Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Woodbine

Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,10:17

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,16:11)

Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 12 2014,10:04)

And the point?

Precisely.

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,10:20

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,07:52)

Kevin sez that he is smarter than I am yet he is too stupid to know there is a difference between evolution and evolutionism. He was also too stupid to understand that if humans have 46 chromosomes and the alleged common ancestor with chimps had 48 that there must have been organisms with 47- it took him a long time to finally grasp that concept.

I could go on and on about Kevin's stupidity- for example he claims that ID says DNA is like a computer! He even quotes someone who says otherwise but Kevin switches it anyway- stupidity and dishonesty are Kevin's good traits.

So, what you're saying is that evolutionary processes (not design) is perfectly capable of making major changes to chromosomes and still resulting in viable organisms... indeed, what I'm sure you consider the most viable organism, humans.

Thanks for that admission.

Tell me Joe, what research did you do on the subject of chromosome changes in the evolutionary history of humans? Or did you just guess? Your "common sense" tell you all that, did it?

Unlike you, I am capable of learning. It's not a problem to say, "I was wrong". At least I have the evidence, which you never provided.

And you need a lesson in reading. My blog post stands for itself.

It's not my fault that you can't read for understanding. I mean, maybe you missed this line "Genetic information is stored, retrieved, processed and translated by the cell just like a computer would treat digital information."

I showed that is not the case.

Quote

Signature in the Cell could only have been written now that the data of biology’s dawning information age has started to come in. Meyer shares with readers the excitement of the most recent discoveries, as the digital technology at work in the cell has been progressively revealed. The operating system embedded in the genome includes nested coding, digital processing, distributive retrieval and storage systems. It is very extraordinary—the terminology is all recognizable from computer science.

Quote

DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program. In the photo on the left, you see that a computer program is made up of a series of ones and zeros (called binary code). The sequencing and ordering of these ones and zeros is what makes the computer program work properly.

Quote

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).

Those are ID writers writing on ID sites (including a page from SiTC. That's what ID proponents think about the subject. It may not be what Joey thinks about the subject, but it's what ID thinks about it.

You don't like it Joe, then you mighty want to talk to Meyer about it. Do you still have posting privileges at UD or are you banned there too? Maybe some of your fellow ID people could explain it to you... what am I saying... no one can explain anything to Joe.

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

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

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,11:04

Kevin sez that he is smarter than I am yet he is too stupid to know there is a difference between evolution and evolutionism. He was also too stupid to understand that if humans have 46 chromosomes and the alleged common ancestor with chimps had 48 that there must have been organisms with 47- it took him a long time to finally grasp that concept.

I could go on and on about Kevin's stupidity- for example he claims that ID says DNA is like a computer! He even quotes someone who says otherwise but Kevin switches it anyway- stupidity and dishonesty are Kevin's good traits.

Quote

So, what you're saying is that evolutionary processes (not design) is perfectly capable of making major changes to chromosomes and still resulting in viable organisms... indeed, what I'm sure you consider the most viable organism, humans.

Kevin you have serious issues as what you said doesn't follow from what I said. Also the entire debate is whether or not evolutionary processes are designed, as in organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design or is the diversity just differing accumulations of genetic accidents.

As I said you are obviously ignorant as to what is being debated and proud of it.

Quote

It's not my fault that you can't read for understanding. I mean, maybe you missed this line "Genetic information is stored, retrieved, processed and translated by the cell just like a computer would treat digital information."

I didn't miss it, asshole. It definitely does NOT say that DNA is a computer or like a computer- that is what you claimed it said.

Quote

I showed that is not the case.

Only in your little mind.

Quote

The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. -Richard Dawkins

Bitch

And you still haven't made your case that the blind watchmaker thesis is a strawman and let alone one that I created.

You are a coward.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,11:11

Quote

Tell me Joe, what research did you do on the subject of chromosome changes in the evolutionary history of humans?

Well obviously I did more research about it than you did.

Quote

Or did you just guess? Your "common sense" tell you all that, did it?

It's called assessing the evidence, Kevin. That is why you were confused.

Quote

Unlike you, I am capable of learning. It's not a problem to say, "I was wrong". At least I have the evidence, which you never provided.

Evidence of what Kevin? I held your hand through the genetics and you still refused to listen And you never came back to my blog and admitted that you were wrong to me, the person you spewed your ignorance to.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,11:30

And Kevin- there are 2 bits of information per nucleotide. That is because there are 4 possible nucleotides for DNA. 4 = 2^2 = 2 bits per nucleotide.

With RNA there are also 4 possible nucleotides which means they also represent 2 bits.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,11:38

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,11:30)

And Kevin- there are 2 bits of information per nucleotide. That is because there are 4 possible nucleotides for DNA. 4 = 2^2 = 2 bits per nucleotide.

With RNA there are also 4 possible nucleotides which means they also represent 2 bits.

If all you're talking about is nucleotides, then that's true. But don't pretend that is all that needs to be talked about.

Methylation of a nucleotide adds a bit. Of course, then we get into the hundred odd other chemical changes that can occur to nucleotides. We need a bit for each of those as well.

So, just talking about possible chemical changes to nucleotides, you need well over 100 bits.

But you know that since you must have read my post on it. The fact that you choose to ignore all the things that are inconvenient for you shows just how meaningless you are to ID and how meaningless ID is to reality.

Let's be very, very clear. The information content of DNA is NOT restricted to the nucleotide sequence ALONE. Any attempt to describe it as such is simply wrong.

Honestly, considering every factor that could affect the information in a chunk of DNA, I'd be shocked if a single nucleotide could be represented (properly) by less than a kilobit.

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

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

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,11:41

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,11:11)

Quote

Tell me Joe, what research did you do on the subject of chromosome changes in the evolutionary history of humans?

Well obviously I did more research about it than you did.

Quote

Or did you just guess? Your "common sense" tell you all that, did it?

It's called assessing the evidence, Kevin. That is why you were confused.

Quote

Unlike you, I am capable of learning. It's not a problem to say, "I was wrong". At least I have the evidence, which you never provided.

Evidence of what Kevin? I held your hand through the genetics and you still refused to listen And you never came back to my blog and admitted that you were wrong to me, the person you spewed your ignorance to.

Interesting, so what papers did you use? I'm curious because

YOU COULD HAVE FUCKING TOLD ME ABOUT THEM

But you didn't. You just assumed that you were right.

Who needs evidence, Joey is here to tell the TROOF!!!

Not only are you a stupid ass, you are the absolute worst advocate for ID.. or humanity for that matter... that I have ever run across.

I feel sad for anyone who has to live with you or deal with you on a daily basis. Unless you're just an internet tough guy and are really a chickenshit in real life (and evidence suggests that's true). Where's that parking lot again? 30 miles from you house right?

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

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

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,11:57

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 12 2014,12:41)

Not only are you a stupid ass, you are the absolute worst advocate for ID.. or humanity for that matter... that I have ever run across.

Gary might be slightly worse, by some measurement, but then, Gary's obviously mentally ill, while Joe's merely an idiot with an anger problem.

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,12:00

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 12 2014,11:38)

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,11:30)

And Kevin- there are 2 bits of information per nucleotide. That is because there are 4 possible nucleotides for DNA. 4 = 2^2 = 2 bits per nucleotide.

With RNA there are also 4 possible nucleotides which means they also represent 2 bits.

If all you're talking about is nucleotides, then that's true. But don't pretend that is all that needs to be talked about.

Methylation of a nucleotide adds a bit. Of course, then we get into the hundred odd other chemical changes that can occur to nucleotides. We need a bit for each of those as well.

So, just talking about possible chemical changes to nucleotides, you need well over 100 bits.

But you know that since you must have read my post on it. The fact that you choose to ignore all the things that are inconvenient for you shows just how meaningless you are to ID and how meaningless ID is to reality.

Let's be very, very clear. The information content of DNA is NOT restricted to the nucleotide sequence ALONE. Any attempt to describe it as such is simply wrong.

Honestly, considering every factor that could affect the information in a chunk of DNA, I'd be shocked if a single nucleotide could be represented (properly) by less than a kilobit.

Quote

Methylation of a nucleotide adds a bit.

Why? Does it change the genetic code? Do you understand Crick's definition of biological information?

Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.- Sir Francis Crick

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,12:03

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,11:04)

Kevin you have serious issues as what you said doesn't follow from what I said. Also the entire debate is whether or not evolutionary processes are designed, as in organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design or is the diversity just differing accumulations of genetic accidents.

Quote

So provide evidence of the designer and this can all go away.

As I said you are obviously ignorant as to what is being debated and proud of it.

I'm ignorant of you Joe. You haven't maintained a consistent story or discussion since I've met you.

Quote

It's not my fault that you can't read for understanding. I mean, maybe you missed this line "Genetic information is stored, retrieved, processed and translated by the cell just like a computer would treat digital information."

I didn't miss it, asshole. It definitely does NOT say that DNA is a computer or like a computer- that is what you claimed it said.

So you missed this line then [quote]This post talks about the old ID canard that DNA is like a computer or DNA is like computer code or DNA is like data on a hard drive. Whatever. Let’s dispense with this right now. - See more at: [link] which is what I was talking about.

Of course, it's still an analogy and it's still wrong and it's still the basis for a big chunk of IDs ideas.

Quote

I showed that is not the case.

Only in your little mind.

I know you don't like it. But shockingly, I couldn't care less about what you like or don't like. I'm only tweaking you now to see if we can get a good Friday meltdown

Quote

The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. -Richard Dawkins

Bitch

1) I disagree with Dawkins. Why don't you point him to my page and see if he agrees with me.
2) How much do you want to bet that this is an ANALOGY to teach people who don't understand DNA?
3) I provided evidence. No one has refuted it yet.
4) Dawkins isn't using this as THE argument that complex things are designed.

Quote

And you still haven't made your case that the blind watchmaker thesis is a strawman and let alone one that I created.

You are a coward.

It's bee done a dozen times Joey, keep up will you. Oh that's right you have a vested interest in NOT keeping up. Recycling the same stale arguments again and again and again..

Quote

I take the side that the theory of evolution posits the processes are blind, mindless and undirected, ie accumulating genetic accidents.

Is that your definition of blind-watchmaker evolution? yes or no?

Or this one from your blog

Quote

6. "Blind watchmaker" thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

So all we have to do is show that this happens and then we're done. Fine, done. Lenski has done it. I know what you're going to say about Lenski and you're STILL wrong about that.

Of course, the Darwinian Evolution on a Chip paper shows how this happens too. What could be more the appearance of design, than a highly optimized ribozyme? Yet, it happened and no designer. Nothing but random copying errors and selection... yes, Joe selection from the environment it was in. In other words, there was a fitness function, one that was evaluated to determine which ribozymes would provide the basis for the next generation. Interesting how all that works.

So there you go, two references that show what you claim doesn't happen does happen.

Now, I predict the following.
1) You will change your definition of what we're talking about (it's from here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....187142)
2) You say that Lenski and the other paper do not support this revised definition.
3) Then you will curse...

so predictable Joe. It's a wonder why you even bother. It's the same thing that's been going on for well over two years.

Now run along, I'm bored with you.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 13 2014,03:01

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

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

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,12:03

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 12 2014,11:41)

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,11:11)

Quote

Tell me Joe, what research did you do on the subject of chromosome changes in the evolutionary history of humans?

Well obviously I did more research about it than you did.

Quote

Or did you just guess? Your "common sense" tell you all that, did it?

It's called assessing the evidence, Kevin. That is why you were confused.

Quote

Unlike you, I am capable of learning. It's not a problem to say, "I was wrong". At least I have the evidence, which you never provided.

Evidence of what Kevin? I held your hand through the genetics and you still refused to listen And you never came back to my blog and admitted that you were wrong to me, the person you spewed your ignorance to.

Interesting, so what papers did you use? I'm curious because

YOU COULD HAVE FUCKING TOLD ME ABOUT THEM

But you didn't. You just assumed that you were right.

Who needs evidence, Joey is here to tell the TROOF!!!

Not only are you a stupid ass, you are the absolute worst advocate for ID.. or humanity for that matter... that I have ever run across.

I feel sad for anyone who has to live with you or deal with you on a daily basis. Unless you're just an internet tough guy and are really a chickenshit in real life (and evidence suggests that's true). Where's that parking lot again? 30 miles from you house right?

Kevin, I held your hand through the genetics. Don't blame me for your total ignorance with respect to sexual reproduction.

And no, I did not assume I was right. This was something I have been discussing for many, many years. As a matter of fact you are the only ignorant asshole who ever questioned it.

But thanks for your Friday meltdown.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,12:09

I take the side that the theory of evolution posits the processes are blind, mindless and undirected, ie accumulating genetic accidents.

Quote

Is that your definition of blind-watchmaker evolution? yes or no?

That is the definition gleaned from the literature of evolutionary textbooks and evolutionary biologists. And if you knew anything you would know that.

Quote

So all we have to do is show that this happens and then we're done. Fine, done. Lenski has done it. I know what you're going to say about Lenski and you're STILL wrong about that.

LoL! Lenski didn't show natural selection was capable of anything. If Lenski is the best you have then the game is over and you lost.

And I have addressed Darwinian evolution on a chip:

For one RNAs do not reproduce. The RNAs in question were reproduced artificially. That is not Darwinian.

Quote

The final evolved enzyme contained a set of 11 mutations that conferred a 90-fold improvement in substrate utilization, coinciding with the applied selective pressure.

Wait, Darwinian evolution isn't like that- it doesn't respond to the environment.

So yes, change did happen but was it Darwinian? And why does all change have to be Darwinian evolution? Why are biologists so full of Darwin that they can't understand that there can be evolution without Darwin/ neo-darwinism?

It's as if these guys have bought the strawman of the fixity of species, including RNAs.

And in the end the RNA ligase was still an RNA ligase, albeit an improved RNA ligase wrt that artificial environment.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,12:11

6. "Blind watchmaker" thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Quote

So all we have to do is show that this happens and then we're done. Fine, done. Lenski has done it. I know what you're going to say about Lenski and you're STILL wrong about that.

Lenski demonstrated changes do occur. That is a far cry from what blind watchmaker evolution demands. You are a cowardly equivocator.

Quote

Of course, the Darwinian Evolution on a Chip paper shows how this happens too.

Not even close

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G

Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,12:12

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2014,11:57)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 12 2014,12:41)

Not only are you a stupid ass, you are the absolute worst advocate for ID.. or humanity for that matter... that I have ever run across.

Gary might be slightly worse, by some measurement, but then, Gary's obviously mentally ill, while Joe's merely an idiot with an anger problem.

If I am angry it is because of pieces of shit like you who spew lies and refuse to address the arguments.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,12:22

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,12:00)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 12 2014,11:38)

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,11:30)

And Kevin- there are 2 bits of information per nucleotide. That is because there are 4 possible nucleotides for DNA. 4 = 2^2 = 2 bits per nucleotide.

With RNA there are also 4 possible nucleotides which means they also represent 2 bits.

If all you're talking about is nucleotides, then that's true. But don't pretend that is all that needs to be talked about.

Methylation of a nucleotide adds a bit. Of course, then we get into the hundred odd other chemical changes that can occur to nucleotides. We need a bit for each of those as well.

So, just talking about possible chemical changes to nucleotides, you need well over 100 bits.

But you know that since you must have read my post on it. The fact that you choose to ignore all the things that are inconvenient for you shows just how meaningless you are to ID and how meaningless ID is to reality.

Let's be very, very clear. The information content of DNA is NOT restricted to the nucleotide sequence ALONE. Any attempt to describe it as such is simply wrong.

Honestly, considering every factor that could affect the information in a chunk of DNA, I'd be shocked if a single nucleotide could be represented (properly) by less than a kilobit.

Quote

Methylation of a nucleotide adds a bit.

Why? Does it change the genetic code? Do you understand Crick's definition of biological information?

Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.- Sir Francis Crick

Fine, but that's not enough information to build the organism now is it?

So, when ID people talk about information, they are not talking about organisms at all.

Thanks for that Joe.

Well done.

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

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

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,12:30

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 12 2014,12:09)

I take the side that the theory of evolution posits the processes are blind, mindless and undirected, ie accumulating genetic accidents.

Quote

Is that your definition of blind-watchmaker evolution? yes or no?

That is the definition gleaned from the literature of evolutionary textbooks and evolutionary biologists. And if you knew anything you would know that.

[/QUOTE]

As predicted, total refusal to answer the question.

note my use of the word "YOUR"

Quote

So all we have to do is show that this happens and then we're done. Fine, done. Lenski has done it. I know what you're going to say about Lenski and you're STILL wrong about that.

LoL! Lenski didn't show natural selection was capable of anything. If Lenski is the best you have then the game is over and you lost.

And yet, that strain took over... without humans interfering.

Quote

And I have addressed Darwinian evolution on a chip:

For one RNAs do not reproduce. The RNAs in question were reproduced artificially. That is not Darwinian.

So, now you're saying that GAs aren't Darwinian either, because they don't reproduce? You're weird man.

And the RNAs were copied by a reverse transcriptase and T7 RNA polymerase.

How is that artificial? Oh yeah, in your world, anything in a lab is designed.

Quote

The final evolved enzyme contained a set of 11 mutations that conferred a 90-fold improvement in substrate utilization, coinciding with the applied selective pressure.

Wait, Darwinian evolution isn't like that- it doesn't respond to the environment.

So yes, change did happen but was it Darwinian? And why does all change have to be Darwinian evolution? Why are biologists so full of Darwin that they can't understand that there can be evolution without Darwin/ neo-darwinism?

What are you on about. Of course scientists think about other forms of evolution. Epigenetics for example.

Whatever, it's almost as though you have a clue. Shame you have no idea what's going on.
[QUOTE]

It's as if these guys have bought the strawman of the fixity of species, including RNAs.

And in the end the RNA ligase was still an RNA ligase, albeit an improved RNA ligase wrt that artificial environment.

Ah, the classic JoeG dodge, "But it's still a ligase."

Yes it was. But this discussion wasn't and has never been about even speciation.

Read the definition again Joe. It's the one YOU stated on your blog, but now you are to chicken to admit to.

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

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

The whole truth

Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,18:04

Hey joey, you're obviously totally against the concept of unguided, undirected, unintelligent, mindless, purposeless, material (natural) evolutionary processes. That means, of course, that even if you accept that evolution occurs*, you are totally in favor of the concept of guided, directed, intelligent, mindful, purposeful, immaterial (supernatural) evolutionary processes.

So tell me, joey, why did and does your chosen, so-called 'God' allah intelligently, immaterially, mindfully, and supernaturally guide and direct the design, creation, and evolution of diseases, parasites, and other health problems that disable, disfigure, and/or kill people and other living things? What is allah's purpose for that?

*Based on the things you say about evolution, it's abundantly clear that you do not accept that evolution occurs, except possibly that a teeny tiny amount of directed 'micro-evolution' may occur within 'kinds'.

ETA: Made a few changes.

Edited by The whole truth on Sep. 12 2014,16:25

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

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,19:41

Joe G.:

Quote

BTW my post refutes your claims. I can see that you wouldn't think that is informative but to people without an agenda it is very informative.

For one, I claimed Joe G. was wrong about fitness functions in evolutionary computation. I provided an example demonstrating there was no selection going on in it. I provided quotes from Joe's own cited reference that said the same thing. Joe didn't address that, nor does anything he's posted anywhere "refute" that.

I think direct demonstrations of Joe's utter ignorance of the topic are informative.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Driver

Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 12 2014,19:58

Hi Joe. Sorry Allah the most merciful hasn't cleared up your Tourettes yet. When you have vanquished these losers (who have no evidence for their position), could you elucidate on the gravitational counterweight theory? Thank you.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

Soapy Sam

Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 13 2014,02:16

Joe G

Quote

[...]to people without an agenda[...]

And that's you, is it? With your ritual summoning of Mayr to dismantle evolutionary theory (chortle), misapplied 50-year-old quotes from Crick, semantic obsessions and an inability to concede even the tiniest point (Is microevolution real? Can GAs model it?)?

Heh heh.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. 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

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 15 2014,19:46

Joey just got banned from a blog at FreefromThought blogs.

Holy Cow! How bad do you have to be to get banned from there!>?!?!?

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

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

Occam's Aftershave

Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 15 2014,20:02

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 15 2014,19:46)

Joey just got banned from a blog at FreefromThought blogs.

Holy Cow! How bad do you have to be to get banned from there!>?!?!?

Linky?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 16 2014,07:16

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 15 2014,20:02)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 15 2014,19:46)

Joey just got banned from a blog at FreefromThought blogs.

Holy Cow! How bad do you have to be to get banned from there!>?!?!?

Linky?

Here's the discussion

http://freethoughtblogs.com/margino....-pearce

The banning isn't posted (but Joe's comments were heavily edited). Jon Pearce is a friend and a friend of the blogger. Said he was banned. Joe having infested Jon's blog (after I banned him) has no reason to lie to me.

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

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

KevinB

Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 16 2014,08:07

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 15 2014,19:46)

Joey just got banned from a blog at FreefromThought blogs.

Holy Cow! How bad do you have to be to get banned from there!>?!?!?

He tries harder (so much so that it Hertz.)

Lethean

Posts: 292
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 16 2014,17:33

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 12 2014,18:04)

Hey joey, you're obviously totally against the concept of unguided, undirected, unintelligent, mindless, purposeless, material (natural) evolutionary processes. That means, of course, that even if you accept that evolution occurs*, you are totally in favor of the concept of guided, directed, intelligent, mindful, purposeful, immaterial (supernatural) evolutionary processes.

Track List
So Ronery (Intro)
Gee A's Schmee A's
I Did That Somewhere Else
No, U
It Ain't Heavy It's My E.colon
+1 Is OK With -1, IDiot [Null the Null]
Ignorant of What I Make Up
Shake Your Equivicator
So Ronery (Reprise)

Bonus Track
Some Features 'R Best Explained feat. Sir GaGa

Who, What, Where, When (LLC) ©2014

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."

~Dave Hawkins~

fnxtr

Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 16 2014,20:30

potw

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night." Joe G

Soapy Sam

Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 17 2014,02:35

Should be able to work Stonehenge into the stage show. Just a small one.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. 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

Lethean

Posts: 292
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 17 2014,03:25

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 16 2014,20:30)

potw

Thank you very much for your vote of confidence, but like the other nominations, I feel I should decline to accept. Having had three within two weeks or so, I'd hate to feel over-lauded early in my contributions. I offer two solid facts I've used in my reasoning.

A) While I was attaching "J'oh!" to a very insightful comment, I felt as though I was guilding the lily with a honking clown nose as it were. Lily it was. I offer my own potw vote to steve.

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 06 2014,09:12)

One of the most important things my science education did, was force me to confront being 100% dead wrong about something. It's crucial to learn to deal with being wrong and adapt. A lot of people never learn that skill.

(stick that in your "obvious truism" pipe and suck it hard Barry)

B) I believe it's objectively true that most of what I am likely to post will never meet the standard of humor that was shown in that two-or-three panel "fictional book" series starring Dr. Dr. Bill and News. (poty, whoever you were you magnificent bastard) Those panels linger on, preserved on a disk of mine somewhere. (which thread was that?)

I am more than happy with the confirmed potw I have already received and ask that you hold me to a high standard as you get used to my occasionally-on-target antics. (that Cartman shit is funny tho right? heh)

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."

~Dave Hawkins~

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 30 2014,12:07

So Ronrey on Jeff Shallit's blog:

Quote

Blogger Joe G said...
Umm What are YOU waiting for Jeffrey? Why can't YOU face any of the challenges of materialism and evolutionism? Why can't you even produce a model nor testable hypotheses for your positions' claims?

6:09 AM, September 30, 2014
Blogger Jeffrey Shallit said...
Joe, I can't remedy your ignorance - only you can do that. I suggest picking up a textbook on evolutionary biology, such as Futuyma. The evidence you claim you want can be found there.

But we already know you are not really interested in that.

6:32 AM, September 30, 2014

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

Driver

Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink)

Posted: Sep. 30 2014,14:03

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 30 2014,17:07)

So Ronrey on Jeff Shallit's blog:

Quote

Blogger Joe G said...
Umm What are YOU waiting for Jeffrey? Why can't YOU face any of the challenges of materialism and evolutionism? Why can't you even produce a model nor testable hypotheses for your positions' claims?

6:09 AM, September 30, 2014
Blogger Jeffrey Shallit said...
Joe, I can't remedy your ignorance - only you can do that. I suggest picking up a textbook on evolutionary biology, such as Futuyma. The evidence you claim you want can be found there.

But we already know you are not really interested in that.

6:32 AM, September 30, 2014

Silly Jeff. ID isn't anti-evolution and there is no evidence for his position that pixies/Allah/aliens/invisible Bob/watermelon ticks didn't do it. Fuck fuck asshole asshole bitch cocksucker fucker fucker knickers.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

	Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution