RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (919) < ... 178 179 180 181 182 [183] 184 185 186 187 188 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,11:33   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27)
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
         
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.


How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"

--------------
"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: Jan. 28 2013,11:35   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 16 2013,08:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 15 2013,19:45)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
           
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.


How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

And *suprise!* - ID is just a negative argument.

ID is a negative argument against a strawman analogy of what ID-proponents think is the actual science.

No Kevin, you are a lying coward as ID does not attack a strawman. I have provided references taht support my claims about evolutionism and all you can do is choke on them.

You are a pathetic little punk.

--------------
"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: Jan. 28 2013,11:38   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2013,13:59)
You guys want to see something freaking hilarious?

Go here and read the comments: skepticink.com/humanisticas/2013/01/24/catholic-hospital-argues-that-fetuses-are-not-people

I actually agree with Joe about a point and it brings him to frothing, drooling madness.  Also, he doesn't understand the entire point of two articles (I did one on the same subject, but he's banned from my blog), but that's not surprising.

No Kevin. Your take on what transpired is twisted, as usual.

Also YOU are a hypocrite- an atheist accepting Christmas presents? You are nothing but a liar and a hypocrite.

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

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,12:04   

Joe, if you could stop spewing spittle all over the place for a few minutes, you should have a look at Gary Gaulin's most excellent ID theory.  It's right here at AtBC, and like you he has his very own thread.  He not only has a theory, but a VB program that PROVES teh ID is TRUE.   Right up your ass alley.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,12:31   

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,12:38)
an atheist accepting Christmas presents?

Joe little buddy you are sure struggling to stay mad

That's pretty sad and pathetic even for you

Maybe you can find a pill to jack your testosterone back up so you can rage better, i bet you hardly even got spittle on your screen and you got through the whole thing without using your fists to type

--------------
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: Jan. 28 2013,12:48   

Hey Joey,

What do you make of Dembski totally destroying all of Behe's claims about irreducible complexity?

Maybe you should go set both of them straight, since you're so much better informed than the two guys who actually invented Intelligent Design.

So, Joe, you didn't answer my question... what should the Catholic Church say about this lawsuit.

1) We support our lawyers and the law of Colorado.
2) We do not support our lawyers and the law of Colorado.

Remember Joe, try to get this through your head.  Claims of hypocrisy have nothing to do with the law.  It has only to do with the beliefs and actions of the organization.

When Dembski said that a mousetrap can have functions, even if you take a part away, he was being hypocritical... since much of his ID concept is based on the the idea of irreducible complexity.

1) Does Dembski support and agree with Behe?
2) Does Demsbki think that Behe (and irreducible complexity) is wrong?

One of these is being hypocritical.  The other means Dembski is either stupid or lying (I'll let you pick).  Which is it?

--------------
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: Jan. 28 2013,13:01   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 28 2013,12:48)
Hey Joey,

What do you make of Dembski totally destroying all of Behe's claims about irreducible complexity?

Maybe you should go set both of them straight, since you're so much better informed than the two guys who actually invented Intelligent Design.

So, Joe, you didn't answer my question... what should the Catholic Church say about this lawsuit.

1) We support our lawyers and the law of Colorado.
2) We do not support our lawyers and the law of Colorado.

Remember Joe, try to get this through your head.  Claims of hypocrisy have nothing to do with the law.  It has only to do with the beliefs and actions of the organization.

When Dembski said that a mousetrap can have functions, even if you take a part away, he was being hypocritical... since much of his ID concept is based on the the idea of irreducible complexity.

1) Does Dembski support and agree with Behe?
2) Does Demsbki think that Behe (and irreducible complexity) is wrong?

One of these is being hypocritical.  The other means Dembski is either stupid or lying (I'll let you pick).  Which is it?

Please reference Dembski destroying all of Behe's claims about IC. Your say-so is meaningless.

And no, neither of them invented ID. Teleology has been around for thousands of years.

As for the Church- why pick on them? Why aren't the people suing the church being hypocrites? After all people say that a fetus isn't a child- I guess that is unless saying the opposite will make them some money.

Also I have said what should happen. Again YOU ignored what I posted and attacked me because you are just a moron.

BTW, Kevin, even Behe said a mousetrap can have other functions, even if you take other parts away. Again you think that your ignorance means something and I find that hilarious.

Now what about that alleged strawman you keep falsely accusing me of attacking?

Either support your accusation or retract it.

--------------
"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: Jan. 28 2013,13:08   

Irreducible Complexity and other functions by Dr Behe

--------------
"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: Jan. 28 2013,13:25   

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,13:01)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 28 2013,12:48)
Hey Joey,

What do you make of Dembski totally destroying all of Behe's claims about irreducible complexity?

Maybe you should go set both of them straight, since you're so much better informed than the two guys who actually invented Intelligent Design.

So, Joe, you didn't answer my question... what should the Catholic Church say about this lawsuit.

1) We support our lawyers and the law of Colorado.
2) We do not support our lawyers and the law of Colorado.

Remember Joe, try to get this through your head.  Claims of hypocrisy have nothing to do with the law.  It has only to do with the beliefs and actions of the organization.

When Dembski said that a mousetrap can have functions, even if you take a part away, he was being hypocritical... since much of his ID concept is based on the the idea of irreducible complexity.

1) Does Dembski support and agree with Behe?
2) Does Demsbki think that Behe (and irreducible complexity) is wrong?

One of these is being hypocritical.  The other means Dembski is either stupid or lying (I'll let you pick).  Which is it?

Please reference Dembski destroying all of Behe's claims about IC. Your say-so is meaningless.
[/quote]
By giving answers to a fallen world William Dembski distroys Behe's mouse trap analogy for Irreducible Complexity:  
Quote
How do you know something isn't functional? You might say: Here's a mouse trap, let's remove the hammer, OK. Now I can't squash mice but I can use that mouse trap as a door stop. You know there are other things it could be serving as. So, so, the thing is: just becuse it - you know: To say that something is not functional, that's a very strong claim. It means for all, everthing that it might be doing it can't succeed in doing it.

[quote]
And no, neither of them invented ID. Teleology has been around for thousands of years.
[/quote
And it's still never been shown that there is purpose or a goal to the universe or living things.  Teleology is just wanking.  It doesn't actually mean anything.

Quote

As for the Church- why pick on them? Why aren't the people suing the church being hypocrites? After all people say that a fetus isn't a child- I guess that is unless saying the opposite will make them some money.


LOL.  You do realize that being a hypocrite isn't illegal?

I don't know what other people believe.  I know that the Catholic Church has stated that life begins at conception.  This is enshrined in their code of ethics documentation.

Therefore, they have a choice.  They can repudiate their lawyers... which BTW can affect the court decision.  Or they can not say anything and implicitly support their lawyers' (and the State of Colorado) position that life does not begin until BIRTH.

Which is it?

Quote

Also I have said what should happen. Again YOU ignored what I posted and attacked me because you are just a moron.

I haven't attacked you, other than berating you for refusing to understand the position of the people who think the Church is being hypocritical.

Quote

BTW, Kevin, even Behe said a mousetrap can have other functions, even if you take other parts away. Again you think that your ignorance means something and I find that hilarious.


Thereby refuting his own concept of irreducible complexity.  

Quote

Now what about that alleged strawman you keep falsely accusing me of attacking?


Why don't we try this, Joe.  Considering that I (and others on this board) have told you about this particular strawman for years.  Heck, even you admit that you know what it is, because you say that I "keep" accusing you of it.

Why don't you tell us what you think the problem is?

[quote]

Either support your accusation or retract it.

Tell you what.  You can be an adult and actually discuss things in an adult manner.  We can have a civil discussion in which we both make logical arguments and that when an argument is refuted you man up and accept it as being refuted.

We both know that won't happen though.  It hasn't happened in at least three years though.

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

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

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,13:33   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 28 2013,10:04)
Joe, if you could stop spewing spittle all over the place for a few minutes, you should have a look at Gary Gaulin's most excellent ID theory.  It's right here at AtBC, and like you he has his very own thread.  He not only has a theory, but a VB program that PROVES teh ID is TRUE.   Right up your ass alley.

You're asking him to abandon his vocation, Jim.  Spewing spittle all over the place is the only thing he does.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,13:48   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 28 2013,13:25)
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,13:01)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 28 2013,12:48)
Hey Joey,

What do you make of Dembski totally destroying all of Behe's claims about irreducible complexity?

Maybe you should go set both of them straight, since you're so much better informed than the two guys who actually invented Intelligent Design.

So, Joe, you didn't answer my question... what should the Catholic Church say about this lawsuit.

1) We support our lawyers and the law of Colorado.
2) We do not support our lawyers and the law of Colorado.

Remember Joe, try to get this through your head.  Claims of hypocrisy have nothing to do with the law.  It has only to do with the beliefs and actions of the organization.

When Dembski said that a mousetrap can have functions, even if you take a part away, he was being hypocritical... since much of his ID concept is based on the the idea of irreducible complexity.

1) Does Dembski support and agree with Behe?
2) Does Demsbki think that Behe (and irreducible complexity) is wrong?

One of these is being hypocritical.  The other means Dembski is either stupid or lying (I'll let you pick).  Which is it?

Please reference Dembski destroying all of Behe's claims about IC. Your say-so is meaningless.

By giving answers to a fallen world William Dembski distroys Behe's mouse trap analogy for Irreducible Complexity:  
Quote
How do you know something isn't functional? You might say: Here's a mouse trap, let's remove the hammer, OK. Now I can't squash mice but I can use that mouse trap as a door stop. You know there are other things it could be serving as. So, so, the thing is: just becuse it - you know: To say that something is not functional, that's a very strong claim. It means for all, everthing that it might be doing it can't succeed in doing it.

[quote]
And no, neither of them invented ID. Teleology has been around for thousands of years.
[/quote
And it's still never been shown that there is purpose or a goal to the universe or living things.  Teleology is just wanking.  It doesn't actually mean anything.

Quote

As for the Church- why pick on them? Why aren't the people suing the church being hypocrites? After all people say that a fetus isn't a child- I guess that is unless saying the opposite will make them some money.


LOL.  You do realize that being a hypocrite isn't illegal?

I don't know what other people believe.  I know that the Catholic Church has stated that life begins at conception.  This is enshrined in their code of ethics documentation.

Therefore, they have a choice.  They can repudiate their lawyers... which BTW can affect the court decision.  Or they can not say anything and implicitly support their lawyers' (and the State of Colorado) position that life does not begin until BIRTH.

Which is it?

Quote

Also I have said what should happen. Again YOU ignored what I posted and attacked me because you are just a moron.

I haven't attacked you, other than berating you for refusing to understand the position of the people who think the Church is being hypocritical.

Quote

BTW, Kevin, even Behe said a mousetrap can have other functions, even if you take other parts away. Again you think that your ignorance means something and I find that hilarious.


Thereby refuting his own concept of irreducible complexity.  

Quote

Now what about that alleged strawman you keep falsely accusing me of attacking?


Why don't we try this, Joe.  Considering that I (and others on this board) have told you about this particular strawman for years.  Heck, even you admit that you know what it is, because you say that I "keep" accusing you of it.

Why don't you tell us what you think the problem is?

Quote


Either support your accusation or retract it.

Tell you what.  You can be an adult and actually discuss things in an adult manner.  We can have a civil discussion in which we both make logical arguments and that when an argument is refuted you man up and accept it as being refuted.

We both know that won't happen though.  It hasn't happened in at least three years though.

No Kevin. Your ignorance of irreducible complexity doesn't mean it is refuted by what Behe and Dembski said.

And AGAIN I have supported my claims wrt blind and undirected processes. OTOH you and your brother spewers only have each other.

Not only do Dawkins and Coyne agree with me but 38 Nobel Laureates also agree with me, Kevin. So the problem is you, your ignorance and your inability to support your accusation.

Catholic Church- I don't give a rat's ass about them. Is this situation worse than haboring child molesters? If not why bother. If everyone doesn't understand that the Catholic Church is just a bunch of hypocrites and losers because of the molestations, this incident isn't going to do anything.

But anyways, I did man up and supported what I said about blind and undirected processes. I even had a debate with you in which YOU attacked me with your opening post- and you didn't even address the topic! As a matter of fact you conflated evolution, the thing, with the theory of evolution, which attempts to explain the thing. And even when this was pointed out to you, you just prattled on and didn't change a thing.

IOW YOU have already demonstrated that you cannot have an adult discussion.

--------------
"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: Jan. 28 2013,13:50   

BTW, there is plenty of evidence for teleology in the universe and living organisms. However you don't know what evidence is.

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,13:59   

So Ronrey.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,14:01   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2013,13:59)
So Ronrey.

LoL! I am sure that you are, cupcake.

You can always count on a cling-on attack when a fellow clingy is getting his ass handed to him.

--------------
"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: Jan. 28 2013,14:05   

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,13:48)
No Kevin. Your ignorance of irreducible complexity doesn't mean it is refuted by what Behe and Dembski said.
Quote

That's the beauty of it.  It doesn't matter what I think Joe.  Behe says one thing (that a mouse trap is irreducibly complex) and his buddy Dembski says another "a mouse trap it NOT irreducibly complex).

Now, if Behe has repudiated his earlier claim, then I'd be happy to look at a link for it.


And AGAIN I have supported my claims wrt blind and undirected processes. OTOH you and your brother spewers only have each other.
[/quote]

And you completely ignore 'selection'... and No, selection does not require an intelligence.

Quote

Not only do Dawkins and Coyne agree with me but 38 Nobel Laureates also agree with me, Kevin. So the problem is you, your ignorance and your inability to support your accusation.
Quote


I know what they said and I also know what they actually meant. Taking stuff out of context and then ignoring a fundamental part of the concept of evolution isn't exactly 'supporting'.

Let me say this.  I agree with the things that they have said.  Again, YOU are forgetting a fundamental part of the process.


Catholic Church- I don't give a rat's ass about them. Is this situation worse than haboring child molesters? If not why bother. If everyone doesn't understand that the Catholic Church is just a bunch of hypocrites and losers because of the molestations, this incident isn't going to do anything.
Quote


So, you agree with me 100%.  Yet, you are so angry with me and hate me so much that you find it impossible to actually read what I say and accept it.

That's pretty damned sad.


But anyways, I did man up and supported what I said about blind and undirected processes. I even had a debate with you in which YOU attacked me with your opening post- and you didn't even address the topic! As a matter of fact you conflated evolution, the thing, with the theory of evolution, which attempts to explain the thing. And even when this was pointed out to you, you just prattled on and didn't change a thing.


What was our debate Joe?  Tell me what our debate was about Joe.

My 'attack' on you was saying "Joe is a loud guy with a blog".  Is that the 'attack' you are referring to.  Would you care to compare to the things you have done and said to and about me (contacting the admin of my blog network and accusing me of lying, threatening to attack me, threatening my family, stealing images of me and using them for your own avatar, for example).

[quote]


IOW YOU have already demonstrated that you cannot have an adult discussion.

OK, here's your adult conversation.

Provide evidence that you can determine whether a random protein is designed or not.

--------------
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: Jan. 28 2013,14:06   

Quote
Why don't we try this, Joe.  Considering that I (and others on this board) have told you about this particular strawman for years.  Heck, even you admit that you know what it is, because you say that I "keep" accusing you of it.


1- You and your spewers say that blind and undirected chemical processes is a strawman

2- However, I have referenced evolutionists who say that the ToE posits blind and undirected chemical processes

3- If the ToE doesn't posit blind and undirected chemical processes then you don't have any beef with Intelligent Design as Intelligent Design is an alternative to blind and undirected chemical processes

4- And I say that you keep accusing me of attacking a strawman because YOU KEEP ACCUSING ME OF ATTACKING A STRAWMAN- hellooooooo

--------------
"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: Jan. 28 2013,14:08   

Quote
Provide evidence that you can determine whether a random protein is designed or not.


First we have to get beyond your false accusation of a strawman.

Then we can deal with your strawman.

--------------
"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: Jan. 28 2013,14:11   

Quote
I know what they said and I also know what they actually meant. Taking stuff out of context and then ignoring a fundamental part of the concept of evolution isn't exactly 'supporting'.

Let me say this.  I agree with the things that they have said.  Again, YOU are forgetting a fundamental part of the process.


Nope, I am not forgetting anything. YOU don't understand natural selection. YOU think there is really some selecting going on.

So no, I didn't take anything out of context- you are either a liar or just mistaken. So make your case.

--------------
"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: Jan. 28 2013,14:12   

Quote
So, you agree with me 100%.  Yet, you are so angry with me and hate me so much that you find it impossible to actually read what I say and accept it.


No, I don't agree with you. YOU didn't read what I posted and are just so angry with me and hate me so much that you find impossible to actually read what I say and accept it.

Your first response to me is proof 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

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,14:15   

Quote
What was our debate Joe?  Tell me what our debate was about Joe.



The debate was about whether or not ID was anti-evolution (the thing), not anti- the theory of 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: Jan. 28 2013,14:17   

OK, so you don't agree with any biologist that selection occurs.

It's not a strawman because you don't believe it, Joe.  A strawman is a misrepresentation of an opponents position.

Since your opponents Joe, consider selection to be a fundamental part of the theory, then you saying that it isn't is a strawman.

Clear?

--------------
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: Jan. 28 2013,14:18   

Quote
contacting the admin of my blog network and accusing me of lying, threatening to attack me, threatening my family, stealing images of me and using them for your own avatar, for example


1- You do lie

2- You deserve to have your ass kicked for all the lies you spew

3- I never threatened your family

4- I didn't steal your picture. YOU made it public. YOU posted it on the intertubes

--------------
"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: Jan. 28 2013,14:22   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 28 2013,14:17)
OK, so you don't agree with any biologist that selection occurs.

It's not a strawman because you don't believe it, Joe.  A strawman is a misrepresentation of an opponents position.

Since your opponents Joe, consider selection to be a fundamental part of the theory, then you saying that it isn't is a strawman.

Clear?

LoL! Natural selection occurs- it is just a result- if you have differential reproduction due to heritable random (as in chance/ happenstance) variations, then you have natural selection.

I just said nothing gets selected. Darwin tried to fool people and it appears he has fooled you.

So, for the record, natural selection exists. It just doesn't do anything. Differential reproduction due to heritable random variations- what would expect that to do?

But yes, I know you guys rely on natural selection. That is your problem, not mine.

Perhaps some day you will have some evidence for it actually doing something. Until then  you will have nothing.

--------------
"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: Jan. 28 2013,14:32   

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,14:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 28 2013,14:17)
OK, so you don't agree with any biologist that selection occurs.

It's not a strawman because you don't believe it, Joe.  A strawman is a misrepresentation of an opponents position.

Since your opponents Joe, consider selection to be a fundamental part of the theory, then you saying that it isn't is a strawman.

Clear?

LoL! Natural selection occurs- it is just a result- if you have differential reproduction due to heritable random (as in chance/ happenstance) variations, then you have natural selection.

I just said nothing gets selected. Darwin tried to fool people and it appears he has fooled you.

So, for the record, natural selection exists. It just doesn't do anything. Differential reproduction due to heritable random variations- what would expect that to do?

But yes, I know you guys rely on natural selection. That is your problem, not mine.

Perhaps some day you will have some evidence for it actually doing something. Until then  you will have nothing.

Thanks Joe, so you admit that you are misrepresenting OTHER PEOPLE'S VIEWS.

It doesn't matter what you think of their views.  It doesn't matter what you think of the evidence.  

If you say that Dawkins says that selection doesn't happen, then you are misrepresenting Dawkins.  That is a strawman.  Do you understand?

Now, here's the thing (and I think we're making actual progress here).

You appear to think that 'selection' requires an intelligence.  I say that because of things you've said in the past.  If this is not the case, then let me know.

That however, is not true.  Selection can happen without an intelligence.  Let me give you an example.  A fast flowing river can move large stones.  A slower river cannot move those large stones.

During the spring melt, a river can move large stones.  After a dry summer, the river will be slower flowing and not be able to move larger stones and instead only move some sand.

That is selection.  Yes, it is a result of the speed of the river flowing.  However, that selection changes the appearance of the river.  The speed of the river changes the appearance of the river.  It is the same with evolution.

The act of an organism surviving and having more offspring or another offspring dying young is changing the appearance of the population.  That is selection.  The selection, by the environment, is changing the population.

Selection is both a result and the process.  Just like evolution is a fact and a theory.  

Finally, it is not guided by intelligence.  That is why Dawkins and the others refer to it as 'unguided' and 'blind'.  It does not mean that there is not selection.

You choose to see it only one way, because you think it helps your case.  However you choose to see it, you are misrepresenting others' position and that is a strawman.

I can't do any more than this.  I'm hoping your animosity towards me (for whatever reason that it exists) will not prevent you from thinking about this.  We'll see...

--------------
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: Jan. 28 2013,14:47   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 28 2013,14:32)
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,14:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 28 2013,14:17)
OK, so you don't agree with any biologist that selection occurs.

It's not a strawman because you don't believe it, Joe.  A strawman is a misrepresentation of an opponents position.

Since your opponents Joe, consider selection to be a fundamental part of the theory, then you saying that it isn't is a strawman.

Clear?

LoL! Natural selection occurs- it is just a result- if you have differential reproduction due to heritable random (as in chance/ happenstance) variations, then you have natural selection.

I just said nothing gets selected. Darwin tried to fool people and it appears he has fooled you.

So, for the record, natural selection exists. It just doesn't do anything. Differential reproduction due to heritable random variations- what would expect that to do?

But yes, I know you guys rely on natural selection. That is your problem, not mine.

Perhaps some day you will have some evidence for it actually doing something. Until then  you will have nothing.

Thanks Joe, so you admit that you are misrepresenting OTHER PEOPLE'S VIEWS.

It doesn't matter what you think of their views.  It doesn't matter what you think of the evidence.  

If you say that Dawkins says that selection doesn't happen, then you are misrepresenting Dawkins.  That is a strawman.  Do you understand?

Now, here's the thing (and I think we're making actual progress here).

You appear to think that 'selection' requires an intelligence.  I say that because of things you've said in the past.  If this is not the case, then let me know.

That however, is not true.  Selection can happen without an intelligence.  Let me give you an example.  A fast flowing river can move large stones.  A slower river cannot move those large stones.

During the spring melt, a river can move large stones.  After a dry summer, the river will be slower flowing and not be able to move larger stones and instead only move some sand.

That is selection.  Yes, it is a result of the speed of the river flowing.  However, that selection changes the appearance of the river.  The speed of the river changes the appearance of the river.  It is the same with evolution.

The act of an organism surviving and having more offspring or another offspring dying young is changing the appearance of the population.  That is selection.  The selection, by the environment, is changing the population.

Selection is both a result and the process.  Just like evolution is a fact and a theory.  

Finally, it is not guided by intelligence.  That is why Dawkins and the others refer to it as 'unguided' and 'blind'.  It does not mean that there is not selection.

You choose to see it only one way, because you think it helps your case.  However you choose to see it, you are misrepresenting others' position and that is a strawman.

I can't do any more than this.  I'm hoping your animosity towards me (for whatever reason that it exists) will not prevent you from thinking about this.  We'll see...

No Kevin, I am not misrepresenting anyone. Again your false accusations prove tat you cannot have an adult discussion.

I never said Dawkins said selection doesn't happen. I said Dawkins said selection is blind and purposeless.

And your comment on selection pretty much proves that you are clueless.

That said, I said natural selection exists. I even explained what it is. So what is your problem?

Are you upset because it doesn't do anything?

But anyway, one of Darwin's contemps came up with "survival of the fittest" because he knew that natural selection was a misnomer. Perhaps you should look into 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

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,14:52   

Well let's look at what natural selection is-

Quote

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition



“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley



“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?



“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:


Variation


Inheritance


Fecundity


which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University


OK so it is a result of three processes- ie an output. But is it really non-random as Allen said? Nope, whatever survives to reproduce survives to reproduce. And that can be any number of variations thAt exist in a population.


What drives the output? The inputs.


The variation is said to be random, ie genetic accidents/ mistakes.


With sexually reproducing organisms it is still a crap-shoot as to what gets inherited. For example if a male gets a beneficial variation to his Y chromosome but sires all daughters, that beneficial variation gets lost no matter how many offspring he has.


Fecundity/ differential reproduction- Don't know until it happens.


Can't tell what variation will occur. Can't tell if any of the offspring will inherit even the most beneficial variation and the only way to determine differential reproduction is follow the individuals for their entire reproducing age.


Then there can be competing "beneficial" variations.


In the end it all boils down to whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.


Evolutionists love to pretend that natural selection is some magical ratchet.


So what does it do?


The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

Quote
Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)


Thanks for the honesty Will.




Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled "Wobbling Stability". In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:

Quote

Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.


(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)



Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.



Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.



It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.



Not such a powerful designer mimic after all.



But there is one thing it can do- it can undo what artificial selection has done.

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,15:35   

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,14:01)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2013,13:59)
So Ronrey.

LoL! I am sure that you are, cupcake.

You can always count on a cling-on attack when a fellow clingy is getting his ass handed to him.

what's happeing at your dead blog?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,15:37   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2013,15:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,14:01)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2013,13:59)
So Ronrey.

LoL! I am sure that you are, cupcake.

You can always count on a cling-on attack when a fellow clingy is getting his ass handed to him.

what's happeing at your dead blog?

Your ignorant clingon attacks are just entertainment, cupcake.

And you shouldn't talk about dead blogs- yours never even had a life, loser.


"OHS BUTZ MINEZ WAZ JUST A PLACEHOLDER!"

That makes you a loser's loser

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,15:42   

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,15:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2013,15:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,14:01)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2013,13:59)
So Ronrey.

LoL! I am sure that you are, cupcake.

You can always count on a cling-on attack when a fellow clingy is getting his ass handed to him.

what's happeing at your dead blog?

Your ignorant clingon attacks are just entertainment, cupcake.

And you shouldn't talk about dead blogs- yours never even had a life, loser.


"OHS BUTZ MINEZ WAZ JUST A PLACEHOLDER!"

That makes you a loser's loser

Are you still writing you little teary eyed thoughts in crayon about the mean 'evos' having 'evo tard gasms'? - it's like your little pity party diary, chubs. Poor Joe - gimp to Kiaros Focus.

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2013,15:51   

Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
             
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.


How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"

Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".

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

  
  27552 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (919) < ... 178 179 180 181 182 [183] 184 185 186 187 188 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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