Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Pages: (919) < ... 228 229 230 231 232 [233] 234 235 236 237 238 ... >

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:31    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:29) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:25) I have supported ID you fucking cowardly asshole. All you have ever done is handwave it away as if that means something. AGAIN ID is NOT anti-evolution. So any discussion of ID has to include evolution and all design inferences HAVE TO eliminate necessity and chance, meaning refuting unguided evolution is very much a part of the design inference. That you refuse to grasp that proves that you are just an ignorant ass. And I m asking, much more politely than you, to do so here. Right here, right now. State 3 pieces of evidence that support ID, with references to those pieces of evidence. Go to my blog and search on supporting id or fuck yourself -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:32    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,09:25) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:22)     Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:09) Here's some rare honesty from Joe. Typical response from a cowardly attention whore We heard you were in the hospital.  You tried to pick a fight with a candy vending machine which took your money but the machine kicked your ass.  :D  :D  :D Updated list: Hospital Jail Science classes Religious retreat Rehab Charm school Missionary work Couldn't find password Couldn't find house Too busy looking for largest known number -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:32    Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:29) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:28) Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:26)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:23)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:22) "However the design inference has to eliminate chance and necessity therefor it" - That looks like a positive case to me!  :O Yes, moron, the first parts are to eliminate necessity and chance- that is how forensic science and archaeology do it. Only then can you see if design is warranted. So NOT chance and NOT necessity is a positive case? *leans forward* Tell us more! No dumbass- I have been over this with you many times. Why do you insist on being a fucking shit eater all day every day? A meltdown so soon? Sugar levels must be low, Chubs. Feel free to expand on how not A or B is a positive argument for C. So because Richie is an ignorant asshole, I am having a meltdown? How does that work? -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:32    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:31) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:29) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:25) I have supported ID you fucking cowardly asshole. All you have ever done is handwave it away as if that means something. AGAIN ID is NOT anti-evolution. So any discussion of ID has to include evolution and all design inferences HAVE TO eliminate necessity and chance, meaning refuting unguided evolution is very much a part of the design inference. That you refuse to grasp that proves that you are just an ignorant ass. And I m asking, much more politely than you, to do so here. Right here, right now. State 3 pieces of evidence that support ID, with references to those pieces of evidence. Go to my blog and search on supporting id or fuck yourself "Tardblog bluff" coupled with "So Ronrey gambit" -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:35    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:31) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:29) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:25) I have supported ID you fucking cowardly asshole. All you have ever done is handwave it away as if that means something. AGAIN ID is NOT anti-evolution. So any discussion of ID has to include evolution and all design inferences HAVE TO eliminate necessity and chance, meaning refuting unguided evolution is very much a part of the design inference. That you refuse to grasp that proves that you are just an ignorant ass. And I m asking, much more politely than you, to do so here. Right here, right now. State 3 pieces of evidence that support ID, with references to those pieces of evidence. Go to my blog and search on supporting id or fuck yourself No. You can provide the information, right here, or admit you can't. We both know that you can't.  You aren't a very good evangelist for your cause are you. If there was actual supporting evidence, we'd never get you to shut up about it.  But you won't even state three pieces here.   Sad. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:35    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:23)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:22) "However the design inference has to eliminate chance and necessity therefor it" - That looks like a positive case to me!  :O Yes, moron, the first parts are to eliminate necessity and chance- that is how forensic science and archaeology do it. Only then can you see if design is warranted. Wrong again dumbass.  That's not how forensic science and archaeology do it. Forensic science and archaeology both start with the hypothesis that humans did it, then look for evidence of human involvement - tool marks, source of the raw materials, other outside indicators of human presence.  They try to identify the humans involved. Stick to wolfing cheeseburgers chubs.  Play to your strength. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:36    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:19) Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:16) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:06)   Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:01) So, Joe, what is a genetic algorithm? Can you give a definition? oleg- we have been down this road already and you lost. So why don't YOU provide a definition and then demonstrate how GAs use darwinian processes. Or shut the fuck up. Can you link to our previous discussion where I "lost," Joe? I think you are making that up. You find it for yourself or have a go at it- oleg- define what a GA is and how it uses darwinian processes- I dare you to try. Didn't have to look far. Here is a thread at TSZ entitled Holding tank for general chatter about GAs, in which Joe explains, among other things, that cells have "internal genetic algorithms." Quote I said GAs don’t have to deal with genetics and I provided examples to support that claim. The point of the internal GA is to make sure the cell/ organism produces/ has the proteins required to survive. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:37    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:32) I am having a meltdown More rare honesty from the chin farmer. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:39    Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:36) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:19) Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:16)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:06)     Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:01) So, Joe, what is a genetic algorithm? Can you give a definition? oleg- we have been down this road already and you lost. So why don't YOU provide a definition and then demonstrate how GAs use darwinian processes. Or shut the fuck up. Can you link to our previous discussion where I "lost," Joe? I think you are making that up. You find it for yourself or have a go at it- oleg- define what a GA is and how it uses darwinian processes- I dare you to try. Didn't have to look far. Here is a thread at TSZ entitled Holding tank for general chatter about GAs, in which Joe explains, among other things, that cells have "internal genetic algorithms." Quote I said GAs don’t have to deal with genetics and I provided examples to support that claim. The point of the internal GA is to make sure the cell/ organism produces/ has the proteins required to survive. Oh fond memories! -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:40    Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 09 2014,11:32)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,09:25)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:22)       Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:09) Here's some rare honesty from Joe. Typical response from a cowardly attention whore We heard you were in the hospital.  You tried to pick a fight with a candy vending machine which took your money but the machine kicked your ass.       Updated list: Hospital Jail Science classes Religious retreat Rehab Charm school Missionary work Couldn't find password Couldn't find house Too busy looking for largest known number POTW!   -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:40    Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:39) Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:36) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:19)   Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:16)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:06)     Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:01) So, Joe, what is a genetic algorithm? Can you give a definition? oleg- we have been down this road already and you lost. So why don't YOU provide a definition and then demonstrate how GAs use darwinian processes. Or shut the fuck up. Can you link to our previous discussion where I "lost," Joe? I think you are making that up. You find it for yourself or have a go at it- oleg- define what a GA is and how it uses darwinian processes- I dare you to try. Didn't have to look far. Here is a thread at TSZ entitled Holding tank for general chatter about GAs, in which Joe explains, among other things, that cells have "internal genetic algorithms."   Quote I said GAs don’t have to deal with genetics and I provided examples to support that claim. The point of the internal GA is to make sure the cell/ organism produces/ has the proteins required to survive. Oh fond memories! So, genetic algorithms don't involve genetics?   Tell me more -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:43    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,11:35) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:23)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:22) "However the design inference has to eliminate chance and necessity therefor it" - That looks like a positive case to me!  :O Yes, moron, the first parts are to eliminate necessity and chance- that is how forensic science and archaeology do it. Only then can you see if design is warranted. Wrong again dumbass.  That's not how forensic science and archaeology do it. Forensic science and archaeology both start with the hypothesis that humans did it, then look for evidence of human involvement - tool marks, source of the raw materials, other outside indicators of human presence.  They try to identify the humans involved. Stick to wolfing cheeseburgers chubs.  Play to your strength. Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:44    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:40) Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:39) Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:36)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:19)   Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:16)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:06)       Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:01) So, Joe, what is a genetic algorithm? Can you give a definition? oleg- we have been down this road already and you lost. So why don't YOU provide a definition and then demonstrate how GAs use darwinian processes. Or shut the fuck up. Can you link to our previous discussion where I "lost," Joe? I think you are making that up. You find it for yourself or have a go at it- oleg- define what a GA is and how it uses darwinian processes- I dare you to try. Didn't have to look far. Here is a thread at TSZ entitled Holding tank for general chatter about GAs, in which Joe explains, among other things, that cells have "internal genetic algorithms."   Quote I said GAs don’t have to deal with genetics and I provided examples to support that claim. The point of the internal GA is to make sure the cell/ organism produces/ has the proteins required to survive. Oh fond memories! So, genetic algorithms don't involve genetics?   Tell me more There aren't any genetics in a computer program you moron. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:44    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,11:35) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:23)     Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:22) "However the design inference has to eliminate chance and necessity therefor it" - That looks like a positive case to me!  :O Yes, moron, the first parts are to eliminate necessity and chance- that is how forensic science and archaeology do it. Only then can you see if design is warranted. Wrong again dumbass.  That's not how forensic science and archaeology do it. Forensic science and archaeology both start with the hypothesis that humans did it, then look for evidence of human involvement - tool marks, source of the raw materials, other outside indicators of human presence.  They try to identify the humans involved. Stick to wolfing cheeseburgers chubs.  Play to your strength. Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window Is it a crime if termites are the murders?  After all termites are intelligent agents. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:45    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:35) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:31) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:29)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:25) I have supported ID you fucking cowardly asshole. All you have ever done is handwave it away as if that means something. AGAIN ID is NOT anti-evolution. So any discussion of ID has to include evolution and all design inferences HAVE TO eliminate necessity and chance, meaning refuting unguided evolution is very much a part of the design inference. That you refuse to grasp that proves that you are just an ignorant ass. And I m asking, much more politely than you, to do so here. Right here, right now. State 3 pieces of evidence that support ID, with references to those pieces of evidence. Go to my blog and search on supporting id or fuck yourself No. You can provide the information, right here, or admit you can't. We both know that you can't.  You aren't a very good evangelist for your cause are you. If there was actual supporting evidence, we'd never get you to shut up about it.  But you won't even state three pieces here.   Sad. OK just admit that you are a willfully ignorant coward then Kevin and move on. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:46    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,11:35)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:23)     Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:22) "However the design inference has to eliminate chance and necessity therefor it" - That looks like a positive case to me!  :O Yes, moron, the first parts are to eliminate necessity and chance- that is how forensic science and archaeology do it. Only then can you see if design is warranted. Wrong again dumbass.  That's not how forensic science and archaeology do it. Forensic science and archaeology both start with the hypothesis that humans did it, then look for evidence of human involvement - tool marks, source of the raw materials, other outside indicators of human presence.  They try to identify the humans involved. Stick to wolfing cheeseburgers chubs.  Play to your strength. Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window Is it a crime if termites are the murders?  After all termites are intelligent agents. It could be a crime. It all depends. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:46    Seeing that Kevin the retard McCarthy is still choking on his ignorance of genetics and wants positive evidence for ID, I figure we can start with the basics- again: Yes, Intelligent Design is both testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design relies on Newton's First Rule, meaning agencies are only added when REQUIRED. Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence. However all evotards can do is cry foul and say "blind, undirected processes is a strawman!"- yet it is a given that natural selection, genetic drift and HGT are all blind, purposeless processes and all mutations are undirected-> that is given the current theory of evolution. IOW evotards are so clueless they don't even understand the theory they try to defend! So there you have it ole ignorant and cowardly evotards- just start supporting your position and ID will go away. How is ID tested? As in positive evidence? 1- See above as the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker 2- The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” So if nature, operating freely cannot account for it AND it meets that criteria, some agency is required and we infer design (or at least agency involvement). The prediction is Kevin won't understand any of that because he is scientifically illiterate -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:46    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43) Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window What does that even mean?  JoeTard's meltdown is hitting critical stage - he's blithering incoherently. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:47    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:40) Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:39)   Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:36)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:19)     Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:16)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:06)       Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:01) So, Joe, what is a genetic algorithm? Can you give a definition? oleg- we have been down this road already and you lost. So why don't YOU provide a definition and then demonstrate how GAs use darwinian processes. Or shut the fuck up. Can you link to our previous discussion where I "lost," Joe? I think you are making that up. You find it for yourself or have a go at it- oleg- define what a GA is and how it uses darwinian processes- I dare you to try. Didn't have to look far. Here is a thread at TSZ entitled Holding tank for general chatter about GAs, in which Joe explains, among other things, that cells have "internal genetic algorithms."     Quote I said GAs don’t have to deal with genetics and I provided examples to support that claim. The point of the internal GA is to make sure the cell/ organism produces/ has the proteins required to survive. Oh fond memories! So, genetic algorithms don't involve genetics?   Tell me more There aren't any genetics in a computer program you moron. You have a real problem with language don't you? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:47    Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:36) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:19) Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:16)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:06)     Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:01) So, Joe, what is a genetic algorithm? Can you give a definition? oleg- we have been down this road already and you lost. So why don't YOU provide a definition and then demonstrate how GAs use darwinian processes. Or shut the fuck up. Can you link to our previous discussion where I "lost," Joe? I think you are making that up. You find it for yourself or have a go at it- oleg- define what a GA is and how it uses darwinian processes- I dare you to try. Didn't have to look far. Here is a thread at TSZ entitled Holding tank for general chatter about GAs, in which Joe explains, among other things, that cells have "internal genetic algorithms." Quote I said GAs don’t have to deal with genetics and I provided examples to support that claim. The point of the internal GA is to make sure the cell/ organism produces/ has the proteins required to survive. Still waiting for oleg's definition for GAs and the evidence that demonstrates GA operate via darwinian mechanisms... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:48    Here is the commonly accepted definition of a genetic algorithm, Joe: Quote In a genetic algorithm, a population of strings (called chromosomes or the genotype of the genome), which encode candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem, evolves toward better solutions. Back in the TSZ thread, you first objected to that definition, saying Quote And again not all GAs have to be like that- my examples prove that. and claimed that Quote In this case the word “population” is ambiguous. Shall I continue? -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:48    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:47) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:40)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:39)   Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:36)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:19)     Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:16)       Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:06)         Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:01) So, Joe, what is a genetic algorithm? Can you give a definition? oleg- we have been down this road already and you lost. So why don't YOU provide a definition and then demonstrate how GAs use darwinian processes. Or shut the fuck up. Can you link to our previous discussion where I "lost," Joe? I think you are making that up. You find it for yourself or have a go at it- oleg- define what a GA is and how it uses darwinian processes- I dare you to try. Didn't have to look far. Here is a thread at TSZ entitled Holding tank for general chatter about GAs, in which Joe explains, among other things, that cells have "internal genetic algorithms."     Quote I said GAs don’t have to deal with genetics and I provided examples to support that claim. The point of the internal GA is to make sure the cell/ organism produces/ has the proteins required to survive. Oh fond memories! So, genetic algorithms don't involve genetics?   Tell me more There aren't any genetics in a computer program you moron. You have a real problem with language don't you? Obviously you do -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:49    How Joe sees himself: What he actually looks like: -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:49    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:45) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:35) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:31)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:29)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:25) I have supported ID you fucking cowardly asshole. All you have ever done is handwave it away as if that means something. AGAIN ID is NOT anti-evolution. So any discussion of ID has to include evolution and all design inferences HAVE TO eliminate necessity and chance, meaning refuting unguided evolution is very much a part of the design inference. That you refuse to grasp that proves that you are just an ignorant ass. And I m asking, much more politely than you, to do so here. Right here, right now. State 3 pieces of evidence that support ID, with references to those pieces of evidence. Go to my blog and search on supporting id or fuck yourself No. You can provide the information, right here, or admit you can't. We both know that you can't.  You aren't a very good evangelist for your cause are you. If there was actual supporting evidence, we'd never get you to shut up about it.  But you won't even state three pieces here.   Sad. OK just admit that you are a willfully ignorant coward then Kevin and move on. I'm trying not to be, but you are a terrible teacher. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:50    Quote (olegt @ Jan. 09 2014,11:48) Here is the commonly accepted definition of a genetic algorithm, Joe: Quote In a genetic algorithm, a population of strings (called chromosomes or the genotype of the genome), which encode candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem, evolves toward better solutions. Back in the TSZ thread, you first objected to that definition, saying Quote And again not all GAs have to be like that- my examples prove that. and claimed that Quote In this case the word “population” is ambiguous. Shall I continue? No oleg the first sentence is the definbition: Quote In the computer science field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection darwinian evolution is not a search heuristic. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:50    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43) Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window Is it a crime if termites are the murders?  After all termites are intelligent agents. It could be a crime. It all depends. I can't believe that he actually considers this a valid question. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:51    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:49) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:45) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:35)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:31)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:29)     Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:25) I have supported ID you fucking cowardly asshole. All you have ever done is handwave it away as if that means something. AGAIN ID is NOT anti-evolution. So any discussion of ID has to include evolution and all design inferences HAVE TO eliminate necessity and chance, meaning refuting unguided evolution is very much a part of the design inference. That you refuse to grasp that proves that you are just an ignorant ass. And I m asking, much more politely than you, to do so here. Right here, right now. State 3 pieces of evidence that support ID, with references to those pieces of evidence. Go to my blog and search on supporting id or fuck yourself No. You can provide the information, right here, or admit you can't. We both know that you can't.  You aren't a very good evangelist for your cause are you. If there was actual supporting evidence, we'd never get you to shut up about it.  But you won't even state three pieces here.   Sad. OK just admit that you are a willfully ignorant coward then Kevin and move on. I'm trying not to be, but you are a terrible teacher. LoL! You are unable to learn- Supporting ID -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:52    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46) Seeing that Kevin the retard McCarthy is still choking on his ignorance of genetics and wants positive evidence for ID, I figure we can start with the basics- again: Yes, Intelligent Design is both testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design relies on Newton's First Rule, meaning agencies are only added when REQUIRED. Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence. However all evotards can do is cry foul and say "blind, undirected processes is a strawman!"- yet it is a given that natural selection, genetic drift and HGT are all blind, purposeless processes and all mutations are undirected-> that is given the current theory of evolution. IOW evotards are so clueless they don't even understand the theory they try to defend! So there you have it ole ignorant and cowardly evotards- just start supporting your position and ID will go away. How is ID tested? As in positive evidence? 1- See above as the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker 2- The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” So if nature, operating freely cannot account for it AND it meets that criteria, some agency is required and we infer design (or at least agency involvement). The prediction is Kevin won't understand any of that because he is scientifically illiterate So, no actual evidence of design or a designer. Got it. Thanks BTW: I told you that if you mention evolution, you fail.  And you did... fail that it. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:53    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:50) Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46) Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44)   Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43) Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window Is it a crime if termites are the murders?  After all termites are intelligent agents. It could be a crime. It all depends. I can't believe that he actually considers this a valid question. Kevin, I get it you are a moron. Say someonme tied someone down and put something on them that termites liked. Then they put thousands of termites on tghe person and the termites killed the person. Yes that would be a crime, dumbass. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,11:53    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:51) Supporting ID I'm not going to your blog.  You can state it here or admit you can't. Three things. It's taken you more time and effort to avoid the question than just answer it. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Pages: (919) < ... 228 229 230 231 232 [233] 234 235 236 237 238 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard