RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (117) < ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 ... >   
  Topic: Telic Thoughts Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,23:13   

LOL@cakeboy: Design is a mechanism. What a maroon!

--------------
"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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,02:57   

Quote

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


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

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

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

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,03:12   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:51)
Was any of that supposed to refute anything I said?

No, because you said nothing that could be refuted. You made some claims, I asked you to back them up with evidence and you bailed. Simple as.
 
Quote

BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAA

Yes, most amusing, I agree.
 
Quote

oldmanwithhisheaduphisass you are a living transition from pond-scum.

I'm surprised you are familiar with such concepts.
 
Quote

Thank you for fulfilling my prediction.

Well, I suppose that's one prediction from an ID supporter that's come true then. Now, will you made any scientific predictions regarding ID that can be tested? Or just claim victory without any of that messy *work* instead like every other ID proponent ever?

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

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,03:14   

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

If you care to go through a worked example of how the EF detects design then I will give $20 to the charity of your choice (that accepts paypal).

Or some other forfit, like saying you are really a clever clever man and not an old fool, as you prefer.

However I think my money is safe.

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

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,07:34   

Joe said
Quote
But anyway I am more than willing to take on any one of those fruitloops in a debate.

We can both put up some money and see who knows best.


Sounds fair. However Joe then chickens out when asked to come to AtBC and debate:
Quote
I see the type of "debate" that goes on over there.

I am not going to go into a mob-mentality atmosphere.

I am here Maya. Anyone can come here.

However I will debate anyone in person, in a public forum, with credentialed judges who can decide who delivers and who doesn't.

But anyway Maya I will definitely wipe you out in a debate.


Yes Joe, anybody can go to your blog. Except for one tiny little thing
Quote
Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.


Yep, Joe is only willing to debate where he can control the other persons ability to post.

He must be real sure of his ability in that case.

And correct me if I'm wrong but Joe appears to be here now, OK he's not debating as such but hey, Joe, make up your mind!

Quote
But anyway Maya I will definitely wipe you out in a debate.


Yep, Joe will wipe Maya in the debate Joe is too scared to have.

More whines about why comments need to be censored:
Quote
I turn off comments because assholes like Richtard Hughes can't stay on topic and can never add anything to the discussion.

Quote
IOW you prove that AtBC is nothing but ignorant gossip.

Ignorant gossip you are too scared to join in with.
Quote
BTW I posted on AtBC and it went as predicted.

The regulars over there are nothing but a bunch of monkees who couldn't support their position if their lives depended on it.

Yes, but it only takes a second for anybody to look at what you posted. Ignorant abuse, and unfounded unsupported claims.
Quote
Ya see there isn't any reason to go to those other forums.

Why go somewhere where you can't control comments. Why, you must be scared!
Joe did say one thing on that thread that makes sense, if applied to Joe
Quote
Why do you continue to think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?


Pathetic. C'mon Joe. Let's pick a topic and debate it (if you can). As you can see if you look at this thread
FloydLee the regulars are happy to let a few people debate and keep the baying mob away. Of course FL broke the agreed rules and so everybody piled in, but if you can debate rather then make unsupported claims I'm sure a civil debate can happen.

You'll never know if you don't try. I'll even create a brand new thread if you want to.

Why not take the opportunity to prove the evo-nit-wits wrong Joe?

Oh, that's right. Sorry, I forgot....

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

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,07:44   

ID Guy (Joe):
   
Quote
If one is claiming that alterations to the genome can account for all the transitions then it is up to that person to show such a thing is possible.

The $20,000 challenge still stands Zach-

You and I in front of a panel of experts to end this once and for all.


Joe, would that debate happen in a venue where you can control what your opponent was allowed to say, or not?

Why not debate Zach here, for free, and show him up as wrong on every point you claim?

Why does it have to be for money? I'm sure we can find an impartial witness to judge the debate both sides can agree on. That's really the crucial point, right? Not the money? That sombody you can both agree on as Judge decides who's supported their point?

See, IOW if you are willing to debate you are willing to debate. IOW you are only bringing up the money to ensure the debate never happens, not to make it happen.

If you were sure you would win such a debate you would not need to include any such condition.

In fact, why not have the debate now, for free, and then if you win you can be sure that in any future debate you'd win the money? If not here, then there are plenty of structured debating sites out there. Any one of those would do I'm sure. But you are too scared to just do that, hence the silly $20,000.

C'mon Joe, let's debate here! I'll open a thread and everything.

Oh, that's right. Sorry, I forgot about that, never mind then.

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

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

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,08:11   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:57)
Quote

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


Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.)


I recall one ID article that was basically "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A TURBINE".

FAIL.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,15:25   

Sal gives a shout out!

Quote
Salvador T. Cordova: I will not visit ATBC, they are an uncivil mean cesspool.


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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,15:27   

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 09 2009,14:25)
Sal gives a shout out!

Quote
Salvador T. Cordova: I will not visit ATBC, they are an uncivil mean cesspool.

Well sure, but the grass is always greener over the septic tank.

  
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,15:33   

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 09 2009,15:25)
Sal gives a shout out!

   
Quote
Salvador T. Cordova: I will not visit ATBC, they are an uncivil mean cesspool.

Hey Salvador!

Apparently anyone who is not moronic enough to fall for ID talking points is a bully.

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,16:22   

Quote (SLP @ Nov. 05 2009,08:47)
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.

hahahahahahahha

joe i would like to take you out to lunch sometime.  just let me know when.  i heard you don't eat pork?

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

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

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

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,16:40   

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 09 2009,15:25)
Sal gives a shout out!

   
Quote
Salvador T. Cordova: I will not visit ATBC, they are an uncivil mean cesspool.

I never visit that cesspool of undiluted idiocy but thanks for the link, I felt like he deserved a nudge.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,10:17   

Quote
ID guy: Yse Zachriel, by calling you a crack-whore Joe G has done an injustice towards crack-whores as they are more credible and honest than you will ever be.

Looks like ignoring Joe G ID guy has provoked a response. How will the moderators react to this? I remember I've been banned from threads for on-topic comments, and put in the Rabbit Hole for reasonable comments on open threads. I can't imagine what dreadful things they'll do to ID guy!

Quote
Bradford: Terminate this and stay on topic.

Huh? Warn Zachriel to stay on topic. That's it?

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,13:31   

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2009,10:17)
 
Quote
Bradford: Terminate this and stay on topic.

Huh? Warn Zachriel to stay on topic. That's it?

Okay. Bradford did send ID guy's comment to the Memory Hole. Meanwhile, ID guy keeps up the pretense.

Quote
ID guy: Yes Bradford, it's amazing what these clowns will do in order to try to distract from the fact that they are talking out of their arses.


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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
"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: Nov. 12 2009,09:58   

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.

--------------
"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: Nov. 12 2009,10:00   

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.

--------------
"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: Nov. 12 2009,10:04   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,09:58)
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.

Are you going to buy him lunch?

Do you wear your undercrackers outside of your pants, ID Guy?

--------------
"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

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2009,10:19   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,15:58)
   
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 05 2009,07:47)

...
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?

...
Anytime Scotty.

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

Hahaha! You are so predictable as to not even need a markov chain to model*!

* By which I mean that you could be replaced by a completely deterministic (very) finite automata and no one would notice the difference.

ETA: speling.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Raevmo



Posts: 235
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2009,10:26   

Joe G the ID gay:

 
Quote
Anytime Scotty.

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


Looking for a date, Joe? With grease or dry?

--------------
After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

--GilDodgen

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2009,10:51   

As I recall, Joe (in his other incarnation as Joseph) tried to defend the idiotic "design = mechanism" argument on Behe's Amazon blog (in the single post that was ever open for comments there), where it was destroyed as well. Then Joseph retired from that fray, and now, when I look for it, those older Amazon blog posts have been retired as well.

How quickly they forget...

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2009,11:19   

Once more for Joe G:

Quote

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


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

    
rossum



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2009,12:27   

Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 12 2009,10:26)
Looking for a date, Joe? With grease or dry?

"If spit doesn't work, it's not true love."

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2009,12:41   

lolol ID Gay wants you to meat you.

Joe as long as you are on this road trip will you swing my way too buddy?  I know some guys that would love to go dancing with you and we have a great mosque in town where you can worship.  Also we can tour the refrigerator hall of fame.  it'd be great!

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

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

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

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2009,12:52   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 12 2009,12:41)
lolol ID Gay wants you to meat you.

Joe as long as you are on this road trip will you swing my way too buddy?  I know some guys that would love to go dancing with you and we have a great mosque in town where you can worship.  Also we can tour the refrigerator hall of fame.  it'd be great!

You might want one of these:




He's a retiree with a bad hip.

--------------
"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

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2009,13:05   

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,09:58)
However YOU chickened out.

Anytime Scotty.

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


Whatever... Blipey...

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2009,13:10   

Funny, Joey must have missed this:

[quote=Joe G,Nov. 04 2009,10:55][/quote]
[quote=SLP,Nov. 04 2009,10:50]  
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04
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.[/quote)

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.


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.

"Design" is a plan. The "mechanism" is the means by which the plan is implemented.

So where is the evidence for the means by which the plan is inmplemented?

Quote

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

Therefor design is a mechanism.


No, 'design' is a plan.  It is not the mechanism by which the plan is implemented.

Or do you really believe that the assembly instructions that came in the box with a child's toy is the mechanism by which the toy is put together, and that the use of tools and the physical putting-together of the parts is just part of the 'design'?

If that is truly your highly unorthodox idiosyncratic 'definition' of 'intelligent design', then you are still left with the main point - what is the evidence for it?

Using the child's toy example, if 'design' is both the plan for putting it together as well as the actual act of putting it together, we are left with evidence that the plan was implemented.

We have the actual written instructions, we have the packing material, we have the tools.

Where is anything analogous to that in, say, the 'design' of the bacterial flagellum?

Will you say in the genes? If that is so, then we are left asking who wrote the instructions.  For in the toy analogy, we can certainly find out.

Quote


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.


If only I could have earned a BS in electronics engineering like you, I guess I would be smart.

By the way - you never did answer the question regarding your claim to having been injured in Iraq asked on TT - someone looked up the injury reports and there were no such reports on the day or in the place you claimed to have been injured digging toilets or whatever you want people to think you did...

Quote

That said there are specific design mechanisms-

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


This is a human contrivance.

Only an uneducated person would really think that looking at human activity would be evidence that Intelligent Design exists in nature such that the flagellum was the product of design, not natural processes.

Further, we could find out who the designer of the program is, we could discover the means by which the design was implemented, we could find 'evidence' for the process.

Not so with biological 'design.'
Quote


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


Spetner the Hebrew creationist who believes that Yahweh created 365 kinds of bird and 365 kinds of beast and the millions we have today magically evolved when nobody was looking in less than 4,500 years?  That wizard?
Quote


Then there is artificial selection.


Which is another human activity.
Quote


There you have it design mechanisms.


Yes - human ones (I won't count Spetners nonsense).

Are you people saying that humans designed the flagellum?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2009,13:18   

lololol "That Wizard?"  lolololol

bwahahahaha

I forgot about iraq.  how did you get injured again Joe?  If you like we can go by the VFW and spike the punch and shoot the shit about how muslims* furriners are ruining everything.  they have a great gay veterans bar here, killer lunch buffet.





*sorry Joe, I didn't mean to offend your religion I won't do it again

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

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

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

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

  
  3497 replies since Sep. 22 2007,13:50 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (117) < ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]