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

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

Pages: (919) < ... 291 292 293 294 295 [296] 297 298 299 300 301 ... >

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2015,18:32    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,18:17) Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,18:14) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,18:00)   Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,17:02)   Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,11:48)     Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2015,16:24) I maintain that forensics is not an ID supporting system mainly because this is how an ID police force would work. Officer: Yes ma'am, due to various calculations, we've determined that your husband was murdered. Wife: Do you have any suspects. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but we don't look for the murder, just determine that he was murdered. Wife: Can I see your calculations, maybe I could give them to a private detective. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but you wouldn't understand them. Wife: Surely you can give them to me. Maybe someone else could understand them. Officer: I already gave them to you. Kevin, just because you are a lowlife loser who couldn't conduct an investigation if your life depended on it, doesn't mean everyone else is too. You don't look for a murderer until you determine a murder has been committed. And most times that is all the forensics says. The detectives then go about using the forensics to find the murderer. But then again you know forensics only from CSI shows... True, you don't look for a murderer until you know a murder has been committed. Does this mean that you are finally admitting that design in nature is far from conclusive? Biologists started looking for the mechanism behind evolution shortly after Darwin proposed his theory. Since then they have discovered genetics, mutation, meiosis and mitosis, genetic drift, neutral theory, antibiotic resistance, horizontal gene transfer, transcription, transposition, etc., et ., etc. And ID has discovered ...??? FIASCO? good job. Maybe you should stick to wavelength and frequency. You make more sense with these (none). Unguided evolution cannot account for any of what biologists have found- well it can account for disease and deformities. Transcription and translation alone are definitely evidence for ID. The genetic code is arbitrary and as such it is not reducible to physics or chemistry. Add alternative splicing, overlapping genes, proof-reading, error-correction and intelligent design in biology is as self-evident as the intelligent design of Stonehenge. Even when given starting populations of prokaryotes you don't have a mechanism that can get beyond that. Joey, you keep telling us what we don't have (even though we do) but you never tell us what creationism has. Please be specific. Please link us to the definitive theory. And the overwhelming evidence that supports this theory. And see if you can do this without using words like "asshole, fuck, moron, etc".   You are now up to bat. ID is not creationism. Obviously you are too fucked up to have a discussion. I have provided all you ask for on my blog. It has a search feature. Today's post is a repost of positive evidence for ID. Joey, until you "ID" proponents are willing to discuss the nature of the designer and the mechanisms involved, ID and creationism are indistinguishable. Can you explain to me (and other fellow travellers) why I am wrong? On another subject, are you willing to give us your honest opinion of Gordon Mullings and Bornagain77?  If you cannot distinguish yourself from these "geniuses" why should we take you seriously?

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2015,19:26    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,16:00) Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,17:02) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,11:48)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2015,16:24) I maintain that forensics is not an ID supporting system mainly because this is how an ID police force would work. Officer: Yes ma'am, due to various calculations, we've determined that your husband was murdered. Wife: Do you have any suspects. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but we don't look for the murder, just determine that he was murdered. Wife: Can I see your calculations, maybe I could give them to a private detective. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but you wouldn't understand them. Wife: Surely you can give them to me. Maybe someone else could understand them. Officer: I already gave them to you. Kevin, just because you are a lowlife loser who couldn't conduct an investigation if your life depended on it, doesn't mean everyone else is too. You don't look for a murderer until you determine a murder has been committed. And most times that is all the forensics says. The detectives then go about using the forensics to find the murderer. But then again you know forensics only from CSI shows... True, you don't look for a murderer until you know a murder has been committed. Does this mean that you are finally admitting that design in nature is far from conclusive? Biologists started looking for the mechanism behind evolution shortly after Darwin proposed his theory. Since then they have discovered genetics, mutation, meiosis and mitosis, genetic drift, neutral theory, antibiotic resistance, horizontal gene transfer, transcription, transposition, etc., et ., etc. And ID has discovered ...??? FIASCO? good job. Maybe you should stick to wavelength and frequency. You make more sense with these (none). Unguided evolution cannot account for any of what biologists have found- well it can account for disease and deformities. Transcription and translation alone are definitely evidence for ID. The genetic code is arbitrary and as such it is not reducible to physics or chemistry. Add alternative splicing, overlapping genes, proof-reading, error-correction and intelligent design in biology is as self-evident as the intelligent design of Stonehenge. Even when given starting populations of prokaryotes you don't have a mechanism that can get beyond that. YEC joey said: "...well it can account for disease and deformities." Hey joey, if everything is "design all the way down", how can the alleged design NOT include diseases and deformities? Are diseases and deformities due to 'the fall'? -------------- 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

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2015,20:01    Joe reminds me of belligerent drunks who pick fights with strangers because their shoelaces are the wrong colour. Some guys just need an excuse to stay angry all the time. (shrug) Oh, well. -------------- "[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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2015,21:42    Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 30 2015,18:01) Joe reminds me of belligerent drunks who pick fights with strangers because their shoelaces are the wrong colour. Some guys just need an excuse to stay angry all the time. (shrug) Oh, well. That's a good description of joey, the perpetually angry YEC. -------------- 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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2015,21:59    As I was going through some older UD posts/comments I came across something that is good for some laughs. I have made it easier to keep track of who said what but have not altered anything otherwise: 56 Joe April 22, 2013 at 5:49 am Alan Fox: Forgive me for being dubious, Joe, but, if this were the case, this would establish “Intelligent Design” as having a possible theory which would, I would have thought, been shouted from the rooftops. joey: Seeing that your head is [snip, language], I doubt that you would hear it anyway. Alan Fox: If someone can indeed calculate the CSI of something …anything… why don’t they want to demonstrate the procedure? joey: We have. OTOH your position has yet to demonstrate anything beyond bald assertions. Alan Fox: If there is some calculation that I have overlooked, by all means draw it to my attention. joey: I have. Again your willful ignorance means nothing here. joey: But anyway- joey: When discussing information some people want to know how much information does something contain? joey: If it is something straight-forward such as a definition, we can count the number of bits in that definition to find out how much information it contains. joey: For example: joey's example: aardvark: a large burrowing nocturnal mammal (Orycteropus afer) of sub-Saharan Africa that has a long snout, extensible tongue, powerful claws, large ears, and heavy tail and feeds especially on termites and ants joey: simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity. joey: 1010 bits > 500, therefor CSI is present. joey: Now wrt biology each nucleotide has 2 bits. The following drool was added (in bold) to joey's drool by gordo through the loudspeaker in the ceiling: CALC: 7 bits per ASCII character (not 5 per Baudot character) * 202 characters = 1414 bits. Functionally specific, so S = 1. Chi_500 = 1414 * 1 – 500 = 914 bits beyond the solar system threshold. Designed. KF ------------------------------------------- From number 56 in this thread: http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....ars-ago For additional laughs, comment number 57 is joey's "Longer version". Enjoy! -------------- 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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2015,22:29    Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 30 2015,21:59) joey: Now wrt biology each nucleotide has 2 bits. Truly someone who has no idea what's going on in biology. Hey Joey, how many bits do you need to account for methylation? How many bits do you need to account for transvection? How many bits for histone modification? -------------- 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: Mar. 30 2015,22:33    Hey joey, have you calculated/measured the CSI in an aardvark? Not a definition of an aardvark. If so, can you and will you show and compare the results of your calculation/measurement of the CSI in an aardvark to your calculations/measurements of the CSI in a flu virus, a cancerous cell, a maple tree, a carp, a gaur, allah, adam and eve, yourself, and a baboon? You have calculated/measured the 'CSI' in all of those things and much more, in your state of the art basement lab, haven't you? -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,00:46    Joe ain't got 2 bits worth of entropy between his self and a mud brick fence. Hey joe how much information is in a mud brick fence? -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,04:48    Hey joey, is there any difference between dembski's 'CSI' and gordo's 'FSCO/I' (or 'FSCI/O')? -------------- 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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,04:54    By the way, joey, how does it feel to be gordo's bitch? -------------- 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

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,06:18    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,18:32) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,18:17) Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,18:14)   Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,18:00)   Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,17:02)     Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,11:48)     Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2015,16:24) I maintain that forensics is not an ID supporting system mainly because this is how an ID police force would work. Officer: Yes ma'am, due to various calculations, we've determined that your husband was murdered. Wife: Do you have any suspects. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but we don't look for the murder, just determine that he was murdered. Wife: Can I see your calculations, maybe I could give them to a private detective. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but you wouldn't understand them. Wife: Surely you can give them to me. Maybe someone else could understand them. Officer: I already gave them to you. Kevin, just because you are a lowlife loser who couldn't conduct an investigation if your life depended on it, doesn't mean everyone else is too. You don't look for a murderer until you determine a murder has been committed. And most times that is all the forensics says. The detectives then go about using the forensics to find the murderer. But then again you know forensics only from CSI shows... True, you don't look for a murderer until you know a murder has been committed. Does this mean that you are finally admitting that design in nature is far from conclusive? Biologists started looking for the mechanism behind evolution shortly after Darwin proposed his theory. Since then they have discovered genetics, mutation, meiosis and mitosis, genetic drift, neutral theory, antibiotic resistance, horizontal gene transfer, transcription, transposition, etc., et ., etc. And ID has discovered ...??? FIASCO? good job. Maybe you should stick to wavelength and frequency. You make more sense with these (none). Unguided evolution cannot account for any of what biologists have found- well it can account for disease and deformities. Transcription and translation alone are definitely evidence for ID. The genetic code is arbitrary and as such it is not reducible to physics or chemistry. Add alternative splicing, overlapping genes, proof-reading, error-correction and intelligent design in biology is as self-evident as the intelligent design of Stonehenge. Even when given starting populations of prokaryotes you don't have a mechanism that can get beyond that. Joey, you keep telling us what we don't have (even though we do) but you never tell us what creationism has. Please be specific. Please link us to the definitive theory. And the overwhelming evidence that supports this theory. And see if you can do this without using words like "asshole, fuck, moron, etc".   You are now up to bat. ID is not creationism. Obviously you are too fucked up to have a discussion. I have provided all you ask for on my blog. It has a search feature. Today's post is a repost of positive evidence for ID. Joey, until you "ID" proponents are willing to discuss the nature of the designer and the mechanisms involved, ID and creationism are indistinguishable. Can you explain to me (and other fellow travellers) why I am wrong? On another subject, are you willing to give us your honest opinion of Gordon Mullings and Bornagain77?  If you cannot distinguish yourself from these "geniuses" why should we take you seriously? Yes, sock puppet, we know you are ignorant when it comes to science. We do NOT have to know anything about the designer to determine if design exists. We do not have to know anything about the mechanism, either. If you could just stop being such an ignorant coward, step up and try to support unguided evolution, you wouldn't have to worry about ID. But your position is so lame that you can't do that. Attacking ID will NEVER be positive evidence for evolutionism. Especially when you attack it with your ignorance. -------------- "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: Mar. 31 2015,06:19    Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 30 2015,22:33) Hey joey, have you calculated/measured the CSI in an aardvark? Not a definition of an aardvark. If so, can you and will you show and compare the results of your calculation/measurement of the CSI in an aardvark to your calculations/measurements of the CSI in a flu virus, a cancerous cell, a maple tree, a carp, a gaur, allah, adam and eve, yourself, and a baboon? You have calculated/measured the 'CSI' in all of those things and much more, in your state of the art basement lab, haven't you? Yes, an aardvark has CSI. The minimal living organism has CSI. And you still have nothing, not even a brain. -------------- "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: Mar. 31 2015,06:20    Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 30 2015,20:01) Joe reminds me of belligerent drunks who pick fights with strangers because their shoelaces are the wrong colour. Some guys just need an excuse to stay angry all the time. (shrug) Oh, well. EvoTARDs remind me of a bunch of lowlife lying cowards. -------------- "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: Mar. 31 2015,06:21    Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 30 2015,22:29) Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 30 2015,21:59) joey: Now wrt biology each nucleotide has 2 bits. Truly someone who has no idea what's going on in biology. Hey Joey, how many bits do you need to account for methylation? How many bits do you need to account for transvection? How many bits for histone modification? Kevin, the bits pertain to the codons used to encode amino acids. Obviously you are just an ignorant ass. -------------- "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: Mar. 31 2015,06:22    And still no entailments for unguided evolution. Thank you all for proving my point. Have a nice, ignorant life... -------------- "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: Mar. 31 2015,06:28    Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 30 2015,19:26) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,16:00) Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,17:02)   Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,11:48)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2015,16:24) I maintain that forensics is not an ID supporting system mainly because this is how an ID police force would work. Officer: Yes ma'am, due to various calculations, we've determined that your husband was murdered. Wife: Do you have any suspects. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but we don't look for the murder, just determine that he was murdered. Wife: Can I see your calculations, maybe I could give them to a private detective. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but you wouldn't understand them. Wife: Surely you can give them to me. Maybe someone else could understand them. Officer: I already gave them to you. Kevin, just because you are a lowlife loser who couldn't conduct an investigation if your life depended on it, doesn't mean everyone else is too. You don't look for a murderer until you determine a murder has been committed. And most times that is all the forensics says. The detectives then go about using the forensics to find the murderer. But then again you know forensics only from CSI shows... True, you don't look for a murderer until you know a murder has been committed. Does this mean that you are finally admitting that design in nature is far from conclusive? Biologists started looking for the mechanism behind evolution shortly after Darwin proposed his theory. Since then they have discovered genetics, mutation, meiosis and mitosis, genetic drift, neutral theory, antibiotic resistance, horizontal gene transfer, transcription, transposition, etc., et ., etc. And ID has discovered ...??? FIASCO? good job. Maybe you should stick to wavelength and frequency. You make more sense with these (none). Unguided evolution cannot account for any of what biologists have found- well it can account for disease and deformities. Transcription and translation alone are definitely evidence for ID. The genetic code is arbitrary and as such it is not reducible to physics or chemistry. Add alternative splicing, overlapping genes, proof-reading, error-correction and intelligent design in biology is as self-evident as the intelligent design of Stonehenge. Even when given starting populations of prokaryotes you don't have a mechanism that can get beyond that. YEC joey said: "...well it can account for disease and deformities." Hey joey, if everything is "design all the way down", how can the alleged design NOT include diseases and deformities? Are diseases and deformities due to 'the fall'? Accidents happen- you are a prime example of that. -------------- "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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,07:25    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 31 2015,04:18) Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,18:32) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,18:17)   Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,18:14)   Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,18:00)     Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,17:02)     Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,11:48)       Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2015,16:24) I maintain that forensics is not an ID supporting system mainly because this is how an ID police force would work. Officer: Yes ma'am, due to various calculations, we've determined that your husband was murdered. Wife: Do you have any suspects. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but we don't look for the murder, just determine that he was murdered. Wife: Can I see your calculations, maybe I could give them to a private detective. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but you wouldn't understand them. Wife: Surely you can give them to me. Maybe someone else could understand them. Officer: I already gave them to you. Kevin, just because you are a lowlife loser who couldn't conduct an investigation if your life depended on it, doesn't mean everyone else is too. You don't look for a murderer until you determine a murder has been committed. And most times that is all the forensics says. The detectives then go about using the forensics to find the murderer. But then again you know forensics only from CSI shows... True, you don't look for a murderer until you know a murder has been committed. Does this mean that you are finally admitting that design in nature is far from conclusive? Biologists started looking for the mechanism behind evolution shortly after Darwin proposed his theory. Since then they have discovered genetics, mutation, meiosis and mitosis, genetic drift, neutral theory, antibiotic resistance, horizontal gene transfer, transcription, transposition, etc., et ., etc. And ID has discovered ...??? FIASCO? good job. Maybe you should stick to wavelength and frequency. You make more sense with these (none). Unguided evolution cannot account for any of what biologists have found- well it can account for disease and deformities. Transcription and translation alone are definitely evidence for ID. The genetic code is arbitrary and as such it is not reducible to physics or chemistry. Add alternative splicing, overlapping genes, proof-reading, error-correction and intelligent design in biology is as self-evident as the intelligent design of Stonehenge. Even when given starting populations of prokaryotes you don't have a mechanism that can get beyond that. Joey, you keep telling us what we don't have (even though we do) but you never tell us what creationism has. Please be specific. Please link us to the definitive theory. And the overwhelming evidence that supports this theory. And see if you can do this without using words like "asshole, fuck, moron, etc".   You are now up to bat. ID is not creationism. Obviously you are too fucked up to have a discussion. I have provided all you ask for on my blog. It has a search feature. Today's post is a repost of positive evidence for ID. Joey, until you "ID" proponents are willing to discuss the nature of the designer and the mechanisms involved, ID and creationism are indistinguishable. Can you explain to me (and other fellow travellers) why I am wrong? On another subject, are you willing to give us your honest opinion of Gordon Mullings and Bornagain77?  If you cannot distinguish yourself from these "geniuses" why should we take you seriously? Yes, sock puppet, we know you are ignorant when it comes to science. We do NOT have to know anything about the designer to determine if design exists. We do not have to know anything about the mechanism, either. If you could just stop being such an ignorant coward, step up and try to support unguided evolution, you wouldn't have to worry about ID. But your position is so lame that you can't do that. Attacking ID will NEVER be positive evidence for evolutionism. Especially when you attack it with your ignorance. Hey frisbee kid, Jim, John Paul, ID guy, since you don't like sock puppets, why don't you bitch at kf, ba77, HeKS, phoodoo, Box, Mung, and all the other IDiots who don't use their real names? -------------- 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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,07:32    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 31 2015,04:19) Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 30 2015,22:33) Hey joey, have you calculated/measured the CSI in an aardvark? Not a definition of an aardvark. If so, can you and will you show and compare the results of your calculation/measurement of the CSI in an aardvark to your calculations/measurements of the CSI in a flu virus, a cancerous cell, a maple tree, a carp, a gaur, allah, adam and eve, yourself, and a baboon? You have calculated/measured the 'CSI' in all of those things and much more, in your state of the art basement lab, haven't you? Yes, an aardvark has CSI. The minimal living organism has CSI. And you still have nothing, not even a brain. Hey joey, where are your calculations/measurements? Obviously you're too stupid and cowardly to actually calculate/measure the alleged 'CSI' in anything but a definition of an aardvark, and according to your Dom gordo you even got that wrong. How does it feel to be a total failure AND gordo's bitch? -------------- 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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,07:52    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 31 2015,04:28) Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 30 2015,19:26) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,16:00)   Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,17:02)   Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,11:48)     Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2015,16:24) I maintain that forensics is not an ID supporting system mainly because this is how an ID police force would work. Officer: Yes ma'am, due to various calculations, we've determined that your husband was murdered. Wife: Do you have any suspects. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but we don't look for the murder, just determine that he was murdered. Wife: Can I see your calculations, maybe I could give them to a private detective. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but you wouldn't understand them. Wife: Surely you can give them to me. Maybe someone else could understand them. Officer: I already gave them to you. Kevin, just because you are a lowlife loser who couldn't conduct an investigation if your life depended on it, doesn't mean everyone else is too. You don't look for a murderer until you determine a murder has been committed. And most times that is all the forensics says. The detectives then go about using the forensics to find the murderer. But then again you know forensics only from CSI shows... True, you don't look for a murderer until you know a murder has been committed. Does this mean that you are finally admitting that design in nature is far from conclusive? Biologists started looking for the mechanism behind evolution shortly after Darwin proposed his theory. Since then they have discovered genetics, mutation, meiosis and mitosis, genetic drift, neutral theory, antibiotic resistance, horizontal gene transfer, transcription, transposition, etc., et ., etc. And ID has discovered ...??? FIASCO? good job. Maybe you should stick to wavelength and frequency. You make more sense with these (none). Unguided evolution cannot account for any of what biologists have found- well it can account for disease and deformities. Transcription and translation alone are definitely evidence for ID. The genetic code is arbitrary and as such it is not reducible to physics or chemistry. Add alternative splicing, overlapping genes, proof-reading, error-correction and intelligent design in biology is as self-evident as the intelligent design of Stonehenge. Even when given starting populations of prokaryotes you don't have a mechanism that can get beyond that. YEC joey said: "...well it can account for disease and deformities." Hey joey, if everything is "design all the way down", how can the alleged design NOT include diseases and deformities? Are diseases and deformities due to 'the fall'? Accidents happen- you are a prime example of that. But according to you, joey, "Accidents" can't be used to explain anything. According to you, everything exists and evolved/evolves by 'guided design' (except when you conveniently claim otherwise). You've even said: "Not one organism looks like it evolved without guidance." So try again, caek boy: If everything is "design all the way down", how can the alleged design NOT include diseases and deformities? Are diseases and deformities due to 'the fall'? -------------- 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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,07:52    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 31 2015,06:19) Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 30 2015,22:33) Hey joey, have you calculated/measured the CSI in an aardvark? Not a definition of an aardvark. If so, can you and will you show and compare the results of your calculation/measurement of the CSI in an aardvark to your calculations/measurements of the CSI in a flu virus, a cancerous cell, a maple tree, a carp, a gaur, allah, adam and eve, yourself, and a baboon? You have calculated/measured the 'CSI' in all of those things and much more, in your state of the art basement lab, haven't you? Yes, an aardvark has CSI. The minimal living organism has CSI. And you still have nothing, not even a brain. So that would be "no". You haven't done a single calculation other than one attempt to look at the definition of Aardvark. If that definition was in German, would it have more or less CSI? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,07:55    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 31 2015,14:20) Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 30 2015,20:01) Joe reminds me of belligerent drunks who pick fights with strangers because their shoelaces are the wrong colour. Some guys just need an excuse to stay angry all the time. (shrug) Oh, well. EvoTARDs remind me of a bunch of lowlife lying cowards. Wow joes that's some projections you got going there. Hey did yah get a medal in Iraq???? What was it? Al Queda bait? -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,07:56    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 31 2015,06:21) Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 30 2015,22:29) Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 30 2015,21:59) joey: Now wrt biology each nucleotide has 2 bits. Truly someone who has no idea what's going on in biology. Hey Joey, how many bits do you need to account for methylation? How many bits do you need to account for transvection? How many bits for histone modification? Kevin, the bits pertain to the codons used to encode amino acids. Obviously you are just an ignorant ass. I see, so they chemical states that determine whether a codon is expressed or not has nothing to do with the CSI of the organism. That's like saying the organisation of silicon has nothing to do with a computer. Interesting how that it's just the DNA that Joey thinks about. He doesn't care about expression... which is what makes the organism. Like I said, clueless about biology. -------------- 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: Mar. 31 2015,08:00    Hey joey, will you show where the 'theory of ID' is published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal, since according to you: "A scientific theory needs to be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. Websites and popular books do NOT cut it." ETA: Comment 205 in this thread: http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....ars-ago Edited by The whole truth on Mar. 31 2015,06:35 -------------- 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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,08:02    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 31 2015,02:17) Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,18:14) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,18:00)   Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,17:02)   Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,11:48)     Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2015,16:24) I maintain that forensics is not an ID supporting system mainly because this is how an ID police force would work. Officer: Yes ma'am, due to various calculations, we've determined that your husband was murdered. Wife: Do you have any suspects. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but we don't look for the murder, just determine that he was murdered. Wife: Can I see your calculations, maybe I could give them to a private detective. Officer: Sorry ma'am, but you wouldn't understand them. Wife: Surely you can give them to me. Maybe someone else could understand them. Officer: I already gave them to you. Kevin, just because you are a lowlife loser who couldn't conduct an investigation if your life depended on it, doesn't mean everyone else is too. You don't look for a murderer until you determine a murder has been committed. And most times that is all the forensics says. The detectives then go about using the forensics to find the murderer. But then again you know forensics only from CSI shows... True, you don't look for a murderer until you know a murder has been committed. Does this mean that you are finally admitting that design in nature is far from conclusive? Biologists started looking for the mechanism behind evolution shortly after Darwin proposed his theory. Since then they have discovered genetics, mutation, meiosis and mitosis, genetic drift, neutral theory, antibiotic resistance, horizontal gene transfer, transcription, transposition, etc., et ., etc. And ID has discovered ...??? FIASCO? good job. Maybe you should stick to wavelength and frequency. You make more sense with these (none). Unguided evolution cannot account for any of what biologists have found- well it can account for disease and deformities. Transcription and translation alone are definitely evidence for ID. The genetic code is arbitrary and as such it is not reducible to physics or chemistry. Add alternative splicing, overlapping genes, proof-reading, error-correction and intelligent design in biology is as self-evident as the intelligent design of Stonehenge. Even when given starting populations of prokaryotes you don't have a mechanism that can get beyond that. Joey, you keep telling us what we don't have (even though we do) but you never tell us what creationism has. Please be specific. Please link us to the definitive theory. And the overwhelming evidence that supports this theory. And see if you can do this without using words like "asshole, fuck, moron, etc".   You are now up to bat. ID is not creationism. Obviously you are too fucked up to have a discussion. I have provided all you ask for on my blog. It has a search feature. Today's post is a repost of positive evidence for ID. A simple lie Joe lying liar. Here is what the the L.A.W found.... Quote We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,08:23    Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 31 2015,15:52) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 31 2015,06:19) Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 30 2015,22:33) Hey joey, have you calculated/measured the CSI in an aardvark? Not a definition of an aardvark. If so, can you and will you show and compare the results of your calculation/measurement of the CSI in an aardvark to your calculations/measurements of the CSI in a flu virus, a cancerous cell, a maple tree, a carp, a gaur, allah, adam and eve, yourself, and a baboon? You have calculated/measured the 'CSI' in all of those things and much more, in your state of the art basement lab, haven't you? Yes, an aardvark has CSI. The minimal living organism has CSI. And you still have nothing, not even a brain. So that would be "no". You haven't done a single calculation other than one attempt to look at the definition of Aardvark. If that definition was in German, would it have more or less CSI? Phhhtt Swahili or Greek the actual entropy of 202 characters is 505  bits. Not that it means anything except JOE GOT THE CALCULATION WRONG. When you calculate the entropy for cryptographic purposes you don't use 7 bits per character you use 2.5 bits if you are using normal text. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,08:29    Hey YEC joey, if ID isn't creationism and you're not a creationist, why did you get pissy when Alan Fox said to ba77: "Please don’t expect me to take seriously material sourced from the Institute for Creation Research." Your pissy, defensive response was: "Typical coward- attack the website not the evidence." Comment 232 in this thread: http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....ars-ago You've left a long slimy trail of your creationist blabbering, YEC joey. -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,08:39    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,18:02) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2015,13:59) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,12:29)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2015,12:25)   Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,11:31)     Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2015,11:20) Joe has been invited to talk about the entailments of 'guided' vs. 'unguided' evolution. He is afraid to talk in a venue where he can't control what is said. :D And Richie fails to provide the entailments for unguided evolution. Need your commitment to participate first ;) You should have posted them already, Richie. I will participate- definitely. Name those entailments for unguided evolution or admit that you can't. Great. So, let's set the stage. Please feel free to correct anything you disagree with: Your issue isn't with evolution, but the lack of "guidance". So we have 2 competing conjectures (let's call them that for the sake of this) - Guided UnGuided And these two conjectures should be different in their entailments. Good so far? Richie, If you don't understand what is being debated, even though you have been told many times, just shut the fuck up. Either you can post the entailments for unguided evolution or you can't. We all know you can't so stop bluffing already and just admit it. Calm down Joe. I believe you committed to participate? Both guided and unguided evolution have commonalities that will have the same entailments. It is therefore critical we isolate and explore the points of difference so we can where the entailments will be different. Defining terms and concepts is a good first step. So stop with all this "you're scared" projection. Otherwise it looks like ID (or at least your version of it) has no positive argument and is simply anti-evolutionary flailings. -------------- "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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,08:44    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,19:38) Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 30 2015,08:58) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 29 2015,22:54)       Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2015,11:04)       Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 12 2014,14:09) Joe:           Quote Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when. Reality: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news.......nehenge           Quote A prehistoric village has been discovered in southern England that was likely home to the builders of Stonehenge, archaeologists announced on January 30, 2007 (read the full story). The village, located 1.75 miles (2.8 kilometers) from the famous stone circle, includes eight wooden houses dated back to around 2500 B.C. The remains of a cluster of homes include the outlines of floors, beds, and cupboards. Tools, jewelry, pottery, and human and animal bones were also found. ... he's been corrected on this before, but in true creationist fashion he just rolls out the old, untrue tropes. Richie creates a post that supports what I said and thinks it somehow refutes me- really? Design was determined before they found that village, cupcake. That supports what I said. Design detection is top down- first you determine it exists and then you try to answer the questions that follow from that. Funny how design by humans is determined so differently than "design" in life is. You find rational productions, like circular pots, straight (more or less) paths, simple shapes, useful artifacts, and you conclude design. With life, you find high complexity, lack of rational solutions to problems (rather, adherence to past genetic inheritances), and not only completely useless life but utterly detrimental life forms, and IDiots conclude "design." Of course, scientists don't. Glen Davidson Yeah well it's just a variation of the God bother-er on the door step stepping back mid-sentence and glancing at the home and saying 'someone build this place' - therefore god. It's just very basic question begging (Petitio Principii for Joe who probably thinks I mean Joe is a beggar with a question :) . In the case of Stonehenge we don't need to ask if it was designed  its fucking self evident. We already intuitively have most of the answers regards design. We know there were human builders, materials brought from a distance and we have the plan/design which is 'the as built'. In other words the complete plan to manufacture a finished product and the finished product itself. The building we now know was completed a few thousand years ago and not much has changed since it was built which is rather inconvenient for the Fundies bait and switch argument. In other words the once off design/as built IS THE DESIGN and THEREFORE THE once off DESIGNERS EXISTED. Since we very reasonably in the case of human manufacture appear to quickly assume the conclusion 'design' therefore 'designed' what is the logical mis-step Fundies make? They assume the conclusion (a god existed) without evidence i.e. no as built design. Try as they might the explanations from scientific inquiry prove far more satisfying than ....'oh some magic happened, palm reading, astrology or Overlords from Outer Space.  A simple confidence trick mostly, on their own weak minds which can't tell the difference between what is and isn't self evident. Barry Arrington would be very proud of your "self-evident" style. Congratulations- I will let him know Excellent Joe tell all the ID zombies just one tiny little problem tho.... From Wikipedia's 'begging the question. Quote .....In short, a successful resolution of such a fallacy requires a firm grasp of the correct explanatory powers of things. Without a knowledge of which things are self-explanatory and which are not, the reasoner is liable to find a question-begging argument persuasive. —Scott Gregory Schreiber, Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations Fundies fail on knowledge and find circular reasoning seductive. Joe and Barrogant love ignorance. Maybe you could edit out fundie ignorance by changing Wiki Joe. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2015,09:48    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2015,08:39) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,18:02) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2015,13:59)   Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,12:29)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2015,12:25)     Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,11:31)     Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2015,11:20) Joe has been invited to talk about the entailments of 'guided' vs. 'unguided' evolution. He is afraid to talk in a venue where he can't control what is said. :D And Richie fails to provide the entailments for unguided evolution. Need your commitment to participate first ;) You should have posted them already, Richie. I will participate- definitely. Name those entailments for unguided evolution or admit that you can't. Great. So, let's set the stage. Please feel free to correct anything you disagree with: Your issue isn't with evolution, but the lack of "guidance". So we have 2 competing conjectures (let's call them that for the sake of this) - Guided UnGuided And these two conjectures should be different in their entailments. Good so far? Richie, If you don't understand what is being debated, even though you have been told many times, just shut the fuck up. Either you can post the entailments for unguided evolution or you can't. We all know you can't so stop bluffing already and just admit it. Calm down Joe. I believe you committed to participate? Both guided and unguided evolution have commonalities that will have the same entailments. It is therefore critical we isolate and explore the points of difference so we can where the entailments will be different. Defining terms and concepts is a good first step. So stop with all this "you're scared" projection. Otherwise it looks like ID (or at least your version of it) has no positive argument and is simply anti-evolutionary flailings. You are scared Richie. Otherwise you would have posted the entailments for unguided evolution and been done with it. That you don't proves you don't have anything. -------------- "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: Mar. 31 2015,09:50    Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 31 2015,08:29) Hey YEC joey, if ID isn't creationism and you're not a creationist, why did you get pissy when Alan Fox said to ba77: "Please don’t expect me to take seriously material sourced from the Institute for Creation Research." Your pissy, defensive response was: "Typical coward- attack the website not the evidence." Comment 232 in this thread: http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....ars-ago You've left a long slimy trail of your creationist blabbering, YEC joey. Asshole- you quoted me as why I was upset and dickhead Fox. He attacked the institute and didn't even look at the evidence. -------------- "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

Pages: (919) < ... 291 292 293 294 295 [296] 297 298 299 300 301 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard