Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion BoardThe Critic's Resource on Antievolution

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

 Pages: (324) < ... 206 207 208 209 210 [211] 212 213 214 215 216 ... >
 Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last? < Next Oldest | Next Newest >
Febble

Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

Quote (socle @ May 13 2013,09:53)
Quote (Febble @ May 13 2013,09:40)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:35)

Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,06:30)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,06:19)

 Quote (olegt @ May 12 2013,11:59) And is a set its own superset? So many questions, Joe. So little time.

Are all sets nested hierarchies?

Not all sets are nested hierarchies, Joe.

Now you answer my question. Is a set its own superset?

No,  a set is its own improper superset. That is if olegt really wants to be technical and precise.

I have to ask, Joe: is an improper superset a superset?

No!  Likewise, a cheese pizza is not a pizza!

Well, to be fair, I've had improper pizzas that weren't exactly pizzas....

Febble

Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

Quote (socle @ May 13 2013,09:53)
Quote (Febble @ May 13 2013,09:40)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:35)

Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,06:30)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,06:19)

 Quote (olegt @ May 12 2013,11:59) And is a set its own superset? So many questions, Joe. So little time.

Are all sets nested hierarchies?

Not all sets are nested hierarchies, Joe.

Now you answer my question. Is a set its own superset?

No,  a set is its own improper superset. That is if olegt really wants to be technical and precise.

I have to ask, Joe: is an improper superset a superset?

No!  Likewise, a cheese pizza is not a pizza!

Well, to be fair, I've had improper pizzas that weren't exactly pizzas....

Richardthughes

Posts: 10760
Joined: Jan. 2006

page bug.

--------------
"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
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Richardthughes

Posts: 10760
Joined: Jan. 2006

Still bugged - double bump!

--------------
"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
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

didymos

Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

Joe, you got a real genius for stupid.  Clever Hans probably would have figured it out before you.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

stevestory

Posts: 10340
Joined: Oct. 2005

 Quote (olegt @ May 12 2013,12:59) And is a set its own superset? So many questions, Joe. So little time.

I'd like to see Joe answer whether a set can be the same size as a superset it is part of. In other words joe, if B is a subset of A, does that mean A must be larger?

Arctodus23

Posts: 322
Joined: Mar. 2013

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:25)
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:23)
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:19)

Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:18)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:15)

Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:14)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:07)

Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:04)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:01)

Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:00)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:57)

Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,08:57)

 Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:55) My claim is a set cannot be its own proper superset.

You didn't include the qualifier proper previously, did you?

Yeah I forgot that you were anal retentive...

No, you realized that you were wrong and are too dishonest too admit that, because olegt started out by claiming:
"Wrong.

By definition, a set A is a subset of a set B, or equivalently B is a superset of A, if A is "contained" inside B, that is, all elements of A are also elements of B. A and B may coincide.

Every set contains all of its own elements, therefore every set is its own superset. It is not a proper superset, but I did not ask for that. "
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y221129

And you spend more than a dozen comments disagreeing with that claim, until you apparently realized that he was right all along...

I provided references that supported my claim, asshole.

No, you were lying about references. But even if you didn´t, that wouldn´t explain why you spend more than a dozen comments disagreeing with olegt before you start agreeing with him.

How did I lie about references?

This is where you start disagreeing with olegt:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y221132

And here you suddenly start using the qualifier "proper", meaning that you no longer disagree with olegt, but are obviously too dishonest to admit that.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y221264

Umm nothing there shows that I lied about references.

At first, you tried the old "your references support my claim because fuck you asshole" with olegt, but now that you actually agree with him (without expressing that you did change your mind and retract your earlier claims), it is obvious that you were simply lying about those references.

Read the references for yourself asshole. They are all in this thread dumbass.

Yes, and you must have lied about them since you first claimed they support your position, and then changed your position mid-discussion (without acknowledging that you were wrong and retracting your earlier claims) and now agree with olegt. Conclusively proving that you were lying about those references.

Fuck you asshole.

The references still stand.

--------------
"At our church’s funerals, we sing gospel songs (out loud) to God." -- FL

"So the center of the earth being hotter than the surface is a "gross
violation of the second law of thermodynamics??" -- Ted Holden

stevestory

Posts: 10340
Joined: Oct. 2005

 Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,07:51) A cannot be a superset of A. There has to be at least one other set, BY DEFINITION.

No. There only has to be another element to be a Proper Superset. Not just a superset.

stevestory

Posts: 10340
Joined: Oct. 2005

 Quote (k.e.. @ May 13 2013,08:34) Gee Joe's mad math skilz are even worse than his chemistry.What grade did they kick you out school Joe?

Joe didn't go to school. He was educated with a banana and an inner tube.

stevestory

Posts: 10340
Joined: Oct. 2005

 Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,09:11) Joe, you don't understand abstract algebra, and that's OK. One need not pretend to be an expert on everything. Relax and go to the gym. Sets are not your thing.

Ironically, I learned Abstract Algebra from a Joe G.

No shit.

(BTW, looking at a Rubick's Cube as a permutation group is really fascinating)

stevestory

Posts: 10340
Joined: Oct. 2005

How low ID has fallen. All we have left is a mentally ill Visual Basic hobbyist on one thread, and an uneducated rageaholic on this one.

OgreMkV

Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:06)
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 13 2013,09:04)
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,07:11)

 Quote (OgreMkV @ May 13 2013,07:08) Joe, so let's get this straight. You used a system that is known to be specified, designed, and contains complex information (i.e. a dictionary) to show that everything has complex specified information and is designed.Circular much?How about trying it on an actual aadvark?  What's the specified information content for the actual organism Joe?  I note that your design system (well Dembski's) can't actually do the one thing he wants it to do.That is, identify if there is a difference between designed and evolved. But you still haven't figured out why that's a problem Joe.  Heck, you still think ID is OK with evolution.  It's us who can't read Joe.

Kevin, shut the fuck up. You are obvioulsy a moron.

I used a dictionary definition because it is an example of specified information. I used it to show how we then calculate the number of bits it contains.

And your cowardly equivocation is duly noted. Too bad you cannot demonstrate unguided evolution doing anything but breaking stuff...

Yes Joey.  That's what I said.  You used a dictionary definition... a definition that is specified, complex and intelligently designed.

It's a damn shame that you can't show that something that you don't already know is designed is... well... designed.

Yes, and you have constantly failed to calculate the bits (BTW, I thought it was observed not calculated) in anything but WORDS.  Let's try it with DNA or proteins Joey.

As far as the rest... well, it's a good thing that we don't depend on YOUR definition of 'unguided' now don't we.  Your strawman attack is duly noted.

And you cowardly failure to actually use the design inference and CSI to do anything is also duly noted and has been duly noted for over a decade.

kevin,

Just because you are a moron taht doesn't mean I made a strawman. And if your position had something, anything, for support then you wouldn't have to worry about CSI.

And your ignorance is not a refutation and your coawrdice is legendary.

Believe me Joe.  I worry about a lot of things, but CSI isn't one of them.

I'm worried about CSI in the same way I am worried about evil squirrels taking over the planet and making humans work in their nut mines.

Now, again, Joe.  Here's your chance.  Calculate the CSI of a DNA strand and the protein it produces.

Did you know (and you should because I've told you about it before), that you can have a DNA sequence with one value of CSI and the protein it codes for have another value of CSI?  So, what is being measured?

What's really interesting is that, using a certain length of DNA, you can get (and I forget the order and I'm not doing it again right now) a protein that is above the upper bound of 500 bits, while the DNA that codes for it is below the upper bound of 500 bits.

So, Joe, please explain, in detail (and you don't have to use profanity, I'm honestly asking what's going on).

I know you won't tell me, because you have no idea.  Indeed, I'm willing to bet you can't even figure out the length of DNA at which this type of event will happen.  So, Joey, prove me wrong.  Identify the length and explain why... don't be afraid to use math either.

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

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

stevestory

Posts: 10340
Joined: Oct. 2005

Quote (stevestory @ May 13 2013,16:42)
 Quote (olegt @ May 12 2013,12:59) And is a set its own superset? So many questions, Joe. So little time.

I'd like to see Joe answer whether a set can be the same size as a superset it is part of. In other words joe, if B is a subset of A, does that mean A must be larger?

I wasn't clear when i wrote this--

Gary--can a subset a, of a proper superset b, which has members a doesn't have, be the same size as b?

Henry J

Posts: 4687
Joined: Mar. 2005

 Quote No!??Likewise, a cheese pizza is not a pizza!

It's not a proper pizza, but it's still a pizza.

Quack

Posts: 1957
Joined: May 2007

Quote (stevestory @ May 13 2013,21:00)
Quote (stevestory @ May 13 2013,16:42)

 Quote (olegt @ May 12 2013,12:59) And is a set its own superset? So many questions, Joe. So little time.

I'd like to see Joe answer whether a set can be the same size as a superset it is part of. In other words joe, if B is a subset of A, does that mean A must be larger?

I wasn't clear when i wrote this--

Gary--can a subset a, of a proper superset b, which has members a doesn't have, be the same size as b?

That's a problem of a kind I've never been exposed to before so id possible I should be less capable than Joe to answer. And I won't, but I applied some lead to a piece of paper to see if I could find a solution. and I think I did.

It was very easy, but I may of course have misunderstood the question.

OTOH, if I did understand it my solution stands.

_
ETA edit text.

Edited by Quack on May 14 2013,01:32

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

The whole truth

Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,04:15)
Quote (SLP @ April 24 2013,16:28)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 22 2013,13:52)
JoeTard on his blorg, singing the same one-note song "your side has no evidence", makes an interesting claim:

 Quote JoeTard:  "Umm, your position can't even muster a testable hypothesis. Your posityion doesn't have any predictive power. It has nothing.How can you really evaluate Intelligent design? Read the pro-ID literature.As for "how, when and why", well the why was figured out to be for scientific discovery. The how and when will have to wait. Heck we still don't know how or when or why wrt many artifacts- ie things determined to be designed.Obvioulsy the designer of life has capabilities I do not posses. The designer of bombs- well I have expertise there.

JoeTard lives in the Boston area doesn't he?  Better alert Dembski and have him report JoeTard to Homeland Security.

Well, he did once claim to have gone to Iraq (not as a soldier) and to have somehow gotten injured.  I recall I did some digging at the time, I found a website that listed all non-service people injured or killed in Iraq, and there was no entry for Joey.  I confronted him with this (way back on ARN, I think) and he avoided me for a while.

He's a dumbass, plain and simple.  And apparently a dumbass that wants people to think he is a dangerous one.

Double dumbass.

Poor Scotty has a little pee-pee and he thinks that reflects on me.

I never said that I was treated in Irag, asshole. And the picture floating around that is allegedly of me? Taken in Balad- Camp Anaconda. Go figure...

Page is still upset because he didn't know that spiders had femurs and I did. Oh and he is still upset that his positioon has nothing to show for itself after over 150 years of trying.

Hey joey, SLP said "injured or killed in Iraq" but then you said "treated in Irag". You were never in Iraq, were you? You can't even spell Iraq properly. There are a lot of words that you can't spell properly. Obviously, proper spelling isn't required in the toaster repair business or in pushing muslim-creationist tard.

Are you going to properly answer the questions I asked you, or are you going to chicken out, as usual?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Henry J

Posts: 4687
Joined: Mar. 2005

Quote (stevestory @ May 13 2013,20:00)
Quote (stevestory @ May 13 2013,16:42)
 Quote (olegt @ May 12 2013,12:59) And is a set its own superset? So many questions, Joe. So little time.

I'd like to see Joe answer whether a set can be the same size as a superset it is part of. In other words joe, if B is a subset of A, does that mean A must be larger?

I wasn't clear when i wrote this--

Gary--can a subset a, of a proper superset b, which has members a doesn't have, be the same size as b?

Surely you're not asking him to explain transfinite set theory are you?

stevestory

Posts: 10340
Joined: Oct. 2005

He's been bragging about his math skills, I thought I'd ask him a set theory 201 question....

It was late though so i fucked up and called him gary once. :-(

So Joe, I've got two sets, A and B. A is a proper subset of B. B contains everything A contains, but also a bunch more members.

Can A and B be the same size, or is B necessarily bigger?

Jim_Wynne

Posts: 1198
Joined: June 2006

 Quote (stevestory @ May 14 2013,14:55) He's been bragging about his math skills, I thought I'd ask him a set theory 201 question....It was late though so i fucked up and called him gary once. :-(So Joe, I've got two sets, A and B. A is a proper subset of B. B contains everything A contains, but also a bunch more members.Can A and B be the same size, or is B necessarily bigger?

Fuck you, you evotard asswippe. Your side still has no evidence for blind watsh-makker evolution and ya see, IOW, ID has no problem with evolution and DESIGN *IS* A MECHANISM, FAGGOT.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

didymos

Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

Nobody answer before Joe takes a shot.  You'll ruin the fun.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Richardthughes

Posts: 10760
Joined: Jan. 2006

From his blog, emphasis mine:

 Quote What's the point? Well Oleg Tsuchajerkoff axed me if a set could be a superset of itself. I said no, provided the reasoning and he started flopping about like a fish out of water.

--------------
"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
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

olegt

Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

Poor Joe. He is digging the hole deeper.

 Quote In order to be a proper superset it must be in relation to at least one other set. And those other sets must have fewer elements than the superset, with the superset consisting of and containing of all of the elements in those other sets. That is important information, especially when constructing a nested hierarchy of sets.

This passage contains a category error. Joe mixes apples and oranges.

A set is defined as a standalone thing, without relation to other objects. For example, you can say that {1,2,3} is a set. But if you say that {1,2,3} is a superset, mathematicians will laugh at you because a superset is a comparative notion. {1,2,3} is a superset of {1,2}. It is not a superset of {1,2,3,4}. So is {1,2,3} a superset? The question makes no sense until you specify a set to compare. Something can't be just a superset, it has to be a superset of something.

So Joe puts on reading glasses and boldly extends the standard definition of a superset. A superset (according to Joe) is any set that is a proper superset of at least one other set (in the regular sense).

This extension is nonsense. {1,2,3} is a regular superset of {1,2}, so it is a superset a la Joe. {1} is a superset of {}, so it is a superset a la Joe. Come to think of it, any set is a superset a la Joe because it is a proper superset of the empty set. (The empty set is the only exception.) If all non-empty sets are supersets, why do we need a new word for them? We don't.

LOL

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch

Soapy Sam

Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 13 2013,21:46)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:25)

Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:23)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:19)

Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:18)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:15)

Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:14)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:07)

Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:04)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:01)

Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:00)

Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:57)

Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,08:57)

 Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:55) [snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

Ooh lookee - a nested hierarchy!

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like â€śI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,â€ť you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Henry J

Posts: 4687
Joined: Mar. 2005

 Quote Ooh lookee - a nested hierarchy!

Without any branches?

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5130
Joined: Oct. 2012

Pat Benatar - The Good Life

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

OgreMkV

Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

Gary vs. JoeG, this ought to be good.

Gary, did you know that JoeG apparently not only programmed the first strong AI, he also built the world's first supercomputer (out of pork rinds) and used it to show that all DNA was frontloaded with the mutational mistakes that would eventually become things like HIV resistance and cholesterol resistance.

Oh wait, he didn't do all of that.  JoeG can't even calculate the CSI of an organism using Demsbki's book and having the ear of Gordon, who also can't do the math.

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

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

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5130
Joined: Oct. 2012

 Quote (OgreMkV @ May 15 2013,11:51) Gary vs. JoeG, this ought to be good.Gary, did you know that JoeG apparently not only programmed the first strong AI, he also built the world's first supercomputer (out of pork rinds) and used it to show that all DNA was frontloaded with the mutational mistakes that would eventually become things like HIV resistance and cholesterol resistance.  Oh wait, he didn't do all of that.  JoeG can't even calculate the CSI of an organism using Demsbki's book and having the ear of Gordon, who also can't do the math.

Only ones like Joe G who reach for the golden ring of an ID dream are here with us, not against us, for peace through theory that makes science fun again, that they help make happen too:

Van Halen - Dreams (Blue Angels)

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

olegt

Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

I am afraid it would be like two bots having a conversation on the internet.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch

Richardthughes

Posts: 10760
Joined: Jan. 2006

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2013,12:14)
 Quote (OgreMkV @ May 15 2013,11:51) Gary vs. JoeG, this ought to be good.Gary, did you know that JoeG apparently not only programmed the first strong AI, he also built the world's first supercomputer (out of pork rinds) and used it to show that all DNA was frontloaded with the mutational mistakes that would eventually become things like HIV resistance and cholesterol resistance.  Oh wait, he didn't do all of that.  JoeG can't even calculate the CSI of an organism using Demsbki's book and having the ear of Gordon, who also can't do the math.

Only ones like Joe G who reach for the golden ring of an ID dream are here with us, not against us, for peace through theory that makes science fun again, that they help make happen too:

Van Halen - Dreams (Blue Angels)

Hey Gary - Joe has a blog, and would love some company:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot.com

--------------
"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
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

JohnW

Posts: 2816
Joined: Aug. 2006

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2013,10:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2013,12:14)
 Quote (OgreMkV @ May 15 2013,11:51) Gary vs. JoeG, this ought to be good.Gary, did you know that JoeG apparently not only programmed the first strong AI, he also built the world's first supercomputer (out of pork rinds) and used it to show that all DNA was frontloaded with the mutational mistakes that would eventually become things like HIV resistance and cholesterol resistance.  Oh wait, he didn't do all of that.  JoeG can't even calculate the CSI of an organism using Demsbki's book and having the ear of Gordon, who also can't do the math.

Only ones like Joe G who reach for the golden ring of an ID dream are here with us, not against us, for peace through theory that makes science fun again, that they help make happen too:

Van Halen - Dreams (Blue Angels)

Hey Gary - Joe has a blog, and would love some company:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

--------------
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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

 9716 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

 Pages: (324) < ... 206 207 208 209 210 [211] 212 213 214 215 216 ... >

 Forum Jump -----------   >All About Antievolution   -----------------------    +- Antievolution, Politics, and the Law    +- Intelligent Design    +- Young-Earth Antievolution    +- Old-Earth Antievolution    +- Collaborations   >Specifically About Intelligent Design   -------------------------------------    +- Intelligent Design News    +- Not a Book to Be Tossed Aside Lightly...    +- Cabbages and Kings    +- The ID-files   >Evolutionary Biology   --------------------    +- News & Events   >From the Panda's Thumb   --------------------------    +- After the Bar Closes...   >The TalkOrigins Archive   -----------------------    +- Feedback

 Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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