RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (276) < ... 130 131 132 133 134 [135] 136 137 138 139 140 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2012,17:58   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2012,10:57)
Dude, buy a fucking vowel- archaeologists cannot say one fucking thing about the designers until they determine they even existed. And they do that by finding evidence of their existence via the determination of artifacts

And the only way they make any scientific determination about the designer(s) is by studying the design and the relevant evidence. That is what Intellignet Design is all about. And all the other questions prove that ID is not a dead-end as there are obviously unanswered questions that we will attempt to answer.

Stonehenge, made up of stones, stones mother nature can produce yet for some reason no one thinks mother nature produced Stonehenge. And after centuries of study we still don't know exactly who nor how...

I come back from a nice vacation to even more epic fail.

So, provide us the evidence that your 'designer' has existed.

Unfortunately for you, to eliminate circular reasoning, you can't use the things you claim are the designs as evidence of the designer.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2012,18:09   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2012,10:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 09 2012,11:44)
While my pizza is heating, I figured I'd delve into a more common definition of information.

 
Quote
Information theory is based on probability theory and statistics. The most important quantities of information are entropy, the information in a random variable, and mutual information, the amount of information in common between two random variables.


Well, that first sentence let's out Joe right there.

Of course, the second sentence probably screws him up too. (Hint: This isn't the same entropy as in the second law of thermodynamics, which probably explains the creationist attempt to say that information can't increase, because entropy can't decrease... in a closed system.)

 
Quote
entropy, which is usually expressed by the average number of bits needed to store or communicate one symbol in a message.


Now, in our two DNA sequences... there are four characters in use. Doesn't matter what they are, just that there are four of them. We could spell them out, we could assign numbers, or code phrases (adenine = swamp ass). But it doesn't matter, because there are still only 4 choices.

Therefore it only takes 2 bits to unambiguously identify those 4 options. Two bits is also nice because it does not have any excess. I.e. there is no repeatability (like how UCU, UCA, UCG, UCC, AGU, and AGC all stand for serine in translating mRNA -> amino acids). So, 2 bits per letter really is the shortest possible sequence that we can describe these two molecules... without compression. But since the tension is already so thick... nevermind.

Now, we have a total of 1698 characters in each sequence. With 2 bits per characters, we get each sequence can be described with 3,396 bits.

Again, any changes in the sequence don't matter. Because every bit is equivalent to every other bit. 01 is not somehow more important than 00. So the the point mutation shown in bold does not (cannot) affect the actual information content in the sequence.

Since each sequence is 1698 characters, then each sequence is 3396 bits.

They contain the same amount of information.

Joe, do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, state clearly why.

Again, because I know that you don't understand this. This question has nothing to do with ID or any other notions that you may hold dear. This is a simple question.

Using Shannon information theory, these two sequences have the same amount of information, correct?

Kevin- as I have already told you Shannon is useless here as Shannon only refers to mere complexity and information carrying capacity. Meyer goes over that in "Signature in the Cell"

"Information" as IDists use it is the same as Information Technology- it has to convey meaning or have a function.

And as I have also told you variational tolerance is key because if any polypeptide can perform the function then it isn't specified.

Information. The information age. Information technology. Information theory.

When IDists speak of complex specified information they are using it in the following sense:

information- the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

It is producing those specific events which make the information specified!

When Shannon developed his information theory he was not concerned about "specific effects":
Quote

The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators


And that is what separates mere complexity (Shannon) from specified complexity.

And now we see why Joe refuses to answer my simple question.  Because he MUST be able to dodge the bullet (as it were).

Because here's what you said, Joe, on your blog on January 19th of this year:

Quote
Complex specified information is a specified subset of Shannon information. That means that complex specified information is Shannon information of a specified nature, ie with meaning and/ or function, and with a specified complexity.

Shannon's tells us that since there are 4 possible nucleotides, 4 = 2^2 = 2 bits of information per nucleotide. Also there are 64 different coding codons, 64 = 2^6 = 6 bits of information per amino acid, which, is the same as the three nucleotides it was translated from.

Take that and for example a 100 amino acid long functioning protein- a protein that cannot tolerate any variation, which means it is tightly specified and just do the math 100 x 6 + 6 (stop) = 606 bits of specified information- minimum, to get that protein. That means CSI is present and design is strongly supported.

Now if any sequence of those 100 amino acids can produce that protein then it isn't specified. IOW if every possible combo produced the same resulting protein, I would say that would put a hurt on the design inference.

The variational tolerance has to be figured in with the number of bits.


In other, I did EXACTLY the same thing that you did, but I'm wrong, because... well... I'm doing it I guess.

You see Joe, the problem is that both of those sequences do exactly the same thing, except one of them does something else too.

So, by this measure, since one allele does something the other does not, does that make it more complex?  (That's a yes/no question for you Joe)

What's very interesting is that there are some 20-30 alleles that are exactly the same except for one nucleotide.. and almost all of them perform the same function.

Yet, there are another 10^(some really big number) of sequences that long that DO NOT perform that function.

But, yet again, none of this has to do with the actual question, which Joe is much to chicken to answer.

Actually it does have a lot do to with what Joe talks about.  He's just cunning enough to realize this is a trap, but is much to dumb to realize that no matter how he answers, he's wrong... because his entire metric is stupid anyway.

But there we go.

More quotes from JoeG on this:
Quote
Specified Information is Shannon Information with meaning/ function.


Quote
Shannon's theory and algorithmic information theory are about complexity, not content


Tell me Joe, what is the context of these two alleles?  Have you figured it out yet?  I know, do you?

Tell me Joe, what is the meaning of these two alleles?  Have you figured it out yet?  I know, do you?

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

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

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 536
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2012,18:45   

Quote
Tell me Joe, what is the context of these two alleles? Have you figured it out yet? I know, do you?

Tell me Joe, what is the meaning of these two alleles? Have you figured it out yet? I know, do you?


Joe - *cough*Google! Can't beat a globulin, as I was saying to Person A only the other day. Blast!

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2012,19:34   

you might as well expect your dog to write a book

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2012,20:40   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 11 2012,18:45)
Quote
Tell me Joe, what is the context of these two alleles? Have you figured it out yet? I know, do you?

Tell me Joe, what is the meaning of these two alleles? Have you figured it out yet? I know, do you?


Joe - *cough*Google! Can't beat a globulin, as I was saying to Person A only the other day. Blast!

Do you honestly think that Joe has a blast with us?

I think his cognitive skills are too anemic to get the picture.


ETA: And it doesn't matter, by both methods that Joe has advocated, both sequences have exactly the same information.  Arguably the first has more CSI because it has two functions.

Would you agree with that Joe?

Edited by OgreMkV on Mar. 11 2012,20:41

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

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

   
Amadan



Posts: 1268
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,04:12   

Joe at TSZ

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Woodbine



Posts: 808
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,08:45   

So, Lizzie has a post up about Dembski's CSI. It's going well when all of a sudden.....whoooosh!.....here comes Captain Guano to set everybody straight!

Lizzie initiates discussion by posting a link to Dembski's Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence paper.

Cap'n Guano to the rescue!

 
Quote
Umm-

1- The paper pertains to specified complexity, not CSI- yes CSI is a special case of SC but not all SC = CSI


Lizzie tries to let Joe down gently....

 
Quote
Joe, CSI stands for Complex Specified Information. This paper is about Information that is Complex and Specified. How is that not Complex Specified Information?

What kind of "Specified Complexity" is not "Complex Specified Information"?


Cap'n Guano doubles down....

 
Quote
Please reference the part of the paper that says "complex specified information"- I looked it isn't to be found.

What kind of SC is not CSI? The kind that does not deal with bits of information- the kind we see in buildings and the kind we see in machines.


:D

Lizzie tries again....

 
Quote
You are correct: it does not appear. However, the subject of the paper is information that is complex and specified, and the equation given is the one that Dembski has elsewhere given for CSI.

What kind of SC is not CSI? The kind that does not deal with bits of information- the kind we see in buildings and the kind we see in machines.

So why does Dembski, in that paper, calculate specified complexity in bits? Joe, do read the paper!


R0b takes a somewhat dimmer view and dispatches the Captain with a single well placed shot....

 
Quote
 
Quote
Joe: The paper pertains to specified complexity, not CSI.

Dembski disagrees:

For my most up-to-date treatment of CSI, see Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence at http://www.designinference.com./....ce.....ce.com.

But what does he know?


KAPOW!

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10318
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,09:04   

He's wonderfully clueless. Will he link to CAEK?

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1161
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,18:24   

So, joe says:

"What kind of SC is not CSI? The kind that does not deal with bits of information- the kind we see in buildings and the kind we see in machines."

But, he also says:

"Computer programs, computers, cars, houses (built to code), etc., etc., all contain and are made from Complex Specified Information."

In this thread.

Aren't computers and cars machines, and isn't a house a building whether it's "built to code" or not?

--------------
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: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2012,22:55   

Quote
Aren't computers and cars machines, and isn't a house a building whether it's "built to code" or not?

That would depend on whether the code is front loaded or not. :p

Henry

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10318
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,01:02   

MOAR GUANO:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....e_id=57

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

  
socle



Posts: 290
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,01:21   

Joe G:
Quote

Do you really think that your refusal to grasp a concept is somehow a refutation of that concept?



  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10318
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,01:40   

Maths Q for teh_smart_ones

Does anyone have the formulas for converting z scores (SDs) to cumulative probability percentages and vice verse?

Thanks!

EDIT: Wrong thread! curse you Joe, why polute your thread with ACTUAL MATH!

Edited by Richardthughes on Mar. 14 2012,01:41

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

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,03:31   

[1/sqrt(2*pi)]*e^-[(z^2)/2]

Or use NORMSDIST in Excel :)

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1994
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,07:59   

You need to integrate that. Can't be done analytically, though.

But this might help.

BTW, one of the more efficient methods for simulating a normal distribution is called the Monty Python algorithm.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10318
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,08:39   

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 14 2012,03:31)
[1/sqrt(2*pi)]*e^-[(z^2)/2]

Or use NORMSDIST in Excel :)

Thanks, Liz and Bob. I do need the area under the curve!

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2012,08:48   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2012,02:02)
MOAR GUANO:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....e....e_id=57

364 comments in guano, no way i am counting but my back of the envelope guess is that full 50% are joetards

fitting name for his personal  TSZ thread, too

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 536
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,06:40   

TSZ:  
Quote
Liz- buy a fucking vowel- I am finished- you win, you can wallow in your ignorance and you can stick your false accusations up your....


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

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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,06:49   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 14 2012,08:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2012,02:02)
MOAR GUANO:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....e....e_id=57

364 comments in guano, no way i am counting but my back of the envelope guess is that full 50% are joetards

fitting name for his personal TSZ thread, too

It's 63%, and he is crapping in the sand pit box, too.

Edited because my vocabulary sucks.

Edited by Kattarina98 on Mar. 15 2012,07:35

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,07:25   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 15 2012,06:40)
TSZ:
Quote
Liz- buy a fucking vowel- I am finished- you win, you can wallow in your ignorance and you can stick your false accusations up your....

I give it 3 days before he's back.

My guess is that he'll attempt to comment on my blog tomorrow or the next day.  

When that doesn't work, he'll come back here and continue to fail to answer the questions asked of him.

He'll get scared and run back to UD, but there's no one to argue with there, so he'll go immediately back to TSZ in the hopes that he can continue to justify his ignorance and self-worth via belittling others.

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

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

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,07:42   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 15 2012,08:25)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 15 2012,06:40)
TSZ:  
Quote
Liz- buy a fucking vowel- I am finished- you win, you can wallow in your ignorance and you can stick your false accusations up your....

I give it 3 days before he's back.

My guess is that he'll attempt to comment on my blog tomorrow or the next day.

When that doesn't work, he'll come back here and continue to fail to answer the questions asked of him.

He'll get scared and run back to UD, but there's no one to argue with there, so he'll go immediately back to TSZ in the hopes that he can continue to justify his ignorance and self-worth via belittling others.

I hereby dub this The Guano Gallop

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 1563
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,08:27   

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 11 2012,13:29)
Quote
Dude, buy a fucking vowel- archaeologists cannot say one fucking thing about the designers until they determine they even existed. And they do that by finding evidence of their existence via the determination of artifacts


I have never said otherwise. The questions are what does ID do with that once design has been identified? What does Archaeology do with that once design has been identified?

Once design has been identified ID abandons the scientific endeavor and refuses to go further, your responses to this question are a case in point. If archaeology were to limit itself to the identification of design we would have to throw out the past 200 or so years of archaeological history and would be no different than arrowhead collectors.

For archaeology, however identifying design is a trivial component of the field. Once design has been inferred archaeology proceeds to use the designed items to learn something about the designer. Archaeology is concerned with answering the same questions about past peoples that cultural anthropologists ask about contemporary peoples.

Dude- you are one dense fuck-

ID is not about the designer(s)- ID does not preventt anyone from trying to determine anything about the designer(s). ID says it is more important to figure out the design.

No one knows who built Puma Puncu- no one knows who built Stonehenge- everything we know about those two sites we know via researching the evidence.

So the bottom line here is you are ignorant and you think your ignorance means something.

Also it is easier figuring out the design of something we can also produce. But give a laptop to a tribe of people who have never seen technology and it is a safe bet they couldn't figure out the design nor anything about its designers.

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 1563
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,08:29   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 11 2012,17:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2012,10:57)
Dude, buy a fucking vowel- archaeologists cannot say one fucking thing about the designers until they determine they even existed. And they do that by finding evidence of their existence via the determination of artifacts

And the only way they make any scientific determination about the designer(s) is by studying the design and the relevant evidence. That is what Intellignet Design is all about. And all the other questions prove that ID is not a dead-end as there are obviously unanswered questions that we will attempt to answer.

Stonehenge, made up of stones, stones mother nature can produce yet for some reason no one thinks mother nature produced Stonehenge. And after centuries of study we still don't know exactly who nor how...

I come back from a nice vacation to even more epic fail.

So, provide us the evidence that your 'designer' has existed.

Unfortunately for you, to eliminate circular reasoning, you can't use the things you claim are the designs as evidence of the designer.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Another dimbass response from the KevTARD-

How do we know there were designers of Stonehenge? Stonehenge is evidence there were designers of Stonehenge.

And again, dumbass, if you don't like the design inference just step up and demonstrate matter, energy, necessity and chance are all that is required.

Your position has all the power but unfortunately your position is full of cowards.

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 1563
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,08:31   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 11 2012,20:40)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 11 2012,18:45)
 
Quote
Tell me Joe, what is the context of these two alleles? Have you figured it out yet? I know, do you?

Tell me Joe, what is the meaning of these two alleles? Have you figured it out yet? I know, do you?


Joe - *cough*Google! Can't beat a globulin, as I was saying to Person A only the other day. Blast!

Do you honestly think that Joe has a blast with us?

I think his cognitive skills are too anemic to get the picture.


ETA: And it doesn't matter, by both methods that Joe has advocated, both sequences have exactly the same information. Arguably the first has more CSI because it has two functions.

Would you agree with that Joe?

KevTARD- you first have to demonstrate an understanding of CSI- which you have not done.

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 1563
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,08:33   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 15 2012,07:25)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 15 2012,06:40)
TSZ:  
Quote
Liz- buy a fucking vowel- I am finished- you win, you can wallow in your ignorance and you can stick your false accusations up your....

I give it 3 days before he's back.

My guess is that he'll attempt to comment on my blog tomorrow or the next day.

When that doesn't work, he'll come back here and continue to fail to answer the questions asked of him.

He'll get scared and run back to UD, but there's no one to argue with there, so he'll go immediately back to TSZ in the hopes that he can continue to justify his ignorance and self-worth via belittling others.

KevTARD-

I am not here to answer your questions, so fuck-off.

As I ahve been telling you-> the way to the design inference is THROUGH your position. So if you could actually support your position's claims with positive evidence there wouldn't be any Intelligent Design.

IOW your focus is all fucked-up because obvioulsy your head is too far up your ass.

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,08:40   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 15 2012,08:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 15 2012,08:25)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 15 2012,06:40)
TSZ:
Quote
Liz- buy a fucking vowel- I am finished- you win, you can wallow in your ignorance and you can stick your false accusations up your....

I give it 3 days before he's back.

My guess is that he'll attempt to comment on my blog tomorrow or the next day.

When that doesn't work, he'll come back here and continue to fail to answer the questions asked of him.

He'll get scared and run back to UD, but there's no one to argue with there, so he'll go immediately back to TSZ in the hopes that he can continue to justify his ignorance and self-worth via belittling others.

I hereby dub this The Guano Gallop

OH YAH



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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,08:42   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 15 2012,09:27)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 11 2012,13:29)
Quote
Dude, buy a fucking vowel- archaeologists cannot say one fucking thing about the designers until they determine they even existed. And they do that by finding evidence of their existence via the determination of artifacts


I have never said otherwise. The questions are what does ID do with that once design has been identified? What does Archaeology do with that once design has been identified?

Once design has been identified ID abandons the scientific endeavor and refuses to go further, your responses to this question are a case in point. If archaeology were to limit itself to the identification of design we would have to throw out the past 200 or so years of archaeological history and would be no different than arrowhead collectors.

For archaeology, however identifying design is a trivial component of the field. Once design has been inferred archaeology proceeds to use the designed items to learn something about the designer. Archaeology is concerned with answering the same questions about past peoples that cultural anthropologists ask about contemporary peoples.

Dude- you are one dense fuck-

ID is not about the designer(s)- ID does not preventt anyone from trying to determine anything about the designer(s). ID says it is more important to figure out the design.

No one knows who built Puma Puncu- no one knows who built Stonehenge- everything we know about those two sites we know via researching the evidence.

So the bottom line here is you are ignorant and you think your ignorance means something.

Also it is easier figuring out the design of something we can also produce. But give a laptop to a tribe of people who have never seen technology and it is a safe bet they couldn't figure out the design nor anything about its designers.

WHERE YOU THEY'RE, EVOTARD FAGGOT???//??????


THIS IS YOU'RE MOM



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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,08:43   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 15 2012,09:29)
Your position has all the power but unfortunately your position is full of cowards.



OOOOOHHHHH SO A "POSITION" IS BOTH AN IDEOLOGICAL STANCE, A SEAT OF POWER AND A CONTAINER OF COWARDS

NOW I SEE WHY YOU MUST CUP BALLS WHEN YOU MAKE THESE PRONOUNCEMENTS

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

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1016
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,09:03   

Quote
ID is not about the designer(s)

But archaeology is about the designers - human designers. Which is the point. On the other hand, even though ID claims to be just like archaeology ID chickens out and hides under the bed when when asked about the designer.

Quote
No one knows who built Puma Puncu- no one knows who built Stonehenge- everything we know about those two sites we know via researching the evidence.


Lets examine the evidence. We have evidence of humans in the the area for many thousands of years prior to the building of monumental architecture. We have evidence of the growth of human culture in the area from hunter-gatherer to complex, stratified civilizations. We have evidence of their tools, we have evidence of their building techniques, we have evidence that tells us where they got their building material from and how they moved it.

What we do not have is any evidence of space aliens. we have no rayguns, or lasers, or parts of spaceships, or space suits. We have no remains of space aliens. We have absolutely nothing.

So, to use Stephen Meyer's phrase, if wanted wanted to make an inference to the best explanation, we would be forced to infer that humans made both...


Quote
Also it is easier figuring out the design of something we can also produce. But give a laptop to a tribe of people who have never seen technology and it is a safe bet they couldn't figure out the design nor anything about its designers.


This brings me back to one of my original questions. How can you conflate human agency with an intelligent agency capable of fine tuning the universe and front loading the genomes of all living things on this planet? How can you say that human design is remotely comparable and how can you claim to recognize the handiwork of such a designer?

Edit to correct typo (the edit is in bold)

--------------
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.

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2012,09:28   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 15 2012,08:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 15 2012,07:25)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 15 2012,06:40)
TSZ:
Quote
Liz- buy a fucking vowel- I am finished- you win, you can wallow in your ignorance and you can stick your false accusations up your....

I give it 3 days before he's back.

My guess is that he'll attempt to comment on my blog tomorrow or the next day.

When that doesn't work, he'll come back here and continue to fail to answer the questions asked of him.

He'll get scared and run back to UD, but there's no one to argue with there, so he'll go immediately back to TSZ in the hopes that he can continue to justify his ignorance and self-worth via belittling others.

KevTARD-

I am not here to answer your questions, so fuck-off.

As I ahve been telling you-> the way to the design inference is THROUGH your position. So if you could actually support your position's claims with positive evidence there wouldn't be any Intelligent Design.

IOW your focus is all fucked-up because obvioulsy your head is too far up your ass.

So, if I show that evolution is true, then ID is gone.

So ID and evolution are mutually exclusive positions.

Therefore ID must be anti-evolution.

Thanks for clearing that up.

More Joe
Quote
Another dimbass response from the KevTARD-

How do we know there were designers of Stonehenge? Stonehenge is evidence there were designers of Stonehenge.

And again, dumbass, if you don't like the design inference just step up and demonstrate matter, energy, necessity and chance are all that is required.

Your position has all the power but unfortunately your position is full of cowards.


So the bacterial flagella is evidence of
A) human designers
B) Space aliens
C) Time traveling molecular biologists
D) God
E) Satan
F) Cthullu
G) The Flying Spagetti Monster
H) Allah
I) That we are all living in The Matrix

Pick one and explain why the bacterial flagella supports the one you picked.

You say that the evidence that stonehenge had a designer.  How do you know?  Please, describe in DETAIL the various pieces of evidence that suggest stonehenge has a human designer.

When you are done, compare that list to something like the bacterial flagella and explain why exactly zero of those pieces of evidence apply to something that reproduces imperfectly.

Joe, poor Joe, you still don't get it.  You are arguing by analogy and that's a simple fail.  

Unlike you, we CAN actually talk about the details of the gene, flagella, proteins, and organisms.  That's what I tried to do with those two gene sequences (have you ever figured it out).  I wanted to actually talk about the things you create analogies about.

You ran away.  How did you put it
Quote
I am not here to answer your questions, so fuck-off.


So why are you here Joe.  You refuse to explain your position.  You refuse to explain anything about ID, CSI, EF, etc.  You absolutely refuse to even talk about science...

So you are here to what, prop up your own fragile little ego with massive amounts of Dunning-Kruger?

Again, a real scientist, with real discoveries and real processes wouldn't be able to shut-up about them.  He's beg people to allow him to explain them.  Every post he made in a forum would contain every link to every time he made his calculation.  He would patiently explain his process every single time to anyone who would sit still long enough to listen.

But we all know you (and Behe, and Meyer, and Dembski) aren't scientists.  You guys are charlatans.


One last quote
Quote
KevTARD- you first have to demonstrate an understanding of CSI- which you have not done.


That may be the case Joe, but it's because you and the other ID proponents SUCK at being teachers.

I've asked hundreds of questions of you to explain, show me the math, run through examples with me.  I've practically begged for you to do so.  Demsbki doesn't return my e-mails.  (BTW: Real scientists do return e-mails, usually with a very polite explanation and links to additional resources.  No IDist has ever done that.)

But you don't try to explain.  You don't try to help.

Do you know why?  because, you know, in your heart of hearts, that you can't Joe.  You can't explain it, because it doesn't make sense.  It isn't internally consistent.  It's a farce Joe.  

Now, did you ever figure out which of those two sequences has more information Joe?  I did two calculations, one of which you suggested and they both came out the same amount of information.

Is that correct?  yes or no?  If not why?  I think you already said something about 'function', but a) you didn't provide any calculations and b) it's not what I asked anyway.

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

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

   
  8277 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (276) < ... 130 131 132 133 134 [135] 136 137 138 139 140 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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