RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (324) < ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,17:29   

And he's playing with puppets.  Joe, you realize you hate that, right?  All that artsy stuff.  eeewwwww!!!!!

Oops.

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

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,17:47   

Joe {quote}Well let's look at what natural selction is-

   “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition


   “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley[/quote]

My hypothesis has more supporting evidence.  Joe can't read but a few sentences at a time.  Here, a mere 4 sentences away from what Joe quoted:

Quote
At the opposite end scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random-but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!


Nice quotemine there Joe 'Coward' G.  You gonna answer my questions on an unmoderated board, coward?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,19:55   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,12:19)
Or are you just too stupid to learn?

That's where I'm putting my money.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,21:04   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 10 2010,20:12)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,13:54)
Hey Joe,

(yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)


You, sir, win one internet.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,21:06   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 11 2010,01:55)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,12:19)
Or are you just too stupid to learn?

That's where I'm putting my money.

You forgot unwarranted arrogance.

His main weapons are stupidity, unwarranted arrogance and an almost fanatical devotion to creating pathetic strawmen...

I'll come in again.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,21:33   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 10 2010,21:06)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 11 2010,01:55)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,12:19)
Or are you just too stupid to learn?

That's where I'm putting my money.

You forgot unwarranted arrogance.

His main weapons are stupidity, unwarranted arrogance and an almost fanatical devotion to creating pathetic strawmen...

I'll come in again.

Louis

Well played, Cardinal, well played.

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

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2010,22:01   

Joe, you should stop talking to puppets and have real discussions with real people instead.  Shouldn't a whiz-bang design detector like yourself be able to spot obvious fakes?

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

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:16   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 10 2010,13:44)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:52)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,10:04)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:21)
The number doesn't reflect specification.

That's right. And that is all I've been saying. Thank you for that concession.

Your claim that your calculation is a measure "specified information" in any sense that actually meaningfully reflects specification is false.

It is a measure of specified information for all the reasons provided.

1- It is a measure of information

2- It pertains to a function/ specification.

"It pertains to a function/ specification."

Could you be any more vague and non-rigorous?  No?  I didn't think so.

Hi David Kellogg-

Only evolutionists are more vague and non-rigorous.

Ya see asshole you still don't have any evidence for construction of protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

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

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:19   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,17:47)
Joe {quote}Well let's look at what natural selction is-

   “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition


   “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley[/quote]

My hypothesis has more supporting evidence.  Joe can't read but a few sentences at a time.  Here, a mere 4 sentences away from what Joe quoted:

Quote
At the opposite end scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random-but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!


Nice quotemine there Joe 'Coward' G.  You gonna answer my questions on an unmoderated board, coward?

Ogre,

You are a mindless drone. UC Berkley just sez natural selection is non-random. Dawkins just sez natural selection is non-random.

Yet natural selection is an output driven by three random inputs.

You say you know something about math yet you are too stupid to understand that.

Are you going to answer my questions?

Do you have ANY evidence for mutations constructing novel protein machinery?

If you don't then your "theory" is bullshit.

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

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

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

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:22   

Could you please motherfucker try to be fucking polite and stop insulting everybody? If you've been raised in a fucking pigsty, not everyone else has!

Jebus! This guy reminds me more and more of nutcase Mabus!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:24   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,11:24)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,11:52)
It is a measure of specified information for all the reasons provided.

Ah.

- "The number doesn't reflect specification."

Yet,

- "It is a measure of specified information."

I see.

The NUMBER doesn't reflect the specification- just as 210 doesn't reflect my weight until I add that to it.

However you can do it- you can demonstrate that the number and all that comes after it is totally meaningless just by producing positive evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can account for it.

Yet you can't so you are foeced to flail about.

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

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:26   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Dec. 12 2010,11:22)
Could you please motherfucker try to be fucking polite and stop insulting everybody? If you've been raised in a fucking pigsty, not everyone else has!

Jebus! This guy reminds me more and more of nutcase Mabus!

Hey fuckhead THIS is a cesspool.

And I am glad I remind you of a nutcase. That should be the way it is- irrational assholes like you should find rational people to be nutcases...

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

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:30   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,11:01)
Quote
Do you know what the word "spontaneous" means?


Instantaneous, all at once. Which is what this math requires.

 
Quote
As for Schnieder he has been refuted so often- where does that 256 bit sequence come from Rich?


Would you care to summarize for us, or will you point me to AIG? Why is there something and not nothing? OMG OMG OMG Dezine!!!!11111one.

Edited

No Richtard- spontaneous does not mean Instantaneous, all at once. You are a dolt.

spontaneous:

1: proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint
2: arising from a momentary impulse
3: controlled and directed internally : self-acting <spontaneous movement characteristic of living things>
4: produced without being planted or without human labor : indigenous
5: developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
6: not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural

Geez Rich are you that stupid that you can't even read a dictionary?

How can anyone have a dialogue with someone as obviously ignorant as you are?

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

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:34   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,11:04)
Quote
Selection doesn't help anything Rich. It isn't the magical ratchet you believe it is.


Bald assertions 1, facts 0.

How come GAs work so well then, Joe? If Selection doesn't help anything, GAs wouldn't converge to optimal or locally optimal solutions. Whoops. There it is, reality getting in the way of your Bible Koran again.

GA's work because they were DESIGNED to work.

Nature doesn't select Richtard. Whatever survives to reproduce survives to reproduce.

IOW Natural selection is an oxymoron- and you are too stupid to understand that.

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

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:36   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:16)
Only evolutionists are more vague and non-rigorous.

But ID is not anti-evolution, remember? Your words, not mine. So by definition ID is vague and non-rigorous?

 
Quote

Ya see asshole you still don't have any evidence for construction of protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans via an accumulation of genetic accidents.


If you remember Joe, I conceded that to you for the sake of argument. So where we are now is you need to tell me what *your* evidence for the origin of protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans is. Let's hear all about your evidence for the Intelligent Design of all those things.

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

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:36   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,13:54)
Hey Joe,

 What's the function of a bacterial flagellum?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 Can a bacterial flagellum that's missing one of the two motor proteins function?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 What's a reversion and why does it blow your concept of mutations and information completely out of the water?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

1- motility

2- Perhaps, it depends on which proteins

3- No it doesn't do anything to that argument.

Ya see moron you have to first understand the argument before you can refute it.

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

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:39   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 12 2010,11:36)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:16)
Only evolutionists are more vague and non-rigorous.

But ID is not anti-evolution, remember? Your words, not mine. So by definition ID is vague and non-rigorous?

 
Quote

Ya see asshole you still don't have any evidence for construction of protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans via an accumulation of genetic accidents.


If you remember Joe, I conceded that to you for the sake of argument. So where we are now is you need to tell me what *your* evidence for the origin of protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans is. Let's hear all about your evidence for the Intelligent Design of all those things.

oldmanhashisheaduphisass again.

ID is not anti-evolution but it is antui-the blind watchmaker, ie what the ToE posits.

Geez asshole I have only explained this to you several times.

And the evidence for ID I have already wrote about on my blog.

So if you are going to concede that your position is nonsense then I have nothing else to say.

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

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:41   

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.”

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

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:43   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:19)
You are a mindless drone. UC Berkley just sez natural selection is non-random. Dawkins just sez natural selection is non-random.

Yet natural selection is an output driven by three random inputs.

Joe, perhaps a *simple* example will help. You ever see those machines that count coins? I've got a modified one so that whatever *random* combination of types and numbers of coins you put in out comes a 10 cent piece. Every time.

So a random collection of inputs with a non-random output.

Quote

You say you know something about math yet you are too stupid to understand that.

Joe, sometimes when everybody is saying you don't understand something and you think you do, sometimes it's because you are on the verge of overturning an entire field with a new insight.

Other times it's just because you have a stupid wrong idea and you are just stupid and wrong.

Given the amount of time you've been repeating the same routine, which do you think it is?

Quote

Are you going to answer my questions?

Do you have ANY evidence for mutations constructing novel protein machinery?


Um, Lenski et al?
Quote

If you don't then your "theory" is bullshit.


There's no need for scare quotes. Evolution is sufficiently well supported to deserve that moniker. And even if you think it's not, well let's just call it a "btheory" instead, with the same definition. Happy?

And one theory is replaced by another, better theory that explains more then the one it is replacing.

Do you have such a replacement theory in mind? If so, what does it explain better then the theory it is replacing?

--------------
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: Dec. 12 2010,11:48   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:26)
Hey fuckhead THIS is a cesspool.

Then why are you here Joe? Do you like the stink?

And the only person here with a potty mouth is you.

I guess the main reason people like you call this a cesspool is that when you were young, questioning the ideas you were put in contact with was given the same response as when you swore.

Question the laughable nonsense you get taught in sunday school? "THWACK"

So now, when people here question *your* ideas that's equated with bad behaviour in your mind, as the ideal for the people who distorted your mind in your youth was unquestioning acceptance.
 
Quote

And I am glad I remind you of a nutcase. That should be the way it is- irrational assholes like you should find rational people to be nutcases...


Yet you are unable to converse rationally even at Telic Thoughts, you are routinely ignored, your comments ignored, your "ideas" ignored. Your very contribution to the cause of ID is ignored. Your blog is ignored, except when somebody here goes there.

You need us a whole lot more then we need you Joe. And you know it. And you can't stay away, despite yourself.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:50   



Ladies and Gentlemen, Joe has left the building!

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:50   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:39)
ID is not anti-evolution but it is antui-the blind watchmaker, ie what the ToE posits.

So what does ID replace the blind watchmaker with? I claim invisible pink unicorn who acts via a band of merry protein manipulation men (very small). Your claim???

 
Quote

And the evidence for ID I have already wrote about on my blog.

So if you are going to concede that your position is nonsense then I have nothing else to say.


Wake me up when you publish in the literature instead of your pathetic blog.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:51   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,12:24)
The NUMBER doesn't reflect the specification- just as 210 doesn't reflect my weight until I add that to it.

Ah.

The number yielded by your calculation of specified information does not reflect specification.

That's what I've been saying all along.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,11:53   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:41)
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.”

Joe, so do self catalysing networks of chemicals appear designed under that criteria or not? We were discussing this on your blog, remember, but I guess you were so confident in your position you simply had to stop allowing my comments to appear.

Self catalysing networks:

They have separate components.
They have identifiable function.
That function depends sharply on the components.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,14:54   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Dec. 12 2010,17:22)
Could you please motherfucker try to be fucking polite and stop insulting everybody? If you've been raised in a fucking pigsty, not everyone else has!

Jebus! This guy reminds me more and more of nutcase Mabus!

Don't let the pointless git get under your skin, old chap. He fits into a very small category of people Not Worth Having A Beer With.

I can think of no worse condemnation.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,15:16   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:30)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,11:01)
Quote
Do you know what the word "spontaneous" means?


Instantaneous, all at once. Which is what this math requires.

   
Quote
As for Schnieder he has been refuted so often- where does that 256 bit sequence come from Rich?


Would you care to summarize for us, or will you point me to AIG? Why is there something and not nothing? OMG OMG OMG Dezine!!!!11111one.

Edited

No Richtard- spontaneous does not mean Instantaneous, all at once. You are a dolt.

spontaneous:

1: proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint
2: arising from a momentary impulse
3: controlled and directed internally : self-acting <spontaneous movement characteristic of living things>
4: produced without being planted or without human labor : indigenous
5: developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
6: not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural

Geez Rich are you that stupid that you can't even read a dictionary?

How can anyone have a dialogue with someone as obviously ignorant as you are?

Let me help you Joe:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spontaneous



Quote
coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.
is instantaneous and "Which is what this math requires", which is the salient point.

But then again math isn't your strong point, I had to explain '500' bits because you couldn't.

--------------
"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: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,15:19   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:36)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,13:54)
Hey Joe,

 What's the function of a bacterial flagellum?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 Can a bacterial flagellum that's missing one of the two motor proteins function?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 What's a reversion and why does it blow your concept of mutations and information completely out of the water?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

1- motility

2- Perhaps, it depends on which proteins

3- No it doesn't do anything to that argument.

Ya see moron you have to first understand the argument before you can refute it.

1) Wrong moron... the true function of the flagella is excretion, mobility is a secondary function.  Geez, you're stupid.

2) Which one?  Damn you are dumber than dog spit.  There are only two motor proteins  

3) Then you have no argument either because the information content of all the mutations is the same.  

Ya see moron, you first have to understand before anything...

Well, he answered, to bad he's shown himself to be a complete imbecile.

BTW: It's your hero's contention that bacteria flagella have no function without both MotA and MotB.  This is wrong on TWO levels.  First, the flagella maintains a secretion function without either AND if MotB is missing, then MotA and several other proteins take over.

IOW (I know you love that one): Irreducible complexity is wrong.

Let me ask you Joe... Does ID depend on mutations?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,15:27   

Nice, you should have snuck an IOW in there, though.

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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,17:54   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 12 2010,11:50)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:39)
ID is not anti-evolution but it is antui-the blind watchmaker, ie what the ToE posits.

So what does ID replace the blind watchmaker with? I claim invisible pink unicorn who acts via a band of merry protein manipulation men (very small). Your claim???

   
Quote

And the evidence for ID I have already wrote about on my blog.

So if you are going to concede that your position is nonsense then I have nothing else to say.


Wake me up when you publish in the literature instead of your pathetic blog.

Maybe they are the Polamolecules?

ETA - his blog is peer-reviewed!  Everytime someone goes there they have to peer carefully to make sure they aren't hallucinating.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2010,22:06   

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 12 2010,17:54)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 12 2010,11:50)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:39)
ID is not anti-evolution but it is antui-the blind watchmaker, ie what the ToE posits.

So what does ID replace the blind watchmaker with? I claim invisible pink unicorn who acts via a band of merry protein manipulation men (very small). Your claim???

   
Quote

And the evidence for ID I have already wrote about on my blog.

So if you are going to concede that your position is nonsense then I have nothing else to say.


Wake me up when you publish in the literature instead of your pathetic blog.

Maybe they are the Polamolecules?

ETA - his blog is peer-reviewed!  Everytime someone goes there they have to peer carefully to make sure they aren't hallucinating.

Peer-review does not mean his mama read it and says "good boy" even though she doesn't understand.  She's his mama, she has to say that.

Peer-review does not mean the voices in your head agree with you.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
  9690 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (324) < ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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