RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (267) < ... 168 169 170 171 172 [173] 174 175 176 177 178 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2012,06:56   

Joe fondly remembers the good old times Zachriel tried to teach him nested hierarchies:
Quote
Not only that those guys donít seem to understand what a nested hierarchy isÖ

This guy has got to be unique. He has lots of time on his hands but still can't learn a thing.

In another thread, R0bb provides all you need to know to determine the Shannon information content of 500 rolls of a die:
Quote

Prior to the rolls, you didnít know what the result would be. After the rolls, you knew that the result was a sequence of 500 1s. Thatís the information you learned. Your uncertainty was reduced by about 1300 bits.

That's the whole example worked out according to Shannon's definition. No less and no more. Joe still can't figure it out:
Quote
So 500 1s alone do NOT tell me anything- I need to have information about the entire process. Got it.

Joe, just give it up. Science and math aren't your things.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout Ľ

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2012,07:18   

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 10 2012,06:56)
Joe fondly remembers the good old times Zachriel tried to teach him nested hierarchies:
Quote
Not only that those guys donít seem to understand what a nested hierarchy isÖ

This guy has got to be unique. He has lots of time on his hands but still can't learn a thing.

In another thread, R0bb provides all you need to know to determine the Shannon information content of 500 rolls of a die:
Quote

Prior to the rolls, you didnít know what the result would be. After the rolls, you knew that the result was a sequence of 500 1s. Thatís the information you learned. Your uncertainty was reduced by about 1300 bits.

That's the whole example worked out according to Shannon's definition. No less and no more. Joe still can't figure it out:
Quote
So 500 1s alone do NOT tell me anything- I need to have information about the entire process. Got it.

Joe, just give it up. Science and math aren't your things.

Joe has the same problem as all creationists I've met to date... they confuse 'information' with 'meaning'.  That's not the only thing Joe confuses, but it explains his 'understanding' of Dembski's work.

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

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

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 528
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2012,07:42   

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 10 2012,06:56)
Joe fondly remembers the good old times Zachriel tried to teach him nested hierarchies:
† † †
Quote
Not only that those guys donít seem to understand what a nested hierarchy isÖ

This guy has got to be unique. He has lots of time on his hands but still can't learn a thing.
[...]
Joe, just give it up. Science and math aren't your things.


Yes - I hate to be rude about people on the internet (prelude to being rude about someone on the internet), but it is hard to fathom how irrepressibly wrong he can be. People who know plenty of set theory, hierarchies, methods, artefacts and confidence levels in phylogeny inference - they no nuffink. But Joe G does. Messrs Dunning and Kruger have a massive file somewhere marked "subject J".

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2012,09:10   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 10 2012,08:42)
Yes - I hate to be rude about people on the internet



well then my friend you are wasting bandwidth!

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2926
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2012,09:21   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 10 2012,15:18)
 
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 10 2012,06:56)
Joe fondly remembers the good old times Zachriel tried to teach him nested hierarchies:
†  
Quote
Not only that those guys donít seem to understand what a nested hierarchy isÖ

This guy has got to be unique. He has lots of time on his hands but still can't learn a thing.

In another thread, R0bb provides all you need to know to determine the Shannon information content of 500 rolls of a die:
†  
Quote

Prior to the rolls, you didnít know what the result would be. After the rolls, you knew that the result was a sequence of 500 1s. Thatís the information you learned. Your uncertainty was reduced by about 1300 bits.

That's the whole example worked out according to Shannon's definition. No less and no more. Joe still can't figure it out:
†  
Quote
So 500 1s alone do NOT tell me anything- I need to have information about the entire process. Got it.

Joe, just give it up. Science and math aren't your things.

Joe has the same problem as all creationists I've met to date... they confuse 'information' with 'meaning'. †That's not the only thing Joe confuses, but it explains his 'understanding' of Dembski's work.

Oh yeah.

The bestest all time creationist info gaff was AFdave and 5 minutes of Churchill's speach vs white noise.

They are happy to expound about something they have no education in let alone the conceptual jump.

It's like trying to teach a gas pump attendant the concepts of seismic wave theory.

"I filled her up just like you asked Mister, I don't care how it got here"



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1492
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2012,09:25   

JoeTard Gallien once again stakes his claim as stupidest human being on the internet.

Is anyone surprised?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2012,10:04   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 10 2012,09:25)
JoeTard Gallien once again stakes his claim as stupidest human being on the internet.

Is anyone surprised?

had you seen this before you said that?
Joe:
 
Quote
Also the fact that when I plug in the values I say are correct, the equations actually work, tells me I am right.

R0BB:
 
Quote
Excellent! Letís see these equations.

Joe:
 
Quote
The equations YOU used- Dembski and Marksí equations.


Bwhahahaha.....bwhahahahaahahahahaah

deep breath.

bwajhahahahahahaa bwhahahaahah.

Hey, Joe, if you've run the numbers why not show your working?

Could it be because you are lying?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-436151

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2012,10:13   

Joe is asked:
Quote
what does I.D. predict in relation to there being an objective nested hierarchy in a biosphere?

Joe's reply:
Quote
Evolutionism definitely doesnít predict one.

Is that right? Did you learn your debating skills in the playground Joe?

Seems to me that if "Evolutionism" did not exist then I.D would not either as I.D is only about "Evolutionism" and perceived holes.

If ID could stand on it's own two feet without being simply a gap in something else Joe would be able to answer the question.

Let me repeat that one more time.

Joe is asked:
Quote
what does I.D. predict in relation to there being an objective nested hierarchy in a biosphere?


Joe's reply:
Quote
Evolutionism definitely doesnít predict one.

So Joe your best answer to a question about ID is to ignore it and pretend you were actually asked about what ID is trying to replace?

You already know that "Evolutionism" is wrong, so what possible relevance can it be that it does not predict X? If it's wrong it's wrong and can be simply ignored.

The fact that you can't ignore it even if you claim it's wrong is evidence that ID is simply a parasite on actual science. Remove the host and the parasite shrivels up.

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2137
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2012,19:21   

Quote
So 500 1s alone do NOT tell me anything- I need to have information about the entire process. Got it.


This from the doofus who gave us "design is a mechanism".

So sad. So very, very sad.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2926
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2012,06:55   

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 11 2012,03:21)
† †  
Quote
So 500 1s alone do NOT tell me anything- I need to have information about the entire process. Got it.


This from the doofus who gave us "design is a mechanism".

So sad. So very, very sad.

The thing about Joe is that there might be a couple of plumbers with self image problems that might be envious of his crack, but I'd be willing to guess that they would be in the vast minority.



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2012,19:01   

Joe is so cute when he is playing make-believe science.
 
Quote

keiths: To reconstruct an objective nested hierarchy, you need both traits that are stable and traits that are changing.

Joe: Hey, that is what I said- the traits have to be immutable (stable) and additive (changing). I guess I know more about these things than what has been said about me.

LOL. Additive in a mathematical context means compatible with the operation of addition. (See additive function or additive group.) It has nothing to do with being subject to change.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout Ľ

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2012,16:41   

More silliness from Joe (addressing Zachriel):
Quote

Also you are having an issue defining your alleged nested hierarchy, ie the superset.

Joe apparently thinks that the term superset means something like an entire hierarchy, the union of all sets. Or somethin'. (The use of a definite article is a give-away.)

That's actually wrong. Every set within a hierarchy is also a superset Ė with respect to its subsets. There is no such thing as the superset in a hierarchy.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout Ľ

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10236
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,17:36   

Quote
No, I am not going over to the UK to appease some lying loser coward. And that is what I would have to do in order to conduct a proper investigation. But you wouldnít know anything about how to investigate, properly or not.

Also my design detection skills have already alerted me to the fact there wasnít a tornado in the UK. Which means you are just lying, again, as usual.




Even better, I'm sure he thought that sounded 'cool' as he was writing it. Joe, the whole world laughs at you, and you're not even bright enough to monetize it.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,18:04   

Joe,
Quote
Why is it that artificial ribosomes do NOT function? If their functionality was the result of their physical and chemical components then artificial ribosomes should function just as the ribosomes found inside living organisms.

Artificial ribosomes are lacking the programming required by compilers to function.

Joe,
Quote
Nice cowardly non-response. And Venter created a genome with just chemicals and it worked, moron.


Make you mind up Joe!

Oh, wait now...

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10236
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,18:06   

He's having another minor meltdown on his blog, untelligent reasoning.

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 1539
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,18:42   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 14 2012,18:04)
Joe,
 
Quote
Why is it that artificial ribosomes do NOT function? If their functionality was the result of their physical and chemical components then artificial ribosomes should function just as the ribosomes found inside living organisms.

Artificial ribosomes are lacking the programming required by compilers to function.

Joe,
 
Quote
Nice cowardly non-response. And Venter created a genome with just chemicals and it worked, moron.


Make you mind up Joe!

Oh, wait now...

What a dumbass- ribosomes and genomes are NOT the same thing.

And you really thought you caught me in something- too funny.

--------------
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: 1539
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,18:43   

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 12 2012,19:01)
Joe is so cute when he is playing make-believe science.
Quote

keiths: To reconstruct an objective nested hierarchy, you need both traits that are stable and traits that are changing.

Joe: Hey, that is what I said- the traits have to be immutable (stable) and additive (changing). I guess I know more about these things than what has been said about me.

LOL. Additive in a mathematical context means compatible with the operation of addition. (See additive function or additive group.) It has nothing to do with being subject to change.

Yes oleg- additive means in addition to, which is the way I have always used it. Also if you add something to something else then you have changed it, duh.

--------------
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: 1539
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,19:01   

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 10 2012,19:21)
Quote
So 500 1s alone do NOT tell me anything- I need to have information about the entire process. Got it.


This from the doofus who gave us "design is a mechanism".

So sad. So very, very sad.

According to the dictionary, design is a mechanism. So don't blame me because you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a dictionary.

--------------
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: 1492
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,19:16   

Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 14 2012,19:01)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 10 2012,19:21)
Quote
So 500 1s alone do NOT tell me anything- I need to have information about the entire process. Got it.


This from the doofus who gave us "design is a mechanism".

So sad. So very, very sad.

According to the dictionary, design is a mechanism. So don't blame me because you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a dictionary.

Then "evolution" is a mechanism, and "magic" is a mechanism too.

Unless you can provide some details all you're doing is pissing into the wind.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,19:18   

Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 14 2012,19:01)
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 10 2012,19:21)
Quote
So 500 1s alone do NOT tell me anything- I need to have information about the entire process. Got it.


This from the doofus who gave us "design is a mechanism".

So sad. So very, very sad.

According to the dictionary, design is a mechanism. So don't blame me because you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a dictionary.

But "your" design isn't just design.  It's also construction and you don't have a mechanism for that.

If you do, you might let Behe know, since he stated that he doesn't have a mechanism by which the "intelligent designer" acted.

BTW: Are you going to call gpuccio on his statement that
Quote
Again: we test dFSCI with a set of long enough strings. Some of them are designed and meaningful, some of them are generated randomly. We know the origin of each string (if it was designed or randomly originated) because we have direct knowledge of how they were produced. Then we take some independent observer, who knows nothing about the origin of the strings, and ask him to infer desing, or not, using the evaluation of dFSCI for those strings. He will recognize the designed strings, with 100% specificity.


Ya see, you told me when I asked you to do the same thing that my random vs. non-random string wasn't about ID.

Yet gpuccio is talking about it as though he could actually use ID to determine the difference between a random string and a designed string.

So Joe, is gpuccio wrong or do you need to go ask him how it's done?

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

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 1539
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,20:34   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2012,19:18)
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 14 2012,19:01)
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 10 2012,19:21)
 
Quote
So 500 1s alone do NOT tell me anything- I need to have information about the entire process. Got it.


This from the doofus who gave us "design is a mechanism".

So sad. So very, very sad.

According to the dictionary, design is a mechanism. So don't blame me because you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a dictionary.

But "your" design isn't just design. †It's also construction and you don't have a mechanism for that.

If you do, you might let Behe know, since he stated that he doesn't have a mechanism by which the "intelligent designer" acted.

BTW: Are you going to call gpuccio on his statement that
Quote
Again: we test dFSCI with a set of long enough strings. Some of them are designed and meaningful, some of them are generated randomly. We know the origin of each string (if it was designed or randomly originated) because we have direct knowledge of how they were produced. Then we take some independent observer, who knows nothing about the origin of the strings, and ask him to infer desing, or not, using the evaluation of dFSCI for those strings. He will recognize the designed strings, with 100% specificity.


Ya see, you told me when I asked you to do the same thing that my random vs. non-random string wasn't about ID.

Yet gpuccio is talking about it as though he could actually use ID to determine the difference between a random string and a designed string.

So Joe, is gpuccio wrong or do you need to go ask him how it's done?

Kevin, you ignorant dumbass- design refers to the construction part too.

And the design inference refers to what it takes an agency to produce vs what blind and undirected processes can do.

So please spare me your ignorance.

--------------
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: 1539
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,20:37   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 14 2012,19:16)
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 14 2012,19:01)
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 10 2012,19:21)
†  
Quote
So 500 1s alone do NOT tell me anything- I need to have information about the entire process. Got it.


This from the doofus who gave us "design is a mechanism".

So sad. So very, very sad.

According to the dictionary, design is a mechanism. So don't blame me because you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a dictionary.

Then "evolution" is a mechanism, and "magic" is a mechanism too.

Unless you can provide some details all you're doing is pissing into the wind.

Well asshole what does the dictionary have to say? I supplied the definitions of "mechansim" and "design" that proves design is a mechansim.

And I have also said that your position's lame  accumulations of random mutations is also a mechanism.

However no one has ever observed magic doing anything, even though your position relies on it.

--------------
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: 1539
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,20:39   

In his bullshit article on "Darwininian Evolution on a Chip", Kevin spews:



Quote
Michael Behe, in his book Edge of Evolution states that it is impossible for four mutations to happen in a gene to result in a improvement in the resulting protein. He uses the example of resistant malaria, where there are two mutations and states that this is the edge of evolution because thereís probability that these two mutations canít happen in the same gene at the same time.








1-    In a GENE, that means in a complete organism



2-    In an organism the target space is much larger than this example



3-    This example the thing that requires changing gets mutated every time it is placed in the error-prone PCR



4-    With an organism mutations would occur in other parts of the genome and the target gene may not get mutated again



5-    Two, or more mutations occurring in one gene at the same time is just relying on pure luck, which is NOT scientific



6-    I cannot find where Behe says states it is impossible for four mutations to happen in a gene to result in an improvement in the resulting protein- what page/ pages is that on





Also Behe puts the edge of evolution at two new protein-to-protein binding sites. Who cares about how many mutations- you need to have those mutations construct new protein machinery.

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

   
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,20:39   

Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 14 2012,18:43)

Yes oleg- additive means in addition to, which is the way I have always used it. Also if you add something to something else then you have changed it, duh.

I don't care how you have always used the word additive. It has a well-known connotation in math and related areas. Find out what it is before shooting your mouth off.

(I know, I know, it's not gonna happen. Can't teach an old dog new tricks.)

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout Ľ

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10236
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,20:41   

Check out his " ID is a non mechanistic theory which has a mechanism which is design" meltdown right now - priceless!

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

  
Joe G



Posts: 1539
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,20:42   

Quote
I continually ask creationists two questions. The first is simple.



Quote
Do you understand that even if you completely and totally discredit evolution right here, right now, it doesnít mean that your notions of creationism are correct?




And I always tell Kevin that 1- we are not trying to discredit "evolution". Rather we are just pointing out the obvious flaws in the blind watchmaker thesis. 2- In order to reach a design inference we must first dispense with the blind watchmaker thesis. ya see Newton's four rules of scientific investigation, and the explanatory filter, mandate that approach. If you actually knew something about science you would have known that.



Quote
The other question I routinely ask is



Quote
OK, you win. Evolution (or other science) is wrong. Now what? How does ID/creationism/etc. describe phenomenon x?





It all depends on what it is. Science is context specific there Kevin. Again that is something you would have known had you any understanding of science.


Take Stonehenge. Obviously mother nature can produce rocks and rock formations. However there is something about Stonehenge that makes us infer mother nature didn't do it. IOW the investigation is different than any purely geological survey. The design inference adds something, ie designers, a purpose, ie a new can of worms. Studying it as a purely geological formation wouldn't have any of those questions. And it would be a waste of time.

--------------
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: 1539
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,20:43   

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 14 2012,20:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 14 2012,18:43)

Yes oleg- additive means in addition to, which is the way I have always used it. Also if you add something to something else then you have changed it, duh.

I don't care how you have always used the word additive. It has a well-known connotation in math and related areas. Find out what it is before shooting your mouth off.

(I know, I know, it's not gonna happen. Can't teach an old dog new tricks.)

I am using it corectly you little faggot.

--------------
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: 1539
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,20:45   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 14 2012,20:41)
Check out his " ID is a non mechanistic theory which has a mechanism which is design" meltdown right now - priceless!

Richie, Your ignoramnce doesn't mean I am having a meltdown. And yes your ignorance is priceless.

So to be clear, RichTARD Hughes is too stupid to use a dictionary and he thinks his ignorance is a refutation.

Intelligent Design is not a mechanistic theory but that does NOT mean that 1- design is not a mechansim or 2- we cannot propose specific design mechanisms.

But obvioulsy you are too fucking stupid to understand that.

What Richie dumbass doesn't understand is when we say ID is not a mechansitic theory we mean that we do not have to know the specific design mechansims used BEFORE we can infer design.

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

   
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,20:46   

Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 14 2012,20:43)
I am using it corectly you little faggot.

Oh, really, Mr. Math? Then tell us what it means for a function to be additive. Is f(x) = x+2 an additive function? :D

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout Ľ

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10236
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2012,20:47   

Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 14 2012,20:43)
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 14 2012,20:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 14 2012,18:43)

Yes oleg- additive means in addition to, which is the way I have always used it. Also if you add something to something else then you have changed it, duh.

I don't care how you have always used the word additive. It has a well-known connotation in math and related areas. Find out what it is before shooting your mouth off.

(I know, I know, it's not gonna happen. Can't teach an old dog new tricks.)

I am using it corectly you little faggot.

It's the rest of the world that uses it wrong, Oleg! Evotardgasms!!11one.

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

  
  8009 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (267) < ... 168 169 170 171 172 [173] 174 175 176 177 178 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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