AE BB DB Explorer

form_srcid: joe

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.22.212.158

View Author detected.

view author posts:

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?