RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: A thread for Dr Jammer, who believes in scientific progress.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2012,15:44   

Dr Jammer sayeth this:
 
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 10 2012,15:25)
     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,15:23)
         
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 10 2012,15:17)
Let's face reality here, ladies, gentlemen, and chubby guys with oddly-shaped heads: Darwinists are vitriolic monsters who have no problem with squashing dissenters.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It's a "bad thing" from the perspective of a rational, civil human being who believes in scientific progress. Someone like me, for example.

Obviously, none of the above applies to you, nor most of the members here. To all of you, so-called "blind watchmaker" evolution (whatever the accepted term for it is nowadays) is a religion. It is your creation story, and, thus, you take challenges to it very personally. That explains the emotional, often vulgar responses to?and hostile treatment of?dissenters.

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that there are many similarities between the Islamic extremist and the dogmatic Darwinist. They're convinced they're right, you're convinced you're right. You both believe the infidels should be squashed, you just go about it different ways (murder vs. institutionalized discrimination). I'm willing to bet most of you would happily kill I.D. proponents if it weren't for the consequences (read: prison).

Here.

 
Quote
I'm willing to bet most of you would happily kill I.D. proponents if it weren't for the consequences (read: prison).


Are you? Are you really willing to bet? Bottle of something, perhaps?

In any case, if you are serioues about *any* of this stuff then you need a thread to yourself. And this is it!

Welcome welcome welcome!

--------------
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: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2012,15:55   

Let's lay down some ground rules.

I'll start.

1) Don't use "squash" when you mean "quash."

OK, next?

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2012,15:58   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,22:55)
Let's lay down some ground rules.

I'll start.

1) Don't use "squash" when you mean "quash."

OK, next?

2) Don't use "someone like me" when you have zero empirical evidence for your claim.

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2012,16:01   

Quote
It's a "bad thing" from the perspective of a rational, civil human being who believes in scientific progress.


So, do you call what happens over at Uncommon Descent scientific progress? Does silencing people ever result in scientific progress?

How can you measure such progress? Is intelligent design a step forwards or a step back? Why?

--------------
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: Feb. 10 2012,16:01   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 10 2012,15:58)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,22:55)
Let's lay down some ground rules.

I'll start.

1) Don't use "squash" when you mean "quash."

OK, next?

2) Don't use "someone like me" when you have zero empirical evidence for your claim.

3) Suicide by cop, to prove that we are just as heavy with the ban hammer, doesn't work.

--------------
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: Feb. 10 2012,16:03   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 10 2012,15:58)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,22:55)
Let's lay down some ground rules.

I'll start.

1) Don't use "squash" when you mean "quash."

OK, next?

2) Don't use "someone like me" when you have zero empirical evidence for your claim.

 
Quote
To all of you, so-called "blind watchmaker" evolution (whatever the accepted term for it is nowadays) is a religion.

3)If you don't even know what to call something, perhaps you should hold off on criticising it until you actually know what it is you are criticising.

EDIT: Ok, this is 4. Beaten by seconds to the bronze :P

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2012,16:04   

Quote
I'm willing to bet most of you would happily kill I.D. proponents if it weren't for the consequences (read: prison).


5)  Don't say "kill" when you mean "make sweet sweet sweet homosex to".  Most of us aren't that sadistic, you naughty little pervert

ETA to satisfy the order nazi :p

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2012,16:05   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 10 2012,16:04)
4)  Don't say "kill" when you mean "make sweet sweet sweet homosex to".  Most of us aren't that sadistic, you naughty little pervert

Ha, that ain't 4, it's 5. Or 4b. You can have that. Is cool.

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2012,16:05   

Welcome, Jammer. Bring your friends. We don't want to kill you, honest. We're just the science geeks extending the hand of friendship to the Christian kids. We can unite against the jocks. We may disagree on some stuff ... but it's all in fun.

At the end of it all, you will float up on your fluffy cloud and can laugh heartily while we go down into a fiery pit for finding evolutionary theory the best fit to data at this point in proceedings. So, ultimately, no harm done, eh?

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

If hail is made out of ice and ice came from ice via water, then hail is made out of ice. Joe G

  
Freddie



Posts: 366
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2012,16:06   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2012,16:05)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 10 2012,16:04)
4)  Don't say "kill" when you mean "make sweet sweet sweet homosex to".  Most of us aren't that sadistic, you naughty little pervert

Ha, that ain't 4, it's 5. Or 4b. You can have that. Is cool.

Okay - reset to ..

6) Don't send confusing and mixed messages in a single post.

>Obviously, none of the above applies to you, nor most of the members here.

>I'm willing to bet most of you would happily kill I.D. proponents if it weren't for the consequences (read: prison).

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2012,16:07   

Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 10 2012,17:06)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2012,16:05)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 10 2012,16:04)
4)  Don't say "kill" when you mean "make sweet sweet sweet homosex to".  Most of us aren't that sadistic, you naughty little pervert

Ha, that ain't 4, it's 5. Or 4b. You can have that. Is cool.

Okay - reset to ..

6) Don't send confusing and mixed messages in a single post.

>Obviously, none of the above applies to you, nor most of the members here.

>I'm willing to bet most of you would happily kill I.D. proponents if it weren't for the consequences (read: prison).

7) No saying "Read: prison" when your avatar is "Signature in the Cell."

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

  
Tom A



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2012,23:12   

You all know that he doesn't have the stones to show up right?

He's so  brave among his fellow bullies on UD, but he runs when confronted outside his turf.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2152
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,03:42   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,14:07)
7) No saying "Read: prison" when your avatar is "Signature in the Cell."

:-)

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,09:48   

Jammer, are you an ID expert?  Because I have some questions that those on UD and Meyer and Dembski and Behe all have utterly failed to answer over the last decade or so.

If you have some knowledge of ID, then I would appreciate answers.  I would hope that you have some knowledge of ID, since it is obvious that you have no knowledge of evolution... or tact for that matter.

But nonetheless I would like to discuss this notion that is ID.  Just let me know when you are ready.

kthks

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

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 1550
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2012,10:54   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 11 2012,09:48)
Jammer, are you an ID expert?  Because I have some questions that those on UD and Meyer and Dembski and Behe all have utterly failed to answer over the last decade or so.

If you have some knowledge of ID, then I would appreciate answers.  I would hope that you have some knowledge of ID, since it is obvious that you have no knowledge of evolution... or tact for that matter.

But nonetheless I would like to discuss this notion that is ID.  Just let me know when you are ready.

kthks

Hi Kevin,

1- You don't know anything about Intelligent Design so you cannot form a relevant question

2- You don't know anything about evolution so you cannot answer.

But anyway- just for you:

Yup <a href=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-we-distinguish-human-v-natural-excavations/comment-page-1/#comment-415423><b>Kevin is at it again</b></a>, this time he thinks he has devised a test that will show that archaeology, forensic science, SETI, Intelligent Design, insurance fraud and more are all baseless and without merit.

Of course all he does is erect a strawman because he is an ignorant asshole and that is all he is good for.

I will say it AGAIN Kevin- Intelligent Design, archaeology, forensics, insurance fraud all say they can determine what happens by chance and/ or necessity with what requires agency involvement. And that means, as I have told you but you ignored, context is everything.

The funniest part about Kevin's test- it also renders his position moot as his position also requires the ability to determine between design and not.

Way to go dumbass...

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

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2012,11:10   

Quote
Intelligent Design, archaeology, forensics, insurance fraud all say they can determine what happens by chance and/ or necessity with what requires agency involvement.


Of those, which has never drawn a conclusion as to the type of "agency" that was involved in any investigation?

Notice anything about that particular odd one out?

--------------
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: 1550
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2012,11:29   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2012,11:10)
Quote
Intelligent Design, archaeology, forensics, insurance fraud all say they can determine what happens by chance and/ or necessity with what requires agency involvement.


Of those, which has never drawn a conclusion as to the type of "agency" that was involved in any investigation?

Notice anything about that particular odd one out?

They all rely on the evidence to make any inference of the agency. And in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used is by studying the design.

Not that you would 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

BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2012,11:33   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,10:54)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 11 2012,09:48)
Jammer, are you an ID expert?  Because I have some questions that those on UD and Meyer and Dembski and Behe all have utterly failed to answer over the last decade or so.

If you have some knowledge of ID, then I would appreciate answers.  I would hope that you have some knowledge of ID, since it is obvious that you have no knowledge of evolution... or tact for that matter.

But nonetheless I would like to discuss this notion that is ID.  Just let me know when you are ready.

kthks

Hi Kevin,

1- You don't know anything about Intelligent Design so you cannot form a relevant question

2- You don't know anything about evolution so you cannot answer.

But anyway- just for you:

Yup <a href=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-we-distinguish-human-v-natural-excavations/comment-page-1/#comment-415423><b>Kevin is at it again</b></a>, this time he thinks he has devised a test that will show that archaeology, forensic science, SETI, Intelligent Design, insurance fraud and more are all baseless and without merit.

Of course all he does is erect a strawman because he is an ignorant asshole and that is all he is good for.

I will say it AGAIN Kevin- Intelligent Design, archaeology, forensics, insurance fraud all say they can determine what happens by chance and/ or necessity with what requires agency involvement. And that means, as I have told you but you ignored, context is everything.

The funniest part about Kevin's test- it also renders his position moot as his position also requires the ability to determine between design and not.

Way to go dumbass...

Hi Joe,

As I have been asking for years.  Instead of insulting me, why don't you actually answer the questions I'm asking.  I can read, even multiple sentences, so if you would like to explain, then I'm open to it.

You see, unlike you, I don't reject material just because it doesn't mesh with my beliefs.  I am perfectly taking in new evidence and comparing results.

So, why don't you show us.  Use the principles of Intelligent Design to show us the agency in anything.

I maintain, and not a single ID proponent has even attempted to disprove, that the "I" part of "ID" isn't even required.  You are really interested in design.  Other than the fact that you claim design must be caused by an intelligence, there is nothing in anything YOU HAVE TOLD ME about ID that requires intelligence.

Design is all around us in the real world and very, very little of it requires an intelligence to create.  Tell us Joe, what intelligence designed you?  Cause you might want to discuss a refund... or at least some warranty work.  All those problems you keep complaining about (hurt back, knees, etc).

Now, you have two choices here, you can say that not everything requires direct intelligent design.  And that's fine, but why aren't you pushing that on the ID proponents who do believe that every single event and system in the universe was directly designed?

If you do think that every single thing was directly designed, then a) what evidence do you offer that an intelligence is required and b) why don't you take this evidence to people like Behe who do not think that every single thing is designed.

Let's face it Joe, you either like to pretend to be a martyr are you just like to argue in places where there is no danger to you.  You don't have a horse in this race.

Let me ask a final question.  How do you show that ID is right?  Not "show me ID is right".  How would you even begin the process?

Start from basic principles and work your way forward.  I'm offering you the chance to make a real impact on ID research Joe.  Anytime you say anything, back it up with peer-reviewed research and start from the basics.  What if there is a designer?  What does that imply about the known universe?  What data would support or contradict this?  What if it was a different kind of designer?  What would that imply?  What data would support or contradict that?  Has any of this data been found?  By who?  When?  Why can't natural processes account for it (not because 'it's too hard), but show mathematically, why there is a 500 bit limit.  What not 501 bits?  Why not a 1000 bits?  What does this imply about the designer?  Why?

etc. etc. etc.

This is a process called 'science'.  You might have heard of it, even though you don't seem to understand it.

And if you say "it's been done", then point me to a link, with quotes from that link to support your position.  I will ask many questions about that link.  You can answer them or not.  It's your choice.

We all know that you will never, ever do this.  Because, regardless of what you and anyone else says, ID is religion and has no bearing on any form of science.  It, by definition, is not science.  And we both know it... you're just too scared to admit it.

So, get cracking on that research Joe.

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

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 1550
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2012,11:40   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 15 2012,11:33)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,10:54)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 11 2012,09:48)
Jammer, are you an ID expert?  Because I have some questions that those on UD and Meyer and Dembski and Behe all have utterly failed to answer over the last decade or so.

If you have some knowledge of ID, then I would appreciate answers.  I would hope that you have some knowledge of ID, since it is obvious that you have no knowledge of evolution... or tact for that matter.

But nonetheless I would like to discuss this notion that is ID.  Just let me know when you are ready.

kthks

Hi Kevin,

1- You don't know anything about Intelligent Design so you cannot form a relevant question

2- You don't know anything about evolution so you cannot answer.

But anyway- just for you:

Yup <a href=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-we-distinguish-human-v-natural-excavations/comment-page-1/#comment-415423><b>Kevin is at it again</b></a>, this time he thinks he has devised a test that will show that archaeology, forensic science, SETI, Intelligent Design, insurance fraud and more are all baseless and without merit.

Of course all he does is erect a strawman because he is an ignorant asshole and that is all he is good for.

I will say it AGAIN Kevin- Intelligent Design, archaeology, forensics, insurance fraud all say they can determine what happens by chance and/ or necessity with what requires agency involvement. And that means, as I have told you but you ignored, context is everything.

The funniest part about Kevin's test- it also renders his position moot as his position also requires the ability to determine between design and not.

Way to go dumbass...

Hi Joe,

As I have been asking for years.  Instead of insulting me, why don't you actually answer the questions I'm asking.  I can read, even multiple sentences, so if you would like to explain, then I'm open to it.

You see, unlike you, I don't reject material just because it doesn't mesh with my beliefs.  I am perfectly taking in new evidence and comparing results.

So, why don't you show us.  Use the principles of Intelligent Design to show us the agency in anything.

I maintain, and not a single ID proponent has even attempted to disprove, that the "I" part of "ID" isn't even required.  You are really interested in design.  Other than the fact that you claim design must be caused by an intelligence, there is nothing in anything YOU HAVE TOLD ME about ID that requires intelligence.

Design is all around us in the real world and very, very little of it requires an intelligence to create.  Tell us Joe, what intelligence designed you?  Cause you might want to discuss a refund... or at least some warranty work.  All those problems you keep complaining about (hurt back, knees, etc).

Now, you have two choices here, you can say that not everything requires direct intelligent design.  And that's fine, but why aren't you pushing that on the ID proponents who do believe that every single event and system in the universe was directly designed?

If you do think that every single thing was directly designed, then a) what evidence do you offer that an intelligence is required and b) why don't you take this evidence to people like Behe who do not think that every single thing is designed.

Let's face it Joe, you either like to pretend to be a martyr are you just like to argue in places where there is no danger to you.  You don't have a horse in this race.

Let me ask a final question.  How do you show that ID is right?  Not "show me ID is right".  How would you even begin the process?

Start from basic principles and work your way forward.  I'm offering you the chance to make a real impact on ID research Joe.  Anytime you say anything, back it up with peer-reviewed research and start from the basics.  What if there is a designer?  What does that imply about the known universe?  What data would support or contradict this?  What if it was a different kind of designer?  What would that imply?  What data would support or contradict that?  Has any of this data been found?  By who?  When?  Why can't natural processes account for it (not because 'it's too hard), but show mathematically, why there is a 500 bit limit.  What not 501 bits?  Why not a 1000 bits?  What does this imply about the designer?  Why?

etc. etc. etc.

This is a process called 'science'.  You might have heard of it, even though you don't seem to understand it.

And if you say "it's been done", then point me to a link, with quotes from that link to support your position.  I will ask many questions about that link.  You can answer them or not.  It's your choice.

We all know that you will never, ever do this.  Because, regardless of what you and anyone else says, ID is religion and has no bearing on any form of science.  It, by definition, is not science.  And we both know it... you're just too scared to admit it.

So, get cracking on that research Joe.

Kevin,

We have shown that agency is required.

OTOH your position has nothing.

And no- no IDists says that everything is directly designed- you are an asshole.

And again to refute any given design inference all YOU have to do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it.

IOW you need to step up and present positive evidence for your position.

Why don't YOU do all the things you ask of me but for your position?

Yoiu need to focus on youir position and that will take care of ID as the way to the design inference is through your position.

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

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

BTW: Joe, our position (i.e. evolution) does NOT require that there existed a species of ape-humans with 47 chromosomes.-Kevin McCarthy, ignorant of genetics

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1507
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2012,11:46   

Poor little Joey Gallien is lonely again....

so ronery!

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2012,11:52   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2012,11:46)
Poor little Joey Gallien is lonely again....

so ronery!

Joe doesn't realize that before we can throw bricks at him, he at least has to provide straw - strawman soaked in oil of ad hominem.  Not just the ad hominem part.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2012,11:58   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,11:40)

Kevin,

We have shown that agency is required.


As I predicted.  Grandiose claims, but not actual information presented.  As we say in Texas... all hat, no cattle.  IOW, you ain't got shit and you know it.

Quote

OTOH your position has nothing.


and you are an expert on positions that have nothing.  

However, I'd just like to remind you that you continually misrepresent my position anyway.  So whatever you think my position is, you are wrong.

My position (and that of all competent biologists, the world over) has plenty of support.

Quote

And no- no IDists says that everything is directly designed- you are an asshole.


That's right, when I gave the links to a IDist who did say that, you were too scared to come and argue with him.  Why was that?  

It was Amazon.com, one of the review threads for Signature in the Cell.

Quote

And again to refute any given design inference all YOU have to do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it.


Nope, that what you THINK is required, because you are still attacking a strawman.

Quote

IOW you need to step up and present positive evidence for your position.


Remind me again, with your significant knowledge of science and logic, how that works.

Explain in detail how supporting an opposing position automatically refutes a position.  

Oh wait, it doesn't.

But that's not the big question you keep running away from.  You claim that ID is not anti-evolution, yet all I have to do to refute ID is support evolution.

Can we count the logical fallacies and outright contradictions in this?

But that's OK.  Keep on trucking dude.
Why don't YOU do all the things you ask of me but for your position?

Yoiu need to focus on youir position and that will take care of ID as the way to the design inference is through your position.[/quote]
.v

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

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

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2012,12:02   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,09:29)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2012,11:10)
Quote
Intelligent Design, archaeology, forensics, insurance fraud all say they can determine what happens by chance and/ or necessity with what requires agency involvement.


Of those, which has never drawn a conclusion as to the type of "agency" that was involved in any investigation?

Notice anything about that particular odd one out?

They all rely on the evidence to make any inference of the agency. And in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used is by studying the design.

Not that you would understand that...

I am very ignorant of the claims of ID and nowhere near an expert on the claims of cutting edge evolutionary science, but I am curious about the question of agency raised here. In all of those other fields, the nature of the agent is well understood and the possible actions of the possible agents are well understood. Wouldn't ID need some idea of what sort of actions an agent could make in order to be in that group?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2012,19:04   

I just poked my head in to see if the douchenozzle ever showed up.

On the upside, I see a completely adequate stand-in has arrived.

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

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1014
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,14:44   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 15 2012,12:02)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,09:29)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2012,11:10)
 
Quote
Intelligent Design, archaeology, forensics, insurance fraud all say they can determine what happens by chance and/ or necessity with what requires agency involvement.


Of those, which has never drawn a conclusion as to the type of "agency" that was involved in any investigation?

Notice anything about that particular odd one out?

They all rely on the evidence to make any inference of the agency. And in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used is by studying the design.

Not that you would understand that...

I am very ignorant of the claims of ID and nowhere near an expert on the claims of cutting edge evolutionary science, but I am curious about the question of agency raised here. In all of those other fields, the nature of the agent is well understood and the possible actions of the possible agents are well understood. Wouldn't ID need some idea of what sort of actions an agent could make in order to be in that group?

Well, when you only have a single data point, one line drawn through it is just as good as any other...

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1109
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2012,20:51   

joe barfed the stuff that's in quotes:

"We have shown that agency is required."

You haven't shown any such thing. And who's "We"?

"OTOH your position has nothing."

You keep saying that as if it's true. It's not.

"And no- no IDists says that everything is directly designed- you are an asshole."

Actually, many religious people believe and say that everything was and/or is directly designed and created by their chosen god, and that includes some or all of you IDiots. Tell me joe, what IS and ISN'T directly designed, and how do you know? Show your work.

"And again to refute any given design inference all YOU have to do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it."

It isn't the job of science to refute any or every asinine belief that morons like you have.

"IOW you need to step up and present positive evidence for your position."

You're funny joe. Stupid, blind, deaf, uneducated, delusional, obnoxious, insane, and funny.

"Why don't YOU do all the things you ask of me but for your position?"

You're one of the IDiots who claim that you have a scientific, evidential inference/hypothesis/theory, so it's up to you IDiots to support it in a scientific, evidential, positive way. The ToE is well supported.

"Yoiu need to focus on youir position and that will take care of ID as the way to the design inference is through your position."

You're good at spewing nonsense joe. What you're actually saying is that science should re-label its interpretations so that your chosen god gets credit for the origin (creation), design, and diversity of life, and everything else. Putting your preferred label on things wouldn't produce anything helpful or positive. It would just stifle research.  

Hey joe, why is your "position" through a different "position"? Can't you ID scientists (LOL) do your own work? What's stopping you?

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2012,22:30   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 15 2012,20:04)
I just poked my head in to see if the douchenozzle ever showed up.

On the upside, I see a completely adequate equally impotent stand-in has arrived.

FTFY HTH HAND

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2012,16:26   

Let's keep the JoeG bullshit on the JoeG thread. Thanks.



Vomit

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10299
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,01:54   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2012,15:44)
Dr Jammer sayeth this:
   
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 10 2012,15:25)
     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,15:23)
         
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 10 2012,15:17)
Let's face reality here, ladies, gentlemen, and chubby guys with oddly-shaped heads: Darwinists are vitriolic monsters who have no problem with squashing dissenters.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It's a "bad thing" from the perspective of a rational, civil human being who believes in scientific progress. Someone like me, for example.

Obviously, none of the above applies to you, nor most of the members here. To all of you, so-called "blind watchmaker" evolution (whatever the accepted term for it is nowadays) is a religion. It is your creation story, and, thus, you take challenges to it very personally. That explains the emotional, often vulgar responses to?and hostile treatment of?dissenters.

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that there are many similarities between the Islamic extremist and the dogmatic Darwinist. They're convinced they're right, you're convinced you're right. You both believe the infidels should be squashed, you just go about it different ways (murder vs. institutionalized discrimination). I'm willing to bet most of you would happily kill I.D. proponents if it weren't for the consequences (read: prison).

Here.

 
Quote
I'm willing to bet most of you would happily kill I.D. proponents if it weren't for the consequences (read: prison).


Are you? Are you really willing to bet? Bottle of something, perhaps?

In any case, if you are serioues about *any* of this stuff then you need a thread to yourself. And this is it!

Welcome welcome welcome!

Bumping for our troll.

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

  
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,03:18   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 11 2012,10:48)
Jammer, are you an ID expert?  Because I have some questions that those on UD and Meyer and Dembski and Behe all have utterly failed to answer over the last decade or so.

If you have some knowledge of ID, then I would appreciate answers.  I would hope that you have some knowledge of ID, since it is obvious that you have no knowledge of evolution... or tact for that matter.

But nonetheless I would like to discuss this notion that is ID.  Just let me know when you are ready.

kthks

I wouldn't say I'm an expert, no. That designation should be reserved for intellectuals such as kairosfocus, Stephen C. Meyer, and the great (and dearly missed) DaveScot.

My guess is that your queries have been answered repeatedly, and that you refuse to accept said answers. That's how it usually goes with you guys.

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
  56 replies since Feb. 10 2012,15:44 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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