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) < ... 127 128 129 130 131 [132] 133 134 135 136 137 ... >

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,03:43    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 08 2012,18:08) Umm archaeologists and forensic scientists can and do determine design BEFORE knowing anything about the designer- and there are unsolved crimes and there are artifacts taht we don't know if humans didit- see Puma Punku, for one. Joe, it is a common fallacy to underestimate the skills of ancient cultures. But fortunately, in some cases we know not only the name of the engineer, we can even read their textbooks. Look up Roman Aqueducts for a brilliant example. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,04:41    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 09 2012,02:13) Level 1 carlsonjokassface: GREAT PHOTO OF YOU THERE JOE. YOU GOT A SISTER? -------------- "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. 09 2012,05:00    Some funny from joe: As for evidence for UFOs and ancient astronauts, there is plenty. Great Britain opened up its files and there is more than enough in those alone. Then there are massive stone structures allegedly cut and moved by people who couldn’t even write- we might not be able to duplicate some of the things they built. And yes paranormal events have been investigated and I would love to see any skeptic go into some of these places- I get to choose. But anyway take a trip to Peru and Bolivia- check out Puma Punku, Tiahuanaco, Nasca- hey there is a mountain missing its entire top- as if it was just scraped off for a landing area. And: The evidence for abstract designers is that there is evidence for paranormal activity, eg ghosts. And: We have evidence that intelligent entities exist or existed other places than earth. Also ID INFERs they did. And ID would be OK if we were descendendts. And: Newly released UFO files from the UK government     http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos...........fos More UK UFO files               http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos.......les.htm And: As I said the evidence for ghosts means there is evidence for non-human agency. And: And living organisms do violate the second law. -------------- 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. 09 2012,05:33    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 09 2012,11:43) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 08 2012,18:08) Umm archaeologists and forensic scientists can and do determine design BEFORE knowing anything about the designer- and there are unsolved crimes and there are artifacts taht we don't know if humans didit- see Puma Punku, for one. Joe, it is a common fallacy to underestimate the skills of ancient cultures. But fortunately, in some cases we know not only the name of the engineer, we can even read their textbooks. Look up Roman Aqueducts for a brilliant example. Yeah when the bibliophiles make the mistake of telling me on my old front porch saying someone I don't know built my house. I tell them that the papers are available ..duh. Much staring at feet ensues with confused looks on the female's faces and a promise by the male to not visit again. (yah!) They get pretty pissed off when I herd them to the picket fence. Registers are updated. -------------- "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. 09 2012,05:43    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 09 2012,02:58) Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 08 2012,18:56)   Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 08 2012,16:54) 1- Saying "it looks designed" is more than enough reason to check into that possibility And the reason you haven't would be...? We have. That is why there is Intelligent Design. OTOH, your position still has nothing.... Hey Joe. You want to talk dirty? Here's how it goes. Take about a litre of your fav helper 'k? I'm guessing you have to have something girly like Malibu. No problem, you got to start somewhere. Meet u round teh back but don't tell anyone. The forplay is over dude time to show us your steps. When was the last last time you had to ask for sex? ('n Ras... I know.....  but he doesn't) -------------- "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. 09 2012,06:49    Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 08 2012,19:42) Hmmm... more fail from Joe... big surprise.  Hey, Joe did you actually READ the paper you referenced?  ( Functional Information and the emergence of biocomplexity ) You do understand that this has nothing to do with the question I asked correct?   Well, anyway, since Joe is incapable of actually doing anything, I'll have to do it for him.  I will use the link he provided and we'll go with that... even though it's the wrong tool for the job.  When all you have is a bat, everything looks like kneecaps... right Joe? This is going to be difficult without mathtype... sigh. I(Ex) = -log2[M(Ex)/N] Where: I(Ex) is the functional information (functional, not information content... if you don't understand why this is different (and you don't) then you really need some basic reading remediation). Ex is the degree of function.  "Typically, a small fraction, F(Ex ), of all possible configurations of a system achieves at least the specified degree of function, ?Ex ." "Thus, in a system with N possible configurations (e.g., a sequence of n RNA nucleotides, which has N = 4 n discrete possible sequences" where M(Ex ) is the number of different configurations that achieves or exceeds the specified degree of function x, ?Ex" Now, since these have exactly the same length.  AND since they both meet the minimum functionality (i.e. all humans with these genes, all other things being equal, survive), then everything is equivalent and the two sequences have exactly the same functional information. I(Ex)1 = -log2[M(Ex1)/N1] I(Ex)2 = -log2[M(Ex2/N2] In the example I've given N1 = N2 and M(Ex)1 = M(Ex)2) then I(Ex)1 =   I(Ex)2 i.e. the functional information is the same in those two sequences. Joe, do you agree or disagree with this statement.  A simple 'agree' or 'disagree' will suffice.  Though if you 'disagree', then we'll need an explanation for why. ----------------------- P.S.  I hope you now see why this doesn't really work.  This is intended to be used to explore the solution space.  However, it can be MADE to work in this case because the functionality is the same in both cases. Kevin, I read the paper. Also your question has nothing to do with anything I have claimed. Go figure... -------------- "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. 09 2012,06:49    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 09 2012,03:43) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 08 2012,18:08) Umm archaeologists and forensic scientists can and do determine design BEFORE knowing anything about the designer- and there are unsolved crimes and there are artifacts taht we don't know if humans didit- see Puma Punku, for one. Joe, it is a common fallacy to underestimate the skills of ancient cultures. But fortunately, in some cases we know not only the name of the engineer, we can even read their textbooks. Look up Roman Aqueducts for a brilliant example. So Roman aquaductys explains Puma Punku? How does that work? -------------- "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. 09 2012,06:53    Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 08 2012,19:38) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 08 2012,18:46) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 08 2012,18:31)   Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 08 2012,18:08) Umm archaeologists and forensic scientists can and do determine design BEFORE knowing anything about the designer- and there are unsolved crimes and there are artifacts taht we don't know if humans didit- see Puma Punku, for one. Joe ahead Joe.  Show us a reference, any reference, that says archaeologists are unsure if Pumapunku was built by humans. Assclown. Show me ONE where they proved it was humans- your evotard brethen used proved- so please reference one peer-reviewed paper in which it was proven it was humans who moved and carved those stones. Have you even been there? There is an abundant amount of archaeological literature on Tiwanaku in general and Pumapunka in particular for example; Interpreting the meaning of ritual spaces: The temple complex of Pumapunku, Tiwanaku, Bolivia YAEGER, J., & J.M. López Bejarano. La reconfiguración de un espacio sagrado: Los Inkas y la pirámide Pumapunku en Tiwanaku. Chungara, Revista de Antropología Chilena 36(2):335–348. Tiwanaku Temples and State Expansion: A Tiwanaku sunken court temple in Moquegua, Peru THE USE OF STRONTIUM ISOTOPE ANALYSIS TO INVESTIGATE TIWANAKU MIGRATION AND MORTUARY RITUAL IN BOLIVIA AND PERU Subsurface Imaging in Tiwanaku’s Monumental Core Utility of Multiple Chemical Techniques in Archaeological Residential Mobility Studies: Case Studies From Tiwanaku- and Chiribaya-Affiliated Sites in the Andes I could list more, but why bother. The point is that the archaeology of Tiwanku and Pumapunku is quite well known. I know- I have actually been there and no one knows how or if humans did it- the allged "experts" say that the natives they alledge didit didn't evn have a written language- yet anyone who has ever been in construction will tell you that it is close to impossible to build such a site without it. And just because they found human remains around the site does not mean humans constructed it. The same goes for Stonehenge. -------------- "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. 09 2012,06:56    Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 08 2012,19:01) Quote Umm archaeologists and forensic scientists can and do determine design BEFORE knowing anything about the designer I didn't claim otherwise, what I said was:   Quote Where ID refuses to make any inference about the designer, archaeologists have developed a rather large body of theory to allow them to do what ID is incapable of doing, which is making inferences about the designer(s) of the artifacts found in the archaeological record. If archaeology just limited itself to identifying whether a given item was a human made artifact or the result of natural processes, as ID does, it wouldn't be science it would be little better than stamp collecting. In other words once a design inference is made archaeologists then proceed to the main part of the archaeological endeavor. Which is inferring things about the designer of the artifact(s). This is something that, inexplicably, ID refuses to do. Pumapunku? LOL Despite the abundant theories among crackpots about space aliens, Pumapunku was part of a Tiwanaku ceremonial center and is similar to many other Tiwanaku ceremonial centers in Bolivia. It was later used by the Inka (used to be spelled Inca but it was changed awhile back) for much the same purposes. Man you are fucking dense- the who and how are separate questions- just as the ToE and teh OoL are separate questions- even though how life originated directly affects any subsequent evolution. -------------- "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: Mar. 09 2012,06:56    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 09 2012,06:49) Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 08 2012,19:42) Hmmm... more fail from Joe... big surprise.  Hey, Joe did you actually READ the paper you referenced?  ( Functional Information and the emergence of biocomplexity ) You do understand that this has nothing to do with the question I asked correct?   Well, anyway, since Joe is incapable of actually doing anything, I'll have to do it for him.  I will use the link he provided and we'll go with that... even though it's the wrong tool for the job.  When all you have is a bat, everything looks like kneecaps... right Joe? This is going to be difficult without mathtype... sigh. I(Ex) = -log2[M(Ex)/N] Where: I(Ex) is the functional information (functional, not information content... if you don't understand why this is different (and you don't) then you really need some basic reading remediation). Ex is the degree of function.  "Typically, a small fraction, F(Ex ), of all possible configurations of a system achieves at least the specified degree of function, ?Ex ." "Thus, in a system with N possible configurations (e.g., a sequence of n RNA nucleotides, which has N = 4 n discrete possible sequences" where M(Ex ) is the number of different configurations that achieves or exceeds the specified degree of function x, ?Ex" Now, since these have exactly the same length.  AND since they both meet the minimum functionality (i.e. all humans with these genes, all other things being equal, survive), then everything is equivalent and the two sequences have exactly the same functional information. I(Ex)1 = -log2[M(Ex1)/N1] I(Ex)2 = -log2[M(Ex2/N2] In the example I've given N1 = N2 and M(Ex)1 = M(Ex)2) then I(Ex)1 =   I(Ex)2 i.e. the functional information is the same in those two sequences. Joe, do you agree or disagree with this statement.  A simple 'agree' or 'disagree' will suffice.  Though if you 'disagree', then we'll need an explanation for why. ----------------------- P.S.  I hope you now see why this doesn't really work.  This is intended to be used to explore the solution space.  However, it can be MADE to work in this case because the functionality is the same in both cases. Kevin, I read the paper. Also your question has nothing to do with anything I have claimed. Go figure... You are right Joe.  You finally figured it out. I'm actually studying this quality of information that you and other IDiots have been harping on about. Now, do you agree that, by the paper you referenced, that both sequences have the same amount of information?  yes/no It's truly hillarious how you think 1) Everything is about you 2) Everything I say is an attempt to get you to fuck up* 3) That you actually have a clue * Because you certainly don't need my help. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,06:58    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 09 2012,06:49) Kevin, I read the paper. Yeah. All of them. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,07:21    Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 09 2012,06:56) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 09 2012,06:49) Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 08 2012,19:42) Hmmm... more fail from Joe... big surprise.  Hey, Joe did you actually READ the paper you referenced?  ( Functional Information and the emergence of biocomplexity ) You do understand that this has nothing to do with the question I asked correct?   Well, anyway, since Joe is incapable of actually doing anything, I'll have to do it for him.  I will use the link he provided and we'll go with that... even though it's the wrong tool for the job.  When all you have is a bat, everything looks like kneecaps... right Joe? This is going to be difficult without mathtype... sigh. I(Ex) = -log2[M(Ex)/N] Where: I(Ex) is the functional information (functional, not information content... if you don't understand why this is different (and you don't) then you really need some basic reading remediation). Ex is the degree of function.  "Typically, a small fraction, F(Ex ), of all possible configurations of a system achieves at least the specified degree of function, ?Ex ." "Thus, in a system with N possible configurations (e.g., a sequence of n RNA nucleotides, which has N = 4 n discrete possible sequences" where M(Ex ) is the number of different configurations that achieves or exceeds the specified degree of function x, ?Ex" Now, since these have exactly the same length.  AND since they both meet the minimum functionality (i.e. all humans with these genes, all other things being equal, survive), then everything is equivalent and the two sequences have exactly the same functional information. I(Ex)1 = -log2[M(Ex1)/N1] I(Ex)2 = -log2[M(Ex2/N2] In the example I've given N1 = N2 and M(Ex)1 = M(Ex)2) then I(Ex)1 =   I(Ex)2 i.e. the functional information is the same in those two sequences. Joe, do you agree or disagree with this statement.  A simple 'agree' or 'disagree' will suffice.  Though if you 'disagree', then we'll need an explanation for why. ----------------------- P.S.  I hope you now see why this doesn't really work.  This is intended to be used to explore the solution space.  However, it can be MADE to work in this case because the functionality is the same in both cases. Kevin, I read the paper. Also your question has nothing to do with anything I have claimed. Go figure... You are right Joe.  You finally figured it out. I'm actually studying this quality of information that you and other IDiots have been harping on about. Now, do you agree that, by the paper you referenced, that both sequences have the same amount of information?  yes/no It's truly hillarious how you think 1) Everything is about you 2) Everything I say is an attempt to get you to fuck up* 3) That you actually have a clue * Because you certainly don't need my help. Kevin- YOU are the asshole making this all about me- and you don't have a fucking clue as evidenced by your frantiic "no blind watchamker no matter what the experts say!" Heck you didn't even know that natural selection is just a result and when I pointed that out to you, you still refused to accept it. So maybe someday you will have a clue, but it is obvious that today is not that day. -------------- "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. 09 2012,07:23    Quote Now, since these have exactly the same length.  AND since they both meet the minimum functionality (i.e. all humans with these genes, all other things being equal, survive), then everything is equivalent and the two sequences have exactly the same functional information. And they both have the same variational tolerance? Or did you not read about 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

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,07:31    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 09 2012,06:49)   Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 09 2012,03:43)   Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 08 2012,18:08) Umm archaeologists and forensic scientists can and do determine design BEFORE knowing anything about the designer- and there are unsolved crimes and there are artifacts taht we don't know if humans didit- see Puma Punku, for one. Joe, it is a common fallacy to underestimate the skills of ancient cultures. But fortunately, in some cases we know not only the name of the engineer, we can even read their textbooks. Look up Roman Aqueducts for a brilliant example. So Roman aquaductys explains Puma Punku? How does that work? Let me explain, Cupcake. In my example, we have got evidence that more than 2,000 years ago, an ancient culture was capable of amazing technological feats - hands free, no computers, no decimal system ... In Puma Punku, we have no written records. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. May I suggest that you consider parsimony? That is, why phantasize about aliens, Cupcake, when human engineering was perfectly capable of building complicated structures elsewhere? -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,07:32    "variational tolerance" like you know what the fuck THAT means, captain guano right?  "mole" are you too much of a pussy to answer the simple question?  which has more "functional information", and by how much? if i was self-retarded as *you* I would not answer anyone's questions either.  'member what the say, open your mouth and remove all doubt!  but it's too late for that cupcake you let the fool out of the bag years ago Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 09 2012,08:34 -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,07:33    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 09 2012,07:23) Quote Now, since these have exactly the same length.  AND since they both meet the minimum functionality (i.e. all humans with these genes, all other things being equal, survive), then everything is equivalent and the two sequences have exactly the same functional information. And they both have the same variational tolerance? Or did you not read about that? Yes, Joe, they have the same "variational tolerance." (For God's sake, they differ by just one letter.) -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,07:33    cupcake jinx!  drink! not you captain guano you get back in the sack -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,07:36    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 09 2012,06:56) Man you are fucking dense- the who and how are separate questions- just as the ToE and teh OoL are separate questions- even though how life originated directly affects any subsequent evolution. Anyone else spot the fundamental error? Hey Joe, How old is the Earth? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,07:44    Quote (olegt @ Mar. 09 2012,07:33) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 09 2012,07:23) Quote Now, since these have exactly the same length.  AND since they both meet the minimum functionality (i.e. all humans with these genes, all other things being equal, survive), then everything is equivalent and the two sequences have exactly the same functional information. And they both have the same variational tolerance? Or did you not read about that? Yes, Joe, they have the same "variational tolerance." (For God's sake, they differ by just one letter.) Variational tolerance has nothing to do with it Joe. I TOLD YOU THIS WAS THE WRONG TOOL Now you want to complain about me using the ONLY tool you even offered to explain something it wasn't meant to explain. The sheer mind boggling inanity of your 'work' on this forum is astounding. Joe, I told YOU to offer up a definition of information.  I will let you choose the definition.  Then apply that definition to the two sequences and see which has more or if they have the same. That is ALL that we are doing here.  The simple fact that you cannot accept, even by the measure YOU provided, that they have the same amount of information is utterly ridiculous. If you don't like the way I used YOUR reference material... then YOU DO IT.  But you won't, because we both know you can't.  And you're too much of an intellectual coward to even try to support your own work. In additional, I told you that a human can have two of the sequences and live, one of each and live, or two of the other and live.  Therefore, in terms of survival, which is just as valid a function as any other, they are the same. Perhaps, if you knew what you were talking about, then you could come with a definition of function and a functional metric that shows that the two sequences are different. Of course that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL QUESTION I ASKED does it? Wow, 5-6 pages into this and we still can't get Joe to actually do anything. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,07:59    -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,08:29    Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 09 2012,07:44) Wow, 5-6 pages into this and we still can't get Joe to actually do anything. You mean other than getting you all worked up? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,09:17    Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 09 2012,08:29) Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 09 2012,07:44) Wow, 5-6 pages into this and we still can't get Joe to actually do anything. You mean other than getting you all worked up? Here's the root of Joe's issues -------------- "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

Occam's Toothbrush Posts: 555 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,09:49    Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 09 2012,08:44)     Quote (olegt @ Mar. 09 2012,07:33)     Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 09 2012,07:23)       Quote Now, since these have exactly the same length.  AND since they both meet the minimum functionality (i.e. all humans with these genes, all other things being equal, survive), then everything is equivalent and the two sequences have exactly the same functional information. And they both have the same variational tolerance? Or did you not read about that? Yes, Joe, they have the same "variational tolerance." (For God's sake, they differ by just one letter.) Variational tolerance has nothing to do with it Joe. I TOLD YOU THIS WAS THE WRONG TOOL Now you want to complain about me using the ONLY tool you even offered to explain something it wasn't meant to explain. The sheer mind boggling inanity of your 'work' on this forum is astounding. Joe, I told YOU to offer up a definition of information.  I will let you choose the definition.  Then apply that definition to the two sequences and see which has more or if they have the same. That is ALL that we are doing here.  The simple fact that you cannot accept, even by the measure YOU provided, that they have the same amount of information is utterly ridiculous. If you don't like the way I used YOUR reference material... then YOU DO IT.  But you won't, because we both know you can't.  And you're too much of an intellectual coward to even try to support your own work. In additional, I told you that a human can have two of the sequences and live, one of each and live, or two of the other and live.  Therefore, in terms of survival, which is just as valid a function as any other, they are the same. Perhaps, if you knew what you were talking about, then you could come with a definition of function and a functional metric that shows that the two sequences are different. Of course that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL QUESTION I ASKED does it? Wow, 5-6 pages into this and we still can't get Joe to actually do anything. Don't worry, I'm sure he's just about to do something.  Something like call you an assface, or accuse you of eating poopy diapers, or threaten to come to your house and physically attack you.  Just like any insecure, unimaginative 11-year old bully might do.  Joe always does, sooner or later. Or maybe that wasn't the something you were hoping for. -------------- "Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers ------ "You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,10:26    Quote I know- I have actually been there and no one knows how or if humans did it- the allged "experts" say that the natives they alledge didit didn't evn have a written language- yet anyone who has ever been in construction will tell you that it is close to impossible to build such a site without it. Yeah those nasty, illiterate, non-white, non-christians were totally incapable of doing anything. Fact of the matter is we do know how is was built and by whom. When I say that the archaeology of the Tiwanaku is well know I mean we have been excavating Tiwanaku sites for quite a long time and have a good grasp on the orgins and growth of the culture - as well as their building techniques, pottery and lithic styles, social stucture, religion, etc. It always amazes me that creationist will mock scientists for some of their mistakes, accuse them of sloppy methods and such, and then turn around and accept, unexamined, the most ridiculous twaddle imaginable. -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,10:36    Quote Man you are fucking dense- the who and how are separate questions- just as the ToE and teh OoL are separate questions- even though how life originated directly affects any subsequent evolution. Apparently, I was being to subtle, so let me be more straightforward. ID is trying to somehow claim archaeology as a "Design Science" however until ID mans up and starts making inferences about the designer, which archaeologists do routinely (it's what archaeology is about), they are engaging in rampant intellectual dishonesty. Over and above that ID's "design detection" methodology is nowhere as sophisticated as that found in archaeology. Quote How can anyone prove a human didit wrt ancient events? No one witnessed this alluvial fan being formed, but we can still prove gravity did it. Think about that for a bit. -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,11:10    Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 09 2012,10:36) Quote Man you are fucking dense- the who and how are separate questions- just as the ToE and teh OoL are separate questions- even though how life originated directly affects any subsequent evolution. Apparently, I was being to subtle, so let me be more straightforward. ID is trying to somehow claim archaeology as a "Design Science" however until ID mans up and starts making inferences about the designer, which archaeologists do routinely (it's what archaeology is about), they are engaging in rampant intellectual dishonesty. Over and above that ID's "design detection" methodology is nowhere as sophisticated as that found in archaeology. Quote How can anyone prove a human didit wrt ancient events? No one witnessed this alluvial fan being formed, but we can still prove gravity did it. Think about that for a bit. And that fan is a hellalota more complex than anything designed by humans. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,11:13    Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 09 2012,06:36) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 09 2012,06:56) Man you are fucking dense- the who and how are separate questions- just as the ToE and teh OoL are separate questions- even though how life originated directly affects any subsequent evolution. Anyone else spot the fundamental error? Hey Joe, How old is the Earth? Oh, just count the candles on the cake. Since you asked the question, you do the work!!111!!one!!!

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,11:17    Quote the who and how are separate questions- The question of exactly who might be a separate question from the how, but the question of what the who is, is not all that separate from the question of how.

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,11:17    Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Mar. 09 2012,09:49) Don't worry, I'm sure he's just about to do something.  Something like call you an assface, or accuse you of eating poopy diapers, or threaten to come to your house and physically attack you.  Just like any insecure, unimaginative 11-year old bully might do.  Joe always does, sooner or later. Or maybe that wasn't the something you were hoping for. Did someone just mention diapers? I give you Captain Guano! -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2012,11:30    Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 09 2012,10:26) Quote I know- I have actually been there and no one knows how or if humans did it- the allged "experts" say that the natives they alledge didit didn't evn have a written language- yet anyone who has ever been in construction will tell you that it is close to impossible to build such a site without it. Yeah those nasty, illiterate, non-white, non-christians were totally incapable of doing anything. Fact of the matter is we do know how is was built and by whom. When I say that the archaeology of the Tiwanaku is well know I mean we have been excavating Tiwanaku sites for quite a long time and have a good grasp on the orgins and growth of the culture - as well as their building techniques, pottery and lithic styles, social stucture, religion, etc. It always amazes me that creationist will mock scientists for some of their mistakes, accuse them of sloppy methods and such, and then turn around and accept, unexamined, the most ridiculous twaddle imaginable. Thank you, afarensis! -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Pages: (919) < ... 127 128 129 130 131 [132] 133 134 135 136 137 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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