Louis

No asshole- you are still alive and I am sure you have more tard to spew.

Somewhere Pavlov is smiling.

Smiling AT you-, you ding-a-ling

Date: 2010/03/02 08:42:26, Link
Author: Joe G
Edit- how can I edit my post?

Date: 2010/03/02 08:47:02, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 02 2010,08:45)
How's your little vacation going, Joe?  Missing me already?  :D

How's your missing brain doing?

Do you miss it already?

Or are you proud to be a brainless asshole?

Date: 2010/03/02 08:49:21, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 02 2010,08:44)
joe is just trolling for man-meat again.  joe you and chunk should get a room and type really hateful kinky homoerotic stuff at each other, you are doing about the same thing for your cause here.

the best thing about your dribbling upthread to me is you say your damnself that ID is the null.  the default position and the burden of proof is on anyone saying otherwise to show differently.  then you deny that.  

Quote
...ID is scientific.

It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested.

Now what?

You still don't have any way to test your claims.

All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs.

So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


then

Quote
Too bad for you that if "specification" is not observed the design in not inferred.

IOW one can eliminate chance and necessity but if there isn't any specification then design is not the default.


hmmm "specification" huh.

what's that?

oh, ask Rich?  OK.  Rich, what does Joe say "specification" is?

Another dick-head chimes in-

And as predicted nothing of substance and nothing to support its position.

Go figure...

Date: 2010/03/02 08:51:25, Link
Author: Joe G
Specification- the difference maker

Now you can beat that to death but that doesn't help yopu provide positive evidence for your position.

Date: 2010/03/02 08:59:13, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 02 2010,08:50)
Wow, and it's only been half a day!  It's going to be a long week, Joe.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Are you talking about your liesa nd goal-post moving?

Yeah, I saw that.

You are an asshole without peer.

You are about as dishoest as Zachriel and blipey- probably even more dishonest.

You asked for it:

oleg the asshole said:
Quote
astronomers learned how stars and planets form out of hydrogen clouds.


So when ID guy responded with:
Quote
Planets form from the left-overs of supernovae- which contain much, much more than hydrogen-

IOW the nebula that are alleged to form planets are not hydrogen clouds.


What did oleg the asshole do?

Moved the goalposts of course!

Quote
Since you are such a specialist on planetary nebulae


No assface you said "hydrogen cloud".

ID guy responded to that piece of ignorance.

You have no decency at all.

You are just a pencil-neck geek and apparently proud of it.

Date: 2010/03/03 06:49:48, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 02 2010,10:01)
Joe,

You're wrong.  A planetary nebula is the last stage of a dying star and not the first stage of a solar system.  Solar systems, including their stars and planets, form out of molecular clouds.  Planetary nebulae help disperse heavy elements into molecular clouds.

Hey asshole YOU were the one who brought up planetary nebula during a discussion about stars and planets forming.

Holy shit oleg the asshole can't even follow his own drivel!

Date: 2010/03/03 06:54:30, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,11:32)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,08:09)
Joe, are you ever going to put forth any positive evidence for ID, other than "I can sees it"?

When are you going to fill in the blanks on the ID science report I typed up for you?  You know where you have actual values for specified complexity and you compare those values to things that are of known design and known randomness.

Until you do that, your IDs are just a waste of electrons.

I'd also like to point out that Wells, Dembski, and Behe ARE ID.  They created it (well, after blatantly stealing it from Paley).  You haven't written several books on ID.  Until you do, then they get to decide what ID is, not you.

And they have all decided that ID is a religious program with no scientific merit.  So, are you going to stand up to Dembski and tell him that he's wrong and that ID isn't religious?

Ogre,

Are you going to put fortth any positive evidence that supports your position?

BTW Dr Behe accepts Common Descent- meaning ID does not argue against Common Descent. And all three say ID is scientific.

It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested.

Now what?

You still don't have any way to test your claims.

All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs.

So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008/02/supporting-intelligent-design.html><b>Supporting ID</b></a>

and

<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-evidence-for-intelligent-design.html><b>more evidence for ID</b></a>

You do realize that you can falsify ID just by substantiating the claims of your position?

I'll type this slowly: are YOU ever going to put forth some evidence for ID, on this here forum?  (Hint CTRL-C and CTRL-V are not evidence.)

Please use your words (minus the cursing, peer-reviewed journals frown on calling the editor 'dickhead').

Ogre,

I take it that you are too ignorant to follow the links I provided.

Not my problem asshole.

But anyway are YOU ever going to put forth some positive evidence to support your position?

For example how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Date: 2010/03/03 06:57:17, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 02 2010,09:37)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

The prediction from the theory of evolution: molecules similar to, or the same as, those found in bacterial flagella should be present in the cell walls of non-flagellated bacteria.
The test: bacterial cell walls were investigated and found to contain similar molecules.
The result: the prediction was upheld.

The prediction from ID: whatever is found will be attributed to design.
The test: scientific papers were scoured to see what had been found.
The result: I'm not sure that anyone has publicly claimed that the precursors to the bacterial flagellum were designed, but they will get to it eventually. (This reminds me: I understand there are about 40 different variants on bacterial flagella. Was just one designed, if so, which, or were they all designed individually?)

See the difference? ID supporters have never made any testable prediction and put it to the test.

BTW: You ask about edit privileges. Automatically allowing people to edit their own comments was withdrawn after a creationist editted an earlier comment to completely change the meaning of what had been written (and no, it was not a simple typo). You have to convince the administration that you will not abuse the right to edit, for example by admitting to mistakes when appropriate.

(Edit to correct typo)

IOW you don't have anything that supports the claim of blind, undirected processes.

Got it.

Thanks.

Or perhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Date: 2010/03/03 07:01:57, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,06:57)
O, really, Joe?  Let's have a look at your comment that ended up in the memory hole:
 
Quote
olegt,

Man are you ever dishonest and unstable.

You said something about planets and stars forming from a hydrogen cloud.

That is obviously a bogus claim- I called you on it and you supported my claim.

Now you want to turn that around to try to make it that I was the one who messed up.

YOU never claimed anything about planetary nebula- YOU said hydrogen cloud.

You move the goal-post like a little chicken-shit and then say that I lied.

You are a dishonest goal-post mover with no shame.

Bradford- I would like to complain about oleg's low-life behaviour.

It was you, not me, who brought up planetary nebulae.

Fuck you asshole.

YOU said something about planetary nebula in my response to you about hydrogen clouds.

Obviously you are too dishonest to even own up to that even though the link I provided earlier demonstrates exactly that.

Here it is again faggot:

ID guy and oleg:

The first words out of asshole's mouth were :

Quote
Since you are such a specialist on planetary nebulae


YOU brought up planetray nebula first you lying fuck.

Date: 2010/03/03 07:27:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,07:17)
Joe, you started babbling about nebulae here, in a comment preceding mine.  

And here you are, insisting that I should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud:  
Quote
Bradford,

One more word and then I will shut up- promise-

olegt never said anything about a "planetary nebula" until well after the fray started.

Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.


I know what a planetary nebula is.

I know that a planetary nebula is different than a hydrogen cloud.

OK bye-bye. Thank you and I will take a break…

So you are a dishonest little faggot.

The evidence shows that olegt brought up planetray nebulae in direct response to my calling him on his hydrogen cloud ignorance.

olegt had said:
Quote
astronomers learned how stars and planets form out of hydrogen clouds.


The response was:
Quote
Planets form from the left-overs of supernovae- which contain much, much more than hydrogen-

IOW the nebula that are alleged to form planets are not hydrogen clouds.


then asshole said:
Quote
Since you are such a specialist on planetary nebulae


That wqas the first anyone said anything about planetary nebulae and it was during a discussion about planets and stars forming.

IOW it is obvious that olegt thought that planetary nebulae are what forms planets and stars.

Start here

It's all there you lying asshole.

Date: 2010/03/03 07:29:27, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,07:17)
Joe, you started babbling about nebulae here, in a comment preceding mine.  

And here you are, insisting that I should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud:  
Quote
Bradford,

One more word and then I will shut up- promise-

olegt never said anything about a "planetary nebula" until well after the fray started.

Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.


I know what a planetary nebula is.

I know that a planetary nebula is different than a hydrogen cloud.

OK bye-bye. Thank you and I will take a break…

Also I didn't see where anyone insisted you should have said planetry nebulae.

IOW you are just dishonest all the way to the bone.

YOU brought up planetary nebulae first.

The evidence shows that.

Now you want to liew your way out of it.

Sweet...

Date: 2010/03/03 07:32:06, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,07:17)
Joe, you started babbling about nebulae here, in a comment preceding mine.  

And here you are, insisting that I should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud:  
Quote
Bradford,

One more word and then I will shut up- promise-

olegt never said anything about a "planetary nebula" until well after the fray started.

Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.


I know what a planetary nebula is.

I know that a planetary nebula is different than a hydrogen cloud.

OK bye-bye. Thank you and I will take a break…

asshole,

I didn't say anything.

Quote
Planets form from the left-overs of supernovae- which contain much, much more than hydrogen-

IOW the nebula that are alleged to form planets are not hydrogen clouds.


Nebula is not a reference to planetary nebula.

It is a reference to the nebula hypothesis- You know the hypothesis that pertains to solar system formation.

Geez a first grader could understand that.

But a dishonest fuck like oleg needs to twist it.

Date: 2010/03/03 07:33:29, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 02 2010,10:38)
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,15:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,06:59)
You are an asshole without peer.

You are about as dishoest as Zachriel and blipey- probably even more dishonest.

So, if he's about as bad as those two, wouldn't that make him an asshole with at least two peers?  Or are we making a distinction between assholishness and dishonesty?  If so, what is the distinction?  What are the criteria for being an asshole?  I'm not kidding either: I genuinely want to know what qualifies someone for "asshole" status in your book.

What about being an arsehole without pier? Is pier ownership important for arsehole status? Are the two related like pirates and global warming?

Since JoeG's technique of {cough} "argument" is to put his hands over his ears and shout "ASSHOLE" a lot whilst ignoring the sum of scientific data accumulated over a few centuries and generally acting the muppet, should he perhaps take a long walk off a short pier? Or perhaps, which is doubtlessly more to his tastes, insert a pier up his arse?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Louis

Louis,

There isn't any evidence that supports your position.

Here is an example:

How can you test the premsie that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Date: 2010/03/03 07:44:11, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,07:33)
Joe, two questions.

1.  Are you conceding in this sentence that you are indeed ID guy?    
Quote
The evidence shows that olegt brought up planetray nebulae in direct response to my calling him on his hydrogen cloud ignorance.


2.  Can you further expand on this?

 
Quote
Nebula is not a reference to planetary nebula.

It is a reference to the nebula hypothesis- You know the hypothesis that pertains to solar system formation.


Solar systems are not said to form out of nebulae.  What kind of nebula were you talking about?  

So you are admitting that you are a liar?

That is all you have to do.

And now you are saying the nebula hypothesis is not a nebula hypothesis.

Nice.

nebula hypothesis
Quote
In cosmogony, the nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System.


But thanks for continuing to prove that you are a dishoest asshole.

I appreciate it.

Date: 2010/03/03 07:54:01, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 03 2010,07:51)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:33)
How can you test the premsie that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Hi Joe,
How can you test the premise that the bacterial flagellum was designed?

Is that how you support your position- by questioning mine?

What a fucking loser you are.

Now you know why people don't come here to support thewir position- not one of you faggots can support yours.

Date: 2010/03/03 07:54:50, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,07:33)
Joe, two questions.

1.  Are you conceding in this sentence that you are indeed ID guy?    
Quote
The evidence shows that olegt brought up planetray nebulae in direct response to my calling him on his hydrogen cloud ignorance.


2.  Can you further expand on this?

 
Quote
Nebula is not a reference to planetary nebula.

It is a reference to the nebula hypothesis- You know the hypothesis that pertains to solar system formation.


Solar systems are not said to form out of nebulae.  What kind of nebula were you talking about?  

I concede that I don't have an edit button to fix my posts once I post them.

Date: 2010/03/11 08:20:45, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,08:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:44)
Nebula is not a reference to planetary nebula.

It is a reference to the nebula hypothesis- You know the hypothesis that pertains to solar system formation.

nebula hypothesis

Joe, it helps to read the material you link to.  Sometimes it does not support the point you are trying to make.  This is one of those cases.

The Wikipedia article Nebular hypothesis states:      
Quote
In cosmogony, the nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System. It was first proposed in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg.[1] Originally applied only to our own Solar System, this method of planetary system formation is now thought to be at work throughout the universe.[2] The widely accepted modern variant of the nebular hypothesis is Solar Nebular Disk Model (SNDM) or simply Solar Nebular Model.[3]

According to SNDM, stars form in massive and dense clouds of molecular hydrogen—giant molecular clouds (GMC).  They are gravitationally unstable, and matter coalesces to smaller denser clumps within, which then proceed to collapse and form stars. Star formation is a complex process, which always produces a gaseous protoplanetary disk around the young star. This may give birth to planets in certain circumstances, which are not well known. Thus the formation of planetary systems is thought to be a natural result of star formation. A sun-like star usually takes around 100 million years to form.


This summary is in exact accord with what I said in my original comment that you have tried so hard to shoot down.  The nebular hypothesis (not nebula hypothesis) says that the solar system formed out of a molecular cloud consisting for the most part (3/4) of hydrogen.  Since you disputed that, you must have had something else in mind.  

This comment shows that you are confusing different types of nebulae:
   
Quote
Planets form from the left-overs of supernovae- which contain much, much more than hydrogen-

IOW the nebula that are alleged to form planets are not hydrogen clouds.

As for stars, well their formation from hydrogen clouds isn't correct either.

A supernova remnant is a nebula, but it's not a protoplanetary nebula.  And a planetary nebula is something else entirely.  Note that I never said that solar systems formed out of planetary nebulae, you did, and you insisted that you knew what a planetary nebula is.  

Well, the lesson for you is don't blather about things you don't understand.

oleg,

Being 75% hydrogen means it isn't all hydrogen.

Planets form from the left-overs of supernovae- which contain much, much more than hydrogen-

Also I cannot find where ID guy said that solar systems formed out of planetray nebulae.

Perhaps you can link to that or admit that you are lying- again.

Date: 2010/03/11 08:23:57, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2010,13:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

It's called reducibility- that is finding out what it is reducible to- ie finding out what it takes to get the thing in question.

And right now it appears to take quite a bit of agency involvement just to get the building blocks living organisms require.

Date: 2010/03/11 08:25:52, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 06 2010,16:12)
Hey Joe,

Say it with me: Even if evolution is 100%, that does not mean that ID (or your religion) is in any way correct.

Man, this guy's a wimp.

Ogre-  Say it with me- Even if ID and Creation are 100% bunk that still does not mean your sad position is in any way correct.

Now I have provided you with links that have my words defending the design inference.

Apparently you are too stupid to follow those links.

Date: 2010/03/11 08:29:24, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (digitus impudicus @ Mar. 05 2010,23:21)
Joe?

Sweety?

Whatever happened to our GN/GNX discussion?

Is it parked in a tree?

I don't have a GNX.

And why would I want to discuss my GN with you?

Someone asshead said I drive a Dodge.

I just corrected that nonsense.

Date: 2010/03/11 08:31:08, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 02 2010,14:24)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

He sure has!  Behold!

So, an aardvark only 202 characters?

Didn't Berlinski count 50,000 character differences between cows and whales?

Dr Page proves he is an imbecile.

The definition of an aarvark only has that many characters.

Are you that stupid that you can't even understand what I post?

Do you realize that 13 year olds understand what you cannot?

Date: 2010/03/11 08:35:27, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:27)
Joe,

Here you are insisting that I should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud:    
Quote
Bradford,

One more word and then I will shut up- promise-

olegt never said anything about a "planetary nebula" until well after the fray started.

Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.


I know what a planetary nebula is.

I know that a planetary nebula is different than a hydrogen cloud.

OK bye-bye. Thank you and I will take a break…


Hope this helps.

oleg,

It wasn't me and what you posted doesn't say what you claim it says.

IOW there isn't anything in what you posted that says solar systems are formed from planetary nebula.

Planetray nebulas are different than hydrogen clouds.

Also there isn't anything in that which says you should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.

Your twisted and demented nature is putting words where they never were.

IOW assface once again you prove to be a dishonestt little butt-plug.

Date: 2010/03/11 08:36:13, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:32)
Joe Gallien:

Quote
Also I cannot find where ID guy said...


*rolls eyes*

Alan Fox- dickhead at large- chimes in with another fart...

Date: 2010/03/11 08:47:20, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:35)
Also there isn't anything in that which says you should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.

Of course there is, Joe.  Let me help you one more time.  Let's zoom in on this sentence:
 
Quote
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.

Can you read and comprehend that sentence?  Would you like to explain what else you might have meant when you wrote it?

oleg,

You are twisting what was posted into something that was never said.

There isn't anything in what you just posted that says solar systems form from planetary nebula.

Date: 2010/03/11 08:48:11, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 11 2010,08:44)
Joe,

I've noticed that you and ID guy share exactly the same character flaws, intellectual deficits and verbal tics. How do you account for this extraordinary coincidence?

My explanatory filter is throbbing.

KeithS,

You have your head so far up your ass that you will "see" whatever the fuck you want.

Date: 2010/03/11 08:51:25, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 11 2010,08:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:31)
 
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 02 2010,14:24)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

He sure has!  Behold!

So, an aardvark only 202 characters?

Didn't Berlinski count 50,000 character differences between cows and whales?

Dr Page proves he is an imbecile.

The definition of an aarvark only has that many characters.

Are you that stupid that you can't even understand what I post?

Do you realize that 13 year olds understand what you cannot?

So what was your point in bringing up a definition of an aardvark ? How does this relate to the amount of 'specified complex information' in an organism?

Well Richard perhaps you should read that blog entry.

But most likely that won't help because you are an evotard...

So I will spoon-feed you-

In the post "Measuring Information/ specified complexity" I used the definition of an aarvark as an example of how to measure specified information to see if complex specified information is present.

Date: 2010/03/11 08:52:38, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:50)
Joe,

OK, let's parse it one bit at a time.  ID guy insisted that I should have said "planetary nebula" instead of "hydrogen cloud," did he not?

No, I didn't read that at all in any comments.

Date: 2010/03/11 08:54:01, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote
olegt never said anything about a "planetary nebula" until well after the fray started.

Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.

I know what a planetary nebula is.

I know that a planetary nebula is different than a hydrogen cloud.


Not one word about insisting you shopuld have used planetary nebula over hydrogen cloud.

Date: 2010/03/11 08:56:33, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:52)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:50)
Joe,

OK, let's parse it one bit at a time.  ID guy insisted that I should have said "planetary nebula" instead of "hydrogen cloud," did he not?

No, I didn't read that at all in any comments.

How about this one:  
Quote
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.

How else do you interpret that sentence?

It doesn't say it insists you should have used planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.

It just says if you had he wouldn't have said anything about it.

And that could be for a variety of reasons.

Date: 2010/03/11 09:00:06, Link
Author: Joe G
One reason could be:

Quote
Planetary nebulae play a crucial role in the chemical evolution of the galaxy, returning material to the interstellar medium that has been enriched in heavy elements and other products of nucleosynthesis (such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and calcium). In more distant galaxies, planetary nebulae may be the only objects that can be resolved to yield useful information about chemical abundances.

Date: 2010/03/11 09:15:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 11 2010,09:10)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:56)
 
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:54)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:52)
   
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:50)
Joe,

OK, let's parse it one bit at a time.  ID guy insisted that I should have said "planetary nebula" instead of "hydrogen cloud," did he not?

No, I didn't read that at all in any comments.

How about this one:      
Quote
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.

How else do you interpret that sentence?

It doesn't say it insists you should have used planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.

It just says if you had he wouldn't have said anything about it.

And that could be for a variety of reasons.

Joe G, stop making excuses for ID Guy.  He's not worth the effort.

The only reason to mention that a different terms should be used is if the other one is incorrect.  Here is the original comment by IDguy:

 
Quote
That is just pure ignorance oleg.

No one thinks that planets form out of hydrogen clouds.


"Correcting" an "ignorant" comment, whilst being astonishingly ignorant.  It's Dunning-Kruger all over again.

Great another clueless asshole chimes in.

Hydrogen cloud was incorrect.

And a planetary nebula adds the fuel to the system.

The fuel required to make solar systems.

Date: 2010/03/11 09:35:47, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 11 2010,09:31)
This is getting downright funny.

About the only people left who don't know "ID Guy" is "Joe G" are those who have never heard of them.

Great another asshole chimes in.

You do realize that what you morons think you know is irrelevant?

So yes seeing your panties in a knot is funny...

Date: 2010/03/11 09:37:32, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:34)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:51)
In the post "Measuring Information/ specified complexity" I used the definition of an aarvark as an example of how to measure specified information to see if complex specified information is present.

And what was the value you determined for the amount of information in a Aardvark?

And is that more or less then the information in a bacterial flagellum?

Do you really think your ignorance helps your case?

Even if ID is bunk you still couldn't support your position.

I take that bothers you.

Date: 2010/03/11 09:44:08, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:39)
So Joe,
About this debate. I don't think that a person who displays the level of intelligence that you typically display here could have $10,000 to put up in the first place. Unless you've been saving up the money that people throw at you to make you go away that is, in which case it's quite possible.

Put the money in escrow and perhaps you'll convince me that you have it in the first place and then we can get this debate kicked off.

http://www.iescrow.com/

Nice projection you ignorant dolt.

Date: 2010/03/11 09:46:14, Link
Author: Joe G
So we have olegt caught lying and then he lies to try to cover up his original lie.

It is the evotard way...

Date: 2010/03/11 09:51:08, Link
Author: Joe G
So if we use the EF and we do not observe a specification we do not infer design if there isn't any specification present.

That means that design is not the default once chance and necessity have been eliminated.

Also crystals are specified without being complex.

Which means specification does not exclude chance and necessity.

Date: 2010/03/11 09:55:15, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:51)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:37)

 
Do you really think your ignorance helps your case?

Ignorance of what? Your "argument"? Seems like the entire biological community is doing just fine without your "input".

Interesting how you pretend I did not ask a question. I know that you have problems supporting your position, but if you could tell me which has more information (and how much more), an Aardvark or bacterial flagellum, that would go a long way to proving your case that ID deals in "information" and that you can quantify it.
   
Quote
Even if ID is bunk you still couldn't support your position.

And that's why "my position" is the default one and your position is doing so well in the courts, in schools, in journals.
I mean, look at the support that ID has for it's position
http://www.iscid.org/
A journal that has not published in 5 years.

   
Quote

I take that bothers you.

It seems to bother you, in fact it seems to bother you so much that you are here. Why not go to UD or TT and shout into the echo chamber?

Too bad that biological community has no idea if the transformations required are even possible via mutational accumulation.

And all YOU have is to try to bash ID with your ignorance.

You couldn't support your position if your life depended on it.

As for not answering questions- well limpdick tell me-

How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

It isn't in any textbooks. And it isn't in any peer-reviewed paper.

IOW asswipe your position is all smoke and mirrors.

Date: 2010/03/11 09:56:18, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:52)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:44)
Nice projection you ignorant dolt.

The plural of insults is not "data" you know.

Tell me one thing, how do you keep a keyboard working with the amount of drool you must produce?

More projection from the drool-queen

Date: 2010/03/11 09:57:40, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:56)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:46)
So we have olegt caught lying and then he lies to try to cover up his original lie.

It is the evotard way...

Only you thinks that. Ever wondered if it's just you and not everybody else?

That would be a good first step to recognising your problem.

I don't think it- I proved it.

That you are too dishonest or ignorant to understand taht reflects on you, not me.

Date: 2010/03/11 10:00:04, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:55)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:51)

 So if we use the EF and we do not observe a specification we do not infer design if there isn't any specification present.

Care to back that up by using the EF and showing your working? Otherwise it's just a claim with no substance. You say "if we use the EF" like it's something you've done 100's of times before. I don't believe you.
 
Quote

That means that design is not the default once chance and necessity have been eliminated.

Oh? Perhaps if you could work through an example of the EF you could show that in action.
 
Quote

Also crystals are specified without being complex.

What's the value of the CSI in a salt crystal?
 
Quote

Which means specification does not exclude chance and necessity.

Again, these issues would be clarified if you would walk us through an example of the EF in action.

Can you do that? If not, on what basis do you have for claiming that the EF is useful at any level?

assface- how do you think scientists determine design?

Do you think they flip a coin?

I bet if you look close enough you will see the EF.

and BTW there isn't any CSI in a salt crystal

But thanks for continuing to expose your ignorance

Date: 2010/03/11 10:07:11, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:03)
Quote
So if we use the EF...


Yes, lets.

You be the first to show us how the EF works on a biological example.

Go ahead Alan.

No one is stopping you.

Apply the EF to a living organism.

Oops- that's right you can't even demonstrate the building blocks required can arise without agency involvement.

Date: 2010/03/11 10:11:09, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:01)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:55)

Too bad that biological community has no idea if the transformations required are even possible via mutational accumulation.

And your proof for that is what? Those words? Anything else?
   
Quote

And all YOU have is to try to bash ID with your ignorance.

Why don't you wow us all then and give a demonstration of the EF in action.
   
Quote

You couldn't support your position if your life depended on it.

The argument has already happened. My "position" is the default. You've already lost, you just don't realise it.
   
Quote

As for not answering questions- well limpdick tell me-

How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

I'll answer that once you answer how we can test the premise that the bacterial flagellum was intelligently designed?

Also, which bacterial flagellum did you have in mind here? There are many variants. Any one in particular? I'm afraid I don't know what the variant is called that is on the banner at UD.
   
Quote


It isn't in any textbooks. And it isn't in any peer-reviewed paper.

As we've seen from the "cosmos" thread even it is probable you would not be able to understand it.
   
Quote


IOW asswipe your position is all smoke and mirrors.

And that's why almost every working biologist in the entire world takes that position. And a few bible bashing IDiots at bible-university and you think otherwise. So what.

My "proof"= nothing in peer-review.

There isn't any data which demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans.

Date: 2010/03/11 10:13:35, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote
Planetary nebulae do seed heavier elements to molecular clouds, but that in no way disproves the claim that solar systems from out of molecular clouds.


You said HYDROGEN CLOUD you lying asshole.

Date: 2010/03/11 10:14:37, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:11)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:57)
I don't think it- I proved it.

That you are too dishonest or ignorant to understand taht reflects on you, not me.

Then shame me and construct a post with what you said and what Olegt said and prove your claim, with links.

Or just continue to make an empty claim of victory despite all evidence to the contrary. Which is more or less how ID proponents operate generally, so carry on Joe!

Shame you?

You are an ignorant anonymous fuck- there isn't any shame in you.

You are proud to be an anonymous asshole.

Date: 2010/03/11 10:19:34, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:15)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,05:07)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:03)
   
Quote
So if we use the EF...


Yes, lets.

You be the first to show us how the EF works on a biological example.

Go ahead Alan.

No one is stopping you.

Apply the EF to a living organism.

Oops- that's right you can't even demonstrate the building blocks required can arise without agency involvement.

Joe,

I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot. You are the one claiming the EF can be shown to work. You don't want me suspecting you of bluster, do you? Do what Doug Axe can't. Demonstrate how the EF works on a real-life example.

Alan,

You are as useful as a chocolate teapot and full of bluster.

How do you think scientists determine design?

Do you think they flip a coin?

And as I said you can't even get the building blocks without agency involvement.

What part of that don't you understand?

And you do realize that bashing ID does not support your position?

Why is it that you just don't jump in with the scientific data that supports your position and therefor refutes ID?

THAT is all YOU have to do.

Yet you don't.

I say it is because you can't- all you can do is bash ID with your ignorance.

Date: 2010/03/11 10:21:23, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:18)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:13)
Quote
Planetary nebulae do seed heavier elements to molecular clouds, but that in no way disproves the claim that solar systems from out of molecular clouds.


You said HYDROGEN CLOUD you lying asshole.

What is HYDROGEN Joe? What "class" of thing does it fall into?

Clue: Starts with "M"

Hydrogen is an element- an atom.

Date: 2010/03/11 10:23:38, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:16)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:11)


My "proof"= nothing in peer-review.

What have you read? Given that it's not possible for a single person to keep up with the complete volume of scientific output I have to wonder on what basis you make this claim.

Do you have a team of ID researchers in your basement scouring every journal? Every paper that comes out?
 
Quote
There isn't any data which demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans.

Therefore ID? Even if that were true, how exactly does it help you? Even if it were true, what support does that give ID?

None whatsoever, that's how much.

Ever thought about providing some evidence for *your* position? Knock "Darwinism" as much as you like, it won't help ID one single bit.

So, about that debate. Proved you've even got $10,000 yet? Or still making that empty claim just to avoid having to put up or shut up?

Hey asshole- If I am wrong then please present the data which demonstrates that.

I have provided plenty of evidence for ID on my blog.

Why can't you grow some balls and leave your protectorate and actually engage the evidence?

Date: 2010/03/11 10:25:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:23)
Quote
You are as useful as a chocolate teapot and full of bluster.
You could at least think up your own insults, Joe.

So am I to take it you are unable to demonstrate the use of the EF?

ETA orthographe

Alan,

You can take it up your ass- as you like it- for all I care.

You obviously can't demonstrate the methodology used to determine living organisms are the result of blind, undirected processes.

So you HAVE to bash ID- it is all you have.

Date: 2010/03/11 10:27:03, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:24)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:19)
And as I said you can't even get the building blocks without agency involvement.

BZZT! Wrong again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8516319.stm
 
Quote
Scientists say that a meteorite that crashed into Earth 40 years ago contains millions of different carbon-containing, or organic, molecules.
Although they are not a sign of life, such organic compounds are life's building blocks, and are a sign of conditions in the early Solar System.
...
Scientists believe the Murchison meteorite could have originated before the Sun was formed, 4.65 billion years ago. The researchers say it probably passed through primordial clouds in the early Solar System, picking up organic chemicals.
Dr Schmitt-Kopplin hopes the findings might contribute to the debate over how life on Earth originated.

Oh dear.

oldmanwithitsheaduphisass-

Nucleotides assface- living organisms need nucletides.

And you can't get them without agency involvement.

Date: 2010/03/11 10:29:26, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,10:25)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:21)
Hydrogen is an element- an atom.

The clouds contain molecular hydrogen, Joe.  You know, H2.

Geez asshole you lied and were caught lying.

Now you are running all over the place with the goalposts as if that helps you.

What a limpdick russian bastard.

Date: 2010/03/11 10:32:14, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)
Quote
I have provided plenty of evidence for ID on my blog.


Then it shouldn't be too much trouble to cut and paste your best example of that evidence.

Quote
Why can't you grow some balls and leave your protectorate and actually engage the evidence?


Your posts are coming through here without hindrance, Joe. You pre-moderate your own blog. A quick glance doesn't suggest your blog is a suitable venue for a free exchange of ideas.

Alan,

It shouldn't be any problem for you to post the best evidence for your position.

Please start with a testable hypothesis for an accumulation of genetic accidents.

As for posting here- just to fight assholes like you.

I posted a new topic and some little faggot edited my words.

IOW this is not the place to exchange ideas...

Date: 2010/03/11 10:33:39, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:30)
Creationists love to control the conversation.

And Richtard loves to be a fucking asshole

Date: 2010/03/11 10:34:55, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:32)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)

Geez asshole you lied and were caught lying.

No, you've just been proven wrong. How does that taste?
 
Quote

Now you are running all over the place with the goalposts as if that helps you.

Everybody but you thinks you are wrong. Everybody but you is laughing at you.

And this is the best way you can think of spending your time?
 
Quote

What a limpdick russian bastard.

...

How was I proven wrong?

And yes retards always laugh at that they cannot understand.

Date: 2010/03/11 10:35:49, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 11 2010,10:34)
[quote=olegt,Mar. 11 2010,08:39][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:35)
Also there isn't anything in that which says you should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.

Of course there is, Joe.  Let me help you one more time.  Let's zoom in on this sentence:
   
Quote
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.

Can you read and comprehend that sentence?  Would you like to explain what else you might have meant when you wrote it?


At this point I'm now on the edge of my seat waiting in anticipation for an explanation of what else "Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it." could possibly have meant other than, 'writing planetary nebula(e) would have been correct while writing hydrogen cloud was wrong.' Oh...the agony of anticipation!

Gee robin I have already explained it.

Do I have to spoon feed you too?

Date: 2010/03/11 10:37:27, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:36)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)
 
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,10:25)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:21)
Hydrogen is an element- an atom.

The clouds contain molecular hydrogen, Joe.  You know, H2.

Geez asshole you lied and were caught lying.

Now you are running all over the place with the goalposts as if that helps you.

What a limpdick russian bastard.



I give your post 19 Culture war points ( 4 for insults, 6 for outing a foreigner, 3 for speculation on parental marital status at birth and bonus 5 for using peepee and bumbum together) and 0 'adds to dialogue points'.

Richtard,

Are you the designated stick-poker?

As for dialog points you always score a '0'

Date: 2010/03/11 10:38:42, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:33)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:32)
IOW this is not the place to exchange ideas...

I guess it's time for this then

Are you going to run away?

That beats actually supporting your nonsensical position...

Date: 2010/03/11 10:39:23, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:38)
Does peroxide have unfocused rage and loss of cognitive ability as side effects?

Is that what you are taking?

Date: 2010/03/11 10:40:18, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:36)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)
   
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,10:25)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:21)
Hydrogen is an element- an atom.

The clouds contain molecular hydrogen, Joe.  You know, H2.

Geez asshole you lied and were caught lying.

Now you are running all over the place with the goalposts as if that helps you.

What a limpdick russian bastard.



I give your post 19 Culture war points ( 4 for insults, 6 for outing a foreigner, 3 for speculation on parental marital status at birth and bonus 5 for using peepee and bumbum together) and 0 'adds to dialogue points'.

Richtard,

Are you the designated stick-poker?

As for dialog points you always score a '0'

I don't need to fish for you, Joe. You jump in the boat and gut yourself.

Richtard,

What you say is meaningless because you are clueless.

Date: 2010/03/11 10:41:51, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:27)
oldmanwithitsheaduphisass-

Nucleotides assface- living organisms need nucletides.

And you can't get them without agency involvement.

Can't you? Then I guess it must be my imagination that there are several models for the natural origin of nucleotides. And zero models for the creation of nucleotides by intelligent design.

Still, when you say "building blocks" instead of something more specific you have to take what answers you get given.

No matter what model is presented we all know you'll simply claim "Nature cannot be explained by Nature" thus "winning" any argument (in your mind) by default.

It is imagination as such models do not exist.

There are models that demonstrate it takes agency involvement to get nucleotides.

Date: 2010/03/29 11:22:55, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 16 2010,16:21)
In his hurry to derail any effort to use CSI to do anything at all, Joe forgets that ice floats and golf balls sink.

Because, of course, they aren't the same size.

floating golf balls

Why does clownie think its ignorance is a refutation?

Date: 2010/03/29 11:23:57, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

Joe G:
 
Quote
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?

Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...

Date: 2010/03/29 11:25:32, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2010,20:21)
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'

You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

Well you measure the specified information to see if CSI is present.

Date: 2010/03/29 11:29:29, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 15 2010,20:51)
JoeTard:  
Quote
Ya see Throton said it was a baseball-sized rock.

Yet that doesn't make any sense.

A piece of granite with the circumferance of a baseball would weigh much more.

And a piece of granite that weighed the same as a baseball would be smaller.

So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?


Later JoeTard:  
Quote
Hail could be golf-ball sized.

Yes hail could be golf ball sized because according to the rules of golf a golf ball just has to meet two requirements:

1- It cannot weigh more than 1.62 OZ.

2- It has to have a diameter of at least 1.68 inches

IOW even a simpleton can understand that hail can be golf ball sized...

Date: 2010/03/29 12:58:12, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 29 2010,11:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,17:23)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

Joe G:
   
Quote
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?

Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...

Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.

Water is a liquid.

Hail is not a liquid, is it?

Date: 2010/03/29 13:00:22, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2010,12:14)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,11:25)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2010,20:21)
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'

You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

Well you measure the specified information to see if CSI is present.

Excellent.  What device do we use to measure the specified information?  What units is specified information measured in?

Pick any three objects, organisms, or material structures and measure their specified information.  Please explain why you measured them that way and why the results are as they are.

kthnx

measuring information/ specified complexity

And if you have something to say then post it on my blog.

This forum isn't a place for a discussion.

Date: 2010/03/29 13:02:30, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 29 2010,11:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,17:23)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

Joe G:
   
Quote
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?

Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...

Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.

OK let me hit you with a water balloon- liquid water.

Then let me take an ice ball and hit you with that.

I bet you will be able to tell the difference- or maybe not as you are brain-dead...

Date: 2010/03/29 13:04:07, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (ppb @ Mar. 29 2010,12:17)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,12:25)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2010,20:21)
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'

You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

Well you measure the specified information to see if CSI is present.

Measure it or calculate it, whatever the hell you're supposed to do, you still can't show us you can do anything with it.

ETA: spelling

Information Technology assface.

You couldn't have it without CSI.

Communication- couldn't have it without specified information.

IOW assface you can't do anything without it.

Date: 2010/03/29 13:05:02, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,17:58)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.

(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!

Gary,

Seeing the EF is only as good as the person using it, in your hands it would be very useless...

Date: 2010/04/03 08:04:57, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (FreeMason @ Mar. 31 2010,11:14)
C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.

That is false.

Only a complete imbecile would think I was measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the definition.

Definitions are examples of specified information

1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?

Date: 2010/04/03 08:06:30, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 29 2010,16:40)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,13:05)
Gary,

Seeing the EF is only as good as the person using it, in your hands it would be very useless...

So basically, if the person using it wants to see design, the EF will 'detect' design regardless of the inputs.

Really useful scientific tool there.  :p

Wrong again you ignorant fuck.

With science it has to be repeatable- that is someone else has to be able to verify that inference.

However you being an ignorant fuck wouldn't understand that.

Date: 2010/04/03 08:09:47, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 11 2010,22:51)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,15:58)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.

(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!

With sleeves?

Anyway, pulling teeth on a horse would be easier than getting GI Joe to actually pony up any real answers to your questions. He's got nothin', he knows he's got nothin', so he just does the "I know you are but what am I" schtick ad infinitum.

Asshole it is you and your ilk who have nuthin'.

If you had something you would just present it.

But you can't because you don't have anything.

You do realize that the only way ID will go away is if you fucknuts start substantiating the claims of your position.

The way to demonstrate living organisms are not designed is by demonstrating they can arise via blind, undirected (chemical) processes.

You can erect as many ID strawmen as you want but you still wouldn't have any positive evidence for your position.

Date: 2010/04/03 08:11:43, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 13 2010,01:10)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:23)
     
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2010,13:00)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

It's called reducibility- that is finding out what it is reducible to- ie finding out what it takes to get the thing in question.

And right now it appears to take quite a bit of agency involvement just to get the building blocks living organisms require.

Which agency? What did it/they do? When was  it done? What tools where used?

Or do you just want to claim "gee whizz, this is darn complicated, God did it! "? That argument has been used before, it once explained things such as weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, stellar movements etc. It did not advance our understanding then, why would it help now?  

BTW, what was it you wanted to teach in a ID class? The stuff that would destroy current biology/evolutionary thought/opinion. Or is it a secret?

What are you going to teach in evolutionary class?

Hell you can't even demonstrate the transformations required are even possible.

Can evolution be quantified?

IOW is there a way to measure it?

Can we measure how many mutations it takes to "evolve" a whale from a land animal?

No, then how can it be considered science?

Date: 2010/04/03 14:28:47, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,11:47)
[quote=Joe G,April 03 2010,08:11][/quote]
Quote
What are you going to teach in evolutionary class?


1) More organisms are born than can possibly survive in the environment.
2) Each organism is (sexual reproduction)/ may be (asexual reproduction) different from it's parent and siblings.
3) Any of the differences may confer an advantage to survival of the organism.
4) Organisms that survive tend to have more kids that look more like them than those that don't survive.

It's called evolution... learn what it is before trying to discredit it.

Quote
Hell you can't even demonstrate the transformations required are even possible.

whales, horses, humans

Quote
Can evolution be quantified?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
IOW is there a way to measure it?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
Can we measure how many mutations it takes to "evolve" a whale from a land animal?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
No, then how can it be considered science?


Because it is observable, repeatable and falsifiable... unlike whatever tripe you promote.

Wow it looks like you are going to teach baraminology.

Or at least you shouldn't have any problem with it being presented.

And that whales, horses and humans exist does not mean they evolved from soemthing that wasn't a whale, horse or human.

There isn't any genetic evidence that the transformations requires are even possible.

It has never been observed.

It cannot be repeated.

And if it cannot be measured how can it be science?

Date: 2010/04/03 14:30:52, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 03 2010,12:37)
I remembered their was a measurement unit called the "Darwin".   So I did a quick Google Scholar search and found a recent paper titled Rates of Evolution
 
Quote
Haldane (1949) calculated rates of evolutionary change two ways, first in factors of e (base of the natural logarithms), and second in phenotypic SDs. He marked time in years and in generations. Haldane coined the rate unit “darwin” to represent “increase or decrease of size by a factor of e per million years” (Haldane 1949, p. 55). The rates of horse evolution that he calculated were on the order of 40 millidarwins (40 × 10?9; a darwin is a factor of e per million years,and 1/1000 of that is a factor of e per billion years). These were calculated on timescales of 5– 16 million years.

Haldane wrote that “the use of the standard deviation as a yardstick has a certain interest because, on any version of the Darwinian theory, the variation within a population at any time constitutes, so to say, the raw material available for evolution” (p. 52). He calculated that horses changed by about one SD per 200,000 generations, or 5 × 10?6 SD per generation on a timescale of about 1–3 million generations.

I don't expect this will have any positive affect on Joe G (aka ID Guy).  I will be surprised if he even bothers to read the paper.

The point isn't there isn't a known metaphysically correct way to measure evolution (we don't know the Truth) but there are scientific ways which are understandable even by those who disagree with their validity.

OK Dave,

Do some measurements using "darwins"-

How many darwins to get a whale from a land animal?

How can what Haldane said be verified?

Or is it only OK because it agrees with what you already believe?

Date: 2010/04/03 14:32:00, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?

Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?

Date: 2010/04/03 14:33:31, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?

I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.

Date: 2010/04/03 14:34:32, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 03 2010,08:50)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
 
Quote (FreeMason @ Mar. 31 2010,11:14)
C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.

That is false.

Only a complete imbecile would think I was measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the definition.

Definitions are examples of specified information

1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?

I understand but not completely.  I've developed a secret written language (SWL). In my SWL, the definition of "aardvark" is written like this:

gkjassdhjkjyenb

Note that the bold type face is part of the SWL definition. If "gkjassdhjkjyenb" is not bolded, it means "platypus."

How much information is contained in my SWL definition? Does the "aardvark" definition contain more information than the "platypus" definition? Does either definition indicate the presence of CSI?

Jim,

Just because you can prove that you are an asshole doesn't mean anything to ID.

Do you understand that?

Date: 2010/04/03 14:36:09, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 03 2010,09:07)
Hey Joe! I'm sure you're eager to respond to this:

There are many plaster cast copies of Michelangelo's David in existence. They weigh less than the six-ton marble original; solid marble weighs 160 lbs per cubic foot, while plaster weighs 53 lbs per cubic foot. Per your definition of size, although they are of identical physical dimensions and displace identical volumes of identical shape, plaster-cast David and the original David are NOT the same size.

So, if a precise plaster cast copy of David is not, by your definition, the same size as the original David, how much taller would plaster cast David have to be than actual David to be the same size as actual David?

Show your work.

Asshole- it's not my definition of size.

As I said a person's size includes their height and weight.

Do you really think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?

Date: 2010/04/06 13:05:28, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (FrankH @ April 03 2010,14:44)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?
Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?

Joe,

As you are the one who says that EF and CSI are real tools, you are the one that has to show how they are used.

So, could you show us, we ignorant, atheistic, socialistic, Obama loving, unwashed heathens how one uses EF to determine design?

Thanks in advance

Frank,

You don't need to worry about ID.

All you need to do is start substantiating the claims of your position.

What part of that don't you understand?

Doesn't your position have any useful tools?

Does your position have any positive evidence?

If it does can you please present it.

As for the EF, well Frank no one infers design when chance and/ or necessity can account for it.

Do you understand that Frank?

IOW Frank the EF is the process YOU would use to try to refute the design inference.

And I would say it is the process used by all scientists and people trying to determine the cause of something.

Date: 2010/04/06 13:07:49, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 03 2010,15:28)
Hi Joe G,
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:30)
OK Dave,

Do some measurements using "darwins"-

How many darwins to get a whale from a land animal?

How can what Haldane said be verified?

Or is it only OK because it agrees with what you already believe?


Did you bother to try to follow the link I provided?

(The link was broken but, somehow, I doubt you were being polite by not mentioning it.)

From...
Rates of Evolution

Quote
Modern mammals span something like 10^2 SD or 10^3 0.1 SD units (comparing the least shrew to the great blue whale), and these diverged from each other something like 10^7 generations ago (Gingerich 2001, p. 141). At H0 = 0.1, a rate found commonly in rate studies, a mammal could conceivably change from the size of a shrew to the size of a whale in 10^3 generation...


The paper is only 16 pages of explanations on the very subject you are asking about.

Remember that "level playing field" we were discussing long ago?

Would you now provide a number, any number, describing the Specied Information of a spherical rock with the same radius as a baseball laying on a couch beside a broken window?

TP,

The Darwin unit doesn't tell us if the transformations required are even possible.

It assumes they are.

What the theory needs is an objective measurement pertaining to genetics- as in how many mutations does it take to get X?

Date: 2010/04/06 13:08:52, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 05 2010,07:48)
Hey Joe,

Since you can't answer our question about how to measure/calculate whatever it is you think your 'hypothesis' is about, here's a much easier question for you and I'm really curious about the answer.

Do you realize that even if you prove evolution to be false, that does not automatically mean that your 'hypothesis' is correct?  (yes/no)

ID stands on the positive evidence.

The evidence I have provided and you have choked on.

Date: 2010/04/06 13:10:42, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (FrankH @ April 04 2010,17:17)
Well, I hope Joe G. takes this as a serious attempt to see where both sides stand.  So Joe, I and others have done two things:

1:  Presented Evidence that supports Evolution

2:  Shown that many here understand CSI and EF but feel that it is not adequate to do what Dr. Dembski has stated it does.

So are you going to show us an example of evidence FOR ID and how EF and CSI work on biological systems?

Frank,

ID is not anti-evolution. IOW evidence for evolution is meaningless.

Neither you nor anyone else has provided any positive evidence for blind, undirected processes.

As for the EF how do you think scientists determine the cause now?

Date: 2010/04/06 13:15:39, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (FrankH @ April 03 2010,15:33)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?
I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.

Have you ever posted "positive evidence for ID" Joe?

I would like to see it.

As for "positive evidence for evolution", I give you this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html

Yes Joe, this is Rocket Science and yes, it takes study to grasp it.  There are no quick or easy solutions.

Yes, Frank I have supported ID:

supporting ID

Also your support for evolution is a joke.

There isn't anything about blind, undirected processes.

Ya see ID is NOT anti-evolution.

Just anti- the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolutionary processes.

Date: 2010/07/31 08:44:16, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (fnxtr @ July 30 2010,16:30)
Bloody hell. He's over on PT now crapping all over the "random responses to Luskin" thread.  Full of sound and fury...

That thread was full of shit already...

Date: 2010/07/31 08:44:51, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2010,10:09)
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ry.html

Quote
...

Wrong Nicky.

The argument is that blind, undirected processes cannot produce information from scratch nor can those processes increase information.

IOW Nick you are a lying piece of shit.

Now please take me to Court and try to sue me for slander or libel.


That's boys an idiot.

That makes sense- I'm the idiot because you faggots are lying cowards.

Date: 2010/07/31 08:46:09, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (socle @ July 30 2010,22:58)
Advanced set theory:

 
Quote

Sheik:  

Do you claim that the sets {x,y} and { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } are equal?


   
Quote

Joe G:

Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30


   
Quote

Sheik:

I didn't see this before my last post. The two sets are definitely not the same, however.


   
Quote

Joe G:

The CONTENTS are the SAME- they are EQUAL.

$30 = $30 so {x,y} has to equal { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} }

What part of that don't you understand?


What is your issue with what I posted?

Do you have valid resource that says I am wrong?

If so it would help you if you could produce it.

Otherwise your ignorance does not refute what I post.

Date: 2010/07/31 08:46:42, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 31 2010,08:45)
Quote (Joe G @ July 31 2010,08:44)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2010,10:09)
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ry.html

 
Quote
...

Wrong Nicky.

The argument is that blind, undirected processes cannot produce information from scratch nor can those processes increase information.

IOW Nick you are a lying piece of shit.

Now please take me to Court and try to sue me for slander or libel.


That's boys an idiot.

That makes sense- I'm the idiot because you faggots are lying cowards.

Do a podcast, please?

Why? So you can jerk-off to it?

Date: 2010/07/31 08:51:01, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Mindrover @ July 30 2010,14:49)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2010,10:09)
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ry.html

 
Quote
...

Wrong Nicky.

The argument is that blind, undirected processes cannot produce information from scratch nor can those processes increase information.

IOW Nick you are a lying piece of shit.

Now please take me to Court and try to sue me for slander or libel.


That's boys an idiot.

On the plus side, it looks like Joe has stopped stalking Oleg.

On the negative, I have read yet another of his "LOOK AT ME!!!!" posts.

Why do I get the mental image of Joe in a soiled tutu and combat boots, jumping up and down in a city square, yelling his blog posts into a bullhorn at passers by?

Stalking oleg?

oleg stalks me. OM stalks me. All evotards stalk me.

Heck this thread is proof of that...

Date: 2010/07/31 08:52:31, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (MichaelJ @ July 31 2010,00:32)
Is he really that dumb

I could be. However it is very noticeable that not one of you evotards can demonstrate that what I posted is wrong.

IOW it appears that you chumps are really that dumb...

Date: 2010/07/31 09:06:17, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Zachriel @ July 31 2010,08:59)
Joe G,

How many elements are in {}?
How many elements are in {{}}?

Operations on the empty set:

Operations performed on the empty set (as a set of things to be operated upon) are unusual. For example, the sum of the elements of the empty set is zero, but the product of the elements of the empty set is one (see empty product). Ultimately, the results of these operations say more about the operation in question than about the empty set. For instance, zero is the identity element for addition, and one is the identity element for multiplication.

Not that I would expect you to understand any of that.

Date: 2010/07/31 09:08:45, Link
Author: Joe G
Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30


Does anyone disagree with that?

If you disagree can you provide a valid resource that agrees with you?

Date: 2010/10/29 06:43:59, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.

Lu-lu with the tu-tu you are so confused- I am standing up to internet bullies- you evotards.

And yes I expect you imbeciles to point and laugh- that is what you do...

Date: 2010/10/29 06:44:57, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,18:25)
[quote=didymos,Oct. 20 2010,04:18]
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 19 2010,21:11)

 
Quote
300 lbs about 1.5 x my body weight- can't run blew out my knee in Iraq and I am only qualified to fly small twin engine aircrafts- Cessna, Piper.


Ah, yes.  The "Iraq" incident. Very sad, that.

The one that was never mentioned in the press....

The one where he hurt his back....

But now it is his knee....

How do you know it wasn't mentioned in the press?

I never said i hurt my back in Iraq.

IOW Scotty once again you prove that you are an ass.

Date: 2010/10/29 06:46:12, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,18:27)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.

A 150 lb bully?   :O

210 lbs- and I am standing up tp bullies.

That's right Scotty I am smaller than you and will still stand up to you.

Do you remember you and rapier were going to come to my work?

What ever happened with that?

Date: 2010/10/29 06:49:05, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 27 2010,20:46)
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,18:27)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.

A 150 lb bully?   :O

To be fair, he is claiming to be 200 lbs.  But unless he's also claiming to be 6' 3", he's probably overweight.

Yup just under 6' 1"- overweight? at 210 lbs?

Well Mikey Jordan- when he was playing- had a BMI that said he was obese.

So it all depends on what you mean by "overweight".

Date: 2010/10/29 06:50:07, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 28 2010,07:12)
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,19:27)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.

A 150 lb bully?   :O

Damn, I'm 135 pounds and I bet *I* could whoop his ass.  Sadly, the first rule of Fight Club is that there is no Fight Club. :(

Bring it on flyboy...

Date: 2010/11/04 19:26:51, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 29 2010,18:15)
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,07:50)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 28 2010,07:12)
 
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,19:27)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.

A 150 lb bully?   :O

Damn, I'm 135 pounds and I bet *I* could whoop his ass.  Sadly, the first rule of Fight Club is that there is no Fight Club. :(

Bring it on flyboy...

Actually, that's flygirl, but okay.  I'm 5'10" and 135 pounds of lean, athletic muscle, plus I'm a size 34C lest you think you're dealing with a mere twig.  Former epee fencer and collegiate rugby player and I work out at least four days a week.  AND I'm good-looking.

So, that's my CV.  Let's go, doughbullyboy.

Flygirl? Well that would explain the hysterics and dimentia- you can't understand normal thinking.

Date: 2010/11/04 19:29:01, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,10:55)
Good grief!  Joe "Ice is Not Water" G is arguing that "one word sentences," like "Go!" are not sentences.

Is there a pathological mental condition, besides creationist fuckwit, that a person can never, ever be wrong?

Something like "FL Syndrome."

How does a person like this get through the day?  Inquiring minds want to know!

Doc, one-word sentences have understood/ invisible words that go with them.

That is what all the references and grammar professionals say anyway.

And ice is FROZEN water. IOW there is a difference...

Date: 2010/11/04 19:30:52, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 29 2010,10:32)
Poor Joe. On top of being a complete failure as an internet bully, it turns out his BMI is twice his IQ.

Hopefully his mommy will bring him cookies down to the basement, so he won't have to lug his ass up the stairs.

Lu-lu you got poo-poo in your tu-tu.

And yes your momma brings me her cookies every night...

Date: 2010/11/04 19:31:56, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 29 2010,08:55)
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,06:50)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 28 2010,07:12)
 
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,19:27)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.

A 150 lb bully?   :O

Damn, I'm 135 pounds and I bet *I* could whoop his ass.  Sadly, the first rule of Fight Club is that there is no Fight Club. :(

Bring it on flyboy...

Joe, aren't you old and crippled? Best to stick to just *one* story. You can always pretend that was ID guy, I suppose.

No Rich I never said I was crippled and old is relative.

IOW thanks for continuing to prove how clueless you really are...

Date: 2010/11/04 19:35:50, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 29 2010,10:17)
Also, can we now add professional basketball player to your resume, Joe.  Name dropping ol' Jords, whom you have something in common with: a pretty high BMI, almost in the obese range.  You probably aren't working out so much though with the injuries and all, so the body fat percentage is probably higher than ole Mic.

Conclusion: you're obese.

Actually I work out quite a bit- physical therapy and all.

Also there is the local nautatorium- 3 miles a week.

I bet my BF < 15% but definitely not the 10% it was in 2004.

I guess there IS a reason I look like I weigh only 180...

Date: 2010/11/04 19:37:17, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 03 2010,04:42)
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,12:46)
[SNIP]

210 lbs- and I am standing up tp bullies.

[SNIP]

{Spits coffee everywhere}

BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

{deep breath}

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA  BWAHAHA BWAAAAHAHAHAHA HA AHHHH HA

Yeah Joe, you're a real hero. Standing up to those mean scientists and all. The possibility that you are simply too biased, uneducated and simply fucking stupid to properly consider any scientific subject, let alone this one, must never occur to you.

Oh wait, psychology 101, of course it's occurred to you. That's why you're dancing about like a little neutered yappy dog trying to fight a lion. Your behaviour couldn't be any more transparent...or funnier...if you tried.

Anyway, enough. I have better things to do than bandy words with insignificant internet maggots. Wake me when you say something interesting, tough guy. Sure is easy to be tough behind that keyboard isn't it, Joey? Go on tough guy, bluster some more.

Yap yap yap.

Louis

Nice evotardgasm bitch.

Is ignorant spewage all you have?

Date: 2010/11/04 19:38:34, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 04 2010,09:21)
Joe G bans the best friend he ever had.

Quote
Why has blipey been banned?

With "friends" like blipey who needs Hitler, Stalin and Mao?

Date: 2010/11/05 06:39:49, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,19:57)
Joe G -

Seriously, dude, there's a difference between ice and water?

You are a moron.

Let me put it another way.  I have a PhD in chemistry which is really, really hard and I am smart.  You are an uncredentialed moron which is really, really easy and you are stupid.

IOW, there's a difference.

But, hey, Joe G, in terms of being a stupid moron you're Number One!  You're Number One!  So, I guess, you win!

f course there is a difference you imbecile. If you order a glass of water do you want a glass of ice?

If yu ordered a coke with ice do you want them to pour water into your coke?

I bet you think you are ordering a coke with boiling water.

If there isn't ay difference why do we have two different words? Because there is a difference and it is spelled out in the definitions.

Date: 2010/11/05 06:42:15, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 04 2010,19:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2010,19:29)
     
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,10:55)
Good grief!  Joe "Ice is Not Water" G is arguing that "one word sentences," like "Go!" are not sentences.  

Is there a pathological mental condition, besides creationist fuckwit, that a person can never, ever be wrong?

Something like "FL Syndrome."

How does a person like this get through the day?  Inquiring minds want to know!

Doc, one-word sentences have understood/ invisible words that go with them.


...which doesn't alter one bit the fact that it's still a sentence composed of one word.  That's why they're called one-word sentences.

   
Quote
And ice is FROZEN water. IOW there is a difference...


...which doesn't alter one bit the fact that it's still water.

Tell us how you determined your IQ was 150 Joe.  Show us the results.  Was it one of those online self-evaluations that will give you any score you ask for if you pay them $8.99?

Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.

And yes I have said that ice is made from water but there is a difference between the two- the difference is spelled out in each definition.

Date: 2010/11/05 06:44:31, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 04 2010,20:45)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2010,20:26)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 29 2010,18:15)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,07:50)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 28 2010,07:12)
   
Quote (SLP @ Oct. 27 2010,19:27)
     
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.

A 150 lb bully?   :O

Damn, I'm 135 pounds and I bet *I* could whoop his ass.  Sadly, the first rule of Fight Club is that there is no Fight Club. :(

Bring it on flyboy...

Actually, that's flygirl, but okay.  I'm 5'10" and 135 pounds of lean, athletic muscle, plus I'm a size 34C lest you think you're dealing with a mere twig.  Former epee fencer and collegiate rugby player and I work out at least four days a week.  AND I'm good-looking.

So, that's my CV.  Let's go, doughbullyboy.

Flygirl? Well that would explain the hysterics and dimentia- you can't understand normal thinking.

Gosh, who knew?  He's a creationist retard AND a sexist.  Oh, wait, most good Christian men ARE sexist since the Sky Daddy tells them it's A-OK.

BTW, what's "dimentia"?  A condition involving ten cent pieces?

P.S.-- Your "comebacks" pretty clearly indicate your stunted mental and emotional state.  You should get out more.  No, wait, your mom's basement is safer.  For the rest of the population.  Carry on.

I'm not a christian you skinny freak and my mother has been dead since 1984.

However your mother likes to come to my basement...

Date: 2010/11/05 06:45:42, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 05 2010,04:56)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,01:37)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 03 2010,04:42)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 29 2010,12:46)
[SNIP]

210 lbs- and I am standing up tp bullies.

[SNIP]

{Spits coffee everywhere}

BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

{deep breath}

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA  BWAHAHA BWAAAAHAHAHAHA HA AHHHH HA

Yeah Joe, you're a real hero. Standing up to those mean scientists and all. The possibility that you are simply too biased, uneducated and simply fucking stupid to properly consider any scientific subject, let alone this one, must never occur to you.

Oh wait, psychology 101, of course it's occurred to you. That's why you're dancing about like a little neutered yappy dog trying to fight a lion. Your behaviour couldn't be any more transparent...or funnier...if you tried.

Anyway, enough. I have better things to do than bandy words with insignificant internet maggots. Wake me when you say something interesting, tough guy. Sure is easy to be tough behind that keyboard isn't it, Joey? Go on tough guy, bluster some more.

Yap yap yap.

Louis

Nice evotardgasm bitch.

Is ignorant spewage all you have?

That's nice, dear. Well done. You typed all that yourself too I bet. Good moron, here's a biscuit.

Joey, you are too easy to manipulate. It's almost cruel. Carry on trolling you ignorant fuckknuckle.

Louis

ETA: I'm also loving the sexism, Joey. Classy. Bet you're a real hit with the ladies. As well as being super fit and clever and everything you claim about yourself. Gosh, aren't you just special? Yap on doggy.

wolfie ain't no lady andy are an ignorant punk.

Date: 2010/11/05 06:48:25, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,21:29)
Hey Joe, just out of curiosity, what do you think "Steam" is?

I bet if I hit you with a water balloon and an ice-filled balloon yu morons would understand the difference.

And I bet if I forced your hand into a tub of warm water and then into the path of some steam you would know the difference between those two also.

Steam is steam- made from water, yes

Date: 2010/11/05 06:49:02, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2010,06:47)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:39)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2010,19:57)
Joe G -

Seriously, dude, there's a difference between ice and water?

You are a moron.

Let me put it another way.  I have a PhD in chemistry which is really, really hard and I am smart.  You are an uncredentialed moron which is really, really easy and you are stupid.

IOW, there's a difference.

But, hey, Joe G, in terms of being a stupid moron you're Number One!  You're Number One!  So, I guess, you win!

f course there is a difference you imbecile. If you order a glass of water do you want a glass of ice?

If yu ordered a coke with ice do you want them to pour water into your coke?

I bet you think you are ordering a coke with boiling water.

If there isn't ay difference why do we have two different words? Because there is a difference and it is spelled out in the definitions.

Hey Joe:  what's ice made of?

Water, just as I have said all along.

Date: 2010/11/05 06:49:53, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 05 2010,06:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.

Where is "there", Joe?

Wherever the people have the conversation are you moron.

Are you that stupid that you don't understand understood words?

Date: 2010/11/09 12:44:17, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 05 2010,08:32)
C'mon Joe, show us how it was determined you have an IQ of 150.  It certainly wasn't based on the verbal part (spelling and grammar) of your SAT scores.

My IQ was determined by taking tests that determine IQs.

Do you measure yours with a dipstick?

My SAT scores- 680 English/ grammer / 720 math- I had a bad day.

Date: 2010/11/09 12:46:32, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 05 2010,21:08)
Joe lends insight into the EF.  Apparently, you input Stonehenge.  This is the only requisite step!  Easy to use and quick clean-up as well.

The steps to determine if Stonehenge was designed:

1.  Put Stonehenge into EF
2.  Compare Stonehenge to Stonehnge
3.  If Stonehenge looks like Stonehenge, then:

DESIGN!!!!

Or maybe I'm missing some of the details?  I'm sure Joe is more than willing to fill any of these missing details in.

Not only are you missing details you are missing a brain you retarded clown.

Date: 2010/11/09 12:48:09, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 09 2010,12:46)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,10:44)
My SAT scores- 680 English/ grammer

Teh speling, not so gud.

It was better when I didn't depend on spellchecker so much.

It is just like my math was better when I didn't use a calculator all the time.

But I wouldn't expect a dipshit like you to understand that.

Date: 2010/11/09 12:49:39, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 08 2010,17:50)
Do any of these clowns wonder why Dembski never talks about EF and CSI any more? Dembski himself basically came out and admitted that without perfect knowledge you can't calculate the EF of even the simplest systems, that you will get false positives and false negatives.

He did retract it but only we all laughed at him again.

Even though Joe likes to ignore all of the evidence all he is saying is that scientists don't know everything therefore God.

The EF probably would not apply to alien technology. How do you know a crystal is a crystal and not an unpowered alien computer?

Umm Dembski says the EF is still good.

What evidence do I ignore?  Also I don't say God...

Date: 2010/11/09 12:50:33, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 09 2010,12:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,10:46)
Not only are you missing details you are missing a brain you retarded clown.

Teh debating skills, not so gud either.

Debating? You assholes don't know the first thing about debating.

I was just making an observation...

Date: 2010/11/09 12:55:57, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,12:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,12:50)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 09 2010,12:48)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,10:46)
Not only are you missing details you are missing a brain you retarded clown.

Teh debating skills, not so gud either.

Debating? You assholes don't know the first thing about debating.

I was just making an observation...

Hi Jim/Joe!

Hi muskrat Rich!

Rich Hughes is so concerned for blipey it brought a song to my head:

<b>"Muskrat blipey, muskrat Rich
Rich says to blipey come and be my bitch
And they shimmy
blipey's so skinny"

"And they whirled and they twirled and they tangoed
Singin' and jingin' the jango
Floatin' like the heavens above
It looks like muskrat love"</b>

Date: 2010/11/09 12:58:16, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 09 2010,07:36)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 08 2010,21:54)
They appear to be running a stupidest comment contest over on Bully's On Language and Science thread. Frostyboy (he of the High IQ) is a contender:    
Quote
Truth is the ultimate measure of everything. It is the concept of what actually really is. Science tries to come as close to truth as it can but the nature of science is that any claim or conclusion it comes to must be open to revision and rexamination. That is why theories that are held as dogma by a consensus are still fair game for criticism and skepticism. Darwinian Evolution even if correct must still face all of the objections by its detractors and critics. Same goes for ID- ID even if it is incomplete as a theory is still a scientific theory because all scientific theories are incomplete.

As ID is more incomplete than any other theory, it is, therefore, more scientific.

It can't be more incomplete than the theory of evolution. Geez at least ID has a testable hypothesis...

Date: 2010/11/09 13:06:37, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 09 2010,13:03)
However, you have to appreciate Joe's [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-proponent-should-be-open-to-young-earth-creationism-and-skeptical-of-man-


%3Cbr%3Emade-global-warming/#comment-367318] concise evalutation[/URL] of vjtorley's 6000-year-old-multiverse scenario:
   
Quote
Is this OP going to come out in movie form any time soon?


OTOH, his poetry sucks.

Thanks Kat, I am glad someone enjoyed that post on UD.

And what poetry are you referring to? My re-wording of a song?

Date: 2010/11/09 13:12:45, Link
Author: Joe G
To wolfhound-

My most humble apologies for the way I have responded to you. I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl. So I wanted to see if there were any men there that would step up once you were offended/ insulted by me. No one did.

BTW I am a sexist and I am also a lesbian trapped in a man's body- talk about confusion.... LoL!!!

But again my bad, you the girl, good luck in life...

Date: 2010/11/09 13:14:21, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,12:58)
It can't be more incomplete than the theory of evolution. Geez at least ID has a testable hypothesis...


Ahhh yes...the ever-repeated claim that no ID proponent seems capable of substantiating. How odd that. LOL!

Go ahead Joe...wow us again with that vapor-hypothesis!

:D

Robin, Several IDists have proposed testable hypotheses for ID.

Mine version is on my blog.

Date: 2010/11/09 13:15:52, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:14)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:06)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 09 2010,13:03)
However, you have to appreciate Joe's [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-proponent-should-be-open-to-young-earth-creationism-and-skeptical-of-man-




%3Cbr%3Emade-global-warming/#comment-367318] concise evalutation[/URL] of vjtorley's 6000-year-old-multiverse scenario:
     
Quote
Is this OP going to come out in movie form any time soon?


OTOH, his poetry sucks.

Thanks Kat, I am glad someone enjoyed that post on UD.

And what poetry are you referring to? My re-wording of a song?

How much CSI in that song, Joe/Jim?

Muskrat Rich,

It only matters if CSI is present or not, just as I have been telling you over and over again yet you seem too stupid to grasp that.

Date: 2010/11/09 13:17:54, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:15)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
To wolfhound-

My most humble apologies for the way I have responded to you. I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl. So I wanted to see if there were any men there that would step up once you were offended/ insulted by me. No one did.

BTW I am a sexist and I am also a lesbian trapped in a man's body- talk about confusion.... LoL!!!

But again my bad, you the girl, good luck in life...

What did you want, Joe, someone to bash you?

You're an old cripple; no-one here is going to do that.

I wouold love for one or two of you assholes to try. But you are all justr a bunch of low-life cowards.

Also I ain't crippled and my age, well I could kick your ass even if I was over 100.

And no one there is going to do that because no one there can do that.

Date: 2010/11/09 13:19:15, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:16)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:14)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:06)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 09 2010,13:03)
However, you have to appreciate Joe's [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-proponent-should-be-open-to-young-earth-creationism-and-skeptical-of-man-






%3Cbr%3Emade-global-warming/#comment-367318] concise evalutation[/URL] of vjtorley's 6000-year-old-multiverse scenario:
       
Quote
Is this OP going to come out in movie form any time soon?


OTOH, his poetry sucks.

Thanks Kat, I am glad someone enjoyed that post on UD.

And what poetry are you referring to? My re-wording of a song?

How much CSI in that song, Joe/Jim?

Muskrat Rich,

It only matters if CSI is present or not, just as I have been telling you over and over again yet you seem too stupid to grasp that.

How would one know? wouldn't you need some empirical hurdle?

I have told you how to make that determination you mental midget, I mean dwarf.

What the fuck is wrong with you muskrat Rich? Did blipey infect you with something?

Date: 2010/11/09 13:21:09, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 09 2010,13:15)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,12:58)
It can't be more incomplete than the theory of evolution. Geez at least ID has a testable hypothesis...


Ahhh yes...the ever-repeated claim that no ID proponent seems capable of substantiating. How odd that. LOL!

Go ahead Joe...wow us again with that vapor-hypothesis!

:D

Lawdee Mr. Robin!  Expectin' real answers from Mr. Joe?  I declare, you-all are a goin' to give Mr. Joe an attack of The Vapors!

J-Dog just because no one gets real answers from you evotards doesn't mean everyone else is an intellectual coward.

My answers are on my blog.

Date: 2010/11/09 13:22:01, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:16)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:14)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,12:58)
It can't be more incomplete than the theory of evolution. Geez at least ID has a testable hypothesis...


Ahhh yes...the ever-repeated claim that no ID proponent seems capable of substantiating. How odd that. LOL!

Go ahead Joe...wow us again with that vapor-hypothesis!

:D

Robin, Several IDists have proposed testable hypotheses for ID.

Mine version is on my blog.

ID is going underground!

ID doesn't need to go underground. However it is obvious that is where the ToE will be buried...

Date: 2010/11/09 13:39:07, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:25)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:17)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2010,13:15)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
To wolfhound-

My most humble apologies for the way I have responded to you. I thought it was funny that the only evo to step up and want to mix it up with me was a girl. So I wanted to see if there were any men there that would step up once you were offended/ insulted by me. No one did.

BTW I am a sexist and I am also a lesbian trapped in a man's body- talk about confusion.... LoL!!!

But again my bad, you the girl, good luck in life...

What did you want, Joe, someone to bash you?

You're an old cripple; no-one here is going to do that.

I wouold love for one or two of you assholes to try. But you are all justr a bunch of low-life cowards.

Also I ain't crippled and my age, well I could kick your ass even if I was over 100.

And no one there is going to do that because no one there can do that.

Let's see if we can recap the facts. Feel free to correct

1) You fix fridges
2) You know dragonflies play
3) You have top secret governemt clearance
4) You were in Iraq
5) You hurt your back/leg
6) You are muslim
7) Your IQ is 150 (hurrah for round numbers!)
8) You can bench 300lbs (hurrah for round numbers!) - (what's that the bar, 4 plates, 2 x 35 and 2 x 2.5?) that's quite a strange lift!
9) Design is a mechanism
10) You can caluclate CSI by couting the words/ letters
11) You teach ID at school
12) You're not Jim, no siree bob.
13) The only people who read your make fun of you

Feel free to extend the list anyone else..

These don't seem too coherent to me. Methinks your mental self-image and reality are at odds.

1) You fix fridges

I can and have. I can and have fixed many things. So what?

2) You know dragonflies play

I have observed that just as Ms Goodall observed chimps using tools.

3) You have top secret governemt clearance

I had a security clearance Clarance.

4) You were in Iraq[/i

Yes I was. I have a picture of me in front of one of saddam's palaces in west Baghdad.

I have been to many places- I met my wife in Argentina.

[i]5) You hurt your back/leg


I blew out my knee in Iraq. And my back problems are most likely due to jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.

7) Your IQ is 150 (hurrah for round numbers!)

That was a round-off from the average of 4 test results.

8) You can bench 300lbs (hurrah for round numbers!) - (what's that the bar, 4 plates, 2 x 35 and 2 x 2.5?) that's quite a strange lift!

The bar is 45- 50 lbs. + 70 + 5 = not 300.

9) Design is a mechanism

That much is obvious to anyone who can read a dictionary.

10) You can caluclate CSI by couting the words/ letters

Only in a specified sentence.

11) You teach ID at school

No. I have an Intelligent Design Awareness day at school.

12) You're not Jim, no siree bob.

You can meet us both- but you are too much of a coward to do so.

13) The only people who read your make fun of you

The people who make fun of me are drooling imbeciles, like you

Date: 2010/11/09 13:40:01, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 09 2010,13:26)
Oh, Joe is here again! How's you collaboration with ID guy going? When are you going to publish your work?

Hey oleg, the cowardly liar is here again!

When are you going to have the balls to actually support your position?

Date: 2010/11/09 13:41:23, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2010,13:25)
Hi Joe,

As I recall, last time you were around, you were going to explain how to calculate CSI and EF and all that good stuff.

What amount of information do you need and would binary be sufficient?

I'm thinking I've got a bit of machine code that retrieves the contents of a certain memory location and then you can compare that to a random string of binary code.

Don't worry about the depth of your explanation.  In my current job, I sit next to 8 mathematicians, 2 of whom have doctoral degrees and 4 have masters degrees in various math topics.  I am also good friends with 3 psycometricians, all of whom have doctoral degrees in statistics.

Thanks

Hi Ogre,

I remember tlling you not to worry about ID and instead you need to focus on finding positive evidence for your position.

How is that working out?

Date: 2010/11/09 13:43:08, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 09 2010,13:30)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:14)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,12:58)
It can't be more incomplete than the theory of evolution. Geez at least ID has a testable hypothesis...


Ahhh yes...the ever-repeated claim that no ID proponent seems capable of substantiating. How odd that. LOL!

Go ahead Joe...wow us again with that vapor-hypothesis!

:D

Robin, Several IDists have proposed testable hypotheses for ID.

Mine version is on my blog.


BZZZZZZ! Sorry Joe, but that isn't a correct answer. You forgot to phrase it in the form of a question. Further, claiming that "oh...there are hypotheses out there; you just have to go find them..." doesn't work. If you can't post such with a publishing reference, your just blowing turd as usual. I have no interest in turd-blowers who can't provide actual citations.

But do come on back when you have something of value besides turd-blowing though, m'kay?  Thanks Joe!

Well Robin all evotards are turd-blowers as they cannot provide a citation that supports their claims.

Date: 2010/11/09 13:46:21, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 09 2010,13:43)
Joe wrote:
Quote
You can meet us both- but you are too much of a coward to do so.


What a great idea! Bring "Jim" here and we'll talk to you both. That should be entertaining!

We will drive down to John Hopkins- will that suffice?

That will really be entertaining!!!!!

Date: 2010/11/17 16:06:44, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 10 2010,12:35)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 10 2010,11:21)
Joe G:
 
Quote
And my back problems are most likely due to jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.


Oooohhh!!! I can take him on that one anytime. I'm a former paratrooper and currently a skydiving instructor.

Joe, let's talk about skidiving. No googling allowed!

First he said he hurt his knee while being a fighting hero in Iraq, then it was his back that was hurt in combat there, now he says his back was hurt from skydiving.

Joe is living proof of the adage 'a liar need a good memory' to keep his stories straight.

Do we have any pilots here?  Joe also claimed to be a pilot qualified to fly multi-engine aircraft.  That would be interesting to quiz him on.  I wonder how he passes the FAA medical requirements with all of his debilitating war injuries?

1- I never said I hurt my knee while being a fighting hero in Iraq- never- you are a liar.

2- I never said I hurt my back in combat there- never- you are a liar


Occam's Afterbirth must be getting desperate.

Is tis the best you assholes have? To lie and act like compete morons and gossipy old maids?

What's that? It's not an act?

Date: 2010/11/18 06:15:05, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 17 2010,16:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 17 2010,16:06)
1- I never said I hurt my knee while being a fighting hero in Iraq- never- you are a liar.

And you, sir, are a dissembler:

   
Quote
Today I was searching the internet and came across a post by Occam's Afterbirth, saying that I lied about Iraq.

Occam's Afterbirth said I said I was wouded but that I really just hurt my back lifting the wrong way.

Spoken like a true piece of shit loser.

But anyway I did not hurt my back in Iraq.

I blew out my right knee when our position came under attack and I was getting clear of that action (March 2004).

I was not cut nor penetrated by any bullets nor shrapnel. My flack jacket took a few hits of shrapnel and debris but nothing got through to me.

This action occurred near Balad, Iraq.

Now to get to Balad from Baghdad International Airport, we did something that no military personnel would- we took an unarmored SUV convoy from the airport down RPG/ IED (rocket propelled grenade/ improvised explosive device) ally- the most dangerous road in the world- to Camp Victory to get our orders.

From there we traveled in that same convoy north to Balad.

We were stopped twice by IEDs.

While in Iraq I went on patrols with the Army. Ya see my job there was to train them in the use and maintenance of our equipment- explosive trace detectors- which were used to find people who messed with explosives.

The funny part is Occam's Afterbirth calls me a chicken-shit when it remains anonymous!

An anonymous asshole loser liar calling me a chickenshit!

That just makes me feel like a hero all over again...


http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2009....ht.html

Ummm I wasn't fighting.

IOW you are an imbecile.

Date: 2010/11/25 07:50:30, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (darvolution proponentsist @ Nov. 19 2010,22:01)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 19 2010,14:58)
       
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2010,15:55)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html

           
Quote
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards - then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?


Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.

Wait... did Joe actually learn something?  Holy crap!!!

He really learned that snow and ice and hail are all water.  

Who says he's incapable of learning?  It only took, what, 25-30 years to learn that ice and water are the same thing.

Another 3-4 centuries and he may be able to handle that populations evolve and not individuals or that 4000 < 650,000,000.

I was getting ready to post that.

I'd have to disagree here, what he has said is that according to us evilutionists snow is water.

Captain Joe America of the United States of Jesus doesn't appear to have conceded this demonstrable fact.

You do own a refrigerator-freezer, do you not Joe ?

Let's try a simple logic problem. (IDist in a vise strategy)

The piece of equipment shown below has three possible outputs. Water\Ice\Crushed Snow



Joe, what is the singular input that is required for the three possible outputs ?

(Spoiler Alert !)


Why THREE DIFFERENT outputs if they are all the same thing?

If you want ICE in your drink do you push the "water" button?

If you want a glass of water do you push the "ice" button?

As for your input, well where did that come from?

According to the shit just happens position it arrived on Earth as ICE in meterors, comets and asteroids.

IOW water is just melted ice.

Date: 2010/11/25 07:51:52, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 19 2010,15:55)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html

 
Quote
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards- then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?


Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.

What I don't get is if Joe is not religious, as he is quick to tell, why is he so invested in a global flood?

Umm I am not invested in any global flood. Oldmanwithhisheaduphisass kept bugging me about the global flood so I responded.

Date: 2010/11/25 07:53:58, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!

Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.

The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.

Date: 2010/11/25 07:58:23, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2010,18:39)
Hey Joe:  

One: I want a mathematical description of CSI, CSU, IC, whatever.  Keep in mind that I sit next to 8 mathematicians (3 with masters and 1 with a PhD (and another who's about to graduate with a PhD).  I can also get 3 people with PhDs in statistical analysis.  So don't worry your little head about the math.  I can take it.  If I can't I can get help.

Two:  Where's your answer to this:

Ask me a question about real science (not what you THINK (if that's even possible) and I'll provide you with so many citations, your pathetic little 486-66 will asplode.

hmmm... let me go ahead and start.

Evolution has been observed taking place in real world living organisms and documented doing so in peer reviewed scientific papers. From the literature on nylonase alone, we have this collection of scientific papers:

A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium sp. by Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, 174(12): 7948-7953 (December 1992)

A Plasmid Encoding Enzymes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation: Nucleotide Sequence And Analysis Of pOAD2 by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Yuji Koda, Tohru Maekawa, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Microbiology, 141: 2585-2590 (1995)

Biodegradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 54: 461-466 (26th May 2000)

Birth Of A Unique Enzyme From An Alternative Reading Frame Of The Pre-eEisted, Internally Repetitious Coding Sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 81: 2421-2425 (April 1984)

DNA-DNA Hybridization Analysis Of Nylon Oligomer-Degradative Plasmid pOAD2: Identification Of The DNA Region Analogous To The Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene by Seiji Negoro, Shunichi Nakamura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 158(2): 419-424 (May 1984)

Emergence Of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes In Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO Through Experimental Evolution by Irfan J. Prijambada, Seiji Negoro, Tetsuya Yomo and Itaru Urabe, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022 (May 1995)

Insertion Sequence IS6100 On Plasmid pOAD2, Which Degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, 176(4): 1197-1200 (February 1994)

No Stop Codons In The Antisense Strands Of The Genes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation by Tetsuya Yomo, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 89: 3780-3784 (May 1992)

Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene, nylC, On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium Strain Encodes Endo-Type 6-Aminohexanoate Oligomer Hydrolase: Purification And Characterisation Of The nylC Product by Shinji Kakudo, Seiji Negoro, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 59(11): 3978-3980 (November 1993)

Plasmid-Determined Enzymatic Degradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Tomoyasu Taniguchi, Masaharu Kanaoka, Hiroyuki Kimura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 155(1): 22-31 (July 1983)

The nylonase enzyme did not appear in these bacteria until the 1980s. Indeed, Nylon itself, and the oligomers associated with it that these bacteria metabolise, did not exist in the environment until 1935, which means that there was no reason for bacteria to possess a capability to metabolise these substances before that date. Moreover, the mechanism by which the nylonase gene came into being is well known and documented - it was the result of a frameshift mutation that generated a complete new gene that did not previously exist. This is merely one of many instances of evolution being observed taking place - the landmark paper in the field to date is this one:

Historical Contingency And Evolution Of A Key Innovation In An Experimental Population Of Escherichia coli by Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland and Richard E. Lenski, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(23): 7899-7906 (10th June 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Quote

Blount, Borland & Lenski, 2008 wrote:

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ‘‘replayed’’ evolution from different points in that population’s history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability.
Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.



Direct Experimental Tests Of Evolutionary Concepts

A Model For Divergent Allopatric Speciation Of Polyploid Pteridophytes Resulting From Silencing Of Duplicate-Gene Expression by Charles R.E. Werth and Michael D. Windham, American Naturalist, 137(4): 515-526 (April 1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO MATCH OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

Cavefish As A Model System In Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies, by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Genetics Of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction Of Some Of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration In Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

Initial Sequencing Of The Chimpanzee Genome And Comparison With The Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, 437: 69-87 (1 September 2005) - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chimpanzees are IDENTICAL

Origin Of The Superflock Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, 300: 325-329 (11 April 2003) - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

Phagotrophy By A Flagellate Selects For Colonial Prey: A Possible Origin Of Multicellularity by Martin.E. Boraas, Dianne.B. Seale and Joseph .E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology 12(2): 153-164 (February 1998 ) - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Protein Engineering Of Hydrogenase 3 To Enhance Hydrogen Production by Toshinari. Maeda, Viviana. Sanchez-Torres and Thomas. K. Wood, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79(1): 77-86 (May 2008) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION IN THE LABORATORY TO PRODUCE A NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCT

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Sexual Isolation Caused By Selection For Positive And Negative Phototaxis And Geotaxis In Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 56: 484-487 (1966) - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) - DETERMINATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE, FOLLOWED BY LABOARTORY REPRODUCTION OF THAT SPECIATION EVENT, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE LABORATORY INDIVIDUALS ARE INTERFERTILE WITH THE WILD TYPE INDIVIDUALS

Speciation By Hybridization In Phasmids And Other Insects By Luciano Bullini and Guiseppe Nascetti, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68(8): 1747-1760 (1990) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

The Gibbons Speciation Mechanism by S. Ramadevon and M. A. B. Deaken, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 145(4): 447-456 (1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL ACCOUNTING FOR OBSERVED INSTANCES OF SPECIATION

The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

This list is by no means complete, because over eighteen thousand critically robust peer reviewed papers were published in evolutionary biology in 2007 alone. The number of papers published in the subject since Darwin first published The Origin of Species probably exceeds a million or so, if someone were ever to perform the requisite accounting.



As I recall, you have an issue with abiogensis.  First, conflating evolutionary theory with abiogenesis is not only wrong, not only scientifically invalid, but why, as a common creationist fabrication, it too is regarded here with scorn and derision.

As for self replicating systems, if you think scientists have no clue about the formation of these, the following scientific papers will disabuse you of that farcical notion:

A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)

A Self-Replicating System by T. Tjivuka, P. Ballester and J. Rebek Jr, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 112: 1249-1250 (1990)

Catalysis In Prebiotic Chemistry: Application To The Synthesis Of RNA Oligomers by James P. Ferris, Prakash C. Joshi, K-J Wang, S. Miyakawa and W. Huang, Advances in Space Research, 33: 100-105 (2004)

Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)

Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)

Emergence Of A Replicating Species From An In Vitro RNA Evolution Reaction by Ronald R. Breaker and Gerald F. Joyce, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 91: 6093-6097 (June 1994)

Information Transfer From Peptide Nucleic Acids To RNA By Template-Directed Syntheses by Jürgen G. Schmidt, Peter E. Nielsen and Leslie E. Orgel, Nucleic Acids Research, 25(23): 4794-4802 (1997)

Ligation Of The Hairpin Ribozyme In cis Induced By Freezing And Dehydration by Sergei A. Kazakov, Svetlana V. Balatskaya and Brian H. Johnston, The RNA Journal, 12: 446-456 (2006)

Mineral Catalysis And Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalysed Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris, Elements, 1: 145-149 (June 2005)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of 30-50 Mer Oligonucleotides: Laboratory Demonstration Of Potential Steps In The Origin Of The RNA World by James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the biosphere, 32: 311-332 (2002)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of RNA Oligomer Formation In Aqueous Solution: A Model For The Prebiotic Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris and Gözen Ertem, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 115: 12270-12275 (1993)

Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal, 13: 2012-2019, 18th September 2007

Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science, 303: 1151 (20 February 2004)

Prebiotic Chemistry And The Origin Of The RNA World by Leslie E. Orgel, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39: 99-123 (2004)

Prebiotic Synthesis On Minerals: Bridging The Prebiotic And RNA Worlds by James P. Ferris, Biological Bulletin, 196: 311-314 (June 1999)

Ribozymes: Building The RNA World by Gerald F. Joyce, Current Biology, 6(8): 965-967, 1996

RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau and David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263 (17th September 1998)

RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science, 292: 1319-1325, 18th May 2001

RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

RNA Evolution And The Origin Of Life by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 338: 217-224 (16th March 1989)

Self Replicating Systems by Volker Patzke and Günter von Kiedrowski, ARKIVOC 5: 293-310, 2007

Self-Organising Biochemical Cycles by Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(23): 12503-12507 (7th November 2000)

Self-Sustained Replication Of An RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce, ScienceExpress, DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856 (8th January 2009)

Sequence- And Regio-Selectivity In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed Synthesis Of RNA by Gözen Ertem and James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 30: 411-422 (2000)

Synthesis Of 35-40 Mers Of RNA Oligomers From Unblocked Monomers. A Simple Approach To The RNA World by Wenhua Huang and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 1458-1459 (2003)

Synthesis Of Long Prebiotic Oligomers On Mineral Surfaces by James P. Ferris, Aubrey R. Hill Jr, Rihe Liu and Leslie E. Orgel, Nature, 381: 59-61 (2nd May 1996)

The Antiquity Of RNA-Based Evolution by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 418: 214-221, 11th July 2002

The Case For An Ancestral Genetic System Involving Simple Analogues Of The Nucleotides by Gerald F. Joyce, Alan W. Schwartz, Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 84: 4398-4402 (July 1987)

The Descent of Polymerisation by Matthew Levy and Andrew D. Ellington, Nature Structural Biology, 8(7): 580-582, July 2001

The Origin And Early Evolution Of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, The Pre-RNA World, And Time by Antonio Laczano and Stanley R. Miller, Cell, 85: 793-798 (14th June 1996)

The Origin Of Replicators And Reproducers by Eörs Szathmáry, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

The Roads To And From The RNA World[/i] by Jason P. Dworkin, Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 222: 127-134 (2003)

Transcription And Translation In An RNA World by William R. Taylor, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

That's thirty-three scientific papers covering the emergence of self-replicating systems and their behaviour in a prebiotic environment. If you think this is a problem for scientists, then you obviously never paid attention in proper science classes.

Finally, I'll ask you, what is the shortest RNA chain that can catalyze metabolic and/or cellular functions.  Until you answer that... go away.

Until you have read everyone of the papers I present and explained with references to other peer-reviewed work why the paper is wrong, you have no argument.  You are just a sad little man with delusions of adequacy.
BTW: Remember, the challenge is SCIENTIFIC questions... not questions that you THINK are scientific.

Speaking, of which, why do you keep challenging us, when you can't man up and answer one simple question about ID?

Fuck off, Chicken Little.

Hey ogre- you are an equivocating fuck, buddy.

"Evolution" isn't being debated, YEC and ID are OK with speciation and ID is OK with universal common descent.

Neither evidence for speciation nor evidence for UCD is evidence for any mechanism.

So perhaps you can find just ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes, can construct a functional multi-part system.

As for your abiogenesis pap- it looks like it takes quite a bit of engineering to get those results- the first paper is all about engineering the ribozyme- Joyce and Lincoln engineered their replicating RNAs.

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Date: 2010/11/25 09:40:26, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,08:17)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Joe,
Perhaps you should have actually looked at the references I provided that examine self catalysing networks of chemicals? That meets your requirement exactly.

Undirected chemical processes producing complex, functional networks. Exactly what you've been asking for all these years.  

Perhaps it's not surprising you avoided my questions with regard to the FSCI present in such networks. Who knows where such questions would lead eh? Perhaps even to dancing...

I looked at them and they do not do what you say they do.

IOW you are a liar.

Also I was talking about BIOLOGY and you failed to address that.

Date: 2010/11/25 09:41:08, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."

I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.

Date: 2010/11/25 09:43:32, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:12)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Hey ogre- you are an equivocating fuck, buddy.

"Evolution" isn't being debated, YEC and ID are OK with speciation and ID is OK with universal common descent.

Neither evidence for speciation nor evidence for UCD is evidence for any mechanism.

So perhaps you can find just ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes, can construct a functional multi-part system.

As for your abiogenesis pap- it looks like it takes quite a bit of engineering to get those results- the first paper is all about engineering the ribozyme- Joyce and Lincoln engineered their replicating RNAs.

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

You're ab-so-fucking-lutly correct.  ID is the discussion.

So where's the Evidence?
Where's the Mechanism?
Where's that math you said I couldn't do?*

Thanks for painting yourself into a corner dummy.  Now, whenever you say ANYTHING about evolution, then we're going to bring this quote up and berate you at length for being to stupid to remember what you've already said.

Finally, you why no one has bothered to refute ID in the literature.  Because they don't feel like wasting their time on a useless, hand-waving, vacuous statement that has as much connection to reality as my grandmother did to the USSR submarine forces.

ID isn't refuted, because there's nothing to refute.  You have to present a hypothesis, data, etc before it can be refuted.  So run along and go play with your little friends, while the adults actually do useful work.

Thanks
bye bye now


*Probably because I actually know how to do math.

Obviously your position doesn't have anything to refute.

It doesn't have a testable hypothesis.

However it does have assholes like you as perfect evidence that humans evolved from lower animals.

Keep up the good work!

Date: 2010/11/25 09:44:59, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 25 2010,08:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Yes. "Poof" is so much more satisfying in regard to the details.

Where are the citations demonstrating "poof", Joe?

I bet you think "poof" was the mecjanism that constructed your car. What's that you are only two and do not have a car?

Date: 2010/11/25 10:00:34, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:12)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Hey ogre- you are an equivocating fuck, buddy.

"Evolution" isn't being debated, YEC and ID are OK with speciation and ID is OK with universal common descent.

Neither evidence for speciation nor evidence for UCD is evidence for any mechanism.

So perhaps you can find just ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes, can construct a functional multi-part system.

As for your abiogenesis pap- it looks like it takes quite a bit of engineering to get those results- the first paper is all about engineering the ribozyme- Joyce and Lincoln engineered their replicating RNAs.

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

You're ab-so-fucking-lutly correct.  ID is the discussion.

So where's the Evidence?
Where's the Mechanism?
Where's that math you said I couldn't do?*

Thanks for painting yourself into a corner dummy.  Now, whenever you say ANYTHING about evolution, then we're going to bring this quote up and berate you at length for being to stupid to remember what you've already said.

Finally, you why no one has bothered to refute ID in the literature.  Because they don't feel like wasting their time on a useless, hand-waving, vacuous statement that has as much connection to reality as my grandmother did to the USSR submarine forces.

ID isn't refuted, because there's nothing to refute.  You have to present a hypothesis, data, etc before it can be refuted.  So run along and go play with your little friends, while the adults actually do useful work.

Thanks
bye bye now


*Probably because I actually know how to do math.

The evidence is all around and inside of you.

Design is a mecahnism as are targeted searches and built-in responses to environmental cues.

OTOH your position's mechansim is "shit just happens dude".

Date: 2010/11/25 10:02:55, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,09:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,13:53)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!

Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.

The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.

Bolding mine.

I think this is JoeJoe's major malfunction. It's the argument from personal incredulity....again.

Louis

Wow, that is lame even for an evotard.

Because I understand baraminology and you are ignorant of it that means I am engaging in an argument of personal incredulity?

Are you really that fucked up?

REALLY?

Date: 2010/11/25 10:03:58, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."

I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.

Ok Joe, if that's the case then you won't mind going into precise detail about why that is.

Please, with examples and references, be as specific as you possibly can.

Thanks.

Louis

No Louis why don't YOU go into detail on how they support your position.

Please use examples and references and be as specific as you can.

Date: 2010/11/25 10:44:36, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,10:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:03)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:00)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:41)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."

I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.

Ok Joe, if that's the case then you won't mind going into precise detail about why that is.

Please, with examples and references, be as specific as you possibly can.

Thanks.

Louis

No Louis why don't YOU go into detail on how they support your position.

Please use examples and references and be as specific as you can.

Sorry Joe, you claim that they are wrong.  You claim that you are smarter than every person who actually does real science.

You have an extraordinary claim... you show it.  We're not doing you work for you.

Why don't you show us that math that you claimed was beyond me?*

Why don't you show that you know what you're talking about instead of be an insulting ass.


* Oh wait, I know, because it doesn't exist.

1- I do not claim they are wrong

2- I do not claim to be smarter than any person who actually does real science.

3- You assholes have the extraordinary claim- that our existence is a mere accident- yet you cannot support it.

IOW Ogre you are just a fucking pathological liar.

As for supporting ID I have done that on many occasions.

However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that.

Date: 2010/11/25 10:49:21, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Nov. 25 2010,10:35)
Since nothing is going on over at Telic Thoughts, it looks like JoeG got bored enough to comment here.

Out of similar boredom I'm going to respond.

Back when I was still investigating ID I offered to debate JoeG on a level playing field, to compare his hypothesis to mine.  Since this took place on his Blog no one would be surprised that didn’t turn out well. While JoeG has modified a few things, his tactics and position remain the same, which is to define what he wants to argue against while claiming the default position.

His hypothesis can be “falsified” if, and only if, it is proven a metaphysical force is behind evolution.

JoeG’s tactic is pretty much the same as what Behe and Cornelius Hunter employ.

During the Dover trial, Behe testified that he concluded scientific papers did not contradict IC because a searched for the word “random” returned no hits.

Ironically, many ID proponents complain biologists are pushing a metaphysical concept, randomness, while simultaneously declaring there are absolutely no papers addressing it.

Ken Miller and most other scientists have no problem separating their metaphysical beliefs from the task of matching data to detailed scientific models.  And they do it without mentioning either God or randomness.

To preempt complaints about how a statistical observation of “random with respect to…” isn’t the same as claiming randomness was a cause, I understand that.

Apparently, JoeG either doesn’t understand that or is pretending he doesn’t.

Hi Dave! Are you still upset that you are a proven chump?

Do you think that your bullshit actually means something?

Ken Miller is a proven liar- are you proud of that?

Are you not aware of the fact that according to the theory of evolution all mutations and genetic changes are genetic accidents?

According to Monod humans are a mere accident.

Hawking says this universe is an accident.

IOW it is all metaphysical.

But anyways you are as clueless as ever...

Date: 2010/11/25 10:50:38, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:49)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:44)
[SNIP]

However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that.

Bolding mine.

Evidence or STFU.

Louis

The evidence is in the one thread I started.

The one I titled "ID is not anti-evolution" but some assface changed it.

IOW Louis you shut the fuck up you fuck...

Date: 2010/11/25 10:51:54, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,10:50)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,09:40)
 
I looked at them and they do not do what you say they do

What do they say then? I don't believe you are capable of reading, let alone understanding a single one.
         
Quote
.
IOW you are a liar.

Takes one to know one. The papers I referenced were about undirected formation of complex networks from interacting chemicals. Which is what you've been asking for all these years.
         
Quote

Also I was talking about BIOLOGY and you failed to address that.

Just like how you failed to address my question regarding when does chemistry become biology? What's the cut-off point Joe? In case you have not noticed, you are made of chemicals. Right now. Yes, that's right! Chemicals!
     
Quote
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

So when I provide a paper (multiple papers in fact) addressing blind undirected chemical processes producing complexity you retort that it's not about BIOLOGY. Yet once does not normally talk about BIOLOGY in terms of the chemicals involved, rather you talk about the biological entities themselves, and the chemicals are a somewhat secondary thing to the function under discussion.

Examples of undirected chemicals forming complex networks are not about BIOLOGY so they are not evidence against your position according to you, but you don't talk about BIOLOGY when you make the claim about chemicals.

Here, let me fix that for you:
     
Quote

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected biological processes producing anything.

If you say that, then that's easily dealt with. Hence your dishonest equivocation on CHEMICALS/BIOLOGY.

So, what is it Joe? What's your claim? That  undirected chemical processes cannot produce "anything" where "anything" is defined to be whatever you want it to be depending on the answer you are given?

If "Answer" = "Self-catalysing networks" then "Response" = "Not about biology".

Why ask about chemicals in the first place Joe then, if chemicals != biology?

Fuck you asshole it is up to YOU to make your case.

You have failed to do so.

Date: 2010/11/25 10:54:06, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:02)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,09:58)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,13:53)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
   
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!

Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.

The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.

Bolding mine.

I think this is JoeJoe's major malfunction. It's the argument from personal incredulity....again.

Louis

Wow, that is lame even for an evotard.

Because I understand baraminology and you are ignorant of it that means I am engaging in an argument of personal incredulity?

Are you really that fucked up?

REALLY?

I didn't say I was ignorant of it. Tut tut JoeJoe. Lose 10 points and go back to troll school.

Louis

Louis it is obvious that you are just plain ole ignorant.

Date: 2010/11/25 10:55:44, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,10:52)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:44)
However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that.

As opposed to your venue where you choose what posts to allow. And we can see how that's all worked out for you Joe.

One empty dead blog.


Bwhahahaha. You need us far more then we need you Joey!

Umm I don't need you.

I can watch South Park for my entertainment.

All you assholes are rolled up into Eric Cartman and Mr Hankey.

Date: 2010/11/25 10:57:55, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:50)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:49)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:44)
[SNIP]

However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that.

Bolding mine.

Evidence or STFU.

Louis

The evidence is in the one thread I started.

The one I titled "ID is not anti-evolution" but some assface changed it.

IOW Louis you shut the fuck up you fuck...

Link or it didn't happen JoeJoe. Bald assertions prove nothing. You make claim, you demonstrate claim.

Just remember, asking for evidence is not the same as advancing a counter claim. I know, I know, that's hard for you to grasp, but try, it might hurt at first, but eventually you might be able to manage that simple thought.

Louis

OK loser here it is:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=6633


Ya see Louis refuting fucked up evotards is easy...

Date: 2010/11/25 10:59:03, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,10:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:51)
Fuck you asshole it is up to YOU to make your case.

You have failed to do so.

I have. Then you stopped allowing my posts to go through on your blog. I can't make a better case then the papers I referenced, unless of course you want me to type them in one paragraph at a time into your blog.

IOW it's almost as if you are scared of an adult discussion.

IOW it's almost as if you simply don't read any paper that you are handed.

IOW it's almost as if your position is unchangeable. Like it's written down in a book and cannot be altered.

Liar- you never supported anything and all your posts have gone through.

Date: 2010/11/25 11:00:14, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,10:58)
Quote
However it isn't worth posting that here because


Any excuse eh Joe? Funny how it's "not worth" posting your killer evidence here, yet you are happy to post on this thread.

There's a word for that. Begins with H...


Yes I post but just to attack you fuck-head losers.

Buy a vowel you clueless twat...

Date: 2010/11/25 11:02:16, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,10:59)
Joe is immune to reason.  I really don't know what his deal is.

He doesn't claim to be a Christian, which is odd for a ID supporter.

So the only way to figure out if ID works is to show the evidence that supports it... which Joe is scared to do.

He still refuses to show the math... and I've been asking this for months.  His one response was 'you're too stupid to understand'.  

I also don't understand the papers showing show loop quantum gravity is a better choice than M-brane theory, but that doesn't stop Physicists from publishing them.

IOW, Joe, I have  better chance of getting ID support out of my cat's litterbox than from you.

How can I be afraid of doing something that I have already done?

I cannot force you to come to my blog and read it.

And I cannot force you to get "No Free Lunch" and look into the math.

But it is all there and all you have is to ignore it as if your wilfull ignorance is meaningful discourse.

Date: 2010/11/25 11:03:06, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,11:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:57)
OK loser here it is:

Oh Noes, Joe has his own thread where he can post whatever he wants as many times as he wants!

CENSORSHIP! EXPELLED!

Joe, if you don't like the freedom you have here then I suggest you crawl back to UD where critics are banned just as you prefer.

Thank you for proving that you are a pathetic little twat.

Date: 2010/11/25 11:03:38, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,11:01)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:59)
Liar- you never supported anything and all your posts have gone through.

Untrue. And you *know* it.

You are a liar and you know it- or perhaps you don't...

Date: 2010/11/25 11:04:24, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,11:02)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,11:00)
Buy a vowel you clueless twat...

Oh Noes! Evolution is on the ropes now! Joe said a rude word!

Hey, Joe, If ID is not anti-evolution how do we tell the difference between evolution and intelligent design?

Simple question.

Geez asswipe I have been over that already.

Do you really think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?

Date: 2010/11/26 14:48:33, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,11:14)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,11:02)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,10:59)
Joe is immune to reason.  I really don't know what his deal is.

He doesn't claim to be a Christian, which is odd for a ID supporter.

So the only way to figure out if ID works is to show the evidence that supports it... which Joe is scared to do.

He still refuses to show the math... and I've been asking this for months.  His one response was 'you're too stupid to understand'.  

I also don't understand the papers showing show loop quantum gravity is a better choice than M-brane theory, but that doesn't stop Physicists from publishing them.

IOW, Joe, I have  better chance of getting ID support out of my cat's litterbox than from you.

How can I be afraid of doing something that I have already done?

I cannot force you to come to my blog and read it.

And I cannot force you to get "No Free Lunch" and look into the math.

But it is all there and all you have is to ignore it as if your wilfull ignorance is meaningful discourse.

I went to your blog dumbass.

You're entire 'math' based argument was

'Stoopid' has more letters than 'Stupid' and is therefore more functionally accurate or some BS like that.

It's just like what remains of your pathetic life... wanking.  

IOW (cause i know how much you love that phrase): You and your pathetic attempts to support and unsupportable position are irrelevant.

You're entire 'math' based argument was

'Stoopid' has more letters than 'Stupid' and is therefore more functionally accurate or some BS like that.


Nope, not even close.

The math involved is the same math involved with measuring information in information technology- as in the number of bits being transmitted.

Date: 2010/11/26 14:51:26, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (darvolution proponentsist @ Nov. 26 2010,01:33)
<snip>

Here Joe, I'm going to let my 13yo niece respond to you. She insisted when I read her your reply and told her that you dodged her earlier question, for obvious reasons of your own eh Joe? Here she is, transcribed by myself for your enjoyment. (let's face it Joe, things may rumble around on the lower levels around here but you have the foulest mouth I've read to date around here)

                         
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:50)
Why THREE DIFFERENT outputs if they are all the same thing?


The outputs being different do not mean that they are different "things" or some other kind of matter.

                         
Quote
If you want ICE in your drink do you push the "water" button?


No Joe, because ICE is frozen water. So if you want frozen "solid" water you push the ICE button.

My online dictionary (Merriam-Webster) says this - ice - 1a - frozen water. Is the dictionary wrong ?

                   
Quote
If you want a glass of water do you push the "ice" button?


No Joe when you want "liquid" water you should push the WATER button. Are you a real person ? (we lol'd)

         
Quote
As for your input, well where did that come from?

According to the shit just happens position it arrived on Earth as ICE in meterors, comets and asteroids.

IOW water is just melted ice.


It sounds like you are playing word games Joe. How old are you ? I knew this before but we are studying things like this in the physics part of my science class and right now I am looking at the Wikipedia page about water. Please look at the first picture and read the words below it. Could you explain how it is wrong ? Bye Joe.

Wikipedia - Water

There you have it Joe, a smack down from a 13yo. You can choose not to believe it, but that was all her. I love that little girl, which is why I am now teaching her about people like you.

Look if you aren't even going to understand what I said then fuck yourself.

My whole point is there is a difference between ice, water and steam/ mist/ vapor.

That's it.

Now you have taken what I said and erected a straw man. So fuck yourself again, in front of your niece you freak.

Date: 2010/11/26 14:53:10, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 25 2010,18:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:53)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2010,09:21)
 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 19 2010,18:41)
He's also got a real thing for baraminology.  But, you know, he's no creationist. No siree!

Maybe he's referring to baraminology of a different kind.

The only "thing" I have for baraminology is that I understand it and it seems that is all the evidence supports.

But I am perfectly OK with alien colonization, as opposed to divine intervention.

JoeJoe, you are such an amusing little man.  You are incapable of learning, incapable of civility, and afflicted by delusions of grandeur.  

Happy Thanksgiving, by the way.

Dave dee-de-dee. Nice to hear from you again.

I see you are still full of bullshit and flase accusations. I guess that makes you a big-boy.

Your mommy must be very proud...

Date: 2010/11/26 14:54:33, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2010,11:11)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,09:40)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,08:17)
       
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Joe,
Perhaps you should have actually looked at the references I provided that examine self catalysing networks of chemicals? That meets your requirement exactly.

Undirected chemical processes producing complex, functional networks. Exactly what you've been asking for all these years.  

Perhaps it's not surprising you avoided my questions with regard to the FSCI present in such networks. Who knows where such questions would lead eh? Perhaps even to dancing...

I looked at them and they do not do what you say they do.

IOW you are a liar.

Also I was talking about BIOLOGY and you failed to address that.

What do they say Joe? I can't help but notice that you are strong on assertion but absent in detail.

Hi Stephen-

I understand that intellectual cowards don't do this but it is up to you to make your case.

Ya see morons if you chumps could make a case then the vast majority of people wouldn't reject your psoition.

Date: 2010/11/26 14:56:13, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 26 2010,14:52)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 26 2010,14:48)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,11:14)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,11:02)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,10:59)
Joe is immune to reason.  I really don't know what his deal is.

He doesn't claim to be a Christian, which is odd for a ID supporter.

So the only way to figure out if ID works is to show the evidence that supports it... which Joe is scared to do.

He still refuses to show the math... and I've been asking this for months.  His one response was 'you're too stupid to understand'.  

I also don't understand the papers showing show loop quantum gravity is a better choice than M-brane theory, but that doesn't stop Physicists from publishing them.

IOW, Joe, I have  better chance of getting ID support out of my cat's litterbox than from you.

How can I be afraid of doing something that I have already done?

I cannot force you to come to my blog and read it.

And I cannot force you to get "No Free Lunch" and look into the math.

But it is all there and all you have is to ignore it as if your wilfull ignorance is meaningful discourse.

I went to your blog dumbass.

You're entire 'math' based argument was

'Stoopid' has more letters than 'Stupid' and is therefore more functionally accurate or some BS like that.

It's just like what remains of your pathetic life... wanking.  

IOW (cause i know how much you love that phrase): You and your pathetic attempts to support and unsupportable position are irrelevant.

You're entire 'math' based argument was

'Stoopid' has more letters than 'Stupid' and is therefore more functionally accurate or some BS like that.


Nope, not even close.

The math involved is the same math involved with measuring information in information technology- as in the number of bits being transmitted.

Hardly true, cakeboy.

As if you would know tard-boy.

Unfortunately for you that is how uinformation is measured with respect to ID and Info Tech- by bits. And your ignorance isn't a refutation.

Date: 2010/12/01 07:19:05, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,19:49)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 29 2010,19:37)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,16:04)
Keeping Joe, erm, 'prolific', is bad for ID. And funny. My compassion ran out when he started trying to arrange meet-ups for fisticuffs.

That's strange. When JoeJoe starting trying to get the big boys out into the car park for a pagga, he became almost immeasurably funnier in my book.

I mean, seriously, that is how science SHOULD be settled. Everyone into the car park for a full on battle royale, last scientist standing gets his or her theory pronounced to be true.

Come to think if it, that is kinda how it works now....

Louis

He's got some new tard up:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ed.html

He seems to not understand the compression/Shannon part at all.

And your evidence for that is?

Date: 2010/12/01 07:20:47, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2010,22:20)
Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.)

Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable?

No Wes, if you have two copies of the same dictionary you do not have more information than if you just had one.

Ya see Wes the information is the same in both.

Your problem is you are wed to Shannon's version of information which isn't information at all.

Date: 2010/12/01 07:24:17, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2010,22:27)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2010,22:20)
Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.)

Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable?

These creationists (including Joe, Dembski, Meyer, et. al.) all have two major problems...

1) They don't know anything about Biology.  So they are forced to develop these analogies that really have no bearing on the situation.  Now, don't get me wrong, I've used analogies while teaching, it helps... but one really shouldn't try to overturn 150 years of science with a poor analogy.*

2) They do not, ever, take what they say through the logical continuation.  They say whatever it takes to make the current argument go away and wonder why we turn it around and slam them on it later.  Like Joseph at UD... his argument against me was that bacterial flagella could be descended from a common ancestor... wait... what?  Isn't that what we've been saying all along?




* I'm reminded of AFDave's argument that the biggest difference between a watch and a cell was that both are complex.**

** Yes, that's what he said... the DIFFERENCE was that BOTH were complex.

Unfortunately for Ogre I understand biology better than it does.

ID is around becaue evos have failed to support their claims. IOW you don't have any science to overturn.

And I did not say that on UD- you are mistaken.

Also ID is OK with universal common descent- even in the case of the BF- however ID says it evolved via a targeted search not an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie the theory of evolution.

How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Date: 2010/12/01 07:25:17, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 30 2010,20:45)
Color me one stunned eater of bamboo: he's got nothing coherent but insults, and not even particularly creative insults at that.


For those of you who actually visit this person's little corner of cyberspace, I thank you from the bottom of my furry heart for your sacrifice.


Joe, you probably don't care one whit for the opinion of a complete stranger, but I gotta tell you, son, you don't come across as someone who knows the material, understands the field, or is capable of having a rational discussion about it.  In fact, you come across like a strong argument against the side to which you cling limpet-like in the face of contrary evidence.


It would help if instead of merely asserting (for example) that you've read the papers suggested and that they don't say what they're supposed to say...but were also capable of explaining when asked to do so where the papers fall down and why, without also stooping to the sort of language that gives the likes of Mooney and Nisbet conniptions.


As it is, you appear to have nothing but urine, wind, and vinegar to help make your case.  That may work with your echo chamber peanut gallery on your blog, sir, but it doesn't fly out nearly so well out here in the wild.


The MadPanda, FCD

Nice projection...

Date: 2010/12/01 07:28:06, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,09:15)
Poor Joe is attention starved.

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....on.html

When I claim "You've never calculated the CSI of anything, nor has any other IDer." he replies

Quote
Unfortunately for RichTard Hughes I am exactly correct and have provided a reference to support my claim:


But 'forgets' to include any math or an example. whoopsy.

then we have

Quote
And Richtard- thanks for staying away. That makes my blog a better place. Traffic here has picked up in the past week...


Yes, your last 3 posts have a total of 2 comments. That's nearly a whole comment per post. Well done!

Most tools I found can't count Intelligent Reasoning's traffic as it is too low, but this one

http://bizinformation.org/us/www.intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com

suggests under 10 visitors a day. And I'm probably 4 of them.

My blog's stat page counter says 200 visits per day.

Over 4,000 last month.

Go figure...

Date: 2010/12/01 07:31:28, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 27 2010,18:17)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,11:50)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:49)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,16:44)
[SNIP]

However it isn't worth posting that here because the people who run this septic tank have already changed my words- IOW this is a dishonest venuee and you chumps are proof of that.

Bolding mine.

Evidence or STFU.

Louis

The evidence is in the one thread I started.

The one I titled "ID is not anti-evolution" but some assface changed it.

IOW Louis you shut the fuck up you fuck...

Why are you such an asshole?  Seriously.  What made you into such an angry, bitter, nasty, mean-spirited, hateful person?  Why does the thought that you were not made all speshul-like upset you so much?  You have the same viceral, violent reaction to universally accepted evolutionary processes that your run-of-the-mill Bible-soaked fuckwit does.  Why is this?  If you hate this board and the people on it so much, why don't you just fuck off?  When I don't want to read something, I put it down.  If I don't want to watch a program, I turn off the television.  If I wanted to remain an ignorant shitbag I'd advocate ID/creationism instead of real science and call everybody who agrees with universally accepted science a liar and whatnot whilst failing to read the papers which support it this universally accepted science.  But that's just me.  Your motives are you own, I suppose.

And more projection!

I see you clowns can spew one evotardgasm after another but you don't seem to be able to produce any positive evidence for your position.

Why is that?

You morons can't even understand that ID is not anti-evolution!

Geez wolfie all you have is anger and spittle...

Date: 2010/12/02 18:59:33, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 01 2010,16:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 01 2010,07:20)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2010,22:20)
Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.)

Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable?

No Wes, if you have two copies of the same dictionary you do not have more information than if you just had one.

Ya see Wes the information is the same in both.

Your problem is you are wed to Shannon's version of information which isn't information at all.

The bit about being wed to Shannon is a swing and a miss. In critiquing Dembski, we made extensive use of Algorithmic Information Theory.

OK, Joe, now take your claim to the world of biology: Do you expect a parent species and its tetraploid daughter species whose genome is simply copied twice to be morphologically indistinguishable? Doesn't your stance on the information content of copies demand that conclusion?

Algorithmic Information Theory - nope that doesn't do it either. Complexity measures do not deal with meaning/ function.

ASs for polyploidy- any new body parts, new body plans or new protein machinery?

Or are things just a little bigger well because there is more stuff in the package?

IOW Wes just make your point.

Ya see my stance would say there are not two times the body parts, two bodies and twice the protein machinery.

Date: 2010/12/02 19:01:42, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 02 2010,17:28)
Hermagoras,

Reasoning with Joe is a waste of time.

You can't be reasonable.

That's the problem right there.

Date: 2010/12/09 12:51:17, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 08 2010,10:22)
Awww, Joe keeps replying on his irrelevant blog like some deranged JAD:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ng.html

Joe, your blog is not a viable forum. few read it, posts take ages to be promoted and you censor. This is where the conversation is.

Edited.

My blog gets between 150-200 visits a day.

And there isn't any conversation here- just a bunch of losers in a circle jerk.

You assholes STILL don't have any evidence that genetic errors can accumulate in such a way as to construct functional multi-part systems.

All you have are a bunch of promissory notes- that and an immense ignorance of information.

Date: 2010/12/09 12:53:31, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 09 2010,02:37)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2010,16:26)
Joe is such a sad bastard I almost feel sorry for him.

I guess he's that guy that walks into a room and when everybody else happens to walk out he fails to connect that with his arrival.

Joe's a bad smell!




When you are replying to your own comments on a thread abandoned because of you....

That is sad.  And a bit hilarious - what is the "metaphysical recourse" of radiometric dating?  I was unaware that physics is not scientific but philosophical.

The metaphysical recourse is there are plenty of other explanations for the rad dating than just an old earth.

One being the Earth is made up of old debris, as in the rad isotopes were decaying in that debris for billions of years before aggregating to form the earth.

Date: 2010/12/09 12:55:11, Link
Author: Joe G
As for how long this will last- (answering the question that is the title of this thread)- well until one evo steps up and actually starts producing positive evidence for your claims.

IOW it will last a long, long time...

Date: 2010/12/10 09:10:04, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 09 2010,13:30)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 09 2010,12:51)
And there isn't any conversation here- just a bunch of losers in a circle jerk.

But YOU have had to COME HERE for dialogue, Joe.

But YOU don't have anything HERE nor ANYWHERE for a dialogue, Rich.

That is the point. You don't hveay positive evidence for your position. All you can do is attack anyone and everyone who questions you.

Date: 2010/12/10 09:13:00, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,08:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 09 2010,12:55)
As for how long this will last- (answering the question that is the title of this thread)- well until one evo steps up and actually starts producing positive evidence for your claims.

IOW it will last a long, long time...

Evidence for OUR claims or evidence for what YOU think are our claims?

You are correct. I do not know what you intellectual cowards claim.

I do know what the theory of evolution claims an that is the diversity of living organisms arose from some unknown popultaion(s) of single-celled prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents/ errors/ mistakes, ie blind, undirected chemical processes.

And there isn't any evidence for nor a way to test that claim.

Date: 2010/12/10 09:21:13, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,06:30)
Joe G:
 
Quote
[RB] doesn't understand that ALL of those base pairs are required by the organism and therefor are part of the specified complexity, ie the complex specified information.

Ah.

So, Joe, with respect to just THOSE base pairs, those bearing the specified complexity, ie. the complex specified information,

Does counting the pairs and multiplying by two yield a measure of specified information contained therein? Or does it yield a measure of the "carrying capacity" of a sequence of that length?

Or both? Or neither? Or something else you're about to make up?

Because, remove the specification - the "meaning" you claim to be interested in -  and the number doesn't change. Add specification, and the number doesn't change. Given that, in what sense does YOUR calculation reflect the specification of your specified information, ie. your complex specified information?

The answer, of course, is that it reflects that specification in no sense whatsoever, and your figure is a useless triviality.

The number doesn't reflect specification. The specification is part of the observation.

We make observations and then try to figure out what we are observing- science.

What's there- how does it work- how did it come to be this way- science.

So we have this number- X and since there is a specification it is SI. hen we try to determine HOW that SI came to be.

Are you with me?

Dembski has written that CSI = 500 bits of SI and that is a threshold no purely physical process can reach. That is basedon probability along with observations and experiences.

So we find a biologically functioning system, do my informal measurement to ge a number. All the while trying to determine ho it came to be.

Some day we may observe purely physical, stochastic processes spontaneously producing SI. Then your position will have something to start with.

Right now it seems you are stuck with mere complexity.

Date: 2010/12/10 09:22:04, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,09:17)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:13)
And there isn't any evidence for nor a way to test that claim.

You could looks for examples and mechanisms for mutation and how they effect fitness, like Lenski did, Joe.

But he was of course just doing ID research without knowing it...

Rich,

You are clueless. Lenski's experiment in no way supports your position.

Date: 2010/12/10 09:23:15, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,09:11)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:10)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 09 2010,13:30)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 09 2010,12:51)
And there isn't any conversation here- just a bunch of losers in a circle jerk.

But YOU have had to COME HERE for dialogue, Joe.

But YOU don't have anything HERE nor ANYWHERE for a dialogue, Rich.

That is the point. You don't hveay positive evidence for your position. All you can do is attack anyone and everyone who questions you.

You still have to come here I see. No action on your blog? You might not want to be a dick about moderation, then.

I don't have to come here.

I just come here to stir the pot and to witness the fact that you asshioles still have nothing a you are proud of it.

Date: 2010/12/10 09:25:32, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,09:17)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:13)
And there isn't any evidence for nor a way to test that claim.

You could looks for examples and mechanisms for mutation and how they effect fitness, like Lenski did, Joe.

But he was of course just doing ID research without knowing it...

He may as well be a Creationist- ie baraminologist- searching for the limits of variation within the Kind.

That is what his experiment supports- variations within a Kind.

Date: 2010/12/10 09:28:30, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 09 2010,15:52)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 09 2010,12:55)
As for how long this will last- (answering the question that is the title of this thread)- well until one evo steps up and actually starts producing positive evidence for your claims.

IOW it will last a long, long time...

Joe,

You often remind us that ID isn't anti-evolution, so I guess this means that you're an "evo" too.

No, because being an evolutonist is believing that the diversity of living organisms from some unknown population(s) of sngle-celled organims is due to acumulations of gnetic accidents/ erors/ mistakes- spontaneous, stochastic, blind, undirected procsses.

Date: 2010/12/10 09:30:49, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,09:27)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:22)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,09:17)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:13)
And there isn't any evidence for nor a way to test that claim.

You could looks for examples and mechanisms for mutation and how they effect fitness, like Lenski did, Joe.

But he was of course just doing ID research without knowing it...

Rich,

You are clueless. Lenski's experiment in no way supports your position.

Let's start simple:

Does it show random genetic changes can effect an organism's ability to survive in certain environments?

What methodology did they use to determine the cause of the changes?

You do realize that neither ID nor baraminology say that genetic accidents do not happen. They just don't appear to be able to do very much Rich. No construction.

Date: 2010/12/10 09:35:18, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:29)
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

Fuck you Ogre- I have provided references to support my claim about the theory.

OTOH all you can do is baldly claim I am wrong?

What the fuck is wrong wth you?

<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/11/blind-undirected-chemical-processes.html><b>blind, undirected chemical processes</b></a>

<href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/01/accumulating-genetic-accidents-and.html><b>accumulation of genetic accident</b></a>

Date: 2010/12/10 09:38:43, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:29)
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

blind, undirected chemicl processes

Date: 2010/12/10 09:40:47, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,09:37)
Hey, Dr. Baramin G, how many Kinds are there?  Is there a difference between kind and Kind?

How about ice and water?  One Kind, Two Kinds or All Kinds?

If Spock was half-Human was he really "Out of his Vulcan kind?"

Inquiring kinds want to know.

Kind regards,

Science- determining how many Kinds there were is the role of science.

When Linne was searching for that answer and came up with binomial nomenclature, was he doing science?

Yes ice and water are still two different things.

Date: 2010/12/10 09:41:54, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:29)
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

Tell your pals to read "No Free Lunch" and have at it.

Date: 2010/12/10 10:49:15, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:43)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:38)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:29)
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

blind, undirected chemicl processes

I was about to go off on how you couldn't read, but I realized that you could read more than one sentence at a time.

I'm sorry, I'll type slower for you.

Now repeat after me: SELECTION IS NOT RANDOM (well, maybe in the case of your parents...)

I will type slowly for you-

SELLECTION IS A RESULT- an output with 3 inputs each driven by chance.

Natural selection is BLIND, MINDLESS and MECHANISTIC.

is natural selection really non-random? No.

Date: 2010/12/10 10:50:44, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:44)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:29)
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

Tell your pals to read "No Free Lunch" and have at it.

Read it.  It doesn't explain the 500 bits either.

Hmmm... interesting, when we challenge you for information, we get "Read this book".

When we say, "Read this paper" you say no.

Liar, he explains the 500 bits as being beyond the UPB.

And BTW I have read the papers. There isn't any paper that supports the claims of the ToE.

And it is obvious you are ignorant of what the ToE claims

Date: 2010/12/10 10:52:40, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,10:04)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:21)
The number doesn't reflect specification.

That's right. And that is all I've been saying. Thank you for that concession.

Your claim that your calculation is a measure "specified information" in any sense that actually meaningfully reflects specification is false.

It is a measure of specified information for all the reasons provided.

1- It is a measure of information

2- It pertains to a function/ specification.

Date: 2010/12/10 10:55:47, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,10:07)
Let me explain where 500 bits comes from, as Joe can't.

Note - This only works for spontaneous assembly.

Demsbki puts the universal probability bound at 10^150. This is the odds of something being achievable based on 'time and stuff' resources of the universe. We get it from 10^80 number of elementary particles in the observable universe, 10^45 maximum number physical transitions (from plank time) and 10^25 age of the universe (he's got the math wrong, that's not 6000!).

The best book is NOT "No Free Lunch" as Joe says but "The Design Revolution":

"All the probabilistic resources in the known physical universe cannot conspire to render remotely probable an event whose probability is less than this universal probability bound.” (Dembski, The Design Revolution, p. 87)


Add the exponents and you get 10^150

Now if you want to express this digitally (in binary) then the closest fit is 2^500. (3.2734E+150)
So that's where 500 comes from.

As we're pointing folks to papers and books, Check out this:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

Using a starting random base sequence of 256 bases, and a population of 64, Schneider’s program generated (using random mutation and natural selection with no human intervention) a “CSI” binding site in 704 generations.

and 64 aint a big population. Perhaps he used all of Joe's briancells.

Have a nice day.

Edited.

Rich,

Do you know what the word "spontaneous" means?

And I didn't say NFL was the best book.

As for Schnieder he has been refuted so often- where does that 256 bit sequence come from Rich?

Date: 2010/12/10 10:57:37, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,09:43)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:30)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,09:27)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:22)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,09:17)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:13)
And there isn't any evidence for nor a way to test that claim.

You could looks for examples and mechanisms for mutation and how they effect fitness, like Lenski did, Joe.

But he was of course just doing ID research without knowing it...

Rich,

You are clueless. Lenski's experiment in no way supports your position.

Let's start simple:

Does it show random genetic changes can effect an organism's ability to survive in certain environments?

What methodology did they use to determine the cause of the changes?

You do realize that neither ID nor baraminology say that genetic accidents do not happen. They just don't appear to be able to do very much Rich. No construction.

Thanks goodness mutation has *selection* to help him, then! For the little E-coli critters, it was fairly major, in the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, they were much more viable in a new environment. Powerful.

Think-Puff-CSI-Zerowavelength-meddling was not observed.

So EVO 1, ID 0.

Selection doesn't help anything Rich. It isn't the magical ratchet you believe it is.

so equivocation 1 evolutionism 0

Date: 2010/12/12 11:16:10, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 10 2010,13:44)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:52)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,10:04)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:21)
The number doesn't reflect specification.

That's right. And that is all I've been saying. Thank you for that concession.

Your claim that your calculation is a measure "specified information" in any sense that actually meaningfully reflects specification is false.

It is a measure of specified information for all the reasons provided.

1- It is a measure of information

2- It pertains to a function/ specification.

"It pertains to a function/ specification."

Could you be any more vague and non-rigorous?  No?  I didn't think so.

Hi David Kellogg-

Only evolutionists are more vague and non-rigorous.

Ya see asshole you still don't have any evidence for construction of protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

Date: 2010/12/12 11:19:40, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,17:47)
Joe {quote}Well let's look at what natural selction is-

   “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition


   “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley[/quote]

My hypothesis has more supporting evidence.  Joe can't read but a few sentences at a time.  Here, a mere 4 sentences away from what Joe quoted:

Quote
At the opposite end scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random-but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!


Nice quotemine there Joe 'Coward' G.  You gonna answer my questions on an unmoderated board, coward?

Ogre,

You are a mindless drone. UC Berkley just sez natural selection is non-random. Dawkins just sez natural selection is non-random.

Yet natural selection is an output driven by three random inputs.

You say you know something about math yet you are too stupid to understand that.

Are you going to answer my questions?

Do you have ANY evidence for mutations constructing novel protein machinery?

If you don't then your "theory" is bullshit.

Date: 2010/12/12 11:24:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,11:24)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,11:52)
It is a measure of specified information for all the reasons provided.

Ah.

- "The number doesn't reflect specification."

Yet,

- "It is a measure of specified information."

I see.

The NUMBER doesn't reflect the specification- just as 210 doesn't reflect my weight until I add that to it.

However you can do it- you can demonstrate that the number and all that comes after it is totally meaningless just by producing positive evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can account for it.

Yet you can't so you are foeced to flail about.

Date: 2010/12/12 11:26:22, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Dec. 12 2010,11:22)
Could you please motherfucker try to be fucking polite and stop insulting everybody? If you've been raised in a fucking pigsty, not everyone else has!

Jebus! This guy reminds me more and more of nutcase Mabus!

Hey fuckhead THIS is a cesspool.

And I am glad I remind you of a nutcase. That should be the way it is- irrational assholes like you should find rational people to be nutcases...

Date: 2010/12/12 11:30:25, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,11:01)
Quote
Do you know what the word "spontaneous" means?


Instantaneous, all at once. Which is what this math requires.

 
Quote
As for Schnieder he has been refuted so often- where does that 256 bit sequence come from Rich?


Would you care to summarize for us, or will you point me to AIG? Why is there something and not nothing? OMG OMG OMG Dezine!!!!11111one.

Edited

No Richtard- spontaneous does not mean Instantaneous, all at once. You are a dolt.

spontaneous:

1: proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint
2: arising from a momentary impulse
3: controlled and directed internally : self-acting <spontaneous movement characteristic of living things>
4: produced without being planted or without human labor : indigenous
5: developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
6: not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural

Geez Rich are you that stupid that you can't even read a dictionary?

How can anyone have a dialogue with someone as obviously ignorant as you are?

Date: 2010/12/12 11:34:09, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,11:04)
Quote
Selection doesn't help anything Rich. It isn't the magical ratchet you believe it is.


Bald assertions 1, facts 0.

How come GAs work so well then, Joe? If Selection doesn't help anything, GAs wouldn't converge to optimal or locally optimal solutions. Whoops. There it is, reality getting in the way of your Bible Koran again.

GA's work because they were DESIGNED to work.

Nature doesn't select Richtard. Whatever survives to reproduce survives to reproduce.

IOW Natural selection is an oxymoron- and you are too stupid to understand that.

Date: 2010/12/12 11:36:33, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,13:54)
Hey Joe,

 What's the function of a bacterial flagellum?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 Can a bacterial flagellum that's missing one of the two motor proteins function?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 What's a reversion and why does it blow your concept of mutations and information completely out of the water?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

1- motility

2- Perhaps, it depends on which proteins

3- No it doesn't do anything to that argument.

Ya see moron you have to first understand the argument before you can refute it.

Date: 2010/12/12 11:39:25, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 12 2010,11:36)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:16)
Only evolutionists are more vague and non-rigorous.

But ID is not anti-evolution, remember? Your words, not mine. So by definition ID is vague and non-rigorous?

 
Quote

Ya see asshole you still don't have any evidence for construction of protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans via an accumulation of genetic accidents.


If you remember Joe, I conceded that to you for the sake of argument. So where we are now is you need to tell me what *your* evidence for the origin of protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans is. Let's hear all about your evidence for the Intelligent Design of all those things.

oldmanhashisheaduphisass again.

ID is not anti-evolution but it is antui-the blind watchmaker, ie what the ToE posits.

Geez asshole I have only explained this to you several times.

And the evidence for ID I have already wrote about on my blog.

So if you are going to concede that your position is nonsense then I have nothing else to say.

Date: 2010/12/12 11:41:04, Link
Author: Joe G
The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

Date: 2010/12/13 20:03:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 13 2010,10:17)
New Tard:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ll.html

The trouble is, Joe, you seem to need to know if something is designed or not before you calculate the numbers to tell us if it's designed.

[tard] IOW, HOW YA LIEK THEM APPELS? [/tard]

No, you dipshit.

You just need to know if it has functionality. Then you measure the specified information.

You still don't know if it is designed or not. If the 500 bit threshold is reached that reason enough to infer design.

And then if you tards actually get off your ass and produce positive evidence - not targeted searches like EV and weasel- for your position you may some day demonstrate that blind, undirected chemical processes can construct something from scratch.

Date: 2010/12/13 20:06:53, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 13 2010,09:09)
Hey Joe, some more questions for your lame ass 'theory'.  You were wrong on an epic scale about the last set and you blatantly avoided the one before that (interestingly, since the central tennet of ID is to be able to determine things like that*

Take the following sequence

AUG UUU UGA

******************************
the following point mutation occurs

AUG UUC UGA

Is this a loss of information?  

*******************************
Soon afterward this mutation occurs

AUG UUU UGA

Is this a loss of information?

*******************************
Now, the following mutation occurs

AUG CAC UUU UGA

Is this a loss of information?

*******************************
Let's go back to our original sequence

AUG UUU UGA

what if this mutation occurs

AUG UUC UGA

Is this a loss of information?
***********************************

There you go Joe, four easy questions for a mind that can solve the DaVinci Code in 149 minutes.



* I refer you to what ID is in their own words
 
Quote

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
my emphasis to direct your attention to the important bit

Hey asshole, science is not done in a fucking vacuum nor on a forum.

Your sequences are meaningless- ie no specified information at all.

And the other "question" with sequences is bogus also- again not in a vacuum nor on a forum.

And you cannot even demonstrate either sequence can arise without agency involvement.

THAT is the whole issue- you can't even get started.

Date: 2010/12/13 20:19:09, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2010,15:19)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:36)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,13:54)
Hey Joe,

 What's the function of a bacterial flagellum?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 Can a bacterial flagellum that's missing one of the two motor proteins function?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 What's a reversion and why does it blow your concept of mutations and information completely out of the water?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

1- motility

2- Perhaps, it depends on which proteins

3- No it doesn't do anything to that argument.

Ya see moron you have to first understand the argument before you can refute it.

1) Wrong moron... the true function of the flagella is excretion, mobility is a secondary function.  Geez, you're stupid.

2) Which one?  Damn you are dumber than dog spit.  There are only two motor proteins  

3) Then you have no argument either because the information content of all the mutations is the same.  

Ya see moron, you first have to understand before anything...

Well, he answered, to bad he's shown himself to be a complete imbecile.

BTW: It's your hero's contention that bacteria flagella have no function without both MotA and MotB.  This is wrong on TWO levels.  First, the flagella maintains a secretion function without either AND if MotB is missing, then MotA and several other proteins take over.

IOW (I know you love that one): Irreducible complexity is wrong.

Let me ask you Joe... Does ID depend on mutations?

1- Reference that that bit of spewage - bacterial flagellum and motility- not excretion.

2- Reference for the removal of the motor proteins and still have either flagellum function (not likely) or any other function.

There isn't any evidence a TTSS can evolve into a BF nor a BF can evolve into a TTSS.

3- Your ignorance of the argument is not a refutation

Date: 2010/12/13 20:23:38, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 13 2010,13:14)
Joe G:
             
Quote
Reciprocating Bill seems to think that since the number of bits is the same for a specified/ functional sequence of say 250 nucleotides and a random/ non-functional sequence of 250 nucleotides, that the NUMBER doesn't tell us anything.

Neither the number nor the calculation that yields the number tell us anything about specification. As you indicate, the calculation yields the same number regardless of the presence, absence, or degree of specification present in a sequence. Therefore your claim that it is a measure of the specification present within the sequence is false.
             
Quote
The difference is one is a measure of specified complexity and the other of mere complexity.

Your calculation reflects no such difference. Rather, you claim that a sequence contains specification independently of the results of your calculation, and THEN claim that your calculation discloses the "quantity" of that specified information.

Again, this is exactly analogous to devising a thermometer that always reads "very hot" (a stick on which "very hot" has been painted will do) and then claiming it provides an accurate measure of temperature so long as it is applied only to very hot objects. For that to work you would need to know by means other than your thermometer that the object was indeed very hot. By then, of course, the thermometer serves no purpose and yields no further information: you already know the object is very hot. The fact that it continues to read "very hot" regardless of the temperature of the objects to which it is applied should arouse suspicion that it is not measuring temperature at all.

Oddly enough, the fact that your calculation yields the same number regardless of whether specification is present in a given sequence fails to arouse similar suspicions for you.  
   
Quote
The bottom line is a number is just a number unless there is a context.

And it is your calculation that fails to provide the required context. That it is why it is a useless triviality that discloses nothing whatsoever about the degree of specification that may be present in a given sequence.

Hey asshole- I never said it was the measure of the specification present within a sequence.

I said it is a measure of the specified information- because you are measuring specified information.

Date: 2010/12/27 10:19:09, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 27 2010,09:21)
Joe_g?!?!?

Quote
Hi Ogre- I am Joe G and have always posted here as Joe G.

But anyway “evolution” is not being debated and there isn’t ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT a functional multipart system.


No one thinks that a blind, undirected process can construct a functional multi-part system.  This is another strawman.  

Evolution IS undirected in the sense that there is no final goal.  Of course, Joe takes this to mean a different thing that is obviously intended.

Evolution IS NOT undirected in the sense that it is just random things happening and, suddenly we get a human.

Joe, you've been confusing this for a long time.  You have been corrected multiple times.  If you truly are an 'honest researcher', then it is time to stop using this tactic.  Thank you.

Furthermore, you have been given many, many papers that show that this does indeed occur.  You don't like them, that's not our problem.  You have yet to discuss the actual evidence presented in any of the papers that have been provided to you.

Quote

IOW you evotards are still clueless and still unable to produce positive evidence for your position.


Yep, something like 100,000 peer-reviewed papers per year is no evidence at all... of course... design has no evidence at all.  None.  And you sure as heck haven't even attempted to provide any.  

Quote

It is funny watching you evotards equivocate as if your equivocation is some sort of argument.

Hopefully Matzke will be called to testify at the next “ID trial”…


Pot, meet kettle.

How about answering these questions coward.

Do you have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design?

Do you even understand why these questions are important?

Do you know Demsbki’s math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved?

Do you understand why these question are important?

Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can’t be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don’t accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say… why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let’s get on with it.

You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.

Ogre you are a lying piece of shit as not one IDist has said that ID is religious.

Also I have supported the claim the the ToE posits blind, undirected chemical processes. OTOH you have never supported the claim that my claim is a straw man.

Your ignorance of the ToE is not a refutation.

So until you stop with your cowardice there isn't anything else to say.

Date: 2010/12/27 10:22:01, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 27 2010,09:42)
JoeG

Quote

ID is NOT anti-evolution- are you chumps really that ignorant?


You might want to talk to your fellow design proponesists about that.  Because that's all they want to do is attack evolution.

Did you know that not a single scrap of positive evidence was present in the Dover Trial?

Meyer's Signature in the Cell was "one long argument for ID" had zero evidence in it.  Just a long speal about how evolution can't to this or that.

All the books by Wells, Behe, etc that only attack evolution.

Not a single piece of positive evidence for ID.

I think it is you that is confused about what ID is.  Not surprising, you sure don't know what evolution is.

SO how about it?  Answer some questions... coward.

Wrong again asshole- IDists argue against the blind watchmaker thesis having sole dominion over evolution only.

what is ID and what is it challenging

IOW Ogre you are just another ignorant fuck...

Date: 2010/12/27 10:38:57, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 27 2010,10:31)
JoeG

Quote
Well your ignorance is not a refutation, that is for sure.

ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution.

That much is clearly spelled out in most, if not all, pro-ID literature.


But your ignorance is support?? Funny how that works.

You need to read up on ID then buddy.  Dembski has said (paraphrase) "ID is the Logos Theory of JOhn stated in information terminology"   Since he's a YEC, he believes in a literal 6 day creation and independent creation of al living things.

Why don't you go argue with him about that?

Quote

Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID.


Then why won't you provide any of it on request?

Quote
Ogre- just because you are ignorant doesn’t mean I am attacking a straw man.

And you haven’t pointed out anything that also has a valid reference to support it. OTOH I have supported my claims about the theory of evolution.

Also I have never said nor implied that if the blind watchmaker tesis was refuted that ID would win. IOW once agin you are lying.


blah blah

That second statement is a bald faced lie.  I've provided you over 70 papers and you made some generic comments about 1 of them.  The comments were mainly, "but it doesn't show x" and not a specific criticism of the papers themselves.

I have never said anything about the blindwatchmaker... IOW, you are lying about me.

Quote
Just read a biology text book- you will find things like “proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing etc.” all of those require knowledge, just as all computer programs require knowledge.


Really, If DNA is software then show me

1) an IF-Then statement in DNA.

2) Show me a counting loop in DNA.

3) A computation in DNA

4) Tell me, is the designer just incompentant?  I mean, why is a huge amount of our 'software' useless junk?  Why are there viral codes imbedded in our DNA?

What's really funny is that if you insist on making this argument, you're actually supporting common descent as well.



Sad really... as far as your pathetic attempts to drum up the count on your blog... nah.  State it here.  I refuse to associate with a foul mouthed coward who can't support his own argument.

1- Dembski isn't ID and what he said still does not make ID religious. You don't have any idea what religion is, do you?

2- I have produced positive evidence for ID it is all on my blog along with a new pro-ID peer-reviewed paper

3- The ToE is all about the blind watchmaker- or are you saying that you know more about it than Richard Dawkins and a host of other evolutionary biologists? You are the liar.

4- Junk DNA has been abandoned

5- I never said DNA is software- it contains/ stores software, that is my claim.

6- Not one of your provided papers deals with the debate- you are clueless.

Date: 2010/12/27 10:41:01, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 27 2010,10:33)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 27 2010,10:19)
Ogre you are a lying piece of shit as not one IDist has said that ID is religious.

Also I have supported the claim the the ToE posits blind, undirected chemical processes. OTOH you have never supported the claim that my claim is a straw man.

Your ignorance of the ToE is not a refutation.

So until you stop with your cowardice there isn't anything else to say.

As far as the Dembski quote. He signed (if not wrote) a document that says, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Demsbki: "If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."
- William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.

"Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." - Intelligent Design's Contribution To The Debate Over Evolution: A Reply To Henry Morris, 2005

"But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done - and he's not getting it." - address given at Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999

"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God."
- William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July / August 2000.

Of course, don't forget that Dembski just came out as a Young Earth Creationist, so of course, EVERYTHING (according to him) is the direct, not indirect, result of the Judeo-Christian God.

Dembski did not come out as a YEC. You are just a moron for thinking so.

Dawkins sed that the ToE alloows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Provine has said that the ToE leads to atheism.

Date: 2010/12/27 10:42:41, Link
Author: Joe G
The evotardgasms are reaching monumental proportions.

First I was told I was wrong by saying evolution is an accumulation of genetic accidents.

So I provided the references that support what I said and the evotards just seem to quiet down for a while. But they never acknowledge their mistake.

Oh well.

Now it appears those evotards are back into evotardgasm form when I mention "blind, undirected chemical processes" as being the proposed mechanism of evolution.

So here is the evolutionary references to support my claim:

Eric B Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models
in systematics", [i>Biological Journal of the Linnean Society</I> (1998), 63: 1–49:
<blockquote>
Evolution is rife with examples of such apparent conflict because it is an inherently dualistic process. This dualism is obvious in Darwin’s enduring characterization of evolution as descent with modification. This dualism is manifested in a mechanism that is prospectively <b>blind</b>, but retrospectively capable of organic improvement. page 4 (bold added)</blockquote>


Then we have:
<blockquote>
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”</blockquote>


and:

<blockquote>
“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” <a href=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE6Nonrandom.shtml><b>UCBerkley</b></a></blockquote>


From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I read- <i>Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought</i>, (edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.

<blockquote>
Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.- page10</blockquote>


<blockquote>
The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- <b>those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells</b>. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that <b>mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force</b>. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro</blockquote>


<a href=http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html><b>What Causes Mutations?</b></a>:
<blockquote>
Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals


2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.</blockquote>

<a href= http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr....;Causes of Mutations</b></a>:
<blockquote>
1. DNA fails to copy accurately
Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are "naturally-occurring." For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.


2. External influences can create mutations
Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.</blockquote>


<a href=http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409><b> DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation</b></a>:
<blockquote>
DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are—not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. <b>Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate.</b> In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer. (bold added)</blockquote>

?
And finally:

The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative

September 9, 2005
<blockquote>
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.</blockquote>


IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don't even understand their own position.

And that is beyond pathetic...

Date: 2010/12/27 12:04:33, Link
Author: Joe G
Properly formatted:

The evotardgasms are reaching monumental proportions.

First I was told I was wrong by saying evolution is an accumulation of genetic accidents.

So I provided the references that support what I said and the evotards just seem to quiet down for a while. But they never acknowledge their mistake.

Oh well.

Now it appears those evotards are back into evotardgasm form when I mention "blind, undirected chemical processes" as being the proposed mechanism of evolution.

So here are the evolutionary references to support my claim:

Eric B Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models
in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49:
Quote

Evolution is rife with examples of such apparent conflict because it is an inherently dualistic process. This dualism is obvious in Darwin’s enduring characterization of evolution as descent with modification. This dualism is manifested in a mechanism that is prospectively <b>blind</b>, but retrospectively capable of organic improvement. page 4 (bold added)



Then we have:
Quote

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”



and:

Quote

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UCBerkley



From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I read- Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, (edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.

Quote

Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.- page10


Quote

The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- <b>those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells</b>. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro



What Causes Mutations?:
Quote

Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals


2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division


[url= http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr....]Causes of Mutations[/url]:
Quote

1. DNA fails to copy accurately
Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are "naturally-occurring." For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.


2. External influences can create mutations
Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.



DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation:
Quote

DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are—not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate. In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer. (bold added)


?
And finally:

The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative

September 9, 2005
Quote

Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.



IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the internet poseurs don't even understand their own position.

And that is beyond pathetic...

Date: 2010/12/27 12:11:47, Link
Author: Joe G
1- Dembski isn't ID and what he said still does not make ID religious. You don't have any idea what religion is, do you?

Who is ID then, Joe? It certainly isn't you/

No one person is ID.

2- I have produced positive evidence for ID it is all on my blog along with a new pro-ID peer-reviewed paper

No you haven't - and you don't understand what 'positive evidence is'. It isn't bad anology, or "I don't think evolution can do that"

Yes I have and it isn't my fault that you are too stupid to understand any of it.

3- The ToE is all about the blind watchmaker- or are you saying that you know more about it than Richard Dawkins and a host of other evolutionary biologists? You are the liar.

I don't know, Joe. Per (1) are you saying you know more about ID than Dembski?

Non sequitur

4- Junk DNA has been abandoned

I must have missed that one. So by extentension, 100% of the genome is used. Sounds like something that could be falsfied by knockout studies. Whoops, another ID fail.

Another ignorant response. No Tardo your extension is wrong and knockout studies don't show the DNA is junk.

Stratus builds redundant systems- knock out one and the system still runs.

5- I never said DNA is software- it contains/ stores software, that is my claim.

ID by analogy, part 3482154

Except it ain't an analogy. It is a fact.

6- Not one of your provided papers deals with the debate- you are clueless.

Not that you read them.

And end with a projection.

Please tell me then why hasn't any of those papers been used by Coyne et al to refute Dr Behe's recent peer-reviewed paper?

I will tell you why- because they do not support your position.

Date: 2010/12/27 12:14:55, Link
Author: Joe G
In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism
-------------------------------------------------------------
The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false
--------------------------------------------------------
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism
-------------------------------------------------------------------
‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’
------------------------------------------------------------

All of those are from Will Provine

Date: 2010/12/27 13:51:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2010,12:19)
[quote=Joe G,Dec. 27 2010,12:11][/quote]
1- Dembski isn't ID and what he said still does not make ID religious. You don't have any idea what religion is, do you?

Who is ID then, Joe? It certainly isn't you/

No one person is ID.

>> Try and use this thought on point three where you couldn't make the leap and typed "non sequitar"

2- I have produced positive evidence for ID it is all on my blog along with a new pro-ID peer-reviewed paper

No you haven't - and you don't understand what 'positive evidence is'. It isn't bad anology, or "I don't think evolution can do that"


Yes I have and it isn't my fault that you are too stupid to understand any of it.

>> Repost you BEST positive case here. Clue - it can't contain any evolution bashing.

3- The ToE is all about the blind watchmaker- or are you saying that you know more about it than Richard Dawkins and a host of other evolutionary biologists? You are the liar.

I don't know, Joe. Per (1) are you saying you know more about ID than Dembski?

Non sequitur

>> See (1) Cupcake.

4- Junk DNA has been abandoned

I must have missed that one. So by extentension, 100% of the genome is used. Sounds like something that could be falsfied by knockout studies. Whoops, another ID fail.

Another ignorant response. No Tardo your extension is wrong and knockout studies don't show the DNA is junk.

Stratus builds redundant systems- knock out one and the system still runs.

>> Before I bend you over the barrel (I'm sure you'd like that) let's be perfectly clear. You maintain that all DNA has function? Yes or No.

5- I never said DNA is software- it contains/ stores software, that is my claim.

ID by analogy, part 3482154

Except it ain't an analogy. It is a fact.

>>Naked asserted!

6- Not one of your provided papers deals with the debate- you are clueless.

Not that you read them.

And end with a projection.

Please tell me then why hasn't any of those papers been used by Coyne et al to refute Dr Behe's recent peer-reviewed paper?

I will tell you why- because they do not support your position.

>> I've not been following Behe. I just don't find him credible anymore, and haven't since this:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....and.php

Well Richtard I don't find you credible at all.

You can't support your position and can only attack straw man versions of ID.

Date: 2010/12/27 13:54:09, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2010,12:21)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 27 2010,12:14)
In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism
-------------------------------------------------------------
The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false
--------------------------------------------------------
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism
-------------------------------------------------------------------
‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’
------------------------------------------------------------

All of those are from Will Provine

"No one person is ID." - But Will Provine IS NDE! I'm sure 1.1 billion Catholics would disagree with his statements.

I didn't say Provide was the NDE. But I know I can find more evos that agree with him than disagree.

Also I would bet most catholics do not accept the ToE. For that I was part of a poll that asked 10,000 catholics throughout New England- 7613 said they accept that God Created. Go figure.

Date: 2010/12/27 13:57:36, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,12:26)
Nice of you to drop your muppet, Joey.  Not that he'd have the courage to come here anyway...

ID is just a Trojan Horse version of creationism, full stop.  Protest as loud and as long as you like, but that's the plain and simple truth.  It's the proverbial warthog with a lot of lipstick.

You have nothing solid upon which to build a case.  Nobody in ID has a solid case.  They never will, because they aren't interested in doing the actual legwork and labwork required.  All they have is rhetoric.  I would go so far as to call them parasites, because they build their spin by leeching off of the hard work of actual scientists whose toil, effort, and discipline deserves more reward than being ganked by a bunch of spin doctors.

But go ahead and tell yourself that you know better than people who work with this stuff day in and day out.  Shriek as many insults as are needed to assuage your puny ego.  In the end, the only thing that matters is the evidence.

This may come as a shock to you, Joey, but there's this thing called the real world.  It's the bits of life that don't vanish when you stop believing in them.  Scientists work with it, not with circles in the sky and imaginary friends (yes, even those quantum physics types who are always on about uncertainty--they have the experiments to support their weirdness).


The MadPanda, FCD

I don't have a muppet you ignorant tool.

That is the problem with you assholes. You make an unwarranted inference and you stick to it as if it has some merit.

You can say ID is just a trojan horse for Creation but you don't have anything to support the claim.

Yes the real world, which you and you ignorant minions say is just an accident (Hawking). Too bad you don't have any positive evidence for that claim nor do you have any way to test that claim.

IOW you don't have any science on your side. And you sure as hell don't have any positive evidence. Otherwise you would post it along with a hypothesis.

Date: 2010/12/27 14:05:34, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,13:59)
Joey, ID is a straw man.  It has nothing behind it.  It's smoke and mirrors and wishful thinking all the way down.

There is nothing of substance to it.  It has no weight, no meat, no oomph.  It's all word games.

Let's be clear: verifiable evidence of a designer, be it someone's invisible friend or aliens, would be earth-shattering.  The discoverer would be assured not only of a Nobel (at the least) but also of everlasting fame among human scientists for overturning a huge amount of incredibly well supported work.  That nobody has yet to come forth with such an astounding find is telling.


The MadPanda, FCD

Wrong again- ID is based on observations and experiences. It can be tested.

OTOH your position has nothing but "anything but design no matter what!"

You don't have any positive evidence for your position. If you did you chumps would be posting it.

Google "The coherence of an engineered world" another pro-ID peer-reviewed paper

Date: 2011/02/03 16:16:20, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 27 2010,14:15)
Joe, as I've asked you for a thousand times... why don't you tell us EXACTLY, in great excruciating detail what ID is... and then stick with your definition.

Then we don't have to argue about what it is and what it isn't.

Go ahead, we'll wait, but we won't hold our breath.  You haven't posted it yet after months of asking for it.

Why are you asking me? You should know what ID is if you are going to aggressively try to refute it.

Shit you don't even appear to understand your position. Perhaps you should focus on that and stop with your literature bluffing.

But anyway, as for ID we can start out with:

What is Intelligent Design?

Quote
Quote
Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.-- William A. Dembski




Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece.



ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., "Darwinism, Design and Public Education", pg. 92):

Quote

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.



IOW ID claims that Complex Specied Information, not Shannon's "mere complexity", is an indicator of agency involvement.

IOW just as archaeologists claim that artifacts require an artist and just as forensic scientists claim a murder requires a murderer, ID claims that CSI requires a designer.


So science asks the question:

"How did it come to be this way?" and ID claims that agency involvement was required. So to refute that inference all you have to do is actually produce some positive evidence for your position.

ID's position is not all mutations are the accidents/ errors/ mistakes your position baldly claims.

But heck you can't even answer a few basic questions:

It appears the theory of evolution is devoid of content = empty. The evidence for that is found in the following avoided questions:

1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


Those are a few of the thousands questions evos need a testable hypothesis for.

So why are evos so afraid of those questions? I say it is because by attempting to answer them they will expose their position as the bullshit it is.

Date: 2011/02/03 16:17:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 20 2011,03:30)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 19 2011,20:44)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 19 2011,18:45)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 19 2011,14:57)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 19 2011,17:34)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick

     
Quote
Tick is the common name for the small arachnids in superfamily Ixodoidea that, along with other mites, constitute the Acarina. Ticks are ectoparasites (external parasites), living by hematophagy on the blood of mammals, birds, and occasionally reptiles and amphibians. ...


     
Quote
...Ticks are blood-feeding parasites that are often found in tall grass where they will wait to attach to a passing host

I have removed ticks from myself and from cats.
The buggers have no preference for watermelon.

Maybe they just like the colour red.

Could be many factors that might draw them to it - even the texture of the watermelon rind might do it, for all I know.  Or maybe Joe misidentified the insects as ticks.

Given Joe's towering intellect, I wouldn't be surprised if he misidentified watermelon seeds as ticks.

No, you moron. There are no seeds in watermelon RINDS.

Date: 2011/02/03 16:20:15, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (khan @ Jan. 19 2011,16:57)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 19 2011,17:34)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick

 
Quote
Tick is the common name for the small arachnids in superfamily Ixodoidea that, along with other mites, constitute the Acarina. Ticks are ectoparasites (external parasites), living by hematophagy on the blood of mammals, birds, and occasionally reptiles and amphibians. ...


 
Quote
...Ticks are blood-feeding parasites that are often found in tall grass where they will wait to attach to a passing host

I have removed ticks from myself and from cats.
The buggers have no preference for watermelon.

Well I have removed ticks from myself, my cats, dogs and the deer I was about to clean.

Those were ticks on the watermelon rinds. And you are a clueless dolt...

BTW how is the rat-fucking going for ya?

Date: 2011/02/03 16:25:14, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 22 2011,00:31)
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 21 2011,22:10)
More fun with Joe and arachnids over at UD:    
Quote
A spider web is natural in that it exists in nature. However nature, operating freely, did not produce it.

I would say a spider web was a product of the intentional actions of a spider.

IOW when I see a spider web I know a spider had been there and left traces of its involvement behind.


Nice to see "nature, operating freely" make an appearance. I also love the presentation of "spiders make spider webs" as though it were some masterful feat of design detection.


So a spider making a web isn't "nature, operating freely"?  WTF?? Spiders aren't natural?  How do you know spiders have "intent"? What part of the spider brain have you been studying?

.. and if you'd never seen or heard of a spider, what then?

You wouldn't just say "this looks designed" and refuse to investigate further, or simply attribute it to a Magic Web Deity, would you?

I dunno, maybe you would.

Me, I'd say "Whoa, how'd this get here!?"

... and would discover it was perfectly natural. Made by something perfectly natural, by natural means.

See, Joe, how this is different from "Sometime, somewhere, somehow, somebody did something"?

No, a spider is not nature, operating freely. Are you really that stupid?

Do you think my car is from nature, operating freely too?

As I told the asshole over on UD if you ever get any evidence that nature, operating freely can produce a living organism from non-living matter then you will have a point. Until then all organisms are agencies and they usually leave traces of their involvement behind.

Date: 2011/02/03 16:27:14, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (phhht @ Feb. 03 2011,16:24)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2011,16:17)
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 20 2011,03:30)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 19 2011,20:44)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 19 2011,18:45)
     
Quote (khan @ Jan. 19 2011,14:57)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 19 2011,17:34)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick

       
Quote
Tick is the common name for the small arachnids in superfamily Ixodoidea that, along with other mites, constitute the Acarina. Ticks are ectoparasites (external parasites), living by hematophagy on the blood of mammals, birds, and occasionally reptiles and amphibians. ...


       
Quote
...Ticks are blood-feeding parasites that are often found in tall grass where they will wait to attach to a passing host

I have removed ticks from myself and from cats.
The buggers have no preference for watermelon.

Maybe they just like the colour red.

Could be many factors that might draw them to it - even the texture of the watermelon rind might do it, for all I know.  Or maybe Joe misidentified the insects as ticks.

Given Joe's towering intellect, I wouldn't be surprised if he misidentified watermelon seeds as ticks.

No, you moron. There are no seeds in watermelon RINDS.

Yo rectal itch,

Is your definition of "information" "bits per second?"  If not, what is it?

My definition of "information" is the same as the dictionaries' definitions- ie the same as I have writing about on my blog.

IOW your ignorance is duly noted.

Date: 2011/02/03 16:29:32, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 11 2011,13:28)
Guys, Guys, Guys.

Joe is Joe
and IDGuy is Jim.
They're friends and work together, but for some reason Joe hasn't given "Jim" posting privileges on his blog yet.

On this recent Telic Tards thread, "Jim" is the only commentator:

http://telicthoughts.com/is-there-plenty-of-time-for-evolution/

2 Days later Joe posts this:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2011....on.html


Bonus: Ive just found Telic Tard's 'banned list':

http://telicthoughts.com/the-banned-list/

I'm not on it, even though I am.

Wrong again, as usual.

We don't work together. And Jim doesn't need to post on my blog, we talk to each other.

But anyway nice to see that ypou are still a fucking asshole...

Date: 2011/02/03 16:30:16, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (khan @ Feb. 03 2011,16:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2011,17:21)
Attention starved Joe G is back! Are you a moderator at TT yet? I stopped reading your blog.

Ignorant blood fucking tard shit...

Yes, you are an ignorant blood sucking tard shit.

So what?

Date: 2011/02/03 16:36:34, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (phhht @ Feb. 03 2011,16:33)
Quote (phhht @ Feb. 03 2011,16:24)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2011,16:17)
 
Yo rectal itch,

Is your definition of "information" "bits per second?"  If not, what is it?

My definition of "information" is the same as the dictionaries' definitions


And that definition is what, in terms of bits?

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

The bit is just one way of measuring the amount of information present.

Date: 2011/02/03 16:37:18, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (khan @ Feb. 03 2011,16:33)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2011,17:30)
Quote (khan @ Feb. 03 2011,16:28)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2011,17:21)
Attention starved Joe G is back! Are you a moderator at TT yet? I stopped reading your blog.

Ignorant blood fucking tard shit...

Yes, you are an ignorant blood sucking tard shit.

So what?

So how fucking short is you tick-fucked penis?

You fuck ticks and rats?

You bastard...

Date: 2011/02/03 16:43:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2011,16:40)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2011,16:36)
Quote (phhht @ Feb. 03 2011,16:33)
 
Quote (phhht @ Feb. 03 2011,16:24)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2011,16:17)
 
Yo rectal itch,

Is your definition of "information" "bits per second?"  If not, what is it?

My definition of "information" is the same as the dictionaries' definitions


And that definition is what, in terms of bits?

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

The bit is just one way of measuring the amount of information present.

What are the others, Joe?

Be comprehensive.

Still waiting for you to answer these:

1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


Be comprehensive...

Date: 2011/02/07 14:51:32, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 04 2011,08:40)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 03 2011,14:43)
Still waiting for you to answer these:

1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


Be comprehensive...

GI Joe always resorts to "I'm rubber, you're glue," when backed into a corner.

What corner am I backed into?

Obviously you can't answer those questions and that proves my point- your position is not scientific.

Date: 2011/02/07 14:53:20, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 05 2011,15:53)
Quote

Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.

IMNSHO, a different code would not by itself make something inedible, especially if it used the same acids for its code. Now if it lacked stuff that humans need, then some other dietary source would be needed along with it, to supply that.

Henry

That's the point- you don't know if a different genetic code would use any of the needed nutrients.

Date: 2011/02/07 14:54:11, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 06 2011,01:33)
I might be going on a limb here, but wouldn't our digestive system have evolved to process whatever these other genetic codes or proteins are? At pains of becoming extinct? In which case there would be no one to ponder over that very deep* phylosophical** statement of Joe's...



*not
**not

True "evolution" can do anything....

Date: 2011/02/08 08:06:34, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 07 2011,15:03)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 04 2011,23:46)
Hey JoeTard, did you see this?

NASA spots scores of potentially livable worlds

         
Quote
An orbiting NASA telescope is finding whole new worlds of possibilities in the search for alien life, spotting more than 50 potential planets that appear to be in the habitable zone.

In just a year of peering out at a small slice of the galaxy, the Kepler telescope has discovered 1,235 possible planets outside our solar system. Amazingly, 54 of them are seemingly in the zone that could be hospitable to life — that is, not too hot or too cold, Kepler chief scientist William Borucki said.


54 planets in the habitable zone, and 9 of them are approximately Earth-sized.

Is that IDiot astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez you worship going to write a sequel, i.e.  "The 54 Privileged Planets" ?

:D  :D  :D

Bumped for JoeTard, who suddenly has gone mighty quiet on the issue.    :p

Just because there are planets in the habitable zone does not mean they are habitable.

IOW once again occam's asshole proves it is full of shit and ignorant.

Date: 2011/02/08 08:12:18, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 07 2011,15:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 07 2011,14:54)
True "evolution" can do anything....

and ID can't even define itself.  Which is the point Joe.

You can point out all the problems of evolution.  In fact, you could disprove evolution right here and now... it still won't mean that Intelligent Design is true.

Why do you run from my questions Joe?  

Tell me, enlighten me, please.  What is the difference in complexity between a designed thing (gene, protein, sequence, organism) and a non-designed thing of the same kind and length?

How do you measure the complexity?  Just tell me the process and I'll do it myself.  What units do we use?  How do you quantify interactions between amino-acids?

What values of complexity indicate design?  What values indicate evolution?  Why?

Why can't you answer these Joe?  

Why, because ID is useless.  You can say whatever you want about evolution.  ID is still useless and an epic waste of time.

Until you, and your brethern ID proponents, defend your own ideas, ID will remain, as it has been for 150 years, nothing more than wanking.

I predict you won't say anything about ID.  You will attack me personally and you will attack evolution.  It's OK Joe, I know that ID is useless and impossible to define by design (get it?  By design...).  I know you can't answer those questions.  

Dembski can't answer them, Meyer can't, Behe can't, Wells can't, and you, poor Joe, can't either.

So act like a jerk, attack me, attack evolution, but you know and I know and everyone here knows that you cannot defend ID.  You can't even define it.

You do know that ID requires a deity right Joe?  I know you claim not to be a Christian... so how do you deal with the fact that the designer must be a deity?  I think you should point out a link where you attack another pro-ID person for saying that ID requires a deity... maybe Dembski?

Yet ID has been defined.

Also part of the design inference is to demonstrate that chance and necessity just are not up to it. IOW you are ignorant of how the design inference works.

As for not answering questions, well that would be you.

You won't even try answering the three questions I posted here. You are a coward- an Addled Tard Behaving Cowardly.

ID does not require a deity. BTW ID is not about mere complexity. IOW your ignorance runs deep and you blame me. Strange.

You do realize that all you have to do to refute ID is to actually step up and start providing positive evidence for your position.

Attacking me, other IDists and ID is not going to provide positive evididence for your position. If ID didn't exist you still wouldn't have any positive evidence.

So what the fuck is your problem? What are you waiting for?

Date: 2011/02/08 08:13:24, Link
Author: Joe G
Still waiting for you to answer these:

1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


Be comprehensive...

Date: 2011/02/08 11:27:56, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 08 2011,09:27)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,08:06)
   
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 07 2011,15:03)
   
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 04 2011,23:46)
Hey JoeTard, did you see this?

NASA spots scores of potentially livable worlds

               
Quote
An orbiting NASA telescope is finding whole new worlds of possibilities in the search for alien life, spotting more than 50 potential planets that appear to be in the habitable zone.

In just a year of peering out at a small slice of the galaxy, the Kepler telescope has discovered 1,235 possible planets outside our solar system. Amazingly, 54 of them are seemingly in the zone that could be hospitable to life — that is, not too hot or too cold, Kepler chief scientist William Borucki said.


54 planets in the habitable zone, and 9 of them are approximately Earth-sized.

Is that IDiot astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez you worship going to write a sequel, i.e.  "The 54 Privileged Planets" ?

:D  :D  :D

Bumped for JoeTard, who suddenly has gone mighty quiet on the issue.    :p

Just because there are planets in the habitable zone does not mean they are habitable.

But JoeTard, the major theme of Gonzalez' brain fart was that Earth is special because it's in the "Goldilocks" zone.  It's "privileged."  But now we know dozens more in the same "privileged" zone, and many of them are Earth sized.

Guess we're not as special as we thought.  Except you Joetard.  You're thooper-dooper special.  :D

It isn't just the zone you moron. The zone is one of about TWENTY criteria that have to be met to have a habitable planet capable of supporting complex metazoans.

You didn't read the book and don't have any clue as to what they claimed.

Date: 2011/02/08 11:30:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 08 2011,10:07)
[quote=Joe G,Feb. 08 2011,08:13][/quote]
 
Quote
Still waiting for you to answer these:

1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


Be comprehensive...


Still waiting for you to define genetic accidents since the term is not used in any scientific discipline concerning organisms. Also waiting for you to reveal where these "premises" come from since they don't come from evolutionary theory.

LoL! According to evolutionary biologists all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes.

And according to the theory of evolution these accidents accumulate in a variety of ways.

IOW Robin you are a moron.

Date: 2011/02/08 11:34:20, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 08 2011,09:05)
As predicted, Joe can't explain ID.  

As predicted Joe attacks the person that reminds him he can't explain ID.

As predicted Joe attacks evolution because he can't support ID.

I told you Joe, I'm waiting for you to teach me the process.  This is the perfect chance.  I've got a bunch of mathmaticians and psycometricians that aren't working very hard right now.  (It will get very busy about end of March, so get with it please.)

I can't do the ID work unless you tell me what it is Joe.  It's that simple, I can't know anything about ID unless you tell me.  You see, all your sites (as OldMan has pointed out) all say different things.

And of course, ID requires a deity.  It's been proven to be so.

Let's say the designer of all life on Earth was a time-travelling alien cell-biologist.  Well, who deisgned him?  Or why does life on Earth need to be designed and not the alien?

Unless we live in the matrix, then no physical, natural entity could construct the universe.  Yet, many ID proponents use physcial constants and the 'design' of the universe as evidence for design.  Tell me, Joe, who could design our universe without being a part of our universe.  I assure you that no living thing in our universe could have designed.

Therefore, any designer you wish to invoke must be deital.  I don't know why you haven't figured this out, you're soooo much smarter than me.

BTW: You still haven't answered these simple questions that prove that ID can't  exist.

1) What's the difference in complexity between a designed and a non-designed thing of the same type?

If you can't answer that one Joe, then there is no possible way for you to tell which things are designed and which are not.

2) How do you measure complexity (process, units, values for design and non-design)?  

If you can't answer that, then you can't even begin to answer number 1.

I explained ID in this tread last week. I have explained ID multiple times on my blog.

In this thread I have linked to Stephen Meyers explaining ID- you said you weren't interested in that.

You are an ignorant moron.

The Design Inference- How It Works

But again all that is moot because if you can't support your position attacking ID with your wilfull ignorance won't help.

Date: 2011/02/08 11:40:04, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 08 2011,10:08)
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 08 2011,09:31)
Joe.  You can work an example of the EF in action, right?
Joe.  You can work an example showing the information content of something (your choice), right?
Joe.  You do understand the importance of examples in teaching, right?

Good.  I knew you'd be the right choice for Science Instructor of the Year.

Now link to some places I can forward that show your awesomeness in action.

No, Joe can't do that.  I've been asking him to do this for months, if not a year.  

Instead of making one decent post explaining the process, he yells at me.  Then he links to a post on his blog where he counts the letters in the word 'aardvark' or something like that.

He's an intellectual coward pretending to be smart because he's too scared to admit the truth.

What I don't understand is why he insists on ID, when he's not a Christian.  First of all, denying one is a Christian, when one is a Christian is a sin. (Remember poor Peter, the rock upon which the church was built... except that it wasn't... anyway.)

Honestly, though, I don't really care.  I just like that fact that Joe refuses to answer the simplest of questions.

Hey Joe, repeat after me:

Even if I disprove evolution, it doesn't mean ID is correct.  Only positive evidence for ID can show ID is correct... and I don't have any.

Repeat a million times until you figure it out.

Hey asswipe- ID isn't anti-evolution so why would ID try to disprove evolution?

You are a clueless fuck.

And positive evidence for ID has been presented. It is so compelling long-time atheist Anthony Flew was convinced.

So just because you can run around with your head up your ass and act like an addled tard behaving cowardly, that doesn't mean shit to the rest of the world.

Date: 2011/02/08 11:45:20, Link
Author: Joe G
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I read- <i>Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought</i>, (edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.

Quote
Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.- page10



Quote

The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro



<a href=http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html><b>What Causes Mutations?</b></a>:
<blockquote>
Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals


2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.</blockquote>

<a href= http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr....;Causes of Mutations</b></a>:
<blockquote>
1. DNA fails to copy accurately
Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are "naturally-occurring." For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.


2. External influences can create mutations
Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.</blockquote>


<a href=http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409><b> DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation</b></a>:
<blockquote>
DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are—not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. <b>Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate.</b> In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer. (bold added)</blockquote>

?
And finally:

The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative

September 9, 2005
<blockquote>
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.</blockquote>


IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don't even understand their own position.

And that is beyond pathetic...

Date: 2011/02/08 11:46:58, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 08 2011,09:31)
Joe.  You can work an example of the EF in action, right?
Joe.  You can work an example showing the information content of something (your choice), right?
Joe.  You do understand the importance of examples in teaching, right?

Good.  I knew you'd be the right choice for Science Instructor of the Year.

Now link to some places I can forward that show your awesomeness in action.

Still waiting for examples that support the claims of your position.

I know I can link to places that show your assholeness in action...

Date: 2011/02/08 11:49:02, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 07 2011,13:05)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 06 2011,03:24)
In case anyone is still following  silent banninations at UD, aiguy, who was tying the usual suspect in knots in this thread  (his last comment) reports elsewhere being put in perpetual moderation.            
Quote
I posted a couple times over at uncommondescent, but apparently offended somebody and now I'm on banished to interminable "hold for moderation" purgatory.

aiguy not only tied them up in knots but then proceeded to skewer the lot of em.

chunkdz:          
Quote
The fact that the code of life is globally optimal (given plausible pre-biotic conditions), along with the fact that it hasn't changed significantly in 4 billion years (it's hard to improve upon a global optimum) tells us that the designer of life either got really lucky right off the bat or had learned how to design an optimal code. Evolution is not in the business of making a globally optimal anything.

I think you are looking at the problem as a designer rather than a forensic investigator. 4 billion years into the program we are looking for traces and clues, not hard examples of the designer in action. Or as Mike Gene says, "the faint echoes of teleology".


Yet only the other day  Gordon was arguing that cows could not have evolved. So hardly "the faint echoes of teleology".

This wiki page on Aurochs says the designer must have been fiddling round in the plains with them not very long ago at all. Like Gordon says
       
Quote
Others might want to point out that the body plan involved is well beyond the FSCO/I threshold, so there is a serious question whether we have a mechanism per Darwinist evolutionary theory, that would substantiate that claim, much less observed evidence that would make it conclusive as “fact.”


Or is it still "just a cow"?

It's all so confusing! That's the thing about ID. You can study at one school but beware should you transfer just before the exams! Same answers written down, but you fail because you changed schools!

It's a shame that there's no central venue where they can all make their case, support with evidence and then all agree to get behind the party that makes the best case and follow that evidence to where it leads.

Oh, er. Um. Yes.

I was part of that thread with aiguy and he is as clueless as you are.

And IDists have made our case and supported it with evidence.

OTOH your position doesn't have anything. If it did ID wouldn't even exist. Strange how that works...

Date: 2011/02/15 15:17:59, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 08 2011,12:11)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,12:30)
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 08 2011,10:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,08:13)

   
Quote
Still waiting for you to answer these:

1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


Be comprehensive...


Still waiting for you to define genetic accidents since the term is not used in any scientific discipline concerning organisms. Also waiting for you to reveal where these "premises" come from since they don't come from evolutionary theory.

LoL! According to evolutionary biologists all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes.

And according to the theory of evolution these accidents accumulate in a variety of ways.

IOW Robin you are a moron.

Joey babe

never heard any biologist say that.  are you lying, AGAIN, you naughty little weasel

What Causes Mutations?[/a]:
Quote

Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals


2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.




[url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr....b]
:
Quote

1. DNA fails to copy accurately

Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are "naturally-occurring." For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.


2. External influences can create mutations

Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.


DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation:
Quote

DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are—not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate. In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer. (bold added)


Genetics and Evolution - Mutation

Quote

The most common naturally occurring mutations arise simply as accidents.



Mistakes, errors, accidents. Are you fuckers really that dense that you don't understand that?

Date: 2011/02/15 15:19:21, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 15 2011,12:03)
Hey Joe,

 I'm curious as to your take on this: Great balls of Evolution

 And since I think I can predict your response, please answer the question, "At what point do we draw the line between bacterial species?"

Thanks Joe, I know that with your stellar record of answering questions in a timely manner and with clear and concise answers, you'll help me out in no time.

Take? What take? take on what, exactly?

YEC is OK with speciation you moron. And ID is OK with universal common descent.

But apparently you are too ignorant to understand that ID is not anti-evolution.

Date: 2011/02/15 15:22:47, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 09 2011,08:51)
[quote=Joe G,Feb. 08 2011,11:45][/quote]
 
Quote

IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don't even understand their own position.



Funny...seems to me that the quotes you provided from the University of Utah, Berkeley, and Nature indicate that your claim:

 
Quote
According to evolutionary biologists all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes.


is wrong. Do they indicate that "errors and "mistakes" lead to all genetic change? Why no...no they don't! Do they use the terms to describe the ToE? Why no...no they don't!

You might want to actually sit down and read through those sites and learn a little bit there Joey.

---

Edited: grammatical structure.

OK Robin, if they aren't accidents, errors nor mistakes, what are they? If they are planned then that is ID. If they are anything but errors, mistakes or accidents, that is ID.

Please provide a reference that supports your claim that all genetic changes are something other than "accidents, mistakes or errors".

Date: 2011/02/15 15:24:48, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 08 2011,12:53)
Oh, and let's make sure everybody knows how Dembski slapped you down Joseph, and the next time your repeat your "targetted search" bullshit I'll be sure to link to this image again


Hey asshole- he said it was possible and then proceded to step all over himself.

Exactly how is that being "slapped down"?

I take it you didn't read my response to him. It's very telling you didn't include that in your post you fucking loser.

Date: 2011/02/15 15:28:12, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 08 2011,12:43)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,11:45)
IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don't even understand their own position.

Joe, I'm not sure you even understand your own position.

So here's a simple question with only two answers. Please pick one and explain why.

A) The designer intervened just the once - at the OOL
B) The designer intervenes all the time.

What one better describes your understanding of ID?

It's a simple question with two distinct answers. Will you commit to a position or will you continue to distract from the fact you are unable to commit with more unimaginative foul language?

That doesn't have anything to do with Intelligent Design.

IOW it is very funny that you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse.

Date: 2011/02/15 15:29:29, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 08 2011,15:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,11:27)
{snip}

It isn't just the zone you moron. The zone is one of about TWENTY criteria that have to be met to have a habitable planet capable of supporting complex metazoans.

You didn't read the book and don't have any clue as to what they claimed.

Metazoan: multicellular member of the animal kingdom.

So, TPP proves that Earth is the only home to Earth animals?  Awesome.  That got published how?

Wrong again, as usual.

Keep grasping though- it's all you are capable of.

Date: 2011/02/15 15:31:45, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 08 2011,17:29)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,11:27)
{snip}

It isn't just the zone you moron. The zone is one of about TWENTY criteria that have to be met to have a habitable planet capable of supporting complex metazoans.

You didn't read the book and don't have any clue as to what they claimed.

I recall that another one of the TWENTY criteria of privilege, is the ability to observe a total solar eclipse. Apparently, it is crucial to the development of human-like intelligence, that we have a moon that is JUST RIGHT to allow this.
pfft.

Nope, wrong again loser.

The criteria is we need a large stablizing moon. And ours just happens to be in the right place, at the right time, to allow for a host of scientific discoveries.

Date: 2011/02/15 15:35:01, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 08 2011,13:18)
Joe, joe, joe... so very sad.

I infer that you are a useless wank.  Prove me wrong.

That's where 'inference' gets you.  You can't make a really positive case with inference.

Joe, Can you or can you NOT tell the difference between a designed thing and a non-designed thing using your design inference? If so, please explain how.  Thank you.

Science is done via inference you ignorant fuck. the whole theory of evolution is put together via inferences you moron.

And yes we do have techniques that allow us to distinguish design from non-design- tried and true techniques.

And I posted all about it:

The Design Inference- How It Works

I can't force you to read it but your willful ignorance is not a refutation.

Date: 2011/02/15 15:36:31, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 15 2011,15:32)
Joe, why do you think you know more about ID than the people who invented the modern concept?

ID is religion.
ID is anti-science, much less anti-evolution.

Your ignorance is no excuse for making things up.

Those people say that ID is not religion.

And ID is scientific- it is based on observations and experiences. It can be tested.

What else does it need?

The ignorance is all yours.

Date: 2011/02/15 15:39:31, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 08 2011,15:59)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,11:46)
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 08 2011,09:31)
Joe.  You can work an example of the EF in action, right?
Joe.  You can work an example showing the information content of something (your choice), right?
Joe.  You do understand the importance of examples in teaching, right?

Good.  I knew you'd be the right choice for Science Instructor of the Year.

Now link to some places I can forward that show your awesomeness in action.

Still waiting for examples that support the claims of your position.

I know I can link to places that show your assholeness in action...

And yet you know of no places to link to that show your awesomeness?  Sad.

Still waiting for those examples that allegedly support your position.

Strange how evotards always ask for things they never produce...

Date: 2011/02/15 15:42:40, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2011,11:47)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2011,16:16)
LOL@Joe
 
Quote
I would say Dr Minnich's numbers stack up very well when compared to those others in the field of evolutionary biology.

How many of those evolutionary biologists have published papers that support their position? Hint- Not one…

I wonder, could we get a paper copy of each journal article on the subject of evolutionary biology and smack Joe around the head with them one at a time.

Oh I grant that being smacked by one paper is not going to be massive, I'm just thinking of the cumulative effect of being whacked with a reasonably sized library verrrrry slowly might help the numbnuts with his clue blindness.

Louis

Hey asshole- ID is not anti-evolution. What you need are papers that demonstrate blind, undirected chemical processes can construct functional multi-part systems.

However Dr Behe just had a paper published that exposed the content-free nature of evolutionary biology.

Date: 2011/02/18 11:54:44, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 15 2011,17:46)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2011,15:36)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 15 2011,15:32)
Joe, why do you think you know more about ID than the people who invented the modern concept?

ID is religion.
ID is anti-science, much less anti-evolution.

Your ignorance is no excuse for making things up.

Those people say that ID is not religion.

And ID is scientific- it is based on observations and experiences. It can be tested.

What else does it need?

The ignorance is all yours.

Line 1 is wrong.  Dembski, Meyer, Behe, Wells, all say DIRECTLY that ID is Christianity

Line 2 is wrong.  It is not based on science.  If it was based on science, then you wouldn't be scared to give us an example of it in action.

Line 3 isn't wrong, but the list of what ID needs to become science is longer than you will pay attention.

Line 4 is wrong.  I read, I study, I'm not ignorant.  You're probably not ignorant.  Ignorance can be cured.  You're an idiot.

75% wrong.  That's actually pretty good for an ID proponent.

Liar- Neither of those guys say that ID is Christianity.

Also I didn't say ID was based on science- learn how to read. I said that ID is scientific because it is based on observations and experiences. It can be tested.

What else does it need?

As for an example- well what are YOU waiting for? If your position were scientific you would be presenting examples that refute ID. Yet all you can do is join your usual circle-jerk stroke off.

And you are ignorant- ignorant of ID and ignorant of science.

So why do you think your lies and ignorance are meaningful discourse?

Date: 2011/02/18 11:59:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 18 2011,11:51)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2011,15:22)
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 09 2011,08:51)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,11:45)

     
Quote

IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don't even understand their own position.



Funny...seems to me that the quotes you provided from the University of Utah, Berkeley, and Nature indicate that your claim:

     
Quote
According to evolutionary biologists all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes.


is wrong. Do they indicate that "errors and "mistakes" lead to all genetic change? Why no...no they don't! Do they use the terms to describe the ToE? Why no...no they don't!

You might want to actually sit down and read through those sites and learn a little bit there Joey.

---

Edited: grammatical structure.


OK Robin, if they aren't accidents, errors nor mistakes, what are they? If they are planned then that is ID. If they are anything but errors, mistakes or accidents, that is ID.


Awwww...Joey...are you sore now?

First off, the use of terms like "mistake", "accidents", and "errors" when you chuckleheads is misleading when you post them selectively. Few scientists actually use those terms. Why? Because those (like you Joey-ID-Guy) who don't understand science think they imply that those changes weren't supposed to happen. But of course that's wrong thinking - there is no supposed to happen in biology. There are probabilistic outcomes. DNA replication produces exact copies most of the time, but not always. And when it doesn't, that's called a normal change. That terms like "error" are sometimes used to give people a simplified analogy to computer data copying systems is apparently lost on you. This would be why I asked you to define what you meant by errors, mistakes, and accidents earlier, but you of course declined.

But this is small potatoes. My actual point above that you seem to have not understood or simply failed to address is that those links from Berkley and Utah both point to other causes leading to genetic change. So your claim was factually wrong as well as contextually wrong.


 
Quote
Please provide a reference that supports your claim that all genetic changes are something other than "accidents, mistakes or errors".


Why? You already did. Nice own goal there!

Look asshole according to Dawkins, Mayr, Moran et al., muttions are completely in the realm of CHANCE.

Quote
one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation.- Dawkins


Read "What Evolution Is" and you will see that Mayr echos that.

Also I produced references that said mutations are mistakes and errors. What the fuck?

What other causes do those sites point to? damage caused by mutagens? That would be an accident.

IOW Robin you don't know what you are talking about.

Date: 2011/02/18 12:05:30, Link
Author: Joe G
UC Berkley:
Quote
Mutations result when the DNA polymerase makes a mistake, which happens about once every 100,000,000 bases.


Other sites tell us that the mutations are random.

see also

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21578/

Quote
Mutations arise spontaneously at low frequency owing to the chemical instability of purine and pyrimidine bases and to errors during DNA replication. Natural exposure of an organism to certain environmental factors, such as ultraviolet light and chemical carcinogens (e.g., aflatoxin B1), also can cause mutations.

Date: 2011/02/18 12:06:41, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2011,12:05)
Still can't show us an example of how ID works?  

Nevermind.  Until you actually do something, it's not even worth responding to.

Someday, you'll grow up and learn to think... maybe.

I have. Obviously you are too ignorant to understand any of it.

Someday you will pull your head out of your ass and actually say something other than a lie.

Date: 2011/02/18 12:09:33, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2011,17:05)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2011,15:35)
The Design Inference- How It Works

Got, guffaw, any worked examples of the Explanatory Filter in action?

How it works is all well and good. Now you've prove you know how it works. Now prove that *it* works by using it *to detect design*

Double dare ya.

Yes forensic scientists and archaeologists use the explanatory filter you ignorant ball of puss.

However what has been missing is the methodology used to determine that chance and necessity is all that is required to account for the universe, our solar system and living organisms.

Date: 2011/02/18 12:13:16, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 16 2011,09:51)
Not to mention that he doesn't even pretend to be nice... Just spews and leaves.

to quote the bard, "One stroke* done."

*Of the keyboard people... geez.

You don't even pretend to know what you are talking about.

All you do is spew and swallow. Perhaps that is why you hang out here...

Date: 2011/02/18 12:15:49, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2011,19:41)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2011,21:42)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2011,11:47)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2011,16:16)
LOL@Joe
   
Quote
I would say Dr Minnich's numbers stack up very well when compared to those others in the field of evolutionary biology.

How many of those evolutionary biologists have published papers that support their position? Hint- Not one…

I wonder, could we get a paper copy of each journal article on the subject of evolutionary biology and smack Joe around the head with them one at a time.

Oh I grant that being smacked by one paper is not going to be massive, I'm just thinking of the cumulative effect of being whacked with a reasonably sized library verrrrry slowly might help the numbnuts with his clue blindness.

Louis

Hey asshole- ID is not anti-evolution. What you need are papers that demonstrate blind, undirected chemical processes can construct functional multi-part systems.

However Dr Behe just had a paper published that exposed the content-free nature of evolutionary biology.

Oh look! Isn't that sweet! It thinks repeating this erroneous assertion makes it true!

Who's a yappy little dog? You are, yes you are! Now get down off the couch and stop humping Richard's leg.

Louis

P.S. You know you COULD pick up a fucking real book once in a while and unwrap your lips from various cocks at the DI. Casey's never going to marry you, he fancies Meyer.

Well fuck-breath perhaps you could point me to the litertature that supports your pathetic position.

Or you can continue to avoid that issue because you know you can't do it.

Date: 2011/02/18 12:18:03, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 18 2011,10:34)
Quote
William Dembski: Ants Solve Steiner Problem:

On Darwinian evolutionary grounds, however, one would have to say something like the following: ants are the result of a Darwinian evolutionary process that programmed the ants with, presumably, a genetic algorithm that enables them, when put in separate colonies, to trace out paths that resolve the Steiner Problem.

What they would point out is that ants use simple rules and communicate through the use of trail scents to optimize complex pathing problems.

But that doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution.

Date: 2011/02/18 12:19:32, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 16 2011,09:17)
Quote (KCdgw @ Feb. 16 2011,09:08)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2011,06:31)
I just gotta say that whoever invented the word tardgasm, and applied it to a thread for Joey, deserves the award for Metaphor of the Year (at least). Maybe mastardbation would actually be more apt, since Joey seems to be lacking any partners in his efforts, but tardgasm just sounds perfect.

Carry on.

The way his posts appear in spluttering spurts just completes the image.

Interesting too is that it usually takes him between 5-7 days to, er, reload

That is due to the very low mentality exhibited by you evotards- reading your tripe is very draining. It takes time to recover.

Date: 2011/02/18 13:01:42, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2011,12:34)
Joe, for the 5th time that this has been provided to you.

Quote

Phillip Johnson said, "Intelligent design means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."

William Dembski: "In its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." William Dembski again, "Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."


Now tell me again tha ID is not Christian.  Go ahead, tell me that ID is not religious.

I understand that you can't see the text above my statement.  Your blinders are nice and thick.

ID does not say who, how, what, when, where to worship.

Philip Johnson is not ID. Dembski just said "in its relation to christianity..."

And we have creationists denouncing ID because it isn't religious!

ID is not based on the Bible:
From the president of the ICR, John Morris:
Quote
"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."

Date: 2011/02/18 13:03:59, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 18 2011,12:24)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2011,12:15)
Well fuck-breath perhaps you could point me to the litertature that supports your pathetic position.

Perhaps you could explain what *your* position is regarding ID? We know what you think cannot be done by evolution, but I've yet to read your alternative explanation as how things came to be.

Could the designer, under your understanding of ID, be an alien for example?

ID is not anti-evolution you ignorant sack of puss.

You don't need to know anything about ID in order to support your position. And if you could produce evidence that supports your position then ID would be falsified.

So what, exactly, is stopping you chumps from producing positive evidence for your position?

Date: 2011/02/18 13:05:02, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 18 2011,12:25)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2011,12:19)
That is due to the very low mentality exhibited by you evotards- reading your tripe is very draining. It takes time to recover.

It's a shame you stop at reading and don't continue the journey to understanding.

Understanding what? That you assholes are a bunch of losers and intellectual cowards?

That has been understood for quite some time...

Date: 2011/02/18 13:07:24, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 18 2011,13:04)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2011,15:35)
....you ignorant ball of puss.

Awesome, a mere two words separate Joe calling someone else ignorant, from his demonstration of being unable to spell "pus".

I love it so!

typo

Date: 2011/02/18 13:10:15, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 18 2011,12:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2011,13:19)
That is due to the very low mentality exhibited by you evotards- reading your tripe is very draining. It takes time to recover.

right.  because YOU on the other hand are a braintrust.  Who else could dribble such gems

 
Quote
Well fuck-breath perhaps you could point me to the litertature that supports your pathetic position.


 
Quote
Yes forensic scientists and archaeologists use the explanatory filter you ignorant ball of puss.



 
Quote

Look asshole according to Dawkins, Mayr, Moran et al., muttions are completely in the realm of CHANCE.


d00d you are a virtual professor.  how come you aren't teaching and doing research in a university instead of sucking dicks in truck stops whatever it is you "do".  I mean a muthafuckah like you should have his own science shattering blog, right?  Not getting smacked down by Billy Dembski and shit, THAT muthafuckah should be AXING YOU how do he use the Explanatory Filter and shit!

So you suck dicks at truck stops.

Do you also visit the men's rooms in shopping malls?

Date: 2011/02/18 13:15:02, Link
Author: Joe G
Because William Dembski once commented that the design patterns in nature are consistent with the “logos theology” of the Bible, he unwittingly exposed his intentions to do religion in the name of science

Quote
In general, personal beliefs and personal views about the general nature of reality (be they religious, atheistic, or of any kind) should not be considered directly relevant to what scientists say and do in their specific scientific work: that’s a very simple rule of intellectual respect and democracy, and it simply means that nobody can impose a specific model of reality on others, and on science itself.

Moreover, Dembski is qualified as a theologian and a philospher-scientist-mathematician (one of a long and distinguished tradition), so he has a perfect right to comment seriously on intelligent design from both perspectives.

Further to this, the quote in question comes from a theologically oriented book in which Dembski explores the “theological implications” of the science of intelligent design. Such theological reframing of a scientific theory and/or its implications is not the same thing as the theory itself, even though each may be logically consistent with the other. Dembski’s point, of course, was that truth is unified, so we shouldn’t be surprised that theological truths confirm scientific truths and vice versa.

Also, Dembski’s reference to John 1:1 ff. underscores how a worldview level or theological claim may have empirical implications, and is thus subject to empirical test.

For, in that text, the aged Apostle John put into the heart of foundational era Christian thought, the idea that Creation is premised on Rational Mind and Intelligent Communication/Information. Now, after nineteen centuries, we see that — per empirical observation — we evidently do live in a cosmos that exhibits fine-tumed, function-specifying complex information as a premise of facilitating life, and cell-based life is also based on such functional, complex, and specific information, e.g in DNA.

Thus, theological truth claims here line up with subsequent empirical investigation:a risky empirical prediction has been confirmed by the evidence. (Of course, had it been otherwise – and per track record — many of the same critics would have pounced on the “scientific facts” as a disconfirmation. So, why then is it suddently illegitimate for Christians to point out from scientific evidence, that on this point their faith has passed a significant empirical test?)

Date: 2011/02/18 13:17:10, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 18 2011,12:26)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2011,12:18)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 18 2011,10:34)
 
Quote
William Dembski: Ants Solve Steiner Problem:

On Darwinian evolutionary grounds, however, one would have to say something like the following: ants are the result of a Darwinian evolutionary process that programmed the ants with, presumably, a genetic algorithm that enables them, when put in separate colonies, to trace out paths that resolve the Steiner Problem.

What they would point out is that ants use simple rules and communicate through the use of trail scents to optimize complex pathing problems.

But that doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution.

Tell it to Dembski Joe. He seems to think it's relevant.

Go on. Double dare you!

Or did you not notice the link....

Dude you have some serious mental issues. What Zacho said doesn't have anything to do with the ToE you moron.

I wasn't responding to what Dembski wrote.

Date: 2011/02/20 07:30:18, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 18 2011,13:31)
Joe, let's look at this one step at a time.

 
Quote
ID is not anti-evolution you ignorant sack of puss.


OK, so ID is stand alone and has nothing to do with evolution.
 
Quote
You don't need to know anything about ID in order to support your position


OK, so evolution is stand alone and has nothing to do with ID.

 
Quote
And if you could produce evidence that supports your position then ID would be falsified.


But if ID is nothing to do with evolution and evolution is not anti-ID then how would providing evidence that supports evolution falsify ID?

Bwhahahahahahaha. Tard.

You are so fucking confused. ID is compatible with evolution. ID is incompatible with blind watchmaker evolution.

IOW ID says that evolution occurs but is guided/ directed. The ToE says that evolution is unguided:

Quote
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
38 nobel laureates in a letter to kansas.

But I have been over and over this and apparently you are just too stupid to understand any of it.

Date: 2011/02/20 07:34:10, Link
Author: Joe G
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 18 2011,13:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2011,11:59)

 
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 18 2011,11:51)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2011,15:22)
   
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 09 2011,08:51)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,11:45)

       
Quote

IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don't even understand their own position.



Funny...seems to me that the quotes you provided from the University of Utah, Berkeley, and Nature indicate that your claim:

       
Quote
According to evolutionary biologists all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes.


is wrong. Do they indicate that "errors and "mistakes" lead to all genetic change? Why no...no they don't! Do they use the terms to describe the ToE? Why no...no they don't!

You might want to actually sit down and read through those sites and learn a little bit there Joey.

---

Edited: grammatical structure.


OK Robin, if they aren't accidents, errors nor mistakes, what are they? If they are planned then that is ID. If they are anything but errors, mistakes or accidents, that is ID.


Awwww...Joey...are you sore now?

First off, the use of terms like "mistake", "accidents", and "errors" when you chuckleheads is misleading when you post them selectively. Few scientists actually use those terms. Why? Because those (like you Joey-ID-Guy) who don't understand science think they imply that those changes weren't supposed to happen. But of course that's wrong thinking - there is no supposed to happen in biology. There are probabilistic outcomes. DNA replication produces exact copies most of the time, but not always. And when it doesn't, that's called a normal change. That terms like "error" are sometimes used to give people a simplified analogy to computer data copying systems is apparently lost on you. This would be why I asked you to define what you meant by errors, mistakes, and accidents earlier, but you of course declined.

But this is small potatoes. My actual point above that you seem to have not understood or simply failed to address is that those links from Berkley and Utah both point to other causes leading to genetic change. So your claim was factually wrong as well as contextually wrong.


Quote
Please provide a reference that supports your claim that all genetic changes are something other than "accidents, mistakes or errors".


Why? You already did. Nice own goal there!


Look asshole according to Dawkins, Mayr, Moran et al., muttions are completely in the realm of CHANCE.

 
Quote
one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation.- Dawkins


Having reading comprehension problems again there Joey-Joe? Did you miss where I noted just that? What part of "probabilistic outcomes" did you not understand?

So, your whimper above doesn't mean anything as I actually noted that myself. And since that doesn't have address what I did note, you should really try again, dimbulb. Next!

 
Quote
Read "What Evolution Is" and you will see that Mayr echos that.


Been there, done that, but unlike you apparently I actually understood it.

 
Quote
Also I produced references that said mutations are mistakes and errors. What the fuck?


And since I've addressed why those terms were used AND noted that wasn't what you were factually wrong about, you've missed the point yet again, little wien.

 
Quote
What other causes do those sites point to?